If God knows the future

  • Thread starter Thread starter James_2_24
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
God doesn’t “know” the future,as though he were a really good fortune teller. God is the future. All is now. Without this concept, we are left with the tortured constructs and contridictions like “God ordered me to be saved but my free will accepted it.” That doesn’t sound very free to me. The Calvinist suggestion that there are winners and losers a priori, contradicts all we know from the tradition and history of Christianity. Please remember that it is “scripture” because the Church has always taught it. It is not the case that “scripture” defines the Church.
 
40.png
sandusky:
The verse says He desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth

It does not say:

God has willed to save all men, and He has willed that they come to a knowledge of the truth, and they will do so, unfailingly.

If, as you say, God has willed, or purposed, to save all men, then all men would be saved, as God’s will/purpose cannot be thwarted.
Because of his omnipotence, correct?
40.png
sandusky:
The verse in Timothy expresses God’s desire, not His purpose. He has purposed to save only those He foreknew.
The problem with this solution - that God’s desire is different than his purpose - is that it fails to account for the fact that God is perfectly righteous and omniscient.
Not all men are worthy of salvation - can we all agree on that?
  • It is inappropriate to wish that all were saved when in fact it is appropriate that not all are saved.
This is what is commonly known as an “imperfection”. In short, if in fact not all men are worthy of salvation, then it is inappropriate to wish that they would become saved. The only justification for having a wish separate from your purpose (or will) is if you were lacking information(not omniscient) or perfect righteousness.
This leads me to the conclusion that there is an element of salvation - at least for some - which is not entirely in God’s hand. This is called free will. This in no way implies that salvation is possible without God. It only refers to the possibility of rejecting the Grace offered by God, which is necessary for salvation.
Another problem I have with this separation of will and purpose is that I am unaware of Scripture making explicit statements regarding God having desires separate from his will,wishes, decrees, commandments, etc…
Phil
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
You are philosophizing. A simple reality check will show you that it is just plain foolishness to assert that non-Christians have a “total inability" to do what is right. Obviously, not EVERY non-Christian is a murdering, child molesting Satan worshipper. This is one of the main problems I have with Calvinism - it demands blind acceptance of irrational philosophical ideas that contradict the ordinary reality that sane people must dwell in.
Again, you resort to malignant histrionics. Is there nothing else you can do? You make assertion after assertion with no support.

Let’s take apart your post.
40.png
Matt16_18:
You are philosophizing.
I am philosophizing.

Let’s look at what I said:
40.png
Sandusky:
Romans 8:6-8
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Repenting and believing would be pleasing to God, but those in the flesh cannot please God (cf Rom 7:5; Jas 4:4).

In Jn 6:44, Jesus says “no one can come to me unless…”

Both of those verses speak to inability: in the flesh no one is able to please God; in the flesh, no one is able to come to Christ and believe.
That is not philosophizing.

Do you believe what Paul and Jesus say Matt16_18? Do you believe that one who is in the flesh—a non-Christian—is able to please God and come to Christ, in spite of what Paul and Jesus say?
40.png
Matt16_18:
Obviously, not EVERY non-Christian is a murdering, child molesting Satan worshipper.
I said nothing about murdering, or child molesting Satan worshippers.

Let’s look at what I said:
40.png
Matt16_18:
It is an ability on the part of man to choose what is “right,” right being, repenting of his sin and believing as God has commanded.
Nothing about murdering, child molesting Satan worshippers.

You are back to your tricks of putting words in my mouth.

If you want to continue to put forth your misunderstanding of what my position is, do so, but take the credit for yourself.
40.png
Matt16_18:
A simple reality check will show you that it is just plain foolishness to assert that non-Christians have a “total inability" to do what is right.
A simple reality check will show that your statement smacks of Pelagianism; something that I, and many, many others maintain is inherent in your theology.

Again, you do nothing but assert, and pontificate; there is no substance in what you say.
 
40.png
DJB:
The Calvinist suggestion that there are winners and losers a priori, contradicts all we know from the tradition and history of Christianity. Please remember that it is “scripture” because the Church has always taught it. It is not the case that “scripture” defines the Church.
I have always understood that to be your position.
 
40.png
sandusky:
Scripture tells us how God knows what will happen in His creation: He knows, because He as declared what will be (Is 46:10ff). That declaration is best understood, I think, in terms of a fiat declaration, in other words, an authoritative declaration of “Let it be so….” This is seen in the creation sequence—and God said Let there be…and there was…—He has determined what will come to pass, and how it will come to pass.

How did God know that Noah would be righteous, and that Noah would obey God, and build the ark, and that God would save Noah and his family and destroy the rest of mankind? It is because God declared that it would be so. How did God know that Abram would do as God directed, and that through Abram all of the nations of the earth would be blessed? It is because God declared that it would be so…

In the scenario that you present, God is made to know by observation; that reduces God from the absolute sovereign to the incidental contingent. IOW, all of His plans and purposes hinge upon the creation, and what the creature will do. That is not how God has revealed Himself.
God’s infinite knowledge of all things is within His Divine mind, and not dependent upon any observation. What God “observes”, in time, is what He already knew would happen.

Now to another point: You have brushed upon a very true concept, but have drawn a false conclusion. What is true is that the Word of God has a creative power. You and I may mistakenly say that a person who is sick is actually well. In other words, what we say may be true, or it may be false. But with God it is different: If God says that a sick person is well, the sick person becomes well, because the Word of God creates reality.

Our words may be true or they may be false, but God’s Word has a creative power that produce what is said. For example: God said “let there be light” and there was light. “Let the waters be divided, etc”, and the waters were divided. The Word of God Incarnate (Jesus Christ) held up a piece of bread and said “This is My Body”, and again, His words produced the reality.

The Word of God makes (creates, produces) reality. That is kind of what you were saying. But then you proceeded to draw a false conclusion. You claimed that, since God’s Word creates reality, therefore before God speaks He does not know what will happen. In other words, God only learns what will happen when He speaks the word!

According to what you said, God’s knowledge increased when He spoke. Is that really what you think?

Do you really think that God did not know what was going to happen until He spoke the particular word?

So was God not all knowing before He spoke? Did God’s knowledge increase over “time”. According to your reasoning it must have.
Sadusky=:
How did God know that Noah would be righteous, and that Noah would obey… because God declared that it would be so. How did God know that Abram would do as God directed… It is because God declared… it
sadusky:
Scripture tells us how God knows what will happen in His creation: He knows, because He as declared what will be (Is 46:10ff).
So, God’s knowledge is dependent upon His word, rather than His Word proceeded from His knowledge?

Let me repeat that. You are saying that God’s knowledge comes from His word, rather than His word proceeding from His knowlege.

Surely, even you can see the error in that.
 
40.png
Sandusky:
The verse says He desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth

It does not say:

God has willed to save all men, and He has willed that they come to a knowledge of the truth, and they will do so, unfailingly.

If, as you say, God has willed, or purposed, to save all men, then all men would be saved, as God’s will/purpose cannot be thwarted.
You ask:
40.png
Philthy:
Because of his omnipotence, correct?
If you are referring to the last statement, yes, and because it is God’s right to save whom He will.
40.png
Sandusky:
The verse in Timothy expresses God’s desire, not His purpose. He has purposed to save only those He foreknew.
40.png
Philthy:
The problem with this solution - that God’s desire is different than his purpose - is that it fails to account for the fact that God is perfectly righteous and omniscient.
Philthy, I am not sure what you are saying. God is righteous, and He is omniscient; what does that have to do with His saving only those He foreknew?

Are you saying that it is not right for God to do that? If that is what you are saying, Paul has dealt with that objection. Read Rom 9:6-14, with particular attention to Paul’s statement in v14. Read also Rom 9:17-21, with particular attention to vv19-21. Read also Dan 4:35. It is God’s right to do as He pleases with His creation.
40.png
Philthy:
Not all men are worthy of salvation - can we all agree on that?
I do not agree with that. Scripture clearly says that no one is worthy of salvation.
40.png
Philthy:
It is inappropriate to wish that all were saved when in fact it is appropriate that not all are saved.
Why is it inappropriate for God to wish that all were saved? Read Eze 33:11; 18:23, 32. Is it also inappropriate that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked?
40.png
Philthy:
This is what is commonly known as an “imperfection”. In short, if in fact not all men are worthy of salvation, then it is inappropriate to wish that they would become saved.
Again, Scripture says no one is worthy of salvation;
40.png
Philthy:
The only justification for having a wish separate from your purpose (or will) is if you were lacking information(not omniscient) or perfect righteousness.
I don’t know what to say to that. God is not lacking anything, and He is perfectly righteous, and wishes that all would be saved, but He has not purposed to save all, but only those whom He foreknew.
40.png
Philthy:
This leads me to the conclusion that there is an element of salvation - at least for some - which is not entirely in God’s hand. This is called free will. This in no way implies that salvation is possible without God. It only refers to the possibility of rejecting the Grace offered by God, which is necessary for salvation.
That is the Catholic position, Philthy.
40.png
Philthy:
Another problem I have with this separation of will and purpose is that I am unaware of Scripture making explicit statements regarding God having desires separate from his will, wishes, decrees, commandments, etc…
God gave Israel the commandments, and the moral law which is binding upon all men. Those are commands, that God desires all men to keep, but all men do not keep the law, in fact, Paul tells us, no one keeps the law. The law was given that we should keep it, but more importantly, it was given to show men that they are sinners (Rom 3:20; 4:20; 7:7). Further, by understanding that the law could not be kept, and that they are sinners, its other purpose was to teach men that they needed Christ (Gal 3:24).

God has declared that all men should repent, even though God grants, or appoints only some to repentance (Acts 13:48; Phil 1:29). Again, no one repents without God’s granting it, even though He has declared that all should repent.
 
40.png
USMC:
God’s infinite knowledge of all things is within His Divine mind, and not dependent upon any observation. What God “observes”, in time, is what He already knew would happen.
Yes, because He has determined what will happen.
40.png
USMC:
The Word of God makes (creates, produces) reality. That is kind of what you were saying.
That is not what I was saying, that is what I said Scripture is saying.
40.png
USMC:
But then you proceeded to draw a false conclusion. You claimed that, since God’s Word creates reality, therefore before God speaks He does not know what will happen. In other words, God only learns what will happen when He speaks the word!

According to what you said, God’s knowledge increased when He spoke. Is that really what you think?
No. God’s act of creation, and His determination of what will transpire within His creation does not change God. God is God before He creates, and God is God after He creates; He is immutable, that is the revelation of Scripture.
40.png
USMC:
Do you really think that God did not know what was going to happen until He spoke the particular word?
No.
40.png
USMC:
So was God not all knowing before He spoke? Did God’s knowledge increase over “time”. According to your reasoning it must have.
Forget what you think is my reasoning. Scripture says that God knows all things; it also says that God has determined what will happen in His creation; it also says that God is immutable, and that means that He does not change. That is not my reasoning; that is the revelation of God.
40.png
USMC:
So, God’s knowledge is dependent upon His word, rather than His Word proceeded from His knowledge?

Let me repeat that. You are saying that God’s knowledge comes from His word, rather than His word proceeding from His knowlege.

Surely, even you can see the error in that.
I have presented you with evidence from Scripture that tells how God knows what will happen in His creation: He has determined the end from the beginning, and everything in between.
 
40.png
sandusky:
What is the difference? I’ll tell you. Creating some “open to grace” merely points out your desire to be in control of the situation and make the final choice all by yourself; but you are still not in control in your scenario, because, as you state, you must be "made open to grace.” That is a contingent situation, God does not saves those He has chosen by making them “open to grace,” but by declaring that they will believe, and they do so of their own will.
if God changes the will of certain people, and declares that they will believe, then they do not do so of their own free will. There is no free will. Is that what you meant anyway? If this is so God must know who he was going to give grace to (and who he wasn’t), so the idea of free will is totally irrelevant.

I like to think I am responsible for some part of my own nature, that change is possible. But you say all men are unable to repent. Others will say man is able to repent but most choose not to. The choice in the situation is not to be saved but to repent. The state of mind/soul neccesary for this. If that is completely out of our hands then our existence is truly pointless. The ‘choice’ is meaningless, and perhaps meaningless to God since there was no free will in it.

Yeah I can’t undertand how God can be omnipotent and not predestine everything, but Calvinism makes us question whether God actually loves his creation.
 
40.png
sandusky:
I have presented you with evidence from Scripture that tells how God knows what will happen in His creation: He has determined the end from the beginning, and everything in between.
Before we continue, let me just say that the quotes you provided from the scriptures confirm nothing of what you are saying. Possibly you can “interpret” them so that they “seem” to you to agree with what you have been taught, but what you have been taught, and what you are claiming that the Bible teaches, is not what the Bible teaches. It is EXTREMELY easy to quote a few Bible verses and then proceed to “interpret” them so that they agree with what you are saying; and that is all you have done.

Question: Is God the author and cause of moral evil? I am not referring to physical evil, such as natural disasters. We both agree that God is the cause of physical evil, which He sends as a punishment for sin.

What I am asking is this: 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)?
 
40.png
USMC:
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)?
👍 Excellent question!

You are going right to the core of what is wrong with Calvinism.
 
40.png
sandusky:
Repenting and believing would be pleasing to God, but those in the flesh cannot please God … Do you believe that one who is in the flesh—a non-Christian—is able to please God and come to Christ, in spite of what Paul and Jesus say?
I believe what scriptures say, not what Calvinists say.

The scriptures that you are quoted are talk about being wholly pleasing to God. These are not scriptures that teach that fallen man is created “totally depraved”, and that as a non-Christian, man lives with the “total inability” to avoid committing EVERY sin that it is possible to commit.

The Catholic Church does indeed teach that it is impossible to be wholly pleasing to God without the aid of grace. The Catholic Church, unlike Calvinism, takes seriously this command of Christ: “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48).

The Catholic Church teaches that if Jesus commanded us to be perfect, then that must be possible for man. But she recognizes that perfection is possible only with God’s grace. It is impossible to avoid committing venial sin without the grace of God. The justified person is not able for his whole life long to avoid all sin, even venial sins, without the special privilege of the grace of God.

(De fide.)*As a Calvinist, you have claimed that even with the grace of God that it is impossible for a Christian to avoid committing all sin – which is a denial that a Christian could ever fulfill the command of Jesus to be perfect. Do you still maintain that position? “… with God all things are possible"
(Matt. 19:26)If a Calvinist cannot quit sinning, how is it possible for the Calvinist to be wholly pleasing to God?… you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness.
Romans 6:11-13
I said nothing about murdering, or child molesting Satan worshippers.
You don’t have to explicitly state non-Christians must be committing these sins, because that is implicit in the way you misinterpret Paul and the Book of Roman. You assert:
“God gave Israel the commandments, and the moral law which is binding upon all men. Those are commands, that God desires all men to keep, but all men do not keep the law, in fact, Paul tells us, no one keeps the law.”
You misinterpret Paul to assert that he teaches that it is impossible for man to keep ANY part of the moral law. Obviously the moral law of God would include the Ten Commandments, and the two great commandments of love found in the Torah. These moral commandments prohibit Satan worshipping, murder and child molesting. If the non-Christians cannot keep the moral commandments of God because of their “total depravity” or “total inability”, then they must be Satan worshipping, child molesting murders.

Scripture does not teach that it is impossible for a non-Christian to exercise his free will to avoid committing mortal sin. The Grace of Faith is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action.
(Sent. certa.)*

Even infidels can do morally good works. Thus not all works of infidels are sins. … Holy Scriptures recognizes the ability of pagans to perform morally good works …”For when the Gentiles who do not have the law, do by nature those things that are of the law …”.

(Paul does NOT teach in Romans that Gentiles are incapable of doing what is written in the law! “Total depravity” is merely a false doctrine of Calvinism.)

For the performance of a morally good action Sanctifying Grace is not required.
(De fide.)*

… St. Augustine teaches that even the life of the worst man is hardly without some good works (De spiritu et. litte. 28, 48) …

(St. Augustine never taught the Calvinist “total depravity” heresy).
  • Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
 
40.png
sandusky:
A simple reality check will show that your statement smacks of Pelagianism; something that I, and many, many others maintain is inherent in your theology.
It seems that you don’t understand what the heresy of Pelagianism is. The Catholic Church has condemned the heresy of Pelagianism.**Catechism of the Catholic Church

406** The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546).
 
40.png
cynic:
if God changes the will of certain people, and declares that they will believe, then they do not do so of their own free will. There is no free will. Is that what you meant anyway?
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.
40.png
cynic:
If this is so God must know who he was going to give grace to (and who he wasn’t), so the idea of free will is totally irrelevant.
Yes, He knows who He will save, and then He says, let there be light. Read Rom 8:29-30; Eph 1:4ff.
40.png
cynic:
I like to think I am responsible for some part of my own nature, that change is possible.
You are born with the guilt of Adam, and you are responsible for your sin thereafter. Just as you were not responsible for your physical birth, nor any of its circumstances, so too, you are not responsible for the second birth, save that you believe, and that is all within the purview of God.
40.png
cynic:
But you say all men are unable to repent.
In fact, if you re-read my post, I quoted Paul and the Lord; it is they who make the point of man’s inability.
40.png
cynic:
If that is completely out of our hands then our existence is truly pointless. The ‘choice’ is meaningless, and perhaps meaningless to God since there was no free will in it.
Again, read the account of Paul’s conversion, and subsequent proclamation of the Gospel and exposition of the truths of God. There is no meaninglessness found in Paul’s words, except that associated with those who do not believe. Your conclusion is not scriptural, you have reached it on the basis of your own thoughts.
 
40.png
USMC:
Before we continue, let me just say that the quotes you provided from the scriptures confirm nothing of what you are saying. Possibly you can “interpret” them so that they “seem” to you to agree with what you have been taught, but what you have been taught, and what you are claiming that the Bible teaches, is not what the Bible teaches. It is EXTREMELY easy to quote a few Bible verses and then proceed to “interpret” them so that they agree with what you are saying; and that is all you have done.
Indeed. Well, you have taken away the only argument that I care to make. If I cannot persuade you on the strength of the living word of the living God, then you will certainly not be persuaded by the weakness, of my wit, charm and intellect, so I’ll consider that this conversation as come to an end.
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
It seems that you don’t understand what the heresy of Pelagianism is.
While it is true that Pelagian rejected the doctrine of original sin, the basic thrust of his thinking is that God holds man responsible only for those things that man is able to do. Since God warns us to do good, therefore, we must have the ability to do the good that God commands.

That is what you are articulating.

But the idea that you and Pelagian put forth is contrary to the testimony of Scripture, which affirms both that we “were dead through the trespasses and sins” in which we once walked (Eph 2:1), and thus unable to do any spiritual good, and also that we are guilty before God in spite of our spiritual deadness and inability.
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
These are not scriptures that teach that fallen man is created “totally depraved”, and that as a non-Christian, man lives with the “total inability” to avoid committing EVERY sin that it is possible to commit.
Matt16_18, as I have pointed out to you, here and on another thread, as have others, that total depravity/inability is confined to the ability to turn to God without God’s help. As I and others have stated before, it does not mean that men are incapable of performing morally good acts, and acts of extreme kindness and heroism.

So your point, is pointless. You persist in misrepresenting total depravity/inability.
40.png
Matt16_18:
The Catholic Church teaches that if Jesus commanded us to be perfect, then that must be possible for man. But she recognizes that perfection is possible only with God’s grace. It is impossible to avoid committing venial sin without the grace of God.
The justified person is not able for his whole life long to avoid all sin, even venial sins, without the special privilege of the grace of God.

(De fide.)*
As a Calvinist, you have claimed that even with the grace of God that it is impossible for a Christian to avoid committing all sin – which is a denial that a Christian could ever fulfill the command of Jesus to be perfect. Do you still maintain that position?
“… with God all things are possible"
(Matt. 19:26)
If a Calvinist cannot quit sinning, how is it possible for the Calvinist to be wholly pleasing to God?
… you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness.
Romans 6:11-13
You are doing your best to make an issue out of a non-issue. The believer will sin, as is acknowledged by the RCC and her continuation of the confessional, and is acknowledged by the Calvinist, by his confession of sin.

A non-issue.
40.png
Matt16_18:
You don’t have to explicitly state non-Christians must be committing these sins, because that is implicit in the way you misinterpret Paul and the Book of Roman.
No, it is found in the way you misrepresent what I say by adding to what I say. I have pointed that out to you, and you yet you persist in adding to what I said.
40.png
Matt16_18:
You misinterpret Paul to assert that he teaches that it is impossible for man to keep ANY part of the moral law. Obviously the moral law of God would include the Ten Commandments, and the two great commandments of love found in the Torah. These moral commandments prohibit Satan worshipping, murder and child molesting. If the non-Christians cannot keep the moral commandments of God because of their “total depravity” or “total inability”, then they must be Satan worshipping, child molesting murders.
Again, you exaggerate what I say. I said no man keeps the Law. As stated in the first point of this post, unregenerate men do morally good acts. I told you that in other posts, and yet you persist in ignoring what I have told you.
 
40.png
sandusky:
While it is true that Pelagian rejected the doctrine of original sin, the basic thrust of his thinking is that God holds man responsible only for those things that man is able to do. Since God warns us to do good, therefore, we must have the ability to do the good that God commands.
Pelagius taught that we could be wholly pleasing to God out of our own effort alone. He taught that all we had to do was put our nose to the grindstone and follow the example of Jesus. That is what Augustine objected to - that fallen man could manifest supernatural acts of heroic charity without first becoming partakers in the supernatural life of God.
But the idea that you and Pelagian put forth …
I have NEVER put forth the idea that we can be wholly pleasing to God apart from grace. The Catholic Church condemns the heresy of Pelagianism! :rolleyes:
Scripture, which affirms both that we “were dead through the trespasses and sins” in which we once walked (Eph 2:1), and thus unable to do any **spiritual good ** …
Define what you mean by “spiritual good” in light of your Calvinist “total depravity” doctrine. You have been maintaining that a man not living in a state of sanctifying grace is incapable of avoiding mortal sin, and you are dead wrong about that.

A man that is not in a state of sanctifying grace is incapable of manifesting supernatural acts of charity because he has no supernatural life abiding within. That truth does not imply that a man that is not living in a state of sanctifying grace must be a totally depraved monster who has the “total inability” to avoid acts of murder, rape and Satan worshipping.
 
James_2:24:
if he knows all the future, and knows many creatures will choose against Him and thus be damned for all eternity… why would he create such creatures?
*“We confess a predestination of the elect to life, and a predestination of the wicked to death; that, in the election of those who are saved, the mercy of God precedes anything we do, and in the condemnation of those who will perish, evil merit precedes the righteous judgment of God.” Council of Valence, *855
 
40.png
sandusky:
I said no man keeps the Law. As stated in the first point of this post, unregenerate men do morally good acts.
You contradict yourself. You say that NO man keeps the law on the one hand, then on the other hand that that unregenerate men do, in fact, keep the law, since unregenerate men can choose to avoid committing the sin of murder.

You contradict yourself when you claim that the unregenerate man is capable of doing “morally good acts, and acts of extreme kindness and heroism” and yet at the same time it is impossible for him to do anything that is “spiritually good”.
You are doing your best to make an issue out of a non-issue. The believer will sin, as is acknowledged by the RCC and her continuation of the confessional, and is acknowledged by the Calvinist, by his confession of sin.
This is not an “non-issue”. The RCC teaches that because we have free will, that we can sin after we become Christians. She does not teach that it is IMPOSSBLE for men to avoid sinning. You have said that the Calvinists believe that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Christian avoid sinning. These are two entirely contradictory positions.
I have pointed out to you, here and on another thread, as have others, that total depravity/inability is confined to the ability to turn to God without God’s help
Why do Calvinists say that non-Christians are totally depraved when they don’t believe non-Christians are totally depraved?
 
COUNCIL OF TRENT ON JUSTIFICATION

CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top