Calvinistic Predestination Q&A

[Chiral]

Those are interesting points to make, but please keep this in mind: we are morally perfect in heaven, incapable of sin; therefore it is possible for God to make man in such a way. He chose not to make Adam and Eve in that fashion.

Yay, we’re onto it! How are we morally perfect in heaven, incapable of sin? By what mechanism? You posit that God has made us that way - made us incapable of sinning - where do you get that? Where is the disconnect between “do not sin” and “cannot sin”?

Then you must concede either (1) that it is possible to sin in heaven (in which case everyone would be damned, seeing as heaven is everlasting and therefore all possibilities will be actuated), or (2) renege on your stance that sin is always possible and concede that Adam could have been made in a state of utter moral perfection, but wasn’t – which is the Reformed stance.

Neither concession is necessary due to a flaw in the logic. 1) “everlasting” does not imply actuation of all possible events. Out of curiosity, I’d like to hear more about your beliefs regarding angels and demons… 2) To be made in “a state of utter moral perfection” according to the Reformed stance (i.e. incapable of sin) is oxymoronic in all beings but God (since he cannot contradict Himself) - one who is incapable of sin is not morally perfect but morally uninvolved, such that good & evil do not even apply. The key is not to be incapable of sin but rather to be capable and yet always choose good such that it seems as if sin were literally impossible, but that is only speaking analogically.

Insofar as you believe that the saints are “sort-of by definition ‘in union’ with God” without differentiating yourself from the Calvinist conception that you pejoratively denounce as “programming,” I apologize, but I cannot accept this as a legitimate answer to the question. And it borders on pantheism, by the way.

Pantheism How would you describe the state of those in Heaven? To us, those in Heaven are united with God not in being but in will - they are not God but they will as He wills (not that their Will&Power are united as His is, only that when He decrees they fervently respond “Amen”). That is part of our, er, well, my description of what it is to be in heaven, thus the “sort-of by definition”, see? What is your mind on the matter?

Are you seriously trying to tell me that with logic, cause and effect are simultaneous (i.e. one does not proceed after the other), whereas with time, they do?
Please notice exactly why I make a distinction between logical and temporal priority – I am not saying that an effect must be “after” (i.e. temporally) a cause, but still that conceptually speaking it is the proceeding rather than preceding factor. To deny this is simply to deny all kinds of thought whatsoever. Would you concede that axioms logically precede corollaries? Or can they be simultaneous? Would you concede that essence precedes existence? Or can they be simultaneous?

Axioms only precede corollaries according to conventional terminology, meaning our thought process regarding them! Some think this makes them somehow superior, but that is entirely subjective. Many “corollaries” have specific proofs which can also be used to deduce “axioms” but essentially an “axiom” is merely a simplified expression of a “corollary” such as the following: A=B, B=C, ergo A=C; then A=B+D, B+D=C, ergo A=C - you could simplify B+D into 1 character, B and thereby attain the original principle. The two are essentially the same, only different in appearance and thought process.

The purpose is entirely irrelevant. The thing I am trying to establish is God’s unilateral sovereignty over the human heart.
In fact, if you were trying to declare that “programming” is wrong, but that God does it for good reasons, then you would essentially be saying that God lets the ends justify the means, a repugnant utilitarian concept.
Besides, an angel of the Lord in Isaiah 6 proclaims that God does harden people’s hearts to keep them from repentance:

*9 He said, "Go and tell this people:
" ‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’

10 Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and close their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed."*

Well, in scripture God seems to use the ends to “justify” the means all the time, including in that chapter of Isaiah you just quoted - is that also “repugnant”? Less so than your notion of “unilateral sovereignty” since there neither the means nor the end really matter at all. But please, reread that scripture, all of those you continually cite as evidence of this sovereignty and look for an explanation as to why He commands obfuscation and confusion, see He doesn’t also give a reason, and try to look beyond your doctrinal assumption of reprobation - what else do you find? Maybe I’m wrong, but I think you will find something there…

 

[mikeledes]

In general, there is distaste if not animosity directed towards the Reformed doctrine of predestination. Hence, I would like to clear up any misconceptions that might exist.

What questions do you have regarding predestination?

Please keep in mind that this is not a thread regarding whether or Calvinism is true, but just regarding what the doctrine is – i.e., what a Calvinistic predestinarian believes. I’m not trying to argue for the veracity of the doctrine in this thread, just to explain what it is.

Catholicism does teach predestination and many Catholics in the past and in the present also believe in unconditional election (Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, etc.), so “unconditional election” is not really a problem for us. Where we differ from Calvinists on this issue is that we believe in the perseverance of the predestined, but we do not believe in the Calvinist understanding of perseverance of the saints. In Calvinism, the number of the justified and the number of the predestined are coextensive. In other words, all of the justified are numbered among the predestined. However, the Catholic view is that the number of the justified and the number of the predestined are not conextensive. That means that while all of the predestined will be justified and glorified, not all of the justified are among the predestined and that’s because the Bible talks about the truly justified losing their salvation. This, BTW, was the teaching of the Church for 1500 years - including Augustine - until John Calvin introduced the doctrine of perseverance of the saints. Martin Luther, who believed in unconditional election, held on to the historic and Augustinian understanding of predestination and loss of salvation. True Augustinianism never taught that salvation could not be lost.

We believe that the number of the predestined is immutable, none can be added and none can be lost. That’s why the Catholic Haydock Commentary on Romans 8 says the following:

Ver. 30. And whom he predestinated, them he also called to the true faith and to his service, without any deserts in them, nay, when all mankind were guilty of eternal death, by original sin. — And whom he called, them he also justified, by faith, by hope, by a love of him, and a true penance. — And whom he justified, them he also glorified. That is, hath decreed to glorify. Yet not all who have been justified, but only his elect, who are under his special protection, and to whom he grants a perseverance in his grace to the end: so that the call to faith, their sanctification, their final perseverance, and glorification in heaven, are the effects of their free election and predestination. (Witham)

So when we talk about loss of salvation, it does not apply to the predestined. God will ensure that the predestined will die in a state of grace by giving them the gift of final perseverance (i.e. perseverance to the end) which is unmerited. But we do not believe that the grace of justification is limited to the predestined.

A common misconception is that Catholics are Arminians. While we believe in free will, we do not believe that this free will is absolute. We affirm that God gives infallibly efficacious graces to His elect that will ensure their glorification, but we believe that man remains truly free under the influence of His grace. In other words, God secures the final result (glorification) with the free cooperation of man. The precise relationship between infallibly efficiacious grace and free will is the subject of the debate between Thomist and Molinist Catholics. While we do not believe in monergism, we do not believe in the extreme synergism of Arminianism that makes God completely dependant on man… By this I mean that Arminian predestination is simply God’s foreknowledge. God forsees what man will do with the grace He offers and then He predestines/ elects those whom He foresees will freely cooperate with His grace. In other words, predestination is completely dependent of His scientia visionis (science of vision) and hence God is a mere spectator, He plays no active role. In the Catholic view (Thomist or Molinist), God plays a far more active role. Predestination is not God simply rubberstamping what man has decided.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Philthy]

While it is certainly not God’s will that we sin in the preceptive

 

[MarcoPolo]

Arminian predestination is simply God’s foreknowledge. God forsees what man will do with the grace He offers and then He predestines/ elects those whom He foresees will freely cooperate with His grace. In other words, predestination is completely dependent of His scientia visionis (science of vision) and hence God is a mere spectator, He plays no active role. In the Catholic view (Thomist or Molinist), God plays a far more active role. Predestination is not God simply rubberstamping what man has decided.

Mike, if you do not address it in your continuation of this post, can you help us clarify the distinction between Molinism and Arminianism as you defined it above?

 

[rtconstant]

OK, just so I’m not jumping to conclusions here.

You’re saying that it is your belief that God is the origin of evil. That he created creatures with eternal souls for the purpose of tormenting them forever, except for a few elect that he will not torture forever based on an arbitrary and fickle selection basis?

You realize that this double predestination makes your vision of God mankind’s enemy not its savior right? It makes Lucifer and all of the rest of us dupes in a cosmic scale reproduction of a child with a magnifying glass standing over an ant hill right?

You’re saying you’re comfortable with worshiping a God simply because he’s bigger than you, instead of because he is loving and therefore deserves worship?

If I’m wrong in any of the above assertions by all means correct me but it seems to pretty solidly fall in line with what you’ve said, and at times enthused.

 

[Confessor01]

Yay, we’re onto it! How are we morally perfect in heaven, incapable of sin? By what mechanism? You posit that God has made us that way - made us incapable of sinning - where do you get that? Where is the disconnect between “do not sin” and “cannot sin”?

I don’t know if I can properly name the “mechanism,” but since God is in sovereign control of the human heart, it follows that He could make people sinless if He so desired.

I’m not sure what you mean when you ask where the “disconnect” is between “do not sin” and “cannot sin”? I believe that God’s elect “do not sin” on earth and “cannot sin” in heaven, if that helps.

1. “everlasting” does not imply actuation of all possible events. Out of curiosity, I’d like to hear more about your beliefs regarding angels and demons… 2) To be made in “a state of utter moral perfection” according to the Reformed stance (i.e. incapable of sin) is oxymoronic in all beings but God (since he cannot contradict Himself) - one who is incapable of sin is not morally perfect but morally uninvolved, such that good & evil do not even apply. The key is not to be incapable of sin but rather to be capable and yet always choose good such that it seems as if sin were literally impossible, but that is only speaking analogically.

1. Please prove your assertions. If heaven is everlasting, then it will never end, and consequently at some point along the way every possibility will be actuated, because there will be an infinite number of scenarios. That is the argument. What is your counterargument?
2. Are you seriously trying to say that “good” does not apply to God? On the contrary, He is the only one who can be called good (Luke 18:19). It’s also bordering on blasphemy and heresy to say that God is “uninvolved”. . .Jesus was God incarnate.
3. What is the difference between “literally impossible” and “non-literally impossible”?

I’m sorry, but (3) appears as if you just want to have your cake and eat it too. You are claiming that there is such a way that we always choose good (such that we never choose bad), but then you want to renege on this and say that it’s still somehow possible to choose bad?

Pantheism How would you describe the state of those in Heaven? To us, those in Heaven are united with God not in being but in will - they are not God but they will as He wills (not that their Will&Power are united as His is, only that when He decrees they fervently respond “Amen”). That is part of our, er, well, my description of what it is to be in heaven, thus the “sort-of by definition”, see? What is your mind on the matter?

If you want to say that you’re united with God’s will in the sense that you always will as He wills, I can accept that.

My mind on the matter is again, that you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. But this would require my repeating what I’ve already said, so I won’t add anything else to that particular point at the moment.

Axioms only precede corollaries according to conventional terminology, meaning our thought process regarding them! Some think this makes them somehow superior, but that is entirely subjective. Many “corollaries” have specific proofs which can also be used to deduce “axioms” but essentially an “axiom” is merely a simplified expression of a “corollary” such as the following: A=B, B=C, ergo A=C; then A=B+D, B+D=C, ergo A=C - you could simplify B+D into 1 character, B and thereby attain the original principle. The two are essentially the same, only different in appearance and thought process.

Well, I wasn’t exactly looking for an inquiry into axioms and corollaries, but thanks. My point was that your trying to say that something can be temporally non-simultaneous while logically simultaneous is nonsense.

Well, in scripture God seems to use the ends to “justify” the means all the time, including in that chapter of Isaiah you just quoted - is that also “repugnant”? Less so than your notion of “unilateral sovereignty” since there neither the means nor the end really matter at all. But please, reread that scripture, all of those you continually cite as evidence of this sovereignty and look for an explanation as to why He commands obfuscation and confusion, see He doesn’t also give a reason, and try to look beyond your doctrinal assumption of reprobation - what else do you find? Maybe I’m wrong, but I think you will find something there…

God uses the ends to justify the means in the sense that He has purposes which are accomplished in specific ways – but not in the sense that God does something immoral and then “accounts for it” by pointing out the nice thing that came as a result. I am referring to the latter concept when I say that you are making God have the ends justify the means, not to the former.

Earlier, I pointed that God hardens people’s hearts. In response you said that He doesn’t do this regarding salvation. Now, I showed a passage in which an angel of the Lord speaks of people’s hearts being hardened for the specific purpose of their not repenting, and you’re asking me to look for the purpose of the passage?

Look at the passage!

“Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and close their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.”

Ben

 

[Confessor01]

A common misconception is that Catholics are Arminians. While we believe in free will, we do not believe that this free will is absolute. We affirm that God gives infallibly efficacious graces to His elect that will ensure their glorification, but we believe that man remains truly free under the influence of His grace. In other words, God secures the final result (glorification) with the free cooperation of man.

Do you believe man can resist God’s grace?

 

[Confessor01]

rtconstant,

Please use a bit of charity. It’s quite obvious that you’re “jumping to conclusions” regarding the veracity of a doctrine when you phrase the doctrines in such a way as to purposely sound minatory.

OK, just so I’m not jumping to conclusions here.

You’re saying that it is your belief that God is the origin of evil.

He is the “origin of evil” in the sense that He is the ultimate cause of evil. Even Catholics must concede this, as God created the universe ex nihilo and as evil emerged at one point in the universe.

That he created creatures with eternal souls for the purpose of tormenting them forever, except for a few elect that he will not torture forever based on an arbitrary and fickle selection basis?

The answer is within Himself, not within the creature. The lack of conditions in election does not ipso facto make election arbitrary.

You realize that this double predestination makes your vision of God mankind’s enemy not its savior right?

First, all unregenerate men are naturally God’s enemies. This is taught throughout the Scriptures; see Romans 5:10 for instance.
Second, unregenerates who will never repent (i.e., reprobates) certainly are God’s enemies, and vice versa. See Rev. 19:1-3:

1 After this I heard what sounded like the roar of a great multitude in heaven shouting:
“Hallelujah!
Salvation and glory and power belong to our God,
2 for true and just are his judgments.
He has condemned the great prostitute
who corrupted the earth by her adulteries.
He has avenged on her the blood of his servants.” 3 And again they shouted:
“Hallelujah!
The smoke from her goes up for ever and ever.”

You’re saying you’re comfortable with worshiping a God simply because he’s bigger than you, instead of because he is loving and therefore deserves worship?

He surely is bigger than I am, but I would not say that this precludes His being loving. However, I do in fact believe that His love is particular towards His elect (not universal), primarily because I believe that God’s love actually effects salvation; it’s not a mere disposition of His wherein He wants to save people, but just can’t do it.

Ben

 

[rtconstant]

rtconstant,

Please use a bit of charity. It’s quite obvious that you’re “jumping to conclusions” regarding the veracity of a doctrine when you phrase the doctrines in such a way as to purposely sound minatory.

I apologize for coming on strong. However, I don’t think the doctrines are sounding bad due to my phrasing but instead due to their natures. I guess part of my problem here is that I don’t really know how to reiterate these doctrines in anyway that at least to me doesn’t sound bad. So I’ve been going with blunt but clear, with the hopes that by revealing exactly how it sounds to me, I may be corrected on any misunderstandings.

He is the “origin of evil” in the sense that He is the ultimate cause of evil. Even Catholics must concede this, as God created the universe ex nihilo and as evil emerged at one point in the universe.

So you do believe that within the confines of double predestination, God is made into source and cause of all evil.

Catholics, however, do not need to concede this. God’s universe allows for the formation of evil, but its existence is not necessary.

As an aside, I’m curious is Lucifer within the strict Calvinist view really not all that bad, or that big of threat, since ultimately he has nothing to do with sin?

The answer is within Himself, not within the creature. The lack of conditions in election does not ipso facto make election arbitrary.

Without conditions it is by default arbitrary. Any decision that is made completely by the will of the arbiter without appeal to restriction or law. Is arbitrary.

First, all unregenerate men are naturally God’s enemies. This is taught throughout the Scriptures; see Romans 5:10 for instance.
Second, unregenerates who will never repent (i.e., reprobates) certainly are God’s enemies, and vice versa. See Rev. 19:1-3:

1 After this I heard what sounded like the roar of a great multitude in heaven shouting:
“Hallelujah!
Salvation and glory and power belong to our God,
2 for true and just are his judgments.
He has condemned the great prostitute
who corrupted the earth by her adulteries.
He has avenged on her the blood of his servants.” 3 And again they shouted:
“Hallelujah!
The smoke from her goes up for ever and ever.”

However, unregenerate men under the supposition of double predestination are only regenerate because the Calvinist view of God wills them to be. So in truth, they are not the enemies of the Calvinist view of God but he is indeed their enemy. He created them to be the recipients of his hatred, did he not? They would have never had to suffer or be anyone’s enemy if they had not been formed for purpose of being his enemies.

He surely is bigger than I am, but I would not say that this precludes His being loving. However, I do in fact believe that His love is particular towards His elect (not universal), primarily because I believe that God’s love actually effects salvation; it’s not a mere disposition of His wherein He wants to save people, but just can’t do it.

Ben

That however, cannot be called love. If a person is only capable of loving people he likes or who love him, then that person doesn’t really know love. In the Calvinist view here we see that salvation is not an act of love but simply a pass of wrath. A wrath that is by its nature unjust, since the judge is the one responsible for creating the “offense” to begin with. In other words the Calvinist view of God offends himself, but choses to take his anger out on his mortal creations (through no fault of their own). However, there are some few elect who he decides to not make offend him, and so they enjoy his good graces.

Again, if I have misrepresented please advise. I really want to be understanding all of this incorrectly.

 

[Chiral]

My apologies, Confessor01, i am going to do this a bit out of order…

God uses the ends to justify the means in the sense that He has purposes which are accomplished in specific ways – but not in the sense that God does something immoral and then “accounts for it” by pointing out the nice thing that came as a result. I am referring to the latter concept when I say that you are making God have the ends justify the means, not to the former.

Alright, I’m sure we both agree that God cannot do anything “immoral” since morality has its essence in God - for God to behave immorally would admit a contradiction, which neither of our belief systems will allow. To us Catholics, if indeed God (via a direct mechanism) exercised control over Pharaoh’s heart, and by “heart” we are supposing whatever in him informs his free will (in the Catholic sense of the term), then indeed the action is repugnant to us, for it implies a deceiver God. But since your notion of “free will” is not actually free of anything, then to you the mechanism of control is irrelevant.

Earlier, I pointed that God hardens people’s hearts. In response you said that He doesn’t do this regarding salvation. Now, I showed a passage in which an angel of the Lord speaks of people’s hearts being hardened for the specific purpose of their not repenting, and you’re asking me to look for the purpose of the passage?

Look at the passage!

"Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and close their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed."

I asked you for Biblical support of God controlling people’s hearts and then condemning them for it. Let’s look at the passage again, but this time read the chapters before it and after - What is God doing? Why would He ask Isaiah to so curse His chosen people? What glimpse of a reason and purpose does Isaiah give us? And once you’ve glimpsed it, read again and see whether the prophecy is a direct action of God or a warning - “And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not…” You have read the book of Jonah, yes? Note that God does not tell Isaiah, “Say to the people, ‘Thus says the Lord!’” How be it if the message God gave to Isaiah was meant for the people, not Isaiah alone? Isaiah would preach it to the people. And how would they respond? With concern? With repentance? Would they be angry at Isaiah for calling down this curse upon them (for it will be Isaiah saying it)? This verse does not show God acting on the people at all, saving them or damning them. It does, however, show how bad-off the people were.

I don’t know if I can properly name the “mechanism,” but since God is in sovereign control of the human heart, it follows that He could make people sinless if He so desired.
I’m not sure what you mean when you ask where the “disconnect” is between “do not sin” and “cannot sin”? I believe that God’s elect “do not sin” on earth and “cannot sin” in heaven, if that helps.

There is a subtlety to the terms “cannot” and “does not” - the former implies a literal lack of ability, i.e. the actor has not the requisite potency, as I cannot pass my hand intangibly through this computer and touch you; the latter ellipses potency, thereby allowing for it - perhaps I can run from the room this moment, perhaps I am unable due to paralysis, but either way I am not doing so. THAT is the disconnect - one who does not might still be able to with regard to potency. Clear as mud?

 

[Chiral]

1. Please prove your assertions. If heaven is everlasting, then it will never end, and consequently at some point along the way every possibility will be actuated, because there will be an infinite number of scenarios. That is the argument. What is your counterargument?
2. Are you seriously trying to say that “good” does not apply to God? On the contrary, He is the only one who can be called good (Luke 18:19). It’s also bordering on blasphemy and heresy to say that God is “uninvolved”. . .Jesus was God incarnate.
3. What is the difference between “literally impossible” and “non-literally impossible”?

1. Counterargument - burden of proof with regard to infinity lay with the supposer of an action. There is no law of induction that says “ad infinitum all events will be actualized”. If I flip a coin, the probability that it will land heads is 50/50, and so with all subsequent flips, ad infinitum. How if I have flipped the coin x10^6 and it always came up heads? Impossible? No, but highly improbable. How about x10^10 or 10^100? Let me give a better demonstration: what is the decimal representation of 1/3? 0.3333333333333… There are an infinite number of digits following the decimal, always 3 - prove to me that another digit makes an appearance anywhere along the line. Infinite time does not mean actualization of all events, that is pagan.
   2)“Good” applies to God from man’s perspective, but only because God Himself revealed Himself to us - “good” has its human definition in God. Morality does not apply to God because to call God immoral is to contradict oneself, for no contradiction exists in God and, as we just posited together, God is Good. Jesus is God incarnate. Is it possible for Jesus to be “not good”? If it were, a contradiction would exist in God. Thus, Jesus and God, from a divine perspective are morally uninvolved. God cannot logically ever be truthfully morally judged and found wanting, by definition as you please. Perhaps that is a bad term - let’s try another analogy - when one has crossed the finish-line, one is no longer in the race, and if one has always been across the finish line…That is what I mean by “uninvolved”.
2. “Literally impossible” means that the very possibility would admit a logical contradiction. “Non-literally impossible” means that the possibility does not admit a logical contradiction - the potential is present even if the specific effect is never seen, thus “seems impossible” without being literally impossible. This, by the way, is part of the definition of true free will - the presence of a logical potential to choose A or not-A.

I’m sorry, but (3) appears as if you just want to have your cake and eat it too. You are claiming that there is such a way that we always choose good (such that we never choose bad), but then you want to renege on this and say that it’s still somehow possible to choose bad?

See above clarification of logical impossibility.

Well, I wasn’t exactly looking for an inquiry into axioms and corollaries, but thanks. My point was that your trying to say that something can be temporally non-simultaneous while logically simultaneous is nonsense.

Oops, did you just make God temporal? As others on this forum have very well explained already, God is “outside of time” in our sense of time. The simultaneity I speak of is a logical one, that God and man can will together. If I pick up a pen, you would say “God willed you to pick up the pen” but I would say “God and I willed together” - simultaneity.

Okay, hopefully not too much has passed since I began typing…

 

[Luke65]

Do you believe man can resist God’s grace?

“You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!” (Acts 7:51)

And of course, this agrees perfectly with what I and others quoted earlier: God offers salvific grace to all people, because He wants to save all people, because He loves all of His creatures and because He is just. Unfortunately, “many” will resist Christ’s grace till the end.

 

[Chiral]

Okay, looks like I’m still okay. So, the beauty of discussing axioms and corollaries on this topic, Confessor01 is that it neatly ties into Faith+Works (another thread you’ve been working on - where do you find the time?!) - the axiom of salvific faith you proposed demands works from that faith, else it is not really salvific faith, and the corollary is that Faith+Works are necessary for salvation, which is the Catholic stance, and QED we agree that the common understanding of “sola fide” is heretical. I have now typed this, but I know I should not have as it is really the subject matter of a separate thread which I told my wife I wouldn’t type further on . Do not feel obligated to reply, nor to admonish me for the divergence from the OP. Thanks

 

[Confessor01]

However, I don’t think the doctrines are sounding bad due to my phrasing but instead due to their natures. I guess part of my problem here is that I don’t really know how to reiterate these doctrines in anyway that at least to me doesn’t sound bad.

It is certainly false that the whole “child with a magnifying glass over an anthill” description, in addition to the other pejorative misrepresentations, is both inherent to the doctrine itself and unavoidable in its description.

So you do believe that within the confines of double predestination, God is made into source and cause of all evil.

Yes, in an ultimate, removed sense. It’s not as if this is some sort of novelty; everyone who believes in creation ex nihilo must also believe this.

Catholics, however, do not need to concede this. God’s universe allows for the formation of evil, but its existence is not necessary.

First, I never claimed that evil was necessary. God could have prevented all evil if He so pleased. Second, according to the “free-will” defense of the problem of evil for Catholics (for all free-willists), it is quite accurate to say that evil is necessary in Roman Catholicism (or more accurately, that the possibility of evil is necessary). . .but that’s another topic.

Without conditions it is by default arbitrary. Any decision that is made completely by the will of the arbiter without appeal to restriction or law. Is arbitrary.

If God chooses people for a reason within Himself, rather than within the chosen creature, it does not follow that He chooses without a reason at all.

However, unregenerate men under the supposition of double predestination are only regenerate because the Calvinist view of God wills them to be. So in truth, they are not the enemies of the Calvinist view of God but he is indeed their enemy. He created them to be the recipients of his hatred, did he not? They would have never had to suffer or be anyone’s enemy if they had not been formed for purpose of being his enemies.

I’m assuming you’re referring to reprobates rather than “unregenerate men” who “are only regenerate because the Calvinist view of God wills them to be”; this paragraph would contradict itself otherwise.

Anyway, yes, He created them as recipients of His holy hatred, but this does not imply that they are not truly enemies in a legitimate sense. They are morally responsible for their desires and their actions stemming therefrom. In any case, there is no inconsistency in referring to men and God as enemies, which was your original objection. Therefore, inasmuch as you want to change the topic to the fact that reprobates “never chose” to be enemies, you’re just changing the subject, and no one likes red herrings.

That however, cannot be called love. If a person is only capable of loving people he likes or who love him, then that person doesn’t really know love. In the Calvinist view here we see that salvation is not an act of love but simply a pass of wrath. A wrath that is by its nature unjust, since the judge is the one responsible for creating the “offense” to begin with. In other words the Calvinist view of God offends himself, but choses to take his anger out on his mortal creations (through no fault of their own). However, there are some few elect who he decides to not make offend him, and so they enjoy his good graces.

(1) It is not the case that God forces us to love Him against our wills; rather, it is that He graciously orients our wills so that we freely love Him.
(2) Determinism does not preclude moral responsibility. Please do not presuppose that it does and thereby beg the question.

Again, if I have misrepresented please advise. I really want to be understanding all of this incorrectly.

Normally when people are trying to ensure they understand a concept, they don’t make critiques – since that would imply they already understand the concept. So, if in your next post you (for the third time) mention how wrong Calvinism must be because of reasons X, Y, and Z, and then you ask me to make sure your understanding is correct, well, no offense, but don’t expect a response from me.

 

[Confessor01]

I asked you for Biblical support of God controlling people’s hearts and then condemning them for it. Let’s look at the passage again, but this time read the chapters before it and after - What is God doing? Why would He ask Isaiah to so curse His chosen people? What glimpse of a reason and purpose does Isaiah give us? And once you’ve glimpsed it, read again and see whether the prophecy is a direct action of God or a warning - “And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not…” You have read the book of Jonah, yes? Note that God does not tell Isaiah, “Say to the people, ‘Thus says the Lord!’” How be it if the message God gave to Isaiah was meant for the people, not Isaiah alone? Isaiah would preach it to the people. And how would they respond? With concern? With repentance? Would they be angry at Isaiah for calling down this curse upon them (for it will be Isaiah saying it)? This verse does not show God acting on the people at all, saving them or damning them. It does, however, show how bad-off the people were.

First, it is not true that God is issuing a command to understand, nor is it true that He is stating an indicative that the people will not understand. It is crystal clear from the passage itself that He is issuing a command to keep some people’s eyes shut – precisely because God is sovereign over who is saved and who is not.

Second, asking questions like, “Why would He ask Isaiah to curse His chosen people?” simply assumes the point in dispute. How do you know they’re His chosen people in the sense that He desires salvation for them? Romans 9 pretty clearly teaches that not all of ethnic Israel will be saved (and also conveniently explains the basis of salvation).

Third, there’s no way the text is merely “showing how bad-off the people were”; you have not explained the command to close their eyes because otherwise they might see and be saved.

There is a subtlety to the terms “cannot” and “does not” - the former implies a literal lack of ability, i.e. the actor has not the requisite potency, as I cannot pass my hand intangibly through this computer and touch you; the latter ellipses potency, thereby allowing for it - perhaps I can run from the room this moment, perhaps I am unable due to paralysis, but either way I am not doing so. THAT is the disconnect - one who does not might still be able to with regard to potency. Clear as mud?

Well, I understand that distinction. (Thanks for explaining.) I’m just failing to see its relevance to the present discussion.

 

[Confessor01]

1. Counterargument - burden of proof with regard to infinity lay with the supposer of an action. There is no law of induction that says “ad infinitum all events will be actualized”. If I flip a coin, the probability that it will land heads is 50/50, and so with all subsequent flips, ad infinitum. How if I have flipped the coin x10^6 and it always came up heads? Impossible? No, but highly improbable. How about x10^10 or 10^100? Let me give a better demonstration: what is the decimal representation of 1/3? 0.3333333333333… There are an infinite number of digits following the decimal, always 3 - prove to me that another digit makes an appearance anywhere along the line. Infinite time does not mean actualization of all events, that is pagan.
   2)“Good” applies to God from man’s perspective, but only because God Himself revealed Himself to us - “good” has its human definition in God. Morality does not apply to God because to call God immoral is to contradict oneself, for no contradiction exists in God and, as we just posited together, God is Good. Jesus is God incarnate. Is it possible for Jesus to be “not good”? If it were, a contradiction would exist in God. Thus, Jesus and God, from a divine perspective are morally uninvolved. God cannot logically ever be truthfully morally judged and found wanting, by definition as you please. Perhaps that is a bad term - let’s try another analogy - when one has crossed the finish-line, one is no longer in the race, and if one has always been across the finish line…That is what I mean by “uninvolved”.
2. “Literally impossible” means that the very possibility would admit a logical contradiction. “Non-literally impossible” means that the possibility does not admit a logical contradiction - the potential is present even if the specific effect is never seen, thus “seems impossible” without being literally impossible. This, by the way, is part of the definition of true free will - the presence of a logical potential to choose A or not-A.

1. You’re misrepresenting my stance. I’m not saying that a given probability X will be actuated perfectly given an infinite number of attempts. I’m saying that given an event with anything greater than 0 probability, and given an infinite duration of time, it is guaranteed that such an event will occur. Also, how is this principle (or whatever principle you think I’m espousing) pagan?
2. First, it is false to say that morality doesn’t apply to God because “God is immoral” is a contradiction. On the contrary, precisely because that is a contradiction, it shows that morality applies to God, because it implies that “God cannot be immoral” is contained within the concept of God. If you want to prove that morality doesn’t apply to God, you must establish that “God is (im)moral” is not a contradiction or a redundancy, but a category mistake; you must show that it is nonsense. Second, to say that Jesus is good is not at all to say that He can possibly be bad. I do not see how that follows.
3. Would you agree that a proposition P is necessary iff ~P is a contradiction, also that a proposition P is impossible iff ~P is necessary? If so, then you have no grounds to say that something is “non-literally impossible,” for such a concept is tantamount to “possible.” If not, then I would like to hear what definition you do actually use.

Oops, did you just make God temporal? As others on this forum have very well explained already, God is “outside of time” in our sense of time. The simultaneity I speak of is a logical one, that God and man can will together. If I pick up a pen, you would say “God willed you to pick up the pen” but I would say “God and I willed together” - simultaneity.

No, I didn’t “make God temporal.” I’m unsure why you would think I did.

And, again, if you want to say that God and man can will “together,” then I ask you: are God’s choices and man’s choices causally related? If so, which is the cause and which the effect? If not, then how are they related? For instance, with your pen example, I would say that God and I both willed that I pick up the pen, but it would be because God’s will is before mine.

Okay, looks like I’m still okay. So, the beauty of discussing axioms and corollaries on this topic, Confessor01 is that it neatly ties into Faith+Works (another thread you’ve been working on - where do you find the time?!) - the axiom of salvific faith you proposed demands works from that faith, else it is not really salvific faith, and the corollary is that Faith+Works are necessary for salvation, which is the Catholic stance, and QED we agree that the common understanding of “sola fide” is heretical. I have now typed this, but I know I should not have as it is really the subject matter of a separate thread which I told my wife I wouldn’t type further on . Do not feel obligated to reply, nor to admonish me for the divergence from the OP. Thanks

Really briefly: I do believe works are necessary unto salvation, but as a necessary effect of justification rather than a necessary cause thereof.

 

[Confessor01]

“You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!” (Acts 7:51)

And of course, this agrees perfectly with what I and others quoted earlier: God offers salvific grace to all people, because He wants to save all people, because He loves all of His creatures and because He is just. Unfortunately, “many” will resist Christ’s grace till the end.

That verse is referring not to the internal call of the Spirit (which is irresistible), but the external call (which is resistible). This is made evident by the context, which talks about the persecution of prophets and preachers, etc.

 

[paul_c]

Ben,
I’ve read through this and I want to address this in a number of ways.

1. God is not the source of Evil. Evil is opposition to God’s will. He does not create it, but he allows it to happen. This is one outcome of Free will.
2. Calvinistic predestination requires that all who proclaim Jesus is Lord are saved, because of the belieive that only the predestined would proclaim that. It also claims that God predestines some to hell. This theory is wrong on a number of counts:
3. First of all, not only the predestined can claim that Jesus is Lord. The very demons that Jesus exorcized, would proclaim that he is the Holy one of God:
   Mark 1: 23 In their synagogue was a man with an unclean spirit;
   24 he cried out, “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are–the Holy One of God!”
4. the Bible also shows us that people who recieve the Holy Spirit can apsotacize. It is clear from Hebrews 6: 4-8 that it is not only the predestined, but also the condemned who have initial access to God’s grace:
   4 For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and shared in the holy Spirit
   5 and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
   6 and then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance again, since they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves and holding him up to contempt.
   7 Ground that has absorbed the rain falling upon it repeatedly and brings forth crops useful to those for whom it is cultivated receives a blessing from God.
   8 But if it produces thorns and thistles, it is rejected; it will soon be cursed and finally burned.
5. You must persevere in your love. Profession is not enough. Witness what Jesus says to the church in Ephesus in Revelations 2: 1-5
   1 "To the angel of the church in Ephesus, write this: " 'The one who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks in the midst of the seven gold lampstands says this:
   2 "I know your works, your labor, and your endurance, and that you cannot tolerate the wicked; you have tested those who call themselves apostles but are not, and discovered that they are impostors.
   3 Moreover, you have endurance and have suffered for my name, and you have not grown weary.
   4 Yet I hold this against you: you have lost the love you had at first.
   5 Realize how far you have fallen. Repent, and do the works you did at first. Otherwise, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.
6. Finally, Jesus says that all men will be called to him. Not just the predestined. Witness John 12: 31-32:
   31 Now is the time of judgment on this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out.
   32 And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself."
   You see, scripture itself disagrees with the basic tenets of Calvinistic predestination.
   Note that the Catholic view of predestination has no such liability:
   God has a plan for every man that is consistent with what that man will chose with his free will. All men are offered the opportunity for salvation, if they choose to take it by believing in Jesus and doing what he wills, which is to love one another and to love God. Jesus knows which men will choose to go to heaven and which will choose to be condemned, but it is still up to the man to make his choice, and to persevere in that choice until death.

 

[mikeledes]

Mike, if you do not address it in your continuation of this post, can you help us clarify the distinction between Molinism and Arminianism as you defined it above?

In Classical Arminianism, predestination is purely based on God’s scientia visionis or knowledge of things that actually occur. So in this scenario, God’s role is merely to supply the grace and then forsee how man responds to His grace. Those whom He forsee will respond to His grace He predestines.

Molinism is more complicated. One thing that clearly demonstrates that Molinism and Arminianism are distinct is that a Molinist can believe in unconditional election - they are known as Congruists and include St. Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suarez - whereas classical Arminians cannot. That’s because in Molinism, predestination is not simply foreknowledge of the choices man will make. Molinists believe in scientia media (middle knowledge). Here’s a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia on Molinism:

Rather these decrees must presuppose a special knowledge (scientia media), in the light of which God infallibly foresees from all eternity what attitude man’s will would in any conceivable combination of circumstances assume if this or that particular grace were offered it. And it is only when guided by His infallible foreknowledge that God determines the kind of grace He shall give to man. If, for example, He foresees by means of the scientia media that St. Peter, after his denial of Christ, shall freely co-operate with a certain grace, He decrees to give him this particular grace and none other; the grace thus conferred becomes efficacious in bringing about his repentance. In the case of Judas, on the other hand, God, foreseeing the future resistance of this Apostle to a certain grace of conversion, decreed to allow it, and consequently bestowed upon him a grace which in itself was really sufficient, but remained inefficacious solely on account of the refractory disposition of the Apostle’s will. Guided by this scientia media God is left entirely free in the disposition and distribution of grace. On His good pleasure alone it depends to whom He will give the supreme grace of final perseverance, to whom He will refuse it; whom He will receive into Heaven, whom He will exclude from His sight for ever. This doctrine is in perfect harmony with the dogmas of the gratuity of grace, the unequal distribution of efficacious grace, the wise and inscrutable operations of Divine Providence, the absolute impossibility to merit final perseverance, and lastly the immutable predestination to glory or rejection;

In other words, through His middle knowledge, God knows how man will respond to His grace under various sets of circumstances or in different orders of grace. Based on His free pleasure alone, and hence prior to any merits in man, and in light of His scientia media, God choses an order of grace.

So in Arminianism, grace is a mere potentiality and I don’t think they can explain why one person perseveres and another does not - since classical Arminians believe in loss of salvation. Remember, God merely choses those whom He forsees will respond to His grace. Molinists believe that a person perseveres because God according to His entirely gratuitous good pleasure willed to place that person in those circumstances in which He foresaw by His scientia media that he or she will persevere. Here are a couple of links that may be helpful:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/04/molinism-middle-knowledge.html

thesumma.info/predestination/predestination4.php

thesumma.info/predestination/predestination4.php

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Chiral]

First, it is not true that God is issuing a command to understand, nor is it true that He is stating an indicative that the people will not understand. It is crystal clear from the passage itself that He is issuing a command to keep some people’s eyes shut – precisely because God is sovereign over who is saved and who is not.
Second, asking questions like, “Why would He ask Isaiah to curse His chosen people?” simply assumes the point in dispute. How do you know they’re His chosen people in the sense that He desires salvation for them? Romans 9 pretty clearly teaches that not all of ethnic Israel will be saved (and also conveniently explains the basis of salvation).
Third, there’s no way the text is merely “showing how bad-off the people were”; you have not explained the command to close their eyes because otherwise they might see and be saved.

You have missed my point in the reading of the text, so again I ask that you read the whole chapter again. Is God issuing a command other than to Isaiah? NO - so much for “crystal clear”. God issues a command to Isaiah to call down a curse upon the people of Israel, His chosen people (and I mean “chosen” not in the sense of everyone “saved” but in the sense God uses throughout the OT from Abraham onward - the people with whom He has made His covenant, the people of Israel, get it? Arguing about the salvation of Israel is beside the point). Please read it again, and imagine yourself as audience to Isaiah after he received this word. You would hear Isaiah, not God, calling down this curse upon you - “Shut their eyes!” How would you respond?
Isaiah already realizes how Israel will respond to him - they will ignore him, or they will attack him. What I have shown you is that this verse does not support your argument that God controls people’s will or ability to accept His grace. You do not have to accept this, but understand that your reading of the text is not necessarily exegesis, it is not a demonstration of anything.

Well, I understand that distinction. (Thanks for explaining.) I’m just failing to see its relevance to the present discussion.

You brought up that you believe the elect “do not” sin on earth and “cannot” sin in heaven. I explained that to be “free”, the potential, the innate power of choice, continues to exist in heaven, thus saints “can” sin but choose not to, eternally. Look back to our previous posts, you’ll see how we came to this.