Catholicism & Free Will

[Spirit_Driven]

Sorry I was not being evasive… I was demonstrating how those who where hearing the Gospel of Grace from Paul, received the word with great eagerness and read back on the old testament to see weather these things where so.

Does Man have Free Will ?

Man does have a Will and he can be Will full, but he only has freedom to believe or not, weather it was Gods intention to reconcile all things to himself, both in heaven and on Earth.

You can choose to believe this or not… that is the limit of our Freedom in Will.

We still end up where God wants us… case closed.

Have I answered sufficently ?

Peace

 

[Revelation13_16]

Sorry I was not being evasive… I was demonstrating how those who where hearing the Gospel of Grace from Paul, received the word with great eagerness and read back on the old testament to see weather these things where so.

Does Man have Free Will ?

Man does have a Will and he can be Will full, but he only has freedom to believe or not, weather it was Gods intention to reconcile all things to himself, both in heaven and on Earth.

You can choose to believe this or not… that is the limit of our Freedom in Will.

We still end up where God wants us… case closed.

Have I answered sufficently ?

Peace

No.

Half of me thinks your a Calvinist and what you are describing is Compatibalism.

But then again you could be an Arminian because you said man has free will to believe or not only.

Your heavy emphasis on the word of God alone ensures you’re not a Catholic.

 

[Spirit_Driven]

Your heavy emphasis on the word of God alone ensures you’re not a Catholic​

Do you relise what you just said ?

The word of God is irrefutable in every instance !

The word of God which goes forth from His mouth; It shall not return to Him empty, without accomplishing what He desires, and without succeeding in the matter for which He sent it (Isaiah 55:11).

What was that Jesus said about man not living on Bread alone ?

God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him (John 3:17).

God will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4).

Peace

 

[Spirit_Driven]

No.

Half of me thinks your a Calvinist and what you are describing is Compatibalism.

But then again you could be an Arminian because you said man has free will to believe or not only.

Your heavy emphasis on the word of God alone ensures you’re not a Catholic.

And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.
And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.

– Deuteronomy 8: 2-3 (KJV)

Well I never said I was Catholic, but I do not begrudge anybody being a Catholic… God has each person where he wants them… as it is always Gods Will that prevails.

If you insist on placing a tag on me… I would describe myself as a believer in Jesus Christ.

Peace

 

[Unitas]

**
“Well, as mentioned, man cannot merit for himself the initial grace of faith. That is a gift from God. That is not to say it’s only given to a select few. It’s given to all, but then not everyone may accept it. And if we accept it, we must work with God to make the most of it.”

This sounds like Semi-Pelagianism, I’d like to know what’s the difference.

I think this is an important question because St. Augustine had Pelagius condemned as a Heretic at several councils, so it’s a bit of a shock if the same church that condemed Pelagius would later take on his teachings. (semi anyway)**

I think the Catechism can best explain. Thiis is the entry under “Merit”

III. MERIT

 

[Unitas]

We can also liken the coin to the pearl.

We’re told not to cast pearls to swine lest they get trampled upon. Swine cannot distinguish the value of a pearl from anything else. Meaning we shouldn’t waste our effort (in the “pearl” anology, spreading the word,) on those who refuse to recognize it’s value.

We should recognize God’s gift of faith for what it is. Not only not to trample on it, but to see it as a spledid and valuable gift. The third servant in the parable wasted (trampled) his “pearl” (coin) because he would not recognize the gift for what it was.

 

[Contarini]

Hi Edwin,

I see your an Episcopalian, I myself attend an Anglican church and am enjoying it.

The only stumbling block for me to be consider myself Anglican is that Anglicanism is Calvinistic,

Not really. The 39 Articles are moderately “Calvinistic” in the sense you mean, but they are quite vague, and furthermore are widely ignored or reinterpreted by Anglicans. You may be attending a church that takes them more seriously than most. Remember that John Wesley considered himself a good Anglican to the end of his days. If this is your problem with Anglicanism, it shouldn’t be. You can certainly be an Anglican and not be a Calvinist–in fact only a small minority of Anglicans today are Calvinists.

To me one great advantage of Anglicanism over other forms of Protestantism is that you can be either Calvinist or Arminian or both or neither.

and I currently have a few Arminian books and Calvinistic books on my shelf that I’m reading through to try and get one of the sides to convince me.

What are you reading? I wouldn’t go so far as to say that this is a waste of time, but I do think you’d be better off starting with the Fathers and the medieval theologians, who lived before either Calvinism or Arminianism existed. You’ll get a much more balanced picture there. As I said in my previous post, the debate within Protestantism goes on for the most part at a relatively shallow level.

As it stands Arminianism is winning because the thought of double-predestination (which all Calvinists will call hyper-calvinism but are wrong)

I find this statement a bit hard to make sense of. First of all, I agree that “hyper-calvinism” is one of those useless terms always used to describe people “the next valley over.” But obviously if all Calvinists say they don’t believe in dp, then no one believes in it. You can’t possibly be suggesting (I hope) that they think they don’t believe in it but really do. As a matter of fact I’ve met a lot of Calvinists who admit to believing in it and don’t claim that it’s “hyper-Calvinism” (in my experience they generally use that term for the view that one shouldn’t evangelize, which restricts it to Primitive Baptists–that’s as good a use as any for this rather useless term, IMHO). So I wish you’d rephrase that statement–I cannot make head nor tail of it as it stands.

really puts me in an awkward position God-wise. (21.5 of Calvin’s institutes specifically says God predestines some to salvation, others to Eternal Death)

Well, it is theoretically possible that Calvin might believe something rejected by later “Calvinists.” Remember that “Calvinist” is just a conventional name–it does not commit people to agreeing with Calvin in every particular. However, unfortunately plenty of Calvinists do agree with Calvin on this particular point.

One qualification needs to be made here–the question of double predestination is very complicated, because obviously any doctrine of election involves a doctrine of reprobation. Unless you are willing to embrace paradox frankly (as I am), or unless you adopt Fr. Most’s view (which I adopt as a paradox though I think he thought it resolved the paradox), or unless you are a universalist (which I wish I could be but am not), then saying that the elect are unconditionally chosen implies that the others are rejected. You can say–as Thomists and moderate Calvinists say–that the reprobate are rejected because God has foreseen their sins. But of course it was inevitable that they would persevere in their sins without the grace which God gives only to the elect. So it’s really a question of just how one sees the relationship between the two decrees. Most Calvinists introduce some kind of asymmetry here, in which God actively chooses the elect but passes over the others. This is probably what they mean by denying that they believe in “double predestination” and ascribing it to those mythical “hypercalvinists.” (Actually there are people who reject this “asymmetry” because they think it’s mere quibbling with words.) I don’t think this necessarily conflicts with Calvin’s position, although I don’t think he bothers much with such distinctions. (Indeed, I think Calvin’s doctrine is much cruder than that either of his medieval predecessors or most of his “Calvinist” successors. He was a brilliant barbarian, in my judgment.) Calvin was particularly impatient of the distinction between God “causing” and God “permitting”–he grudgingly granted that we could speak of God permitting stuff to happen, but only if it was “willing permission.” Fortunately, many later Calvinists returned to the wiser medieval position that God causes good but permits evil. This may only be a verbal distinction, but I think it’s an important one.

 

[Contarini]

A friend is lending me Alvin Plantinga’s “God, Evil, and free will” and apparently Plantinga is an Arminain/Molinist, I look forward to reading that.

Plantinga is tricky. I don’t find his position very convincing but I haven’t studied it in enough depth, perhaps. He is a Calvinist by confession (Christian Reformed), and I get the impression that he thinks he can combine his philosophical Molinism with theological Calvinism (I’m exactly the opposite–I combine philosophical Thomism with theological Wesleyanism!). He makes a coy hint in one of his works to the effect that his notion of “transworld depravity” may possibly coincide with the theological doctrine of total depravity. I don’t see how this works, myself, but I may not understand him adequately.

I think Molinism is very interesting, I’d like to read a Systematic Theology written by a Molinist, or even a good intro to Molinism, this is definately an issue I need to get sorted.

At least some of Molina’s work is available on the Internet. I thought I found the whole thing somewhere once but I could be wrong.

Pelagius was condemned as a heretic by a few councils swayed by St. Augustine, yet many of the Catholic answers here about free will seem to be Pelagian/Semi-Pelagian.

Perhaps you could define exactly what you mean by these terms and how the opinions expressed here are heretical. I don’t accept the Calvinist definition of semi-Pelagianism (basically anything except Calvinism!). Bear in mind that some of the so-called semi-Pelagians (John Cassian, Vincent of Lerins) are honored theologians in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. Augustinianism is central to Western Catholicism, but only with caveats. It’s a very complex matter and I don’t claim to understand it well. Certainly modern Catholicism does seem to tilt far more in the semi-Pelagian direction than traditional Catholicism did. But I can’t see that the reponses here are what I’d call semi-Pelagian. Atreyu, for instance, explicitly says:

However, even the ability to say yes is only possible with the grace of God.

Similarly, Unitas makes it clear that the initial gift of the gold coin is purely from God’s grace. It all depends, of course, on how one defines Semi-Pelagianism!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Do you people ever get around to actualy reading the word of God ?

Yes, we do. That is why we don’t simply quote it to each other without context, because we assume that those with whom we differ have also read the Bible but interpret it differently. We need to discuss *why *we interpret it differently, which mere quotation does not address.

Or do you get told what to believe ?

No, but apparently you do, or you would not assume so readily that the passages you quote can have only one meaning.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Another thing, if the Bible was so easy to comprehend just by reading it, why do we have all these Systematic Theologies floating around?

Perhaps because it is not as easy to understand as you think?

Edwin

 

[Spirit_Driven]

I think what you have to ask yourself is… does God Lie ?

We all know he does not !

We also have to ask ourselves… could the Will of Mighty Man over rule or over come the Will of God ?

No one can resist His will (Romans 9:19).

Only 6 words… yet they say so much, would anybody like to break down this message into the meanings of the individual words… I can start if you like…

No one… means just that, it applies to everybody and there is not one excluded…

Peace

 

[Spirit_Driven]

Can = is the ability to do somthing

You get one word each to break down people… who wants to define the meaning of the word resist ?

Peace

 

[Revelation13_16]

I think the Catechism can best explain. Thiis is the entry under “Merit”

Hi Unitas,

If I understand Merit properly, God grants grace, we can choose to affect or reject, if we accept God grants us more grace so that we can co-operate and gain Merit.

Is this right?

The nobleman gave the coin to thee servants so that they could make more of it, not just to hold on to it for him. This can be likened to the initial grace of faith God gifts us with. We’re supposed to “make more of it” that is, explore faith so we better understand the truth, and to explore it as much as we can.

When the new king had returned, the servants who had made much more with their single coin as ordered by the king, recieved much, much more than they were given, as a reward for their fidelity to his wishes. This can be likened to when Jesus shall come again to judge mankind. As you remember, those who give up all to follow Him, shall recieve tenfold in return. We shall be held accountable for that which we are given when He returns, like the servants are accountable to the king.

The king rebukes the third servant because he wasted that which he was given by keeping it hidden away, allowing it no chance to grow, not even in a bank with interest. This was explicitly against the king’s orders. We can liken this to those who recieve the initial gift of grace from God, but hide it away and pay it no mind. They remain complacent and willfully ignorant to what they have been given, allowing it no chance to grow.

As Lumen Gentium says, if we do not persue this gift of grace that God has given us in thought, deed, and word, (that is, hiding it away and ignoring it) not only will we not be saved but more severely judged on the second coming; Like the third servant who was rebuked by the king upon his return.

That is just how I understand the parable at least.

Thanks for that detailed explanation.

I guess I got hung up on the parable because I was sure somewhere in The Bible it said Usury (interest) was forbidden, therefore I didn’t see what the third servant did as being so bad.

Sure he was lazy but he could have lost the coin altogether.

I suppose if you liken it to grace, its more understandable.

Warm Regards,
Rev13_16

 

[Revelation13_16]

We can also liken the coin to the pearl.

We’re told not to cast pearls to swine lest they get trampled upon. Swine cannot distinguish the value of a pearl from anything else. Meaning we shouldn’t waste our effort (in the “pearl” anology, spreading the word,) on those who refuse to recognize it’s value.

We should recognize God’s gift of faith for what it is. Not only not to trample on it, but to see it as a spledid and valuable gift. The third servant in the parable wasted (trampled) his “pearl” (coin) because he would not recognize the gift for what it was.

Thankyou for the second analogy.

I however disgaree about Evangelism being wasted on the ‘dogs/swine’.

I would like to think with enough time and sound arguments that even the most ignorant swine could see the light and become converted, but yet again, I could be wrong.

Warm Regards,
Rev13_16

 

[Spirit_Driven]

You guys are so Blind… you cannot see that the reformation happened by the Will of God.

No matter how much the Roman Catholic Church, tried to impede and persecute that reformation… guess who you where really fighting against… and that is why you failed.

No one can resist His will (Romans 9:19).

Both Christian and Muslim exist only by the Will of God, or nither would exist at all.

Actualy out side of the left and right hand of God… nothing happens at all… it is just an endless void.

Peace

 

[Revelation13_16]

Not really. The 39 Articles are moderately “Calvinistic” in the sense you mean, but they are quite vague, and furthermore are widely ignored or reinterpreted by Anglicans. You may be attending a church that takes them more seriously than most. Remember that John Wesley considered himself a good Anglican to the end of his days. If this is your problem with Anglicanism, it shouldn’t be. You can certainly be an Anglican and not be a Calvinist–in fact only a small minority of Anglicans today are Calvinists.

To me one great advantage of Anglicanism over other forms of Protestantism is that you can be either Calvinist or Arminian or both or neither.

Hi Edwin,

The diocese where I attend is very Calvinistic, connected to a very Calvinistic Seminary to boot.

I can’t see a distinction between this and Presbyterianism, perhaps Episcopalians are different.

What are you reading?

Reading List:

• What is Reformed Theology? RC Sproul (Read)
• Why I am not a Calvinist. Wallis/dongell (Reading)
• Why I am not an Arminian. Peterson/williams
• Arminian Theology: Myths and realities. Olson
• Grace, Faith, Free Will. Picirilli
• Chosen by God. RC Sproul
• Rediscovering the doctrines of Grace. Boice
• Calvinism debated. White & Hunt.

If I can’t honestly know everything there is to know about both these differing theologies after reading all these books then I give up.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that this is a waste of time, but I do think you’d be better off starting with the Fathers and the medieval theologians, who lived before either Calvinism or Arminianism existed. You’ll get a much more balanced picture there. As I said in my previous post, the debate within Protestantism goes on for the most part at a relatively shallow level.

Who do you suggest reading?

I find this statement a bit hard to make sense of. First of all, I agree that “hyper-calvinism” is one of those useless terms always used to describe people “the next valley over.” But obviously if all Calvinists say they don’t believe in dp, then no one believes in it. You can’t possibly be suggesting (I hope) that they think they don’t believe in it but really do…quote]

Ok, here’s my position.

Most Calvinist’s I’ve encounted if you say that logically, those God doesn’t elect, he effectively chooses to send to hell, scream the following:

“Strawman!”
“Double Predestination/Hyper-Calvinism!”
“That’s not in the Bible!”

Here’s the problem I have as a protestant.

Protestants believe in 4 planes generally (some might believe in 5, but I think generally it’s 4)

Here are the planes:

• Heaven
• Abraham’s Bosom
• Earth
• Hell

If you believe in 5, it will be a kind of Purgatory/Hades (see Lazurus & Rich Man parable + Christ’s descending into hell to witness etc) that will be the missing plain between Earth and Hell.

I personally believe in 4, but could believe in 5 if scriptural support was present.

Predestination says that God elects some to eternal life, before the foundation of the world.

These elect are from Earth (starting point) and thus are going somewhere else, either Heaven, Abraham’s Bosom, or Hell.

Because Predestination is a positive thing, hell is ruled out.

Heaven and Abraham’s Bosom remain the only two choices.

Because Abraham’s Bosom was apparently only for the O.T Saints to wait for a while (If I understand it correctly) until after Jesus’ ascension, Heaven is the place the elect can exect to see out their eternal life.

Now the non-elect have not been given irresistable grace, they have not been chosen, and because they are Totally Depraved they cannot choose God.

Paul said “The wages of sin is (eternal) death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (parenthesis added to distinguish first death from second death)

Therefore the unchosen are bound for an eternal death and can do nothing to stop it.

Calvinist’s hate saying election is a ‘pre-earth lottery’ but because election is unconditional (ie- not performed by anything you or I will have or would have ever done in our lives) it is from our point of view “The Luck of the Draw” whether God has chosen you or not.

Now some logic.

4 planes, 2 eternal (Heaven & Hell) and 2 temporary. (Abraham’s bosom & Earth)

If God is choosing some for himself (the elect) to go to heaven, where do the unchosen go?

They can’t go to Abraham’s Bosom because:

a) They aren’t worthy of such paradise
b) It became unused as of Christ’s ascension

So they can only stay on Earth or go to Hell.

continued…

 

[Revelation13_16]

The continuation of my view…

The Bible makes it clear that Earth will pass away, therefore Hell is the only place left for them to go unless you believe there is a 5th plane or in the destruction of the soul after death. (Annihilationism - not much biblical support)

Therefore, God knows the unchosen are going to hell forever. The only way God could not know this when choosing his elect, would be out of ignorance, and since God is omniscient, he knows exactly what he is doing.

In conclusion, God does double-predestinate in Calvinism, irregardless of whether Calvinists distance themselves from Calvin and the Institutes, if they believe in a predestinate of the elect to heaven and don’t believe in Annihilationism or another plane unspecified in the Bible, they are forced to admit God predestinates the reprobate to hell if they are to be honest.

As a matter of fact I’ve met a lot of Calvinists who admit to believing in it and don’t claim that it’s “hyper-Calvinism” (in my experience they generally use that term for the view that one shouldn’t evangelize, which restricts it to Primitive Baptists–that’s as good a use as any for this rather useless term, IMHO). So I wish you’d rephrase that statement–I cannot make head nor tail of it as it stands.

Wikipedia has an ok article on Hyper Calvinism here.

Basically Hyper-Calvinism is said by traditional Calvinists to be taking Calvinism to extreme lengths, and while non-proselytzing is a good example of this, double predestination is not.

Double Predestination is logical, wheras non-proselytzing is logical but disobedient.

The difference is this:

Jesus commanded the gospel to be preached.

Hyper-Calvinists will say “Why bother? If someone is predestined to be the elect, we can stay at home and God will eventually draw them to our doorstep and/or church”.

This is logical, but disobedient.

God obvious wants us to preach, even if on any given day we are preaching to the non-elect and thus wasting our time (from our P.O.V) he still commands it.

I won’t go into other aspects of Hyper-Calvinism as it’s far too lengthy.

But in a nutshell, while I’ve made a new friend who is a Semnary trained Calvinist, my experience is that Calvinist’s are illogical/brainwashed or just plain dishonest and ashamed of their doctrine.

Either that or I am a reprobate and can’t grasp the beauty of the doctrine as they see it.

Hope not.

Well, it is theoretically possible that Calvin might believe something rejected by later “Calvinists.” Remember that “Calvinist” is just a conventional name–it does not commit people to agreeing with Calvin in every particular. However, unfortunately plenty of Calvinists do agree with Calvin on this particular point.

I don’t believe Calvinist’s can call themselves Calvinist’s unless they agree with Calvin and his systematic theology.

If they depart from that Systematic Theology on a few points then they should write their own Systematic Theology, drawing heavily from the institutes but noting the differences and labelling it something other than Calvinism.

I notice the trend to call it Reformed Theology these days, but’s it’s basically Calvinism minus 1-2% of Calvin’s teachings at most?

One qualification needs to be made here–the question of double predestination is very complicated, because obviously any doctrine of election involves a doctrine of reprobation. Unless you are willing to embrace paradox frankly (as I am), or unless you adopt Fr. Most’s view (which I adopt as a paradox though I think he thought it resolved the paradox) …,

Don’t know Fr. Most’s view, would love to read it.

… or unless you are a universalist (which I wish I could be but am not)

No, it’s far too easy.

I see no scriptural support for universalism.

, then saying that the elect are unconditionally chosen implies that the others are rejected.

Decrees, I’d say.

continued again…

 

[Revelation13_16]

You can say–as Thomists and moderate Calvinists say–that the reprobate are rejected because God has foreseen their sins. But of course it was inevitable that they would persevere in their sins without the grace which God gives only to the elect.

Since all are born in sin and there are “none rightous, no not one” the logical conclusion is that everyone from birth is destined to hell unless God makes special provision for them under some circumstance. (namely election and/or grace of children + mentally handicapped)

So it’s really a question of just how one sees the relationship between the two decrees. Most Calvinists introduce some kind of asymmetry here, in which God actively chooses the elect but passes over the others. This is probably what they mean by denying that they believe in “double predestination” and ascribing it to those mythical “hypercalvinists.” (Actually there are people who reject this “asymmetry” because they think it’s mere quibbling with words.) I don’t think this necessarily conflicts with Calvin’s position, although I don’t think he bothers much with such distinctions. (Indeed, I think Calvin’s doctrine is much cruder than that either of his medieval predecessors or most of his “Calvinist” successors. He was a brilliant barbarian, in my judgment.) Calvin was particularly impatient of the distinction between God “causing” and God “permitting”–he grudgingly granted that we could speak of God permitting stuff to happen, but only if it was “willing permission.” Fortunately, many later Calvinists returned to the wiser medieval position that God causes good but permits evil. This may only be a verbal distinction, but I think it’s an important one.

I haven’t read any Luther but if I understand it correctly, Luther said he agrees in predestination but wouldn’t go much further than that, citing it as a ‘mystery of God’.

I think Calvin would have done well to follow suit, but the ever logical Calvin, couldn’t and thus this is why many people have problems with the God of Calvinism and love and fairness.

 

[Revelation13_16]

Plantinga is tricky. I don’t find his position very convincing but I haven’t studied it in enough depth, perhaps. He is a Calvinist by confession (Christian Reformed), and I get the impression that he thinks he can combine his philosophical Molinism with theological Calvinism (I’m exactly the opposite–I combine philosophical Thomism with theological Wesleyanism!). He makes a coy hint in one of his works to the effect that his notion of “transworld depravity” may possibly coincide with the theological doctrine of total depravity. I don’t see how this works, myself, but I may not understand him adequately.

I look forward to reading him because he uses Logic.

I’m kind of sick of hearing Calvinist’s arguments it basically boils down to “might = right”.

At least some of Molina’s work is available on the Internet. I thought I found the whole thing somewhere once but I could be wrong.

Thanks, I look forward to reading Molina’s views, it’s an issue I need to sort out on my Christian walk because I don’t think you can love God deeply unless you know him as best as possible, and while I could love the God of Calvinism, I could love the Arminian God deeper because I adjudge him to be fairer.

Ofcourse in saying this I’m basically admitting that I view my knowledge of right and wrong above God and thus being Luciferian, but I stress that that is only applicable if the Calvinist concept of God is true, if it’s not, then all I’m saying is that my concept of the Christian God as fair and loving is higher than Calvin’s.

Perhaps you could define exactly what you mean by these terms and how the opinions expressed here are heretical. I don’t accept the Calvinist definition of semi-Pelagianism (basically anything except Calvinism!). Bear in mind that some of the so-called semi-Pelagians (John Cassian, Vincent of Lerins) are honored theologians in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. Augustinianism is central to Western Catholicism, but only with caveats. It’s a very complex matter and I don’t claim to understand it well. Certainly modern Catholicism does seem to tilt far more in the semi-Pelagian direction than traditional Catholicism did. But I can’t see that the reponses here are what I’d call semi-Pelagian. Atreyu, for instance, explicitly says: Similarly, Unitas makes it clear that the initial gift of the gold coin is purely from God’s grace. It all depends, of course, on how one defines Semi-Pelagianism!

Edwin

Here’s how I understand Pelagius.

Pelagius believed that post-fall man could freely choose good or evil, and that with this freedom man could choose God and be saved without any help whatsoever. (no grace)

The first council cleared Pelagius, but Augustine persisted and subsequent councils disagreed with Pelagius and his followers.

End result: Augustine 1 Pelagius 0. (heretic!)

Semi-Pelagianism modified Pelagius’ theory.

Semi-Pelagianism agreed that man was corrupt post-fall and can only choose evil but that somewhere in his heart was a small island of grace reserved only for the choice of choosing God, and thus if God offered his grace, man could respond.

Arminianism is basically Semi-Pelagianism, in a nutshell, yes we’re all sinners but we can all choose to accept or reject God’s grace. (different from Calvin’s Irresistable Grace which was unrejectable)

Catholicism seems to me Semi-Pelagian/Arminian.

Warm Regards,
Rev13_16

 

[Spirit_Driven]

Hi Revelation,

The real problem stems from Jeromes translation of the Greek the New Testament was written in… to Latin around 400 AD.
He translated a Greek word that means eon in English, into eternal in Latin.

So of course by the time Jeromes Latin translation was translated into English, Gods word had already been corrupted.
Fortunately Gods Word was not been corrupted enough (yet again) by interpretations being made as well this time around from Latin into English, for the truth to be lost altogether.

So even though Gods word has been corrupted by men, there are still instances, where Gods intentions toward the destiny of men could not be mis interpretated… and therfore could not be corrupted.

This is why the Bible contradicts itself… we know only liars contradict themselves… and God does not contradict himself.

There are now some Bibles that are transliterated from copies of the original Greek the New Testament was written in directly into English, if you are interested.

Transliterated means the Greek word into the English word… no interpretations that could be influenced by the Doctrine of ANY Church was to be made, while translating.

I can give you a Link to an Online Version of the New Testament if you like for your own private study… just bear in mind it is purely a Transliteration… which means the original Greek word into the English word.

Peace