How is OSAS logical?

[mikeledes]

Here some interesting verses that contradict the Protestant teaching of OSAS:

Romans 14:15, 20

15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died.
20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense.

Compare that with 1 Corinthians 8:9-10

9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

Now compare that with another passage that discusses stumbling and stumbling blocks, a passage directed to the disciples of Jesus:

Mark 9:42-50

**42"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.
43"If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire,
44where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.] 45"If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than, having your two feet, to be cast into (hell,
46]where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.]
47"If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell,
48where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.
49"For everyone will be salted with fire.
50"Salt is good; but if the salt becomes unsalty, with what will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another." **

Jesus is giving this warning to the “salt of the earth”, his disciples. How does “salt” loses its flavor? The context clearly inidcates that salt loses its flavor through sin. What happens to salt that loses its flavor?

Matthew 5:13

**13"You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. **

The “trampling” is an image of eternal damnation which we vividly see in Mark 9:43-48. Therefore, the “perishing” and “destruction” Paul has in view is eternal damnation. In fact, “perish” and “destruction” are used as synonyms for eternal damnation.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

God gives us graces and spiritual gifts so that we may perform the good works that glorify Him. You reap what you sow.

2 Corinthians 9:6-10

**6Now this I say, he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.
7Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
8And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that always having all sufficiency in everything, you may have an abundance for every good deed;
9as it is written,
“HE SCATTERED ABROAD, HE GAVE TO THE POOR,
HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS ENDURES FOREVER.”
10Now He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness; **

However, what will happen to those Christians who fail to use these gifts ang graces for the greater glory of God?

Matthew 25:14-30

**14"For it is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves and entrusted his possessions to them.
15"To one he gave five talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he went on his journey.
16"Immediately the one who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and gained five more talents.
17"In the same manner the one who had received the two talents gained two more.
18"But he who received the one talent went away, and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
19"Now after a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. 20"The one who had received the five talents came up and brought five more talents, saying, ‘Master, you entrusted five talents to me. See, I have gained five more talents.’
21"His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’
22"Also the one who had received the two talents came up and said, ‘Master, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more talents.’
23"His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’
24"And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed.
25’And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’
26"But his master answered and said to him, ‘You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed.
27’Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest.
28’Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.’
29"For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.
30"Throw out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. **

The “slaves” can only refer to genuine Christians because only to them would Jesus leave His “possessions.” What happened to the one given one talent (i.e. seed) and did not do anything with it (i.e. sow) in order to gain a profit for His master (i.e. reap a harvest and glorify God.)? His “talent” was taken away from him and he was cast into hell. Not a very nice end. This reminds me of John 15:2:

2"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away;

Being “in Christ” is a spiritual reality, not a physical reality. A so called “professing” Christian may be physically a member of a Church, but he can never be described as being in Christ (branch in me), if he is not genuinely saved. He cannot be a branch of the vine because a branch is an integral part of the vine, it is literally a part of the body. Once again, further evidence that there are those “in Christ” (i.e. justified) who will not persevere.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Here is another verse against the Protestant notion of OSAS.

1 Timothy 3:6

**6and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. **

God Bless,
Michael

 

[IamOdd4God]

Debating with my Baptist friend the other day, he said that salvation is attained through faith in Jesus, repentance, and surrender. He also said that once someone is saved, they cannot become unsaved unless they explicitly reject Jesus at a later time. He also rejected my notion that it is possible to implicity reject Jesus (a doctrine I call mortal sin).

Notice what he said? “He also said that once someone is saved, they cannot become unsaved unless they explicitly reject Jesus at a later time.” So according to his statement he would have to say that one can become unsaved. However, because he cannot say that due to his OSAS belief he rejected the notion that it is possible to implicitly reject Jesus.

Repentance, in my estimation, indicates at the least a sincere desire to turn away from your sinful ways, and so it seems that at the beginning of one’s Christian “career”, one must desire to turn away from sin.

According to the Bible repentance is turning away from sin; not just having a desire to do so…

Ezekiel 18:30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.

…I can desire to obey God, but if I don’t obey Him does that mean I am obedient because I have the sincere desire to be obedient? No. So likewise, how does having a sincere desire to turn away from sin equal to the actual turning away from sin? It doesn’t.

Imagine if you will people standing before God saying: “Well I had a sincere desire to “NOT” do sexually immoral things.” Will that make Gad say: “Well done, thou good and faithful servant. Enter into the joy of the Lord”? Not hardly since the Bible clearly tells us that those who do sexually immoral things will not inherit the kingdom of heaven (1Corinthians 6:9-10).

In the name of Jesus,

Ken

 

[Spirithound]

According to the Bible repentance is turning away from sin; not just having a desire to do so…

Agreed, it is much more desirable to actually turn away from the sin, but habits are very hard to break, I do believe there is a mitigation of culpability where addictions are concerned. But anyways, I set up the definition to be less stringent than it could be, and still the situation (as I see it) causes OSAS to fall.

 

[Spirithound]

God Bless!

Michael, do you think the parable of the sower (Matt 13) contradicts OSAS?
Do the seeds falling on stony ground, and the seeds falling in thorns show that people can have salvation for a time, but then for one or another reason lose it?

 

[Bonnie]

I was listening to Hank Hanegraaff this morning & the subject of OSAS came up. He said that someone who is really saved cannot lose his salvation. That, of course, begs the question - how do you know you’re really saved?

I was raised Baptist & Pentecostal. I first “asked Jesus into my heart” when I was 6 or 7. Then again as a teen.

Some OSAS believers have told me I am still saved, even tho I am now Catholic. Others have told me that I was never saved & need to leave the “whore of Babylon” to be saved.

I sure believed I was saved all those years!

So my question is for those Protestants who think I was never saved in the first place: How does one know?

 

[Contarini]

I am a Protestant who does not believe in once saved, always saved. It is generally held by people who accept the type of predestination advocated by Calvin. If you adopt that view the OSAS flows from it. .

If you hold to exactly Calvin’s view, then sure. But in fact many people (including the mainstream of Western Catholicism) have believed in unconditional predestination (in Catholic terms, “predestination without regard to foreseen merits”) without believing in OSAS. And more to the point, most believers in OSAS today do not believe in predestination. Most Baptists in the U.S. have dropped the Calvinist framework as a whole, while still holding on to eternal security. I think this is one of the more unfortunate theological developments in Christian history.

Edwin

 

[heisenburg]

Personally… and you can take it for what its worth, I don’t see how OSAS can be logical when looked at the bible…

here’s why…

The bible Tells us we can know we are ‘saved’ by testing ourselves against scripture.
A man is saved in a OSAS always culture, and tests himself against scripture: He is saved.
several years later, he falls away. He looks at himself against scripture, and he sees… I am not saved.

His pastor tells him. Well, you were never saved to begin with.

However, a problem develops. He tested himself earlier, and he was saved. If he was never saved in the first place, then this means he couldn’t test himself against scripture

The pastor then tells him, well, since you weren’t really saved, you weren’t in the right frame of mind to test it

But this also cannot be true because if it were, this means that you still can’t test yourself and know as the bible says…

If it is therefore impossible to ‘know’ one of two things is wrong, either the bible is wrong, because we really can’t know for sure if we are saved, or OSAS is wrong since it is impossible to know you are saved despite what the bible teaches.

Logic…

In Christ

 

[mgrfin]

If you hold to exactly Calvin’s view, then sure. But in fact many people (including the mainstream of Western Catholicism) have believed in unconditional predestination (in Catholic terms, “predestination without regard to foreseen merits”) without believing in OSAS. And more to the point, most believers in OSAS today do not believe in predestination. Most Baptists in the U.S. have dropped the Calvinist framework as a whole, while still holding on to eternal security. I think this is one of the more unfortunate theological developments in Christian history.

Edwin

It is hard to know what some may different Christian sects believe in Protestantism - probably as many beliefs as there are sects.

In the good old days, we knew what Calvin taught and that the Reformed believed with him.

The Thomists, (and I number myself among them) supported by a number of eminent Jesuit theologians such as St. Robert Bellarmine and Suarez explain Predestination: Although God has a real will for the salvation of all men, He definitely chooses some for eternal life, and leaves the others out of his choice. Having chosen these particular souls for the glory of heaven, He prepares efficacious graces for them so that they will infallibly correspond with His impulses. For the others, he merely prepares sufficient graces.

Reward or punishment is given according to the actions which have been performed.

There are differences between St. Thomas and the Jesuits, but they agree that God’s choice of the elect is an act of pure benevolence on His part which has nothing to do with their merits or demerits.

mgrfin

 

[Contarini]

It is hard to know what some may different Christian sects believe in Protestantism - probably as many beliefs as there are sects.

In the good old days, we knew what Calvin taught and that the Reformed believed with him.

With all due respect, I seriously doubt that you are old enough to have lived in a time when all the Reformed held to Calvinist orthodoxy–that hasn’t been the case since the end of the 17th century, I’d say.

The Thomists, (and I number myself among them) supported by a number of eminent Jesuit theologians such as St. Robert Bellarmine and Suarez explain Predestination: Although God has a real will for the salvation of all men, He definitely chooses some for eternal life, and leaves the others out of his choice. Having chosen these particular souls for the glory of heaven, He prepares efficacious graces for them so that they will infallibly correspond with His impulses. For the others, he merely prepares sufficient graces.

Right. And I have talked to a lot of Calvinists who would explain it in exactly this way. Of course, what God’s “real will for the salvation of all” means is a mystery at that point, but then it’s a mystery anyway. . . .

There are differences between St. Thomas and the Jesuits, but they agree that God’s choice of the elect is an act of pure benevolence on His part which has nothing to do with their merits or demerits.

mgrfin

Right. I think any orthodox doctrine of predestination has to work that in somehow.

Edwin

 

[mgrfin]

With all due respect, I seriously doubt that you are old enough to have lived in a time when all the Reformed held to Calvinist orthodoxy–that hasn’t been the case since the end of the 17th century, I’d say.

Right. And I have talked to a lot of Calvinists who would explain it in exactly this way. Of course, what God’s “real will for the salvation of all” means is a mystery at that point, but then it’s a mystery anyway. . . .

Right. I think any orthodox doctrine of predestination has to work that in somehow.

Edwin

Edwin,

I may not be as old as Methuselah, but I am entitled to a certain amount of hyperbole.

I held out the bait and you went for it, as well as discussing the Calvinist theory of Predestination. Calvin is more to your liking than mine, but I’ll take a crack at it.

Calvin: from all eternity God definitely and explicitly chose some men for eternal life, and just so definitely and explicitly other men for eternal damnation. His own glory being the end he sought in either case. Nothing that man is going to do affects in any way that terrible decree by which heaven is chosen for some, hell for others.

The Catholic view is that God wills the salvation of all, and gives to all sufficient grace to enable them to save their souls. If some men are lost, it is due to their own rejection of grace, and not to God’s choice of their damnation. Catholics may not say that there is a positive Reprobation of any man, antecedent to his sin. It is only because of sin that God wills his condemnation. He has had sufficient grace, he has rejected it, and therefore God condemns him.

Pax

mgrfin

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

I may not be as old as Methuselah, but I am entitled to a certain amount of hyperbole.

I held out the bait and you went for it, as well as discussing the Calvinist theory of Predestination. Calvin is more to your liking than mine, but I’ll take a crack at it.

Calvin: from all eternity God definitely and explicitly chose some men for eternal life, and just so definitely and explicitly other men for eternal damnation. His own glory being the end he sought in either case. Nothing that man is going to do affects in any way that terrible decree by which heaven is chosen for some, hell for others.

I said “some Calvinists [essentially agree with Aquinas],” not Calvin. And Calvin is not systematic enough to justify the summary you give above. Obviously nothing humans do affects the decree–the same is true in Thomism. God’s knowledge is causative and is not caused by what God knows. Certainly there is a difference in terms of predestination to damnation, and the relationship between God’s will and evil generally.

The Catholic view is that God wills the salvation of all, and gives to all sufficient grace to enable them to save their souls. If some men are lost, it is due to their own rejection of grace, and not to God’s choice of their damnation.

But in Thomism, those whom God has not chosen are going to reject grace. Nothing they can do will make God have chosen them, and God’s decision to choose certain other persons (and therefore not these persons) was made without regard to foreseen actions. So while I recognize that the nuances are important, they are nuances. Furthermore, as I said, *some *Calvinists would put things the way you just did, with the exception of the “sufficient grace” part (which is why I should not have said “exactly”; in Calvinism, the helps God gives the reprobate are external and not internal; I guess the whole “sufficient grace” business has always seemed like meaningless verbal gymnastics to me, so I tend to skate right over it; how can it be sufficient if no one is actually saved without the further gift of efficacious grace?). Calvin would not and the more hardline Calvinists would not. But when I first began talking to Calvinists (as a teenager) they made more or less this argument: i.e., God does not cause people’s damnation but allows them to do what they in their sinfulness want to do, and God makes all the means of grace available to them, which they reject because they are sinners, etc.

Catholics may not say that there is a positive Reprobation of any man, antecedent to his sin. It is only because of sin that God wills his condemnation. He has had sufficient grace, he has rejected it, and therefore God condemns him.

Sure, there’s no “positive reprobation,” but that seems unnecessary. All it takes for someone to be damned is for God not to predestine them to eternal life. And all those whom God does not so elect are damned. Plenty of Calvinists express reprobation in negative terms as well.

I do appreciate the nuances and I’m not claiming they are pointless, but the only one I have not encountered in Calvinism is the sufficient/efficient one (Calvinists do have similar distinctions, but I can see that they are not quite the same).

The big difference between Thomism and Calvinism (which your original paragraph did not address explicitly), is the role of original sin and human depravity, and hence the role of natural law. In Calvinism, the reason people reject God is that they are so sinful, whereas in Thomism (as it appears to me) sufficient grace overcomes human sinfulness enough to make salvation possible, even though efficient grace is necessary to make it actual (is this more or less right?). That is a very significant difference.

I’d like to discuss this more, perhaps on another thread. The sufficient grace business is always tricky for me to understand, and I’ve had a very learned Thomist (now professor of philosophy at the University of St. Thomas in Houston, and a good friend of mine in grad school) try to explain it to me. So I tend to discount it as being not that different from the Calvinist view that God gives people enough revelation to condemn them (i.e., it would save them if they were not so sinful) but not enough to save them (given their actual condition). This is probably unfair and unwarranted on my part.

Edwin

 

[mgrfin]

I

But in Thomism, those whom God has not chosen are going to reject grace. Nothing they can do will make God have chosen them, and God’s decision to choose certain other persons (and therefore not these persons) was made without regard to foreseen actions.

What you quote as Thomism is heretical doctrine.
I’ll repeat Catholic doctrine. God wills the salvation of all, and gives to all sufficient grace to enable them to save their souls; and if some men are lost this is due to their own rejection of grace, by sin, and not to God’s choice of their damnation. Catholics, as I include the Thomists in that category, may not say that there is a positive reprobation of any man antecedant to his sin; it is only because of his sin that God wills his condemnation; he has had sufficient grace, he has rejected it and therefore God condemns him.

Remember, man’s sin comes first

Thomas says that Predestination is a plan existing in the mind of God according to which some men are saved; and the Reprobation is the allowing of some to be lost. He remarks that Predestination includes the will to grant grace and eternal glory, while Reprobation includes the will to permit a man to fall into sin and to punish him for that fault. .

Neither Predestination nor Reprobation is merely a matter of God’s foreknowledge of what is going to happen. Each involves an element of the will: in the Predestined: God’s will being to grant them first certain graces which will lead them to eternal life, and then eternal life itself as an everlasting reward; Reprobation: God’s will being to permit them to fall into sin, and then to punish them for it.

Reprobates: Damnation is their own fault, for they will all receive sufficient grace to enable them to save their souls, and they will willfully reject that grace.

If there are Calvinists today who accept our doctrine, God bless them.

Pax,
mgrfin

 

[Contarini]

What you quote as Thomism is heretical doctrine.
I’ll repeat Catholic doctrine. God wills the salvation of all, and gives to all sufficient grace to enable them to save their souls; and if some men are lost this is due to their own rejection of grace, by sin, and not to God’s choice of their damnation.

Yes, I know that. But as I understand them, Thomists say that those to whom God has not chosen to give efficacious grace will eventually sin, fail to repent, and be damned. God did not make them do it. But the choice not to help people in certain ways is a choice. You can’t get around that.

Catholics, as I include the Thomists in that category, may not say that there is a positive reprobation of any man antecedant to his sin;

But as I said, “positive reprobation” isn’t needed for you to be damned! If God had given them efficacious grace, they would have repented and turned to God. That’s still reprobation, and it’s still a decision (even though a purely negative one–refraining from doing something rather than doing something) that did not depend on their actions. The positive decision to condemn them does depend on their actions. I know that.

it is only because of his sin that God wills his condemnation; he has had sufficient grace, he has rejected it and therefore God condemns him.

Right. But no one who receives only sufficient and not efficient grace accepts sufficient grace.

Remember, man’s sin comes first

Human sin comes first (logically) before the decision to damn. I know that. But not before the decision not to grant efficacious grace (or in Aquinas, not to direct those persons toward eternal life), from which persistence in sin and final damnation inevitably proceeds.

I’m not saying that the Thomistic subtleties are insignificant. This is a tricky business, and perhaps subtleties are necessary. But they are subtleties. In both views there is a divine decision from which the salvation of some (and by inevitable–but not in the Thomistic sense “necessary”–consequence the damnation of others) follows. In neither view is that decision (speaking of the choice to predestine certain specific people) logically consequent on the choices of human beings. Whatever heretical notion the Thomistic subtleties exclude, it isn’t this.

Thomas says that Predestination is a plan existing in the mind of God according to which some men are saved; and the Reprobation is the allowing of some to be lost. He remarks that Predestination includes the will to grant grace and eternal glory, while Reprobation includes the will to permit a man to fall into sin and to punish him for that fault. .

Exactly. I should add that I’m aware that efficient/sufficient grace is not found in Thomas, and that in fact I’m far more familiar with Thomas than with any of the later “Thomists.”

Neither Predestination nor Reprobation is merely a matter of God’s foreknowledge of what is going to happen. Each involves an element of the will: in the Predestined: God’s will being to grant them first certain graces which will lead them to eternal life, and then eternal life itself as an everlasting reward; Reprobation: God’s will being to permit them to fall into sin, and then to punish them for it.

I don’t see where this contradicts anything I have said.

Reprobates: Damnation is their own fault, for they will all receive sufficient grace to enable them to save their souls, and they will willfully reject that grace.

If there are Calvinists today who accept our doctrine, God bless them.

No, not entirely I’m afraid. But on certain points the two views do come pretty close. Double predestination in the strict sense is pretty strong stuff even for Calvinists. Unfortunately, there is a subset of modern Calvinists who glory in the repellent nature of their doctrines and see them as a sign of the uncompromising truth of Calvinism.

Personally, I like to call myself a Wesleyan Thomist, and I’m still trying to figure out what that means! (I definitely don’t mean “Thomist” in the sense of the “Thomist school”–I prefer the more frankly paradoxical teachings of Aquinas himself, but perhaps I haven’t studied the later Thomists enough.)

Edwin

 

[mgrfin]

I

But in Thomism, those whom God has not chosen are going to reject grace. Edwin

No, Edwin, you still have it in reverse. Man, rejecting grace by sinning, God has not chosen him.

The will of God is a will to holiness, not to the mere prosperity of man. That saving will is shown by the gift of sufficient grace to all, along with the gift of freedom. God’s will is absolute. Nothing can resist that will. Man’s being and destiny are willed in God. God created man possessing certain powers and the ability to act freely. God’s concurrence with man’s deliberate acts does not diminish their freedom, but maintains it.

Man’s salvation is in his own hands. From all eternity, God has prepared the gifts of grace that will call all men to himself, and that will assist him in times of temptation.

Some will answer the call, others will reject it. Those who answer in a positive way, by God’s grace, truly merit their heavenly reward. But they owe it all to God, who has called them. Not only the call, but also man’s answer to the call, is God’s gift. Man has nothing he has not received from God’s bounty.
And those who reject the call? Their failure is their own, in that when they might, had they so willed, have corresponded with grace, which they refused to do. In this free consent of the just to God’s grace, in this willful rejection of God’s call on the part of the sinful, lies the mystery of Predestination.

By good works done in the state of grace, man increases the grace within. What will be the effect of sin in the same man? By sin he loses the virtue of charity, and with charity are lost grace and the other supernatural virtues which depend upon charity for their being. There remain only the supernatural habits of faith and hope, two slender threads which still hold him to the body of Christ. Although still able by his natural powers, yet he cannot merit, by these, eternal life, for he has lost sanctifying grace, which gave his works supernatural value.

Justification (forgiveness of sin, in this case) involves real change in man’s soul. When God forgives sin he does more than merely overlook man’s past sins; he gives him life once more. Moving him by actual grace to repentance of his sin, he enriches his soul again with sanctifying grace, and the virtues, reinstating him in his dignity as the son of God, generously restoring to him every gift that he had lost.

We happily believe with Thomas that God gives at least sufficient grace to overcome sin no matter how large, how great, how grevious, or how numerous.

Peace
mgrfin

 

[mgrfin]

Personally, I like to call myself a Wesleyan Thomist, and I’m still trying to figure out what that means! (I definitely don’t mean “Thomist” in the sense of the “Thomist school”–I prefer the more frankly paradoxical teachings of Aquinas himself, but perhaps I haven’t studied the later Thomists enough.)

Edwin

The mystery in Predestination may be in the subtlies between 'efficient grace" and “sufficient grace”. Maybe different terms would help.

I see you saying, “Right”, “Right”, “Right”, “Right”, “but…,” “but…,” “but…”
“but…”.

You prefer to call yourself a Wesleyan Thomist (whatever that is), than admit to the Catholic position?

peace
mgrfin

 

[mgrfin]

The mystery in Predestination may be in the subtlies between 'efficient grace" and “sufficient grace”. Maybe different terms would help.

I see you saying, “Right”, “Right”, “Right”, “Right”, “but…,” “but…,” “but…”
“but…”.

You prefer to call yourself a Wesleyan Thomist (whatever that is), than admit to the Catholic position?

peace
mgrfin

 

[mgrfin]

mgrfin:
I tried editing my ‘right’, ‘right’, ‘right’, ‘right’ but too late.

Of course, there are separate Catholic schools on resolving the difficulties on sufficient and efficacious grace issues.

They debated in Rome, but the Holy See never resolved the issue(s). In the spirit of fraternal charity, the Thomists and the Molinists can’t go around calling the other ''hereticts" until Rome decides.

Good rule for this site as well.

Peace.

mgrfin

 

[Pophead]

Does anyone believe in O’DAD ?


Pophead.