I believe predestination means . .

[Image_of_God]

But I thought God wills all to be saved and is willing to accept all who come to him. Does God elect those who he knows will choose him? Does God desire to elect everybody, but because he loves them so much he does not want to force them not to sin?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

**Did not God instruct Satan to torment Job?

Job 1:12 - Then the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power, only do not put forth your hand on him.” So Satan departed from the presence of the LORD. **

Tabcom,

You might note that God doesn’t instruct Satan to torment Job. Instead, he gave Satan freedom. What Satan did with that freedom was caused by a defective use of the freedom which was given to Satan.

 

[stillwater]

T
I disagree that you’ve properly understood the Book of Job. God didn’t simply pick Job at random. Job was picked because of his righteousness and because of God’s foreknowledge that Job would not reject Him despite his suffering.

he knows what will happen, so there’s no point of proving that job will not reject him. same as when he sent plagues in egypt to harden the heart of the pharoah. he intended to do that to prove that the pharoah was powerless against him.

it’s not a test of faith, it’s called ego tripping.

 

[stillwater]

Tabcom,

You might note that God doesn’t instruct Satan to torment Job. Instead, he gave Satan freedom. What Satan did with that freedom was caused by a defective use of the freedom which was given to Satan.

he might not have directly instructed satan but he gave him permission. satan is god’s instrument. if he isn’t then we should be told that we will be rewarded in heaven if we do good by god, and we will be rewarded in hell if we do evil by satan. yet we are told we would be punished in hell…

shouldn’t be satan glad that people are doin evil in his name? then why would he punish those people?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

But I thought God wills all to be saved and is willing to accept all who come to him.

Correct.

Does God elect those who he knows will choose him?

Yes. He elects them to grace. However, of these, some may not attain eternal life because of their defective use of free will. Others will have received the gift of final perseverence.

Does God desire to elect everybody, but because he loves them so much he does not want to force them not to sin?

Love is not authentic when it is “by force,” right? A risk of rejection is necessarily involved, at lest among imperfect beings like humans and angels, for love to be real, for love to be authentic. God authentically loves us, and desires that we authentically love him. As such, he tolerate a lesser evil for a greater good. He tolerates moral evil by his imperfect beings, which is called sin, a revolt against God’s will. This is a lesser evil than removing the greater good of authentic love, which necessarily involves the the gift of free will.

God according to St. Paul (1 Tim 2:4) “wills that all men be saved.”

This is understood as that which is antecedently willed. God antecedently wills that each and every human be saved. However, God consequently wills that impenitent wicked men and those never born from above are damned eternally.

To be clear, the is only one Divine act of will. **Antecedent **which means, “precedes” and consequent which means “coincides,” must not be taken as applying to the Divine will itself, in which there is nothing antecedent nor consequent, but to the things willed.

So, God’s antecedent will is that each and every person attain eternal life, through the help (grace) that He gives and through the just use of freewill cooperation with the grace he gives. As such, he gives the light of his truth (grace) to each and every person such that they may indeed attain eternal life, if they will it. God’s consequent will is that the those who willfully die in final impenitence of mortal sin, or in original sin only, will not attain to the everlasting Beatific Vision of God in heaven.

Consequently, Catholic dogma is this…

“GOD, BY HIS ETERNAL RESOLVE OF WILL, HAS PREDETERMINED CERTAIN MEN TO ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS (De fide)” (Ott, L., Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma)

“GOD, BY AN ETERNAL RESOLVE OF HIS WILL, PREDESTINES CERTAIN MEN, ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR FORESEEN SINS, TO ETERNAL REJECTION (De fide)” (ibid.)

God has predetermined that he will only bless those men and women with everlasting life in heaven who have been born from above and who die perseverent his grace. Moreover, God has predetermined that, on account of foreseen wickedness, he will eternally punish those who deliberately choose “moral evil” and remain finally impenitent of that evil, which by its nature is a revolt against God’s will for them.

This is describes by the teachings of the Catholic Church, here:

Council of Valence III, on predestination…

… faithfully we confess the predestination of the elect to life, and the predestination of the impious to death; in the election, moreover, of those who are to be saved,** the mercy of God precedes the merited good.** In the condemnation, however, of those who are to be lost, the evil which they have deserved precedes the just judgment of God. In predestination, however, (we believe) that God has determined only those things which He Himself either in His gratuitous mercy or in His just judgment would do… in regard to evil men, however, we believe that God foreknew their malice, because it is from them,** but that He did not predestine it**, because it is not from Him. (We believe) that God, who sees all things, foreknew and predestined that their evil deserved the punishment which followed, because He is just, in whom as Saint Augustine says, there is concerning all things everywhere so fixed a decree as a certain predestination. " (Denzinger 322)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

he might not have directly instructed satan but he gave him permission. satan is god’s instrument.

God gave Satan freedom (and God continues to do so), although Satan chooses to use that freedom to revolt against God’s will. It is believed that it is the nature of angelic beings that they cannot change their minds once they make a willful choice. However, that’s speculative theology, not certain teaching. Nonetheless, God does indeed draw good from evil, even the evil that Satan freely commits.

… we should be told that we will be rewarded in heaven if we do good by god, and we will be rewarded in hell if we do evil by satan.

Reward (Gk ‘axios’), properly understood in the biblical Greek can mean merit or demerit. Thayer’s lexicon states for the Greek word “axios”: “one who has merited anything worthy both in a good and a bad sense.”

For example, the repentent thief who was crucified along side Jesus rebuked the other thief, saying: “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward (Gk ‘axios’) of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.”****He speaks of his punishment, his crucifixion as “due reward” (axios) even though it was clearly punative.

yet we are told we would be punished in hell…

Correct. The wicked will be rewarded in accord with their deeds with the demerit of everlasting punishment. The righteous will be rewarded in accord with their deeds with the merit of everlasting life in heaven in the presence of God.

shouldn’t be satan glad that people are doin evil in his name?

I really can’t comment on what makes Satan glad, as I’ve tried my best not to get to know him.

then why would he punish those people?

Well, we are drifting a bit off-topic, but …those punished in hell are punished by God, not Satan. Even Satan will be cast into the lake of fire, and his torment will last forever and ever.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

he knows what will happen, so there’s no point of proving that job will not reject him.

I disagree. The lesson is not for Satan, but for Job, and for those witnessing Job’s ordeal, and for the faithful who learn from God’s inspired Word. The point is to teach you and me about an immutable truth. He’s not proving anything. He’s teaching a theological truth.

same as when he sent plagues in egypt to harden the heart of the pharoah. he intended to do that to prove that the pharoah was powerless against him.

The hardening of one’s heart is a punishment for prior sin. It is not a proof of anything other than wickedness leads to just punishment, your personal failure to grasp the intent of Sacred Scripture notwithstanding.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

stillwater,

Your profile shows that you are “a gnostic.” Does that mean that you adhere to gnosticism, or does is that intending to say “agnostic?”

** Gnostic** - “an adherent of gnosticism” (Merriam-Webster)

** Agnostic** - “one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god” (Merriam-Webster).

Just curious.

 

[stillwater]

stillwater,

Your profile shows that you are “a gnostic.” Does that mean that you adhere to gnosticism, or does is that intending to say “agnostic?”

** Gnostic** - “an adherent of gnosticism” (Merriam-Webster)

** Agnostic** - “one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god” (Merriam-Webster).

Just curious.

a = anti + gnostic

 

[tabcom]

You might note that God doesn’t instruct Satan to torment Job. Instead, he gave Satan freedom.

Satan’s freedom was restricted by God. God forebid Satan to kill Job.

 

[tabcom]

But I thought God wills all to be saved and is willing to accept all who come to him Does God desire to elect everybody?

**
"Aquinas stated, “Christ’s passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2, ‘He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.’” [ST III:48:2].

This is not to say there is no sense in which limitation may be ascribed to the atonement. While the grace it provided is sufficient to pay for the sins of all men, this grace is not made efficacious (put into effect) in the case of everyone. One may say that although the sufficiency of the atonement is not limited, its efficiency is limited. This is something everyone who believes in hell must acknowledge because, if the atonement was made efficacious for everyone, then no one would end up in hell."1

my summation:

Sufficient -
Being as much as is needed.

Efficacious -
Producing or capable of producing a desired effect.

Lets examine this notion of what is sufficient with what is efficacious. Isn’t the life\death\resurrection of Jesus known by all men? Yes. In other words, Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for all men to know who Jesus was. Atheist\Buddist\Hindos\Islamist\Christians all know who Jesus was.

However, not all men are going to come to a knowledge of Christ. The bible teachs that only a few are. Jesus’ resurrection produced the desired effect within His elect family, i.e. conforming to the image of Christ.

1 “A TIPTOE THROUGH TULIP” By JAMES AKIN posted on catholic.com.

**

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Satan’s freedom was restricted by God. God forebid Satan to kill Job.

Yes, he did have limits to his freedom as I affirmed above. Yet God did not command Satan to torment Job but instead stated, “all that he has is in your power.” Satan chose what he would do to Job. God tolerated it, knowing very well that Job would remain stedfast in his faith and in the end, receive a greater reward.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

tabcom:
… **Lets examine this notion of what is sufficient with what is efficacious. **

Sure.

**Isn’t the life\death\resurrection of Jesus known by all men? Yes. **

What basis do you have for drawing this conclusion? Obviously, this cannot be derived from deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning might apply, the confidence of which is not absolute. For example, through inductive reasoning, we can say:

1. All observed crows are black
2. Therefore, all crows are black.

The conclusion is reasonably supported by the premise, but not absolutely proven in the strict sense. Unless we are certain that we have seen every crow (which is impossible), there may be one of a different color. Consequently, with inductive reasoning, the premises–at best–may predict a high probability of the conclusion, but do not absolutely ensure that the conclusion is true.

Inductive reasoning is a certainly valid, and it is used in many fields of study for drawing conclusions, with the caveat that we may come across exceptional cases. If we are to have a comprensive soteriology, we need to address these exceptional cases.

Even if the above conclusion of yours is presumed to be true, to what extent is the knowledge of Jesus’ and his will understood? What impediments to the intellect and will are present in one individual or another? I teach catechism to a girl with down syndrome, whose capability to know about Jesus and what I’m teaching is greatly diminished. Is the atonement of Christ sufficient for those like her who may never mature to have the faculties of reason? St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of ingorance diminishing culpability for sin insofar as such ignorance is either partly or completely involuntary. Is he correct?

I believe God gives each and every human soul the grace to attain eternal life, even those with a diminished capacity to reason or have other impediments of will. God’s light shines upon every human soul that enters into existence. The opportunity to everlasting life is extend to all by God. Infants, for example, can be sanctified even in the womb if God so chooses, as St. John th Baptist was. There are supernatual means of enlightenment beyond our comprehension. St. Thomas states that God will show what he needs to all, either through preachers or through angels.

Atheist\Buddist\Hindos\Islamist\Christians all know who Jesus was.

**However, not all men are going to come to a knowledge of Christ. **

Here you seem to make the distinction that I’ve addressed above. “Knowing” of Jesus (or being told of him) is not necessarily the same as understanding who Jesus was. the significance of His redemption, and the obligations we have as a result. Impediments to intellect and will are not always completely voluntary, and as such are not completely the fault of the moral agent. What is the culpability of a Chinses rice farmer, for example, who through know fault of their own, had a lousy missionary preacher who totally distorted true Christian doctrines, and as a result, poorly evangelized the Chinise rice farmer? Is the fault the farmer’s or the preacher’s? What culpability does the farmer have for not converting to Christianity if the preacher failed to adequately convey the message correctly?

Furthermore, to what extent can an infant have a understanding of Christ? Are they not able to be saved despite sufficient faculties of reason?

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

**The bible teachs that only a few are. **

Perhaps, but the relevant Scriptural passages may be admonitory rather than predictive. I think many tend to presume these passages are predictive without even considering an alternative authorial intent. The fact is we don’t know the population of hell, and without presuming it, it is permissable and indeed praisworthy to hope that each and every person attains eternal life.

See more here: The Population of Hell by Avery Cardinal Dulles

According to Cardinal Dulles, St. Benedicta of the Cross affirmed, “God’s all-merciful love…descends upon everyone, it is probable that this love produces transforming effects in their lives. To the extent that people open themselves to that love, they enter into the realm of redemption. On this ground [St. Benedicta] finds it possible to hope that God’s omnipotent love finds ways of, so to speak, outwitting human resistance.” To me, this view seems quite authentically Christian and congruent with Sacred Scritpure and Catholic doctrine.

Jesus’ resurrection produced the desired effect within His elect family, i.e. conforming to the image of Christ.

I agree. However, I think the sufficiency of the atonement is indeed universal, that is, sufficient for each and every soul that enters the world.

 

[tabcom]

Isn’t the life\death\resurrection of Jesus known by all men? Yes.

**What basis do you have for drawing this conclusion? ****

Perhaps if I can offer an analogy, I would make my point more clear. For me to say that I know of Adolph Hitler, is not same as to say, I am a nazi.**

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Isn’t the life\death\resurrection of Jesus known by all men? Yes.

**What basis do you have for drawing this conclusion? **

Perhaps if I can offer an analogy, I would make my point more clear. For me to say that I know of Adolph Hitler, is not same as to say, I am a nazi.

I understand. But I don’t necessarily agree everyone knows of Jesus. Does that necessarily omit them from the sufficiency of Christ’s grace?

What I’m getting at is probably better explained by St. Thomas Aquinas. St. Thomas affirms that God reveals what is necessary for salvation in many various ways:

“If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him.” (Sent. 11, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4).

Yet, St. Thomas admits that those who may not have received any explicit revelation of the mysteries of Christ, they too might be saved by their implicit faith in Christ. Observe:

If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation [of the mystery of Christ], they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him [Christ] explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith [in Christ] through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth (*Summa Theologica, *IIb, 2, 7)