Catechism rejects predestination

  • Thread starter Thread starter ThunderFox
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

ThunderFox

Guest
why does the catholic catechism reject predestination? “God predestines no one to hell”. Paul writes in Romans that we are predestined.
 
Paul said God predestines “no one”. “No one” is predestined, according to Paul’s words there. You are making a leap that because no one is predestined to hell, that we are necesarily predestined to heaven. But you have no basis upon which to believe that.

But it’s still not quite that simple. First you need to explain what you mean by “predestined”. If you mean that God DESIRES for all to be in heaven, then you share a Catholic belief. If you mean that God has removed our free will to accept/reject Him, you have a non-Biblical belief.
 
“For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.” Romans 8:29,30

meaning we are predestined to heaven && Hell
 
No, meaning we are predestined to be conformed. But where is there any indication that this removes free will? IF we don’t have free will, why in the world did Paul write all those letters (that later became Scripture) rebuking sin and calling Christians back to the faith they were rejecting or takign too lightly? If they are predestined, Paul is wasting his time, is he not?

EAT: By the way, how about you cite teh pertinent Catechism reference you are talking about that “rejects predestination” so we can see that in context also?
 
ahs said:
No, meaning we are predestined to be conformed. But where is there any indication that this removes free will? IF we don’t have free will, why in the world did Paul write all those letters (that later became Scripture) rebuking sin and calling Christians back to the faith they were rejecting or takign too lightly? If they are predestined, Paul is wasting his time, is he not?
Click to expand...
Paul wrote those letters to rebuke correct, but where is there free will in the bible?
 
ThunderFox said:
Paul wrote those letters to rebuke correct, but where is there free will in the bible?
Click to expand...
In case you missed it, I edited my post above to request that you cite the pertinent Catechism reference you are talking about.

So, free will in the Bible: You already acknowledged that Paul wrote to rebuke/correct. Why was he correcting them? Was it because they were sinning by their own free will, or were they sinning because God predestined them to sin?

If God predestined them to sin, why are they being corrected when they are just doing what God predestined them to do? It makes no sense.
 
“God predestines no one to go to hell;620 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance””

as you can see saying “predestines no one to hell”

rejects Gods vessels of Mercy & Vessels of Wrath.
 
ThunderFox said:
“God predestines no one to go to hell;620 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance””
Click to expand...
What paragrpah in the Catechism is that? I’d like to read the surrounding text for context.
as you can see saying “predestines no one to hell”
Click to expand...
rejects Gods vessels of Mercy & Vessels of Wrath.
Click to expand...
How does it reject God’s vessels of Mercy and Wrath? Looks to me that it brings them more to teh forefront. How can God pour out a vessel of Mercy upon anyone if they are not in need of His mercy [they are predestined and therefore have no need of it]? Your idea of predestination [if you believe it means we have no free will] necessarily rejects both those vessels, because it makes them obsolete, right?

ETA: In my first post I mistook the quote you provided for Paul’s words, hence my initial response. That doesn’t change the Catholic Truth…just wanted to clarify and use that as a good example why it is important to cite quotations…
 
Okay, I looked it up on your behalf. It is CCC paragraph 1037 and it’s proper context can be understood in the text around it:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2O.HTM

Pay attention to the references and look them up.

Also, keep in mind this quote from Jesus:
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.” (Mt 23:37)

What is Christ talking about there? What is this talk of them being “unwilling”? Weren’t they predestined, and therefore had no free will? Why would Christ lament His desire to gather them if He has already predestined them to reject Him? It makes no sense when you try to equate “predestine” as Paul uses it with “no free will”.

ETA: And to throw another kink in your philosophy, Israel was “the natural branch”…God’s chosen…the only group in the OT that was “predestined” to be God’s people. What happened to them? They were “cut off”. Are they cut off forever?? Not acording to Paul who said they could be “grafted in again”. (see Romans 11:19-23 ) How does that fit into your view of predestination without free will?? It doesn’t.

This idea of predestination to the extent of having no free will fits right into “once saved always saved” but with a further disclaimer of “only for those pre-chosen”. That is a false doctrine of man. I wrote an article on it:
daves-ahumbleservant.blogspot.com/
 
ahs said:
No, meaning we are predestined to be conformed. But where is there any indication that this removes free will? IF we don’t have free will, why in the world did Paul write all those letters (that later became Scripture) rebuking sin and calling Christians back to the faith they were rejecting or takign too lightly? If they are predestined, Paul is wasting his time, is he not?

EAT: By the way, how about you cite teh pertinent Catechism reference you are talking about that “rejects predestination” so we can see that in context also?
Click to expand...
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a3.htm Scroll down to 1731-1736.
 
ThunderFox said:
as you can see saying “predestines no one to hell”

rejects Gods vessels of Mercy & Vessels of Wrath.
Click to expand...
That text does not state that God predestines people to hell. If I may share an older post on this matter of Romans 8-9ff:
MarcoPolo said:
In addition to other good posts… 🙂

An understanding of the passage regarding Jacob and Esau I find compelling is this: To recognize Paul’s use of Jacob and Esau as avatars for Israel and Christians; Esau corresponding to Israel (the elder child) and Jacob corresponding to Christians (the younger). In the story of Jacob and Esau, Esau was the elder, and thus the one due to receive the elder’s inheritance according to the law - yet Jacob, even though the younger, ends up getting the inheritance. In the same way, it is by way of the younger “Christian” that the “inheritance” of eternal life is acquired—through the path of the younger that salvation is attained. Thus, when Paul says God eudured the “vessels of destruction”, that is in reference to the unsaving tenets of the Old Law, for these do not lead to salvation. He is not saying that God created Esau for the purpose of sending him to hell - an idea that is not articulated in the text. We can recognize that Paul is concentrating on the two covenants he is continually comparing the two throughout the book, including through chapters 8-9. God’s emotion is anthropomorphized in Paul’s text, saying that God “hated Esau” - meaning God rejects the inheritance of the elder, the Old Law. And the “elder shall serve the younger,” in that the Old Testament ultimately points to the New Testament, leading the way to salvation through Christ, forfeiting it’s laws which are fulfilled in Christ. God’s “purpose of election” is demonstrated as something not confined to the Old Law; God is not obligated to exclude the “younger” from the inheritance as would the Old Law have demanded.

Again, regarding v. 20-23, the contrast between vessels of destruction and of mercy are, again, the Old Law and the New Law. You know how Paul contrasted the 2 covenants at the end of Galatians 4 regarding Sarah and Hagar (v. 24 “Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants.”) and he goes on to describe how the 2 women parallel the 2 covenants—well, we have the same idea here with Jacob and Esau. Just because Paul is citing specific OT individuals, it doesn’t mean he’s teaching something specifically about those individuals - rather he teaches by way of what their lives represent. You see, Catholics, and Paul explicitly in Galatians 4, read Scripture in part with a typological eye. Typological interpretation seems forbidden by Calvinistic thought on Romans 9, which instead imposes on the text certain limits which are unnecessary and improper. So we look at the context of Romans 9, and see how Paul is already setting up Israel as the character of Esau when he says in v. 4: “They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship…” That is what was due to Esau according to OT law - the father’s blessing as the elder son. But in the story of Jacob and Esau, Jacob ends up getting the blessing - the sign that Christianity - though it came along second, is the blessed one, the vessel receiving mercy. The whole passage ties together when you see the analogs of the old and new covenants in Esau and Jacob.

This is in fact what is stated in the Navarre Bible commentary on Romans and Galatians which states:*These examples [like Jacob and Esau] taken from sacred history help the Apostle explain to the Jews why they should not be surprised to see the Gentiles being called to the faith.*See also the following by Cardinal Journet on grace and keyword search “Esau” also.
Click to expand...
 
The issue of predestination and free will is a thorny one, and many of Christendom’s best theologians have wrestled with it.

It is true that God is omniscient, and therefore has foreknowledge of all our actions. He wills all men to be saved (1 Tim 2), and none can come to Him without his willing it (John 6), but not all men accept the free offer of His grace (Romans 9-11, various passages in the Gospels.) However, none of this means that anyone is predestined to damnation. Damnation (i.e., eternal separation from God in Hell) is a choice that we make; God’s intended destiny for us is salvation through Christ.

Romans 9 should never be used as an isolated proof-text to argue in favour of double predestination (as the Calvinists and Hyper-Calvinists do.) Double predestination (“God chooses some to be saved, and others to be damned, and you can’t do anything about it”) is a lie and a heresy, taught by John Calvin and rejected by the Catholic Church. Romans 9 is about the place of Israel in God’s plan of salvation, and should be read in the light of the other Pauline letters, the Gospels, and Romans 10-11, which ends with the following: “God has imprisoned all men in disobedience, that he might have mercy on all.” 👍
 
21 “But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22 None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

24 “But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will die.

25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26 If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin, they will die for it; because of the sin they have committed they will die. 27 But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life. 28 Because they consider all the offenses they have committed and turn away from them, that person will surely live; they will not die. 29 Yet the Israelites say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Are my ways unjust, people of Israel? Is it not your ways that are unjust?

Ezekiel 18
 
ThunderFox said:
proverbs 16:4 says God creates people for destruction
Click to expand...
Of course he does because mankind elected, through disobedience, to become disordered.

Therefore people die. The soul however, was created for immortality, never to be destroyed.
 
The catechism does not reject predestination–only predestination to hell.

Certainly there are Scripture passages which, taken by themselves, appear to say that God predestines people to hell–but there are others which say that God desires the salvation of all and has no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

The Catholic Church essentially agrees with the saying of Spurgeon: that if we are saved, we are saved by God’s grace, and if we are damned, we are damned by our own fault. How that works is something on which Catholic theologians, like Protestants, are of different minds. (And yes, I know that Spurgeon thought people were predestined to hell! The point is that he did acknowledge a basic asymmetry between the two, as all the healthier Calvinists have.)

Edwin
 
so it comes down to this logic? God knows who will be saved in the future but dosent actually predestine us? Since he desires everyone to be saved, and takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top