How are we saved?

[CentralFLJames]

No.

Yes, same as CC predestination.

Sorry Sandusky. I can’t let you get away with coming into a Catholic Forum as an non-Catholic and misrepresenting Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church does not teach that God predestines anyone to hell or to heaven. The Catholic church teaches that we all choose or reject God. Thus predestination is a concept that does not apply to human reasoning. God knows how we all will respond to Him but that is not the same thing as God willing that anyone go to hell. Nor is it the same thing as God creating a person to go to hell. God only permits us to choose to accept or rejecting Him and honors our choice.

So please stop coming in here as an outsider and trying to speak for The Catholic Church and confusing people about what Catholics believe and teach. You don’t know what you are talking about.

James

 

[fhansen]

No.

Yes, same as CC predestination.

From the CCC:
**1037 God predestines no one to go to hell;620 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:621

**

 

[JRKH]

As a Protestant, we often say, “We are saved by believing the Gospel, or putting our trust in Jesus/giving Him our life.”

The Bible says the gospel is the good news that God sent his only Son, the Messiah, the annointed one, to save Jews and Gentiles by dying for our sins, and rising from the dead and that we too will rise from the dead.

How do Catholics say we are saved? If I were an atheist or another religion or knew nothing about Christ/ God, and asked how I can go to Heaven/( Which I guess I wouldn’t ask if I were an atheist, but play along…), what would you say?

I bolded this one small section since this is the crux of the matter and question.
Since we can assume that this person already knows us and knows that we are catholic, I will work from the position that the person is sincere (like the rich young man) and not simply trying to argue some position (Like the Pharasees).

I would tell him that the road to heaven is a long one. That He must seek God and Christ in our lives. He must repent and be baptized. However he needs to be careful and not fall into the traps of “easy salvation” such as OSAS, but rather seek the fullness of truth in the complete Gospel and through the One Holy and Apostolic Church founded by Christ.

This of course would be but a start to the conversation because he would then have many questions about the Church, the Bible, and other denominations. That is when the real conversation would begin…

Peace
James

 

[sandusky]

Sorry Sandusky. I can’t let you get away with coming into a Catholic Forum as an non-Catholic and misrepresenting Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church does not teach that God predestines anyone to hell or to heaven. The Catholic church teaches that we all choose or reject God. Thus predestination is a concept that does not apply to human reasoning. God knows how we all will respond to Him but that is not the same thing as God willing that anyone go to hell. Nor is it the same thing as God creating a person to go to hell. God only permits us to choose to accept or rejecting Him and honors our choice.

So please stop coming in here as an outsider and trying to speak for The Catholic Church and confusing people about what Catholics believe and teach. You don’t know what you are talking about.

James

Ott, in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, states that predestination must be believed de fide.

Some Catholics, including the one who originally linked me to this site, know that; others, such as yourself, do not know that.

Also, I’m not interested in arguing about it; you’ll have to take up the discrepancy between Ott and CCC with your leadership.

 

[JRKH]

Ott, in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, states that predestination must be believed de fide.

Some Catholics, including the one who originally linked me to this site, know that; others, such as yourself, do not know that.

Also, I’m not interested in arguing about it; you’ll have to take up the discrepancy between Ott and CCC with your leadership.

Pardon me for poking my nose in this, but…
The problem I have with terms and concepts like “Predestination” is that they have little or nothing to do with the practical realities of getting ourselves and our loved ones to heaven. In fact, from a practical standpoint, they can be downright counterproductive.
Philosophers and theologens can thow around these kinds of words and concepts but they have no way of proving them one way or another because they cannot know the mind of God. Furthermore, a concept that makes sense in the rarified world of the “theoretical” and “Philisophical” may make absolutely no sense in the world in which I find myself - The practical world of where I am at present.

Whether Predestination is true at some level or other is of no use to me or anyone else in the battle to win souls. We are called upon to guard ourselves from evil, to repent and confess our failures and to preach the Gospel by word and deed. We rejoice when a soul is won to the Lord and we pray harder when we see a soul in trouble and losing the Lord.
There is no time at which we sit down and say, well lets review and discover which souls are “predestined” to heaven and which are not so that we may preach only to them and not waste our time on those predestined to hell. We do not simply because we cannot know which is which.
Thus, from the purely practical standpoint of a “person in the pew”, all this talk of the validity of the concept of “Predesination” is just so much Hot Air!!!

Sorry for the rant, but I really think that we would be better served sticking to the work of getting as many as possible to heaven, instead of prattling on about some concept of no practical use this side of Judgement.

Peace
James

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ott, in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, states that predestination must be believed de fide.

Some Catholics, including the one who originally linked me to this site, know that; others, such as yourself, do not know that.

Also, I’m not interested in arguing about it; you’ll have to take up the discrepancy between Ott and CCC with your leadership.

Ott can say what he likes but he does not speak with the authority of the Church nor does he speak for the Church.

I’m sorry that this doesn’t help your cause, but you can’t misrepresent Catholic teaching like this and call yourself a Christian. Christians do not bear false witness against one another.

For those Catholics who would like to see Sandusky refuted at length, see:

A TIPTOE THROUGH TULIP
By JAMES AKIN
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp

Here is a relevant passage from that article:

Although a Catholic may agree with unconditional election, he may not affirm “double-predestination,” a doctrine Calvinists often infer from it. This teaching claims that in addition to electing some people to salvation God also sends others to damnation.

The alternative to double-predestination is to say that while God predestines some people, he simply passes over the remainder. They will not come to God, but it is because of their inherent sin, not because God damns them. This is the doctrine of passive reprobation, which Aquinas taught.[ST I:23:3].

The Council of Trent stated, “If anyone says that it is not in the power of man to make his ways evil, but that God produces the evil as well as the good works, not only by permission, but also properly and of himself, so that the betrayal of Judas is no less his own proper work than the vocation of Paul, let him be anathema. . . . If anyone shall say that the grace of justification is attained by those only who are predestined unto life, but that all others, who are called, are called indeed, but do not receive grace, as if they are by divine power predestined to evil, let him be anathema.”[Decree on Justification, canons 6 and 17. The same points were taught by the second Council of Orange (531), the Council of Quiersy (853), and the third Council of Valencia (855), although none of these were ecumenical councils].

 

[CentralFLJames]

Ott, in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, states that predestination must be believed de fide.

Some Catholics, including the one who originally linked me to this site, know that; others, such as yourself, do not know that.

Also, I’m not interested in arguing about it; you’ll have to take up the discrepancy between Ott and CCC with your leadership.

Now I see why it is so easy for you to fall victim to such preposterous false teachings as Once Saved Always Saved and “automatic forgivness of one’s sins” - you have a reading comprehension problem and cross-wired reasoning as well. Ironically that handicap may exempt you through the condition of invincible ignorance.

But I invite you to go back and re-read the VERY first opening sentences of Ott’s reference paper where he explicitly rejects your false conclusions and new words that you want to put in Ott’s mouth.

From Ott:
Predestination to hell, in Catholicism, always involves man’s free will, and foreseen sins, **so that man is ultimately responsible for his own damnation, not God (double predestination is rejected). **

Knock it off and stop spewing your anti-Catholic nonsense in here. Why don’t you be a sport and add a signature line that says something like:

“Warning I am Non-Catholic: Private Bible Interpretation Offered Free of Charge.”

If you won’t do that on your own initiative then I might have to petition the site sponsors to modify the forum software. Maybe I can get them to automatically attach red-flags to any statements made by dangerously misinformed non-Catholics like you to prevent the uninitiated from thinking you represent Catholic teaching. Something like this:

[SIGN]Warning! Fallible Anti-Catholic - Not libel if you go to hell for listening to me.[/SIGN]

James

 

[By_His_Mercy]

Pardon me for poking my nose in this, but…
The problem I have with terms and concepts like “Predestination” is that they have little or nothing to do with the practical realities of getting ourselves and our loved ones to heaven.

Yes, exactly! I think the concept is mentioned just to keep us humble…we should know we’re saved by grace…we shouldn’t boast if we’re “further along” than the next guy.

 

[clmowry]

Right there with you.

At best, we get an interesting theological debate.

At worst the theological construct convinces someone that there is no need to invest any time in building up Love of God or Love of Neighbor because they are “predestined” to do whatever they will do anyway.

Chuck

Pardon me for poking my nose in this, but…
The problem I have with terms and concepts like “Predestination” is that they have little or nothing to do with the practical realities of getting ourselves and our loved ones to heaven. In fact, from a practical standpoint, they can be downright counterproductive.
Philosophers and theologens can thow around these kinds of words and concepts but they have no way of proving them one way or another because they cannot know the mind of God. Furthermore, a concept that makes sense in the rarified world of the “theoretical” and “Philisophical” may make absolutely no sense in the world in which I find myself - The practical world of where I am at present.

Whether Predestination is true at some level or other is of no use to me or anyone else in the battle to win souls. We are called upon to guard ourselves from evil, to repent and confess our failures and to preach the Gospel by word and deed. We rejoice when a soul is won to the Lord and we pray harder when we see a soul in trouble and losing the Lord.
There is no time at which we sit down and say, well lets review and discover which souls are “predestined” to heaven and which are not so that we may preach only to them and not waste our time on those predestined to hell. We do not simply because we cannot know which is which.
Thus, from the purely practical standpoint of a “person in the pew”, all this talk of the validity of the concept of “Predesination” is just so much Hot Air!!!

Sorry for the rant, but I really think that we would be better served sticking to the work of getting as many as possible to heaven, instead of prattling on about some concept of no practical use this side of Judgement.

Peace
James

 

[sandusky]

Ott can say what he likes but he does not speak with the authority of the Church nor does he speak for the Church.

That’s the standard response. Until someone can show me a magisterial rescission, or condemnation of Ott’s book, he’s the man of the moment.

In fact, Akin quotes Ott in the article you’ve proffered below, Tiptoe through the TULIP.

On that note, perhaps we should discard the article altogether, seeing as how Ott has no authority?
Randy Carson:

For those Catholics who would like to see Sandusky refuted at length, see:

A TIPTOE THROUGH TULIP

The problem I’ve always had with this article, is once Akin redefines TULIP, it’s no longer what it originally was. He then assures the Catholic that he can believe in TULIP, but it’s Akin’s version, not the classic version.

 

[sandusky]

CentralFLJames:

Now I see why it is so easy for you to fall victim to such preposterous false teachings as Once Saved Always Saved and “automatic forgivness of one’s sins” - you have a reading comprehension problem and cross-wired reasoning as well. Ironically that handicap may exempt you through the condition of invincible ignorance.

But I invite you to go back and re-read the VERY first opening sentences of Ott’s reference paper where he explicitly rejects your false conclusions and new words that you want to put in Ott’s mouth.

From Ott:
Predestination to hell, in Catholicism, always involves man’s free will, and foreseen sins, so that man is ultimately responsible for his own damnation, not God (double predestination is rejected).

Predestination involves man free-will.

Were it not for the grace of God in predestination, all would freely reject God and go to hell.

Praise God for His grace, ehh.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No.

Yes, same as CC predestination.

You are in error here.

While no one can snatch you from the palm of God’s hand, there is nothing preventing you from jumping on your own.

And no, John 3:16 does not mean what you think it means.

For those Catholics who will actually read the supporting argument, here it is:

John 3:16 and eternal security
By Steve Ray
catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9509fea2.asp

 

[Randy_Carson]

That’s the standard response. Until someone can show me a magisterial rescission, or condemnation of Ott’s book, he’s the man of the moment.

How typically Protestant of you. You have your presupposition and your proof text, and nothing can persuade you otherwise.

But I guess I’m confused…the word “recission” has to do with the cancelling of a contract and returning all parties to the position they had before the contract was made. What contract did the magisterium have with Dr. Ott?

In fact, Akin quotes Ott in the article you’ve proffered below, Tiptoe through the TULIP.

On that note, perhaps we should discard the article altogether, seeing as how Ott has no authority?

Akin can quote from Ott when Ott is correct, but we must all reject Ott when he is in error. You would likely do the same with Sproul or Lloyd-Jones, wouldn’t you?

So, do we give greater weight to Dr. Ott who was writing about the Church or to the Catechism which contains the words of the Church herself?

The problem I’ve always had with this article, is once Akin redefines TULIP, it’s no longer what it originally was. He then assures the Catholic that he can believe in TULIP, but it’s Akin’s version, not the classic version.

Here’s my challenge for you…email Jimmy and see what you get in response.

I’ve corresponded with Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Doug Armstrong, Patrick Madrid, and Gary Michuta. These are ordinary people who are only to happy to chat.

Let us know what Jimmy has to say. If you are right and Jimmy agrees with you, then you’ll have quite a feather in your cap. But be prepared to be corrected if he doesn’t.

We’ll be waiting.

 

[runandsew]

Ott, in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, states that predestination must be believed de fide.

Some Catholics, including the one who originally linked me to this site, know that; others, such as yourself, do not know that.

Also, I’m not interested in arguing about it; you’ll have to take up the discrepancy between Ott and CCC with your leadership.

As far as I know, we Catholics can believe in predestination, but not double predestination. God can destine someone to heaven but He does not destine them to hell.

Ott was not given the spiritual gift of infallibility. He can be right on things, and wrong on things.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Predestination involves man free-will.

Were it not for the grace of God in predestination, all would freely reject God and go to hell.

Praise God for His grace, ehh.

Your logic is bogus - even juvenile in its assumptions. This is precisely the danger in having amateurs try to interpret scholarly theological works - especially in areas that have no pragmatic effect anyway. Predestiny is only an academic curiosity that comes out of our feeble insights into God’s nature that theologians try to synthesize additional concepts. Some are useful in the domain of academia but are useless to the average person.

What you wrongly assume is that God withholds His grace from those who He knows won’t respond to it and does not take into consideration the nature of love being two directional and the interaction of Divine Love through Grace with the human response to love through the cooperation with human choice - electing to sacrifice one’s own immediate pleasures or benefits out of love for God.

God does not “impose” through Grace. That would be like rape. Grace sufficient for salvation is given to all men - minimally we are all given the free gift of life and an opportunity to make of it what we will. Man’s cooperation with grace and our response to the gift of life are thus paired. Either one loves God to the extent his humanity permits him too (perhaps imperfectly) or one rejects God perfectly to the extent his nature compels him to self service and self worship.

James

 

[sandusky]

You are in error here.

While no one can snatch you from the palm of God’s hand, there is nothing preventing you from jumping on your own.

You have the same difficulty in Catholic Predestination, as the Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent says concerning that dogma, that the number of the elect to eternal happiness is known by God, and that number is eternally and immutably fixed—not one can be added to the number, nor are any of the number lost. They are once saved, always saved.

Therefore, no one can snatch them out of either Christ’s or the Father’s hands, neither can they themselves leave.

 

[fhansen]

You have the same difficulty in Catholic Predestination, as the Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent says concerning that dogma, that the number of the elect to eternal happiness is known by God, and that number is eternally and immutably fixed—not one can be added to the number, nor are any of the number lost. They are once saved, always saved.

Therefore, no one can snatch them out of either Christ’s or the Father’s hands, neither can they themselves leave.

The problem is that no one can know with certainty who’s predestined. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

There are three other qualities of predestination which must be noticed, because they are important and interesting from the theological standpoint: its immutability, the definiteness of the number of the predestined, and its subjective uncertainty.

(**3) The third quality of predestination, its subjective uncertainty, is intimately connected with its objective immutability. We know not whether we are reckoned among the predestined or not. All we can say is: God alone knows it. **

So for all practical purposes we must proceed with trust and a hopeful assurance rather than with absolute certainty.

 

[sandusky]

The problem is that no one can know with certainty who’s predestined. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

There are three other qualities of predestination which must be noticed, because they are important and interesting from the theological standpoint: its immutability, the definiteness of the number of the predestined, and its subjective uncertainty.

(**3) The third quality of predestination, its subjective uncertainty, is intimately connected with its objective immutability. We know not whether we are reckoned among the predestined or not. All we can say is: God alone knows it. **

So for all practical purposes we must proceed with trust and a hopeful assurance rather than with absolute certainty.

That is what the encyclopedia says, and it affirms my reference to Ott that it’s dogma.

 

[JRKH]

That is what the encyclopedia says, and it affirms my reference to Ott that it’s dogma.

Taking all of these posts into account on the subject of predestination, just exactly how does this concept help the faithful in their journey?
What Possible Practical application can there be to the subject of this thread which is “HOW are we saved” and not whether we are predestined to salvation?

Peace
James

 

[fhansen]

That is what the encyclopedia says, and it affirms my reference to Ott that it’s dogma.

JRKH is right. This becomes an academic discussion because even if OSAS is correct, no one can know who’s saved anyway. So what’s the point?