W
William_C
Guest
That doesn’t answer the question. In fact, IMO, your answer indicates that you don’t understand the question.
Do Catholic Teachings On Predestination Logically Conclude with OSAS?
- Status
N
nuntym
Guest
+JMJ+
Uhm, how? You ask us “If you don’t believe it is, then what is it?” wherein “it” is “The Catholic doctrine of predestination to eternal blessedness”, and I believe what the Church says about this, which is what I posted.
N
nuntym
Guest
+JMJ+
[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:4[/BIBLEDRB]
and thus all people have the grace to choose God, I don’t know what your point is.
But since according to St. Paul God
[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:4[/BIBLEDRB]
and thus all people have the grace to choose God, I don’t know what your point is.
W
William_C
Guest
Then why aren’t they all saved?
W
William_C
Guest
I’m not sure I understand. By the Catholic doctrine of predestination to salvation you believe that it is God who predestines to salvation, but you also believe that it’s the creature’s will that attains that which God predestines? Is that right? Or what?
Help me from your own words.
B
Bballer32
Guest
William C can i ask you a hypothetical situation.
Let’s say this person is a good practicing Protestant. He goes to church, says his prayers before meals and before going to bed. He helps volunteer once in a while also. But thats just the one side of him. When he isn’t doing all of this, he uses a fake ID to get beer, he is at parties getting drunk, having constant sex, and performing theft when possible. He then goes back to his “religious” side and continues to proclaim that Jesus Christ is his Savior and will help him get to heaven. But he just repeats this horrible cycle. Would consider this man to be OSAS?
If you do, wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of the knowledge and existence of sin?
Let’s say this person is a good practicing Protestant. He goes to church, says his prayers before meals and before going to bed. He helps volunteer once in a while also. But thats just the one side of him. When he isn’t doing all of this, he uses a fake ID to get beer, he is at parties getting drunk, having constant sex, and performing theft when possible. He then goes back to his “religious” side and continues to proclaim that Jesus Christ is his Savior and will help him get to heaven. But he just repeats this horrible cycle. Would consider this man to be OSAS?
If you do, wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of the knowledge and existence of sin?
W
William_C
Guest
What I consider him to be isn’t important. What is important is whether or not He’s one of God’s elect.
Are you aware of King David’s sin with Bathsheba? Was David’s salvation taken away?
See the 2 questions immediately preceding.
N
nuntym
Guest
+JMJ+
That should clue you in already.
[The ordinary man’s] spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also. (Orthodoxy)
In between the lines of the definition I had given before, one can speculate on how predestination works as long as he/she does not overstep and contradict the Church’s teachings. The explanation I like best is what the old Catholic Encyclopedia terms as “The theory of predestination post prævisa merita” (which translates to predestination “after foreseen merits”).
This theory states that, by virtue of His Omniscience, God knows, before time, the response of each and every man to grace. Therefore, to those He knows will respond favorably to His grace, He gives them the graces they need in order to cooperate with His Will and thus in the end reach Heaven. To those He knows will NOT respond favorably to His grace, He will still give (arguably even more) graces that they need to get to Heaven, but He knows they will reject those graces and thus they will make themselves go to hell.
What I like about this theory is that it gives the Lord the power to predestine people to go to Heaven by how He gives them grace, but never predestines the others to go to hell. It also shows how just and merciful God is, too.
Because there are always two wills that determine who will be saved: the Savior’s and the saved’s.
That should clue you in already.
How you describe the Catholic doctrine of predestination is correct, and how exactly this is is a mystery. As G.K. Chesterton said,
[The ordinary man’s] spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also. (Orthodoxy)
In between the lines of the definition I had given before, one can speculate on how predestination works as long as he/she does not overstep and contradict the Church’s teachings. The explanation I like best is what the old Catholic Encyclopedia terms as “The theory of predestination post prævisa merita” (which translates to predestination “after foreseen merits”).
This theory states that, by virtue of His Omniscience, God knows, before time, the response of each and every man to grace. Therefore, to those He knows will respond favorably to His grace, He gives them the graces they need in order to cooperate with His Will and thus in the end reach Heaven. To those He knows will NOT respond favorably to His grace, He will still give (arguably even more) graces that they need to get to Heaven, but He knows they will reject those graces and thus they will make themselves go to hell.
What I like about this theory is that it gives the Lord the power to predestine people to go to Heaven by how He gives them grace, but never predestines the others to go to hell. It also shows how just and merciful God is, too.
P
Philthy
Guest
Let me take a stab at this.
- God has “predestined” all of humanity to salvation through Christ. That is all of humanity’s intended destiny - to spend eternity with God.The fact that all are “predestined” to said salvation does not mean that it will be accomplished, and the reason for the failure to accomplish said salvation lies entirely on humanity - specifically on the individual choice to accept God’s offer, on God’s terms, and to remain faithful to God’s offer, on God’s terms (ie love of God and neighbor).
- There is a subset of humanity known as the elect. They - for reasons known entirely to God alone - will not fail in attaining salvation and going to Heaven. They will experience life exactly as anyone else, making real, consequential moral choices, but they will succeed in persevering “to the end” in faith, hope and love and will be judged as good and faithful servants. I believe that they will generally lead unusually holy lives.
- There is another subset of humanity who, despite not being among the elect, will also, ultimately go to Heaven.
- There is another subset of humanity that ultimately will not go to Heaven, but will instead go to Hell. Within this subset there are two groups of individuals. Those who were at one point in their mortal lives Christians (saved/in a state of grace) and those who were not. Those who were Christians were truly saved/in a state of grace but, due to the temptations of the world and their ability to make real, consequential moral choices, failed to avail themselves of the grace offered by God, fell from grace, became separated from Christ and lost all benefit available to them through Him. They ceased walking in the good works that he prepared in advance for them and they failed to persevere in faith hope and love “to the end”.
N
nuntym
Guest
+JMJ+
Second, the predestination or “election” if you will have three definite parts to it: its immutability, the definiteness of the number of the predestined, and its subjective uncertainty. We must say that God knew the definite number and identity of the “elect” since the beginning, and the numbers to them will never be added nor subtracted----only the “elect” will be saved, and none other----and we will never know if we are part of them until the Particular Judgment, nor who they all are until the Last Judgement.
There are some errors I think here. One is the use of the word “predestination”: we are talking here about choosing of the “elect”, those who will definitely go to Heaven at the end, not the destiny of all humans as intended by God, which is heaven.
Second, the predestination or “election” if you will have three definite parts to it: its immutability, the definiteness of the number of the predestined, and its subjective uncertainty. We must say that God knew the definite number and identity of the “elect” since the beginning, and the numbers to them will never be added nor subtracted----only the “elect” will be saved, and none other----and we will never know if we are part of them until the Particular Judgment, nor who they all are until the Last Judgement.
P
Philthy
Guest
Not surprising! Defining the term “predestined” is clearly a necessity in this thread. That was my initial intent on posting - to simply state that necessity and let others go at it, but I decided to weigh in.
I need a clarification on the above comment. I was under the impression that - at the end of time - the elect will represent a subset of all those in Heaven. More directly stated: the elect are not the only ones who go to Heaven. Your understanding is that only the “elect” will be saved and none other?
N
nuntym
Guest
+JMJ+
CCC 1031: The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned…
Yes, the elect is ALL of the saved. I have not seen any teaching of the Catholic Church that says otherwise. Indeed, those in Purgatory are also called the “elect”:
CCC 1031: The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned…
B
Bballer32
Guest
He gained it back through the sacrament of Reconciliation.
"Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Nathan answered “The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die.” (2 Sam 12:13-14)
Why is it important that he did this? Well in the first 2 Chapters of Baruch, the Jews in exile in Babylon repented their sins to God through the priest. Basically asking him to intercede for them. “Pray for us also to the Lord, our God, for we have sinned against the Lord.”
Now, the forgiveness of sins to come back to the path of salvation has been in the practice of the Jews for a long time (see Lv 19:20-22) The parallel is then seen in the New Covenant when Christ tells his apostles “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” (John 20:23)
What i do know for sure is that Protestants can only go as far back as Martin Luther so the power of absolution was not handed down to the Protestants and non-denominationals because of no APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION!! Basic logic right there.
In order to lose salvation you must sin mortally. In order to gain salvation, you must confess your sins to the priest, who intercedes for GOD HIMSELF, and receive absolution.
Cannot get simpler than that
W
William_C
Guest
I’m sorry, but I’m not clear on your point.
Are you saying David lost his salvation, or that David was saved once and for always by God?
W
William_C
Guest
But you cited Paul who said it is ***God’s will ***to have all men to be saved. Paul is speaking only of God’s will here.
So you really haven’t answered by question. If it’s God’s will to have all men to be saved, then why aren’t they saved? Is God’s will weak and unable to bring what He wills to have happen?
Chesterson is wrong. It must be that as an ordinary man he was suffering from stereoscopic spiritual sight when he wrote that.
You see, predestination by God isn’t fate, but a purposeful decree according to the will of the God of the universe. (Please, don’t give me a dictionary definition.)
That’s wrong as well. Jesus says that the Father ***gives to Him ***individuals to raise up on the last day, and Jesus asserts that all of those the Father gives Him, He will not fail to raise up even one of them.
Jesus doesn’t say a word about the Father giving grace to*** anyone, let alone to everyone.***
So your church teaching can only be correct if the Father gives each and every human being to Jesus to be raised up on the last day, but we know that doesn’t happen, so we know that the Father hasn’t given to every human being the grace to be saved, and we further know that **“God willing to have all men to be saved” **can’t mean what you think it means.
That’s sweet and fuzzy and all, but by default those not predestined to heaven by God are predestined to hell by God. There’s no way around that.
N
nuntym
Guest
+JMJ+
That is what love is.
[BIBLEDRB]Lamentations 3:37[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]John 17:12[/BIBLEDRB]
Jesus called Judas the “son of perdition”, but He still took care of him, treated Him as His apostle and friend. And yet however well Jesus loved him, in the end Judas was lost to Him, “that the scripture may be fulfilled,” i.e. Jesus knew this would happen.
This is as clear an example of predestination as the Church understands it as any.
Our definition of predestination has the backing of the Church instituted by Christ Himself on the foundation of St Peter and the Apostles, fed by the blood of martyrs, gave us the Scriptures, studied and interpreted those same Scriptures by the greatest theologians for millenia. What are your credentials for your definition?
Yes, in a way. God’s will towards us is weak, or (to make it more clear) lets Himself be weak, when it confronts our will; if not, then our will is not free. We can refuse salvation, if we don’t want it, because God respects our free will.
That is what love is.
Fate is God’s will in and for the universe, William.
[BIBLEDRB]Lamentations 3:37[/BIBLEDRB]
Well then you forgot Jesus’ prayer in the Gospel of John:
[BIBLEDRB]John 17:12[/BIBLEDRB]
Jesus called Judas the “son of perdition”, but He still took care of him, treated Him as His apostle and friend. And yet however well Jesus loved him, in the end Judas was lost to Him, “that the scripture may be fulfilled,” i.e. Jesus knew this would happen.
This is as clear an example of predestination as the Church understands it as any.
[BIBLEDRB]Titus 2:11[/BIBLEDRB]
Or maybe you just misunderstood what I wrote. Go back and read them again
By your definition of predestination, William.
Our definition of predestination has the backing of the Church instituted by Christ Himself on the foundation of St Peter and the Apostles, fed by the blood of martyrs, gave us the Scriptures, studied and interpreted those same Scriptures by the greatest theologians for millenia. What are your credentials for your definition?
E
EricFilmer
Guest
Yes, and the purpose of this thread is to explore the Catholic one and its logical ramifications.
Based on the various discussions from the initial OSAS thread, I’m aware that your understanding of such Scripture is different from the Catholic understanding. But this current thread does not involve this. Rather, what is being explored is your assertion that Catholics are bound to believe in OSAS because of official Catholic teachings, as presented in Ott. Moreover, you have stated that Catholics should recognize such a ramification of Catholic teachings as to see this as being de fide. Therefore, instead of presenting your understanding of OSAS as stemmed from the Bible verses you stated above (which I’m guessing this is where the conversation is leading), you should be presenting the Catholic understanding of them (as elaborated upon by Ott or a magisterial document) and then explaining why they logically lead one to accept OSAS. In other words, this thread is designed to explore the merits of the specific assertions you formerly made, as reiterated in Post #2.
From the Catholic perspective, it is God’s grace that allows us to do anything that is good, including discerning the call of Christ and choosing to answer that call. But, once again, I’m not seeing how this fits in with the tread topic. You seem to be questioning the Catholic Church’s understanding of free will rather than explaining how the Catholic Church’s teachings on free will (which is de fide) logically lead to a de fide understanding of OSAS. The way I see it, these two doctrines are contradictory to one another, which, by definition, means that one cannot be logically deduced from the other.
N
neophyte
Guest
Like most Protestants, before I entered the Catholic Church I had a severely deficient appreciation of what it means to be made male and female in God’s image, and the significance of Christ’s Church as his Bride. The spousal relationship is an icon of God, and of Christ’s relationship with his Church.
The marital union is one in which each spouse freely and totally gives oneself to the other. If my wife had no choice but to marry me, if it were not her free choice for us to bind ourselves to each other, we would not be married at all. This has always been recognized by the Church, and is reflected in Canon law regarding impediments to marriage.
And in fact what I desire, what everyone desires, is a spouse who enters into and remains in marriage not because they must, but because they will it to be. A spouse who every day, at every moment, rededicates herself to her bond with me regardless of my less than ideal behavior.
But this can’t be unless she is capable of willing it to not be. The ability to freely reject our relationship even after it’s been established is a necessary component of what the relationship is.
And God says that this is an image of our relationship with him. To be saved is to be in a spousal union with him.
We are unable to desire this union or enter into it unless God makes it possible; it is entirely due to his initiative and he does everything in his power to help us return if we stray. But that does not necessitate, or even imply, that we are not free to accept or reject that initiative at any time, any more than it meant so for Adam or for Hosea’s adulterous bride (and notice that we don’t know whether or not she returned to him).
No, William C, you are mistaken: OSAS is not consistent with Catholic doctrine or legitimate Catholic thought (which is another way of saying with what the Sacred Scriptures teach). You might want to closely study the text of the Council of Trent, and I highly recommend Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.
The marital union is one in which each spouse freely and totally gives oneself to the other. If my wife had no choice but to marry me, if it were not her free choice for us to bind ourselves to each other, we would not be married at all. This has always been recognized by the Church, and is reflected in Canon law regarding impediments to marriage.
And in fact what I desire, what everyone desires, is a spouse who enters into and remains in marriage not because they must, but because they will it to be. A spouse who every day, at every moment, rededicates herself to her bond with me regardless of my less than ideal behavior.
But this can’t be unless she is capable of willing it to not be. The ability to freely reject our relationship even after it’s been established is a necessary component of what the relationship is.
And God says that this is an image of our relationship with him. To be saved is to be in a spousal union with him.
We are unable to desire this union or enter into it unless God makes it possible; it is entirely due to his initiative and he does everything in his power to help us return if we stray. But that does not necessitate, or even imply, that we are not free to accept or reject that initiative at any time, any more than it meant so for Adam or for Hosea’s adulterous bride (and notice that we don’t know whether or not she returned to him).
No, William C, you are mistaken: OSAS is not consistent with Catholic doctrine or legitimate Catholic thought (which is another way of saying with what the Sacred Scriptures teach). You might want to closely study the text of the Council of Trent, and I highly recommend Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.
I
inkaneer
Guest
The problem with OSAS is that it denies man’s free will in that once a person is saved he or she cannpt change their mind. To accept this view one must necessarily reject that so called back sliders were ever truly saved. But more importantly it rejects the idea that God’s grace can be lost through sin. As such it contradicts scripture because in Genesis we read of the fall of Adam from God’s grace because of the sin of disobedience. So if Adam was once saved and we know that he was because He was created in the image of God. Therefore he was once saved and would have continued so if he had not sinned. But Adam lost his salvation and ours with it.
As far as God’s will is concern it is true that God wills all to be saved but God created man with a free will and God will never usurp his creational covenant with man in which man was created with a freedom to choose good or evil. No one has, is or will ever be, dragged into heaven kicking and screaming and resisting. Where Adam’s sin slammed the door to heaven shut and no one entered, Jesus opened that door. And it is because of man’s free will that people will backslide. It is not because they were never saved. But salvation is never assured or guaranteed. In fact to assume one’s self as saved is a sin in and of itself. It is called the sin of presumption. One is saved only to the extent they are in the grace of God.
W
William_C
Guest
The reason all men aren’t saved is because God does not will all men to be saved (Rom 9:15-18), but only some; namely, those He chooses.
Cite a scriptural passage stating that, and you’ll have made a point, if you can’t, then correct your thinking.
Obviously Judas was given to Jesus vocationally, but not salvationally.
If Judas was given to Jesus salvationally, then Jesus lied when He said would raise up on the last day all those given to Him by the Father.
A “son of perdition” is not an adopted son of God.
Once more, if Judas was given to Jesus salvationally, then Jesus lied when He said would raise up on the last day all those given to Him by the Father.
I agree. Judas was elect to be the “son of perdition” who betrayed Christ.
Predestination extends into many areas.
I understood you, and will post my response to you again: Your church teaching can only be correct if the Father gives each and every human being to Jesus to be raised up on the last day, but we know that doesn’t happen, so we know that the Father hasn’t given to every human being the grace to be saved, and we further know that “God willing to have all men to be saved” can’t mean what you think it means.
As I said, and which is true, those not predestined to heaven by God are, by default, predestined to hell by God.
Appealing to your tradition as a proof that a thing is true is a fallacy known as the “appeal to Tradition.” It is also “reasoning in a circle.”
- Status