If God knows the future

[Matt16_18]

sandusky

These questions from USMC you have left unanswered:
Do you believe God is the cause of moral evil? Is He the principle cause of those who break His commandments and sin against Him (such as abortionists and murderers)?

Explain to us Catholics how it is that the Calvinists avoid teaching the blasphemy that God is the cause of moral evil. That is what I really want to know.

 

[barsapp]

COUNCIL OF TRENT ON JUSTIFICATION

CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.

 

[Convergenter]

As per Father Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous Dutch theologian, who responded to the great miseries caused by the 1958 floods that occurred when the sea walls of Holland failed to hold back the North Sea with the following comments:

From: : The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

“Christians must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history” .

"Nothing is determined in advance: in nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices.

Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

:

 

[barsapp]

Convergenter:

As per Father Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous Dutch theologian

famous Flemish dissident theologian? not reliable source

 

[sandusky]

sandusky

These questions from USMC you have left unanswered:
Do you believe God is the cause of moral evil? Is He the principle cause of those who break His commandments and sin against Him (such as abortionists and murderers)?

Explain to us Catholics how it is that the Calvinists avoid teaching the blasphemy that God is the cause of moral evil. That is what I really want to know.

The reason that I did not answer that was because I would appeal to scripture, and USMC does not believe that I know how to interpret scripture, so what is the point in my answer?

Search the Scripture, Matt16_18, and what it says in regard to God and evil, and God and sin, is what I say also.

 

[sandusky]

Convergenter:

As per Father Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous Dutch theologian, who responded to the great miseries caused by the 1958 floods that occurred when the sea walls of Holland failed to hold back the North Sea with the following comments:

"Nothing is determined in advance: in nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices.

Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

A pioneering voice of Open Theism. I’m not surprised.

 

[Convergenter]

Schillebeeckx is widely regarded as one of the better contemporary theologians. You should not judge him based on a reference you found via a Google search. Read his works then decide. His problem with the Vatican involved his desire to see Vatican II take bolder steps especially with regard to opening the priesthood to all qualified members of the Church.

 

[cynic]

sandusky:

No. It is the heart, the spirit that must be changed and brought to life (Eph 2:1ff). Once the spirit is reborn the will follows, and the faith given is a gift of God (Eph 2:8ff). Read Acts 9, the story of Paul’s conversion. Did the Lord violate Paul’s will, which was to continue to persecute the Way, and bring as many as possible bound to Jerusalem for trial? Yes it was, and Christ put a stop to that. As you read the account, search with all of your might for language that speaks of the coercion of Paul’s will. Once Paul’s spirit was made alive, he willing believed, as evidenced by the fruits of his life. In fact, read the whole book of Acts, and look hard for the complaining by those who believed that their will was coerced. Let me know what you find.

.

I can’t see how you don’t get this. You seem to think that it is impossible for someone not to have faith if their “spirit was made alive”. ‘Willingly’ believing? If the spirit of the elect is changed so that they cannot help but believe, then there is no free will. You’re mixing up free will with wanting to believe, once an elects spirith has changed (according to you), of course he wants to believe, and does so because he wants to. But if he could not choose otherwise, if it wan’t within his nature after that point, then there is no choice in the matter, coercion or not.

You may have answered this before, but how do Calvinists regard those who never heard the gospel? Are none of them elect by the the fact that, if they were, the gospel would have been made apparent to them in some way? So from this can we conclude that a far greater proportion of the Caucasoid race are elect than the Mongoloid or Negroid peoples? I’m not acussing you of being racist, but how do Calvinists reconcile this?

 

[cynic]

cynic:

I can’t see how you don’t get this. You seem to think that it is impossible for someone not to have faith if their “spirit was made alive”.

oops I meant lose faith

 

[mlchance]

[Schillebeeckx’s]
problem with the Vatican involved his desire to see Vatican II take bolder steps especially with regard to opening the priesthood to all qualified members of the Church.

All qualified members of the Church are eligible for ordination.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Convergenter]

All qualified members of the Catholic Church means any member of good moral character. The Church is slow to react but note how all qualified members are now Altar persons, Eucharistic ministers and Readers. And the infallibility issue is on very shaky biblical foundations especially the singular reference to the Rock in the scriptures i.e.Matt 16: 18-19.

 

[sandusky]

cynic:

I can’t see how you don’t get this. You seem to think that it is impossible for someone not to have faith if their “spirit was made alive”. ‘Willingly’ believing? If the spirit of the elect is changed so that they cannot help but believe, then there is no free will. You’re mixing up free will with wanting to believe, once an elects spirith has changed (according to you), of course he wants to believe, and does so because he wants to. But if he could not choose otherwise, if it wan’t within his nature after that point, then there is no choice in the matter, coercion or not.

No I get it. You must have absolute control, absolute, unimpeded free will. How is it that you think a man, once regenerated and given the gift of faith, can lose it?

cynic:

You may have answered this before, but how do Calvinists regard those who never heard the gospel? Are none of them elect by the the fact that, if they were, the gospel would have been made apparent to them in some way? So from this can we conclude that a far greater proportion of the Caucasoid race are elect than the Mongoloid or Negroid peoples? I’m not acussing you of being racist, but how do Calvinists reconcile this?

Equating a Calvinist’s position with racism is nothing more than an emotionally wrought conclusion. You are thinking like the world.

God says He will save people from every nation, tribe, and tongue. The percentages are His choice, not the Calvinist’s. Missionaries go where God wills, as seen in Acts when the H.S. forbade Paul from taking the Gospel to Asia. It’s God’s choice where the Gospel goes, not the Calvinist’s, or anyone else’s choice.

As far as not hearing the Gospel, that too is God’s choice. Scripture holds all men guilty of rebellion. Scripture commands all men to repent and believe in Christ. Whoever does not do that is condemned. Condemnation is not contingent upon hearing the Gospel. One’s degree of punishment may be lessened if he has not heard the Gospel, but one’s guilt is not mitigated a bit by that.

Again, that’s God’s decree, not the Calvinist’s, nor anyone else’s.

 

[Melchior]

Unfortunately, many folks here are defining away the very meaning of Predestination. You need a healthy dose of Augustine and Aquinas. God does in fact predestine the elect to final salvation. How He uses free-will in this is a mystery. But for people to redefine predestination to mean foreknowledge, respectfully, don’t undertsand the definition of the word. God is responsible for the salvation of all those who will be saved. Over-emphasizing man’s role runs the danger of Pelagianism.

Do we need to respond to God? Of course. Why some do and others don’t is only known to God. But be certain - all of God’s elect will be saved. Scripture is abundantely clear on this.

And a reminder to all you Catholics who think otherwise: Predestination is a Dogma in the Catholic church. There is a wide spectrum of how it works that you are allowed to believe. But believe it you must. But to say that the predestination of the elect does not exist is against Catholic teaching.

Mel

 

[Matt16_18]

Melchior:

Unfortunately, many folks here are defining away the very meaning of Predestination.

Predestination and election aren’t synonyms. All men are created for union with God.

God is responsible for the salvation of all those who will be saved. Over-emphasizing man’s role runs the danger of Pelagianism.

The problem with Calvinism isn’t that it teaches that union with God is impossible without the grace of God. Catholics believe this, and Calvinists received this belief from the Catholic Church.

The problem with Calvinism resides in its highly defective teachings about free will and damnation. Calvinism teaches that the vast majority of humanity is predestined for damnation by an unjust and capricious god without regard to their demerits. The god of Calvinism is a monster that hates and destroys the majority of the men that he creates. Calvinism teaches that if a man was created for damnation, his fate is fixed, and there is nothing that he could ever do that would prevent his damnation.

It would be impossible to underemphasize the role of free will and damnation. Man is totally responsible for his own damnation. God wills no one to be damned, and God predestines no one for damnation without regard to his demerits.

Calvinism teaches heresy, and outrageously blasphemes God by teaching that God is the ultimate source and cause of all evil.

 

[Melchior]

Matt16_18,

Unfortunately, I was not making a case for Calvinism. What I wrote was thoroughly Roman Catholic ala Augustine and Aquinas. I did not outline any of Calvin’s particulars. I did critique one modern and currently popular theory in the Roman Catholic Church that is actually the minority view historically. You are not condemning Calvinism but authenitc Catholic teaching.

Plus, if you look carefully I made the distinction between Predestination and Election in my post.

Peace,

Mel

 

[Matt16_18]

Melchior:

Matt16_18,

You are not condemning Calvinism but authenitc Catholic teaching.

What authentic Catholic teaching am I condemning? I believe in neither Thomism nor Molinism, and the Magisterium has never taught that either position is the infallible teaching of the Church.

 

[Melchior]

What authentic Catholic teaching am I condemning? I believe in neither Thomism nor Molinism, and the Magisterium has never taught that either position is the infallible teaching of the Church.

Authentic does not have to mean infallible. So what do you believe? I have laid out Thomism - which is acceptable teaching - has been for centuries. You may not agree with it, but you condemned it as Calvinism (which you also have shown you do not understand since they do not believe God is the author of sin). Thomas Aquinas is the foremost doctor of the church I would think he would carry some weight. Plus, predestinaton is dogma if you don’t believe in it (even to just say it is a mystery - which it is of course) then you do not believe the infallible teaching of your church.

 

[Matt16_18]

Melchior:

So what do you believe?

I believe that Fr. William G. Most has the correct insight into why both the so-called “Thomists” and the Molinists are teaching half-truths.PREDESTINATION
by Fr. William G. Most

Definition of Terms: Predestination means an arrangement of Divine Providence to see to it that someone gets either, 1) heaven or 2) full membership in the Church. We specify full membership because thee is also a lesser degree, a substantial membership which can suffice for final salvation.

From the beginning, the two kinds have usually been telescoped, i.e., no distinction was made. Thus the parable of the banquet has been understood to refer to both final salvation and to full membership in the Church. This is regrettable, for the two are different in themselves, different in the principles on which God makes His decisions.

Reprobation is the unfavorable decision, to let someone go to final ruin.

It is asked: Does God make both kinds of decisions, predestination and reprobation, before or after considering merits and demerits? Since there is no time in God, this really means with or without taking into account merits and demerits.

It has been assumed by all that if God decides to predestine without considering merits, He must decide reprobation without considering demerits. And if He decides to predestine with considering merits and demerits, He must decide reprobation in the same way. This view comes from the belief that a person is either predestined or reprobated: both are two sides of the same coin. This view has been considered as obvious, as inescapable.

Nonetheless, it is not inescapable. As we shall see there is a way to separate the two sides, i.e., to say that He predestines without merits, but reprobates only after considering demerits. …

Thomists: they say that God predestines and reprobates without considering merits or demerits. Objection: Here is Joe Doaks, whom God has decided to reprobate without even seeing how Joe lives. Can He do this, and also say (1 Tim 2:4) that He wills all to be saved - which would include Joe Doaks? Obviously not.

This impossibility was admitted by the real founder of the “Thomist” system, Domingo Banez who was followed by Cardinal Cajetan. But later generations of Dominicans insisted this view is not incompatible with 1 Tim 2:4. What they failed to see is this: To love is to will good to another for the other’s sake. So to will salvation to all is to love. So in this “Thomist” view, God would not love Joe Doaks. And because He would decide to reprobate many without any consideration of their demerits, He would really not love anyone at all.

Did St. Thomas himself hold this view? By no means. …

Molinists. Their view comes from Molina, a Spanish Jesuit. He held that God predestines after considering merits. But this is impossible, for our merits are a gift of God, according to 1 Cor 4:7: “What have you that you have not received?” St. Augustine in Epistle 194 agrees: “When God crowns your merits, He crowns nothing other than His own gifts”. So the view of Molina involves a vicious circle.Fr. Most: “[God]predestines without merits, but reprobates only after considering demerits.” This is exactly what Paul taught: the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord
Romans 6:23A wage is what is justly given for the work that one does. Eternal death is the wage that is due the works of death. Sinning is a work that is done by human labor apart from the grace of God. God considers the demerits of those that justly suffer reprobation. But eternal life is not a wage that anyone could ever earn out of their human effort alone. Eternal life can never be a wage that is due our natural good works. We receive eternal life only because it is the gratuitous gift of God.

 

[Matt16_18]

Melchior:

Thomas Aquinas is the foremost doctor of the church I would think he would carry some weight.

I agree that St. Thomas Aquinas is a great theologian. I also believe that Fr. Most has made a good case of why “Thomism” is really a development of the theology of Domingo Banez and Cardinal Cajetan, and that “Thomism” is irreconcilable with the actual theology of Thomas Aquinas.

… predestinaton is dogma if you don’t believe in it …

No Catholic has to believe that either the theology of the Thomists or the Molinists is correct. PREDESTINATION
by Fr. William G. Most

Debates in Rome: In 1597 Pope Clement VIII ordered both the above schools [Thomists and Molinists] to send delegates to Rome to debate before a commission of Cardinals. The debates ran about 10 years. After a time the Pope himself presided. Clement VIII died, and Paul V inherited the debates. Paul V asked St. Francis de Sales, a saint and a great theologian, for advice. Francis advised him to approve neither school. He did that in 1607. Divine Providence was protecting the Church from two great errors.

 

[Melchior]

Thanks for the Fr. Most info, Matt. Interestingly his postion is identical to the Lutheran view. And to be fair he was a little off on Aquinas there is really not qualitative difference between the Thomist ana Lutheran/Mostian view.

For the record I pretty much agree with Fr. Most.