Calvinistic Predestination Q&A

[Chiral]

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?

You misunderstood my proof. A given probability does not have to be perfectly actuated. In a bivalent set like the coin flip, the opposite event (tails rather than heads) NEVER has to be actuated!!! There is no logical necessity compelling the actuation of any event, only a logical probability! This is what is understood by “probability” - the weighed potential of a given event occurring in opposition to alternate possibilities. EVERY time the coin flips, the probability is 50/50 - this does not necessitate that the coin ever land tails rather than heads, not even unto infinity. The belief that infinity necessarily allows the actuation of all events is part of Hindu and certain other pagan faiths which involve also infinite universes, reincarnation, and cyclic time - destruction/creation/destruction/creation - it’s all pagan. Sorry.

1. 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.

Okay, I see you haven’t reached that speech of God is always analogical since it edrives from a human perspective, but you will get there. To Catholics, God is omnibenevolent and the source of all good. He is the prime mover of all morality and as such cannot be judged (except by Himself) morally. If we find ourselves judging God, than either we are mistaken as to morality or as to how we understand God. You’ll get there, but I’ll let that go for now.

1. 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.

Ah, you do understand, now you simply must reread exactly what I wrote, “impossible” vs “seems impossible” - seeming is not being. We agree

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.

“God’s will is before mine” sounds pretty temporal to me! You are stuck on this notion of exclusive and temporal causality, that for every effect there is one and only one cause, which may be an effect itself. The second part I agree with, but not the first - an effect can have more than one simultaneous cause, hence “God and I will together”. My will comes from God, but what I will does not, for my will is not God’s will. Get it?

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

And again you find your folly in James 2, that works complete faith - if faith were the cause in your sense, the cause would already be complete without the effect, but clearly that is directly contradicted in scripture. You are right, works are necessary, but it is not as simple and cause-effect. Note, the cause I’ve my hitting the baseball is in part my willing to swing the bat, but until I do swing the bat, my hitting the ball is incomplete and may never be actualized, thus the cause is both willing and swinging, faith and works together, complete. Still unclear?

 

[Confessor01]

paul c,

I will be responding to the subsets of your second point:

(1) Calvinists do not say that only the elect can actually utter the words, “Jesus is Lord.” Just as “All who call on the name of the Lord will be saved” implies a heartfelt trust and faith, rather than just a mere speaking of the syllables, so also we say that only the elect can say “Jesus is Lord” in the sense that only they truly place their faith in Christ, not in the sense that only they say the right words.

There are three aspects to saving faith: noticia, awareness of Christ’s own claims about himself; assensus, personal assent to those beliefs; and fiducia, placing trust in Christ. The man you cited has the first two but not the third. Whoever hears the Gospel preached has only the first.

(2) Hebrews 6:4-6 is not referring to things that accompany salvation, as made evident in v. 9, which speaks of better things, “things that accompany salvation.” Therefore the things in vv. 4-6 are lesser things, things that do not accompany salvation. Therefore there is no true apostasy from salvation.

(3) Perseverance of the saints is in fact a necessary effect of saving faith, not a necessary cause of justification.

(4) “All men” does not necessarily refer to all men without exception, but often to all men without distinction, i.e. Jew and Gentile alike, i.e. all kinds of people. If look at the context of John 12:32, you’ll see that the context does not p(name removed by moderator)oint either meaning; therefore we should look to a clearer text in whose light we may interpret this one better. I would recommend you look at John 6:39, 44.

---

Chiral,

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?

The angel of the Lord is commanding Isaiah to say to the people the content of v. 9, and then he tells Isaiah “straight up” the contents of v. 10. What is the reason that Isaiah tells the people to “be ever hearing but never understanding”? Because their hearts are calloused, etc. Moreover, the means of this command is for the Lord to destroy their cities and fields, v. 11.

So, given this, how does your point hold up? Isaiah is not merely cursing the people; the angel of the Lord is commanding Isaiah to make the people’s hearts calloused, etc., to keep them from repentance, for the purpose of the Lord’s destroying them.

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.

Note that when I say the elect “do not” sin on earth, I wasn’t implying that they never sin.

Moreover, I realize you are saying that the saints have the possibility to sin in heaven but never do. I have already explained the manifold problems of the position. Besides making heaven a very strict legalistic administration (rather than a paradise), it also guarantees that all will eventually be damned given the infinite duration.

 

[mikeledes]

Are you saying the ones referred to Hebrews 6:4-6 are not Christians?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Confessor01]

Regarding your other points, Chiral,

(1) Again, I’m not saying that “a given probability has to be perfectly actuated.” If the possibility of sinning is 1/10^100, I’m not saying that given 1/10^100 “time-units” there will be one person who sins. I’m not saying that. My point is rather that given any probability whatsoever and an infinite duration, it follows that the possibility must be actualized. This is a very elementary understanding of probability. In other words, given a coin and an infinite number of flips, it is in fact a guarantee that one of those will be tails.

Moreover, the concept that a possibility given infinite time is a necessity is not pagan, because it cannot be connected to infinite universes.

(2) First, please stop the condescending tone. I don’t appreciate being told, “Don’t worry, you’ll get there.”

Second, you’re changing the subject. First you said that God cannot be regarded as “good” because it’s impossible for Him not to be good. Now you say that He cannot be regarded as “good” in the sense that it would be impossible to judge Him and think that He can possibly be bad.

(3) We do not agree at all. You didn’t respond to the quoted section at all. My whole point is that you’re trying to make a distinction where it can’t be done: namely, between a real impossibility and an apparent impossibility. I ask you, What are the criteria to distinguish the real from the merely apparent?

(4) When I say “God’s will is before mine,” I do in fact mean that it temporally precedes mine: not in the sense that God is constrained by time but nonetheless that my days have been set in stone from creation, even from eternity past.

The second part I agree with, but not the first - an effect can have more than one simultaneous cause, hence “God and I will together”.

If you agree that God’s willing and man’s willing are themselves causally related, then you would admit that one is a cause and the other an effect, right?

 

[Confessor01]

Are you saying the ones referred to Hebrews 6:4-6 are not Christians?

God Bless,
Michael

Yes, I’m saying the ones who fell from the gifts received in vv. 4-6 were never Christians.

 

[mikeledes]

Yes, I’m saying the ones who fell from the gifts received in vv. 4-6 were never Christians.

I disagree but thank you for the response.

God bless,
Michael

 

[paul_c]

paul c,

I will be responding to the subsets of your second point:

(1) Calvinists do not say that only the elect can actually utter the words, “Jesus is Lord.” Just as “All who call on the name of the Lord will be saved” implies a heartfelt trust and faith, rather than just a mere speaking of the syllables, so also we say that only the elect can say “Jesus is Lord” in the sense that only they truly place their faith in Christ, not in the sense that only they say the right words.

There are three aspects to saving faith: noticia, awareness of Christ’s own claims about himself; assensus, personal assent to those beliefs; and fiducia, placing trust in Christ. The man you cited has the first two but not the third. Whoever hears the Gospel preached has only the first.

This saving faith that you claim, is not complete without works of love. If you have faith enough to move mountains but don’t have love, you are nothing. (1 corinthians 13).
Faith without works is dead (James 2)

(2) Hebrews 6:4-6 is not referring to things that accompany salvation, as made evident in v. 9, which speaks of better things, “things that accompany salvation.” Therefore the things in vv. 4-6 are lesser things, things that do not accompany salvation. Therefore there is no true apostasy from salvation.

With all due respect, are you trying to win a debate or trying to find the truth. Lets take Hebrew 6 : 4-12 so we incompass your verse 9.

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.
9 But we are sure in your regard, beloved, of better things related to salvation, even though we speak in this way.
10 For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love you have demonstrated for his name by having served and continuing to serve the holy ones.
11 We earnestly desire each of you to demonstrate the same eagerness for the fulfillment of hope until the end,
12 so that you may not become sluggish, but imitators of those who, through faith and patience, are inheriting the promises
As you can see, If you are willing to look past your biases, when the Author of Hebrews talks to the beloved in verse 9, he says that he earnestly desires ech to demonstrate the eagerness of fulfillment until the END, so that ou don’t become sluggish but imitator of those through faith AND patience, are inheriting the promises. There can be no doubt to the unbiased reader that persistence of love is required to the end and that true believers can apostacize and be lost.

(3) Perseverance of the saints is in fact a necessary effect of saving faith, not a necessary cause of justification.

You argue with yourself here. If you don’t persevere, you don’t have saving faith so you won’t know you have saving faith unless you persevere.

(4) “All men” does not necessarily refer to all men without exception, but often to all men without distinction, i.e. Jew and Gentile alike, i.e. all kinds of people. If look at the context of John 12:32, you’ll see that the context does not p(name removed by moderator)oint either meaning; therefore we should look to a clearer text in whose light we may interpret this one better. I would recommend you look at John 6:39, 44.

.
You are getting desperate now to prove your point. But why didn’t you suggest John 6: 37-38 as well as 39:
:
37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me, 38 because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.
39 And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day.

Notice that Jesus will not reject any that come to him and that he will not lose anything of what he gave me. This conforms perfectly to Catholic theology. God allows anyone to come to him and he will not reject them. Nor will he lose any that willingly come to him. However, notice it does not say that he will force anyone to come to him or that he will force them to stay with Jesus if they chose otherwise.

Note that when I say the elect “do not” sin on earth, I wasn’t implying that they never sin.

Moreover, I realize you are saying that the saints have the possibility to sin in heaven but never do. I have already explained the manifold problems of the position.

What I don’t think you appreciate, Confessor, is the level of Love required to be a Saint. Those that become Saints, either directly, or through the purification process in Purgatory, will be capable of perfect love. This love will make them desire to do the will of God in a most perfect manner and doing the will of God will fulfill their every need. Sin will not even cross their minds. The Saints, “die to self” . What that means is that their needs are met by meeting the needs of others. Read about the great Catholic Saints, sometime, particularly some of the modern ones. like Blessed Mother Teresa. It will show you why the Calvinist view of Sola Fide is so deficient.

 

[Confessor01]

This saving faith that you claim, is not complete without works of love. If you have faith enough to move mountains but don’t have love, you are nothing. (1 corinthians 13).
Faith without works is dead (James 2)

Your original point was that non-elect can say that Jesus is Lord. I explained why your argument was false. Now you want to change the topic to one of justification and basically start an all-out war on the battleground of James 2.

I’m sorry dude, but you have got to stop changing the topic.

With all due respect, are you trying to win a debate or trying to find the truth.

Please don’t poison the well, either.

As you can see, If you are willing to look past your biases, when the Author of Hebrews talks to the beloved in verse 9, he says that he earnestly desires ech to demonstrate the eagerness of fulfillment until the END, so that ou don’t become sluggish but imitator of those through faith AND patience, are inheriting the promises. There can be no doubt to the unbiased reader that persistence of love is required to the end and that true believers can apostacize and be lost.

Your point was that people are falling from salvific graces that are mentioned in vv. 4-6. I explained why this is false, because v. 9 implies that the gifts in vv. 4-6 are non-salvific. Now you want to say that the author of Hebrews is trying to argue that salvation can be lost on the grounds that the author urges his readers to persevere?

Seriously, stop changing the topic. Anyone can launch a thousand different attacks. But who can have their actual arguments hold up? If you make an argument X, and I refute it, don’t just randomly make another argument Y. That is dishonest. In fact, it would evince that you are just trying to win a debate rather than find truth. It’s really easy to make it look like you win a debate when the other person doesn’t respond to your points – because you make a new point after he refutes all your other ones. Really, this is getting ridiculous.

You argue with yourself here. If you don’t persevere, you don’t have saving faith so you won’t know you have saving faith unless you persevere.

You’re conflating the ontological issue (whether one actually has saving faith) with the epistemological issue (whether one knows he has saving faith); therefore you are committing a fallacy of equivocation.

You are getting desperate now to prove your point. But why didn’t you suggest John 6: 37-38 as well as 39:
:
37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me, 38 because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.
39 And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day.

Notice that Jesus will not reject any that come to him and that he will not lose anything of what he gave me. This conforms perfectly to Catholic theology. God allows anyone to come to him and he will not reject them. Nor will he lose any that willingly come to him. However, notice it does not say that he will force anyone to come to him or that he will force them to stay with Jesus if they chose otherwise.

If you assume that everyone, rather than only the elect, has the capability to come to God on their own, then you’re just begging the question. I agree that all who come to Christ will be saved. I also believe that only those who have their hearts regenerated will be able to come to Christ in the first place.

Please wait for my rebuttals before you think you have refuted me and think that I’m “desperate.” It’s rude.

Furthermore, what I explained immediately totally refutes what you were trying to establish in John 12:32. If no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draw him (v. 44), then divine grace is necessary for salvation; and if Jesus loses none of those whom the Father gives him (v. 44), then divine grace is sufficient for salvation. If your interpretation of John 12:32 were correct, it would mean that God draws everybody, which is flat-out false – for if grace were sufficient and necessary unto salvation, then that means everybody drawn would be saved, which you know is false.

 

[Luke65]

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.

Balderdash! How can the Holy Spirit externally call someone? Okay, so He could pick up a telephone, but His ordinary work is done through grace - which is an internal calling! How many verses do you need to explain away to defend your Calvinism? Answer: the whole Bible! Starting right there in the Garden of Eden and ending in the last chapter of Revelation…

“Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.” (Revelation 22:12)

How absurd would it be for God to reward and punish us for things we have no control over? That would be like you rewarding or punishing your computer! You’re not that stupid, but you think God is?

The denial of free will just might be the most pernicious heresy of all. It makes God into a monster who created this world simply for His entertainment - and we all suffer tremendously and then we die. And then billions of people get to spend their eternity in Hell, even though they did nothing evil, any more than a dog could do something evil. You not only resist the Holy Spirit, you resist basic common sense and reason. But you’ve got company - atheists also deny free will.

 

[Confessor01]

Balderdash! How can the Holy Spirit externally call someone? Okay, so He could pick up a telephone, but His ordinary work is done through grace - which is an internal calling! How many verses do you need to explain away to defend your Calvinism? Answer: the whole Bible! Starting right there in the Garden of Eden and ending in the last chapter of Revelation…

If you had analyzed what exactly I meant by the “external call” of the Spirit, rather than pejoratively assuming that it refers to a phone call, then you wouldn’t be thinking at the moment that I’m “explaining away” texts.

The resistance of the external call is identical to the persecution of preachers/prophets. That passage is not talking about some internal resistance of the Holy Spirit at all.

“Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.” (Revelation 22:12)

How absurd would it be for God to reward and punish us for things we have no control over? That would be like you rewarding or punishing your computer! You’re not that stupid, but you think God is?

The denial of free will just might be the most pernicious heresy of all. It makes God into a monster who created this world simply for His entertainment - and we all suffer tremendously and then we die. And then billions of people get to spend their eternity in Hell, even though they did nothing evil, any more than a dog could do something evil. You not only resist the Holy Spirit, you resist basic common sense and reason. But you’ve got company - atheists also deny free will.

Yeah, I guess you’re right. How do I join the Catholic Church?

 

[mikeledes]

Yeah, I guess you’re right. How do I join the Catholic Church?

This is the quickest conversion I have ever witnessed!

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Confessor01]

This is the quickest conversion I have ever witnessed!

God Bless,
Michael

I’ve decided it’s my new response to the hackneyed argument/complaint, i.e. OMG I CANT BELIEVE YOU DENY FREE WILL.

I don’t care if people ask me questions about it, but show some respect, seriously.

 

[Chiral]

Chiral,
The angel of the Lord is commanding Isaiah to say to the people the content of v. 9, and then he tells Isaiah “straight up” the contents of v. 10. What is the reason that Isaiah tells the people to “be ever hearing but never understanding”? Because their hearts are calloused, etc. Moreover, the means of this command is for the Lord to destroy their cities and fields, v. 11.
So, given this, how does your point hold up? Isaiah is not merely cursing the people; the angel of the Lord is commanding Isaiah to make the people’s hearts calloused, etc., to keep them from repentance, for the purpose of the Lord’s destroying them.

I think you meant “end” rather than “means” above, and now I see how you are reading the text - you assume that v.9 and v.10 are separate commands, separate thoughts entirely, why is that? You read it such that God imparts to Isaiah the power to control the people’s hearts, eyes, ears, etc. - why? Perhaps you know other verses in the Bible where God bestows such power upon people? He certainly doesn’t do it with Moses, for Exodus tells us that God commanded Moses to do a thing with his staff and HE (God) would make something happen.
My point holds up because your reading of the text may be mistaken - you read that God tells Isaiah to call down a curse, then that God imparts to him the power to effect the curse. In effect, your reading is “Isaiah, Go call down a curse upon the people! Isaiah, also effect the curse upon the people!” Sorry, but the text doesn’t necessarily read that way. Maybe if it said “And the angel of the Lord said to Isaiah, “Make their hearts stone!””, but instead it says “Go tell the people…” Thus, my point remains unaffected.

Note that when I say the elect “do not” sin on earth, I wasn’t implying that they never sin. Moreover, I realize you are saying that the saints have the possibility to sin in heaven but never do. I have already explained the manifold problems of the position. Besides making heaven a very strict legalistic administration (rather than a paradise), it also guarantees that all will eventually be damned given the infinite duration.

You have not explained any problems with this logic anywhere on this forum. I don’t know who taught you that infinite time implies necessary actualization of all possible events, but they were a pagan and were not using logic, sorry. There is NO causal or other connection between infinite time and actualization of ANY event. Here is an argument similar to yours:
“God is not necessary for creation of the universe, because on an infinite time-span, creation HAD to happen.”
Please support your argument that infinite time or anything else infinite results in actuation of, well, anything other than what already is the case.
ANYONE ELSE on this forum, try to help Confessor01 prove to me that infinite time entails the necessary actuation of all events! I’m pretty good at logic, and no one has ever presented me a logical argument supporting this belief.

 

[Chiral]

Regarding your other points,
(1) Again, I’m not saying that “a given probability has to be perfectly actuated.” If the possibility of sinning is 1/10^100, I’m not saying that given 1/10^100 “time-units” there will be one person who sins. …My point is rather that given any probability whatsoever and an infinite duration, it follows that the possibility must be actualized. This is a very elementary understanding of probability. In other words, given a coin and an infinite number of flips, it is in fact a guarantee that one of those will be tails.
Moreover, the concept that a possibility given infinite time is a necessity is not pagan, because it cannot be connected to infinite universes.

“It’s elementary!” and yet you cannot prove it nor support it, you only restate it as a belief. I am sorry, but you misunderstood “probability” when they taught it to you. Probability does not necessitate any actual event, ever - that is why it is called “probability”. This is proven by induction (note, not supported or suggested - proven): What is the probability that a coin will land “heads” after N flips? 50/50 - at each value N onto infinity, the probability remains 50/50. Now, provide a counterargument, ANYONE!

(2) First, please stop the condescending tone. I don’t appreciate being told, “Don’t worry, you’ll get there.”
Second, you’re changing the subject. First you said that God cannot be regarded as “good” because it’s impossible for Him not to be good. Now you say that He cannot be regarded as “good” in the sense that it would be impossible to judge Him and think that He can possibly be bad.

To form an opinion with regard to a relative term, e.g. good or bad, one makes a judgement - it is part of the thought process. I judge God as good - that’s fine to say, but I cannot logically judge God as “bad” or even “less good” since that implies a contradiction either in God or my understanding of morality, thus my regard for Him as “good” is superfluous, I cannot indeed judge Him but only state the fact. Get it? (I’m really trying to help you here, I don’t mean to be condescending. I don’t know how old you are, but I once thought as you do… then I learned logic. It’s a beast of a tool, man!)

(3) We do not agree at all. You didn’t respond to the quoted section at all. My whole point is that you’re trying to make a distinction where it can’t be done: namely, between a real impossibility and an apparent impossibility. I ask you, What are the criteria to distinguish the real from the merely apparent?

Logic! (keeps coming back to that, doesn’t it?) Real impossibility implies a logical contradiction; apparent impossibility does not, not yet anyway. It seems like a saint in heaven cannot possibly sin, as it might for an Angel, and yet Angels fell (but perhaps you don’t believe this). If it is true that a saint cannot possibly sin in heaven, then I tell you that the saint is not truly free, for “freedom” implies the possibility to choose between A and not-A. However, if a saint can possibly sin and heaven, it is also possible that the saint never actually does, for this admits to logical contradiction (none that you or anyone else can prove).

(4) When I say “God’s will is before mine,” I do in fact mean that it temporally precedes mine: not in the sense that God is constrained by time but nonetheless that my days have been set in stone from creation, even from eternity past. If you agree that God’s willing and man’s willing are themselves causally related, then you would admit that one is a cause and the other an effect, right?

And thus you concede your god is temporal, for we are speaking of an event in which you or I are presently “willing” - God already temporally willed prior to you in the event.
Wills may be causally related in other ways than cause-effect, didn’t I already point that out? This is the core of simultaneity - two related causes, one single effect. I do not say that the wills are equal in potency, only that they act in sufficient unity such that the effect is not caused by one will “willing” another but rather by two wills acting towards one effect free and relatively independent. God’s will sustains my will, but does not control my will. Indeed, in some sense the opposite may be said to be true, but that aspect of philosophy might just blow your mind!
My main point, “Simultaneity” - think on it.

 

[paul_c]

Your original point was that non-elect can say that Jesus is Lord. I explained why your argument was false. Now you want to change the topic to one of justification and basically start an all-out war on the battleground of James 2.

I’m sorry dude, but you have got to stop changing the topic.

I said that the non-elect can say that Jesus is Lord. this was my argument:

1. 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!”

You didn’t address this point at all. Instead you came back with:

1. Calvinists do not say that only the elect can actually utter the words, “Jesus is Lord.” Just as “All who call on the name of the Lord will be saved” implies a heartfelt trust and faith, rather than just a mere speaking of the syllables, so also we say that only the elect can say “Jesus is Lord” in the sense that only they truly place their faith in Christ, not in the sense that only they say the right words.

There are three aspects to saving faith: noticia, awareness of Christ’s own claims about himself; assensus, personal assent to those beliefs; and fiducia, placing trust in Christ. The man you cited has the first two but not the third. Whoever hears the Gospel preached has only the first.

So it was you who changed the topic. I simply extended your line of thinking.

Please don’t poison the well, either.

pointing out that you are arguing semantics rather than pressing for the truth is hardly poisoning the well.

Your point was that people are falling from salvific graces that are mentioned in vv. 4-6. I explained why this is false, because v. 9 implies that the gifts in vv. 4-6 are non-salvific. Now you want to say that the author of Hebrews is trying to argue that salvation can be lost on the grounds that the author urges his readers to persevere?

of course. This is an extension of the same thought. If you must persevere, then obviously your salvation is not assured.

Seriously, stop changing the topic. Anyone can launch a thousand different attacks. But who can have their actual arguments hold up? If you make an argument X, and I refute it, don’t just randomly make another argument Y. That is dishonest. In fact, it would evince that you are just trying to win a debate rather than find truth. It’s really easy to make it look like you win a debate when the other person doesn’t respond to your points – because you make a new point after he refutes all your other ones. Really, this is getting ridiculous.

I’m sorry, but as you can see, I’m not launching any attacks. I’m simply trying to show you the truth. And I could care less if you answer my points. as long as you think about it.

You’re conflating the ontological issue (whether one actually has saving faith) with the epistemological issue (whether one knows he has saving faith); therefore you are committing a fallacy of equivocation.

This is what I said:

You argue with yourself here. If you don’t persevere, you don’t have saving faith so you won’t know you have saving faith unless you persevere.

My point is that claiming you have saving faith is pointless and unfounded, because you will never know it until you die. This is what we teach in Catholicism.

If you assume that everyone, rather than only the elect, has the capability to come to God on their own, then you’re just begging the question. I agree that all who come to Christ will be saved. I also believe that only those who have their hearts regenerated will be able to come to Christ in the first place.

This is a fundamental difference between Catholics and Protestants. You believe that men are predestined to heaven or hell before they are born. We believe that all men can seek God and that if they seek, they will find, if they knock, the door will be open to them.

Please wait for my rebuttals before you think you have refuted me and think that I’m “desperate.” It’s rude.

This isn’t a debate. You are on Catholic Answers Forum. Our role is to give you Catholic Answers. That is what we do.

Furthermore, what I explained immediately totally refutes what you were trying to establish in John 12:32. If no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draw him (v. 44), then divine grace is necessary for salvation; and if Jesus loses none of those whom the Father gives him (v. 44), then divine grace is sufficient for salvation. If your interpretation of John 12:32 were correct, it would mean that God draws everybody, which is flat-out false – for if grace were sufficient and necessary unto salvation, then that means everybody drawn would be saved, which you know is false.

you ignored completely what I said:

Notice that Jesus will not reject any that come to him and that he will not lose anything of what he gave me. This conforms perfectly to Catholic theology. God allows anyone to come to him and he will not reject them. Nor will he lose any that willingly come to him. However, notice it does not say that he will force anyone to come to him or that he will force them to stay with Jesus if they chose otherwise.

God’s grace is necessary and sufficient to be saved. But you can lose that grace through sin. That’s what you are missing. You need to cooperate with that grace.

 

[rtconstant]

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.

I shall try to change the tone of things since it is offending you.

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.

No, indeed we must not believe this. However as you say below it is another topic.

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.

True God could have created a Universe free from the potential for evil if He had desired to do so. It is however, a leap to say that intended evil by allowing its possibility in creation. The problem here is not in God’s capabilities or intent but in a rejection of free will.

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.

And thus arbitrary.

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.

Correct. I meant that those who are not elect or “enemies of God” are only so because, in this paradigm God wills them to be His enemies.

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.

Really isn’t a red herring as it goes to the heart of the matter. So in my view when you’re saying “red herring” I’m seeing a “glossing over”. But you’ve brought up something really gets to the heart of things in my view. You say that a man is “morally responsible for their desires” and yet you also say that God is the reason they have those desires. How are they responsible for actions that were willed upon them to begin with?

(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.

(1) I guess I’m not seeing how that isn’t forcing His love. Please explain.
(2) What question does it beg?

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.

Well that really isn’t an accurate statement of what I’ve addressed to you. My posts were simply statements of the end result of what I’ve seen you write here. Indeed for the most part you have confirmed my understanding, though you object to how I’ve phrased it.

I hope the phrasing of this post will be acceptable.

 

[Confessor01]

now I see how you are reading the text - you assume that v.9 and v.10 are separate commands, separate thoughts entirely, why is that?

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.

You read it such that God imparts to Isaiah the power to control the people’s hearts, eyes, ears, etc. - why? Perhaps you know other verses in the Bible where God bestows such power upon people? He certainly doesn’t do it with Moses, for Exodus tells us that God commanded Moses to do a thing with his staff and HE (God) would make something happen.

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. 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.

Maybe if it said “And the angel of the Lord said to Isaiah, “Make their hearts stone!””, but instead it says “Go tell the people…” Thus, my point remains unaffected.

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.”

You have not explained any problems with this logic anywhere on this forum. I don’t know who taught you that infinite time implies necessary actualization of all possible events, but they were a pagan and were not using logic, sorry. There is NO causal or other connection between infinite time and actualization of ANY event. Here is an argument similar to yours:
“God is not necessary for creation of the universe, because on an infinite time-span, creation HAD to happen.”

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.

Please support your argument that infinite time or anything else infinite results in actuation of, well, anything other than what already is the case.
ANYONE ELSE on this forum, try to help Confessor01 prove to me that infinite time entails the necessary actuation of all events! I’m pretty good at logic, and no one has ever presented me a logical argument supporting this belief.

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.

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.

 

[Confessor01]

To form an opinion with regard to a relative term, e.g. good or bad, one makes a judgement - it is part of the thought process. I judge God as good - that’s fine to say, but I cannot logically judge God as “bad” or even “less good” since that implies a contradiction either in God or my understanding of morality, thus my regard for Him as “good” is superfluous, I cannot indeed judge Him but only state the fact. Get it? (I’m really trying to help you here, I don’t mean to be condescending. I don’t know how old you are, but I once thought as you do… then I learned logic. It’s a beast of a tool, man!)

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

Logic! (keeps coming back to that, doesn’t it?) Real impossibility implies a logical contradiction; apparent impossibility does not, not yet anyway. It seems like a saint in heaven cannot possibly sin, as it might for an Angel, and yet Angels fell (but perhaps you don’t believe this). If it is true that a saint cannot possibly sin in heaven, then I tell you that the saint is not truly free, for “freedom” implies the possibility to choose between A and not-A. However, if a saint can possibly sin and heaven, it is also possible that the saint never actually does, for this admits to logical contradiction (none that you or anyone else can prove).

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?

And thus you concede your god is temporal, for we are speaking of an event in which you or I are presently “willing” - God already temporally willed prior to you in the event.
Wills may be causally related in other ways than cause-effect, didn’t I already point that out? This is the core of simultaneity - two related causes, one single effect. I do not say that the wills are equal in potency, only that they act in sufficient unity such that the effect is not caused by one will “willing” another but rather by two wills acting towards one effect free and relatively independent. God’s will sustains my will, but does not control my will. Indeed, in some sense the opposite may be said to be true, but that aspect of philosophy might just blow your mind!
My main point, “Simultaneity” - think on it.

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?

 

[Confessor01]

I said that the non-elect can say that Jesus is Lord. this was my argument …] You didn’t address this point at all. …] So it was you who changed the topic. I simply extended your line of thinking.

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.

pointing out that you are arguing semantics rather than pressing for the truth is hardly poisoning the well.

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.

of course. This is an extension of the same thought. If you must persevere, then obviously your salvation is not assured.

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.

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.

I’m sorry, but as you can see, I’m not launching any attacks. I’m simply trying to show you the truth. And I could care less if you answer my points. as long as you think about it.

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.

This is what I said:
My point is that claiming you have saving faith is pointless and unfounded, because you will never know it until you die. This is what we teach in Catholicism.

This is a fundamental difference between Catholics and Protestants. You believe that men are predestined to heaven or hell before they are born. We believe that all men can seek God and that if they seek, they will find, if they knock, the door will be open to them.

This isn’t a debate. You are on Catholic Answers Forum. Our role is to give you Catholic Answers. That is what we do.

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.

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.

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.

God’s grace is necessary and sufficient to be saved. But you can lose that grace through sin. That’s what you are missing. You need to cooperate with that grace.

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)?

 

[Confessor01]

(1) I guess I’m not seeing how that isn’t forcing His love. Please explain.
(2) What question does it beg?

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