Catholic response to Romans chapter 9

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

terillmorris

Guest
When a Calvinist uses this chapter to argue for “double predestination” what is the Catholic response. Thanks --serious knowledga:eek: ble replies only please thanks!!!
 
There’s a difference between God’s foreknowledge of our destiny and his control over it. Accepting predestination rejects any concept of free will.

Why would Christ himself bother to exhort his disciples (and us)to follow him if we had not choice in the matter? If there are only a certain number in the elect, why did Christ “die(d) for all” (2:Cor 5:15)?
 
Newbie, with all due respect, those who have had discussions with Calvinists about this issue know what I am asking for. i am asking for a direct comment about Romans 9’s wording–ssshhhhh!!! if you dont know. Like I said earlier only serious people apply!!! ssshhh!!!
 
terillmorris said:
When a Calvinist uses this chapter to argue for “double predestination” what is the Catholic response. Thanks --serious knowledga:eek: ble replies only please thanks!!!
Click to expand...
I’m not too knowledgable in this area, so I can’t comment directly on the issue. However, there is a book by Fr. William Most entitled Grace, Predestination and the Salvific Will of God: New Answers to Old Questions which, I am sure, would give you a Catholic perspective on the matter. The book is online right here. If I remember correctly, it discusses Roman 9. Hope that helps!
 
terillmorris said:
When a Calvinist uses this chapter to argue for “double predestination” what is the Catholic response. Thanks --serious knowledga:eek: ble replies only please thanks!!!
Click to expand...
What have you responded thus far? Or, are you doing this in anticipation of a discussion?
 
terillmorris said:
Newbie, with all due respect, those who have had discussions with Calvinists about this issue know what I am asking for. i am asking for a direct comment about Romans 9’s wording–ssshhhhh!!! if you dont know. Like I said earlier only serious people apply!!! ssshhh!!!
Click to expand...
Sorry. :rolleyes:
 
Hey can anyone provide me with the article from the link above. The article on Romans 9–It says the domain has expired. Thanks
 
The content of the empty page you get says “This+domain+is+expired%2C+please+renew+it.”

So unless you have a name of an article or an author or some part of the content which you can use to Google another source, there is not much anyone can do.

But scholarship and debate isn’t tearing a page from someone else’s book, crumpling it and tossing it at one’s opponent. Nor parroting someone else’s answer. “Hearing” is simple believing. “Seeing” is examining the evidence and engaging the mind. “Walking” is living the truth God has helped you understand through hearing and seeing.

I can’t find spit wads listed in the full armor of God either 😉
 
rcjones said:
The content of the empty page you get says “This+domain+is+expired%2C+please+renew+it.”

So unless you have a name of an article or an author or some part of the content which you can use to Google another source, there is not much anyone can do.

But scholarship and debate isn’t tearing a page from someone else’s book, crumpling it and tossing it at one’s opponent. Nor parroting someone else’s answer. “Hearing” is simple believing. “Seeing” is examining the evidence and engaging the mind. “Walking” is living the truth God has helped you understand through hearing and seeing.

he isnt an “opponent” he is a good freind who is genuinely interested, and the article was very good when i read it. I know it can help him. I am not trying to “throw an article at him.”
Click to expand...
 
charlesbarkley said:
he isnt an “opponent” he is a good freind who is genuinely interested, and the article was very good when i read it. I know it can help him. I am not trying to “throw an article at him.”
Click to expand...
Sorry, no personal offense intended. I popped in on this thread after seeing a couple others that were just looking for quickie responses rather than understanding.

Please attribute it to age and mixing up threads 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top