Challenge to all here.

[porthos11]

If Catholics accept Paul I will wait to see if you can answer the challenge. Calvin brings out “thats not fair” in the explination of how the will of God chooses who is saved based on His will. I do not see anybody here rising to the challenge.

I don’t understand your phrasing, to be honest. First of all, I do accept that it IS discussing election and reprobation, so for your purposes, YOU win.

What I’m trying to understand from you is the "it’s not fair " part. What are you trying to assert here?

 

[porthos11]

Calvin’s theology was that only certain people are predestined to Heaven while God predestines people to Hell. That is very different than the Catholic understanding of predestination. We believe that God has predestined everyone to Heaven and that man’s freewill can keep him from partaking in God’s love and forgiveness. God does not want any of his children to go to Hell. He sent his Son to die for all so that we may ALL inherit the Kingdom of God. Peace be with all!

Actally, it’s also Catholic teaching that God has also predestined certain people to damnation as well, but not in a manner contradictory to his universal desire of salvation. The key difference is what you mention: man’s free will and his foreseen demerits.

 

[MarcoPolo]

So how would your explanation of Romans 9 elicit a response that is found in verses 20-23? IOW I could post your response and most would not say “that’s not fair”.

The reason I say such is that the ONLY response I have heard of “that’s not fair” comes from a Calvinistic reading of Romans 9.

If the only response someone gave to that typological interpretation was “that’s not fair,” I don’t really no how to respond because that is not a useful response and does not engage the interpretation.

Again, regarding v. 20-23, the contrast between vessels of destruction and of mercy are, again, the Old Law and the New Law. You know how Paul contrasted the 2 covenants at the end of Galatians 4 regarding Sarah and Hagar (v. 24 “Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants.”) and he goes on to describe how the 2 women parallel the 2 covenants—well, we have the same idea here with Jacob and Esau. Just because Paul is citing specific OT individuals, it doesn’t mean he’s teaching something specifically about those individuals - rather he teaches by way of what their lives represent. You see, Catholics, and Paul explicitly in Galatians 4, read Scripture in part with a typological eye. Typological interpretation seems forbidden by Calvinistic thought on Romans 9, which instead imposes on the text certain limits which are unnecessary and improper. So we look at the context of Romans 9, and see how Paul is already setting up Israel as the character of Esau when he says in v. 4: “They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship…” That is what was due to Esau according to OT law - the father’s blessing as the elder son. But in the story of Jacob and Esau, Jacob ends up getting the blessing - the sign that Christianity - though it came along second, is the blessed one, the vessel receiving mercy. The whole passage ties together when you see the analogs of the old and new covenants in Esau and Jacob.

 

[TimothyH]

Give ANY explanation to verses in Romans 9:11-13 that can elicit a response that Paul knew would come in verses 20-23. If you can do this by saying it is not discussing election and reprobation you win.
;

Scripture isn’t a challenge to be won or lost.

Scripture is not something to be thrown in another person’s face with the assertion that if they cannot explain a passage then they are a loser and the other person is a winner.

Discussion of scripture is not a boxing match. God’s word is not a playing field for men to prove the power of their intellect superior to anothers.

-Tim-

 

[earl40]

Calvin’s theology was that only certain people are predestined to Heaven while God predestines people to Hell. That is very different than the Catholic understanding of predestination. We believe that God has predestined everyone to Heaven and that man’s freewill can keep him from partaking in God’s love and forgiveness. God does not want any of his children to go to Hell. He sent his Son to die for all so that we may ALL inherit the Kingdom of God. Peace be with all!

So why would ANYBODY raise such an objection to what you wrote.

IOW what exactly do YOU think people would object to in Romans 9.

 

[MarcoPolo]

You might also want to check out Catholic Nick’s blog on Romans 9. He’s also a CAF member.

 

[earl40]

Scripture isn’t a challenge to be won or lost.

Scripture is not something to be thrown in another person’s face with the assertion that if they cannot explain a passage then they are a loser and the other person is a winner.

Discussion of scripture is not a boxing match. God’s word is not a playing field for men to prove the power of their intellect superior to anothers.

-Tim-

The assertion made are attempts to get you to read the bible and it’s plain reading of what it means. IOW I have found almost all RC’s woefully ignorgant of scripture…along with most protestants. So that challenge is to anybody. What is interesting is that most RC side with most of the baptist I have come across.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Actally, it’s also Catholic teaching that God has also predestined certain people to damnation as well, but not in a manner contradictory to his universal desire of salvation. The key difference is what you mention: man’s free will and his foreseen demerits.

But not in the way of Calvinist theology

 

[earl40]

You might also want to check out Catholic Nick’s blog on Romans 9. He’s also a CAF member.

Man talk about have large reading asignments.

I will try to read that tome but does he explain Romans 9:20-23 and why people would object?

 

[earl40]

But not in the way of Calvinist theology

That is correct for God is not a contingent being. This is catholic 101.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Here is a tract by Tim Staples and wonderful answers the question!
catholic.com/magazine/articles/predestined-for-freedom

 

[earl40]

The Church looks at the whole of Sacred Scripture within Sacred Tradition in determining truth in this, as in all matters of faith and morals. Having said that, I am not an expert on predestination, however, I can give you a link to Haydock’s Bible Commentary on the chapter you quoted that may be helpful to your researches: haydock1859.tripod.com/id153.html.

Also, I’d recommend you look for predestination in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM.

All the best to you.

I just looked at this and it is obvious that a ton of equivocation on the clear meaning of the text is ignored by appealing to outside sourses. Though he attempts to explain why people would object though he puts men’s free will over God’s. That is a serious problem for those who want The Lord of the universe to rule over all, Face it Paul and Calvins God is bigger than yours. jk

 

[pablope]

I assure you election and reprobate are indeed used in the bible. They may not be in the exact spelling you like, but the concepts are indeed are as codified in scripture, as is the word Trinity which is not “used in the bible”.

Right…but the understanding of election and reprobate maybe quite different as it was understood prior to calvin. calvin went to a different trajectory.

 

[porthos11]

The assertion made are attempts to get you to read the bible and it’s plain reading of what it means. IOW I have found almost all RC’s woefully ignorgant of scripture…along with most protestants. So that challenge is to anybody. What is interesting is that most RC side with most of the baptist I have come across.

You’ll find that most active Catholic CAF members read their Bibles as the Catholic Church commands.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Earl are you of the reformed theology belief? If so that would actually help out in this conversation to know that or not.

 

[pablope]

The assertion made are attempts to get you to read the bible and it’s plain reading of what it means.

When literally…we believe in the Real presence…how come some protestants argue to death it is not the real presence? But this is for another thread.l

IOW I have found almost all RC’s woefully ignorgant of scripture…

 

[porthos11]

I just looked at this and it is obvious that a ton of equivocation on the clear meaning of the text is ignored by appealing to outside sourses. Though he attempts to explain why people would object though he puts men’s free will over God’s. That is a serious problem for those who want The Lord of the universe to rule over all, Face it Paul and Calvins God is bigger than yours. jk

Forget external links and blogs. What I’m still trying to understand is why you’re still trying so hard to fight us on these passages since we are in agreement that Paul speaks of predestination and reprobation here.

If you’re trying to assert a doctrinal position, then do so but so far we’ve only argued points that we agree on.

 

[pablope]

I just looked at this and it is obvious that a ton of equivocation on the clear meaning of the text is ignored by appealing to outside sourses.

Are you not doing the same? You are using Calvin…so he is an outside source…isn’t it?

Though he attempts to explain why people would object though he puts men’s free will over God’s. That is a serious problem for those who want The Lord of the universe to rule over all, Face it Paul and Calvins God is bigger than yours. jk

 

[porthos11]

Are you not doing the same? You are using Calvin…so he is an outside source…isn’t it?

 

[aidanbradypop]

pablope;10255716:

Actually I’m not even certain Earl is even defending the Calvinist position. I want him to state his position because from his very opening post he tried to challenge us to read the Scriptural passages without drawing predestination out of it, which is foolish because they DO speak of predestination and reprobation and there is no logical way around it. That’s why I now demand a clarification from him. When we pointed out that predestination and reprobation is Catholic teaching, he all of a sudden pulled a “that’s not fair” from somewhere and I don’t know the context of that phrase or what he wants us to do with it.

He must posit something if he needs to challenge us otherwise we’re only arguing points we have in common.

Yeah I am confused as well lol. I asked him his theological views with no anwer yet.