I'm Debating A Calvinist

[porthos11]

He means that if you are going to debate a Protestant who will reject anything other than Scriptural “evidence”, then you need to know and understand Scripture VERY WELL because they will reject any support from non-Scriptural sources.

So, to the claim that, for example, the verses provided in this very thread suggest that man does not have free will…you have to know Scripture and see the logical falacy used to come to the Calvinsit conclusion. The Calvinist hangs his hat on Romans 9 concluding that, because it speaks of predestination and reprobation, therefore man has no free will. The false conclusion comes from an erronous link between “a” (there is predestination/reporobation) and “b” (man has no free will). Because “a” is true, then “b” must be true, says the Calvinist. However, he has failed to recognize that “b” is not necessarily a logical conclusion to the fact of “a”. And if he had studied a little deeper and read Romans within the context of the Gospels (instead of vice cersa), he could see clearly that “b” is NOT true, regardless of “a”…and he’d know that Scripture is explicit in this…for example Luke 7:30…“30 But by refusing to be baptized by him, the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves.” The logical conclusion then becomes, “a” is true, yet “b” is false. Scripture shows us that man DOES have free will, and Romans 9 does not contradict this, especially when read in the context of the Gospels.

Exactly. Romans 9 clearly teaches that there is predestination and reprobation, and it’s both futile and foolish for the Catholic to deny this because this is what the Catholic Church teaches.

The folly of the Calvinist though is to read this in isolation from the rest of Scripture and conclude that man therefore has no free will and therefore God predestines some to hell without account of any of their foreseen demerits. But in fact, the truth is:

1. God predestines some to glory, and some to damnation (Romans 9).
2. Man, however has free will (cf. Matthew 25, Luke 7:30; Deut. 30:19).
3. God desires the salvation of all (cf. 1 Tim 2:4).

All these three must work together to come up with a true theology. The Calvinist position is correct only on the first position but fails on Scriptural grounds on the second and third.

 

[SlimNm]

" God predestines some to glory, and some to damnation"

Unless I don’t know what predestine means in this context, this implies that free will is irrelevant to whether or not you get to heaven… since some already ‘doomed’ or ‘predestined’ to hell.

In which case I will drop the Catholic religion.

 

[porthos11]

" God predestines some to glory, and some to damnation"

Unless I don’t know what predestine means in this context, this implies that free will is irrelevant to whether or not you get to heaven… since some already ‘doomed’ or ‘predestined’ to hell.

In which case I will drop the Catholic religion.

That’s the Calvinist approach and is absolutely wrong. You only quoted my first point but disregarded the last two, just like the Calvinists, hence your panic.

God does predestine some to glory and some to damnation, but always with account of man’s free will. Study the Catholic teaching and you’ll see how reasonable it is and does not violate man’s free will.

Now to summarize and put your mind at ease, this is the Church’s position on predestination and reprobation in a nutshell.

A. Positive unconditioned predestination: God predestines certain people to glory for no other reason than his pleasure and will without consideration of this person’s foreseen merits. He then bestows grace on these elect which he knows in his omiscience they will respond to in order to attain salvation. Acceptable both in Calvinism and Catholicism. This is the Thomist position.
B. Conditioned predestination. God foresees how each person will use his free will to respond to his grace. Those he sees will freely respond to his grace he predestines to heaven and those he sees will freely reject his grace he predestines to hell. This is the Molinist position. It differs from the Thomist position (which emphasizes grace). This is not taught by Calvinism and is also acceptable in Catholicism (the Holy See prohibited the Thomists and Molinists from accusing each other of heresy).

C. Positive unconditioned reprobation (a.k.a double-predestination). That God predestines certain people to hell without consideration of their future demerits. This is held by Calvinism and is absolutely condemned by the Catholic church as heretical because it contradicts the divine desire for universal salvation (1 Tim 2:4) and denies man’s free will and God’s justice.
D. Positive conditioned reprobation. That God sees who will freely reject his grace and predestines those to hell (counterpart to the Molinist view of predestination). This is the Catholic teaching and accounts for free will.

 

[porthos11]

In which case I will drop the Catholic religion.

I probably should also comment on this remark. If you’re going to be so quick to “drop the Catholic religion” over a little apparent snag, do you think it’s spiritually healthy for you to participate in those debates you’re involved in?

I don’t mean this in an unkind manner but you don’t appear prepared for debating. You should probably spend more time studying first and gaining confidence in your own faith before exposing yourself to debaters.

 

[ahs]

…I don’t mean this in an unkind manner but you don’t appear prepared for debating. You should probably spend more time studying first and gaining confidence in your own faith before exposing yourself to debaters.

Yes! OP, before jumping into a debate, take time to really research the topic AND find some material that expresses the view of the opposition AND that shows the defensable refutations of the opposition’s view.
The quote I’m about to give you needs to be taken with salt in that no person you would eagerly debate should be your enemy, but your “neighbor” or “brother”…as we are all brothers in Christ…but the old saying goes very well when preparing to debate or discuss a hot topic…“know your enemy”. But more than that…“know yourself”.

 

[SlimNm]

That’s the Calvinist approach and is absolutely wrong. You only quoted my first point but disregarded the last two, just like the Calvinists, hence your panic.

God does predestine some to glory and some to damnation, but always with account of man’s free will. Study the Catholic teaching and you’ll see how reasonable it is and does not violate man’s free will.

Now to summarize and put your mind at ease, this is the Church’s position on predestination and reprobation in a nutshell.

A. Positive unconditioned predestination: God predestines certain people to glory for no other reason than his pleasure and will without consideration of this person’s foreseen merits. He then bestows grace on these elect which he knows in his omiscience they will respond to in order to attain salvation. Acceptable both in Calvinism and Catholicism. This is the Thomist position.
B. Conditioned predestination. God foresees how each person will use his free will to respond to his grace. Those he sees will freely respond to his grace he predestines to heaven and those he sees will freely reject his grace he predestines to hell. This is the Molinist position. It differs from the Thomist position (which emphasizes grace). This is not taught by Calvinism and is also acceptable in Catholicism (the Holy See prohibited the Thomists and Molinists from accusing each other of heresy).

C. Positive unconditioned reprobation (a.k.a double-predestination). That God predestines certain people to hell without consideration of their future demerits. This is held by Calvinism and is absolutely condemned by the Catholic church as heretical because it contradicts the divine desire for universal salvation (1 Tim 2:4) and denies man’s free will and God’s justice.
D. Positive conditioned reprobation. That God sees who will freely reject his grace and predestines those to hell (counterpart to the Molinist view of predestination). This is the Catholic teaching and accounts for free will.

Predestination seems redundant.

 

[PJM]

=SlimNm;10275033]And again, I’m totally at a lost and come to you for help

debate.org/debates/The-Bible-Teaches-Predestination-And-Salvation-By-Faith-Alone

Well, it sure looks like the Bible says we don’t have free will and good people are made to go to heaven and bad people are made to go to hell…

At best, this is an “end-result” seeking a foundation. They found one but its quicksand.

Predestination is a moral and a theological impossibility.

First it denies God being “All Good.”

God did not “have to Create” anything. Not the Universe and certainly not man.

He did so because He God of Good things

From the Creation of Adam and Eve; and placing them in a Perfect world

When Adam and Eve Sined God Could have said “I’ve had it with man” End of story; but did not.Because of His Goodness.

To Noah and the Ark. God did not “have to” save Noah and his family; but did

God did not have to release the Chosen people from salvery in Egypt but did

God did not have to water, feed [Manna amd Quail], and protect them; but He did

God Did not have to forgive Davis but did

and on and on, and on with Mercy and with Love

God did not "have to become Incarnate; endure His Passion; Die on the Cross and then Rise from the Dead so we could conditioanally merit our salvation: BUT HE DID!

God did NOT have to Create man in His Image: **Gen. 1;26-27 **BUT CHOOSE TO and DID

Only humanity among the BILLIONS of Created things in the Univerise can rationalize; Love and hate. Only mn can know of God and then KNOW God.

Man alone has a mind;intellect; AND A **FREEWILL **attached to our Souls. Like God these are Spiritual and Eternal things.

BECAUSE God Did create man in His Image; God absoutely MUST permit man to use these gifts as He intended.

**700 years B4 the Birth of Christ Isaiah said this **Isa.43 Verses 7 and 21: “every one who is called by my name, **whom I created for my glory, **whom I formed and made." AND the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise.” [Our Choice!

**God would have to Deny Himself; disguard His Perfect Nature and be anything But “good” if He were to choose who went to hell and who gets heaven. REDICILOUS and Impossible.

Pauls use of the term means ONLY: “foreknowlege of”; NOT the cause of. Knowing something and causing it are as seperated as the East frm the West.

Further man would then be denied the use of the very gifts God gave us so that WE; not Him WOULD and COULD choose for ourselves.

Get off the Quicksand and don’t get sucked into this illogical; impossible and cruel joke.

God Bless,
pat/PJM

 

[porthos11]

Predestination seems redundant.

I’m not normally in the habit of giving reading assignments but if we’re not explaining it clearly, then here is the whole section from Ludwig Ott’s classic Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. I hope he can explain it better than I can.

socrates58.blogspot.ca/2006/11/catholic-predestination-ludwig-ott.html

 

[porthos11]

At best, this “end-result” seeking a foundation. They found one but its quicksand.

Predestination is a moral and a theological impossibility.

The Catholic Church disagrees. Predestination and reprobation are Catholic teaching.

 

[PJM]

=porthos11;10284353]The Catholic Church disagrees. Predestination and reprobation are Catholic teaching.

ONLY in the Sense of Knowing before hand; NOT cause or pre-judgment.

Read Thomas on this issue.

From our Catholic catechism:

600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”,** he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace**: “In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.

 

[porthos11]

ONLY in the Sense of Knowing before hand; NOT cause or pre-judgment.

Not necessarily. Where predestination to glory is concerned, we are permitted to agree with the Thomist position that God has identified certain people to glory without consideration of their foreseen merits and God knows exactly what graces to bestow on them that they would freely respond and obtain supernatural merit and therefore heaven. This is predestination ante praevisa merita, or unconditional election to glory.

Mere foresight on God’s part without him exercising his infallible will is deism and denies God’s sovereignty. To come to a correct understanding of predestination we must accept that God foresees, elects, and ensures the salvation of the elect while all the time accounting for man’s free will. According to Thomist thought, God actually directly causes the salvation of the elect.

Even with the Thomist emphasis on grace, free will plays an essential part, and this is enforced by the Catechism. The Catechism doesn’t phrase itself according to a strictly Thomist or Molinist point of view but is sufficiently general to be explained with either school of thought.

The key thing that sets us apart from the Calvinists is the truth of man’s free will. Predestination itself should not be an issue because it is part of both Calvinist and Catholic teaching. Debating a Calvinist on predestination itself is futile because it is a concept held by us in common.

 

[IesuMariaIoseph]

The Catholic position can best be summed up with this metaphor.

Imagine you are in the middle of a vast ocean and that there is no person or object around to help you and that the more you do to try and save yourself (swimming, trying to float…) the faster you sink. All of a sudden a rope falls from heaven and evens goes so far as to put itself in your hand. All you have to do is grab hold and not let go while you are pulled to safety.

The ocean is the current human condition.
Our attempts to not drown leading to our demise stem from the human condition. Which is that since we are so inclined to sin as St. Augustine tells us we are, we can do nothing good without being in synergy with God. The person however maintains the ability to choose where his will shall be aligned. Will he trust only in himself for salvation or in God?
The rope is the mercy of God which he offers us and which we must choose to accept. On a practical level this means doing the will of God and not our own.
So the act of choosing to believe or our conversion is the first time we do his will and not ours. True we choose to convert but he wanted us to therefore we do his will even in exercising free will. We choose to accept God or not. Our growth in faith is due to continued doing of the Lord’s will (holding on to the rope).

 

[cap76]

Debating a Calvinist on predestination itself is futile because it is a concept held by us in common.

Almost. There is a significant departure at the point of God’s role and mans.

The RCC teaches that God does not exercise ultimate control over the eternal destiny of any man and therefore man determines his own fate.
Calvinists teach that God, does exercise His omnipotent and sovereign rule over all of His Creation without exception, and thereby actively and deliberately leads men to their destinies whether to Heaven or Hell. God, had predetermined men’s eternal destinies before Creation. Therefore, in Calvinistic theology, salvation is all of God’s mercy and absolutely nothing of men.
Hence the appeals to Romans 9 especially verses 15-16, “For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.”

So the issue for debate does exist.

 

[Theojunkie]

As a former zealous Calvinist, I can tell you that Calvinists do not reject “free will”.

Calvinists believe that we make real choices according to our desires. In that sense, the will is indeed free, because we never are forced by God to make a choice contrary to our desires. We indeed always choose what we want most, in any given situation.

Now… While I don’t know of (and don’t have the time to find) anything supporting it in the CCC, I would bet that the CC affirms that we “are never forced to make a choice contrary to our desires”, and “we always choose what we want most, in any given situation.”

Some (and I think not all) Catholics-- like some protestant schools (Arminianism, Weslyanism), would argue that the will is not free unless one is free to “choose what they do not want”. To me, this is nonsense, but it is a widely held definition of free will.

My point though, is that the difference between Calvinism and Catholicism does not hinge on free will. For that matter, Catholics do not differ – at least not with mainstream Calvinists-- on the question of predestination (which all Calvinists believe is unmerited and most believe applies only to the elect and heaven) or reprobation (which most Calvinists believe is merited by sin). Neither do Calvinists disagree that Christ’s work is sufficient for all… and Catholics do not disagree that Christ’s work is only “actually finally effective” in saving those who believe till the end.

There are largely only two key differences between Catholic and Calvinist thought (insofar as the economy of salvation and gospel is concerned):

1. Whether God’s grace is efficacious in all cases to bring anyone who is graced all the way through to glory-- i.e., can a true believer ever walk finally away from God unto damnation (or rather, will God ever let him do so).
2. Whether God elects those he first knows (/sees/foresees) as having faith to the end, or if he elects persons without regard to (i.e., logically “before”) consideration of any foreseen faith.

 

[Theojunkie]

Almost. There is a significant departure at the point of God’s role and mans.

The RCC teaches that God does not exercise ultimate control over the eternal destiny of any man and therefore man determines his own fate.

Yet not quite. This is true for any who go to hell. But for those who go to heaven in the end, the CCC states that man cannot move toward God unless God first graces him, and man cannot continue to get closer to God or remain with God unless God continues to grace him.

Calvinists teach that God, does exercise His omnipotent and sovereign rule over all of His Creation without exception, and thereby actively and deliberately leads men to their destinies whether to Heaven or Hell.

Mainstream Calvinists only believe in positive election to heaven. The reprobate earn their own damnation by their sin.

God, had predetermined men’s eternal destinies before Creation. Therefore, in Calvinistic theology, salvation is all of God’s mercy and absolutely nothing of men.
Hence the appeals to Romans 9 especially verses 15-16, “For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.”

So the issue for debate does exist.

That much is true-- but again, the focus is on God saving people… He actively saves based on no merit found in man… and he only passively condemns (i.e., does not condemn any but sinners who are seen to not believe).

You may still disagree, but if the goal is to argue against Calvinists, then it is important to get the finesse points of their doctrine right. (Even to the individual level-- some do believe in double predestination, but not all, and not most…)

 

[cap76]

As a former zealous Calvinist, I can tell you that Calvinists do not reject “free will”.

Calvinists believe that we make real choices according to our desires. In that sense, the will is indeed free, because we never are forced by God to make a choice contrary to our desires. We indeed always choose what we want most, in any given situation.

Now… While I don’t know of (and don’t have the time to find) anything supporting it in the CCC, I would bet that the CC affirms that we “are never forced to make a choice contrary to our desires”, and “we always choose what we want most, in any given situation.”

Some (and I think not all) Catholics-- like some protestant schools (Arminianism, Weslyanism), would argue that the will is not free unless one is free to “choose what they do not want”. To me, this is nonsense, but it is a widely held definition of free will.

My point though, is that the difference between Calvinism and Catholicism does not hinge on free will. For that matter, Catholics do not differ – at least not with mainstream Calvinists-- on the question of predestination (which all Calvinists believe is unmerited and most believe applies only to the elect and heaven) or reprobation (which most Calvinists believe is merited by sin). Neither do Calvinists disagree that Christ’s work is sufficient for all… and Catholics do not disagree that Christ’s work is only “actually finally effective” in saving those who believe till the end.

There are largely only two key differences between Catholic and Calvinist thought (insofar as the economy of salvation and gospel is concerned):

1. Whether God’s grace is efficacious in all cases to bring anyone who is graced all the way through to glory-- i.e., can a true believer ever walk finally away from God unto damnation (or rather, will God ever let him do so).
2. Whether God elects those he first knows (/sees/foresees) as having faith to the end, or if he elects persons without regard to (i.e., logically “before”) consideration of any foreseen faith.

Yes. You make an important point. Though Calvinists believe that God determined from the beginning our every thought and action, they also believe that God designed each of us to think and act as freely as our God-given wants and desires motivate us to.

 

[cap76]

if the goal is to argue against Calvinists, then it is important to get the finesse points of their doctrine right. (Even to the individual level-- some do believe in double predestination, but not all, and not most…)

You’re right. Not all Calvinists hold to John Calvin’s 5 points:

1. Total depravity
2. Unconditional election
3. Limited atonement or Particlar redemption, (Many Calvinists take exception with this point: that Jesus died only for those people to which redemption would be applied)
4. Irresistible grace
5. Perseverance (or preservation) of the saints (people of God)

 

[SlimNm]

Can someone define predestination for me without a wall of text?

This idea of ‘the elect’ doesn’t seem fair or just. I thought all people were elected to go to heaven, on the condition that we choose to.

A lot of these posts seem contradictory, and some people seem to be contradicting themselves in their own posts.

If people have free will to choose heaven or hell, then any predestination is superficial.

 

[Theojunkie]

You’re right. Not all Calvinists hold to John Calvin’s 5 points:

1. Total depravity
2. Unconditional election
3. Limited atonement or Particlar redemption, (Many Calvinists take exception with this point: that Jesus died only for those people to which redemption would be applied)
4. Irresistible grace
5. Perseverance (or preservation) of the saints (people of God)

Cap, the 5 points do not demand double predestination. I was a five pointer, and held to single predestination (i.e., that God chooses those he will save, and simply passes over the rest, leaving them to their own devices in sin). You see, if man’s natural born state (i.e., before any grace is bestowed to change it) is marked by radical corruption in sin to the point that natural man cares nothing for God…

… then God need not do anything, but natural man will carry himself to hell. God’s only activity (choosing, predestinating, gracing, preserving) need be oriented toward saving people.

Note: if everyone on the planet for all of history were saved in the end, the Calvinist would be perfectly happy, as that scenario fits perfectly with Calvinist doctrine. The only thing that makes this all concerning is that the Bible says that some are not saved. So the question is, why are some saved but not others.

 

[Theojunkie]

Slim, predestination is simply “pre” (before) “destination” (declaring destiny).

So, it is God declaring a person’s destiny (final eternal state with respect to Him) as final and ultimate, before it has actually happened.