Difference between "predestined" per Calvin vs. "the predestinate" per St. Louis de Montfort

[The_Reginator]

I’ve been reading True Devotion to Mary by St. Louis de Montfort.
He often refers to “the predestinate”. This confuses me as I had been only aware of the heresy of “predestination” taught by Calvinism.

Can someone explain the difference?
(A 20 minute+ search on line told me nothing. Maybe after I read more of the book …?)

Thanks, Reg.

 

[Peter_J]

I would comply, if I were a disciple of de Montfort. But since I’m not, I don’t feel bound to do so.

 

[Dorothy]

When I was a little girl (a long time ago), I remember my pastor trying to explain to us that God is outside of time and He knows how it will turn out. He knows what we will choose with our free will.

And, I pray that someone will come here and explain better than I just did.

 

[Contarini]

I’ve been reading True Devotion to Mary by St. Louis de Montfort.
He often refers to “the predestinate”. This confuses me as I had been only aware of the heresy of “predestination” taught by Calvinism.

Can someone explain the difference?
(A 20 minute+ search on line told me nothing. Maybe after I read more of the book …?)

Thanks, Reg.

Predestination is not a heresy. “Predestinarianism” is traditionally regarded as a heresy because it denies free will and the role of secondary causation.

Whether classical Calvinism actually does this is a more complex question than might appear.

There are two basic choices within the Catholic tradition when it comes to predestination: “ante praevisa merita” or “post praevisa merita.” That is to say, does God’s choice to save some people take into account His foreknowledge of their actions (post praevisa merita) or not (ante praevisa merita). The apm view is, of course, the view held by Calvinists, and many Catholics mistakenly think that it’s been condemned by the Church. In fact, it was the view of great theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas. Some Thomists would even argue that the ppm view is unorthodox, based on the decrees of the Council of Orange in the 6th century (which, to be sure, was a local rather than an ecumenical council). The problem with ppm is that it seems to make God’s choice to save us dependent on our foreseen works, which seems to make us the cause of something in God. On the other hand, it’s hard to see how apm is compatible with free will, and it appears to entail logically the view that reprobation is also “ante praevisa demerita”–that is, that God chooses not to save certain people without regard to their foreseen rejection of his grace. This seems to make God the cause of evil, and most modern people find it a pretty horrific view of God.

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on the subject leans pretty heavily toward ppm, and in the past century the scales have only tipped further in that direction. So it’s understandable that most Catholics today don’t think of apm as a Catholic view. But it was held not only by Augustine and Aquinas but even by the greatest Jesuit theologians, Bellarmine and Suarez (the Jesuits are generally seen as the champions of free will and a more generous understanding of God’s saving will).

I haven’t addressed the concept of “middle knowledge,” which is the distinctive Jesuit contribution to the discussion, but I can do that if you’re interested.

Edwin

 

[porthos11]

I’ve been reading True Devotion to Mary by St. Louis de Montfort.
He often refers to “the predestinate”. This confuses me as I had been only aware of the heresy of “predestination” taught by Calvinism.

Can someone explain the difference?
(A 20 minute+ search on line told me nothing. Maybe after I read more of the book …?)

Thanks, Reg.

Catholicism teaches predestination. I don’t know the context of St. Louis’ writing, but he is most likely talking about predestination as commonly understood: that from eternity, God elects certain people to eternal blessedness.

 

[porthos11]

Predestination is not a heresy. “Predestinarianism” is traditionally regarded as a heresy because it denies free will and the role of secondary causation.

Whether classical Calvinism actually does this is a more complex question than might appear.

There are two basic choices within the Catholic tradition when it comes to predestination: “ante praevisa merita” or “post praevisa merita.” That is to say, does God’s choice to save some people take into account His foreknowledge of their actions (post praevisa merita) or not (ante praevisa merita). The apm view is, of course, the view held by Calvinists, and many Catholics mistakenly think that it’s been condemned by the Church. In fact, it was the view of great theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas. Some Thomists would even argue that the ppm view is unorthodox, based on the decrees of the Council of Orange in the 6th century (which, to be sure, was a local rather than an ecumenical council). The problem with ppm is that it seems to make God’s choice to save us dependent on our foreseen works, which seems to make us the cause of something in God. On the other hand, it’s hard to see how apm is compatible with free will, and it appears to entail logically the view that reprobation is also “ante praevisa demerita”–that is, that God chooses not to save certain people without regard to their foreseen rejection of his grace. This seems to make God the cause of evil, and most modern people find it a pretty horrific view of God.

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on the subject leans pretty heavily toward ppm, and in the past century the scales have only tipped further in that direction. So it’s understandable that most Catholics today don’t think of apm as a Catholic view. But it was held not only by Augustine and Aquinas but even by the greatest Jesuit theologians, Bellarmine and Suarez (the Jesuits are generally seen as the champions of free will and a more generous understanding of God’s saving will).

I haven’t addressed the concept of “middle knowledge,” which is the distinctive Jesuit contribution to the discussion, but I can do that if you’re interested.

Edwin

While I like ante praevisa merita, the problem with it is that it doesn’t properly account for reprobation, and while some Thomists would just explain it as a negative reprobation (i.e. non-election), it’s in practice equivalent to heretical double-predestination.

For this reason, I lean more towards the Molinist explanation, which elegantly accounts for both.

 

[The_Reginator]

I just found this on line from JESUS LIVING IN MARY:
HANDBOOK OF THE SPIRITUALITY OF ST. LOUIS DE MONTFORT
TRUE DEVOTION :

…This task can sometimes illuminate the meaning these authors
gave to words such as “predestined” or “predestination.” Boissieu or
D’Argentan argued that, without prejudicing the sovereign and mysterious
action of God, predestination to salvation, which God desires for all
mankind because “God desires that all men should be saved,” requires the
freely given response of mankind. Those who accept grace are thus
“predestined,” whereas those who refuse it fall into “reprobation.”
Rather than attempt to discover predestination in God (where it is and
will remain for us an unfathomable mystery), they prefer to examine it
at the existential level, stating that predestination and reprobation
appear to depend on the will of mankind

(My underlines.)

That is found under
*** I. THE ORIGINS OF TRUE DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN:***
" 2 – The use of the Notebook "

 

[Le_Bonvivant]

Interesting question. I can only tell you what I think (but i’m no priest so I could be very wrong)

I think that Jesus chooses his friends Himself and that every Christian is predestined for this.

The problem with protestants is that they think they are predestined to go to heaven as soon as they are baptized. After that, no matter how bad they behave, they cannot lose their destiny to go to heaven, so they think. Which means that many protestants who believe they are predestined are actually Esaus as saint montfort would call it, and in the end not predestined.

 

[alwayswill]

Interesting question. I can only tell you what I think (but i’m no priest so I could be very wrong)

I think that Jesus chooses his friends Himself and that every Christian is predestined for this.

The problem with protestants is that they think they are predestined to go to heaven as soon as they are baptized. After that, no matter how bad they behave, they cannot lose their destiny to go to heaven, so they think. Which means that many protestants who believe they are predestined are actually Esaus as saint montfort would call it, and in the end not predestined.

“The problem with protestants is that they think they are predestined to go to heaven as soon as they are baptized”

I’m sure there may be someone, somewhere who thinks that: but after decades of studying and teaching I have never heard of such a thing.

Do you know what a straw man argument is?

“After that, no matter how bad they behave, they cannot lose their destiny to go to heaven, so they think.”
Hyperbole to make a point

Scripture teaches that real faith inevitably produces a changed life (2 Corinthians 5:17). Salvation includes a transformation of the inner person (Galatians 2:20)
The nature of the Christian is new and different (Romans 6:6).
The unbroken pattern of sin and enmity with God will not continue when a person is born again (1 John 3:9-10).
Those with genuine faith follow Christ (John 10:27),
love their brothers (1 John 3:14),
obey God’s commandments (1 John 2:3; John 15:14),
do the will of God (Matthew 12:50),
abide in God’s Word (John 8:31),
keep God’s Word (John 17:6),
do good works (Ephesians 2:10),
and continue in the faith (Colossians 1:21-23; Hebrews 3:14).

Scripture teaches that behavior is an important test of faith.
Obedience is evidence that one’s faith is real (1 John 2:3).
On the other hand, the person who remains utterly unwilling to obey Christ does not evidence true faith (1 John 2:4)

Scripture teaches that** genuine believers** may stumble and fall, but they will persevere in the faith (1 Corinthians 1:8).
Those who later turn completely away from the Lord show that they were never truly born again (1 John 2:19).

IOW** If your faith didn’t change then you faith didn’t save you**

That is what Sola Sciptura practicing , Sola Fide believing Christians believe
not “they are predestined to go to heaven as soon as they are baptized”"

 

[alwayswill]

Interesting question. I can only tell you what I think (but i’m no priest so I could be very wrong)
I think that Jesus chooses his friends Himself and that every Christian is predestined for this.
…

Romans 8:29-30
For those whom He foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified.​

note: who is dong the action in the above verses…

Was every person whom God will glorify also justified by God?
Was every person whom God will justify also called by God?
Was every person whom God will call also predestined by God?

Here is the big question:
Is their anyone who was predestined to glory** by God** that God will not glorify?