Do Catholic Teachings On Predestination Logically Conclude with OSAS?

[Philthy]

Yes, the elect is ALL of the saved.

 

[ahs]

As I have previously stated in this thread and the initial thread, Catholicism teaches predestination, but there are differences in the details concerning the Catholic understanding of it when compared to Calvinism. More specifically, the Catholic Church’s definition of predestination teaches that there is an interplay between salvation and human free will, while your definition of predestination (if I understand it correctly) denies free will. But the claims that you have been making is that Catholic teaching on predestination logically lead to your “no free will” version of OSAS.

In light of all this, you are saying that a Catholic teaching on salvation which hinges upon free will somehow logically leads to a OSAS doctrine which denies free will. Hence, I’m not “over complicating” the situation, but asking you to support your stance by resolving what seems to be a pretty big contradiction…

My understanding is that William C is saying that, in light of the Catholic teaching on predestination, which is based on Catholic understanding of God’s Truth (both oral and written), all Catholics must therefore logically believe OSAS.

However, in defending this assertion, William C is relying on Protestant understanding and the Protestant view of the teaching.

For William C to support his assertion, he must first accurately present the Catholic teaching as the Catholic Church understands it. He has failed to do this. He must then show, using the actual Catholic understanding, how the actual Catholic teaching leads to OSAS. This is impossible, because it necessarily requires the Catholic teaching to be changed to exclude free will, which then makes it a non-Catholic teaching.

William C, it is clear that you want to debate whether the Catholic understanding is correct. Perhaps you might admit that your assertion cannot be substantiated, and then open a new thread where you can debate whether OSAS is taught in Scripture…or is anywhere else taught prior to the 16th century AD.

 

[Bballer32]

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?

Yes he did because he sinned against the 10 commandments, which were created by God. God created these to show us and inform us of the sins that break us away from him.

Here’s some math:

God=In Charge( law maker, judge)
Lucifer<God
Lucifer=Cause of the Fall and Origin of Sin
Sin=Lucifer=Devil
Devil=Hell

Therefore

Sin=Devil=Hell
Making Sin=Hell

This must mean that

Humanor=devil=sin

Therefore

If a human sins, he is therefore in the same level as the Devil’

But

If human confesses to God through the Sacraments, he can come back to salvation.

 

[William_C]

Yes he did…

Yes he did, what? Lose his salvation, or not lose his salvation?

Bballer32:

God created these to show us and inform us of the sins that break us away from him.

Paul says that **NO CREATED THING **can separate the believer from God’s love in Christ (Rom 8:39).

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

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.

Yes God chooses who He will save, but based on the response of people to grace as foreseen by Him.

[BIBLEDRB]Romans 8:28-30[/BIBLEDRB]

Cite a scriptural passage stating that, and you’ll have made a point, if you can’t, then correct your thinking.

Didn’t I just do that with the previous post? :sigh: William, you need to read what people post.

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.

Oh, you mean this?

[BIBLEDRB]John 6:39[/BIBLEDRB]

Have you even read what is in the next verse?

[BIBLEDRB]John 6:40[/BIBLEDRB]

Which again ties up with predestination post prævisa merita: those given to Jesus by the Father are the ones who shall believe in Jesus Christ, those who had been foreseen to respond to grace.

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.

Yes, I agree, but the main point is that Jesus still treated Him no different from all the other apostles. Heck, Judas like all the other apostles had the grace to drive out demons and cure sickness! Judas was not lacking with grace and the love of God. However, Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas will in the end betray Him, that all of that grace will in the end be a big waste. Thus in the end, it was not God who brought Judas to hell, but Judas himself.

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.

I have already answered this above.

But I now come to an important point which Eric Filmer has raised:

Yes, and the purpose of this thread is to explore the Catholic one and its logical ramifications.

You have strayed from answering this original intent of this thread to attacking the Church’s definition of predestination.

Your next posts must tackle the question “Do Catholic Teachings On Predestination Logically Conclude with OSAS?” or I will ask the moderators to close this thread by lieu of the fact that the question has already been answered. Eric Filmer, I, and others have answered “no”. So if you cannot rebut that, then the question has been answered.

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.”

How did God let you come to know about Scripture again EDIT: And oh, how did you come to know about OSAS again?

 

[Philthy]

Yes he did, what? Lose his salvation, or not lose his salvation?

When he sinned he lost his salvation. When he repented and confessed God restored him to salvation.

Paul says that **NO CREATED THING **can separate the believer from God’s love in Christ (Rom 8:39).

I agree with him. Why do you bring it up? It must be that you have confused God’s love with our salvation. You seem to be suggesting that since no created thing can separate us from the love** of God that we therefore cannot be separated from salvation. You are mistaken. God is love and he will love every soul for all eternity - nothing can change that. That is what Paul speaks of above - God’s love for us. This love is, of course, the basis of our salvation but condemnation does not result because God somehow fails to love us or no longer loves us. Your indirect suggestion that since no created thing can separate us from the love of God, no thing therefore can separate us from salvation is simply mistaken.
We know for certain that* even prior to our being saved *that God loved us - right? Romans 5:8 “…God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.” And also John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son so that whoever believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life." God loved prior to being saved and will love us for all eternity regardless of our salvation. Anything less just wouldn’t be God!

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Now it is my turn to point out what I believe is an error. Please be careful with such terminology! The elect according to your definition is the fixed number of those who will enter Heaven - period! It is confusing and inaccurate to substitute “the saved” with those who will enter Purgatory and or Heaven. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but in Catholic theology there are some who are “saved” right now who may not actually go to Heaven. If that were not the case then the Church would be teaching OSAS, right?

Correct, but not everyone who is “saved” during their mortal life goes to Purgatory.

The part I find most confusing regarding this discussion is the term “elect” for those who will go to Heaven. It makes it seem like they were chosen based upon something other than how they responded to the grace which God offers to all, and unless I’m mistaken, that is not the basis of their entering Heaven. Christ is clear on the means of entering eternal life: keep the commandments - love God and love neighbor.

I point you back to what I posted for William C here:

William C;9776872:

+JMJ+

We may now briefly summarize the whole Catholic doctrine, which is in harmony with our reason as well as our moral sentiments. According to the doctrinal decisions of general and particular synods, God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future events (cf. Denzinger, n. 1784), all fatalistic necessity, however, being barred and human liberty remaining intact (Denz., n. 607). Consequently man is free whether he accepts grace and does good or whether he rejects it and does evil (Denz., n. 797). Just as it is God’s true and sincere will that all men, no one excepted, shall obtain eternal happiness, so, too, Christ has died for all (Denz., n. 794), not only for the predestined (Denz., n. 1096), or for the faithful (Denz., n. 1294), though it is true that in reality not all avail themselves of the benefits of redemption (Denz., n. 795). Though God preordained both eternal happiness and the good works of the elect (Denz., n. 322), yet, on the other hand, He predestined no one positively to hell, much less to sin (Denz., nn. 200, 816). Consequently, just as no one is saved against his will (Denz., n. 1363), so the reprobate perish solely on account of their wickedness (Denz., nn. 318, 321). God foresaw the everlasting pains of the impious from all eternity, and preordained this punishment on account of their sins (Denz., n. 322), though He does not fail therefore to hold out the grace of conversion to sinners (Denz., n. 807), or pass over those who are not predestined (Denz., n. 827). As long as the reprobate live on earth, they may be accounted true Christians and members of the Church, just as on the other hand the predestined may be outside the pale of Christianity and of the Church (Denz., nn. 628, 631). Without special revelation no one can know with certainty that he belongs to the number of the elect (Denz., nn. 805 sq., 825 sq.).

Predestination in the old Catholic Encyclopedia

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.

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.

 

[inkaneer]

Catholics believe in predestination but it is far different than the omne in protestantism. In protestantism predestination means that God determines who are saved and who are condemned. Thus men are predestined according to the will of God. This concept presents problems as it contradicts various parts of scripture, especially those verses that say that it is the will of God that everyone be saved and those verses that say that Jesus died to save all of mankind.

The Catholic concept of predestination has none of the problems inherent in the protestant concept. In Catholicism predestination means that God knows who will be saved because He is an all knowing God. God exists in the ever present. There is no past or future only an eternal present. On the other hand we, as part of God’s creation, exist in time. We have a past and a future in addition to a present. Thus in Catholicism we are predestined according to God’s knowledge but not according to God’s will. That is the difference between the Catholic and protestant understanding of predestination.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Catholics believe in predestination but it is far different than the omne in protestantism. In protestantism predestination means that God determines who are saved and who are condemned. Thus men are predestined according to the will of God. This concept presents problems as it contradicts various parts of scripture, especially those verses that say that it is the will of God that everyone be saved and those verses that say that Jesus died to save all of mankind.

The Catholic concept of predestination has none of the problems inherent in the protestant concept. In Catholicism predestination means that God knows who will be saved because He is an all knowing God. God exists in the ever present. There is no past or future only an eternal present. On the other hand we, as part of God’s creation, exist in time. We have a past and a future in addition to a present. Thus in Catholicism we are predestined according to God’s knowledge but not according to God’s will. That is the difference between the Catholic and protestant understanding of predestination.

That is not entirely true. Catholicism’s doctrine of predestination is that it is still God’s will that predetermines us, but based on God’s foreknowledge. Please check the post above yours

Catholicism’s answers almost always are both/and, not yes/no

 

[William_C]

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.

The problem with your assertion that man has “free will” is, it’s nowhere asserted in Scripture; therefore it is a secular, philosophical position to which you hold. The scriptural assertion regarding men is that they are SLAVES, either to sin, or righteousness (Jn 8:34; Rom 6:16-22).

Men are certainly volitional, and able to make choices and decisions, but Scripture nowhere describes men as free.

inkaneer:

To accept this view one must necessarily reject that so called back sliders were ever truly saved.

That’s completely false. While it’s true that backsliders may never have been saved, it’s equally true that backsliders are indeed saved, and in need of repentance. Only time will tell. So your view about of necessity regarding backsliders is refuted.

inkaneer:

But more importantly it rejects the idea that God’s grace can be lost through sin…

”…where sin abounded, grace abounded much more…” (Rom 5:20). “…no created thing shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our lord” (Rom 8:39).

inkaneer:

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.

I don’t believe you’ll find the word “grace,” or “fall from grace” anywhere in the creation/fall account.

inkaneer:

So if Adam was once saved and we know that he was because He was created in the image of God.

From what did Adam need salvation prior to the fall?

inkaneer:

Therefore he was once saved and would have continued so if he had not sinned.

Same question as above.

inkaneer:

But Adam lost his salvation and ours with it.

Same question as the two above.

inkaneer:

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.

Creational covenant? Where is that revealed in scripture? Book, chapter and verse will do.

Also, to choose to believe in Jesus is good, and scripture is clear that no one has the ability to do that (Jn 6:44). Clearly, men aren’t able to choose good, and in fact, men don’t even seek out God (Rom 3:11).

inkaneer:

No one has, is or will ever be, dragged into heaven kicking and screaming and resisting.

Amen.

inkaneer:

Where Adam’s sin slammed the door to heaven shut and no one entered, Jesus opened that door.

Where does scripture say that heaven’s door was closed by Adam’s sin? Come to think of it, where does scripture say heaven has a door?

inkaneer:

And it is because of man’s free will that people will backslide.

Again, man is not free, but a slave. Man sin’s because he presents himself to sin to obey sin. Man gives himself as a slave to his own wrong desires (Rom 6:16; cf Jas 1:13-15).

inkaneer:

It is not because they were never saved.

Right. Saved people sin. Saved people backslide. Saved, backslidden people will repent because it’s Christ who gives them life, and He says of those to whom He gives life, “they shall never perish” (Jn 10:28).

inkaneer:

But salvation is never assured or guaranteed.

”By grace you have been saved…” (Eph 2:8ff). “Therefore, having been justified by faith…” (Rom 5:1). “…has begotten us again…to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, RESERVED IN HEAVEN FOR YOU…” 1 Pet 1:3-4. “…you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is **THE GUARANTEE **of your inheritance…” (Eph 1:13-14).

You’re entitled to your opinion, but I’ll stick with God’s revelation.

 

[William_C]

For William C to support his assertion, he must first accurately present the Catholic teaching as the Catholic Church understands it. He has failed to do this. He must then show, using the actual Catholic understanding, how the actual Catholic teaching leads to OSAS. This is impossible, because it necessarily requires the Catholic teaching to be changed to exclude free will, which then makes it a non-Catholic teaching.

Protestant teaching doesn’t exclude man’s will. Those God elects to salvation freely choose to believe, and be saved, and after freely choosing to believe and be saved, they choose to stay saved, and unfortunately, the elect also choose to sin.

So you are COMPLETELY wrong about that. I’m not requiring that Catholic teaching exclude man’s “free” will. If I were to do so, I would no longer be discussing Catholic teaching, but something else.

I’m simply asserting the truth about Catholic predestination; namely, God predestines some to eternal blessedness.

Those predestined to eternal blessedness are not predestined to the possiblity of eternal blessedness should they by their own free will choose to accept that predestination to eternal blessedness, but they are predestined, **BY GOD **to the real attainment of heaven, and they will not fail to achieve God’s desired purpose for them: eternal blessedness.

Do you believe any of those predestined by God to eternal blessedness will fail to attain eternal blessedness?

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Protestant teaching doesn’t exclude man’s will. Those God elects to salvation freely choose to believe, and be saved, and after freely choosing to believe and be saved, they choose to stay saved, and unfortunately, the elect also choose to sin.

So you are COMPLETELY wrong about that. I’m not requiring that Catholic teaching exclude man’s “free” will. If I were to do so, I would no longer be discussing Catholic teaching, but something else.

uhm…

The problem with your assertion that man has “free will” is, it’s nowhere asserted in Scripture; therefore it is a secular, philosophical position to which you hold. The scriptural assertion regarding men is that they are SLAVES, either to sin, or righteousness (Jn 8:34; Rom 6:16-22).

Men are certainly volitional, and able to make choices and decisions, but Scripture nowhere describes men as free.

right… :banghead:

 

[neophyte]

Paul says that **NO CREATED THING **can separate the believer from God’s love in Christ (Rom 8:39).

You’re substituting your own words for what he actually said, and insisting that what you said is what he meant.

That’s one of the classic Protestant errors, and oddly enough you can’t possibly find scriptural support for your attempt to do that.

 

[William_C]

Yes God chooses who He will save, but based on the response of people to grace as foreseen by Him.

Nothing in the passage says that at all. However, continuing into the next chapter we are told election is not based upon what the elected one has done, is doing, or will do, but upon God’s choice with respect to what God wants, and wills (Rom 9:11).

nuntym:

Didn’t I just do that with the previous post? :sigh: William, you need to read what people post

Actually, you did post something. I’m not accustomed to your style of posting, but you did post something that supports what I said.

nuntym:

Oh, you mean this?

No that’s not what I mean, and I’m pretty sure you know the difference between “vocationally” and “salvationally,” and yet you refer to salvation passages so maybe you don’t know the difference.

nuntym:

Which again ties up with predestination post prævisa merita: those given to Jesus by the Father are the ones who shall believe in Jesus Christ, those who had been foreseen to respond to grace.

No it doesn’t, actually, as Rom 9:11ff shows; namely, election is not based upon what the elect one does, but upon God’s choice, and will.

nuntym:

Yes, I agree, but the main point is that Jesus still treated Him no different from all the other apostles.

Yeah, funny thing about Jesus, He practiced what He preached.

nuntym:

Heck, Judas like all the other apostles had the grace to drive out demons and cure sickness!

Yeah, so did the guys who cried, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in your name?”

And Jesus responded to them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.” (Mt 7: 22-23).

A lot of good miracle working did them, eh?

You see, Jesus is very clear, He knows His sheep, and they hear His voice and follow Him (Jn 10:27).

Those miracle workers weren’t saved because Jesus never knew them. The same is true of Judas. Jesus never knew Judas, and never gave Judas eternal life, and I know that because Judas perished (Jn 10:28).

nuntym:

Thus in the end, it was not God who brought Judas to hell, but Judas himself.

Absolutely. That is the protestant position.

nuntym:

You have strayed from answering this original intent of this thread to attacking the Church’s definition of predestination.

Actually, I’m not attacking anything, but have merely stated the fact that men who are predestined by God to heaven will get there without fail. Isn’t that right?

nuntym:

Your next posts must tackle the question “Do Catholic Teachings On Predestination Logically Conclude with OSAS?” or I will ask the moderators to close this thread by lieu of the fact that the question has already been answered. Eric Filmer, I, and others have answered “no”. So if you cannot rebut that, then the question has been answered.

And I have answered the question, “yes.”

So you’re right. The question has been answered. I suppose that means there’s nothing left to say.

nuntym:

How did God let you come to know about Scripture again

Again? Actually, I never said how in the first place, but God let me know by grace.

nuntym:

And oh, how did you come to know about OSAS again?

By reading the scripture, and then seeking out people I knew were Christians, and they referred me to books on reformed theology, in those books I read men explaining the scriptures as I was understanding them, and then I went to a church nearby my home, whose pastor I heard preaching on the radio the very things I was reading in Scripture.

To God be the glory.

 

[William_C]

You’re substituting your own words for what he actually said, and insisting that what you said is what he meant.

No I’m not.

neophyte:

That’s one of the classic Protestant errors, and oddly enough you can’t possibly find scriptural support for your attempt to do that.

Posting and citing scripture isn’t an error.

 

[neophyte]

"William C:

You’re substituting your own words for what he actually said, and insisting that what you

said is what he meant…No I’m not.

I should know better than to post when I’m sick with a fever, that’s not at all what I meant to say.

You’re ignoring other passages that indicate that one can lose one’s salvation, which indicate that your conclusion is incorrect. In fact, this is a list that describes things other than ourselves and is not intended to include ourselves. It’s like I say that there is no creature whatsoever who can make me stop loving my wife; no reasonable person would take that to mean that I can’t do it myself.

But as has been pointed out, your task here is to show how the Catholic teachings on these matters forces the logical conclusion that OSAS must be de fide. Not only have you failed to do that, you’ve utterly failed to even do a decent job trying.

I’m going to bed.

 

[William_C]

I should know better than to post when I’m sick with a fever, that’s not at all what I meant to say.

I’m going to bed…

OK.

 

[William_C]

+JMJ+

uhm…

right… :banghead:

You’re headbanging because your straw man is exposed.

My position is clearly stated in Scripture.

Your position: Man has “free will,” isn’t.

If man’s will were free, he’d have no need of grace.

 

[William_C]

+JMJ+

That is not entirely true. Catholicism’s doctrine of predestination is that it is still God’s will that predetermines us, but based on God’s foreknowledge.

That’s not what scripture says (cf Rom 9:11ff).

 

[EricFilmer]

William C, we are now on the 4th page of this thread and it seems to me that you have devoted a considerable amount of time and energy in posting comments not relevant to the actual thread topic. I specifically designed this thread to examine the merits of your comments which I reiterated in Post #2. In other words, this is not a discussion about whether or not Scripture supports OSAS, but rather whether or not Catholic doctrine does. Therefore, the only scriptural interpretations which have a bearing on this subject are Catholic ones, and yet you are interjecting non-Catholic interpretations into the discussion.

I will remind you that you have previously stated such things as, “I’m pointing out to you the logical conclusion of Catholic predestination to salvation; namely, it’s identical to OSAS” and “You’ll find it in Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.” I have yet to see you explain exactly how the OSAS doctrine can be logically deduced from the Catholic explanation of predestination. Moreover, you have yet to quote even one word from Ott.

In light of all this, I ask that you either defend the statements you made (as presented in Post #2) or retract them.

As a side comment, let me point out that others in this thread have presented to you Scriptural interpretations based upon Catholic teachings, and you have been claiming that these interpretations of Scripture are incorrect. Have you considered the the ramifications of this? If you deem that Catholic interpretations of such Bible passages are incorrect, then that means that you deem the Catholic teachings concerning predestination to likewise be incorrect. So how can you claim that a correct doctrine of OSAS can be logically deduced from an incorrect Catholic biblical interpretation? They way I see it, the arguments you have been making in this thread demonstrate that (despite what you said earlier) Catholic teachings on predestination do not logically lead to OSAS.