I was converted from Catholicism to Christ at the age of 19.

[sandusky]

You can’t answer them, so you ignore them.

Just got home, and sure I can, and when I do, you’ll go into paroxysms of denial because, from the sound of it, you don’t understand what your own church teaches regarding predestination.

 

[Ronald_E]

You know, it may be that he never believed that. I find that most Catholics have no idea what they are leaving (I know, because I was one!).

No one who understood Cathlicism would make a statement like
“I was converted from Catholicism to Christ at the age of 19”. A person who undersands Catholicism does not need to “convert to Christ”.

Amen:thumbsup:

 

[sandusky]

benedictus2:

I think you have put me on your ignore list becuase you did not have any comebacks on my post #812 (and other posts thereafter )which relates to the above.

As I said in that post.
If a) the elect (I am assuming here that this is only some of the total sum of humanity), were chosen before the foundation of the world, and
b) since God is the one who creates every person,
then based on your statement above,
God purposely created millions of people only so he can send them to Hell.

With a god like that, who needs the devil?

You did not reply to that so I am assuming you are in agreement with me here.

Let’s start with what you as Catholics are required to believe concerning predestination, de fide.

From Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, concerning which the Publisher claims:**Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma…**Recognized as the greatest summary of Catholic dogma ever put between two covers. A one-volume encyclopedia of Catholic doctrines. Tells exactly what the Church teaches on any particular topic. Tells when the pronouncement was made and gives the sources from Scripture, Church Councils, Papal statements and the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Essential for priests, seminarians, parents and teachers. Easily one of our most important books.Concerning predestination, Ott states what the Catholic must believe:1) GOD, BY HIS ETERNAL RESOLVE OF WILL, HAS PREDETERMINED CERTAIN MEN TO ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS (De fide)

De fide = “of faith” – dogmas are absolutely binding on all Catholics]

This doctrine is proposed by the Ordinary and General Teaching of the Church as a truth of Revelation. The doctrinal definitions of the Council of Trent presuppose it . . . The reality of Predestination is clearly attested to in Rom 8:29 et seq: . . . cf. Mt 25:34, Jn 10:27 et seq., Acts 13:48, Eph 1:4 et seq. . . . Predestination is a part of the Eternal Divine Plan of Providence.It’s important to note that the number of that group is eternally fixed, none can be added to it, and none can be subtracted from it.

The RC further teaches that there is also a group who are predestined to grace only, this they call incomplete predestination.

Why is it incomplete? Because these folks, although given grace, are not given the gift of perseverance given to group #1 above: those predestined to "eternal blessedness. IOW, those predestined to eternal blessedness, will not fail to be fully and finally saved, or, put another way, it is truthfully said of that group they are, Once Saved Always Saved.

It’s my belief that all of those in group #2—those incompletely predestined—will in fact fail to gain the objective of “eternal blessedness,” as perseverance is a necessity in gaining the objective.

Moreover, it’s the “incompletely predestined” who create the necessity within RC soteriology for the teaching that one can lose salvation. There is no clear scriptural statement regarding that, therefore, the church, and her apologists draw inferences from various texts to support that position.

According to the RC, a third group exists, and this is what is said of that third group:GOD, BY AN ETERNAL RESOLVE OF HIS WILL, PREDESTINES CERTAIN MEN, ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR FORESEEN SINS, TO ETERNAL REJECTION (De fide)If one takes the time to understand the positions of the Calvinist, and the RC, one finds that there’s not much difference between the positions.

The Church, as stated in the link to the excerpt from Ott’s book, attempts to distance herself from Calvin’s teaching by stating her’s is the superior position because it “involves man’s free-will,” however, that’s specious, as the Calvinist position also involves man’s free-will.

Both systems of predestination worship a God who is the sovereign creator of all things, including people, and both claim that there is nothing that is impossible for Him to do—He could save everyone, should He desire to do so, but he does not.

He saves some, and the others, by their rebellion, condemn themselves to eternal damnation.

How do you answer, benedictus2, with a god like that, who needs the devil?

.

 

[sandusky]

CHESTERTONRULES:

It means that if we are a servant of God but don’t do what we should then we will be punished.

The grace of God is sufficient if we respond to it and follow Christ.

If we reject it, we will be punished.

It’s not complicated.

So then, you believe that the wicked servant is one who’s been saved, but later rejects the grace of salvation?

 

[sandusky]

How is it that he is in error? Here is the passage in whole. I would have to say that he is correct and you have missed its meaning.

*16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the church of God. 17 Now this I ordain: not praising you, that you come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18 For first of all I hear that when you come together in the church, there are schisms among you; and in part I believe it. 19 For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you. 20 When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord’s supper.

19 “There must be also heresies”… By reason of the pride and perversity of man’s heart; not by God’s will or appointment; who nevertheless draws good out of this evil, manifesting, by that occasion, who are the good and firm Christians, and making their faith more remarkable.*

20 “The Lord’s supper”… So the apostle here calls the charity feasts observed by the primitive Christians; and reprehends the abuses of the Corinthians, on these occasions; which were the more criminal, because these feasts were accompanied with the celebrating of the eucharistic sacrifice and sacrament.

21 For every one taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God; and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not. 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

27 “Or drink”… Here erroneous translators corrupted the text, by putting and drink (contrary to the original) instead of or drink.

27 “Guilty of the body”… not discerning the body. This demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, even to the unworthy communicant; who otherwise could not be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, or justly condemned for not discerning the Lord’s body.

28 “Drink of the chalice”… This is not said by way of command, but by way of allowance, viz., where and when it is agreeable to the practice and discipline of the church.

31 But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world. 33 Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If any man be hungry, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto judgment. And the rest I will set in order, when I come.

Begs the question: how have I missed its meaning?

 

[De_Maria]

Let’s start with what you as Catholics are required to believe concerning predestination, de fide.

From Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, concerning which the Publisher claims:
**Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma…**Recognized as the greatest summary of Catholic dogma ever put between two covers. …

Certainly an excellent book. But by no means infallible. So, lets try to keep perspective here, ok?

Concerning predestination, Ott states what the Catholic must believe:

1. GOD, BY HIS ETERNAL RESOLVE OF WILL, HAS PREDETERMINED CERTAIN MEN TO ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS (De fide)

Correct.

De fide = “of faith” – dogmas are absolutely binding on all Catholics]

What do you think this means?

This doctrine is proposed by the Ordinary and General Teaching of the Church as a truth of Revelation. The doctrinal definitions of the Council of Trent presuppose it . . . The reality of Predestination is clearly attested to in Rom 8:29 et seq: . . . cf. Mt 25:34, Jn 10:27 et seq., Acts 13:48, Eph 1:4 et seq. . . . Predestination is a part of the Eternal Divine Plan of Providence.

OK.

It’s important to note that the number of that group is eternally fixed, none can be added to it, and none can be subtracted from it.

Do they know who they are? Does anyone except God?

The RC further teaches that there is also a group who are predestined to grace only, this they call incomplete predestination.

Never heard of it. Please provide the reference.

Why is it incomplete? Because these folks, although given grace, are not given the gift of perseverance given to group #1 above: those predestined to "eternal blessedness. IOW, those predestined to eternal blessedness, will not fail to be fully and finally saved, or, put another way, it is truthfully said of that group they are, Once Saved Always Saved.

Only if you start from eternity. But not if you start from time.

YOU DON’T KNOW if you are numbered in that group. Therefore, you are still working out your salvation.

It’s my belief that all of those in group #2—those incompletely predestined—will in fact fail to gain the objective of “eternal blessedness,” as perseverance is a necessity in gaining the objective.

Of course. But you can’t say, “Joe, you ain’t gonna make it. So you might as well stop.” If you do, you are judging and that is God’s job.

Moreover, it’s the “incompletely predestined” who create the necessity within RC soteriology for the teaching that one can lose salvation. There is no clear scriptural statement regarding that, therefore, the church, and her apologists draw inferences from various texts to support that position.

According to the RC, a third group exists, and this is what is said of that third group:GOD, BY AN ETERNAL RESOLVE OF HIS WILL, PREDESTINES CERTAIN MEN, ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR FORESEEN SINS, TO ETERNAL REJECTION (De fide)If one takes the time to understand the positions of the Calvinist, and the RC, one finds that there’s not much difference between the positions.

Except that the Calvinist judges who goes where. Whereas the Catholic doesn’t. The Calvinist considers himself predestined to heaven. Whereas the Catholic lives in hope of God’s mercy.

In addition, I categorically deny that this final group is “de fide”. That must have been a typo in Ott’s book. It can’t be de fide if the Church doesn’t teach it. Read the next line:

The reality of Reprobation is not formally defined, but it is the general teaching of the Church.

No, it isn’t. It is Ott’s opinion that it is the general teaching of the Church. But the Church says otherwise:

2822 Our Father “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” He “is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish.” His commandment is “that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.” This commandment summarizes all the others and expresses his entire will.

If it were a Catholic Teaching, it would contradict the Word of God and it is impossible that the Word of God in Doctrine should contradict the Word of God in Scripture.

1 Timothy 2 4** Who will have all men to be saved, **and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

The Church, as stated in the link to the excerpt from Ott’s book, attempts to distance herself from Calvin’s teaching by stating her’s is the superior position because it “involves man’s free-will,” however, that’s specious, as the Calvinist position also involves man’s free-will.

Ott is not the Catholic Church. Ott has made a mistake or you have misunderstood Ott.

Both systems of predestination worship a God who is the sovereign creator of all things, including people, and both claim that there is nothing that is impossible for Him to do—He could save everyone, should He desire to do so, but he does not.

But one, the Calvinists teach their members to judge the predestination of other members of the Body of Christ.

Whereas Catholics teach Christ’s command, “judge not lest you be judged.” And, they live in hope, working out their salvation in fear and trembling.

He saves some, and the others, by their rebellion, condemn themselves to eternal damnation.

Correct. That is Catholic Teaching.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[sandusky]

.

De Maria, you’ve still not answered my question:

.

The following verses are in the Greek imperative, IOW, they’re Jesus’ commands; have you obeyed them, or are you being disobedient to the Lord?

**Matthew 5:29

29 “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

Matthew 18:8

8 “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.**
.
:coffeeread:

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Christianity actively seeks converts, and evangelizes -
proclaiming a savior from both original sin and personal sin.

One Christian group may challenge the beliefs of another Christian group -
and intramural apologetics may take place…sometimes in the form of debate.

Yet the assumption is shared, by Christians - as they
enter into debate, that Jesus was a God/man, who came
to save man from both original sin and personal sin.

God is now proclaimed a trinity of three persons in one deity.

I note that there is, in fact, much shared, by Christians of all churches.

reen12

True, but what fun is that??

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

So then, you believe that the wicked servant is one who’s been saved, but later rejects the grace of salvation?

He doesn’t obey the instructions of his master.

You have a different interpretation?

 

[sandusky]

.

CHESTERTONRULES:

.

Let’s start with what you as Catholics are required to believe concerning predestination, de fide.

From Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, concerning which the Publisher claims:**Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma…**Recognized as the greatest summary of Catholic dogma ever put between two covers. A one-volume encyclopedia of Catholic doctrines. Tells exactly what the Church teaches on any particular topic. Tells when the pronouncement was made and gives the sources from Scripture, Church Councils, Papal statements and the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Essential for priests, seminarians, parents and teachers. Easily one of our most important books.Concerning predestination, Ott states what the Catholic must believe:1) GOD, BY HIS ETERNAL RESOLVE OF WILL, HAS PREDETERMINED CERTAIN MEN TO ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS (De fide)

De fide = “of faith” – dogmas are absolutely binding on all Catholics]

This doctrine is proposed by the Ordinary and General Teaching of the Church as a truth of Revelation. The doctrinal definitions of the Council of Trent presuppose it . . . The reality of Predestination is clearly attested to in Rom 8:29 et seq: . . . cf. Mt 25:34, Jn 10:27 et seq., Acts 13:48, Eph 1:4 et seq. . . . Predestination is a part of the Eternal Divine Plan of Providence.It’s important to note that the number of that group is eternally fixed, none can be added to it, and none can be subtracted from it.

The RC further teaches that there is also a group who are predestined to grace only, this they call incomplete predestination.

Why is it incomplete? Because these folks, although given grace, are not given the gift of perseverance given to group #1 above: those predestined to "eternal blessedness. IOW, those predestined to eternal blessedness, will not fail to be fully and finally saved, or, put another way, it is truthfully said of that group they are, Once Saved Always Saved.

It’s my belief that all of those in group #2—those incompletely predestined—will in fact fail to gain the objective of “eternal blessedness,” as perseverance is a necessity in gaining the objective.

Moreover, it’s the “incompletely predestined” who create the necessity within RC soteriology for the teaching that one can lose salvation. There is no clear scriptural statement regarding that, therefore, the church, and her apologists draw inferences from various texts to support that position.

According to the RC, a third group exists, and this is what is said of that third group:GOD, BY AN ETERNAL RESOLVE OF HIS WILL, PREDESTINES CERTAIN MEN, ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR FORESEEN SINS, TO ETERNAL REJECTION (De fide)If one takes the time to understand the positions of the Calvinist, and the RC, one finds that there’s not much difference between the positions.

The Church, as stated in the link to the excerpt from Ott’s book, attempts to distance herself from Calvin’s teaching by stating her’s is the superior position because it “involves man’s free-will,” however, that’s specious, as the Calvinist position also involves man’s free-will.

Both systems of predestination worship a God who is the sovereign creator of all things, including people, and both claim that there is nothing that is impossible for Him to do—He could save everyone, should He desire to do so, but he does not.

He saves some, and the others, by their rebellion, condemn themselves to eternal damnation.

What about you, CHESTERTONRULES? With a god like that, who needs the devil?

.

 

[sandusky]

He doesn’t obey the instructions of his master.

You have a different interpretation?

You’re not answering my question. Does the passage have nothing to do with salvation?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

You’re not answering my question. Does the passage have nothing to do with salvation?

Absolutely.

The servant who does not obey his master’s instructions is punished.

Could it be more clear? What do you think this parable teaches us?

 

[sandusky]

Absolutely.

The servant who does not obey his master’s instructions is punished.

Could it be more clear? What do you think this parable teaches us?

Your answer is, “the passage has nothing to do with salvation.”

We agree on that.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Your answer is, “the passage has nothing to do with salvation.”

We agree on that.

We disagree.

It is clearly a reference to eternal matters.

I’ll ask again:

What do you think this parable teaches?

 

[sandusky]

We disagree.

It is clearly a reference to eternal matters.

I’ll ask again:

What do you think this parable teaches?

I answered that yesterday. Go back and look.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I answered that yesterday. Go back and look.[/QUO

Give me a break.

It’s a simple question, unless you are trying to change the meaning of the words.

[/quote]

 

[sandusky]

Give me a break.

It’s a simple question, unless you are trying to change the meaning of the words.

Yea, it’s always everyone else trying to pull one over on you.

Go look at my answer to the question you posed yesterday: “What does this mean to a Calvinist?”

My answer’s the same, it’s your memory that’s the problem.

How about an answer to my other post directed to benectus2, and then to you?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Yea, it’s always everyone else trying to pull one over on you.

Go look at my answer to the question you posed yesterday: “What does this mean to a Calvinist?”

My answer’s the same, it’s your memory that’s the problem.

How about an answer to my other post directed to benectus2, and then to you?

I have no idea what answers or questions you are referring to.

Why not just tell me?

What do you believe the parable about the servants means?

 

[sandusky]

I have no idea what answers or questions you are referring to.

Why not just tell me?

What do you believe the parable about the servants means?

You’re trying to “run out the clock,” as the thread is now approaching “closing time.”

I can play this game as long as you’d like. Go look, I just found it in 30 seconds.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

You’re trying to “run out the clock,” as the thread is now approaching “closing time.”

I can play this game as long as you’d like. Go look, I just found it in 30 seconds.

Tell me where it is. What post number?