Catholicism & Free Will

[Revelation13_16]

I don’t think it’s that simple. Moderate, reasonable Calvinists would say that of course humans have a choice–it’s just that being who we are, we will choose sin unless God moves us by His grace to choose otherwise.

Ok yes we have a “choice” but it’s entirely pre-determined by default.

Ergo, it’s not our choice as an individual, but as a species. (man)

I don’t think it’s fair to damn a collective without allowing the option for each part that makes up that collective to detach itself from it.

I agree that this raises all sorts of problems. But so does Arminianism. Arminianism as commonly taught ignores who God is–it pretends that God can simply know something is happening outside Himself the way you or I would. Given that if God did not sustain each of us every moment we would flicker into nonexistence, I find this a hopelessly inadequate way of speaking.

Problem though.

Calvinists have the view that God holds the whole world in his hand and that everything that happens he wills it to happen.

True but false IMHO.

Look at Genesis, after the fall Roses produced thorns.

I believe Creationism & Evolution are both correct.

Evolution is God’s way of removing his hands from a world he once held in perfection, giving it over to a kind of imperfect ‘self autonomy’.

Thus, all those thorns, worms, spiders, etc that weren’t needed in Eden, now were needed to sustain life on an Earth that God now had a limited prescence on.

And then He chose to bring all those other people into existence anyway and sustain them in existence while they were damning themselves by their wicked deeds. Hitler could only slaughter millions of people because God’s breath was sustaining him every instant.

But that’s free will, and that’s sin.

Sin is perverting the good gift God gave us.

But if you reject orthodox Christianity as a whole, why worry about relatively minor, abstruse conflicts like Calvinism vs. Arminianism?

I’m trying to reconcile tricky passages in the Bible.

Orthodox Christianity is not perfect, it makes concessions, often choosing ignorance in lieu of choosing heresy.

That’s fine, I understand why they do that, but a council of men saying “we don’t know, but think of the alternative shock horror” doesn’t make something true.

Open Theism could be right, but you still would have been burned at the stake for it throughout history.

As for a God who makes mistakes–I don’t know why we would call such a being God at all. The world is full of beings, some of them loving, all of whom make mistakes. If there is one more such being who happens to be superhuman and happens to have created our species or our solar system or even the whole darn space-time continuum, then that would be interesting but not shatteringly significant. Such a being, however impressive, would be a “god” (i.e., a superhuman being) but would not be God. I might love or respect such a being, but I wouldn’t worship him/her/it any more than I worship my parents (who after all “created” me in a sense and are worthy of my love and respect for so doing).

But your parents have a beginning and an end, this imperfect superhuman doesn’t.

And neither of them on their own is sufficient for a God worth believing in. A loving being who makes mistakes and is only one part of a bigger universe (even if only a moral or logical universe) might be a very nice person to hang out with but would not be God. And of course a sovereign being who was not good or loving would simply be an omnipotent demon, and the most virtuous act we could commit would be to defy it). Arminianism is relatively preferable because it maintains more of the paradox–the main problem with Arminians is that they foolishly think they have resolved the paradox.

I can’t see a flaw with Arminianism … yet. (I’ll need to delve deeper)

continued

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu

If free will exists, then it IS in the power man, by definition.
The “availability” of grace is NOT within the power of man.

Under your scheme, it appears that only a certain group of morally elite individuals (those who will use their free will to accept God’s grace) have any “power” since all of the others (those who use their free will to reject it) go to hell. It is still unexplained why the morally elite group make the good choice but the others make the bad choice.

The “morally elite”, as you call them, who are not elite except in that they’ve accepted and acted upon the revealed truth of God, have NO POWER to DO anything to elevate themselves to heaven.

Only God has any POWER to elevate people to heaven.

They (the “elite”) are merely available for “transport” in accord with the revealed truth of God.

Why would people make the choice to go to heaven? Because they think it’s a good idea.

Why would people make the choice NOT to go to heaven? Primarily because they would rather choose to believe what they WANT to believe, regardless of whether it is contrary to the revealed truth of the Church, because that truth is “unbelievable” to them. WHY it is unbelievable to them depends on the individual.

Just as you have no POWER to fly yourself to Dallas on that 747 that you’ve bought a ticket to fly,… the POWER is in the hands of the PILOT. (Assuming you’re not rated to fly that beast and SHOULD be flying it to Dallas.)

But if you didn’t have your ticket, which expressed your DESIRE (faith) to get to Dallas and was PROOF that you actually DID something to arrange your flight (works), the odds that you’d be allowed to get to Dallas via that flight would be rather small.

(( No “stowaway” analogies please! ))

Quote:
To deny free will denies God the honor of creating a creature that can choose.

I don’t deny that we all get to make our own choices.

What do you deny, then? Or conversely, what do you believe?

What’s your question?

 

[Revelation13_16]

Not flawed, because that implies that they fail to do what they are supposed to do. But of course all our doctrines are hopelessly inadequate. Did you seriously ever think there were doctrines that weren’t?

Minor flaws, minor mysteries, and the such are to be expected.

But big flaws that mar God’s character, are the ones to watch out for, hence the disdain for Open Theism.

I believe however if Calvinism was a new doctrine today and had no history, it would be judged as harshly and dismissed as quickly as Open Theism.

We’re far too moral today to settle for such horror.

The purpose of doctrine is not to explain God fully, but to lead us toward union with God and guard against mistakes that would tend to draw us away from God. You are asking doctrine to do something it was never intended to do, and then complaining that it is “flawed”! It’s like blaming your car because it can’t fly, when it’s quite capable of taking you to the airport. So you wind up walking to the airport and you risk missing your flight.

Ach, I mean’t to say “If God isn’t perfect, then all our doctrines are flawed”

Yes, I agree with you.

I guess ultimately the problem is me here, Calvinism scares me because I don’t think I can be in loving union with their God, it will only be a union of fear and servitude at best.

Yes we must take flights, but if we aren’t content to do it, then our heads are low and we have no joy, only obedience.

We Christians are supposed to have joy in the loving character that is God.

Actually I don’t think Muhammad ever killed women and children, though I could be wrong.

No I think your right.

The children were to be raised Muslim, the women taken as concubines.

More like 1200 or maybe 1400. But still, your point is a valid one–Islam marks a reversion in many respects.

I can’t recall where I read it now, it could be from Ibn Warraq’s “Why I am not a Muslim” which I must read again, but apparently in the Qur’an there’s a sign that Muhammad believed Moses lived at the same time - or near - to Mary.

Well … I guess when you’re creating a religion from bits of pieces of info from Nestorian missionaries and Jews, stuff like that is bound to happen.

Love,
Rev

 

[Revelation13_16]

I think this is at the root of nearly half your problems.

Hmm, I might have to learn how to read the Bible.

No. Supralapsarianism (not believed by all Calvinists) is a very specific doctrine about the order of God’s decrees (that God created everything for the sake of the elect, essentially). That God knew the fall would happen is a common Christian belief.

From my possible wrong literal reading of Genesis, I was always under the impression that God was suprised, like the guy who comes home and finds his wife in bed with another man.

“Adam … Eve … Hey, what are those leaves there for!?”

Not necessarily. If you reject the truth stubbornly enough you become incapable of accepting it. Then when you find yourself in the presence of Truth itself, you cannot experience that other than as torment. That is my understanding of damnation.

This irks me, I agree with you, but it irks me.

Well, I didn’t say that there was a second chance after death. I wouldn’t put it that way–I would say that at the moment of death you encounter the reality of God and you respond based on how you had responded to the truth you knew in life. It’s just possible, IMHO, that someone like Richard Dawkins is really motivated by love of truth and the moment of death will encounter Jesus and say: “Oh what a nincompoop I’ve been! Of course I believe you now I see who you really are!” I wouldn’t call that a “second chance after death.” But while we’re at it I think that particular verse is an excellent example of the elaborate superstructures conservative Protestants raise on very slender foundations. The passage is making a point on the way to make another point (about Jesus)–it’s assuming more than stating, and so it doesn’t really explain itself. Which judgment are we talking about: particular or general (“Great White Throne”)? Are they even distinct, or does the afterlife not work like that? Nowhere does the passage say that judgment follows immediately after death. The traditional view is that the particular judgment does and then there’s a wait until the general judgment, but that may just be a hopelessly earth-centered way of speaking. People use this verse to back up what they believe because they can’t find anything better, and that shows how desperate they are!

I’m not sure about what judgements happen and when, but the Bible makes it clear while we are this side of the line, we make our decisions, once we cross over, those decisions are put into action. (if I understand the Bible correctly, feel free to correct me)

Love,
Rev

 

[Revelation13_16]

Of course, He could still have chosen to refrain from creating those who were going to reject Him, assuming His foreknowledge. . . . .

Tricky.

If he creates us without free will then we are automatons, and can’t please him. (or love properly)

His only other option is not to create at all.

Not much of a choice.

Well, that’s one reason why I don’t think your view works as it stands. But this is still a serious question. Lewis’s approach (in *The Great Divorce *and elsewhere) was to suggest that damnation is something very close to annihilation–that those who finally reject God are no longer persons but merely ghosts, shadows of what were once persons. God would save them if they would let Him, but the blessedness of heaven is not held hostage by those who have refused to be happy. Personally, I think that damnation is only conceivable on the assumption that the damned have ceased to have the capacity for choice and thus have ceased to be sentient beings in the full sense. There may be less contradiction between annihilation and eternal punishment than we think.

So you’re saying the damned are merely ‘empty shells’?

If that is true, then any pain they may feel may be illusionary?

But within the script the people are choosing freely. I can write “Laurentius Magnus chose to run out into the snow dressed in his underclothes.” Laurentius chose freely in his world, even though in my world as an author I “made” him do this very stupid thing. Good writers often report the sense that their characters have “come to life” and sometimes refuse to do things the authors want them to do. This is perhaps a pale shadow of how God’s providence and our free will work together.

I can’t fathom this, perhaps I am limited in intelligence.

Ultimately though, as author, you create a character, and ultimately decide when to kill it.

While you may influence the character between these points, and it may influence you also, eventually, no matter how great and unexpected the character has become, it will always have an end.

This is a problem I see with the Calvinist’s view of “Common Grace” as some sort of ‘consolation prize’ to the reprobate.

If life is like a speck of dust compared to eternity, and the reprobate eternity is never ending pain, then it wouldn’t matter if you ruled the world during that speck of dust, because the minute you hit the flames, all former joy is forgotten.

This is the paradox which Aquinas has expressed better than anyone else (which is to say very imperfectly!). God’s choice (or in the case of evil God’s permission) and our choices are not an either/or.

I must get around to reading Aquinas.

Some people have suggested that God is not exactly lying but is telling us the consequences of finally rejecting Him precisely in order to ensure that no one does. As I said earlier, I don’t think I can buy this. But it is logically possible.

I assume Richard Dawkins will repent on his death bed then.

Jenson thinks that God has his own time scale and that we can speak of the Father as God’s past, the Son as God’s present, and the Spirit as God’s future. I’ve never quite understood how this works and I’m very dubious as to whether it is in any way orthodox. But Jenson is a theologian whom I generally respect, so I take him seriously.

But wouldn’t that mean Eternity is divided into two? (or even three parts)

Love,
Rev

 

[Revelation13_16]

Well, I deny the premise. This life is not like a speck of dust. Eternity is not endless extension, though that may be how we experience it. Eternity in the full sense–as God experiences it–is an eternal now. So the closest we humans can come to imagining eternity is by imagining a single moment, not by imagining an endless future (though we may well experience an endless future in which the single moments become fuller and fuller and asymptotically approach the single moment of utter bliss experienced by God). Hence I stand by my statement. I can only judge the universe by the slice of it I am experiencing now (which of course includes my memories of the past, and far less meaningfully my hopes and fears for the future).

Yes but isn’t eternal now synonymous with endless extension?

For instance, if you had a migraine and the pain was unbearable, you’d say “Lord make it stop”, but you’re invoking the future here, and when the future came, and the migraine stopped, you’d feel bliss in the current present.

So I don’t see the difference between eternity as an endless extension and the eternal now in respects to hell. (which is the only eternity we should worry about)

The migraine that is the eternal now is the same as the migraine that extends forever is it not?

Again, I don’t see how this is not also a problem for Arminians. Frankly, I’m with King David–I’d rather trust my child to God’s mysterious purposes than to the choices of any human being, including her own (“Let me fall into the hands of the Lord, for His mercies are great; but let me now fall into the hands of men”).

Because if your child has a choice you can manipulate them (negative connotation but bear with me) towards believing what you want them to believe.

For instance, Let’s say I want my kid to be a Catholic.

If I speak ecclesiastical Latin in the home to my child, and his mother speaks English only to him, then by the time the child is 6, the language of the church will be his mother tongue, and so he’ll have a bond with one aspect of the church.

Furthermore, if I engineer holidays linked to Catholic sites and good memories, these things will stay with him throughout all his life.

Eventually, even if he strays from me, when I die, there’s a strong chance his feelings for me will be linked to Catholicism and he’ll be a good Catholic in order to feel closer to me. (and light some candles for me)

Thus, with the Arminian P.O.V people have choices, choices flux, mistakes are made, choices change.

With God, choices don’t flux, mistakes aren’t made, what is decreed will come to pass, if it is to heaven, then it is to heaven, if it is to hell, then it is to hell.

Particularly repulsive is the version of Arminianism that holds that all who haven’t heard the Gospel go to hell. Calvinism is far preferable to this monstrous doctrine, which deprives God both of His goodness and His sovereignty!

I don’t believe this personally.

I also believe kids don’t go to hell, though the Bible is silent on it.

If I’m going to hell, I’d rather go to hell for some mysterious purpose of God than because some stupid missionary never got to me in time. The thing is–when I say this to Calvinists they never seem to appreciate it. They hear the phrase “I’d rather” and start shouting “Blasphemy! Clay pot! Maker! Shut up!”

Sounds familiar.

I also think damnation makes more sense if we have a choice.

If God sent person x to hell, person x would curse God from hell forever.

However if person x sent himself to hell, person x would curse himself forever.

To me, that is hell.

Jesus said “a house divided against itself cannot stand”, and he also said “it’s hard for thee to kick against the pricks”

I believe internal conflict, guilt and so forth, are the truest and closest things to hell we can experience.

Another example:

If person y’s son is killed by a drunk driver, person y will feel anger and sorrow, but there is a peverse pleasure in hate, it strenghtens one, forces them to go on, even if it utterly corrupts.

But, if person y was the drunk driver that killed his own son, the anger and sorrow is magnified to unthinkable porportions.

You can’t escape the pain within you, and you can’t kill it either without you yourself dying.

Thus, Richard Dawkins in hell cursing God isn’t as painful as Richard Dawkins in hell cursing himself, replaying in his mind all the stupid things he wrote.

This is torture of the highest magnum.

continued

 

[Revelation13_16]

Also, Calvin taught (and it seems to me that many Calvinists today believe this) that one can reasonably presume that the children of elect parents are themselves elect.

This is flawed IMHO by the Esau example.

Also IMHO, I’ve conversed with many Athiests who claimed they come from a home in the Bible belt and now they hate Christianity.

If that’s the case, either the kids are in a backslide and will return to the faith (though after hearing their comments again Jesus it’s highly doubtful) or (and it is the more devasting option) the parents who think they are elect have actually been given a false faith and won’t be persevering to the end.

Also, how does the “children of the elect” work?

What if Mom is elect, but dad isn’t, or vice versa?

Does the elect of one sex, trump the elect of another?

So dad must be elect for it to work? (election tied to sex)

I reject the “children of the elect” theory completely.

So again, I think this is more of a problem for Arminians than for Calvinists. I think that the number of people who truly and consistently believe in free will is very small. Those who reject the Augustinian/Thomist/Calvinist tradition often seem in fact to be determinists who think that genetics and environment shape our destiny–certainly that was how my grandmother talked a lot of the time.

I do believe genetics & environment play an enormous role, but there are ways around these things over a course of your whole life, but I believe everyone would have had that one “semi-pelagian chance” where the gospel got through the genetic/environment fortification, and in that moment, eternity is decided.

If they revile God knowing (to some degree) who God really is, then yes.

Out of interest, would you wager our Archtypical Athiest Richard Dawkins is going to hell?

Certainly. I have no problems with that.

So we are the false followers of God then?

Love,
Rev

 

[Revelation13_16]

It’s not that you’re not clear but that I don’t agree with the analogy. God doesn’t just “shoot” people.

For shoot, read: hell.

People choose to reject God.

Arminian view.

The question is: why doesn’t God choose to ensure that everyone accepts Him?

Why doesn’t God choose to ensure that everyone will follow every Mosaid Law, thus negating the need for Jesus to suffer and die?

Because God doesn’t create automatons.

Can He do this without violating their free will?

Unlikely.

Calvinists say that God can ensure that anyone He likes accepts Him,and He either can do this without violating their free will (the more reasonable and orthodox version) or free will doesn’t matter anyway (the heretical version, although as Gottle of Geer pointed out we need to ask what “free will” means in these discussions).

If God chooses people to be saved or reprobate before they are born, then true Free Will (I can do anything I want) doesn’t exist because your choices are multiple, but confined to one of two spheres.

Sphere A: Salvation
Sphere B: Reprobation

You are born into either sphere, think of it like a playground.

The playground equiptment in each sphere is different, suffice to say there is more equiptment in Sphere B overall than there is in Sphere A.

Whilst God might not dictate every choice you make within those spheres, the main decision to put you into a sphere in the first place - of which will also be the same sphere of eternity - is the real choice, all other choices are meaningless.

Arminians (unless they embrace universalism or open theism) says that God gives everyone a chance. Fine, but to say that meaningfully you have to allow for the salvation of those who never heard the Gospel, and you have to address the question of circumstances, genetic inheritance, etc., which often influence people away from the Gospel. It is naive to pretend (as so many Arminians do) that simply by saying “people have free will” you have solved all these problems. I’m not saying that Arminians don’t try to deal with these problems, only that they exist and must be dealt with.

My views on this above.

But not everyone is in the room. So some of the people have to go and tell the others. In the version of Arminianism held by many evangelicals, God doesn’t bother telling those other people himself–he leaves it up to the people who have decided to accept his offer, and if some people never hear the offer he kills them anyway. How on earth is this superior to Calvinism? Of course, you can tweak Arminianism to allow for a humane view here.

Everyone on earth, all 7 billion are represented by those 20 people in the room. You can say the 5 elect tried to convince both the terrorist (prayers to save souls) and the other 15 to join them, but it’s God who ultimately says no if he wants to.

The Arminian God in the room, allowed for free talking and convincing, the Calvinist God can do the same, but ultimately none of the 15 will come, because they aren’t chosen, and can do nothing on their own.

Think of it like this, we are all cars which have the ability to drive ourselves but need a key to start us.

God has that key.

All want to drive to God, but only those who God has started with the key can do so.

God starts some, unconditionally.

The other unstarted cars are sent to the scrap yard.

Unless I’m missing a huge piece of the puzzle here, I see Arminianism as infinately fairer since all cars can either ask for or reject the offer of the key.

Love,
Rev

 

[Revelation13_16]

Angels are not God.

I never said they were.

They are created beings, and therefore subject to the “sin” of “incomplete knowledge”.

Hmm.

The angels that followed Satan were apparently “inferior” to Satan as regards their abilities of “original thought” and “oration”, as Satan was “the leader”.

Yes, Satan was 2nd in rank in heaven, ergo, all angels that followed him had to be lower in rank.

As soon as the angels exhibited sin, “pride”, they were expelled FROM heaven.

So sin can exist in heaven as long as it is not exhibited?

Sin cannot exist IN heaven, but once sin is CHOSEN by someone in heaven, heaven “leaves them” (they are expelled to “elsewhere”.

I’m confused.

Either

a) Sin can exist in heaven as long as it’s not exhibited.
b) Sin can’t exist in heaven at all.

Which one?

Once again,… as soon as a person (even angels are persons) sins, they “leave heaven”, therefore sin never exists IN heaven, only outside of it.

If sin only exists outside of heaven, what about the war in heaven in Revelation ch. 12?

You basic assumption is incorrect.

God does not loose sovereignty, primarily because that is a priori and by definition impossible.

You’ll have to show me how God’s sovereignty is lost…?

It is option 2)

Of course God knew it would happen, but He had given Satan a free will, and He had reasons to do so, and for those reasons ALLOWED Satan to do that which expelled him from heaven.

Satan’s expulsion was a consequence of Satan’s (sinful) choice, and completely within God’s plan, therefore that willfull act did NOT deprive God of any sovereign power.

I never said option 1) did.

But tell me why Satan started the attack and not Michael or Gabriel?

Of course God knew, as He (by definition) knows everything. You’re “redefinition” of God to mean “a being(s) who could be surprised (ie not omnipotent/omniscient)” is simply defining God to be other than God (1 != 1), which is simple contradiction. (And therfore heresy in the area of faith.)

If that’s true then the Judeo-Christian God is false, and/or our Bible is wrong.

Your conclusions are “logical” only if your terms are logical, which they aren’t.

You mean “valid”.

You assume that Satan’s free will allowed him to do other than what God had planned. Satan COULD HAVE chosen to not sin, but that was neither his choice (what he freely and actually did) NOR God’s plan, therefore that didn’t happen (according to plan).

So God planned for Satan to rebel?

And that is precisely the “mystery” of free will! Only by “losing faith” do we see a contradiction between the FACTS that Satan could have chosen otherwise, that he didn’t, and that God’s plan was to have happen what did happen, as ONLY in God can those facts be non-contradictory.

Why didn’t Satan choose otherwise?

Love,
Rev

 

[Revelation13_16]

He made himself a man to show us that even our humanity (our organically human-ness) could be a vehicle of true God (Jesus) if only we could strive to minimize our original sin (via baptism) and our temporal sin (our acts).

He also tells us that we can NEVER hope to “get all the way there” because it’s simply impossible to utterly remove our sins (original and temporal) except by His grace,… but that if we try (via our God given ability of free will) He will see what He can do for us.

We have NO guarantees. There is no absolute assurance of our salvation. But He looks favorably toward those who imitate Him.

Do you believe the following: (yes or no)

a) Adam was the first man
b) Adam brought sin into this world
c) Through one act
d) That damned all who would be born
e) Even if we try to be good

He would have all souls behold Him fully. Those whose pride keeps them from “judging” God (“God CAN’T be like THAT!”) expell themselves, just as Satan expelled himself, from heaven.

If God told you Calvinism was true, and that there is no free will, that God decides before any human was born who is going to heaven (elect) and who is going to hell (reprobate) and this choice is not based on anything good or bad these humans would do in their life …

wouldn’t you say “God can’t be like that!”

?

Now you’re just being materialistic. God creates ex nihilo, out of nothing. Not out of himself.

1. God said let us make man in our image.
2. What are the ingredients of the soul?

God won’t (willfully) destroy a soul because souls, by definition, cannot be destroyed. They are PERSONS who must choose their destination, and their choice must be respected.

Are you saying God can’t destroy a soul?

Your basic “heresy” is that you are materialist, who thinks that for God to exist all His acts must be justified according to human logic leaving NO MYSTERY.

If you can’t accept a mystery as a mystery, then you can’t accept God, because God is a mystery.

I would suggest that you cogitate (perhaps meditate would be a better word) on why it is that you won’t accept mystery as a valid conclusion to a question.

I can accept mystery, but not ignorance masquerading as mystery.

Love,
Rev

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu
He made himself a man to show us that even our humanity (our organically human-ness) could be a vehicle of true God (Jesus) if only we could strive to minimize our original sin (via baptism) and our temporal sin (our acts).

He also tells us that we can NEVER hope to “get all the way there” because it’s simply impossible to utterly remove our sins (original and temporal) except by His grace,… but that if we try (via our God given ability of free will) He will see what He can do for us.

We have NO guarantees. There is no absolute assurance of our salvation. But He looks favorably toward those who imitate Him.

Do you believe the following: (yes or no)

a) Adam was the first man

Yes.

b) Adam brought sin into this world

Eve commited the first sin, but “man”, as the combined Adam and Eve, commited the first (temporal) sin, which was to believe and act upon the “advice” of the serpent.

In other words, yes.

c) Through one act

Yes.

d) That damned all who would be born

No.
It “tainted” all who would be born to tend toward being sinful, with the effect that only through the gift of grace from God would they be fit to enter heaven.

We are only DAMNED, which is an act only God can do, if God decides to do so, and we can’t presume to know what exactly God will do in any individual case.

e) Even if we try to be good

Since I don’t agree that we are inevitably damned due to Adam/Eve’s sin, our “trying to be good” sounds like a way to let God know that we somewhat understand where Adam/Eve went wrong, and if God will’s it, we might be worth saving.

Quote:
He would have all souls behold Him fully. Those whose pride keeps them from “judging” God (“God CAN’T be like THAT!”) expell themselves, just as Satan expelled himself, from heaven.

If God told you Calvinism was true, and that there is no free will, that God decides before any human was born who is going to heaven (elect) and who is going to hell (reprobate) and this choice is not based on anything good or bad these humans would do in their life …

How would He tell me this?

God has revealed the truth, and it exists in the tradition and wisdom of His Church (Catholic), a part of which is the Bible scriptures, and that’s not what He says.

Therefore, since there is only one reality, and in the one that exists it’s not true that Calvinism is correct, your question is meaningless.

wouldn’t you say “God can’t be like that!”

?

God has told you what He is like, and yet you don’t believe Him?

What’s up with that…!?

Quote:
Now you’re just being materialistic. God creates ex nihilo, out of nothing. Not out of himself.

1. God said let us make man in our image.

1. What are the ingredients of the soul?

“Ingredients of the soul”,… Hmmm,…

usccb.org/catechism/quizzes/am9.htm

The soul is composed “solely” (sorry) of that which creates a person, firstly united integrally with a body so as to develop the person as a human being, then separated from the earthly body at death, then reunited (eventually) with the “perfected(?)” body at the resurrection.

The soul has no “ingredients”, as in constituent parts. It is a singular indivisible creation of God ex nihilo.

Quote:
God won’t (willfully) destroy a soul because souls, by definition, cannot be destroyed. They are PERSONS who must choose their destination, and their choice must be respected.

Are you saying God can’t destroy a soul?

I’m not saying He CAN’T,… I’m saying He WON’T, because to do so would violate Himself.

God does not violate Himself.

(( The lack of of a functional difference between “can’t” and “won’t” in regards to acts of God doesn’t redefine “won’t” as “can’t” for Him. It is merely another example of how God exemplifies MYSTERY. ))

Quote:
Your basic “heresy” is that you are materialist, who thinks that for God to exist all His acts must be justified according to human logic leaving NO MYSTERY.

If you can’t accept a mystery as a mystery, then you can’t accept God, because God is a mystery.

I would suggest that you cogitate (perhaps meditate would be a better word) on why it is that you won’t accept mystery as a valid conclusion to a question.

I can accept mystery, but not ignorance masquerading as mystery.

Love,
Rev

Show me the ignorance?

(( …said in my best Cuba Gooding Jr. impersonation ))

 

[Revelation13_16]

Yes.

Eve commited the first sin, but “man”, as the combined Adam and Eve, commited the first (temporal) sin, which was to believe and act upon the “advice” of the serpent.

Eve commited no sin.

No.
It “tainted” all who would be born to tend toward being sinful, with the effect that only through the gift of grace from God would they be fit to enter heaven.

We are only DAMNED, which is an act only God can do, if God decides to do so, and we can’t presume to know what exactly God will do in any individual case.

So if a child is born, and chooses not to become a Christian where do they go when they die?

How would He tell me this?

God has revealed the truth, and it exists in the tradition and wisdom of His Church (Catholic), a part of which is the Bible scriptures, and that’s not what He says.

Therefore, since there is only one reality, and in the one that exists it’s not true that Calvinism is correct, your question is meaningless.

We can’t have discourse if you won’t step outside of the box.

You would get frustrated if you were trying to have a discussion with a Protestant who repeatedly stopped you and said “that’s not in the Bible”, “sola fide”, etc.

You can’t discuss these things from the position you’re currently taking because you’re merely being a spokesperson for the Catholic church and not an individual.

God has told you what He is like, and yet you don’t believe Him?

What’s up with that…!?

“Ingredients of the soul”,… Hmmm,…

usccb.org/catechism/quizzes/am9.htm

The soul is composed “solely” (sorry) of that which creates a person, firstly united integrally with a body so as to develop the person as a human being, then separated from the earthly body at death, then reunited (eventually) with the “perfected(?)” body at the resurrection.

The soul has no “ingredients”, as in constituent parts. It is a singular indivisible creation of God ex nihilo.

I’m not saying He CAN’T,… I’m saying He WON’T, because to do so would violate Himself.

God does not violate Himself.

(( The lack of of a functional difference between “can’t” and “won’t” in regards to acts of God doesn’t redefine “won’t” as “can’t” for Him. It is merely another example of how God exemplifies MYSTERY. ))

Show me the ignorance?

(( …said in my best Cuba Gooding Jr. impersonation ))

Again, see all this?

Catholic, Catholic, Catholic.

You won’t admit that the Catholic church could be wrong on some of these things so we can have no discourse.

Love,
Rev

 

[Mannyfit75]

Eve commited no sin.

A sin is any commandment of God that is violated. The very first law that God said to Adam, “Thou shall not eat from the fruit from then tree of life.”

The serpeant persuaded Eve to break this order, and Adam follow and ate the fruit. She like Adam, sinned against God.

So if a child is born, and chooses not to become a Christian where do they go when they die?

The moment of the child’s death, is up to God’s judgement and mercy.

We can’t have discourse if you won’t step outside of the box.

You would get frustrated if you were trying to have a discussion with a Protestant who repeatedly stopped you and said “that’s not in the Bible”, “sola fide”, etc.

You can’t discuss these things from the position you’re currently taking because you’re merely being a spokesperson for the Catholic church and not an individual.

We Catholics can speak for ourselves.

Again, see all this?

Catholic, Catholic, Catholic.

You won’t admit that the Catholic church could be wrong on some of these things so we can have no discourse.

Love,
Rev

The Church cannot be wrong when it teaches moral and faith issues. As a Christian Catholic, I believe Jesus establish a physical Church. I also believed that he promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (his Church).

scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html#the_church-IV

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
As soon as the angels exhibited sin, “pride”, they were expelled FROM heaven.

So sin can exist in heaven as long as it is not exhibited?

No. The angels didn’t possess sin until they chose Satan’s path, whereupon they instantly found themselves outside of heaven.

The very choice to sin impells a person OUT OF HEAVEN.

(( Heaven is “with God”. If you have “sin on you” you choose not to be “with God”. You can’t both be “with God” [in heaven] and be in “not with God” [choose not to be in heaven]. Silly! ))

Quote:
Sin cannot exist IN heaven, but once sin is CHOSEN by someone in heaven, heaven “leaves them” (they are expelled to “elsewhere”.

I’m confused.

Either

a) Sin can exist in heaven as long as it’s not exhibited.
b) Sin can’t exist in heaven at all.

Which one?

B. Sin cannot exist in heaven because to choose sin is to not be in heaven.

Quote:
Once again,… as soon as a person (even angels are persons) sins, they “leave heaven”, therefore sin never exists IN heaven, only outside of it.

If sin only exists outside of heaven, what about the war in heaven in Revelation ch. 12?

Revelation 12:
7 Then war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels battled against the dragon. The dragon and its angels fought back,

8 but they did not prevail and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.

9 The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world, was thrown down to earth, and its angels were thrown down with it.

If you are literalistic (as opposed to literal) about the this section, then Satan somehow managed to pry his way back into heaven.

How would that happen, except by God’s grace? Perhaps God DID let Satan back into heaven, for some odd reason?

It’s entirely permissable that God could do such a thing, as God CAN do anything, and this may be a case where He wills it to be that a sinner can get into heaven,… for the express purpose of getting his *** kicked by Michael, and chucked back out into the world (earth).

Michael’s job, after all, is to guard the rights of God against those who would usurp them (isbn: 1-85182-911-3 pg.83), and Satan being IN HEAVEN would certainly qualify as a case for Michael to handle.

Anyway,… Satan didn’t stay in heaven very long, and only stayed there as long as he did because of a dispensation from God.

Are there any other examples of sinners hanging out in heaven?

Quote:
You basic assumption is incorrect.

God does not loose sovereignty, primarily because that is a priori and by definition impossible.

You’ll have to show me how God’s sovereignty is lost…?

It is option 2)

What is “option 2”? Do you mean “option b”…? “Sin can’t exist in heaven at all.”?

If God is limited by the condition that “sin can’t exist in heaven at all”, then the condition is mis-stated, because nothing can limit what God can do.

I would rather state that those with sin can exist in heaven only of God will’s it, which He does (act of will) in any case of allowing one of us humans in, but which happens infrequently for those who actively choose not be there by continually sinning.

Quote:
Of course God knew it would happen, but He had given Satan a free will, and He had reasons to do so, and for those reasons ALLOWED Satan to do that which expelled him from heaven.

Satan’s expulsion was a consequence of Satan’s (sinful) choice, and completely within God’s plan, therefore that willfull act did NOT deprive God of any sovereign power.

I never said option 1) did.

What?

But tell me why Satan started the attack and not Michael or Gabriel?

Revelation doesn’t say Michael struck first. It says, Michael and his angels battled the Dragon, and the Dragon fought back.

The mere presence of Satan “in heaven” would be an aggressive attack.

But, what does that have to do with anything?

Quote:
Of course God knew, as He (by definition) knows everything. You’re “redefinition” of God to mean “a being(s) who could be surprised (ie not omnipotent/omniscient)” is simply defining God to be other than God (1 != 1), which is simple contradiction. (And therfore heresy in the area of faith.)

If that’s true then the Judeo-Christian God is false, and/or our Bible is wrong.

If WHAT is true, then God is false?

If you define God as not all-powerful, then YOUR definition of God is false,… but that says nothing of the truth of God.

continued…

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Your conclusions are “logical” only if your terms are logical, which they aren’t.

You mean “valid”.

That too, but unless your terms are logical your conclusions can’t be logical, meaning that your terms must make sense (be logical, though not necessarily be the truth) for your conclusions to make sense (be logical).

Quote:
You assume that Satan’s free will allowed him to do other than what God had planned. Satan COULD HAVE chosen to not sin, but that was neither his choice (what he freely and actually did) NOR God’s plan, therefore that didn’t happen (according to plan).

So God planned for Satan to rebel?

Satan’s revolt was part of God’s plan, proved by the fact that it did actually happen, but Satan always had the choice NOT to revolt.

Once again, you equate “God’s Plan” with “God’s Plan involves no free will”, which is an incorrect equation.

How does God’s Plan, which MUST be carried out, involve the ability of any part of that plan having the ability to choose other than God’s Plan but which always DOES choose to conform to God’s Plan?

That’s the mystery…!! Unless you’re God, you can’t know, so don’t worry about it.

If you can’t tolerate that “apparent inconsistency” then you can’t be a Christian, because being so means you accept that God is both all-powerful and that He is wise enough to not have to use force (violence) to enact His plan.

Quote:
And that is precisely the “mystery” of free will! Only by “losing faith” do we see a contradiction between the FACTS that Satan could have chosen otherwise, that he didn’t, and that God’s plan was to have happen what did happen, as ONLY in God can those facts be non-contradictory.

Why didn’t Satan choose otherwise?

Because he didn’t. He willfully and actively chose what he chose because that is what he wanted to do.

The fact that Satan chose what God’s Plan called for is simply proof that God “figured out” what Satan would do during God’s “planning phase” of God’s Plan.

Love,
Rev

Once again,… like all materialists, you seek a “clockwork” solution to questions of faith, and they simply don’t exist.

You imposing materialistic conditions on faith creates the wild contradictions that your mind jumps to when you think about matters of faith.

The answer is, do what Papa says, as He knows best.

Now,… he’s told you where to go for authoritative information as to the great mysteries.

Go there, learn, and live God’s wisdom in hopes of being with Him (by sinning as little as possible).

 

[marci]

Eve commited no sin.

 

[Keikiolu]

…
We can’t have discourse if you won’t step outside of the box.

You would get frustrated if you were trying to have a discussion with a Protestant who repeatedly stopped you and said “that’s not in the Bible”, “sola fide”, etc.

You can’t discuss these things from the position you’re currently taking because you’re merely being a spokesperson for the Catholic church and not an individual.

Catholic, Catholic, Catholic.

You won’t admit that the Catholic church could be wrong on some of these things so we can have no discourse.

Love,
Rev

I’m giving you my views on what I believe.

If you insist that I give you views that aren’t mine, then we have nothing to discuss as I won’t try to give not-my views about what I believe.

Therefore,… have a great day…!

 

[Revelation13_16]

For those who say Eve commited the first sin, you need to read Genesis again closely:

Genesis 2:15-18

And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

¶ And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him

Eve wasn’t even there when God gave the order not to eat off the tree of life, she wasn’t created until afterwards.

All the onus was squarely on Adam because he was the one God created and blew breath into his nostrils.

Man was created from the hands of God, woman was created from Man.

It’s un-PC to say, but the woman is lesser in importance to the man.

Eve may have ate of the fruit first, but it’s debateable whether it had any effect on her at all.

It wasn’t until Adam bit into it, that he, and everything under him (woman, animals, earth) felt death.

Love,
Rev

 

[Revelation13_16]

Keikiolu, I leave you this post to clarify the end of our discussion.

You say: “The angels didn’t possess sin until they chose Satan’s path”

But that implies Satan started his war outside of heaven, because sin can’t exist in heaven under your terms. But we know Satan was 2nd in rank in heaven, subordinate only to God. He was the closest to God, God’s light shone through him.

My point about sin, whether it can exist in heaven inhibited is this: How did Satan fall?

If you say when he started the attack, that means sin can exist in heaven if it’s not acted upon, which is logical if you believe in free will.

However it’s doubtful that God wouldn’t know that the closest being next to him was thinking thoughts about how he could overthrow him, it questions God’s omniscience or leans strongly to indicating that Free Will is a myth, and God made Satan rebel against him.

Re: War in Heaven

Satan did not pry his way back into heaven.

This part of Revelation is talking about things past, things before man was created.

Re: Option 2) & Option 1)

These do not refer to b. et al, they refer to previous threads of mine on page 2 now.

Re: Michael & Gabriel

I was trying to make a point that Satan started the rebellion, but why did he? He was the only angel with all that power. If God didn’t know what all that power would do to Satan, his omniscience is called into question. If he did know, then he planned Satan’s fall for a purpose. If Satan is going to hell through no fault of his own (if God planned his fall) then God sends people to eternal suffering anytime he wants to make a point. This calls God’s goodness into question. You can explain all this away as ‘Mystery’ if you want - it’s safer. (though ignorant from a logical standpoint)

Re: Judeo-Christian God possibly false

I quoted you regarding God and contradiction and said if that is true, refering to your quote.

Re: Logic

No, I mean valid. my ‘terms’ are called ‘premises’, and by logical you mean ‘valid’. link

Re: Satan’s revolt.

If it sits fine with you, that a created being who loves God one minute and then is forced to rebel and become evil and spend eternity in hell through no choice of his own, then you worship an evil God.

And you can’t say God planned it and Satan had free will because if God plans something it must come to pass, if it doesn’t, he isn’t God, or he isn’t perfect, either way Christianity becomes false.

God Bless,
Rev

 

[Nick_Jones]

What CAUSES me to go to heaven is GOD. Period.

Not so! Your theology seems instead, to be saying that God has made heaven a possibility for everyone…but only those who have proved themselves worthy enough (proven that they really truly want to go to heaven) actually go to heaven. To use your own words:

One of the multitudinous FACTORS of my actually GOING to heaven is that I choose (by belief AN ACT!) to want to go there. God will weigh all the other factors and make the decision.

Your simple act of not choosing to accept God’s offer overrides (probably! ) any possibility of your going to heaven.

Do you see the difference now?

It’s ALWAYS and ONLY God’s choice as to whether one actually GOES to heaven, but without one wanting to go there, proved by deeds (acts/works from faith), there is very little hope of God deciding to allow you that which you refuse to have. (You’ve proven to God that you DON’T really want to go to heaven by NOT performing good works from faith.)

How is this any different from noting that I can be extremely wealthy (God has made it possible) if I just choose to believe it is possible for me, and if I make every reasonable effort toward that goal in every attitude and deed.