Calvinistic Predestination Q&A

[Chiral]

I think they’re separate in the sense that one is telling Isaiah what he is to say, and one is telling him directly what to do, but not that they’re entirely isolated or something like that.
I’m not saying that God is imparting any special powers unto Isaiah. (Although, I wouldn’t be averse to that either.) I’m just pointing out the fact that an angel of the Lord is commanding Isaiah to do all these things to the people in order to keep them from repentance.

And again, you have not explained why it is that you read it that way. I have read this chapter dozens of times, and I still don’t see why you read it that way. Do you have quotation marks in your text separating what you think God tells Isaiah to say from what He tells him to do? What translation are you working from?

Moreover, if God does the callousing, etc., rather than Isaiah through God’s power, I’m not sure how it affects my point. In both cases God would be intending to keep reprobates from repentance.

Oh, I didn’t say God did do the callousing I asked that you find me another place in Scripture where He bestows on someone else that power. You may be able to, I’m not saying there isn’t an instance. What I am saying is that your reading of this verse presumes that God first gives Isaiah a command to speak to the people of Israel, and then bestows upon him the power to carry out the curse, a separation which I do not see in the text. Please explain why you do see one.

The former is almost exactly what the text does say. The angel of the Lord first tells Isaiah what to say in v. 9, and then in v. 10 he tells Isaiah directly, “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.”

“First…then…” Why do you interpret it that way? See above…

I wouldn’t make an argument like that, as (1) I don’t think it’s really accurate to speak of probabilities as constraining God (i.e. it would be false, or perhaps a category mistake, to say that the probability of God creating the universe is 1/x), but in any case this is certainly a gapingly deep topic to discuss briefly here, and (2) that still would make God necessary for creation, because the probability of a universe being created without God is 0.

I know you wouldn’t make the argument, because the argument is blatantly false, namely because the logic of probability necessitating any event whatsoever is false, as i have already shone. I accept this as a concession.

1. The limit of the function f(x)=1/x as x approaches infinity is 0.
2. The probability of an event’s non-occurrence decreases as the frequency (I can’t think of a better term) increases. For instance, let the event E signify a coin that lands on heads. As a coin is flipped more often (the higher the frequency), there is less chance that E will not occur, and by implication, greater chance that E will occur.
3. If the frequency is infinity, then there is zero chance that E will not occur, and by implication, a guarantee (1) that E will occur.

1. The limit is 0, but NOT the value, that is your logical error. The definition of limit is a boundary value that is never reached - asymptotes do not ever reach the value they approach, never unto infinity. Perhaps it was your math-teacher who failed you.
2. This is absolutely false. Look it up. Better yet, graph it, with percent probability on the Y axis and N (number of flips) on the X. For a coin flip, the graph is linear along Y=50% unto infinity. Now let’s pretend that it is not a coin being flipped but a person making a choice, A or ~A, mutually exclusive. Let’s say that for every choice A, the person is 50% more likely to choose A at the next event. The graph (as above) is now 1/(2^n) - this graph slopes asymptotically toward 0 but never, I repeat never reaches 0. It’s like the grasshopper who only jumps half the distance with each subsequent jump will never reach his destination. THIS is elementary logic and philosophy.
3. Again, you are mistaken. Please note, even when a probability is infinitesimally small, it is still present - we estimate it to be 0 for practical purposes only. You logic is faulty - abandon it.

By the way, in #2, I’m not saying that the chance is ever different from 1/2 on any given flip, but I am saying that the chance of a coin landing on tails once is substantially less than, for example, a coin landing on tails 1000 times. That’s what I mean when I say there is a greater chance that E will occur.

That is an empirically based assumption and has no bearing on the logic, sorry. You were the one seeking ontology, weren’t you?

 

[Chiral]

So because God cannot be other than good, it’s pointless to call Him good?

Not pointless, just not meaningful beyond metaphor, but people often need metaphors to guide them to the truth.

So you believe it is possible for saints to sin in heaven, but it seems as if it’s impossible, because no saint ever does?

Well, if part of the definition of “being in heaven” is lack of sin, then to sin in heaven would be a logical contradiction, meaning the sinner would instantly be expelled, and in that sense it would be literally impossible - if one does sin in heaven, they are no longer in heaven at the precise instant of committing the sin. Clear enough? The saint can sin but would cease to be in heaven upon the instant.

Do you believe God created the earth temporally prior to any given choice you have made in your lifetime? If so, then isn’t it proper to say that God can do something temporally prior to us without implying that He is temporal?
Also, I understand that if our wills are related in some other sphere than causality, then it is permissible to posit them as simultaneous. As a result, I must ask you, how are they related when Ephesians 1 says that God chose us in him before the creation of the world? What priority is “before” signifying here? Do you believe there is no causal relationship between God’s wills and ours? If so, what is that relationship?

I believe that God is outside of time and unified, that God is continually creating the universe from His perspective, for to Him there is no “tense”. “God chose us in Him before the creation of the world” stresses this very point - to God, the creation of the world and the creation of me are simultaneous, time is only part of my perspective of reality. What the verse says is, X at T2 (my creation) is true even at T1 (beginning of creation). Time is really troublesome with respect to how we think about God, isn’t it?
Apparently for you, it is also troublesome when you think about causality. In the sphere of causality, it is not always so that one effect has one and only one cause - that is not a sphere but a plane, welcome to the third dimension, my friend
And finally, there indeed is a causal relationship between God’s will and ours, namely that ours are a reflection of His, like everything else about reality, all has its source in God’s being. Thus, God’s will both creates and sustains my will as free, and while my freedom comes from God, it is not driven causally by Him for then it would not be truly free. Similarly, this country sustains my freedom to vote, etc. but does not compel how I vote nor even if I vote. Thus they are related, but not in the causal sense you have strapped them into. There is no logical necessity for your interpretation, and I would further say there is strong Biblical and empirical support for it containing a logical contradiction.

 

[paul_c]

You pointed out some man who recognized Jesus as the “Holy One of God.” I explained how this does not entail saving faith, since saving faith has three aspects. I hardly think this constitutes a red herring.

I pointed out that a demon being exorcized recognized Jesus as the" Holy One of God", as proof that merely recognizing Jesus was insufficient to be saved. You have now agreed that there are other elements of saving faith, besides pure confession that Jesus is Lord, and I added the point that in addition ot your three aspects, saving faith requires works as well. So now you can see the linkage.

I said that you are poisoning the well because you implied that I was for whatever reason just trying to win a debate and not find truth. I don’t appreciate it when my intentions are impugned, especially when it is done for the sake of winning an argument.

the reason I said you were focused on winning a debate, is you are always trying to set the rules of what is permissible in the discussion. If you were interested in finding the truth, more than winning the argument, you’d be completely unconcerned with the rules and completely concerned with the message.

In my estimation, that is certainly not an extension of the same thought. Your original point was that the gifts of vv. 4-6 were salvific, which I disprove by a quick recourse to v. 9. Now you’re discussing a different point and calling it “an extension of the same thought,” simply because it’s from the same passage.

let’s back up here. I said that Hebrews 6: 4-6 showed that someone who had recieved the Holy Spirit, could lose their salvation. You tried to claim that a snippet of verse 9, " of better things related to salvation, somehow implied that “those who have once been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and shared in the holy Spirit
and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come” were not realy saved. I showed that verses 10-12 clarified verse 9 and showed that perseverance was requried to be saved. You may argue that those people described in Hebrews weren’t really saved, and you would be right, because you are only saved when you die in the state of Grace. But those people described in Hebrews met every criteria you would use for your once saved, always saved justification. The fact that they lost their salvation goes directly to the heart of the matter. People who are not predestined can be justified and then subsequently turn away

But I’ll take the bait anyway: you again need to distinguish between perseverance qua cause and perseverance qua effect. The fact that perseverance is necessary in some sense is inconclusive whether it is necessary in the former or latter sense. Therefore, if you want to argue that perseverance is necessary and therefore necessary qua cause, you must beg the question.

Lets get back to basics. In order to be saved, you must first be baptized to get in the state of Grace. Once, baptized, you must stay in the state of Grace by demonstrating love for God and neighbor and avoiding sin. If you should fall through sin, you need to be sacramentally reconciled with God through the the sacrament of reconciliation. If you die in the state of Grace, you will go to heaven. And yes, God knows who will persevere to the end. But we still have to do it. He doesn’t force us to do good things. We have the free will to turn away, just as Adam did.

I’m not implying that you’re launching “attacks” in the sense that you are trying to hurt me or anything. What I am trying to demonstrate here is what I’ve seen all over the place on this forum: Someone will make an argument, someone else will rebut it, and then the first person will make a totally new argument and act as if it’s just another part of the original argument. Then since the second person does not answer all the arguments, it looks as if the first person wins the argument and “vindicates truth” when in actuality the first person was just being dishonest and refuses to recognize that he lost an argument.

I would tell you that sometimes you just don’t understand the linkage between points. And this is not about winning or losing an argument. This is about finding the way to heaven. The truth is the truth. Its our job to find it. Arguments that don’t lead to the truth are not helpful.

 

[paul_c]

First, don’t say it’s not a debate when it clearly is. I loathe when I am in the midst of some argument and someone else tells me to stop arguing, as if it doesn’t take two to tango.

Its all a matter of how you approach it and what you are trying to get out of it. Even if you win an argument, it doesn’t change the truth.

Second, Protestants also believe that whoever seeks will find, just that God does not grant this ability to whom He wills. And also, Catholics must, to be consistent, concede the fact that all the saved and damned are “set in stone” from eternity past, since God has always known who would be saved and who would not.

So, really, in your theology, its not whoever seeks, finds. Its more like, " whoever God enables to seek, will find’. The stumbling block for you in understanding the Catholic position, seems to be that you can’t accept that God exists out of time and is not bound by the timeline. He sees past, present and future all at once. So he knows what will happen, but we still have the option of our actions. As CS Lewis described it, it’s like the Author of a book knows how each character will act, but from the characters perspective, they still think through everything they do and make their decisions.

Third, your main argument still confuses the ontological and epistemological issues. If you believe that my not knowing my saving faith implies my not having saving faith, then the equivocation fallacy has just reared its ugly head.

No, not actually, You could indeed have saving Faith, but you don’t know whether you do or not. And I wouldn’t describe it as “Saving Faith”, either. I would describe it as the Love of Christ because it is your love that will save you, not simply your Faith. And the problem is, the thought that you are already saved might actually prevent you from doing the things that will actually get you saved. After all, there are many who think that since they are already saved, sin is inconsequential. Martin Luther himself suggested that people sin Boldly, did he not…

So God’s grace is sufficient, but human cooperation is necessary too? How is this not a contradiction?

Are you saying God’s grace is sufficient if the human cooperates (in which case God’s grace and human cooperation are, only when conjoined, a sufficient cause of salvation)?

God’s grace is necessary for salvation, without it, no one could be saved.
God’s grace is sufficient for salvation as well. if you were to die immediately after baptism, you would die in the state of Grace and be saved. But ultimately, most people are faced with a choice on whether they want to be saved or not. They will make that choice through their actions.

 

[mikeledes]

(1) No one acts against their wills. They always act as they want to act."

Romans 7:19

**19For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. **



God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

The following is an interesting article on Hebrews 6:

arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-5-hebrews-64-9/

While I disagree with classical Arminians on certain points, I believe this is a good analysis of Hebrews 6.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[rtconstant]

(1) No one acts against their wills. They always act as they want to act.

I’m not sure I can agree with that. I do many things I don’t want to do. St. Paul had the same problem.

(2) “Begging the question” is a logical fallacy wherein the arguer assumes the point he wants to prove. I guess I could say, in this case, the question is, “How do you know determinism precludes moral responsibility?”

No I know of the fallacy, I just wasn’t sure how you were seeing it as applying here. I understand where you are coming from now though. I guess how I would know is through logic. If my actions are predetermined for me by an omnipotent being then I am by default not responsible for my actions. If a sin was commited then the guilt of the act falls on the originator. The person did the deed would be no more cupable than a bullet.

 

[Chiral]

Alas, it seems Ben’s elders have banned him from his pursuit of truth on this site…
I pray that their restrictions do not prevent him from continuing to investigate, that he does not resist God’s grace calling him to a better understanding of the Bible and true faith…
It’s hard to be dragged from the cave into the light, especially when those you have respected keep dragging you back.

 

[JustaServant]

Alas, it seems Ben’s elders have banned him from his pursuit of truth on this site…
I pray that their restrictions do not prevent him from continuing to investigate, that he does not resist God’s grace calling him to a better understanding of the Bible and true faith…
It’s hard to be dragged from the cave into the light, especially when those you have respected keep dragging you back.

They closed and locked his ‘Catholic Answers’ thread on the Puritan Board. I don’t think anyone has ‘banned’ him. Unless you know something the rest of us don’t. I got the impression from his posts on the PB that his membership here was temporary. Hopefully a seed was planted.

 

[Chiral]

They closed and locked his ‘Catholic Answers’ thread on the Puritan Board. I don’t think anyone has ‘banned’ him. Unless you know something the rest of us don’t. I got the impression from his posts on the PB that his membership here was temporary. Hopefully a seed was planted.

Oop, I retract the statement, he replied to a post on another thread he started here. I hope more of his community comes to visit us here (I don’t think we’re allowed to register there), so long as all conduct themselves with the same effort at restraint that he has shown in most of his posts… and those goes for all of us as well.

 

[JustaServant]

Oop, I retract the statement, he replied to a post on another thread he started here. I hope more of his community comes to visit us here (I don’t think we’re allowed to register there), so long as all conduct themselves with the same effort at restraint that he has shown in most of his posts… and those goes for all of us as well.

If they do, have fun. I grew very tired of the predestination/free will debates years ago. Calvinists tend to rub me the wrong way so I tend to bow out of the discussions.

 

[Confessor01]

And again, you have not explained why it is that you read it that way. I have read this chapter dozens of times, and I still don’t see why you read it that way. Do you have quotation marks in your text separating what you think God tells Isaiah to say from what He tells him to do? What translation are you working from?

I just now noticed that the KJV does not have quotation marks, but the other ones I checked, the NIV, NASB, and ESV, all have them. Even if they don’t have the marks, I think it is still the case that verse 10 is talking about the people, since it refers to the people in the third, rather than second, person. If Isaiah were talking directly to the people he would be using second person, which is why other versions did not use quotation marks there.

Oh, I didn’t say God did do the callousing I asked that you find me another place in Scripture where He bestows on someone else that power. You may be able to, I’m not saying there isn’t an instance. What I am saying is that your reading of this verse presumes that God first gives Isaiah a command to speak to the people of Israel, and then bestows upon him the power to carry out the curse, a separation which I do not see in the text. Please explain why you do see one.

I’m not concerned at all presently with the issue of how God carries out this command, whether it be by bestowing the power on Isaiah directly, or some other option. I am merely concerned with the intent of God as expressed through His angel in vv. 9-10.

Confessor01:

By the way, in #2, I’m not saying that the chance is ever different from 1/2 on any given flip, but I am saying that the chance of a coin landing on tails once is substantially less than, for example, a coin landing on tails 1000 times. That’s what I mean when I say there is a greater chance that E will occur.

That is an empirically based assumption and has no bearing on the logic, sorry. You were the one seeking ontology, weren’t you?

I’m not sure what you mean by an “empirically based assumption,” but my objections to this would lead to discussions that are far from the scope of this thread (dealing with rationalism, infallibility, sensory data’s relation to logic, etc.). For now, I’ll just say this: the chance of a coin landing on heads is (1/2), and the chance of its landing on heads twice consecutively is (1/2)^2, thrice is (1/2)^3, a thousand times is (1/2)^1000, etc. If we were to take (1/2)^(infinity) then we would have zero. True, for every individual flip, the chance is (1/2). But we are dealing not with individual flips, but with an extremely large collection of them.

Of course, as you are pointing out above, one error with this is that an actual infinity will never actually be reached; it will be ever increasing but never actually complete (as you demonstrated with asymptotes, etc.). But this is not a problem, in my estimation, for my argument. For given any probability of sinning, it follows that there must be some point at which the sin is extremely likely to occur. Even if you want to make the probability (1/10^(10^(10^10))) – or a trillion trillion trillion times smaller than that – there is some point along an everlasting timeline at which sinning becomes extremely probable.

For instance, if we take the probability of landing a coin on heads three consecutive times, we can say that given eight flips, it is reasonable to say that it will occur once (though not necessary); given fifty flips, it is even more reasonable to say that it will occur at least once (though not necessary); given a trillion flips, it is quite close to a guarantee (though not necessary) that it will occur at least once.

Likewise, given any probability of sinning – even the outrageously small probability given above – and a neverending duration of time, there will be some point at which it is a near guarantee that sinning will occur, such that it’d be absurd to deny its occurrence. However, as you pointed out, it is false for me to say that it is actually necessary, because it is never the case that the everlasting duration is complete. But I believe that by lowering my argument’s claims slightly, it becomes sound and much more convincing.

Thank you for the correction.

Not pointless, just not meaningful beyond metaphor, but people often need metaphors to guide them to the truth.

Calling God good is a metaphor? What’s the metaphor a metaphor of?

Well, if part of the definition of “being in heaven” is lack of sin, then to sin in heaven would be a logical contradiction, meaning the sinner would instantly be expelled, and in that sense it would be literally impossible - if one does sin in heaven, they are no longer in heaven at the precise instant of committing the sin. Clear enough? The saint can sin but would cease to be in heaven upon the instant.

That might be acceptable, but when generally understood the doctrine of heaven has insisted that no one falls from it. Is there anything in the Catholic Church’s teaching on whether saints can (or do) fall from glory?

I believe that God is outside of time and unified, that God is continually creating the universe from His perspective, for to Him there is no “tense”. “God chose us in Him before the creation of the world” stresses this very point - to God, the creation of the world and the creation of me are simultaneous, time is only part of my perspective of reality.

How does God, in your view, make prophecies and understand time?

(continued below)

 

[Confessor01]

(continued from above)

n the sphere of causality, it is not always so that one effect has one and only one cause

Every effect does have some sufficient cause for it, whether it be a conjunction of many lesser causes or not. But this is not my contention anyway. I am concerned with what Paul means when he says that God “chose” us, when by “us” he is referring to the elect, those who have themselves chosen God in some way or another. How are these choices related?

One thing I dislike is when people believe that God’s choice of His elect and His elect’s choice of Him are causally related in some manner, but to avoid the implication from that relation that either Calvinistic predestination is true or God is entirely contingent on human choices, they say that the two choices, though causally related, are simultaneous. Whenever this is said, this is nonsense: it implies that either both are causes (with no effects), or both are effects (with no causes). Whenever two things are causally related, by definition one must be the cause and the other the effect; simultaneity is an impossible third option. Therefore, if you have some other understanding of the simultaneity of God’s choice of His elect and His elect’s choice of Him, I want to ensure that it is not this unacceptable hypothesis of causal simultaneity.

And finally, there indeed is a causal relationship between God’s will and ours, namely that ours are a reflection of His, like everything else about reality, all has its source in God’s being. Thus, God’s will both creates and sustains my will as free, and while my freedom comes from God, it is not driven causally by Him for then it would not be truly free.

With God’s and the elect’s choices, we have two parties who choose each other specifically: the God choose only His elect and His elect choose only Him. If you want to say that God chooses you in the sense that He gives you the options to choose Him or something else, then God is not choosing you specifically. In this case, then, you have to account for the texts which say that God “chose us,” which certainly signifies a very particular choice made by God, and then explain how this is causally related to the fact that the elect themselves choose God (and only God).

---

I pointed out that a demon being exorcized recognized Jesus as the" Holy One of God", as proof that merely recognizing Jesus was insufficient to be saved. You have now agreed that there are other elements of saving faith, besides pure confession that Jesus is Lord, and I added the point that in addition ot your three aspects, saving faith requires works as well. So now you can see the linkage.

With all due respect, you did not point out anything to me. I recognized immediately that you were showing a person who had not complete saving faith, but rather a bare intellectual assent, and I pointed out that saving faith has more components (the three listed above). At no point in your argument was I ever obliged to accept that the component of saving faith you missed was works; I already said that fiducia, trust in Christ for salvation, is the component that the demon missed.

the reason I said you were focused on winning a debate, is you are always trying to set the rules of what is permissible in the discussion. If you were interested in finding the truth, more than winning the argument, you’d be completely unconcerned with the rules and completely concerned with the message.

The reason I set parameters on discussions is because I don’t enjoy pursuing rabbit trails. For instance, if I am discussing a particular interpretation of a particular Bible passage, and some Catholic enters and says, “But you don’t have the authority to interpret the passage; in fact, sola Scriptura is impossible given the illiteracy of many people in Church history,” it has some type of bearing on the thread, but for the most part the statement is irrelevant. Likewise, I attempted to exclude all such irrelevancies from my threads.

As I said earlier, clearly there are categories of “relevant responses” and “irrelevant responses”; and it is certainly plausible that I improperly relegated some objections to the latter when I should not have done so. But clearly the practice itself is not improper; excluding irrelevant material does not imply censorship or hiding from truth.

(continued below)

 

[Confessor01]

(continued from above)

let’s back up here. I said that Hebrews 6: 4-6 showed that someone who had recieved the Holy Spirit, could lose their salvation. You tried to claim that a snippet of verse 9, " of better things related to salvation, somehow implied that “those who have once been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and shared in the holy Spirit and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come” were not realy saved. I showed that verses 10-12 clarified verse 9 and showed that perseverance was requried to be saved. You may argue that those people described in Hebrews weren’t really saved, and you would be right, because you are only saved when you die in the state of Grace. But those people described in Hebrews met every criteria you would use for your once saved, always saved justification. The fact that they lost their salvation goes directly to the heart of the matter. People who are not predestined can be justified and then subsequently turn away

You showed directly here how you did change the subject from whether vv. 4-6 entailed salvific blessings to whether vv. 10-12 stressed the necessity of perseverance. Those verses fall into the same category of texts as John 15 is in, and the key to not misinterpreting those texts is understanding that “you ought to persevere” does not imply (1) that perseverance is a cause of justification, nor does it imply (2) that those who truly are justified can lose their salvation. But I reply: (1) No one can be saved if they do not persevere. This establishes the necessity of perseverance – but this does not establish the causal priority of it. Its necessity, when taken by itself, is inconclusive as to whether it is a necessary cause or effect of justification. (2) Many people who profess to be Christians are not, and it is likely that some people who are called Christians in the epistles are called that only by benefit of the doubt – just as if you were to contact a church, you would regard them as brothers and sisters in Christ, believers, etc., even though you have good reason to believe some likely are not, simply because very few churches have 100% regenerate membership. These people can show all signs of regeneracy to others and then apostatize, and consequently it is prudent to urge other Christians to persevere and grow in God’s grace, even though it is the case that no true believers will fall from grace.

Usually, the subsequent objection against Calvinism is presented thusly: “But you can’t know if you’re saved until you die!” I have two things to say to this: First, it’s wrong; I would say we can know we are saved this side of heaven; second, it changes the objection to one of ontology, whether or not true believers can fall, to one of epistemology, whether or not true believers know they are true believers.

Suffice it to say that I don’t feel like delving into this new topic, and that if you believe I have improperly dealt with the topic, then make objections to what I have said concerning the ontological aspects of perseverance.

Lets get back to basics. In order to be saved, you must first be baptized to get in the state of Grace. Once, baptized, you must stay in the state of Grace by demonstrating love for God and neighbor and avoiding sin. If you should fall through sin, you need to be sacramentally reconciled with God through the the sacrament of reconciliation. If you die in the state of Grace, you will go to heaven. And yes, God knows who will persevere to the end. But we still have to do it. He doesn’t force us to do good things. We have the free will to turn away, just as Adam did.

Well, in this case, you have shifted from a critique of Calvinism’s logical and Biblical consistency and have moved over to asserting the Catholic understanding of justification and perseverance. I agree with you that the Catholic Church teaches that justified believers can fall, but I obviously disagree as to whether that teaching is true.

Its all a matter of how you approach it and what you are trying to get out of it. Even if you win an argument, it doesn’t change the truth.

If I win an argument because my position is demonstrated to be logical and my opponent’s to be illogical, then the argument shows who is correct. As long as dishonest methods of argumentation – e.g., changing the topic when pressed on a specific point, talking down to the opponent to make him look weak, etc. – are avoided, the winner of the argument is almost always the person who has the truth.

(continued below)

 

[Confessor01]

(continued from above)

So, really, in your theology, its not whoever seeks, finds. Its more like, " whoever God enables to seek, will find’. The stumbling block for you in understanding the Catholic position, seems to be that you can’t accept that God exists out of time and is not bound by the timeline. He sees past, present and future all at once. So he knows what will happen, but we still have the option of our actions. As CS Lewis described it, it’s like the Author of a book knows how each character will act, but from the characters perspective, they still think through everything they do and make their decisions.

That would still mean that “whoever seeks, finds”; it just also establishes how one goes about seeking. If you read free will into the text there by assuming that everybody has the innate ability to seek, then you don’t have proper grounds to condemn a Calvinistic understanding of the passage.

Otherwise, I would hardly say that God’s being timeless is a stumbling block to me. First, this position has not been fleshed out that well, and when I attempted to see how this occurred, it seemed that people resorted to inconsistent and unclear language. Second, the primary reason I reject Catholicism is because of the Biblical witness, not because of some philosophical argument against free will (that came later after my regeneration) or of some ignorance of the nature of God’s timelessness. However, at this point, I’ll just say that I have dealt with the discussions of God’s timelessness elsewhere, and I would prefer not to engage them here also.

God’s grace is sufficient for salvation as well. if you were to die immediately after baptism, you would die in the state of Grace and be saved. But ultimately, most people are faced with a choice on whether they want to be saved or not. They will make that choice through their actions.

How does the fact that people who die after baptism express how God’s grace is sufficient?

Furthermore, if it is necessary that people accept God’s grace in order to be saved, then does it not follow that God’s grace by itself, i.e., irrespective of human acceptance, is insufficient? If you want to say that X is sufficient unto Y, but yet assert that Z is necessary unto Y, then you would be contradicting yourself: (X+Z) would be sufficient unto Y in that case. Likewise, you must believe that God’s grace by itself is insufficient and accept that (God’s grace + human cooperation) is the sufficient cause.

---

mikeledes,

First, I’m dealing with Romans 7:19 and that whole topic in the other thread about free will and foreknowledge, so I’ll just redirect you and any onlookers there.

Second, after briefly looking over that post from Arminian Perspectives, I saw immediately that he misunderstood the point made from v. 9. He assumed that v. 9 taught that vv. 4-6 were dealing with an impossible hypothetical, which is not at all what I am arguing. Otherwise, I’m not really interested in an all-out exegesis of that passage, discerning whether “taste” is salvific, etc.

Personally, I do not find that blog to be the most competent. I have seen his critiques of “Calvinist apologetics” to be quite ignorant and question-begging. (I don’t mean “ignorant” in a pejorative way; it just seems that he really doesn’t understand Calvinistic thought.)

---

No I know of the fallacy, I just wasn’t sure how you were seeing it as applying here. I understand where you are coming from now though. I guess how I would know is through logic. If my actions are predetermined for me by an omnipotent being then I am by default not responsible for my actions. If a sin was commited then the guilt of the act falls on the originator. The person did the deed would be no more cupable than a bullet.

This assumes that causal determinism is in principle identical to a gun-and-bullet analogy, which is the point in dispute.

Usually, my way of going about defending how determinism and responsibility are compatible is by arguing for the impossibility of free will given morality, and then demonstrating all objections against the compatibility of the two to be either question-begging or otherwise misguided. Therefore, I would recommend you look near the end of the thread on free will and foreknowledge to see my arguments. You’ll also see how I understand Romans 7:19 if you visit there. (If you can’t locate it, then tell me.)

---

They closed and locked his ‘Catholic Answers’ thread on the Puritan Board. I don’t think anyone has ‘banned’ him. Unless you know something the rest of us don’t. I got the impression from his posts on the PB that his membership here was temporary. Hopefully a seed was planted.

The reason it was locked is because the men in charge of the PB dislike “board wars” and all the problems and chaos associated with that. (This is clearly evident as seen in the last post of that thread.) It’s not as if they discourage seeking truth or something.

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by paul c
I pointed out that a demon being exorcized recognized Jesus as the" Holy One of God", as proof that merely recognizing Jesus was insufficient to be saved. You have now agreed that there are other elements of saving faith, besides pure confession that Jesus is Lord, and I added the point that in addition ot your three aspects, saving faith requires works as well. So now you can see the linkage

The point I was making was that you could profess that Christ was Lord without being predestined. You apparently agree with this since you didn’t dispute it. You then said that the demon didn’t have saving Faith, because he didn’t trust in Christ for Salvation. I didn’t debate that point. It is obviously true. But I added the comment that he also didn’t have works. You don’t have to accept that works are required for salvation - you argue instead that works are the results of being saved. I will argue that its semantics. If you don’t have works, you aren’t saved.

Originally Posted by paul c
the reason I said you were focused on winning a debate, is you are always trying to set the rules of what is permissible in the discussion. If you were interested in finding the truth, more than winning the argument, you’d be completely unconcerned with the rules and completely concerned with the message.

I understand your desire to focus on a particular point to the exclusion of others, but you need to recognize that people think in different ways and what you think is a diversion, is actually someone elses way of making a point. Perhaps the overall point, though, is that we need to have more trust between us that learning is really the point of the discussion.

 

[davidv]

{snip}

One thing I dislike is when people believe that God’s choice of His elect and His elect’s choice of Him are causally related in some manner, but to avoid the implication from that relation that either Calvinistic predestination is true or God is entirely contingent on human choices, they say that the two choices, though causally related, are simultaneous. Whenever this is said, this is nonsense: it implies that either both are causes (with no effects), or both are effects (with no causes). Whenever two things are causally related, by definition one must be the cause and the other the effect; simultaneity is an impossible third option. Therefore, if you have some other understanding of the simultaneity of God’s choice of His elect and His elect’s choice of Him, I want to ensure that it is not this unacceptable hypothesis of causal simultaneity.

{snip}

I believe the highlighted statement hits at the heart of the matter. I believe it is a logical fallacy. I am not good enough at formal logic to specify exactly which one(I think it called a false dicotomy).

From the very beginning God has shared His creative power with mankind. Mankind was commanded to be fruitful and multiply, and were given the power to conceive and bear children. The great mystery is how God’s plan for mankind can be fulfilled if fallible humans are allowed determine the course of things. Since God is perfect His plan will be fulfilled. It is also true that mankind is permitted to “muck it up” along the way.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
let’s back up here. I said that Hebrews 6: 4-6 showed that someone who had recieved the Holy Spirit, could lose their salvation. You tried to claim that a snippet of verse 9, " of better things related to salvation, somehow implied that “those who have once been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and shared in the holy Spirit and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come” were not realy saved. I showed that verses 10-12 clarified verse 9 and showed that perseverance was requried to be saved. You may argue that those people described in Hebrews weren’t really saved, and you would be right, because you are only saved when you die in the state of Grace. But those people described in Hebrews met every criteria you would use for your once saved, always saved justification. The fact that they lost their salvation goes directly to the heart of the matter. People who are not predestined can be justified and then subsequently turn away

So you basically agree with my point that those who will be saved will persevere. You state they will persevere because they are the elect. I say that they will become elect because they persevere. You ascribe their perseverence totally to God, because men are merely his puppets. I, echo the Catholic view that man is more than an automaton and has free will. So it seems that the entire discussion has come down to the nature of man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Lets get back to basics. In order to be saved, you must first be baptized to get in the state of Grace. Once, baptized, you must stay in the state of Grace by demonstrating love for God and neighbor and avoiding sin. If you should fall through sin, you need to be sacramentally reconciled with God through the the sacrament of reconciliation. If you die in the state of Grace, you will go to heaven. And yes, God knows who will persevere to the end. But we still have to do it. He doesn’t force us to do good things. We have the free will to turn away, just as Adam did.

Well, in this case, you have shifted from a critique of Calvinism’s logical and Biblical consistency and have moved over to asserting the Catholic understanding of justification and perseverance. I agree with you that the Catholic Church teaches that justified believers can fall, but I obviously disagree as to whether that teaching is true.

Again, this comes down to the Catholic view of the nature of man versus the Calvinist view. We believe that man has true free will. You say no, he does not, man will do what God planned for him. I will say that God planned for man to have free will and that because he can view all man’s decisions simultatenously, he can bring out that plan without impacting man’s ability to choose. These are not new arguments.

 

[quantumfaith]

In my most humble opinion, that of a protestant, is that reformed theology borders on theological arrogance and spiritual “one upmanship”. I am most happy for my reformed brothers in Christ, that they have so successfully deduced all the fundamental properties of God, and lest I forget probablilty theory and the application of infinite limits. I am duly impressed. Seems to me that we (mankind) have quite enough difficulty determining the nature of the world and universe around us, It is quite impressive to me that we the finite have so successfully reduced The Infinite to 5 fundamental theological constructs as indicated by Calvin’s Institutes.

 

[Confessor01]

So you basically agree with my point that those who will be saved will persevere. You state they will persevere because they are the elect. I say that they will become elect because they persevere. You ascribe their perseverence totally to God, because men are merely his puppets. I, echo the Catholic view that man is more than an automaton and has free will. So it seems that the entire discussion has come down to the nature of man.

You are right in that it comes down to the nature of man. At such a point, then it seems we should discuss the Biblical and perhaps philosophical merits of the Protestant view vs. the Catholic view – or at least not immediately start impugning the contrary position with demeaning descriptions.

---

In my most humble opinion, that of a protestant, is that reformed theology borders on theological arrogance and spiritual “one upmanship”. I am most happy for my reformed brothers in Christ, that they have so successfully deduced all the fundamental properties of God, and lest I forget probablilty theory and the application of infinite limits. I am duly impressed. Seems to me that we (mankind) have quite enough difficulty determining the nature of the world and universe around us, It is quite impressive to me that we the finite have so successfully reduced The Infinite to 5 fundamental theological constructs as indicated by Calvin’s Institutes.

First, please don’t start your statement “in my most humble opinion” and then continue by issuing a series of sarcastic and disparaging remarks that are supposedly attempts at revealing the utter arrogance of all Reformed Christians, who allegedly attempt to “reduce The Infinite” and do other blasphemous things.

Second, the “Five Points of Calvinism” are actually a bit of a misnomer. The five points were constructed at the Synod of Dort, in which the five points of the Remonstrants (followers of Arminius) were opposed and refuted. The Synod of Dort occurred after Calvin’s death, and it’s a bit sad that the name “The Five Points of Calvinism” would be used to represent Calvin, seeing as Calvin’s Institutes have so much more than that. So, what I’m trying to say is that (1) Calvinism is much, much, much more than TULIP (though that is its soteriology and basis), and (2) Calvin himself didn’t try to set up the five points; he taught the concepts but didn’t try to make TULIP or anything.