"Foreknowledge vs. Predestination" Issue

[Pax]

Good morning everyone,

This is my first post on this forum, and I’ve come here in large part, because there has been a discussion about Catholicism vs. Calvinism that I have been engaged in.

One of these important issues I’m trying to distinguish between is the Foreknowledge vs. Pre-determination issue.

For instance, I believe Catholics would make the following argument:

I. Foreknowledge is not the equivalent of predetermination.

Before delving into more more philosophical considerations, let me give you an example: the relation between a father and his son. There are many things a father knows about his son, and amply and wisely anticipates, without discouraging him or determining his behavior. Early on already the son wants to be an aviator. The father knows that his eyesight is weak, a probable handicap, but he will not discourage his son, because in spite of probabilities, there may be a change in venue. The knowledge of the father does not curb the freedom of the son, if the father is a loving father. In this love there is always room for another chance, if the son wishes so
.
The example is a human one, granted. But it takes into account what we know about God in the Bible. He is the creator God, and in that creation there is freedom we can actually experience. The on-and-off relationship between God and his people is a proof that God always comes back to challenge the people with his love, ultimately by sending his own Son. The red thread that goes through the Bible is one of love, actually mercy. The word mercy indicates a gratuitous love where the initiative is with God untiringly.

Predestination not only contradicts the Bible as a whole, it is in absolute contradiction with love. Predestination contradicts our experience of human nature. Predestination kills any and all notion of morals. There were movements in the church living according to the idea of predestination, one of them the so called quietism. Let yourself be pushed and pulled in whichever direction life goes, even sin. No wonder this and other movements destroyed themselves. It was their own moral abjection that got the better of them.

II. Pre-Determination Argument

“Predestination contradicts our experience of human nature. Predestination kills any and all notion of morals.”—I direct you to the cross of Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, “both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur” (Acts 4:27-28). Again D.A. Carson expounds, “Herod and Pontius Pilate and the rest conspired together; they did what they wanted to do, even though they did what God’s power and will had determined beforehand should be done. That is why many theologians have refused to tie “freedom” to absolute power to act contrary to God’s will. They tie it, rather, to desire, to what human beings voluntarily choose. Joseph’s brothers did what they wanted to do; Herod and Pilate and the rulers of the Jews did what they wanted to do; the Assyrians did what they wanted to do. In each case, God’s sovereignty was operating behind the scenes: the human participants, to use the language of the early Christians, did what God’s power and will had decided beforehand should happen. But that did not excuse them. They did what they wanted to do.”

Again, the pinnacle of the Christian faith—the crucifixion of Jesus Christ—cries out in protest against your philosophizing. It is clear that this event surely was predestined by the hand of God, and yet these men, these godless men (Acts 2:23) were fully culpable for their wicked actions. And yet, you complain that men who aren’t “free” to act outside of God’s men surely shouldn’t be held accountable for their choices? Well I submit to you that if these men who crucified my Savior shouldn’t be held accountable for their choices, then no men should be. Therefore, your argument fails on all sides.

III. OPINIONS?

I think that a good argument is made on both sides… particularly in reference to the particular issue of Jesus’s crucifixion. Meaning, was it not true that God had predetermined to send his Son, Jesus, to take away the sins of the world? Would it not be true that, in doing so, he must have used men (in an evil way) to carry out his wishes? So in some sense, God may have indeed purposefully made/pre-determined certain men’s evil acts for the accomplishment of His overall purpose?

(This is a point I’m hoping/wondering if more learned Catholics could help me understand).

Thank you in advance for your time and I look forward to your responses.

God’s foreknowledge is not equal to predestination any more than our knowledge of past events becomes the cause of those events. Positive predestination is a Catholic article of faith, but you seem to be addressing negative predestination which is something the Church condemns. In the examples you gave, God “allowed” wicked men to do what they were going to do within God’s plan of salvation. In “allowing” them to do their wicked work he in a sense “used” their actions as instruments within the plan, but he never “made” them do the evil things that they did in crucifying Jesus.

I hope that helps and God bless.

 

[jericho777]

As an addendum, PatriciusRex, I’m curious how you would interpret the following passage as a Catholic, because I am having a bit of trouble reconciling this passage.

Ephesians 1.

"For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he** predestined us for adoption to sonship[c] through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8 that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, 9 he[d] made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.

11 In him we were also chosen,[e] having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory."**

Those are my thoughts also. For me the plain and simple reading of scripture demonstrates God chooses us for salvation not the other way around. The weight of scripture, chapter after chapter verse after verse both OT and NT are dedicated to the idea salvation is God’s sole choice alone.

Romans 9:6-18 is about God’s election of Jacob (Israel). To the reader temped to question God’s righteousness for choosing Jacob and rejecting Esau solely upon His sovereign will and choice. Paul’s responds in v 14 “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.” Paul then states in v 15,16 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. That means you can’t will yourself to be saved or do good to be worthy to deserve salvation! It rests solely with God.

I would encourage doing a word search for predestined, elect, election, purpose, purposed, chose and chosen. Research the passages. Look at the context. Then make a decision based on the abundant evidence presented in scripture.

 

[Consigliere]

Good morning all,

Thank you all for these wonderful posts about this topic, I am so grateful that those of you who have much more theological knowledge, are willing to give the time to help a fellow Catholic understand (and hopefully, I can pass this knowledge on to those who are in a similar place as I).

I have a couple of questions that I would like to further clarify regarding this issue. Before I get to those, though, I have been having a discussion with a former Catholic, who was actually going to attend the Seminary and dropped out. He cited these two reasons below. I was wondering what those of you who are more learned in Theology, would be able to respond to these two points.

I feel that I am at a loss when examining these points, but I do think they are good points that many people (in and out) of the Catholic Faith struggle with.

He stated as follows:

(1) I believe Jesus existed, I believe he was a great man with great teachings, but ultimately I think he was probably just a man. There was a point I definitely was completely on board with the whole Jesus/son of God thing, but the more I really thought about it the less sense it made to me. I don’t think there is anything wrong with Jesus or his teachings, or believing he was more than a man…some people need that guidance and structure in their lives, and that is certainly fine.

(2) I don’t really believe in organized religion. I do think there are merits and and benefits to such a system, but ultimately I think organized religion is about control, they’re run by men with selfish motivations. If you look through history a lot of very great evil has been done in the name of religion and have been led by great men of great faith. All in the name of religion. And sadly such atrocities are still committed in the name of religion. I don’t mean to say the Catholic Church is evil, not by any stretch of the imagination, but its run by men with the motivations and desires of men. Like you said, we as men can never know God, so how can we say that any religion created by men can truly explain God? I think membership in a religious practice is a great and valuable part of spirituality. But too many people simply go and listen blindly to religious leaders and teachers and blindly follow rather than attempt to have a deep and personal relationship with God. Personally, I have nothing against going to church, but I feel like I can come to a better understanding of God, the world and our spirituality with an hour of personal prayer meditiation or talking about faith and religion with friends over a coffee, beer or water than going to a church. For both my parents, they need church, they don’t feel a connection with God without it, while I can sense God in church, I feel him just as strongly in my personal reflection and prayers.

I won’t get into the details of Nicea here, as email is not a great way to have that discussion, but even a cursory review of the historical record is demonstrative of the disparate views and beliefs that were held at that time. Keep in mind at this point there was no established unified Church, so different beliefs had emerged in various geographic, political, and ethnic regional communities. Ultimately, a single view prevailed, and all others were branded “heresies”. Once again, no point discussing this too much further. Many Christians will simply state the council was “inspired by God” and therefore the decisions were divinely inspired – the same mindset that argues for things such as “Papal infallibility”. For me, as I have communicated to you, I question the motivations of the MEN who attended the council. Men are men, religion is control, and to a weakened political state, a very attractive way to consolidate power. Call me a cynic, or an ignorant man, but I believe politics played as much a role in anything in the Council of Nicea. Does this invalidate the Bible? No, not necessarily. But does it automatically invalidate EVERY book left out? Absolutely, certainly not. Bishops argued for the inclusion of books left out of the Bible, some Bishops left the Council of Nicea in protest because the book beloved of their congregation was omitted. Does this mean every book out of the Bible is valid? Of course not, some are most certainly forgeries and fabrications….but are some just as valid (or dare I say possibly moreso) than the 4 books in the Bible? I have to believe some most certainly are.

 

[steve_b]

I have been having a discussion with a former Catholic, who was actually going to attend the Seminary and dropped out. He cited these two reasons below. I was wondering what those of you who are more learned in Theology, would be able to respond to these two points.

He stated as follows:

(1) I believe Jesus existed, I believe he was a great man with great teachings, but ultimately I think he was probably just a man. There was a point I definitely was completely on board with the whole Jesus/son of God thing, but the more I really thought about it the less sense it made to me. I don’t think there is anything wrong with Jesus or his teachings, or believing he was more than a man…some people need that guidance and structure in their lives, and that is certainly fine.

I see 2 issues here. Even though he uses the word believe, he doesn’t have knowledge to go along with it, therefore he can’t be obedient to a faith he doesn’t really have.

Faith is a gift. He needs to pray for faith. Without it he can’t do anything to please God.

suggest he read 2 Peter 1:5-11

God did His part and we need to do our part.
C:

(2) I don’t really believe in organized religion. I do think there are merits and and benefits to such a system, but ultimately I think organized religion is about control, they’re run by men with selfish motivations. If you look through history a lot of very great evil has been done in the name of religion and have been led by great men of great faith. All in the name of religion. And sadly such atrocities are still committed in the name of religion. I don’t mean to say the Catholic Church is evil, not by any stretch of the imagination, but its run by men with the motivations and desires of men. Like you said, we as men can never know God, so how can we say that any religion created by men can truly explain God? I think membership in a religious practice is a great and valuable part of spirituality. But too many people simply go and listen blindly to religious leaders and teachers and blindly follow rather than attempt to have a deep and personal relationship with God. Personally, I have nothing against going to church, but I feel like I can come to a better understanding of God, the world and our spirituality with an hour of personal prayer meditiation or talking about faith and religion with friends over a coffee, beer or water than going to a church. For both my parents, they need church, they don’t feel a connection with God without it, while I can sense God in church, I feel him just as strongly in my personal reflection and prayers.

With a few exceptions, I had 2 friends who could have written that. Both are very successful individuals, and as it turns out, they are both narcissists. One of them pathologically so. I couldn’t remain friends with them. On the surface they seem like really nice people. But they are not nice people. They excuse themselves of everything imaginable. Neither of these ex friends of mine were looking for real answers. But they liked to argue over faith. For them it was “fun”. My future approach with them is through prayer. I have no desire to initiate direct contact with them anymore.
C:

I won’t get into the details of Nicea here, as email is not a great way to have that discussion, but even a cursory review of the historical record is demonstrative of the disparate views and beliefs that were held at that time. Keep in mind at this point there was no established unified Church, so different beliefs had emerged in various geographic, political, and ethnic regional communities. Ultimately, a single view prevailed, and all others were branded “heresies”. Once again, no point discussing this too much further. Many Christians will simply state the council was “inspired by God” and therefore the decisions were divinely inspired – the same mindset that argues for things such as “Papal infallibility”. For me, as I have communicated to you, I question the motivations of the MEN who attended the council. Men are men, religion is control, and to a weakened political state, a very attractive way to consolidate power. Call me a cynic, or an ignorant man, but I believe politics played as much a role in anything in the Council of Nicea. Does this invalidate the Bible? No, not necessarily. But does it automatically invalidate EVERY book left out? Absolutely, certainly not. Bishops argued for the inclusion of books left out of the Bible, some Bishops left the Council of Nicea in protest because the book beloved of their congregation was omitted. Does this mean every book out of the Bible is valid? Of course not, some are most certainly forgeries and fabrications….but are some just as valid (or dare I say possibly moreso) than the 4 books in the Bible? I have to believe some most certainly are.

Bottom line

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”

 

[Pax]

Good morning all,

…
…
He cited these two reasons below. I was wondering what those of you who are more learned in Theology, would be able to respond to these two points.

I feel that I am at a loss when examining these points, but I do think they are good points that many people (in and out) of the Catholic Faith struggle with.

He stated as follows:

(1) I believe Jesus existed, I believe he was a great man with great teachings, but ultimately I think he was probably just a man. There was a point I definitely was completely on board with the whole Jesus/son of God thing, but the more I really thought about it the less sense it made to me. I don’t think there is anything wrong with Jesus or his teachings, or believing he was more than a man…some people need that guidance and structure in their lives, and that is certainly fine.

(2) I don’t really believe in organized religion. I do think there are merits and and benefits to such a system, but ultimately I think organized religion is about control, they’re run by men with selfish motivations. If you look through history a lot of very great evil has been done in the name of religion and have been led by great men of great faith. All in the name of religion. And sadly such atrocities are still committed in the name of religion. I don’t mean to say the Catholic Church is evil, not by any stretch of the imagination, but its run by men with the motivations and desires of men. Like you said, we as men can never know God, so how can we say that any religion created by men can truly explain God? I think membership in a religious practice is a great and valuable part of spirituality. But too many people simply go and listen blindly to religious leaders and teachers and blindly follow rather than attempt to have a deep and personal relationship with God. Personally, I have nothing against going to church, but I feel like I can come to a better understanding of God, the world and our spirituality with an hour of personal prayer meditiation or talking about faith and religion with friends over a coffee, beer or water than going to a church. For both my parents, they need church, they don’t feel a connection with God without it, while I can sense God in church, I feel him just as strongly in my personal reflection and prayers.

…
…

Consigliere,

If your friend holds Jesus in such high esteem, he then creates a problem for himself in that Jesus makes it clear that he is the son of God. Either Jesus was not a good man because he lied, or Jesus was insane to claim that he was the son of God and one with the Father. Your friend cannot believe that Jesus was a good man, but just a man.

Your friends contentions concerning power and the seeking of power by religious leaders is a blanket statement without proof. Just because someone can find those that abuse their positions of authority does not justify a universal condemnation. Furthermore, your friend has some rather interesting views on scripture. Clearly, if he cannot accept scripture which speaks of positions of authority within the Church then it is unlikely that he will accept much of anything. The determination of the Canon of Scripture was not based in a power struggle and he has no proof that it was.

Your friend’s difficulties with Church authority are perhaps the focal point of all of his disagreements. Please note that he rejects Church authority in favor of his own personal authority. He is his own church, pastor, pope and arbiter of what is scripture and who Jesus may or may not be.

I would ask your friend to chronicle how much time he actually devotes to prayer, worship, and discussion of religion each week that actually brings him closer to God. Have him give a detailed personal testimony about all this, and how it is actually working out in his life. Moreover, ask him how this works out practically in his being a member of the one body of Christ as described in scripture. In that regard, you might also point to Hebrews 10:23-27 which says:

Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries.

I would also focus on the Eucharist and get some really good material to present to him on that subject. I have a very nice MS Word file on the topic that contains materials that I have summarized from the best and most thorough sources available. If you want it, just PM me with your email address and I’ll send you an electronic copy. If he believed in the Eucharist, he would easily see the most important reason to attend mass for there is obviously no other way to be embraced by Christ that is like our great and holy sacrament of the Eucharist.

I hope this helps and God bless.

 

[Consigliere]

This is tough, along with the above comments that I posted regarding my discussion with him. . . . my friend has a higher theology background than I do, and I am not quite as educated in regards to religious history. He also went on to make the following points in regards to him having difficulty in believing in Hell existing, his comments are as follows:

*Agree completely regarding God, although I am not sure I agree its hard to be an atheist. I actually think its easier these days. As science explains more and more of the world, there is less “need” for religion. Religion in its foundation was created to explain the unexplainable. Why are there stars? Why must we die? Why do the seasons change? Then these questions turned to more philosophical questions: What is right and wrong? Why are we here? I actually think its harder to be a man of religion/faith in these days. Polls and numbers show that more and more people do not believe in any god at all. Because we can now explain creation, physics and such things with science which 200 years ago (and even more 1000 years ago, or 10000 years ago) could only be explained by religion.

Men have always had gods, but the nature of those gods has changed drastically. Were people simply wrong for hundreds of thousands of years? Or is the exact nature of god less important than belief in god in some form? I would argue the latter.

Not disagreeing with you, just saying I think its even more powerful of a feeling and remarkable an experience to find “god” in these days and this culture.

As to hell, you make a lot of good points, but ultimately the argument that hell MUST exist is based on the following tenant of Christian theology which I do not agree with: God is more than man and cannot be understood by man, yet God possess the thought processes, judgments, and logic of a man. I simplify, but here is the weakness of most “logic” and “theology” which attempts to explain God or why certain things must exist.

In many ways this is easily explainable; we WANT to know God, we want to understand god, we ultimately want to relate to god. But we cannot. God is so far advanced, (s)he is all-knowing, all powerful, all-encompassing. Theologians try and explain God by making her man, but we cannot do that. To try and limit god’s love or god’s forgiveness, or even god’s expectations to what we as humans feel, love, believe or behave is attributable more to man’s yearning to understand god than on god’s expectations of us.

The analogy of a parent and child I’ve heard before, and ultimately I don’t think its a good one. You love your child, your child may “destroy themself” as you say…however nothing would ever stop you from accepting your child back into your arms no matter what they did. If you are all loving and you are all forgiving you would never deny your child that. Nor would God - never, ever. If he does, he is not God. Does a life lived for 20 30, 60 or 100 years dictate all eternity? God’s love has limits? God’s forgiveness has limits? Once we die we are no longer able to commune with God? We can no longer ask for forgiveness? God is no longer willing to offer it?

These limitations we human beings place on God, because we want a God that is relatable, or God that is not perfect, a God that has rules. Why? Because we want to be able to understand God, explain God, relate to God. Its easier when he make God human, when God makes mistakes.

Therein is my hangup. God is none of those things. God is perfection. God is the force that binds the entire universe together. We try and humanize God. But instead we should be trying to be more like God ourselves, we should focus less on sins and more on perfection.*

 

[PatriciusRex]

Consigliere,

I think you’ve already gotten great answers from the previous two posters.

And don’t feel unqualified!

No amount of theological training or study can give someone faith. Theology only informs faith, it doesn’t create it. St. Augustine famously said “Believe, so that you understand.”

In this particular case, it sounds like for the time being, your friend has made up his mind that there is no God, so therefore he is not bound to obey the precepts of Christianity. He may be well educated, but the rationale of his thinking is very basic. Simply: “I don’t believe in God, so therefore I am not bound to obey what most people interpret to be his will.”

To believe or not to believe is not something that can be reasoned or proven, it must just be accepted or not. And just because one has decided to trust and to try to have faith doesn’t make it come automatically. (Mark 9:24) This makes it extremely hard for many people who were raised in a completely secular environment or a non-Christian tradition to accept that there is a God and that Jesus is his Son. Likewise with someone who feeling the pressure of modern secular society has decided that belief in God and Christianity is irrational.

If I were in your position, I would add your friend to my private prayers. Remember that St Augustine himself attributed his conversion to the tireless prayers of his mother, St. Monica. Don’t confront your friend with judgmental condemnations (which I doubt you have, but it’s a common pitfall for many) but just say that your personal faith and confidence in God requires you to disagree, and tell him that if the day may come that he feels alone and hopeless, to remember that Christ died for him, and that the doors of the kingdom of heaven are always open to those who want to enter. That’s really all you can say at this point, and honestly, all you should say. Let your actions say everything else by continuing to treat him as a true friend. Show him your faith by your works. (James 2:18)

I’ll include you and your friend in my prayers.

 

[Pax]

This is tough, along with the above comments that I posted regarding my discussion with him. . . . my friend has a higher theology background than I do, and I am not quite as educated in regards to religious history. He also went on to make the following points in regards to him having difficulty in believing in Hell existing, his comments are as follows:

*Agree completely regarding God, although I am not sure I agree its hard to be an atheist. I actually think its easier these days. As science explains more and more of the world, there is less “need” for religion. Religion in its foundation was created to explain the unexplainable. Why are there stars? Why must we die? Why do the seasons change? Then these questions turned to more philosophical questions: What is right and wrong? Why are we here? I actually think its harder to be a man of religion/faith in these days. Polls and numbers show that more and more people do not believe in any god at all. Because we can now explain creation, physics and such things with science which 200 years ago (and even more 1000 years ago, or 10000 years ago) could only be explained by religion.

Men have always had gods, but the nature of those gods has changed drastically. Were people simply wrong for hundreds of thousands of years? Or is the exact nature of god less important than belief in god in some form? I would argue the latter.

Not disagreeing with you, just saying I think its even more powerful of a feeling and remarkable an experience to find “god” in these days and this culture.

As to hell, you make a lot of good points, but ultimately the argument that hell MUST exist is based on the following tenant of Christian theology which I do not agree with: God is more than man and cannot be understood by man, yet God possess the thought processes, judgments, and logic of a man. I simplify, but here is the weakness of most “logic” and “theology” which attempts to explain God or why certain things must exist.

In many ways this is easily explainable; we WANT to know God, we want to understand god, we ultimately want to relate to god. But we cannot. God is so far advanced, (s)he is all-knowing, all powerful, all-encompassing. Theologians try and explain God by making her man, but we cannot do that. To try and limit god’s love or god’s forgiveness, or even god’s expectations to what we as humans feel, love, believe or behave is attributable more to man’s yearning to understand god than on god’s expectations of us.

The analogy of a parent and child I’ve heard before, and ultimately I don’t think its a good one. You love your child, your child may “destroy themself” as you say…however nothing would ever stop you from accepting your child back into your arms no matter what they did. If you are all loving and you are all forgiving you would never deny your child that. Nor would God - never, ever. If he does, he is not God. Does a life lived for 20 30, 60 or 100 years dictate all eternity? God’s love has limits? God’s forgiveness has limits? Once we die we are no longer able to commune with God? We can no longer ask for forgiveness? God is no longer willing to offer it?

These limitations we human beings place on God, because we want a God that is relatable, or God that is not perfect, a God that has rules. Why? Because we want to be able to understand God, explain God, relate to God. Its easier when he make God human, when God makes mistakes.

Therein is my hangup. God is none of those things. God is perfection. God is the force that binds the entire universe together. We try and humanize God. But instead we should be trying to be more like God ourselves, we should focus less on sins and more on perfection.*

Consigliere,

Since your friend does seem to have some respect for Jesus, I would then ask him if Jesus believed in hell? In scripture, Jesus clearly speaks of hell. Once again, either Jesus was not just a good man; he would in fact be a liar or a loon to claim to be one in being with God the Father. If he is who he says he is, then we can trust him and know that there is indeed a hell.

Moreover, your friend believes that God is perfection. That is true and it speaks not only to God’s infinite love and mercy, but it also speaks to His “perfect” justice. Hell is simply eternal separation from God and it is by our own doing and our own choice. God ultimately gives us what it is we most want. If we seek only ourselves and reject God’s grace, love, and mercy then we will receive that which is just in eternity. Our separation from God is our doing and God’s justice is perfect in that regard.

God bless.

 

[Bookcat]

Catechism:

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: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."395 For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.396

scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a4p2.htm#600

 

[Consigliere]

Good afternoon everyone:

I don’t understand why this week has been the one pertaining to much theological debate. It appears that I have been entering multiple discussions with:

1. People who have fallen away from the Faith.
2. Jewish people.
3. Calvinists or Protestants

All of whom have more knowledge than me regarding Theology and history. I pray for the strength to receive assistance and somehow I was brought here to these forums.

So please pardon me if this thread has diverged slightly from the original Predestination vs. Foreknowledge topic, but I think this thread may ultimately serve as a roadmap on how to navigate some stumbling blocks.

Would anyone know how to respond to this following logic:

Here’s where I’m encountering some problems with the following logic and I am hoping you may, perhaps, be able to explain this within the context of our Catholic Faith.

1. God predestined the Cross of Jesus Christ from before the foundation of the world. (Isaiah 53:10; Acts 2:22-23; 4:27-28; 1 Peter 1:20; Revelation 13:8)
2. Without the Fall of man, there would be no need for the Cross.
3. Therefore, the Fall was necessary for Christ to come on the Cross. (from 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, the Fall was predestined by God. (from 2 and 3)

May peace be with you all, especially at tomorrow’s Palm Sunday.

 

[steve_b]

Good afternoon everyone:

I don’t understand why this week has been the one pertaining to much theological debate. It appears that I have been entering multiple discussions with:

1. People who have fallen away from the Faith.
2. Jewish people.
3. Calvinists or Protestants

All of whom have more knowledge than me regarding Theology and history. I pray for the strength to receive assistance and somehow I was brought here to these forums.

So please pardon me if this thread has diverged slightly from the original Predestination vs. Foreknowledge topic, but I think this thread may ultimately serve as a roadmap on how to navigate some stumbling blocks.

Would anyone know how to respond to this following logic:

Here’s where I’m encountering some problems with the following logic and I am hoping you may, perhaps, be able to explain this within the context of our Catholic Faith.

1. God predestined the Cross of Jesus Christ from before the foundation of the world. (Isaiah 53:10; Acts 2:22-23; 4:27-28; 1 Peter 1:20; Revelation 13:8)
2. Without the Fall of man, there would be no need for the Cross.
3. Therefore, the Fall was necessary for Christ to come on the Cross. (from 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, the Fall was predestined by God. (from 2 and 3)

May peace be with you all, especially at tomorrow’s Palm Sunday.

Please read about Predestinarianism see if this answers your questions

 

[Pax]

Good afternoon everyone:

I don’t understand why this week has been the one pertaining to much theological debate. It appears that I have been entering multiple discussions with:

1. People who have fallen away from the Faith.
2. Jewish people.
3. Calvinists or Protestants

All of whom have more knowledge than me regarding Theology and history. I pray for the strength to receive assistance and somehow I was brought here to these forums.

So please pardon me if this thread has diverged slightly from the original Predestination vs. Foreknowledge topic, but I think this thread may ultimately serve as a roadmap on how to navigate some stumbling blocks.

Would anyone know how to respond to this following logic:

Here’s where I’m encountering some problems with the following logic and I am hoping you may, perhaps, be able to explain this within the context of our Catholic Faith.

1. God predestined the Cross of Jesus Christ from before the foundation of the world. (Isaiah 53:10; Acts 2:22-23; 4:27-28; 1 Peter 1:20; Revelation 13:8)
2. Without the Fall of man, there would be no need for the Cross.
3. Therefore, the Fall was necessary for Christ to come on the Cross. (from 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, the Fall was predestined by God. (from 2 and 3)

May peace be with you all, especially at tomorrow’s Palm Sunday.

Consigliere,

The logic is faulty. First of all, why does it follow that the predestination of the cross means that the fall was predestined. Moreover, why does scripture say that God predestined the instrument of the cross, but does not say that the fall was predestined as well? It is extremely important to separate God’s foreknowledge from predestination. God’s foreknowledge of something(item A) may be the reason God predestines something else(item B), but that does not mean that his foreknowledge “caused” or predestined item A which in this case refers to the fall.

I hope that helps to see the problem in the logic.

God bless.

 

[Aloysium]

this thread has gone all over and ended in confusion

it may sound ridiculous, but I’d suggest taking a break from this process, praying, practicing your religion and doing good works

for all the thinking you’ve been doing, where has it gotten you?

once you are centred on His infinite love, it will start making sense

 

[ericc]

Fr William Most has a great write up on Predestination where he compared the Thomists and Molinists views and put forward a new view.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=146

 

[Consigliere]

Fr William Most has a great write up on Predestination where he compared the Thomists and Molinists views and put forward a new view.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=146

This is an interesting take.

I’ve been thinking about the following logical argument (which I posted above) but still am attempting to get around:

1. God predestined the Cross of Jesus Christ from before the foundation of the world. (Isaiah 53:10; Acts 2:22-23; 4:27-28; 1 Peter 1:20; Revelation 13:8)
2. Without the Fall of man, there would be no need for the Cross.
3. Therefore, the Fall was necessary for Christ to come on the Cross. (from 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, the Fall was predestined by God. (from 2 and 3)

So, was the fall of man purposely done in order to Glorify Jesus?

This all seems like circular reasoning to me. Jesus wouldn’t be necessary if Man had not originally sinned BUT if man had not sinned Christ would not be necessary. However, it seems that BEFORE the foundation of the world, (i.e. before man) God already had in his plan to send Jesus into the world?

Does anyone have a way to explain this?

 

[PatriciusRex]

Consigliere,

So long as you know that Catholics do not believe in the type of predestination you’re describing, if you’re curious about the different forms of the doctrine in Calvinist concepts, I suggest you look up resources regarding the difference between “supralapsarianism” and “sublapsarianism.”

Basically, Reformed theologians came to the same trouble you are and had to decide whether even the Fall was ordained by God.

the Supralapsarian (“above[before] the Fall”) position makes defending God’s Sovereignty and His Irresistible Will the prime position and says exactly what you described in your last post. That even the Fall was preordained by God as a necessary first step in his plan of Salvation through Jesus Christ.

Now other Reformed thought this was absurd (and we Catholics agree with them on this single point) because that makes God the Father of Sin! Outrageous, I’m sure you’d agree. So these other theologians created the “Sublapsarian” (“below [after] the fall”) and said that it was not until Adam and Eve sinned through their own free will that they lost that freedom to sin, thus necessitating God’s sovereign decrees of Election and Reprobation.

In a nutshell:

Supralapsarianism = God was always in complete control and made the entire universe follow his predetermined script, even directing the Fall of Adam and Eve as Act 1 of his master work of salvation for his elect.

Sublapsarianism = God created Man with free will, but man lost his free will when he became corrupted by sin. In that post-Fall state Man is incapable of saving himself so can only be saved by the grace of God. Thus God issued his sovereign decrees of Election and Reprobation to save those whom he wished to save. (But note well that Catholics do not agree that Man has completely lost his free will post-Fall, even though we do agree that he is mortally corrupted by sin and doomed to death and damnation without the grace of God offered through Christ.)

But the above is only for idle curiosity.

Do not be deceived: the Catholic Faith has no place for doctrines that make God a mere puppet master, or transform the human race into robots enacting a pre-scripted drama. We are free creatures, and it was God who created us with that freedom. God wants loving children, not mechanical toys.

Even in the Protestant world, there is a massive reaction against the hideous doctrines of monergism.

For a discussion of Arminianism and how I believe it fits near exactly with Catholic thinking on the subject see my very first post on this board: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=715209

 

[Consigliere]

Good afternoon,

I was watching 'the Bible" on History channel and something struck me. They made it a point in the series to say “All are welcome”. (Meaning, Christ is open to Non-Jewish people)

When I tried to find this verse attributed to Jesus, I could not.

I did, however, find many verses stating how Jesus came for the people of Israel. (Not Gentiles/non-Jews).

I was a bit disheartened because it does some quite direct that Jesus came for Jewish people.

This begs an obvious historical question:

1. It would be quite positive for a ruling party to gather or find scriptures stating Jesus came for ALL people, thereby inviting everyone to join in the Faith.

Since there seems to be much more scripture stating that Jesus was for Jews, it would necessarily exclude a large part of the population of the world.

I’m curious if anyone has any insight, as this was concerning to me.

 

[PatriciusRex]

Read the entirety of the Gospel of Luke and its continuation in the Acts of the Apostles.

Luke wrote his Gospel for the gentiles, so its content is very pointedly directed at this question. (The others contain many of the same references, but Luke is very explicit.)