Fathers and predestination

[billcu1]

I know some say there is a predestination in the Catholic church. If so I would like to know about it. To my knowledge it’s a Calvinist teaching. The scriptures do say, “God is not willing that any should perish…” Augustine I believe tried his hand at this and a some say backed himself in he corner. Irenaeus is also quoted as well as Ignatius. About heresies too. One of them said, “I don’t have the authority to teach you.” So who does then? Is it the Bishop, Archbishop? So I have two questions. About predestination and the church fathers and their comments.

 

[DaveBj]

Yeah, Augustin has a LOT to say about predestination in the volume of writings against the Pelagians. Find a searchable file of that volume and search on “predestin” (the fraction of the word will pull up all forms), and prepare to spend some time.

 

[porthos11]

I know some say there is a predestination in the Catholic church.

Not some. It IS a Catholic teaching. De fide, non-negotiable, cannot be denied.

If so I would like to know about it. To my knowledge it’s a Calvinist teaching.

This gives the Calvinists too much credit. What is condemned that (some) Calvinists hold is double-predestination, which the Catholic Church firmly rejects as heretical. But the Church DOES hold to predestination itself.

The scriptures do say, “God is not willing that any should perish…” Augustine I believe tried his hand at this and a some say backed himself in he corner. Irenaeus is also quoted as well as Ignatius. About heresies too. One of them said, “I don’t have the authority to teach you.” So who does then? Is it the Bishop, Archbishop? So I have two questions. About predestination and the church fathers and their comments.

Boiled down, the acceptable Catholic thought on predestination is this (and none of these points can ever be denied; doing so will result in a heresy).

1. God is sovereign, and his will is always achieved.
2. Man has free will.
3. God desires the salvation of every human being (you cited this point)
4. God, has predestined certain men, out of a resolve of his divine will, to eternal blessedness (whether or not this is on account of their foreseen merits or before it is an open question).
5. God, on account of their foreseen demerits, has predestined certain men to eternal damnation.
6. The number of the elect and the reprobate are both fixed and unknown.

These are the non-negotiables. HOW they work together, however, the Church has never defined exactly. This leaves room for multiple schools of thought that, while not necessarily compatible with each other, are acceptable to Catholic thought. Examples of these are the Thomist school, as expressed by Banez, and the Molinist school, held by the Jesuits. Both attempt to explain predestination (but differently), but well within Catholic orthodoxy. I personally lean towards the Molinist side.

I haven’t paid much attention to the patristic thought on it, as I feel it’s too early in the game for sound theology where predestination is concerned.

 

[fbl9]

Not some. It IS a Catholic teaching. De fide, non-negotiable, cannot be denied.

This gives the Calvinists too much credit. What is condemned that (some) Calvinists hold is double-predestination, which the Catholic Church firmly rejects as heretical. But the Church DOES hold to predestination itself.

Boiled down, the acceptable Catholic thought on predestination is this (and none of these points can ever be denied; doing so will result in a heresy).

1. God is sovereign, and his will is always achieved.
2. Man has free will.
3. God desires the salvation of every human being (you cited this point)
4. God, has predestined certain men, out of a resolve of his divine will, to eternal blessedness (whether or not this is on account of their foreseen merits or before it is an open question).
5. God, on account of their foreseen demerits, has predestined certain men to eternal damnation.
6. The number of the elect and the reprobate are both fixed and unknown.

These are the non-negotiables. HOW they work together, however, the Church has never defined exactly. This leaves room for multiple schools of thought that, while not necessarily compatible with each other, are acceptable to Catholic thought. Examples of these are the Thomist school, as expressed by Banez, and the Molinist school, held by the Jesuits. Both attempt to explain predestination (but differently), but well within Catholic orthodoxy. I personally lean towards the Molinist side.

I haven’t paid much attention to the patristic thought on it, as I feel it’s too early in the game for sound theology where predestination is concerned.

1. Didn’t you just post earlier that double predestination is heretical? I think i understand want is meant just the way it was worded to me prompted the question. ie. someone is going to jump off a building to their death they aren’t going use/want a parachute even if you put it on them. Why bother then.
   or am i mistaken exactly what is condemned in double predestination? the same jumper would use the parachute but it is not given to the person because the parachute person wanted the jumper to die.

 

[Wesrock]

Not some. It IS a Catholic teaching. De fide, non-negotiable, cannot be denied.

This gives the Calvinists too much credit. What is condemned that (some) Calvinists hold is double-predestination, which the Catholic Church firmly rejects as heretical. But the Church DOES hold to predestination itself.

Boiled down, the acceptable Catholic thought on predestination is this (and none of these points can ever be denied; doing so will result in a heresy).

1. God is sovereign, and his will is always achieved.
2. Man has free will.
3. God desires the salvation of every human being (you cited this point)
4. God, has predestined certain men, out of a resolve of his divine will, to eternal blessedness (whether or not this is on account of their foreseen merits or before it is an open question).
   4. God, on account of their foreseen demerits, has predestined certain men to eternal damnation.
5. The number of the elect and the reprobate are both fixed and unknown.

These are the non-negotiables. HOW they work together, however, the Church has never defined exactly. This leaves room for multiple schools of thought that, while not necessarily compatible with each other, are acceptable to Catholic thought. Examples of these are the Thomist school, as expressed by Banez, and the Molinist school, held by the Jesuits. Both attempt to explain predestination (but differently), but well within Catholic orthodoxy. I personally lean towards the Molinist side.

I haven’t paid much attention to the patristic thought on it, as I feel it’s too early in the game for sound theology where predestination is concerned.

#4 is definitely incorrect, or at least, unclear enough as to possibly lead to error. God does not predestine men to Hell. Let me put it another way. Nothing you can do on your own can get you to Heaven. That opportunity/grace for election is entirely up to God. He does pass over some men in terms of salvation, though. But this is not in the manner of sending you some type of “anti-grace.” You don’t get anything extra that condemns you to Hell, no extraordinary action from God. You earn that on your own.

You being general, not personal to anyone here.

I also recommend this article: ewtn.com/library/answers/tulip.htm

 

[RPRPsych]

The Church has permitted a variety of views on predestination - Augustinian, Thomistic and even Molinist.

What she absolutely condemns are the two extremes: “double predestination” (Calvinism / Jansenism) and “man can save himself through his good works, God just cooperates with him” (Pelagianism and its variants).

That said, a number of early Church Fathers held to a view close to double predestination (Augustine, Prosper of Aquitaine) while a few held to a proto-Molinist view (notably Ambrose of Milan). The difference between them and the Calvinists is that they always deferred to the Church’s judgment. Not for nothing has a historian commented that “the Reformation, in a sense, was a battle between Augustine’s teaching on Grace and Augustine’s teaching on the Church.”

 

[DaveBj]

The Church has permitted a variety of views on predestination - Augustinian, Thomistic and even Molinist.

What she absolutely condemns are the two extremes: “double predestination” (Calvinism / Jansenism) and “man can save himself through his good works, God just cooperates with him” (Pelagianism and its variants).

That said, a number of early Church Fathers held to a view close to double predestination (Augustine, Prosper of Aquitaine) while a few held to a proto-Molinist view (notably Ambrose of Milan). The difference between them and the Calvinists is that they always deferred to the Church’s judgment. Not for nothing has a historian commented that “the Reformation, in a sense, was a battle between Augustine’s teaching on Grace and Augustine’s teaching on the Church.”

“Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble,
Is predestination double?” – R.C. Sproul

 

[porthos11]

1. Didn’t you just post earlier that double predestination is heretical? I think i understand want is meant just the way it was worded to me prompted the question. ie. someone is going to jump off a building to their death they aren’t going use/want a parachute even if you put it on them. Why bother then.
   or am i mistaken exactly what is condemned in double predestination? the same jumper would use the parachute but it is not given to the person because the parachute person wanted the jumper to die.

#4 is definitely incorrect, or at least, unclear enough as to possibly lead to error. God does not predestine men to Hell. Let me put it another way. Nothing you can do on your own can get you to Heaven. That opportunity/grace for election is entirely up to God. He does pass over some men in terms of salvation, though. But this is not in the manner of sending you some type of “anti-grace.” You don’t get anything extra that condemns you to Hell, no extraordinary action from God. You earn that on your own.

You being general, not personal to anyone here.

I also recommend this article: ewtn.com/library/answers/tulip.htm

You are both correct. I did say double predestination is heretical.

Except that #4 is not double predestination, and it often catches Catholics off-guard (and often leads them into the error of rejecting predestination outright),

#4 is called the mystery of reprobation, and is part of the deposit of faith. The key phrase (which is not present in #3 about election), is “on account of their foreseen demerits”.

#2 is also crucial: Man has free will. The mystery of reprobation is properly understood only alongside man’s free will and the universal desire of salvation, and here is where the Calvinists go wrong. Calvinist double-predestination includes an unconditioned predestination of some people to hell (without consideration of foreseen demerits) something Catholicism utterly rejects. But if we are to account for the foreseen demerits of certain men, then this is where a proper understanding of reprobation comes in. Reprobation is also de fide; it is part of Catholic teaching as is predestination, and cannot be rejected.

Reprobation is the reason I lean towards Molinism, because while the Thomists try to explain it in negative terms, it’s effectively equal to Calvinism. The Molinist explanation better captures the a sound relationship between grace, man’s free will, God’s sovereignty and the universal desire for salvation.

The Catechism (1037) does say “God does not predestine anyone to hell” but this one-liner can hardly capture the full mystery of predestination and reprobation, one of the most difficult of theological concepts in Catholicism. One with a good understanding of Catholic thought on the subject will immediately recognize 1037 as referring to unconditioned positive reprobation or double-predestination, which is rightly condemned. But a full treatment of this mystery takes volumes.

A good beginning treatment of the subject L. Ott: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. pp. 242-245

 

[RPRPsych]

“Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble,
Is predestination double?” – R.C. Sproul

That made my day!

 

[thistle]

I know some say there is a predestination in the Catholic church. If so I would like to know about it. To my knowledge it’s a Calvinist teaching. The scriptures do say, “God is not willing that any should perish…” Augustine I believe tried his hand at this and a some say backed himself in he corner. Irenaeus is also quoted as well as Ignatius. About heresies too. One of them said, “I don’t have the authority to teach you.” So who does then? Is it the Bishop, Archbishop? So I have two questions. About predestination and the church fathers and their comments.

catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/a-tiptoe-through-tulip

catholic.com/encyclopedia/predestination

catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/predestined-for-freedom

 

[billcu1]

#4 is definitely incorrect, or at least, unclear enough as to possibly lead to error. God does not predestine men to Hell. Let me put it another way. Nothing you can do on your own can get you to Heaven. That opportunity/grace for election is entirely up to God. He does pass over some men in terms of salvation, though. But this is not in the manner of sending you some type of “anti-grace.” You don’t get anything extra that condemns you to Hell, no extraordinary action from God. You earn that on your own.

You being general, not personal to anyone here.

I also recommend this article: ewtn.com/library/answers/tulip.htm

I was looking at #4 and God “wanting all to not perish”. I am kind of confused there.

 

[porthos11]

I was looking at #4 and God “wanting all to not perish”. I am kind of confused there.

So were the classic theologians. So if you’re not a theologian, confused is the right response.

Here we enter the concept of “sufficient grace.” This is a dogma of the faith and states that God provides every man grace sufficient for his salvation, even though not all will accept or respond to that grace.

Now how does God decree then that this-and-that person is reprobate and goes to hell? The Church hasn’t defined that either, but we are forbidden to hold that God creates people and without any consideration at all of their foreseen mortal sins just predestines to hell. That’s double predestination and is condemned. What we must hold is that while God provides every man sufficient grace, he also knows who will not respond to that grace, out of one’s own free will. Those he sees as not persevering to the end, he reprobates.

The challenge is that predestination/reprobation is not merely God’s foreknowledge, as many Catholics like to state. Election and reprobation are also active decrees of the divine will. Therefore, if one goes to hell, it’s not only because one freely rejected grace (this is dogma), but also because God decreed that this person is going to hell (also dogma, on account of foreseen demerits). The Thomists try to explain this as “non-election” but I’m not happy with this because outside of heaven and hell, there is no third state, so it’s effectively equal to double predestination. The Molinist explanation is better for me because it states that while God knows the outcomes of all possible orders of grace—how each man will freely respond to any given grace—he has laid out (for no other reason than his sovereign will), this fixed order of grace. Because of his hand in laying out this order of grace, he has essentially decreed who is getting saved and who is getting damned.

None of this is Church teaching, but it is something the Church has permitted. In the question of predestination, the Church only condemns what is wrong, but does not define what is right, therefore allowing multiple opinions within Catholic orthodoxy.

 

[DaveBj]

I was looking at #4 and God “wanting all to not perish”. I am kind of confused there.

2 Peter 3:9 – The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

The Word of the Lord.

Thanks be to God.

 

[billcu1]

So were the classic theologians. So if you’re not a theologian, confused is the right response.

Here we enter the concept of “sufficient grace.” This is a dogma of the faith and states that God provides every man grace sufficient for his salvation, even though not all will accept or respond to that grace.

Now how does God decree then that this-and-that person is reprobate and goes to hell? The Church hasn’t defined that either, but we are forbidden to hold that God creates people and without any consideration at all of their foreseen mortal sins just predestines to hell. That’s double predestination and is condemned. What we must hold is that while God provides every man sufficient grace, he also knows who will not respond to that grace, out of one’s own free will. Those he sees as not persevering to the end, he reprobates.

The challenge is that predestination/reprobation is not merely God’s foreknowledge, as many Catholics like to state. Election and reprobation are also active decrees of the divine will. Therefore, if one goes to hell, it’s not only because one freely rejected grace (this is dogma), but also because God decreed that this person is going to hell (also dogma, on account of foreseen demerits). The Thomists try to explain this as “non-election” but I’m not happy with this because outside of heaven and hell, there is no third state, so it’s effectively equal to double predestination. The Molinist explanation is better for me because it states that while God knows the outcomes of all possible orders of grace—how each man will freely respond to any given grace—he has laid out (for no other reason than his sovereign will), this fixed order of grace. Because of his hand in laying out this order of grace, he has essentially decreed who is getting saved and who is getting damned.

None of this is Church teaching, but it is something the Church has permitted. In the question of predestination, the Church only condemns what is wrong, but does not define what is right, therefore allowing multiple opinions within Catholic orthodoxy.

So official teaching is only that there is no “double predestination” and that there is predestination?

Can Augustine teach? Ireneus or someone said he had no authority to teach. So who does?

 

[billcu1]

So were the classic theologians. So if you’re not a theologian, confused is the right response.

Here we enter the concept of “sufficient grace.” This is a dogma of the faith and states that God provides every man grace sufficient for his salvation, even though not all will accept or respond to that grace.

Now how does God decree then that this-and-that person is reprobate and goes to hell? The Church hasn’t defined that either, but we are forbidden to hold that God creates people and without any consideration at all of their foreseen mortal sins just predestines to hell. That’s double predestination and is condemned. What we must hold is that while God provides every man sufficient grace, he also knows who will not respond to that grace, out of one’s own free will. Those he sees as not persevering to the end, he reprobates.

The challenge is that predestination/reprobation is not merely God’s foreknowledge, as many Catholics like to state. Election and reprobation are also active decrees of the divine will. Therefore, if one goes to hell, it’s not only because one freely rejected grace (this is dogma), but also because God decreed that this person is going to hell (also dogma, on account of foreseen demerits). The Thomists try to explain this as “non-election” but I’m not happy with this because outside of heaven and hell, there is no third state, so it’s effectively equal to double predestination. The Molinist explanation is better for me because it states that while God knows the outcomes of all possible orders of grace—how each man will freely respond to any given grace—he has laid out (for no other reason than his sovereign will), this fixed order of grace. Because of his hand in laying out this order of grace, he has essentially decreed who is getting saved and who is getting damned.

None of this is Church teaching, but it is something the Church has permitted. In the question of predestination, the Church only condemns what is wrong, but does not define what is right, therefore allowing multiple opinions within Catholic orthodoxy.

What is election? And the number being known and not known. Can you make your “calling and election sure…”?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I’ve told this ad infinitum before, but the night my father died, he appeared in my room.

I believe he went to hell, because his final act was a scream of absolute terror, and it was obvious something was coming for him, even though I couldn’t see what it was. I only saw him.

Now I was an atheist at the time (1979), and didn’t become Christian till late 1982.

But during our discussion at one time he blurted out, “I always was doomed! I didn’t really have any choice!” I argued back, saying “That can’t be right!” He replied, “Oh, it’s right, all right. You can see that from here.”

But later in our exchange he said “I was WILLING!” (to act as he did - I’d say very willing.)

So this business of predestination and free will is a bit of a bug bear for me. It’s not just a case of some dry theological doctrine, but for me the personal experience of having my own father turn up in my own bedroom on the night he died. He apologised for the way he’d treated me (bit late as the damage was already done). He told me I needed to forgive him for my sake, saying that if I didn’t, I’d “destroy myself.” He also said it wasn’t for him - it was too late for him, as all that he was expected to do was to look after his own famlly, and he didn’t even do that!

Then there was the bit about “always being doomed.”

For me its a case of trying to justify our claim to “God is love”, and “God is good”, while knowing full well from personal experience that for some people, including my father, they are “doomed, and never had much choice” about it. Mind you my father had been cruel all my life, and admitted he “did it deliberately”. So i’m not saying he didn’t deserve to be punished - what sticks in my craw was his claim “I always was doomed! I didn’t really have any choice!”

Did Judas really have a choice, or was he always doomed?

John 17:12 NIV

While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one DOOMED to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.

Bit tough if you’re Judas, doomed as a baby, doomed as an infant, doomed as a teenager, doomed as an adult etc.

Maybe I could say the same thing about my father - bit tough if you’re Terrence John Crowley aka Jack Crowley (as he preferred) doomed as a baby, doomed as a child and teenager living in very austere circumstances in the Great Depression, doomed as a young serviceman fighting in New Guinea, doomed as a young married man, doomed as an middle aged man.

I have trouble getting my head around it - for me it’s a bit more than an academic argument between Augustinians, Molinists, Calvinists and Arminians. For me it’s the spectacle of my father absolutely screaming his head off just before he disappeared into eternity on a hot night in January 38 years ago.

If you can shed light on it, let me know by all means.

 

[billcu1]

I’ve told this ad infinitum before, but the night my father died, he appeared in my room.

I believe he went to hell, because his final act was a scream of absolute terror, and it was obvious something was coming for him, even though I couldn’t see what it was. I only saw him.

Now I was an atheist at the time (1979), and didn’t become Christian till late 1982.

But during our discussion at one time he blurted out, “I always was doomed! I didn’t really have any choice!” I argued back, saying “That can’t be right!” He replied, “Oh, it’s right, all right. You can see that from here.”

But later in our exchange he said “I was WILLING!” (to act as he did - I’d say very willing.)

So this business of predestination and free will is a bit of a bug bear for me. It’s not just a case of some dry theological doctrine, but for me the personal experience of having my own father turn up in my own bedroom on the night he died. He apologised for the way he’d treated me (bit late as the damage was already done). He told me I needed to forgive him for my sake, saying that if I didn’t, I’d “destroy myself.” He also said it wasn’t for him - it was too late for him, as all that he was expected to do was to look after his own famlly, and he didn’t even do that!

Then there was the bit about “always being doomed.”

For me its a case of trying to justify our claim to “God is love”, and “God is good”, while knowing full well from personal experience that for some people, including my father, they are “doomed, and never had much choice” about it. Mind you my father had been cruel all my life, and admitted he “did it deliberately”. So i’m not saying he didn’t deserve to be punished - what sticks in my craw was his claim “I always was doomed! I didn’t really have any choice!”

Did Judas really have a choice, or was he always doomed?

John 17:12 NIV

Bit tough if you’re Judas, doomed as a baby, doomed as an infant, doomed as a teenager, doomed as an adult etc.

Maybe I could say the same thing about my father - bit tough if you’re Terrence John Crowley aka Jack Crowley (as he preferred) doomed as a baby, doomed as a child and teenager living in very austere circumstances in the Great Depression, doomed as a young serviceman fighting in New Guinea, doomed as a young married man, doomed as an middle aged man.

I have trouble getting my head around it - for me it’s a bit more than an academic argument between Augustinians, Molinists, Calvinists and Arminians. For me it’s the spectacle of my father absolutely screaming his head off just before he disappeared into eternity on a hot night in January 38 years ago.

If you can shed light on it, let me know by all means.

Well if you’re God you know the end from the beginning. But you also have to deal with the here and now. Reason doesn’t always explain things and has not meaning in regards to God. I guess that’s why somethings need to be taken by faith. Even those who have been granted knowledge to now the answers to these things more so than we. Even they, sometimes must go on faith. As to your situation involving your father I can’t explain that. I wish I could.

God Bless