J
Juxtaposer
Guest
Could someone please explain the difference between Calvinistic predestination and the predestination that some Catholics believe in?
Thanks
Thanks
- Status
1
1ke
Guest
Can you clarify what you mean by “the predestination some Catholics believe in”?
The Catholic Church does not teach predestination, therefore any Catholic subscribing to such a doctrine would be in error.
T
The_Augustinian
Guest
While the Church does not teach the Calvinist view of predestination, it most definitely does teach predestination. The exact view of predestination is not certain; it is a theologoumena. However, that God predestined certain men to eternal life is a de fide dogma of the Catholic Church according to Ott.
Two main schools of predestination in Catholic theology are the Thomist and the Molinist schools. The Thomists stress the importance of grace, and the Molinists put a greater importance on free will. However, both groups believe in the sovereignty of God, His grace, and free will.
For more information on Catholic theology concerning predestination please visit Dave Armstrong’s site here %between%or the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article here.
AMDG,
The Augustinian
1
1ke
Guest
The Augustinian:
I would refer the inquiring person to the Catechism sections on Grace and Justification, which does not use the term “predestination” at all, but does accurately teach the relationship of Grace and Free Will.
T
The_Augustinian
Guest
From the Catechism:
In Christ,
The Augustinian
G
Greg_McPherran
Guest
Hello Juxtaposer,
Augustinian and Juxtaposer are correct. Because predestination is often associated with Protestants and being “saved”, many Catholics are not aware that Predestination is a Catholic-approved theological position.
To answer Juxtaposer’s question, the Catholic teaching does not allow for predestination to hell (as does Calvin), only to heaven. However, it’s very strange, because the document I read, seems to say that for all practical purposes, predestination to hell is a reality but we fall short of saying that God actually wills or desires hell for any human.
The document also admits that there are still many unresolved doubts regarding free will and predestination.
These questions happen to be of great philosophical interest to me and I am studying and contemplating deeply on them. My interest is probably due to my desire to understand God and the true nature of our relationship with Him.
I welcome those who can clarify my understanding of Catholic predestination.
Greg
Augustinian and Juxtaposer are correct. Because predestination is often associated with Protestants and being “saved”, many Catholics are not aware that Predestination is a Catholic-approved theological position.
To answer Juxtaposer’s question, the Catholic teaching does not allow for predestination to hell (as does Calvin), only to heaven. However, it’s very strange, because the document I read, seems to say that for all practical purposes, predestination to hell is a reality but we fall short of saying that God actually wills or desires hell for any human.
The document also admits that there are still many unresolved doubts regarding free will and predestination.
These questions happen to be of great philosophical interest to me and I am studying and contemplating deeply on them. My interest is probably due to my desire to understand God and the true nature of our relationship with Him.
I welcome those who can clarify my understanding of Catholic predestination.
Greg
P
Pax
Guest
Calvin taught double predestination whereby some are saved and some are damned from all eternity. Catholic teaching on predestination does not include double predestination. The Catholic Church says that some of the elect are predestined for heaven but it does not teach that God predestines anyone to hell.
This is best understood by understanding the nature of grace. The most important thing to remember is that God desires that all men be saved. This is made clear by the following verses of scripture:
1 Tim 2:3-4
This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1 Tim 4:10
For to this end we toil and struggle, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.
John 2:2
and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
Rom 11:32
For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.
Sufficient grace is given to every man to be saved, but not all men will accept Christ. Intrinsically efficacious grace is given to those that God calls and predestines for salvation. Efficacious grace does not force a man to do God’s will, but in its nature and abundance “enables” man to desire to do God’s will in such a way that he will accomplish what God wills for him. That is why the apostle Paul tells us in 2 Cor 3:5-6, “Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God.” Then in Eph 3:20, Paul says, “Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.”
This is best understood by understanding the nature of grace. The most important thing to remember is that God desires that all men be saved. This is made clear by the following verses of scripture:
1 Tim 2:3-4
This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1 Tim 4:10
For to this end we toil and struggle, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.
John 2:2
and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
Rom 11:32
For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.
Sufficient grace is given to every man to be saved, but not all men will accept Christ. Intrinsically efficacious grace is given to those that God calls and predestines for salvation. Efficacious grace does not force a man to do God’s will, but in its nature and abundance “enables” man to desire to do God’s will in such a way that he will accomplish what God wills for him. That is why the apostle Paul tells us in 2 Cor 3:5-6, “Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God.” Then in Eph 3:20, Paul says, “Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.”
G
Greg_McPherran
Guest
This is where I have a real problem. My thought is: by definition, if you don’t accept Christ, then the grace was certainly not sufficient.
P
Pax
Guest
If God desires that all men be saved, then God will provide the means for their salvation. He will give them the necessary grace because He is loving and merciful. God’s grace does not force us. He has given us the great gift of free will and He will not take it from us. If we did not have free will, we would not be human.
Peter Kreeft in his book The Handbook of Christian Apologetics, describes the problem you are encountering in something like the following. Kreeft says that God gives just enough light so that those who seek him will find Him. This light, however, is not so bright that God is obvious to everyone. Instead, the amount of light is low enough that it allows those that adamantly refuse to believe to have their way. If this were not the case, and God was patently obvious, then there would be no need for faith.
If we had no choice and could not reject God then we would not be “free” to love God either. We would be spiritual automatons and our relationship with God would be more like that of a man to a machine.
I hope this helps, and I apologize to Peter Kreeft for not doing justice to his insights.
Peter Kreeft in his book The Handbook of Christian Apologetics, describes the problem you are encountering in something like the following. Kreeft says that God gives just enough light so that those who seek him will find Him. This light, however, is not so bright that God is obvious to everyone. Instead, the amount of light is low enough that it allows those that adamantly refuse to believe to have their way. If this were not the case, and God was patently obvious, then there would be no need for faith.
If we had no choice and could not reject God then we would not be “free” to love God either. We would be spiritual automatons and our relationship with God would be more like that of a man to a machine.
I hope this helps, and I apologize to Peter Kreeft for not doing justice to his insights.
G
Greg_McPherran
Guest
Oh oh Pax, here we go again 
Pax:
We can’t even ask God to love Him without some grace that we didn’t ask for and was forced on us anyway, true?
All initial grace is forced on us, is it not?
Our human lives were a gift from God that we had no choice but to accept, yet we are not unhappy that God gave them to us. Why is his love any different? If we love God, it is really only His love anyway, right? So why can’t He force us, if the love we give Him is His love anyway?
We can’t even ask God to love Him without some grace that we didn’t ask for and was forced on us anyway, true?
All initial grace is forced on us, is it not?
J
jeffreedy789
Guest
ya, i think the main reason you won’t find alot of catechetical info on predestination is because it’s so Biblical. it’s not necessary to expound on something that the Bible so obviously endorses. there is far more Biblical support for predestination than free will.
here is the difference, as stated above, and a brief explanation how it works:
calvinistic predestination says that God predestines some to heaven, some to hell.
Biblical, and therefore Catholic, predestination, says that God predestines some to heaven, but that are all able, though free will, to be saved. in other words, there are some who are predestined, and will be saved, period. others CAN be saved but perhaps will NOT be saved.
seems unfair, in that He COULD just predestine ALL of us to be saved. but that’s where so many stories and teachings come in. who is the clay to say to the potter what it’s used for? why should the workers who worked all day complain that they’re paid the same as those who worked one hour? and, i think most important, we are all condemned already to damnation, and He saves us from that. in other words, we all deserve hell. so saving some from it is a grace that no one can complain about. see john 3 for more about that.
here is the difference, as stated above, and a brief explanation how it works:
calvinistic predestination says that God predestines some to heaven, some to hell.
Biblical, and therefore Catholic, predestination, says that God predestines some to heaven, but that are all able, though free will, to be saved. in other words, there are some who are predestined, and will be saved, period. others CAN be saved but perhaps will NOT be saved.
seems unfair, in that He COULD just predestine ALL of us to be saved. but that’s where so many stories and teachings come in. who is the clay to say to the potter what it’s used for? why should the workers who worked all day complain that they’re paid the same as those who worked one hour? and, i think most important, we are all condemned already to damnation, and He saves us from that. in other words, we all deserve hell. so saving some from it is a grace that no one can complain about. see john 3 for more about that.
G
Greg_McPherran
Guest
jeffreedy you have amazing insight. These are the very questions that I ponder. You have expressed the mystery very well.
J
Jeff_B
Guest
There’s always been a struggle, no matter one’s definition
of Pre-destination, between that of Pre-destination and
Free will. The problem starts by the equating of predestination
with pre-determination. In other words, deciding the outcome
ahead of time.
I have a sense that a solution lies somewhere within under-
standing the nature of eternity, and of the eternal nature of God.
In the early school days of learning mathematics,
we learned about inifinity. The sequence of numbers, i.e.,
endlessly increasing both in a positve direction, and also
the same in the negative (minus integers).
(now stay with me on this one)
Often, when children, and even adults, for that matter
ask about God’s existence, having no beginning, no end, etc.,
knowing our life and all our circumstances before we were
even born. How is that possible? I would try to use the analogy of
a fruit fly. A fruit fly’s life span is 24 hours. I could sit an observe,
in a jar, (I don’t know if that were possible for a fruit fly to survive
in a jar, I just used that for an illustration), the birth and death,
and even multiplication of that fruit fly, and other flies. And over
a period of days, I’d see many generations pass, and I could
then say, in that short period of my own life, I’ve seen the complete lives of many entire generations of fruit flies. I could
therefore, if it were possible to go back in time, tell that fruit fly
details of it’s life.
This doesn’ yet explain predestination, but in trying to
illustrate God’s infinite existance, it would give something to
grasp. The actual problem with that illustration, is that it is
still linear.
Time is relative, right? A day on earth, is way shorter than
say, a day on Jupiter, and, probably a better illustration, a year
on earth is shorter than a year on Jupiter, which is farther from
the sun, and has a longer oribit to complete one rotation around
the sun.
So, even better still, the illustration of Time relativity, and I could
go onwards to light travel, itself.
All this can only touch on the longevity of God’s nature.
Applying the concept of infiniteness can explain how God
knows the very end of the age, and other events, which He
can give through inspiration to be written down, and spoken
through prophecy.
All well and good–this can be enough for some people,
and they wouldn’t need or care to know any more.
It’s still LINEAR. What I’m getting at, is that God, being entenal,
goes beyond that and is completely outside of time. He doesn’t
have to jump -into- time, as I would have to, to talk to that fruit fly
and tell him it’s future. In that sense, God ended the world, as we
know it, at the same instance that He created it, from His standpoint, simply because there is no linear time.
of Pre-destination, between that of Pre-destination and
Free will. The problem starts by the equating of predestination
with pre-determination. In other words, deciding the outcome
ahead of time.
I have a sense that a solution lies somewhere within under-
standing the nature of eternity, and of the eternal nature of God.
In the early school days of learning mathematics,
we learned about inifinity. The sequence of numbers, i.e.,
endlessly increasing both in a positve direction, and also
the same in the negative (minus integers).
(now stay with me on this one)
Often, when children, and even adults, for that matter
ask about God’s existence, having no beginning, no end, etc.,
knowing our life and all our circumstances before we were
even born. How is that possible? I would try to use the analogy of
a fruit fly. A fruit fly’s life span is 24 hours. I could sit an observe,
in a jar, (I don’t know if that were possible for a fruit fly to survive
in a jar, I just used that for an illustration), the birth and death,
and even multiplication of that fruit fly, and other flies. And over
a period of days, I’d see many generations pass, and I could
then say, in that short period of my own life, I’ve seen the complete lives of many entire generations of fruit flies. I could
therefore, if it were possible to go back in time, tell that fruit fly
details of it’s life.
This doesn’ yet explain predestination, but in trying to
illustrate God’s infinite existance, it would give something to
grasp. The actual problem with that illustration, is that it is
still linear.
Time is relative, right? A day on earth, is way shorter than
say, a day on Jupiter, and, probably a better illustration, a year
on earth is shorter than a year on Jupiter, which is farther from
the sun, and has a longer oribit to complete one rotation around
the sun.
So, even better still, the illustration of Time relativity, and I could
go onwards to light travel, itself.
All this can only touch on the longevity of God’s nature.
Applying the concept of infiniteness can explain how God
knows the very end of the age, and other events, which He
can give through inspiration to be written down, and spoken
through prophecy.
All well and good–this can be enough for some people,
and they wouldn’t need or care to know any more.
It’s still LINEAR. What I’m getting at, is that God, being entenal,
goes beyond that and is completely outside of time. He doesn’t
have to jump -into- time, as I would have to, to talk to that fruit fly
and tell him it’s future. In that sense, God ended the world, as we
know it, at the same instance that He created it, from His standpoint, simply because there is no linear time.
J
Jeff_B
Guest
Peter’s phrase of a day being a thousand years, and a thousand years being a day, then is at best hyperbole, and like my fruit
fly illustration, can only touch on this deeper meaning.
It is in this concept-somewhere- that the intent of the word, predestination lies.I would guess that we were predestined, in the sense that God already knew before we did what our choices would be. The same way that He knew that Satan would be defeated and bound, the same way that He ‘predestined’ that He, the Father, would send His Son to die for our sins. I doubt, whether in a single or double ‘Predestination", that He decided, ahead of time, to create some that would be saved or condemned, and also give humans, or ’ the rest of them’, free will,
free choice. So I think, if anything we are at least a little bit limited
within the constraints of language. It probably is similar to
another instance where someone asked about the “old Testament” God who hardened the hearts of Pharaoh.
I heard this great analogy where when wax is exposed to the sun,
it will melt, but clay when expsed will harden. In other words
it was the response of Pharaoh, because of the type of person he was. However it was written that God had “hardened” his heart.
Another subject, yes, but I think the same principle—if there is
a principle!- might apply.
The problem, then is getting too hung up in the relative minutiae
of the word Predestination (tree), and missing the vastly bigger point of our being called by God to be a part of His Kingdom (forest). But I guess that’s why there were, and are Theologians.
Then again, there are the simple servants who go out and do
the works that God had “predestined” for them, rather than
get hung up in these type of issues and debates that
often rise up to the level of schisms, and worse.
I myself am a fruit fly compared to a Dave Armstrong,
but this is my thought on it, and sorry it’s so long.
In Christ,
Jeff
fly illustration, can only touch on this deeper meaning.
It is in this concept-somewhere- that the intent of the word, predestination lies.I would guess that we were predestined, in the sense that God already knew before we did what our choices would be. The same way that He knew that Satan would be defeated and bound, the same way that He ‘predestined’ that He, the Father, would send His Son to die for our sins. I doubt, whether in a single or double ‘Predestination", that He decided, ahead of time, to create some that would be saved or condemned, and also give humans, or ’ the rest of them’, free will,
free choice. So I think, if anything we are at least a little bit limited
within the constraints of language. It probably is similar to
another instance where someone asked about the “old Testament” God who hardened the hearts of Pharaoh.
I heard this great analogy where when wax is exposed to the sun,
it will melt, but clay when expsed will harden. In other words
it was the response of Pharaoh, because of the type of person he was. However it was written that God had “hardened” his heart.
Another subject, yes, but I think the same principle—if there is
a principle!- might apply.
The problem, then is getting too hung up in the relative minutiae
of the word Predestination (tree), and missing the vastly bigger point of our being called by God to be a part of His Kingdom (forest). But I guess that’s why there were, and are Theologians.
Then again, there are the simple servants who go out and do
the works that God had “predestined” for them, rather than
get hung up in these type of issues and debates that
often rise up to the level of schisms, and worse.
I myself am a fruit fly compared to a Dave Armstrong,
but this is my thought on it, and sorry it’s so long.
In Christ,
Jeff
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
<<This is where I have a real problem. My thought is: by definition, if you don’t accept Christ, then the grace was certainly not sufficient.>>
Greg, if I understand you correctly, you think that if any man does not accept Christ, then “the grace” was not “sufficient for him.”
If that is the case, I offer this analogy:
God gives a man “sufficient” food for him to eat. The man, for whatever reason, chooses NOT to eat that food, and dies of hunger.
Did God not offer this man “sufficiency”?
Yes, He did.
Did the man choose not to AVAIL himself of the sufficiency?
Yes, the man chose not to avail himself of the sufficiency.
Just so, since we have free will, we are all given freely, by God’s grace, the “sufficiency” to choose Him, to choose eternal life–or not. Our choice.
I like the way C. S. Lewis put it, in “The Great Divorce”–at the end of time, there will be only two groups of people–those who have said to God, “Thy will be done”, and those to whom God will say, “THY will be done.”
Greg, if I understand you correctly, you think that if any man does not accept Christ, then “the grace” was not “sufficient for him.”
If that is the case, I offer this analogy:
God gives a man “sufficient” food for him to eat. The man, for whatever reason, chooses NOT to eat that food, and dies of hunger.
Did God not offer this man “sufficiency”?
Yes, He did.
Did the man choose not to AVAIL himself of the sufficiency?
Yes, the man chose not to avail himself of the sufficiency.
Just so, since we have free will, we are all given freely, by God’s grace, the “sufficiency” to choose Him, to choose eternal life–or not. Our choice.
I like the way C. S. Lewis put it, in “The Great Divorce”–at the end of time, there will be only two groups of people–those who have said to God, “Thy will be done”, and those to whom God will say, “THY will be done.”
I
II_Paradox_II
Guest
You may want to read a few things:
- get a copy of “Predestination” by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange. It’s a decidedly Thomistic history of the doctrine of predestination (Though don’t expect it to be entirely objective because it isn’t, though it is very thorough and presents it’s case strongly). There is also a book by Fr. Most (though I can’t remember the title) that presents a more free-will freindly case than Fr. G-L’s.
- Read through newadvent.org/summa/102300.htm this section of the Summa. Though Thomas represents only one particular stream of Catholic thought (and I would argue, not even a dominant one), it’ll give you quite a bit to think about and challenge your presuppositions about the issue.
P
Philthy
Guest
JuxtaposerCould someone please explain the difference between Calvinistic predestination and the predestination that some Catholics believe in?
Hi juxtaposer. You’ve asked what appears to be a simple question to what is actually a fairly complex topic. A very straightforward answer to your question is provided by James Akin in his article, A Tiptoe Through TULIP, which appeared in the September issue of This Rock Magazine in 1993. Any quotes I provide are coming from this source which you can download from the Catholic Answers homepage. The Calvinist concept of predestination is based on several underlying theological premises:
Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistable Grace
Preserverance of the Saints
I think it would be a breach of thread protocol to go into each topic at length - so I’ll leave you with some tidbits and you can pursue more directly from the article.
“All Christian churches believe in some form of predestination, because the Bible uses the term. In Protestant circles there are 2 main camps when it comes to predestination: Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinists claim God predestines people by choosing which individuals will accept his offer of salvation…known as the “elect”. They are not saved against their will. It is because God has chosen them that they will desire to come to him in the first place. Those who are not among the elect,the “reprobate”, will not desire to come to God, will not do so, and thus will not be saved.”
**Total Depravity **- Calvinists and Catholics are united theologically: “free will has been injured by original sin to the point that, unless God gives us special grace, we cannot free ourselves from sin and choose to serve God in love.” In the absence of God’s grace we are totally deproved!
Unconditional Election - "means God does not base his choice (election) of certain individuals on anything other than his own good will. The ones God chooses will desire to come to him, will accept his offer of salvation, and will do so precisely because he has chosen them. Catholics are “free to disagree, but also…free to agree.” In Catholic theology, however, acceptance of this doctrine does **not **allow for infering that “in addition to electing some people to salvation Bod also sends others to damnation.”
**Limited Atonement - **“Calvinists believe the atonement is limited, that Christ offered it for some men but not for all.” Catholic theology is that Christ’s atonement was for all men, but not all accept it. "This is not to say there is no sense in which limitation may be ascribed to the atonement. While the grace it provided is sufficient to pay of the sins of all men, this grace is not made efficacious (put into effect) in the case of everyone. While a Catholic could **not **say that the atonement was limited in that it was made only for the elect, he could say that the atonement was limited in that God only intended it to be made efficacious for the elect(although he intended it to be sufficient for all). Safe to say this argument will never be resolved!
Continued on next post…
Hi juxtaposer. You’ve asked what appears to be a simple question to what is actually a fairly complex topic. A very straightforward answer to your question is provided by James Akin in his article, A Tiptoe Through TULIP, which appeared in the September issue of This Rock Magazine in 1993. Any quotes I provide are coming from this source which you can download from the Catholic Answers homepage. The Calvinist concept of predestination is based on several underlying theological premises:
Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistable Grace
Preserverance of the Saints
I think it would be a breach of thread protocol to go into each topic at length - so I’ll leave you with some tidbits and you can pursue more directly from the article.
“All Christian churches believe in some form of predestination, because the Bible uses the term. In Protestant circles there are 2 main camps when it comes to predestination: Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinists claim God predestines people by choosing which individuals will accept his offer of salvation…known as the “elect”. They are not saved against their will. It is because God has chosen them that they will desire to come to him in the first place. Those who are not among the elect,the “reprobate”, will not desire to come to God, will not do so, and thus will not be saved.”
**Total Depravity **- Calvinists and Catholics are united theologically: “free will has been injured by original sin to the point that, unless God gives us special grace, we cannot free ourselves from sin and choose to serve God in love.” In the absence of God’s grace we are totally deproved!
Unconditional Election - "means God does not base his choice (election) of certain individuals on anything other than his own good will. The ones God chooses will desire to come to him, will accept his offer of salvation, and will do so precisely because he has chosen them. Catholics are “free to disagree, but also…free to agree.” In Catholic theology, however, acceptance of this doctrine does **not **allow for infering that “in addition to electing some people to salvation Bod also sends others to damnation.”
**Limited Atonement - **“Calvinists believe the atonement is limited, that Christ offered it for some men but not for all.” Catholic theology is that Christ’s atonement was for all men, but not all accept it. "This is not to say there is no sense in which limitation may be ascribed to the atonement. While the grace it provided is sufficient to pay of the sins of all men, this grace is not made efficacious (put into effect) in the case of everyone. While a Catholic could **not **say that the atonement was limited in that it was made only for the elect, he could say that the atonement was limited in that God only intended it to be made efficacious for the elect(although he intended it to be sufficient for all). Safe to say this argument will never be resolved!
Continued on next post…
P
Philthy
Guest
**As promised…
Irrisistible Grace** - “Calvinists teach that when God gives a person the grace that enables him to come to salvation, the person always responds and never rejects this grace. The idea is that God’s enabling grace is intrinsically efficacious, so it always produces salvation.” Catholics can believe that grace is either intrinsically efficacious(Thomists) or that “God’s enabling grace is only sufficient and is made efficacious by man’s free choice…”(Molinists) ie externally efficacious.
Perserverance of the Saints - Calvinists teach that if a person enters a state of grace he will never leave it but will persevere to the end of life…so their salvation is eternally secure. Calvinists assume perseverance of the saints is entailed by the idea of predestination. If one is predestined to be saved, does it not follow he must persevere to the end? This involves a confusion about what people are predestined to: Is it…initial salvation or final salvation? The two are not the same. …predestination to initial salvation does not entail predestination to final salvation. There is no reason why a person cannot be predestined to “believe for a while” but “in time of temptation fall away” (Luke 8:13). My personal favorite in support of this concept is Hebrews 12-3: “Beloved, I urge you … to keep away from worldly desires which wage war against the soul.” Does such a statement make any sense if our salvation is secure? “A Catholic must affirm that there are people who experience initial salvation and who do not go on to final salvation…” but it should be added that Catholics also hold that some are given a special grace which allows them to persevere until the end - this is known as the “gift of final perseverance”. So in the end the difference is one of quantity: Calvinists believe all who recieve God’s gift of initial salvation are also predestined to eternal salvation. Catholics believe that **some **who receive initial salvation also receive the special gift of final perseverance which predestines them for eternal salvation but that others recieve the gift of initial salvation without being predestined to eternal salvation ie they may lose the “war” agaist “worldly desires”.
Irrisistible Grace** - “Calvinists teach that when God gives a person the grace that enables him to come to salvation, the person always responds and never rejects this grace. The idea is that God’s enabling grace is intrinsically efficacious, so it always produces salvation.” Catholics can believe that grace is either intrinsically efficacious(Thomists) or that “God’s enabling grace is only sufficient and is made efficacious by man’s free choice…”(Molinists) ie externally efficacious.
Perserverance of the Saints - Calvinists teach that if a person enters a state of grace he will never leave it but will persevere to the end of life…so their salvation is eternally secure. Calvinists assume perseverance of the saints is entailed by the idea of predestination. If one is predestined to be saved, does it not follow he must persevere to the end? This involves a confusion about what people are predestined to: Is it…initial salvation or final salvation? The two are not the same. …predestination to initial salvation does not entail predestination to final salvation. There is no reason why a person cannot be predestined to “believe for a while” but “in time of temptation fall away” (Luke 8:13). My personal favorite in support of this concept is Hebrews 12-3: “Beloved, I urge you … to keep away from worldly desires which wage war against the soul.” Does such a statement make any sense if our salvation is secure? “A Catholic must affirm that there are people who experience initial salvation and who do not go on to final salvation…” but it should be added that Catholics also hold that some are given a special grace which allows them to persevere until the end - this is known as the “gift of final perseverance”. So in the end the difference is one of quantity: Calvinists believe all who recieve God’s gift of initial salvation are also predestined to eternal salvation. Catholics believe that **some **who receive initial salvation also receive the special gift of final perseverance which predestines them for eternal salvation but that others recieve the gift of initial salvation without being predestined to eternal salvation ie they may lose the “war” agaist “worldly desires”.
P
Philthy
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pax
Sufficient grace is given to every man to be saved, but not all men will accept Christ.
“This is where I have a real problem. My thought is: by definition, if you don’t accept Christ, then the grace was certainly not sufficient.” Greg_McPherran
Greg - you are confusing sufficiency and efficacy. God does give everyone sufficient grace (ie we all get enough) but the question becomes what do we do with the grace that we recieve? If we cooperate with it and allow it to manifest itself then we continue on the path to salvation. If we are poor stewards of the grace we’ve recieved and “bury it” (like in the parable of the talents) we head in a different direction. Your view is attempting to limit the responsibility of the individual in accepting the grace given to him by God. Some may misinterpret my statement as believing that “salvation comes from my works” when in fact, what I’ve said is that by God’s Grace alone I was given the capability of doing good in His sight, and that of my own free will I chose to actually do it. I think He likes that. “Whoever has my commands and observes them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father and I will love him and reveal myself to him” John 14:21
Originally Posted by Pax
Sufficient grace is given to every man to be saved, but not all men will accept Christ.
“This is where I have a real problem. My thought is: by definition, if you don’t accept Christ, then the grace was certainly not sufficient.” Greg_McPherran
Greg - you are confusing sufficiency and efficacy. God does give everyone sufficient grace (ie we all get enough) but the question becomes what do we do with the grace that we recieve? If we cooperate with it and allow it to manifest itself then we continue on the path to salvation. If we are poor stewards of the grace we’ve recieved and “bury it” (like in the parable of the talents) we head in a different direction. Your view is attempting to limit the responsibility of the individual in accepting the grace given to him by God. Some may misinterpret my statement as believing that “salvation comes from my works” when in fact, what I’ve said is that by God’s Grace alone I was given the capability of doing good in His sight, and that of my own free will I chose to actually do it. I think He likes that. “Whoever has my commands and observes them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father and I will love him and reveal myself to him” John 14:21
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Greg,
God could most certainly force us to love him. But where’s the joy in such a “love?” Do you have children? Have you ever forced one to say “I’m sorry” to the other? It’s not quite the same as when they say they are sorry on their own, is it?
God could most certainly force us to love him. But where’s the joy in such a “love?” Do you have children? Have you ever forced one to say “I’m sorry” to the other? It’s not quite the same as when they say they are sorry on their own, is it?
- Status