Catholic Predestination

[itsjustdave1988]

I suggest that predestination to grace is a different sort of predestination than predestination to glory. Sometimes people often think of them as the same thing, and I don’t think that proposition is either Biblically or Traditionally supportable.

Even St. Augustine taught that those given the gift of faith may not have received the gift of final perseverance. (Yet, Calvinists think of St. Augustine as some sort of proto-Calvinist ) St. Paul also asserts that not all Christians receive the same gifts.

Why doesn’t God give everybody the same gifts? Why doesn’t God give the gift of faith together with the gift of final perseverance? I dunno. However, it is clear from Scripture and Tradition and reason, that He does not.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Tantum ergo:

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.

Hello Tantum and Thank You,

Yes, I understand. What people fail to see in my questions is that to choose to AVAIL of the sufficiency, I think would also require grace.

Consider this. A person is not predestined to heaven. What purpose was it to offer grace, if he was never predestined to heaven anyway? Jesus said do not cast your pearls before swine. Why would God offer grace to someone who was not predestined to heaven?

My questions here are not meant to deny grace and the Catholic truth as taught. My questions here show the failure ot these analogies (frequently given) to address the mysteries of the depths of grace in light of predestination. My long conversations with Dave ended agreeing that it is quite a mystery indeed. The Catholic Encyclopedia states that doubs related to Thomistic theologies of these questions are unresolved.

Literally, it would seem that we teach that only God knows the answer at this point and this is what Paul indicates in Romans 9:18-20 area.

usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans9.htm

Consequently, he has mercy upon whom he wills, and he hardens whom he wills. You will say to me then, “Why (then) does he still find fault? For who can oppose his will?” But who indeed are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Will what is made say to its maker,“Why have you created me so?”

The analogies of grace as offered but not forced do not address Paul’s mystery and ignore God’s apparent willful hardening.

I do seek a better understanding, or is Paul saying not to seek a better understanding?

Thank You,
Greg

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Juxtaposer:

Could someone please explain the difference between Calvinistic predestination and the predestination that some Catholics believe in?

James Akin’s article “A Tiptoe throught the TULIP” is a great resource. I also recommend Dave Armstrong’s article

Catholic Predestination
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ120.HTM

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Why would God offer grace to someone who was not predestined to heaven?

Your question is a good one. What I asked previously is similar, “Why doesn’t God give everyone the same gifts … the gift of faith AND the gift of final perseverance?”

There have been many speculative attempts at answering this question and none of them seem very satisfying. However, one ought not to suppose that just because we can’t understand why, that God only reserves to the elect his gift of grace. Scripture and Tradition are quite clear that the gift of faith can fail. Jesus prays that Peter’s faith may not fail. If one were to mistakenly assert that it was impossible for Peter’s gift of faith to fail, they would make nonesense of Jesus’ prayer. We must presume that Jesus understood that faith can fail, and that is precisely way he prayed that Peter’s faith would not fail.

Faith is a gift (grace) from God. Perseverance is spoken of in Scripture as distinct from faith, so it seems they are not the same thing, but are two different gifts. So it is evident from Scripture that God predestines some for grace but not for glory. What is less evident is why. Some have tragically rejected what is clearly evident simply because they don’t know why. Appearantly they operate from the principle that understanding precedes faith, when it is suppose to be the other way around.

 

[The_Old_Road]

Catholic doctrine teaches predestination, but not the Reformed double-predestination. The difference is that the former accepts predestination to salvation, while the latter accepts predestination to salvation and reprobation (Hell). Catholic theology and doctrine, from Franciscan to Thomist, has never accepted a predestination to Hell. This is the difference.

The main reason the deuterocanonical books were removed by the Reformers was that they explicitly support Catholic doctrine (vs. the Reformers). E.g, Sirach 15:5 (I believe) refers explicitly to God creating human beings with free will.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hi Dave,

Good points from Scripture and all pertinent guard rails on the narrow road life.

itsjustdave1988:

However, one ought not to suppose that just because we can’t understand why, that God only reserves to the elect his gift of grace.

Agreed, what it does show however, is much more we can seek to understand the true meaning of an official teaching.

What is more “heretical” - a Catholic who accepts Church teaching but misunderstands it, or a Catholic who probes and questions for a better understanding. As you know, we are already settled on this.

Jesus spoke about the son who said “yes” but didn’t and the son who said “no” but then did the will of the Father.

***I hope and pray ***I am kind of like the second son, I say “no” rhetorically but I end up probing to better understand truth. I like challenging and finding the true heart of questions. A priest said in a homily that growth comes through struggle, and I think this applies to theology as well as labor.

Peace and Friendhsip to You, Tantum, and Apologia100,
Greg

 

[Greg_McPherran]

I would see no problem for a person to pray:

“God, please help me to do your will and by all means God use whatever force you need to because I know I do not naturally desire your grace. In fact, God, please ignore the fact that I am desolate and wicked, and there are forces in me that oppose your grace. Please overcome these forces in me, Oh God.”

I think to pray this way is itself a grace. I also think that God gave even that grace without a person even having the ability to want it or ask for it - it was “forced” on the person and the person may indeed be very, very, grateful that the unasked for light was given to his.her soul. In this way, I see grace as indeed a force. This does not seem to contradict with but rather agree with, Romans 9:18-20.

Do you see what I mean? In fact, I consider that a good prayer, don’t you?

Jesus said heaven is taken by storm and not to be afraid - right? Is it possible that grace from God can be forceful like a storm? After all, God has the power, not us. I would think that any storms that take heaven ultimately come from God and He allows us the joy of working with Him.

 

[Pax]

Many good points have been made in this thread. Like others I would strongly recommend James Akin. If you want to get a little more than just “Tip Toe through the TULIP,” then get a hold of his book The Salvation Controversy. I’ve recommended this book numerous times. It is really worth the read.

The arena of predestination is, in my opinion, pretty important in understanding the nature of man and the nature of grace. I have a short analysis of TULIP and it’s problems that I can email to anyone that’s interested. It’s a bit too lengthy for a post and I don’t want to derail the discussion. If anyone reading this thread believes that “man is basically evil” or “Totally Depraved” as described in TULIP you may want to read my brief analysis. It isn’t up to Akin’s work and takes a slightly different tact, but you might find it helpful. Just send me a private message with your email address and I’ll send the file.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Greg,

What is more “heretical” - a Catholic who accepts Church teaching but misunderstands it, or a Catholic who probes and questions for a better understanding.

St. Thomas Aquinas was my confirmation name because of my admiration for his in-depth study of the faith, and because I believe I will always count myself among the “students” of the faith, and St. Thomas is the patron saint of students.

I suppose I seek, as you do, to more fully understand the “why” behind the deposit of faith, but often ponder what kind of Christian life is the life I ought to lead: 1) that modeled after St. Thomas Aquinas, ever seeking to grow in understanding of the faith, yet in the process perhaps including an admixture of error, or 2) that of St. Mary, content in what was revealed by God, living in piety and obedience within the holy religion handed on to her.

I think there are some who, in their effort to understand more about the revealed truth, tend toward the creation of doctrine and not merely the development of doctrine, adding to the deposit of revelation instead of merely being satisfied with what God has revealed to us. This really seems the root cause of heresy. Rarely does a simple pious layperson start heresy. It’s always those who fancy themselves a learned “scholar” who invents heresy, isn’t it?

Consequently, I think the controversies regarding grace, free-will, and predestination often dangerously tend toward *creation *and not *development *of doctrine. We surely ought to attempt to more fully understand what God has revealed. However, we ought not to add to God’s revelation, but be content to say, “I dunno, God hasn’t revealed that to us.” If it wasn’t a part of the Catholic faith for the first millenium of our holy religion, then it’s probably going to remain in the realm of speculation versus revelation.

 

[jeffreedy789]

hey greg - thanks for the compliment (about 1000 posts ago!) sorry, i didn’t see it until now.

may God bless you as you continue to seek His face.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Greg_McPherran:

I think to pray this way is itself a grace. I also think that God gave even that grace without a person even having the ability to want it or ask for it - it was “forced” on the person and the person may indeed be very, very, grateful that the unasked for light was given to his.her soul. In this way, I see grace as indeed a force.

I don’t see it as a force, but as a light.

Nevertheless, as St. Augustine wrote:

That light, however, does not nourish the eyes of irrational birds, but the pure hearts of those men who believe in God and turn from the love of visible and temporal things to the fulfilling of His precepts. All men can do this if they will, because that light illuminates every man coming into this world. (Genesis Defended Against the Manicheans, AD 389)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

John Calvin is quoted as saying:

Augustine is so completely of our persuasion, that if I should have to make written profession, it would be quite enough to present a composition made up entirely of excerpts from his writings

Likewise, many modern Calvinists often argue that their theology is nothing more than Augustine’s theology. However, it seems clear that Calvin was a poor student of St. Augustine. Observe,

St. Augustine, against “irresistibe grace” and “limited atonement”:

… But those who do not belong to this number of the predestinated … [some] receive the grace of God, but they are only for a season, and do not persevere; they forsake and are forsaken. For by their free will, as they have not received the gift of perseverance, they are sent away by the righteous and hidden judgment of God (“On Rebuke and Grace” (De Correptione et Gratis, Ch. 42)

**If, however, being already regenerate and justified **[baptized], he relapses of his own will into an evil life, assuredly he cannot say, “I have not received,” because of his own free choice to evil he has lost the grace of God, that he had received. (ibid, ch 9)

St. Augustine, alike Calvinist theology, asserts the gift of faith is distinct from the gift of final perseverance [against eternal security or “once saved always saved”]…

CHAP. I --OF THE NATURE OF THE PERSEVERANCE HERE DISCOURSED OF…

I HAVE now to consider the subject of perseverance … I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end * is the gift of God; and I call that the end by which is finished that life wherein alone there is peril of falling. Therefore it is uncertain whether any one has received this gift so long as he is still alive.* For if he fall before he dies, he is, of course, said not to have persevered; and most truly is it said. … For if any one … have righteousness … if even faith, and fall away, he is rightly said to have had these virtues and to have them no longer; for he was … righteous, or he was … believing, as long as he was so; but when he ceased to be so, he no longer is what he was. … And the believer of one year, or of a period as much shorter as may be conceived of, if he has lived faithfully until he died, has rather had this perseverance than the believer of many years’ standing, if a little time before his death he has fallen away from the stedfastness of his faith. (*A Treatise on the Gift of Perseverance, *Ch. 1)

 

[GoodME]

I must profess to not reading all the posts, but thought the topic was interesting.

I am a Catholic, and I do subscribe to a “predestination” of sorts that is neither armenian (total freewill - we choose God on our own) nor calvinist (God chooses us and there is nothing we can do in our feebleness compared to God to reject God).

I believe the “Catholic predestination” lies in between these positions and is properly conveyed by Augustine. I believe that Calvin teaches a more “pre-destined” predestination than Augustine, and I believe the reason for this is that he couldn’t help his human vanity to just say - Augustine all the way. Calvin taught a “fatalist” theology that the die was cast from the beginning of time.

Augustine, to summarize, holds that men are called to Faith by God’s Grace, but according to God’s design and plan, these Graces act upon the heart, and men are free to decide to go with the heart or over-rule what they feel. As such, Augustine held (rather cleverly, I think) that while God may know the elect from the beginning of time, we men may not, and we must evangelize to all and reach out to all, for we never know who God may decide to reach out and touch.

It is my believe that Calvin taught that men may know the elect, and may decide to not waste time on the unelect. I believe Calvin is a classic case of taking a good strong position, and mucking it up in the name of vanity and the need to be “different than those Catholics” - and thus, different than Augustine, who got it pretty close.

Just a layman’s opinion.

P. S - I have experience with Calvinists selectively quoting Augustine to justify that “Augustine was Calvinist”. My response is usually that if you consider the complete body of work, you find a different fact. Kind of like how some deal with Scriptures, as well. You have those that selectively pick and choose what makes their Faith practice, versus those who subscribe to the complete body of work to define their Faith practices. I find a justification of Calvin based on Augustine to be an incomplete understanding of Augustine.

 

[SteveT]

Somebody mentioned the book by Fr. William Most - It’s title is “Grace, Predestination and the Salvific Will of God.” In my opinion, it is a much better discussion of the issue than Garrigou-Lagrange’s treatment. He specifically has chapters dealing with Augustine and Aquinas too, without ending up in the hard-predestination camp.

Most suggests that most of the biblical passages that talk about predestination are referring to the external economy - our position in this world - not eternal salvation. Hence, when Paul says in Romans 9, “what if God …”, it’s like asking “why does God create me the child of a Catholic in America, and another person as the child of a Muslim in Iraq?” Well, God can create whatever He wants to create. But that doesn’t mean I am thereby predestined to heaven and the Muslim - born is predestined to hell. When the bible does speak of predestination relating to salvation, it refers to God’s predestination of the process that would be necessary - the How, not the Who.

 

[Philthy]

I just have to add 2 more cents to this discussion. This is such an interesting topic to me (predestination) but after I spent considerable time and effort with it I realized something important - it has no effect on my life! First off no one has knowledge in this life that they are predestined! It’s not like they can just kick back and say - hey I’m IN! This is the true danger of the Calvinist concept of predestination - that some one might believe during this lifetime that they have knowlegde of their own predestination. A distinctly human response to such knowledge could be laziness - no pressing need to do good. And I’m not sure whether or not Calvin was of the mind that we KNOW whether we’re predestined or not. And therein lies the catch: If I don’t know I’m one of the “elect” and I’m confronted by a situation of moral consequence I can’t just say “it doesn’t matter what I do - I’m goin’ to heaven” Rather, even a rational Calvinist must say to himself “Although I believe God predestines some for heaven and others for hell, I don’t necessarily know where I fall, and I must approach each situation in my life as if my eternal salvation were at stake and therefore I must strive to do the right thing.” And this final conclusion leaves the rational Calvinist in the very same boat as the Catholic - striving to do the right thing because he believes his salvation is dependent upon it. Kinda adds a whole new twist to the saying “God helps those who help themselves” - doesn’t it!?
Let’s finish with Augustine:"Why he draws one and another he draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err"
You know he logged in some serious time on this topic to utter such a statement…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

SteveT,

Thanks for the Fr. Most source. I found it online at:

catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=214

 

[SteveT]

Philthy:

Here’s a quote I think you’ll like:

“What man can say, I am of the elect; I am among those who are predestined to life; I am of the number of the faithful? Who, I ask, can say such things? … We have no certainty: but we have the consolation of a trustworthy hope, which prevents our being tortured by an agony of doubt … God denies us assurance, but only that he may prevent us from growing careless. And so we must bow humbly beneath God’s mighty hand, ever anxious, and in fear and trembling.” - St. Bernard of Clarivaux

 

[Philthy]

Steve T -

Thanks! That’s a great quote and I do like it

 

[Contarini]

GoodME,

If you’ll allow me to add my 2 cents, here is how my understanding of the historic position differs from yours.

: Augustine, to summarize, holds that men are called to Faith by God’s Grace, but according to God’s design and plan, these Graces act upon the heart, and men are free to decide to go with the heart or over-rule what they feel.:

No, that’s not how I read Augustine. He believed that we choose that in which we take delight. So if grace causes us to delight in the love of God, that is what we will choose. Otherwise, as fallen human beings, we will delight in the love of self above everything else and be damned.

: As such, Augustine held (rather cleverly, I think) that while God may know the elect from the beginning of time, we men may not, and we must evangelize to all and reach out to all, for we never know who God may decide to reach out and touch.:

Absolutely.

:It is my believe that Calvin taught that men may know the elect, and may decide to not waste time on the unelect.:

No, that’s not what Calvin taught at all. He believed that individuals can be confident of their own election, but that you can’t know for sure whether someone else is elect.

The most important difference between Augustine and Calvin is that Calvin taught the “perseverance of the saints,” namely that only the elect receive regenerating grace, so that all who have once been regenerated persevere and are finally saved. Calvin also did push the doctrine of predestination a little farther, mostly by stripping away the nuances and ambiguities that are in Augustine. For instance, Augustine would still insist that free will is real, even though by free will we cannot choose to repent and believed unless our wills are moved by the sovereign grace of God (given only to the elect). Calvin didn’t see the point of talking about free will, though it isn’t clear if this is a real difference or just a matter of terminology. Similarly, Calvin rejected a distinction between God causing something and permitting something.

All three of these points are condemned by the Catholic Church. Catholics cannot believe that regeneration guarantees election. They cannot deny the reality of free will, although they can adopt a “Thomist” understanding of how free will and election interact, which is closer to Calvinism than most Catholics admit. And they cannot say that God actively causes anyone to be damned, although they can believe that God chooses to pass over certain people, not moving them to repent and believe (hence the importance of the causation/permission distinction that Calvin found useless).

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Contarini,

… unless our wills are moved by the sovereign grace of God (given only to the elect).

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but you seem to imply that Augustine believed God’s grace was only given to the elect. If you mean those truly elect, as in those predestined to eternal glory, that is incorrect. According to Augustine, predestination to grace was not the same as predestination to glory. God gives grace to the reprobate, according to Augustine. Calvin erroneously combind the gift of faith with the gift of perseverance, when Scripture conveys, and Augustine rightly understood them to be different gifts from God.