Do Catholic Teachings On Predestination Logically Conclude with OSAS?

[William_C]

Answered where by whom?

Edwin

Read the thread, Contarini. I’m not going back over all of it.

 

[William_C]

Me too!

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:

What?

 

[Armor_of_Light]

**a note to all of you.

Keep your responses/statements short, and to the point.

I absolutely will not respond to multiple paged posts.

I don’t have the time.**

242 posts in 10 days? You have the time…

 

[William_C]

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

“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.”

Your above statement is pretty close to my thoughts on it.

I don’t believe the elect move in and out of God’s grace, but that they are always in God’s grace, and more so when they are falling short.

I don’t believe salvation, once given, is ever lost, or ever taken away by God, for any reason.

 

[William_C]

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

That’s a good post, Edwin. Thanks, I’m going to print it out and file it.

 

[Usagi]

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

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

It’s a difference in what we believe God desires. A quotation was posted earlier describing the concept of God’s antecedent will and consequent will, but you discounted it as some combination of equivocation and uncertainty.

If, as we posit, God’s highest desire is to have creatures that freely choose to return His love, to the extent that He fully enables them to do otherwise when they want, then yes, we have a situation in which creatures can act to frustrate God’s will in lesser matters, but only because that very freedom is itself God’s over-arching will.

Leaving aside whether the damnation of some is God’s positive will, it seems pretty clear that sin is not in accord with God’s will (pretty much by definition) and it is stated outright in Scripture that God wills all humans to be saved. Yet sins are committed constantly and I’m sure we share the belief that at least some humans die in their sins. So, either we accept that all of that is as God planned it and His will is not being frustrated even a little bit (which seems to be your position) or we accept that God has willed at least the potential for the partial frustration of His perfect will.

Usagi

 

[Usagi]

“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.”

Your above statement is pretty close to my thoughts on it.

I don’t believe the elect move in and out of God’s grace, but that they are always in God’s grace, and more so when they are falling short.

I don’t believe salvation, once given, is ever lost, or ever taken away by God, for any reason.

Right. That is OSAS. The Catholic position I have stated above is not that. Thus, even though we both believe in predestination to glory, that does not make the overall Catholic position on salvation identical to OSAS.

Usagi

 

[William_C]

Right. That is OSAS. The Catholic position I have stated above is not that. Thus, even though we both believe in predestination to glory, that does not make the overall Catholic position on salvation identical to OSAS.

Usagi

Technically speaking, no, it doesn’t.

But there’s only one predestination, and that is neither Catholicism’s, nor Calvin’s, but God’s.

My understanding of God is, His will trumps all else. If He predestines one to salvation, that’s what happens.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The big difference though is does His will to predestine predetermine what happens or allow what happens by a union of His grace and the free cooperation of man?

God wills that every man would be saved but he allows some men to exercise their free will and wind up in Hell.

If God predetermined that they would be in Hell and they couldn’t stop that from happening then God would be a monster and an author of sin–to PREDETERMINE sin is to author it!

God predestines the Elect–Catholics believe that.

Catholics do not believe that God predestines damnation in the sense of PREDETERMINATION.

They do believe that God PREDESTINES in the sense of allowance.

Once Saved is not true because someone can be initially saved and then fall away and be lost. It is true that the Elect will not fall away–but we on Earth absent special revelation by God do not know if we are the Elect or not.

The Elect who persevere are Once saved always saved.

But ALL those who are initially saved ARE NOT those who will necessarily persevere.

Some of the initially saved will persevere–some will not–the Elect will always persevere–all those who are initially saved WILL NOT persevere.

Everything that happens is either because God intends it to happen and MAKES it happen

OR

God doesn’t intend something to happen but ALLOWS it to happen.

God doesn’t intend sin but allows it.

God doesn’t intend that any man would go to hell but ALLOWS some men to go to Hell.

When that happens it happens because of ALLOWANCE–not because of God’s INTENT or because God MAKES it happen!

 

[Philthy]

Give me a break.

No. You don’t deserve a break.

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.

Would you please provide an articulation of your understanding of the definition of Catholic predestination? Is predestination something God does, actively?

Do you agree with that? Yes, or no?

Agreeing with the statement will not resolve the issue because we have not agreed on the terms contained within it. Just like answering the question, “Can someone fall from grace, yes or no?” We can both agree that they can, but you believe that a fall from grace has no salvific consequence whereas any Catholic would say that it does. It’s meaningless to agree to the statement when we disagree on what the terms of the statement mean and therefore what the implications of them are. The same is true with predestination.

 

[William_C]

No. You don’t deserve a break.

Would you please provide an articulation of your understanding of the definition of Catholic predestination? Is predestination something God does, actively?

No. That part of the discussion is ended.

 

[Philthy]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

He who would place the reason of predestination either in man alone or in God alone would inevitably be led into heretical conclusions about eternal election. In the one case the error concerns the last end, in the other the means to that end. Let it be noted that we do not speak of the “cause” of predestination, which would be either the efficient cause (God), or the instrumental cause (grace), or the final cause (God’s honour), or the primary meritorious cause, but of the reason or motive which induced God from all eternity to elect certain definite individuals to grace and glory. The principal question then is: Does the natural merit of man exert perhaps some influence on the Divine election to grace and glory? If we recall the dogma of the absolute gratuity of Christian grace, our answer must be outright negative (see GRACE). To the further question whether Divine predestination does not at least take into account the supernaturalgoodworks, the Church answers with the doctrine thatheaven** is not given to the elect by a purely arbitrary act of God’s will**, but that it is also the reward of the personal merits of the justified (see MERIT).

 

[inkaneer]

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).

If, as you say, that it is man who, “…gives himself as a slave to his own wrong desires.” Then I ask you this question, Is man capable of not giving himself as a slave to his own desires or is man forced to give himself to those wrong desires?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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).

Thank you. You just denied OSAS. And yes, Christ does give life but that life can be extinguished by sin. 1 John 5:16 speaks of a sin that is mortal, that is, it causes death, which is spiritual death because sin is a spiritual act… Not all sin does this however as John points out. There is no guarantee that backsliders will repent. If they have sunk to the level of mortal sin they have forfeited their salvation and can only recover it by full repentence. But while they remain in their backslidden state they are damned to hell.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

True to form you are extremely loose with the scriptures trying to shoehorn them into your preconcieved ideas. Let’s see what Eph 1:13-14 says in its **ENTIRETY **shall we?

"13 In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 WHICH IS THE GUARANTEE OF OUR INHERITANCE UNTIL WE ACQUIRE POSSESSION OF IT, to the praise of his glory.

So we are not saved until we take possession of it and since we are susceptible to mortal sin, the sin that kills everlasting life [thus it is mortal], until the day we die we do not take possession of salvation until we die. So the guarantee is only good if we do not commit sin that ends everlasting life. That is far different than saying we are guaranteed of salvation which is what OSAS teaches

 

[William_C]

This message is hidden because inkaneer is on your ignore list.

See my post #96.

 

[PJM]

I’d LOVE to know how he reaches such a conclusion.

No where in the bible is OSAS articulated, or IMO, even intimated. However the number of
passages that refute it are many. For example:

Job.17: 4 “Since thou hast closed their minds to understanding, therefore thou wilt not let them triumph"

John.10: 16 “And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd”

Romans 13: 1-4 “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

Matt.5: 48 “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Mt. 19:17 “…But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.”

2 Cor. 5:10 “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.”

Eph. 5: 6-10, 15-17 “Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not associate with them, for once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is."

Heb.6: 10 “For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do.”

Rev.2: 23 “and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches shall know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.”

1 Peter 1: 17 “Now if you invoke as Father him who judges impartially according to each one’s works, conduct yourselves with reverence during the time of your sojourning, “

Rom.2: 13 “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.”

The question is, is it possible to be in a state of grace and then fall from it and therefore reject the gift of salvation God offers? The OSAS position (at least the one being examined for the sake of the discussion at hand) is that such a fall from a graced state (however one wants to define “graced state”) is impossible

Romans 9: 18 “So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.”

The real issue with this position is that It deines that God MUST BE PERFECT.

OF the many BILLIONS of CREATEF THINGS only humanity can emulate our God.

ONLY humanity has a mind, intellect and FREEWILL attached to our souls; and it is these that bear the “judgment” of God in hell or heaven.

Isaiah tells us “Isa.43 Verses 7and 21: “every one who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.” AND the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise.”

Ephesians 1:13 “In whom you also, after you had heard the word of truth, (the gospel of your salvation in whom also believing, you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise”

Philippians 2:12 "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only,*** but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.***

It’s OUR choice.

1John.1 Verses 8 to 10 “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.”

1John.5 Verses 16 to 17 "If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

John.20 Verses 20 to 23" When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained"

My stance is that, although the Catholic Church has historically taught about predestination, its version is notably different from that of the Calvinist persuasion. More specifically, the Catholic version has always maintained that during ones earthly life, one has the free will to reject God’s gift of salvation and, consequently, end up in hell (if there was no reconciliation with God prior to his death). For an overview of Catholic teaching concerning predestination and free will, please read this article by Tim Staples: Predestined for Freedom.

In catholism “predestination” defination is the ONLY possible moral and tehelogical one:

“Pre-knowedge” which is what is meant here in Rom. 8. AND preknowedge in NO WAY, Shape or FORM can [literally impossible] influence God to act unjustly and pick and choose who is saved and who is dammed. THIS would VIOLATE Gods Goodness and mans FREEWILL would be invaldidated. IMPOSSIBLE:thumbsup:

God Bless,
Pat/ PJM

 

[stewstew03]

…Thus, even though we both believe in predestination to glory, that does not make the overall Catholic position on salvation identical to OSAS.

Technically speaking, no, it doesn’t…

Well, there you have it. Catholic doctrine on predestination does not equate to OSAS.

:bible1:

 

[inkaneer]

This message is hidden because inkaneer is on your ignore list.

See my post #96.

You can’t ignore the truth William C. It will catch up with you. You insist on protestantizing Catholic doctrine. You will not listen to reason nor will you accept Catholic doctrine as explained to you by Catholics. So what is your purpose here? You have been on this forum less than two weeks and have over 200 posts. Has your pastor assigned you to come on here and convert us Catholics?

 

[Philthy]

You can’t ignore the truth William C. It will catch up with you. You insist on protestantizing Catholic doctrine. You will not listen to reason nor will you accept Catholic doctrine as explained to you by Catholics. So what is your purpose here? You have been on this forum less than two weeks and have over 200 posts. Has your pastor assigned you to come on here and convert us Catholics?

I’d actually expect to find that he is a pastor. In our interactions he frequently established interpretations as facts based on nothing but his opinion and did a less than mediocre job of justifying those opinions and an equally poor job of defending them. It’s as if he normally doesn’t interact with people - or in a situation where - his opinion is allowed to be challenged.

 

[Truthstalker]

In another thread currently examining the biblical merits (or lack thereof) of the Once Saved, Always Saved doctrine, William C claims that Catholics are obligated to believe in OSAS. What is more, he has claimed that 1) this is a logical conclusion and 2) that it is a de fide Catholic teaching which can be found in Ott’s Fundamentals of the Catholic Faith . Because this aspect of that thread discussion was going off-topic, I decided to transfer it here to a thread of its own.

The question is, is it possible to be in a state of grace and then fall from it and therefore reject the gift of salvation God offers? The OSAS position (at least the one being examined for the sake of the discussion at hand) is that such a fall from a graced state (however one wants to define “graced state”) is impossible.

My stance is that, although the Catholic Church has historically taught about predestination, its version is notably different from that of the Calvinist persuasion. More specifically, the Catholic version has always maintained that during ones earthly life, one has the free will to reject God’s gift of salvation and, consequently, end up in hell (if there was no reconciliation with God prior to his death). For an overview of Catholic teaching concerning predestination and free will, please read this article by Tim Staples: Predestined for Freedom.

In my next post, I will display the relevant quotes from the exchange between William C and myself.

My short answer to the title question is “No”. And I know many Calvinists (I do not call myself one, though I do call myself Reformed) who insist that man has free will. There is much here I would like to explore, but I do not know that I will have the time.

 

[Truthstalker]

The question is, is it possible to be in a state of grace and then fall from it and therefore reject the gift of salvation God offers? The OSAS position (at least the one being examined for the sake of the discussion at hand) is that such a fall from a graced state (however one wants to define “graced state”) is impossible.

Is it possible to be in a state of grace? - Yes

Is it possible to fall from it - Yes

Is it possible to reject the gift of salvation - yes. We all did naturally and we would continue to do so were it not for the action of the Holy Spirit. We cannot maintain a “state of grace” on our own.

To continue: Is it possible for God to reconcile the sinner back again to Himself after he has fallen? Yes (much of the early church would have said no).

God saves people to begin with. If we fall, He will save the elect again, as it was His action to begin with that got them saved in the first place. What He starts, He finishes.

What I am hearing here sounds like you believe God saves you initially and then you have to use your own will power to persevere? Some kind of “survival of the fittest” theology? This is something I am unclear on in Catholic theology.