How is it possible that some of us will perish?

[fhansen]

Scripture says that the “Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” 2 Peter 3:9

Moreover, the Scriptures say: “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” Philippians 2:13

Finally, the Scriptures say: “Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his [God’s] will?” Romans 9:19

Question: If God is not willing that any should perish and no one can resist his will, then how is it possible that some of us will perish? (Remember, it is God who works in us “both to will and to do of his good pleasure.”)

Kind of a funny quetion. Romans 9, by itself, maintains that some will be destroyed in spite of the fact that He apparently desires none to perish. Obviously God’s will is not necessarily done; He allows our wills the freedom to oppose His.

 

[Counterpoint]

Kind of a funny quetion. Romans 9, by itself, maintains that some will be destroyed in spite of the fact that He apparently desires none to perish. Obviously God’s will is not necessarily done; He allows our wills the freedom to oppose His.

I don’t think Paul’s teaching is very funny at all. The idea that God will predestine most human beings to damnation in order to reveal his glory is repugnant.

 

[GaryTaylor]

God will predestine most human beings to damnation in order to reveal his glory is repugnant.

It would be if that were the case, man plays an active role in his own salvation, man condemns himself by his own choice by refusal to cooperate with the only path of salvation-healing. He doesn’t make you drink the medicine or the poison, he encourages by love to drink the medicine.

 

[fhansen]

I don’t think Paul’s teaching is very funny at all. The idea that God will predestine most human beings to damnation in order to reveal his glory is repugnant.

I said your question was funny. And the Church teaches the correct doctrine: that God predestines none to hell. Paul penned many passages, not all of them easy to understand on their own.

 

[tonyrey]

I think you make it way too complicated. God wants everybody with him in heaven, he could make it impossible for us not to love him, but he decided not to by giving us free-will. Free-will: do i forgive that person or do i seek revenge, do i sleep in until noon on Saturday, watch porn and/or Jackass (or anything degrading life or human beings) or do I wake up early and volunteer to help the less fortunate? Do I call an escort girl if i feel lonely or do i get an edifying book or pray to God? He wants none to perish, but he’s aware that some will perish. God gave you and me the ability to, ultimately, choose or reject him based on how we live our life. Whenever you read “will”, remember it’s a polysemantic word.

“reject” is the key word. If we choose to live for ourselves it is absurd to blame God for our self-inflicted misery.

 

[oldcelt]

I don’t think Paul’s teaching is very funny at all. The idea that God will predestine most human beings to damnation in order to reveal his glory is repugnant.

Another one of those troubling passages. Here and there throughout the bible you see a god who is more concerned with himself than his children. Recently, the Book of Job has been discussed in some detail and, to me, that is another example of that none too positive attribute.

 

[ngill09]

I think it’s important to add to this discussion that the vast, vast majority of non-Christians are not making an informed choice to reject God, but are attempting to follow God through other religions, or do not think that He exists as described.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

So, let me see if I understand you. We can only resist God’s will if it is God’s will that we should resist his will. Does that sound about right? If it isn’t, then you have completely failed to address the question I posed in the original post of this thread.

We may resist God’s will because God allows us to. Which does completely address the question in the OP.

 

[Counterpoint]

I said your question was funny. And the Church teaches the correct doctrine: that God predestines none to hell. Paul penned many passages, not all of them easy to understand on their own.

Well, it’s kind of funny that you are tacitly acknowledging that the teachings of Paul (teachings which you presumably believe to be divinely inspired and therefore infallible) are inherently self-contradictory.

 

[Counterpoint]

I think it’s important to add to this discussion that the vast, vast majority of non-Christians are not making an informed choice to reject God, but are attempting to follow God through other religions, or do not think that He exists as described.

Exactly.

 

[Counterpoint]

Counterpoint:

So, let me see if I understand you. We can only resist God’s will if it is God’s will that we should resist his will.

Does that sound about right? If it isn’t, then you have completely failed to address the question I posed in the original post of this thread.

]We may resist God’s will because God allows us to. Which does completely address the question in the OP.

No, this does not resolve the conflict. You’re simply making a circular argument as I have already stated above: “We can only resist God’s will if it is God’s will that we should resist his will.”

Even though the position of the Calvinists is morally reprehensible, I do believe their position is more intellectually honest than the position that the rest of Christianity espouses. The Calvinists simply decided to bite the bullet (so to speak) and acknowledge that God saves whomever he wants to saves and damns whomever he wants to damn. And if anyone doesn’t like it, then that’s just too damn bad.

 

[fhansen]

Well, it’s kind of funny that you are tacitly acknowledging that the teachings of Paul (teachings which you presumably believe to be divinely inspired and therefore infallible) are inherently self-contradictory.

Well, here’s how Peter put it, regarding Paul:
"He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Pet 3:16

The real point, however, is that scripture cannot be understood apart from the Church that was commissioned do hold and preach the gospel; the confusion that results from private interpretation is why Catholics reject the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. We don’t take a single verse and build a theology on it. And even Paul, himself, alludes to the fact that not everything he wrote in his letters was of God. The* Church* was given the authority to interpret Scripture-her members wrote it-and she knew and preached the gospel before one word of the NT was written.

 

[Counterpoint]

Well, here’s how Peter put it, regarding Paul:
"He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Pet 3:16

The real point, however, is that scripture cannot be understood apart from the Church that was commissioned do hold and preach the gospel; the confusion that results from private interpretation is why Catholics reject the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. We don’t take a single verse and build a theology on it. And even Paul, himself, alludes to the fact that not everything he wrote in his letters was of God. The* Church* was given the authority to interpret Scripture-her members wrote it-and she knew and preached the gospel before one word of the NT was written.

Question: Whose views are being expressed in Romans chapter 9 - Paul’s or God’s?

 

[fhansen]

Question: Whose views are being expressed in Romans chapter 9 - Paul’s or God’s?

Couldn’t tell you. The bible is not a catechism and was never intended to be. It contains a huge variety of concepts, some of which, concerning supernatural matters, we struggle to understand even when the authors meaning is well enough understood, but none of which in any case are presented in a structured manner for the purpose of teaching theology or the faith in general. The*** Church*** defines the faith; the *bible *is difficult to understand, which is why so many different bible-based religions disagree with each other. This is why the CC teaches that the bible is *materially *sufficient in terms of possessing all truth pertaining to salvation, but that the guidance of the HS promised to her is necessary for rightly understanding that material.

But if anything in Rom 9 were to somehow contradict what the Church teaches in para 1037 of the Catechism, that part of Rom 9 would not be of God:
1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; 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”:

 

[Counterpoint]

Couldn’t tell you. The bible is not a catechism and was never intended to be. It contains a huge variety of concepts, some of which, concerning supernatural matters, we struggle to understand even when the authors meaning is well enough understood, but none of which in any case are presented in a structured manner for the purpose of teaching theology or the faith in general. The*** Church*** defines the faith; the *bible *is difficult to understand, which is why so many different bible-based religions disagree with each other. This is why the CC teaches that the bible is *materially *sufficient in terms of possessing all truth pertaining to salvation, but that the guidance of the HS promised to her is necessary for rightly understanding that material.

But if anything in Rom 9 were to somehow contradict what the Church teaches in para 1037 of the Catechism, that part of Rom 9 would not be of God:
1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; 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”:

Well, you’re jsut making my point, namely, that the Bible is contradictory.

By the way, the teachings of the Catholic Catechism is not clear and straightforward either (as made evident by its position concerning the nature and existence of “hell”).

 

[fhansen]

Well, you’re jsut making my point, namely, that the Bible is contradictory.

By the way, the teachings of the Catholic Catechism is not clear and straightforward either (as made evident by its position concerning the nature and existence of “hell”).

I said the bible can be difficult to understand. The Church’s teachings are much clearer-that’s the purpose of a catechism, for one. Hell-and heaven or the afterlife in general for that matter-aren’t topics that God’s chosen to reveal a great about.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

What?

Paul says it is not possible to resist God’s will. He also argues that God works in each of us to carry out his will. Finally, Peter argues that it is God’s will that no one should perish. If all three of these statements hold true, then it logically follows that no one should perish.

Yes but in my opinion, Satan is the monkey wrench in your system of logic. After all, you just cherry picked these three statements to make your argument. I’m sure I could come up with a different one.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

No, this does not resolve the conflict. You’re simply making a circular argument as I have already stated above: “We can only resist God’s will if it is God’s will that we should resist his will.”

Even though the position of the Calvinists is morally reprehensible, I do believe their position is more intellectually honest than the position that the rest of Christianity espouses. The Calvinists simply decided to bite the bullet (so to speak) and acknowledge that God saves whomever he wants to saves and damns whomever he wants to damn. And if anyone doesn’t like it, then that’s just too damn bad.

What about our first parents, Adam and Eve? Obviously they resisted God’s will. And there it all began and continues to this day.

 

[fhansen]

No, this does not resolve the conflict. You’re simply making a circular argument as I have already stated above: “We can only resist God’s will if it is God’s will that we should resist his will.”

Even though the position of the Calvinists is morally reprehensible, I do believe their position is more intellectually honest than the position that the rest of Christianity espouses. The Calvinists simply decided to bite the bullet (so to speak) and acknowledge that God saves whomever he wants to saves and damns whomever he wants to damn. And if anyone doesn’t like it, then that’s just too damn bad.

And the biggest problem with the Calvinist position is that, with it, there’s absolutely no guarantee or reason to think that salvation is better that being lost, that heaven would be any better than hell, that God should be any better than satan.

 

[ngill09]

And the biggest problem with the Calvinist position is that, with it, there’s absolutely no guarantee or reason to think that salvation is better that being lost, that heaven would be any better than hell, that God should be any better than satan.

Calvinist theology is all about respect God’s authority and sovereignty. It’s not important that God be good, all that matters is that he has control over your mind and actions and it’s best to just go with that because you can’t resist anyway. And isn’t wonderful that as a Calvinist He’s choosing to give you eternal paradise? Yay God!