Defense of free will in Romans

  • Thread starter Thread starter mmmcloug
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mmmcloug

Guest
Hello All,

A close friend of mine is an evangelical Christian who has recently decided in favor of double predestination, using Romans 9 in his defense. I have been doing a lot of studying to respond to him and defend the Catholic view of predestination - the combination of God’s grace and our free will - but there are some passages I’m not sure how to address:

Romans 9:8-23 - about Jacob and Esau, the Pharaoh, and the potter and his clay
Romans 11:5-10 - about how Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking because they ‘were hardened’

What is the Catholic interpretation of these passages? What can I say to my friend about these specific passages to defend the truth?

Thank you so much for your help!
God bless.
 
Predestination has nothing to do with the free will of men.

Predestination is the belief that the saved are chosen by God before the foundation of the world and all those who will ever be saved are saved because they are chosen.

However It does not mean that those who re saved are saved against their wills, those who are saved have to want to be saved, it means that those who are saved are dead (Ephesians) and by God’s grace made alive and then in new life assent to God’s saving grace by their own free choice.

Predestination is about God’s will not mans. And its close cousin election is about God’s working in men to bring them to salvation.

God Bless
 
bogeydogg said:
Predestination has nothing to do with the free will of men.

Predestination is the belief that the saved are chosen by God before the foundation of the world and all those who will ever be saved are saved because they are chosen.

However It does not mean that those who re saved are saved against their wills, those who are saved have to want to be saved, it means that those who are saved are dead (Ephesians) and by God’s grace made alive and then in new life assent to God’s saving grace by their own free choice.

Predestination is about God’s will not mans. And its close cousin election is about God’s working in men to bring them to salvation.

God Bless
Click to expand...
Forgive me for my poor terminology use. Simply using the word predestination was too vague. However, free will does play a part. God’s gives us grace to save us; without it, we cannot be saved. Nevertheless, it is our free will that determines whether or not we accept his grace. If we refuse it, we cannot be saved.
 
The Catholic Church *does *teach predestination. But our teaching is in contrast to Calvinism. Good website about Catholic predestination. Lots of Holy Scripture.

bringyou.to/apologetics/num21.htm

Calvin : God’s sovereignty determines the will.
Catholic : God’s sovereignty includes free will.

Calvin : Predestination as predetermination.
Catholic : Predestination as infallible foreknowledge.

Calvin : God desires only the salvation of the elect.
Catholic : God desires the salvation of all.

Calvin : God provides grace only to the elect.
Catholic : God provides grace to all, though not all accept it.

Calvin : Christ died only for the elect.
Catholic : Christ died for all men.

Calvin : God predetermines some for hell.
Catholic : Men merit hell by their own wickedness.

Calvin : The elect include all those born-again.
Catholic : The elect are those who persevere to the end.

Calvin : Grace co-opts human free will.
Catholic : Grace perfects the free will that cooperates.

Calvin : Those in grace (born-again) can’t fall away.
Catholic : Those in grace can freely sin and lose grace.

Calvin : The elect will unfailingly persevere.
Catholic : The elect are those who have persevered.

Calvin : The elect are assured of their salvation.
Catholic : Yes, but only God knows who they are.

Calvin : Predestination eliminates merit and guilt.
Catholic : Predestination includes merit and guilt.

I will explain Romans 11:5-10, since it is shorter. To start off, the context is that most of the Jews have rejected Christ, but some have been given enough grace to help them accept Him as Lord (verse 5). Now, understand that all Catholics must believe we are saved by grace, the *unmerited gift *of God (verse 6).We believe God gives us grace for no reason other than His holy will. However, not all will accept that grace. Thus it is written in verse 7, “The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened.” God offers sufficient grace to all, but sometimes not enough actual grace to accept God’s mercy. This just shows further how salvation is purely and act of God and not of man. Verse 8-10 is just St. Paul giving examples from the Law and Prophets that sometimes God allows people, of their own sinfulness, to fall away and reject His grace, because of His all-holy will.
 
mmmcloug said:
Forgive me for my poor terminology use. Simply using the word predestination was too vague. However, free will does play a part. God’s gives us grace to save us; without it, we cannot be saved. Nevertheless, it is our free will that determines whether or not we accept his grace. If we refuse it, we cannot be saved.
Click to expand...
Exactly what I said.
 
Calvin : God’s sovereignty determines the will.
Catholic : God’s sovereignty includes free will.

Calvin never taught determinism concerning the will of man.

Calvin : Predestination as predetermination.
Catholic : Predestination as infallible foreknowledge.

Calvin blasted Zwingli for being a determinist and his thought was much more in line with Rome’s on this.

Calvin : God desires only the salvation of the elect.
Catholic : God desires the salvation of all.

Calvin was wrong about this one.

Calvin : God provides grace only to the elect.
Catholic : God provides grace to all, though not all accept it.

Calvin was wrong about this one too.

Calvin : Christ died only for the elect.
Catholic : Christ died for all men.

And this one.

Calvin : God predetermines some for hell.
Catholic : Men merit hell by their own wickedness.

And this one.

Calvin : The elect include all those born-again.
Catholic : The elect are those who persevere to the end.

One statement follows from the other and Calvin taught both.

Calvin : Grace co-opts human free will.
Catholic : Grace perfects the free will that cooperates.

Not sure what you mean by co-opt. Augustine and Calvin both taught man’s will is free but his desire is for sin only (Jeremiah, Genesis, etc) as such he has no ability to exercise his will toward God apart from grace which he must cooperate with to be saved.

Calvin : Those in grace (born-again) can’t fall away.
Catholic : Those in grace can freely sin and lose grace.

If those who are born again can fall away then your statement about perseverance is absurd.

Calvin : The elect will unfailingly persevere.
Catholic : The elect are those who have persevered.

Same thing.

Calvin : The elect are assured of their salvation.
Catholic : Yes, but only God knows who they are.

Yup.

Calvin : Predestination eliminates merit and guilt.
Catholic : Predestination includes merit and guilt.

Calvin never taught there was no merit and guilt. He taught the guilt is ours and the merit is Christ’s.

God Bless
 
I numbered just for ease if that’s alright.
bogeydogg said:
  1. Calvin : God’s sovereignty determines the will.
    Catholic : God’s sovereignty includes free will.
Calvin never taught determinism concerning the will of man.
  1. Calvin : Predestination as predetermination.
    Catholic : Predestination as infallible foreknowledge.
Calvin blasted Zwingli for being a determinist and his thought was much more in line with Rome’s on this.
  1. Calvin : God desires only the salvation of the elect.
    Catholic : God desires the salvation of all.
Calvin was wrong about this one.
  1. Calvin : God provides grace only to the elect.
    Catholic : God provides grace to all, though not all accept it.
Calvin was wrong about this one too.
  1. Calvin : Christ died only for the elect.
    Catholic : Christ died for all men.
And this one.
  1. Calvin : God predetermines some for hell.
    Catholic : Men merit hell by their own wickedness.
And this one.
  1. Calvin : The elect include all those born-again.
    Catholic : The elect are those who persevere to the end.
One statement follows from the other and Calvin taught both.
  1. Calvin : Grace co-opts human free will.
    Catholic : Grace perfects the free will that cooperates.
Not sure what you mean by co-opt. Augustine and Calvin both taught man’s will is free but his desire is for sin only (Jeremiah, Genesis, etc) as such he has no ability to exercise his will toward God apart from grace which he must cooperate with to be saved.
  1. Calvin : Those in grace (born-again) can’t fall away.
    Catholic : Those in grace can freely sin and lose grace.
If those who are born again can fall away then your statement about perseverance is absurd.
  1. Calvin : The elect will unfailingly persevere.
    Catholic : The elect are those who have persevered.
Same thing.
  1. Calvin : The elect are assured of their salvation.
    Catholic : Yes, but only God knows who they are.
Yup.
  1. Calvin : Predestination eliminates merit and guilt.
    Catholic : Predestination includes merit and guilt.
Calvin never taught there was no merit and guilt. He taught the guilt is ours and the merit is Christ’s.

God Bless
Click to expand...
Now I may be incorrect in asserting these things as being taught by Calvin, but I do know they are a historical part of Calvinist theology. That is, if I’m understanding TULIP correctly.
  1. Calvin did not teach determinism, at least in a philosophical sense. However, he did teach the doctrine of irresistible grace, whereby one cannot resist the grace of God, as the name implies.
  2. Isn’t the doctrine of unconditional election predetermination?
3-6) Fair enough.
  1. We’ll look at #9 for this.
  2. To be honest, I can’t really say on this one. I’ll leave it to somebody better than me.
  3. I’ll explain the Catholic teaching more clearly. We believe that God’s sanctifying grace, infused in our souls, is the means by which we are truly justified and saved. But we believe that if we sin we lose this grace, and since “Nothing unclean shall enter.” we lose salvation. Perseverance, in Catholic terms, means that we are in a state of grace before we die. We may have lost God’s grace by our evil sins throughout our lives, but receive it in the sacrament of Penance or Baptism before we die. This is the Catholic doctrine of perseverance of the saints.
  4. While the difference is harder to see, it’s basically the same as the difference between predetermination and infallible foreknowledge.
  5. I think the only reason they mentioned this was because some people may have thought we can know whether we are amongst the elect based on whether we have worldly success or not. Also, I think they were trying to emphasize that even though we may live holy lives most of the time, due to some sin at the end of life we may be damned. We can have hope, if our faith produces good works, but we can’t have absolute knowledge.
  6. If you’re correct, then you’re walking terribly close to Saint Thomas Aquinas.
 
Now I may be incorrect in asserting these things as being taught by Calvin, but I do know they are a historical part of Calvinist theology. That is, if I’m understanding TULIP correctly.

Calvin did not teach TULIP Calvin was long dead by the Synod of Dordt which is when that acrostic sprouted (<— see a pun) up in response to the five points of Arminianism.
  1. Calvin did not teach determinism, at least in a philosophical sense. However, he did teach the doctrine of irresistible grace, whereby one cannot resist the grace of God, as the name implies.
I was very precise I said Calvin did not teach determinism concerning the will of man, but yes as he was a double predestinarian he did de facto teach determinism concerning salvation and he was wrong.

Also irresistible grace does mean that man has no free will it means that those upon whom God graciously grants His favor will not be able to frustrate the Almighty in His purposes concerning salvation. Thinkers more moderate than Calvin would add that they also will not want to because grace changes us from enemies of God to servants of God but never forces us to choose ‘a’ when we want to choose ‘b’.
  1. Isn’t the doctrine of unconditional election predetermination?
Unconditional election means that God chooses His elect without precondition. That is no one is saved because they did something to earn God’s favor but salvation is an undeserved work of grace by God. Which I think the CCCC would agree with…

3-6) Fair enough.
  1. We’ll look at #9 for this.
  2. To be honest, I can’t really say on this one. I’ll leave it to somebody better than me.
  3. I’ll explain the Catholic teaching more clearly. We believe that God’s sanctifying grace, infused in our souls, is the means by which we are truly justified and saved. But we believe that if we sin we lose this grace, and since “Nothing unclean shall enter.” we lose salvation. Perseverance, in Catholic terms, means that we are in a state of grace before we die. We may have lost God’s grace by our evil sins throughout our lives, but receive it in the sacrament of Penance or Baptism before we die. This is the Catholic doctrine of perseverance of the saints.
OK, you say that those who are elect will not finally and fully fall away because they will persevere to the end. This is the exact summation of Reformed thought on perseverance. No serious Reformed scholar would ever say that there is no need to persevere because of God’s grace, remember Luther’s first thesis is that the life of the faithful will be marked by penitence. However since St John in his First Epistle says that those who leave were never part of us, it is short hand to say that the elect cannot fall away.

If the elect are those who will not finally fall away,
and the elect are those who will finally persevere,
and we agree such perseverance is because of God’s grace,
therefore by God’s grace the elect will never fall away.
  1. While the difference is harder to see, it’s basically the same as the difference between predetermination and infallible foreknowledge.
Do not confuse determinism with the powerful love of God expressed in His grace toward those upon whom He has set His seal.
  1. I think the only reason they mentioned this was because some people may have thought we can know whether we are amongst the elect based on whether we have worldly success or not. Also, I think they were trying to emphasize that even though we may live holy lives most of the time, due to some sin at the end of life we may be damned. We can have hope, if our faith produces good works, but we can’t have absolute knowledge.
Yes but even the Catholic Church teaches that those who cling to Her teaching and live in penitence before a Holy God who loves them then they are right to expect salvation because God is not capricious and will do what He has said.

BTW those who think earthly success is THE sign of God’s blessing are so deviant in their theology that I fear for their souls.
  1. If you’re correct, then you’re walking terribly close to Saint Thomas Aquinas.
I am great fan of St Thomas. Most reformed thinkers are. Augustine and Anselm are also far up the list.

God Bless
 
Well, if you’re saying that TULIP is not the teaching of John Calvin, that’s fair. That’s kind of what I was referring to in the beginning. But at least I would say that TULIP is part of the Calvinist tradition, and this is what we’re concerned with. Maybe we could say after Calvin, his doctrines grew (tee hee) into TULIP?

The only thing I could say is that, in regards to #9, the Church says that it is in fact possible to be truly justified, and then to lose your justification. “Now they upon the rock, are they who when they hear, receive the word with joy: and these have no roots; for they believe for a while, and in time of temptation, they fall away.” Anyways, I must say it seems like you are more in agreement with Catholic teaching than that of traditional Calvinism (or at least the Synod of Dordt).

You may like to read this if you are interested, both you and the OP. It shows how close TULIP and traditional Calvinism can be to Catholicism, and how far you can stretch it without being outside of Catholic Church teaching.

cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm
 
awatkins69 said:
Well, if you’re saying that TULIP is not the teaching of John Calvin, that’s fair. That’s kind of what I was referring to in the beginning. But at least I would say that TULIP is part of the Calvinist tradition, and this is what we’re concerned with. Maybe we could say after Calvin, his doctrines grew (tee hee) into TULIP?

The only thing I could say is that, in regards to #9, the Church says that it is in fact possible to be truly justified, and then to lose your justification. “Now they upon the rock, are they who when they hear, receive the word with joy: and these have no roots; for they believe for a while, and in time of temptation, they fall away.” Anyways, I must say it seems like you are more in agreement with Catholic teaching than that of traditional Calvinism (or at least the Synod of Dordt).

You may like to read this if you are interested, both you and the OP. It shows how close TULIP and traditional Calvinism can be to Catholicism, and how far you can stretch it without being outside of Catholic Church teaching.

cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm
Click to expand...
Very Helpful and I see that I am a Thomist on these matters because of problems I had with Calvin already.

God Bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top