How do protestants explain the time between Christ and the reformation?

[RaisedCatholic]

But if things like that aren’t condemned in their culture, how do they know it’s wrong, or that those sins are mortal?

 

[William_Scott]

I do concede that Saint Augustine rejected double predestination;

Hello Isearch, it depends on how “double predestination” is defined. St. Augustine specifically refers to the non-elect being “predestined to punishment” in contrast with those “predestined to grace”. St. Augustine certainly rejected a “symmetrical” form of double predestination, as did Calvin, Luther and the entire Augustinian/Thomistic/Calvinistic tradition. While I’m not always in lockstep with R.C. Sproul (and am Augustinian rather than Calvinistic on questions of falling from grace, etc.), Sproul does a nice job defining the distorted view that is often associated with the term “double predestination” vs. the actual non-symmetric version of double predestination held by Calvin (and by Luther, St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, St. Anselm, St. Bernard of Clairvoux, Thomas Bradwardine, Peter Lombard, etc., etc.):

R.C. Sproul

The distortion of double predestination looks like this: There is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation. God WORKS in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity God decreed some to election and by divine initiative works faith in their hearts and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative. In the case of the elect, regeneration is the monergistic work of God. In the case of the reprobate, sin and degeneration are the monergistic work of God. We can call this a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.

…In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives. Even in the case of the “hardening” of the sinners’ already recalcitrant hearts, God does not, as Luther stated, “work evil in us (for hardening is working evil) by creating fresh evil in us.”

https://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html

And Saint Augustine definitely did not abandon free will.

Agreed, but the narrowly tailored version of free will held by St. Augustine was likewise affirmed by Calvin and Luther. St. Augustine’s view of free will was such that the will is either in infallible bondage to sin (apart from God’s electing mercy) or infallibly delivered from said bondage through the sovereignly bestowed gift of faith, and infallibly preserved therein through the sovereignly bestowed gift of final perseverance (in the case of those “elect to glory”).

 

[William_Scott]

Further, while St. Augustine was infralapsarian in his views of “double predestination”, a number of his pre-reformation heirs (e.g. Thomas Bradwardine) were decidedly supralapsarian. Calvin and Luther shared the harder “supralapsarian” predestinarian views of theologians like Bradwardine (although even Calvin’s heirs generally refused to go all the way to the supralapsarian position, e.g. the infralapsarian position is maintained in the Westminster Confession, the Synod of Dordt, and other continental reformed confessions, although they don’t forbid the supralapsarian position).

The infralapsarian/supralapsarian distinction between St. Augustine and Calvin is sometimes used as grounds for pitting one tradition against the other. However, as noted above, the infralapsarian and supralapsarian positions are represented within both the pre-reformation Augustinian tradition and the Calvinistic (neo-Augustinian) tradition.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

So, how does that jive with what you said about “church tradition” talking about St. John the Baptist witnessing to those in Sheol who died in unbelief? Or are those the “unofficial” beliefs & traditions you were talking about?

So, if a culture doesn’t consider murder, rape, etc. to be morally “wrong,” then wouldn’t that mean they don’t have “full knowledge & intent”? I consider atheism which is basically amoral. They can’t even begin to consider what is moral or immoral. They must borrow from the Christian worldview.

So, if God judges a person by what they know, based on the limit of their understanding & culpability, theoretically, a murderer & a rapist could potentially go to Heaven after they die, because they were never convicted with the gospel if their culture didn’t condemn these heinous acts. You even said “most” civilizations have laws against these things, but not “all.” So, if a missionary shared the gospel with one of these invincibly ignorant tribes that murder & rape are morally wrong, & they rejected it, then they just lost their salvation, since they would have went to Heaven, based on their “ignorance.”

I agree the Law of God is written on everyone’s hearts, including Gentiles who never heard the gospel. But, again, St. Paul stated that only condemns them. He doesn’t say anything about it making it “possible” that that natural revelation could possibly result in them attaining Heaven, without hearing the gospel, which is what St. Paul wrote in His epistle to the Romans.

And doesn’t it say in Scripture that “no one ‘seeks’ after God”? Didn’t God “find” us? When St. Paul used the unnamed God that the Greeks worshiped, he used it as an opportunity to let them know that “unnamed God” was the God of the Scriptures of our Lord Jesus Christ. But if they died in unbelief, they wouldn’t have gone to Heaven, because they were worshiping other false deities.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I guess I’m trying to reconcile St. Paul’s assertion that “whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved” & St. Peter’s “there is no other name under heaven given amongst men by which you may be saved” with the idea that there are people who “can” be saved even if they never hear the gospel. The latter seems to be embracing a bit of universalism, as long as they are invincibly ignorant, which seems to conflict with what SS. Peter & Paul said. Maybe that helps.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Well, thanks for your effort and trying. Sadly, there are more cultures out there than you think that condone those horrific practices. But by the grace of God, Christian missionaries have reached them with the gospel, & through the conviction of the Holy Spirit, they we convicted, believed, repented, & were saved. However, based on the teachings of SS. Peter & Paul, had they not been, they would perishing in Hell, despite their invincible ignorance & lack of moralistic laws in their culture to convict them otherwise. The human soul is truly depraved. The effects of the Fall on the human soul are graver than we can imagine. Praise the Lord we have a Savior & a Redeemer! It’s disturbing to think that there’s even the most remote of possibility that an unrepentant sinner could walk into Heaven, having committed the most atrocious of crimes against humanity (& ultimately God) simply because his culture, tribe, etc. or conscious did not convict him of his sin, because there was no law condemning him of them, & because there was no missionary to share the gospel with him to convict him & lead him to repent.

 

[AlNg]

Well, then, what is the point of Canon 844? If it is impossible for an Orthodox Christian to actually receive in accordance with 844, why is it part of your Canon Law?

This is an excellent question.

The USCCB does not seem to agree with that statement.

It is not surprising that the USCCB does not agree with steve-b.

 

[AlNg]

Catholicism definitely is more consistent

What is the consistent Catholic position on burning heretics alive at the stake?

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The difference between the child who has been miscarried vs the atheist who lived in the sterile environment is that the former has the incapability to reject God, while the latter has that capability & simply chooses not to believe. He can ponder whether there is a God, & at the end of the day, chooses to believe God doesn’t exist & rejects Him. Despite living a “good” life from an earthly perspective, natural law would still condemn him as St. Paul would say “he is without excuse.” While still conceived in sin & deserving of death & Hell, the infant who dies in the womb had no ability to accept or reject God, much like King David’s seven day old son he had the adulterous relationship with Bathsheba & died. King David said although the baby would not come back to him, when King David died, he would go to him. This can’t simply refer to just the grave, because when King David’s other, older unbelieving rebellious son died in battle, David did not respond the same way. His reaction was completely different. His mourning ended for the infant when he died, because he was assured he would see him again when he said, “You will not abandon my soul to Sheol,” & we know from Hebrews 11 that David is in Heaven. But David remained remorseful when his unbelieving son died. He knew he would never see him again, even after he died.

That is why many believe in the “hope of salvation” for infants who die in the womb. No such “hope” is available for atheists who die rejecting God. The former are incapable of believing or rejecting & receive God’s mercy, Who applies Christ’s shed blood to their innocent souls. The latter are capable, Whose same shed blood does not apply to them.

 

[AlNg]

why do refer to them as “brothers” (ie: Eastern Orthodox) & not heretics,

It seems to me that Roman Catholics do refer to Orthodox as dear brothers. However I guess that this only goes one way since many Orthodox believe Roman Catholics to be heretics or they may use the term heterodox thus relieving Catholics of a certain amount of culpability in maintaining their erroneous (from the Orthodox POV) beliefs on the papacy, etc.

 

[AlNg]

The order of procession within the Trinity wasn’t the real issue, but rather, the authority of the Pope to insert the Filoque into the Nicene Creed.

That is not what the 1054 Vatican bull of excommunication said.

 

[AlNg]

Burning people alive at the stake is no joke. I am sure Joan of Arc did not think it was a joke when they burned her alive.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Burning people alive at the stake is no joke. I am sure Joan of Arc did not think it was a joke when they burned her alive.

Wasn’t her excommunication reversed after she died? I guess the saying “better late than ever” didn’t give her much comfort.

 

[AlNg]

That is the Roman POV. However, the Orthodox POV is that the Roman Catholics will not accept the teachings of the Catholic Church as they were in 800 AD as the Orthodox do. I.e., the idea is that the Orthodox maintain these same teachings for 1200 years, but the Romans have changed them. And the Romans say that nothing has changed, but only developed under the doctrine of development of doctrine.

 

[AlNg]

The question at hand concerned the consistency of Catholic teachings. Are the Catholic teachings today consistent with the teachings of the past. The Orthodox do not think so. I gave one possible example with the case of Joan of Arc.

 

[AlNg]

I don’t see why it should be so. It is true that in euclidean geometry the sum of the angles of a triangle are 180 degrees. This is true whether the person saying so is Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish or Hindu.

 

[William_Scott]

The point for this discussion is (absent the gloss of modern and historic apologists), the actual writings of St. Augustine explicitly maintain double predestination.

Hello steve-b,

There are too many explicit (let alone the far more fundamental and numerous implicit) affirmations by St. Augustine of a two-fold predestination (to eternal life and to damnation) for me to quote all of them here. However, I’d be glad to give some of his explicit references to double predestination:

“He used the very will of the creature which was working in opposition to the Creator’s will as an instrument for carrying out His will, the supremely Good thus turning to good account even what is evil, to the condemnation of those whom in His justice He has predestined to punishment, and to the salvation of those whom in His mercy He has predestined to grace. For, as far as relates to their own consciousness, these creatures did what God wished not to be done: but in view of God’s omnipotence, they could in no wise effect their purpose. For in the very fact that they acted in opposition to His will, His will concerning them was fulfilled.” (Chp 100, Enchiridion)

“What will He give to those whom He has predestined to life, who has given such things even to those whom He has predestined to death?” (City of God Book 22 Chp 24)

“What did He mean, then, in saying to them, You are not of my sheep? That He saw them predestined to everlasting destruction, not won to eternal life by the price of His own blood.” (Tractate 48, John 10:22-42)

“What can the wolf do? What can the thief and the robber? They destroy none but those predestined to destruction. But of those sheep of which the apostle says, The Lord knows them that are His; and Whom He did foreknow, them He also did predestinate; and whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified; — there is none of such sheep as these that the wolf seizes, or the thief steals, or the robber slays.” (Tractate 48, John 10:22-42)

[The following passage reflects St. Augustine’s “infralapsarian” view on predestination to damnation, and note: St. Augustine deemed foreseen “original sin” alone as sufficient cause to predestinate to damnation]

“Such good then as this, seeking after God, there was not a man found who pursued it, no, not one; but this was in that class of men which is predestinated to destruction. It was upon such that God looked down in His foreknowledge, and passed sentence.” (Man’s Perfection in Righteousness, Chp 13 (31))

 

[William_Scott]

St. Augustine (continued):

“Hence the whole mass of the human race is condemned; for he who at first gave entrance to sin has been punished with all his posterity who were in him as in a root, so that no one is exempt from this just and due punishment, unless delivered by mercy and undeserved grace; and the human race is so apportioned that in some is displayed the efficacy of merciful grace, in the rest the efficacy of just retribution. For both could not be displayed in all; for if all had remained under the punishment of just condemnation, there would have been seen in no one the mercy of redeeming grace. And, on the other hand, if all had been transferred from darkness to light, the severity of retribution would have been manifested in none. But many more are left under punishment than are delivered from it, in order that it may thus be shown what was due to all.” (City of God 21, 12)

"For you see here that He who had said, I pray not for the world, now prays for the world that it may believe. For there is a world whereof it is written, That we might not be condemned with this world. 1 Corinthians 11:32 For that world He prays not, for He is fully aware to what it is predestinated. "
(Tractate 110, John 17:21-23)

There are countless other examples of double predestination or the eternal decrees of election and reprobation in St. Augustine’s works. Of course, St. Augustine was by no means alone in the pre-reformation era in his explicit affirmation of double predestination.

St. Fulgentius (468-533):
“God certainly prepared punishment for those sinners whom He justly predestined to suffer torments.” (On the Truth of Predestination and Grace Bk. 3, Chp. 5)

St. Isidore (560-636) likewise notes:
“Predestination is double (gemina) whether of election to peace, or of reprobation to death.”(Sentent. 2. cap. 6)

St. Aquinas (Summa, 1st Part, Ques. 23, Article 3):

Objection 1. It seems that God reprobates no man. For nobody reprobates what he loves. But God loves every man, according to (Wisdom 11:25): “Thou lovest all things that are, and Thou hatest none of the things Thou hast made.” Therefore God reprobates no man.
…
On the contrary, It is said (Malachi 1:2-3): “I have loved Jacob, but have hated Esau.”

…Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin.

Reply to Objection 1. God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He wishes them all some good; but He does not wish every good to them all. So far, therefore, as He does not wish this particular good—namely, eternal life—He is said to hate or reprobated them.
…
Reply to Objection 3. …although anyone reprobated by God cannot acquire grace, nevertheless that he falls into this or that particular sin comes from the use of his free-will. Hence it is rightly imputed to him as guilt.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm

 

[AlNg]

There was an incredibly bad typo in my answer which has since been corrected,. It should be 180 degrees obviously. I apologize for that typo.
However, I still would disagree that Truth is relative to religious affiliation.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

But even in a completely Orwellian society where God & religion has been erased from the history books, the natural law still points to a God (Psalm 19; Romans 1), which would still convict & condemn everyone. Unlike the unborn infant who doesn’t have the mental capability to surmise there “might” be a God, an Orwellian society still has that ability that at least “some” might come to the conclusion there is “a” god. But belief in “a” god would still not be enough for them to attain Heaven, because it would not “the” God of the Scriptures. Even they would end up in Hell, because they rejected “the” God. The same is not true of the unborn who die in the womb. No such accountability is possible, due to their mental capability.

But in order to prevent unborn babies who die from going to Hell, Limbo would have to exist if not “all” of them would go to Heaven. If they don’t go to Heaven, & if there is no Limbo, then they end up in Hell - or at the very least “some” unborn babies go to Hell. How is that fair if you don’t believe in a God who creates people to to suffer eternally.

Well even if you’re not a Calvinist, predestination is in the Bible. Even St. Augustine believed in predestination, which is one reason Luther believed in it (he was an Augustinian monk), even if he didn’t expose to it exactly as Calvin did. But it’s in the New Testament, nonetheless.

But you still have to face the reality that God does create people knowing the vast majority of them WILL end up in Hell (Matthew 7:13-14). Even if you wish to espouse to the school that only those who are responsible for their “choice” to reject God end up in Hell, God still created them knowing that they would spend eternity burning in Hell, while “He throws on the CD track of Throw Another Log On The fire.”

I don’t know about you, but I love this kind of back & forth. Iron sharpens iron. It’s not always fun simply agreeing with everyone. It forces us to think outside our comfort boxes.