Do Catholic Teachings On Predestination Logically Conclude with OSAS?

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Give me a break.

I’m not excluding man’s choices. Mkay?

If you don’t even understand what free will is and why it is important, then I doubt that.

I understand the teaching of Catholic predestination, and have a made a simple observation; namely, in Catholic predestination, God predestines some to eternal blessedness, and those He predestines to eternal blessedness cannot fail to achieve eternal blessedness.

Do you agree with that? Yes, or no?

Is this the whole doctrine of OSAS?

 

[ahs]

Protestant teaching doesn’t exclude man’s will…
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…

What I am saying is that you are looking through your own glasses to see a Catholic teaching through Protestant understanding. As EricFilmer noted, many Scriptural passages have been provided to you, as well as a basic summary of the Catholic understanding, so that you can see what the Catholic understanding is. But you are not defending your assertion based on the Catholic understanding. You are debating whether the Catholic understanding is correct or not. This completely invalidates your assertion. In other words, you are changing the topic (perhaps without realizing it) from the initial assertion to a debate on OSAS.

[EricFilmer] specifically designed this thread to examine the merits of your comments which [he] 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.

…[Y]ou 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.” [We] 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, [we] ask that you either defend the statements you made (as presented in Post #2) or retract them.

As a side comment, let [EricFilmer] 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?

(emphasis mine, bracketed changes mine)

It’s not that anyone here doesn’t want to debate OSAS, per se. It’s just that such a debate is a different topic from the topic of this thread. In this thread, either you support the assertion with actual Catholic teaching, or chalk it up to an error on your part or misunderstanding of Catholic teaching and move on.

Back to the actual topic:

I already gave the answer to this question back in Post #19. Here again is the relevant statement from the article I presented from Tim Staples:

God’s will is immutable; therefore, God’s will is always accomplished. The mistake is to reject free will because of this truth. We have already seen that it is God’s will for all to be saved (2 Pt 3:9, cf. 1 Tm 2:4, 1 Jn 2:1-2). But it is also true that some men will not be saved (cf. Mt 7:13, 25:46; Rv 21:8). This implies the freedom to choose to serve God or not (cf. Dt 28:15, Mt 19:17-22). All of this must be understood within God’s predestined plan. How do we reconcile all of this? We conclude that God’s will has an antecedent and a consequent nature. It is God’s antecedent will that all be saved. However, as a consequence of God’s gift of free will, some reject God’s antecedent will. It then becomes God’s consequent will for that soul to go to hell. God’s will is accomplished and our free will, which is revealed in Scripture, is preserved. It is God’s predestined plan for us to have free will (CCC 600).

Now, the citation from Ott, if you please.

Let me remind you that you are the one who brought up Ott. We are now in the sixth page of the debate, and you still haven’t provided a properly cited reference to back up a claim that you made. You do realize what such acts of avoidance look like, don’t you? It makes people suspect that you’ve never actually cracked open a copy of The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma but instead got this from someone misquoting Ott on a webpage or some such.

 

[EricFilmer]

It’s not that anyone here doesn’t want to debate OSAS, per se. It’s just that such a debate is a different topic from the topic of this thread.

Well said, ahs. Indeed, a scriptural OSAS debate is what the initial thread was about. Therein I tried to debate the meaning of certain Bible passages, and William C simply responded that Catholic teaching supported his OSAS interpretations (rather than trying to refute my understanding of said Scripture). So I started this thread to discuss Catholic teaching so that the initial thread would not get derailed, but now he’s back to debating Scripture. So it seems that when I want to debate Scripture, he makes vague references to Catholic teaching instead, and when I want to debate Catholic teachings, he wants to debate Scripture.

 

[William_C]

Not really the whole picture. The point of chapter 11 is St. Paul’s reason for his ministry towards the Gentiles: so that the Jews may become jealous of the graces given to Gentiles and thus that some of them may come to the Faith and be saved.

OK…

nuntym:

That’s why St. Paul said, “Just as you were once disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may receive mercy. For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all” (Romans 11:30-32, RSV).

The context drives the meaning. In the context, “they who have now been disobedient” is Israel.

But even if it meant each and every person, ever, God shows mercy only to all who believe—the elect.

nuntym:

Even to believe? Belief is an action, right? If not, then why would Jesus be angry to His disciples when they had little faith? Why would Jesus be angry for something His disciples cannot control for themselves?

I find the assertions of scripture to say that the believer (for me, the elect), is never without salvational faith. He never loses that because it’s out of his control, and is the exclusive purview of God. What the believer often fails to exercise is practical faith. Jesus never accused His disciples of having no faith (Mt 6:30; 8:26; 14:31; 16:8), except on one occasion when He was speaking of their practical faith (Mk 4:40).

nuntym:

I would have agreed with you if there was no verse before Romans 8:29, William. Let me quote the whole thing, and I will use the modern English of the RSV so it would be easier to understand:

We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified. (Romans 8:28-30, RSV)

That is the whole context of that verse. From this, it is clear that God foreknew those that would love Him, and it is these people who are the predestined. And again, to love is an act.

In that passage, Paul’s not stating one way, or the other, concerning the reason behind God’s choice of who He foreknows, predestines, etc. He goes into that in the next chapter, as I said earlier. Moreover, John asserts that we love God because He first loved us (1 Jn 4:19). In running that down over the years through lexicons, my dangerous knowledge of Greek, the writings of others more educated than me, and my own personal experience, I continue to hold to my first impression of that verse; namely, the believer’s love for God is a response to God’s love for the believer. Furthermore, it’s my firm conviction that God doesn’t love the rest of mankind in the same way He loves the elect.

nuntym:

True, except for the last part.

The last part is true as well. It’s also amazing.

nuntym:

I mean you again forgot to take into account the cooperation of man’s will into God’s for him to be saved, which is apparent in John 6:40

I don’t see how that verse asserts cooperation. How? On the basis of seeing and believing? Shortly thereafter, Jesus asserts that **NO ONE ** has the ability to come to Him, except the Father draw Him. Near the end of the chapter (v65), Jesus reasserts the same thing in context of those who wouldn’t believe, but left. IOW, they left, and wouldn’t believe, because they weren’t drawn to Jesus by the Father, and the Father didn’t grant them the right to believe (cf Php 1:29).

It’s all one-sided. God does it. On his own, the believer has no ability to come and believe (Jn 6:44). He’s dead to spiritual things (Eph 2:1ff). There’s a reason the Spirit inspired that analogy. The dead can’t do anything.

No, I don’t hold to cooperation, I hold to the monergist position, you hold to the synergist position. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have a sandwich and a beer with you, on a regular basis, or that I wouldn’t befriend you. For me, it’s not something to die over, but to continue to assert, gently, and sometimes forcefully. People gotta choose, one way or the other.

nuntym:

I just believe what the Catholic Church says. Remember the Catholic definition of predestination that I posted?

Yes, I remember it, and will endeavor to remember it in the future.

nuntym:

Judas lost his salvation because he refused it. He refused to believe (cf. John 6:40). It is as simple as that.

No, he was given to Christ to fulfill the scripture—he was the man of perdition. He was not given to Christ for salvation, and He didn’t believe, because He was not drawn to Christ for salvation (Jn 6:44; cf 6:64, 65).

nuntym:

Which is worse for you than me. Think of it, a Protestant that believes in tradition.

Protestants believe in, and they have traditions, nuntym. Don’t let any of them get away with saying they don’t. But protestants, not all, but many, insist that those traditions be inline with Scripture, especially when they concern faith, and morals.

nuntym:

As for me, I have always accepted that Sacred Scripture, in a way, is part of the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church: I believe that the Scriptures are sacred, because the Church has said so.

I understand the importance of the authority of the church to Catholics.

 

[William_C]

I already gave the answer to this question back in Post #19. Here again is the relevant statement from the article I presented from Tim Staples:

God’s will is immutable; therefore, God’s will is always accomplished. The mistake is to reject free will because of this truth. We have already seen that it is God’s will for all to be saved (2 Pt 3:9, cf. 1 Tm 2:4, 1 Jn 2:1-2). But it is also true that some men will not be saved (cf. Mt 7:13, 25:46; Rv 21:8). This implies the freedom to choose to serve God or not (cf. Dt 28:15, Mt 19:17-22). All of this must be understood within God’s predestined plan. How do we reconcile all of this? We conclude that God’s will has an antecedent and a consequent nature. It is God’s antecedent will that all be saved. However, as a consequence of God’s gift of free will, some reject God’s antecedent will. It then becomes God’s consequent will for that soul to go to hell. God’s will is accomplished and our free will, which is revealed in Scripture, is preserved. It is God’s predestined plan for us to have free will (CCC 600).

Now, the citation from Ott, if you please.

Let me remind you that you are the one who brought up Ott. We are now in the sixth page of the debate, and you still haven’t provided a properly cited reference to back up a claim that you made. You do realize what such acts of avoidance look like, don’t you? It makes people suspect that you’ve never actually cracked open a copy of The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma but instead got this from someone misquoting Ott on a webpage or some such.

I see what Staples says as an equivocation.

An “I don’t know.”

EricFilmer:

Now, the citation from Ott, if you please.

Let me remind you that you are the one who brought up Ott. We are now in the sixth page of the debate, and you still haven’t provided a properly cited reference to back up a claim that you made. You do realize what such acts of avoidance look like, don’t you? It makes people suspect that you’ve never actually cracked open a copy of The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma but instead got this from someone misquoting Ott on a webpage or some such.

As I think I said at one point, it was from memory… from a webpage that is no longer availble, but as I recall, Dave Armstrong has the same the idential statements from Ott on his page.

 

[William_C]

What I am saying is that you are looking through your own glasses to see a Catholic teaching through Protestant understanding. As EricFilmer noted, many Scriptural passages have been provided to you, as well as a basic summary of the Catholic understanding, so that you can see what the Catholic understanding is. But you are not defending your assertion based on the Catholic understanding. You are debating whether the Catholic understanding is correct or not. This completely invalidates your assertion. In other words, you are changing the topic (perhaps without realizing it) from the initial assertion to a debate on OSAS.

I see your point.

 

[Bballer32]

Just to save some of you some arguing time…

When asked about the origin of the bible, William C responded that God put it together.God did have a role in the bible, but he divinely inspired it through the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church.Now, this can help us understand that William C’s knowledge of the subject with Scripture and Catholic Dogma is probably a little biased and off set.

 

[William_C]

Just to save some of you some arguing time…

When asked about the origin of the bible, William C responded that God put it together.God did have a role in the bible, but he divinely inspired it through the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church.Now, this can help us understand that William C’s knowledge of the subject with Scripture and Catholic Dogma is probably a little biased and off set.

You’re so helpful,

 

[inkaneer]

+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. Please check the post above yours

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

I would beg to differ with you. The Catechism of the Catholic Church in para 600 states:

"600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace:

Thus God does not ‘will’ someone to hell but He knows beforehand [in our time] who will suffer damnation.

 

[Contarini]

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 a Protestant/Catholic difference. In fact, it is in Protestantism, not Catholicism, that the issues are divided up that way. You have just described the basic difference between traditional Arminianism and Calvinism, within Protestantism.

Some Western Catholics do hold the view you describe as “Catholic”–perhaps the majority do, today (and Eastern Christians tend to hold it as well). But the great theologians of the Western tradition, principally Augustine and Aquinas, held what you describe as the “Protestant” view, although with nuances to attempt to preserve free will and some kind of universal salvific will on God’s part (these nuances are also typically found in the more moderate forms of Calvinism–at least many of them are).

The major debate within Catholicism over predestination has been not over whether predestination is “ante praevisa merita” (what you call the “Protestant” view) or “post praevisa merita” (what you call the “Catholic” view), but over how God carries out His decree without violating human free will. The “Thomist” view (most closely corresponding to Calvinism within Protestantism) holds that God gives everyone “sufficient grace” but only some “efficient grace,” and only those who receive “efficient grace” are actually saved. (Note: while this view is called “Thomist,” it postdates Aquinas–it’s probably closer to his actual thought than the Molinist view, but neither view was explicitly taught by Aquinas.) The “Molinist” view holds that God knows what people would do under specific circumstances (“middle knowledge”) and then chooses to place some people in circumstances under which they will be saved and others in circumstances under which they won’t.

The Thomist view necessarily excludes predestination post praevisa merita (what you call the “Catholic view”). The Molinist view makes it possible, although in its original form it presupposes ante praevisa merita (so originally both Catholic views were, by your definition, “Protestant”). One can argue that God’s use of middle knowledge is based on some fair standard, so that for instance God makes sure that people are put in circumstances that are reasonably propitious to their accepting grace. Or would could even argue–and in fact this is what most contemporary “Molinists” do seem to argue–that God only damns someone if He sees by middle knowledge that they would resist grace no matter what the circumstances.

The main problem I have with Molinism is that it is, ironically, more deterministic than Thomism, in the sense that it seems to posit that people will choose in a certain way if put in certain circumstances. This raises very difficult philosophical questions.

Some folks–and I’d be one of them–want to get the results possible under Molinism (i.e., the last possibility mentioned above–that God gives everyone the “maximum chance” of salvation and only allows someone to go to hell if there is no other alternative that doesn’t violate free will), without the problems inherent in middle knowledge. Fr. William Most made an attempt in this direction, which he argued was faithful to at least certain aspects of Aquinas’s thought (and he pointed out–rightly, I think–that “Thomism” itself doesn’t maintain the full richness and ambiguity of Aquinas’s own position). My old friend Matthew Levering has recently written a book on predestination that also seems to be rethinking the Thomist position–I started reading it last year (on a visit to the Notre Dame library) but haven’t yet had a chance to finish it, so I’m not quite sure how he makes his case.

Timeless knowledge doesn’t necessarily get you the results you want, because if God sees everything in an “eternal now” it’s not clear how that can possibly be the basis for God’s actions. For instance, if God sees me dying in mortal sin, God can’t “use” that knowledge to bring about a different series of events. Timeless knowledge sounds like a solution to the problem, but it isn’t. It works for Aquinas because Aquinas thinks God’s knowledge causes things to happen. But if it’s the other way round, as you imply–if our actions cause God’s timeless knowledge–then you essentially have an omniscient but helpless God who sees human beings acting in a certain way and can do nothing to stop them. Hence the two major alternatives of Thomism or middle knowledge.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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.

No, it doesn’t. That may be William’s point, and if so I’m entirely with him.

St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and indeed most great Western Catholic theologians have believed that God’s predestination of some people to salvation is logically prior to the actions we perform which lead to our salvation. If that doesn’t violate free will, then neither does OSAS.

There are many other excellent reasons for rejecting OSAS.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Yes, I know that.

Then I’m not sure how you can argue that Catholics believe in OSAS.

The Catholic doctrine of predestination to eternal blessedness is OSAS.

If you don’t believe it is, then what is it?

By your logic, those who are predestined are saved even before they believe in Jesus. Do you believe this? (If so, I am professionally interested in your opinion, since I argued in a paper a few years ago that this was essentially the view of Zwingli and some other very early Reformed folks–the guys who invented OSAS-- before Lutheran influence and a more serious attention to Augustine modified Reformed theology into its classical “Calvinist” form.) That’s not the traditional view of either Catholics or Protestants.

Perhaps the question at issue should rather be described as ORAR–once regenerate always regenerate. If “salvation” means “being predestined,” then of course anyone who believes in the traditional doctrine of God’s foreknowledge believes in OSAS. That reduces the term to triviality (though the rise of non-traditional doctrines of God’s knowledge among many Protestants–and some Catholics and Orthodox–may be making this issue less trivial!)

There’s no need to consider “free will” in Catholic predestination to eternal blessedness.

I’m not sure what you mean by that. Free will is how God’s predestination takes effect. Indeed, many Catholics today agree with Arminian Protestants that God’s predestination is logically subsequent to His knowledge of our free actions.

Edwin

 

[stewstew03]

Then answer my question.

In Catholic predestination, will all of those predestined by God to eternal blessedness attain eternal blessedness, or not?

Will God attain that which He desires? Yes. This is not at all the same as OSAS.

 

[stewstew03]

I regret not having followed this discussion.

Me too!

William’s basic mistake is that he confuses predestination to eternal life with regeneration…

Agreed. And I would just add that William also seems to confuse our temporal understanding with God’s omniscience. There is no ‘pre’ with God.

:bible1:

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
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.

Then what is he, a robot. Freewill means man can make choices and decisions. Otherwise he would be like the rest of the animal kingdom and operate on instinct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

I gather you cannot see the contradiction in your answer. A backslider, as the term is used in protestantism, is one who has relinguished his faith and has turned to a life of sin. To say they are still saved while in this state of depravity flies in the face of the concept of saved by faith.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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).

If you want to quote scripture don’t cherry pick it by taking it out of context. That can only become a pretext as you so well have shown. The passage in its entirety is as follows:

“20 Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

Yes and you won’t find the word Trinity either. So what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?

Salvation was necessary only after Adam’s fall. Before that Adam was sinless and enjoyed the grace [favor] of God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Therefore he was once saved and would have continued so if he had not sinned.

Same question as above.

Same response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
But Adam lost his salvation and ours with it.

Same question as the two above.

Same response

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

No, you won’t find the word in Genesis but you will find the concept. One protestant dictionary puts it this wy:

"COVENANT OF WORKS, the constitution under which Adam was placed at his creation. In this covenant,

The contracting parties were (a) God the moral Governor, and (b) Adam, a free moral agent, and representative of all his natural posterity (Romans 5:12-19).
The promise was “life” (Matthew 19:16,17; Galatians 3:12).
The condition was perfect obedience to the law, the test in this case being abstaining from eating the fruit of the “tree of knowledge,” etc.
The penalty was death (Genesis 2:16,17).
This covenant is also called a covenant of nature, as made with man in his natural or unfallen state; a covenant of life, because “life” was the promise attached to obedience; and a legal covenant, because it demanded perfect obedience to the law.

The “tree of life” was the outward sign and seal of that life which was promised in the covenant, and hence it is usually called the seal of that covenant." [Easton’s Bible Dictionary]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?

Are you really that dense or are you being obtuse? Anyway, scripture has Jesus saying:

“No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.” John 3:13

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
And it is because of man’s free will that people will backslide.

…

 

[Usagi]

P.S., I don’t know what else to say. I understand the teaching of Catholic predestination, and have a made a simple observation; namely, in Catholic predestination, God predestines some to eternal blessedness, and those He predestines to eternal blessedness cannot fail to achieve eternal blessedness.

Do you agree with that? Yes, or no?

I agree with that, but I do not agree that your statement there is identical to what is commonly meant by OSAS.

OSAS is not merely about perseverance to the end, but includes the assertion that everyone given the grace of justification (placed into a “state of grace,” in Catholic terminology) will persevere to the end.

The Catholic belief in mortal sin directly contradicts that position. We believe that it is actually possible to move in and out of a state of grace throughout one’s life, so that a person who was at one time truly regenerate could wind up in Hell with the seal of baptism on his soul as an eternal mark of shame. (I’m sure you know that to us, baptism is actually and objectively regenerative.)

Now, for those who ultimately wind up in Heaven, there is little difference, and perhaps that is your point – God willed and knew and graced them to persevere unto death, and it matters little from that perspective whether they were always in a state of grace or slipped out and back in many times.

However, with OSAS, that distinction that may make no ultimate difference is actually the key point. Under OSAS, at least from the point of justification forward, the saved are not only predestined to die in grace, but will never depart that state even temporarily. Therefore, anyone who has that moment of justification must be one of the elect.

In Catholic thinking, someone predestined to sanctity might live periods of his life in mortal sin, such that he would actually go to Hell if he died during such a period (but, of course, God knows and wills that he will not, but will return to the fold before death). Further, there are those who truly undergo justification and regeneration only to throw those gifts away and die in sin, damning themselves.

To me, those positions are not at all identical, and plenty of ink has been spilled over the centuries arguing the utter irreconcilability of them. They end up in the same place for those predestined to glory, of course, but that doesn’t make them the same.

Usagi

 

[William_C]

Are you really that dense or are you being obtuse?

I’m going to take the advice of Michael Francis, and put you, and any folks like you in the future on my ignore list.

I hope anyone else who wants to act like Inkaneer takes notice.

 

[William_C]

Then I’m not sure how you can argue that Catholics believe in OSAS.

By your logic, those who are predestined are saved even before they believe in Jesus. Do you believe this? (If so, I am professionally interested in your opinion, since I argued in a paper a few years ago that this was essentially the view of Zwingli and some other very early Reformed folks–the guys who invented OSAS-- before Lutheran influence and a more serious attention to Augustine modified Reformed theology into its classical “Calvinist” form.) That’s not the traditional view of either Catholics or Protestants.

Perhaps the question at issue should rather be described as ORAR–once regenerate always regenerate. If “salvation” means “being predestined,” then of course anyone who believes in the traditional doctrine of God’s foreknowledge believes in OSAS. That reduces the term to triviality (though the rise of non-traditional doctrines of God’s knowledge among many Protestants–and some Catholics and Orthodox–may be making this issue less trivial!)

I’m not sure what you mean by that. Free will is how God’s predestination takes effect. Indeed, many Catholics today agree with Arminian Protestants that God’s predestination is logically subsequent to His knowledge of our free actions.

Edwin

The question has already been answered. Thanks.

 

[William_C]

Will God attain that which He desires? Yes. This is not at all the same as OSAS.

I don’t think that’s the Catholic position at all.

ISTM the Catholic position is, God may attain His desires, if the creature doesn’t reject God’s predestination.

 

[Contarini]

The question has already been answered. Thanks.

Answered where by whom?

Edwin