S
SlimNm
Guest
ohhhhhhhhhh
ty
- Status
ty
P
pablope
Guest
Thanks for your explanations.
Have you heard of David Anders and his story of conversion…calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/how-john-calvin-made-me-a-catholic/
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut Theo; good to have the point of view from one with a Calvinist background.
To add to this answer, for those unconditionally elected, God will also ensure that it happens such that the elect will freely choose salvation.
That’s good to know, but if you look at some of the more recent threads, there are Calvinist posters who have at least implicitly tried to deny free will from their reading of Romans 9.
On the differences, I can tell that:
- This is pretty much like the Thomist view. God will never force salvation against a person’s free will, but he also knows how a person will freely respond to each particular grace he bestows, and therefore bestows those graces to ensure he freely chooses salvation. Catholic teaching is that if God elects a person to salvation, he will see that decree through.
- The first subpart is pretty much Molinism, the second Thomism. Both are acceptable to Catholics.
B
bogeydogg
Guest
I think it would helpful to see this entire discussion in light of the Cross, a light through which all discussions of grace and sovereignty should be seen by the way.
Jesus dies for the sins of all men reprobate and elect alike. This is redemption. That redemption is the purchasing of the debt of all men before the Holy Law of God. This redemption makes possible the salvation of many and assures the salvation of all the elect. However where the Calvinist errs is he takes this truth and declares that redemption IS salvation. And therefore any and all for whom Christ died are saved and therefore Christ has not died for all and so the reprobate are damned no matter what because Christ has not died for them.
However this error is easily set aside by example given earlier in this thread where the Bible flatly declares God has willed the salvation of all and therefore the Cross is for all.
However those reject the Cross become guilty not only of their own sins but also of rejecting the One who died for them and so their latter condition is worse than their prior condition. The Cross makes the reprobate more guilty before God not less, and the reprobate who freely chooses to reject Christ’s mercy and His graces toward us has further hardened himself and so, like Pharaoh, has sealed himself in his heart against the mercy of God.
Does God harden such a one as this? Of course He does because we are enemies of God apart from His grace and those who continue in that enmity in light of His grace will find God’s mercy a poisoned cup that only hardens them more and more against the Day of His Glory.
But God has not willed this hardness, rather the heart that is too proud to kneel and repent before God has done this to itself and God, being holy, does stand in judgement against such a one as this.
What else can He do?
But Ezekiel tells us that God takes no pleasure when the wicked perish and so we must always call to our lost or separated brothers to come to fount of water without price and be at peace with God apart form our pride and desire to exalt ourselves. Because those who do so, God has promised to lift up above the angels and seat them with Christ.
Jesus dies for the sins of all men reprobate and elect alike. This is redemption. That redemption is the purchasing of the debt of all men before the Holy Law of God. This redemption makes possible the salvation of many and assures the salvation of all the elect. However where the Calvinist errs is he takes this truth and declares that redemption IS salvation. And therefore any and all for whom Christ died are saved and therefore Christ has not died for all and so the reprobate are damned no matter what because Christ has not died for them.
However this error is easily set aside by example given earlier in this thread where the Bible flatly declares God has willed the salvation of all and therefore the Cross is for all.
However those reject the Cross become guilty not only of their own sins but also of rejecting the One who died for them and so their latter condition is worse than their prior condition. The Cross makes the reprobate more guilty before God not less, and the reprobate who freely chooses to reject Christ’s mercy and His graces toward us has further hardened himself and so, like Pharaoh, has sealed himself in his heart against the mercy of God.
Does God harden such a one as this? Of course He does because we are enemies of God apart from His grace and those who continue in that enmity in light of His grace will find God’s mercy a poisoned cup that only hardens them more and more against the Day of His Glory.
But God has not willed this hardness, rather the heart that is too proud to kneel and repent before God has done this to itself and God, being holy, does stand in judgement against such a one as this.
What else can He do?
But Ezekiel tells us that God takes no pleasure when the wicked perish and so we must always call to our lost or separated brothers to come to fount of water without price and be at peace with God apart form our pride and desire to exalt ourselves. Because those who do so, God has promised to lift up above the angels and seat them with Christ.
But to be honest, though, aren’t there Calvinists who hold on to double predestination as well?
B
Brony4life
Guest
Great stuff; well done porthos.
Although I must point one thing out. I think it would be better to say that God knows who will go to heaven and who will go to hell, rather than “he predestines them.” The term “predestination” is often times taken as meaning that the person has no control over where they go; which is not Catholic teaching and never has been. But I think you made the Church’s teaching very clear and you explained it in a way that was easily understood. I am just thinking that the word “predestination” is not a good word, because people take that to mean that God sets up people for failure
Well, the Church uses it so we do as well. You bring up a good point and this is one thing we should be aware of before arguing with Calvinists. Predestination and reprobation, as concepts are Catholic teaching. That’s why Catholics, before arguing should realize this. If Catholics enter a debate before even realizing this, they have already lost.
It’s the nitty-gritty of predestination and reprobation that gets messy. Your argument is probably well suited for reprobation, in that God knows in advance who is going to hell and he simply does not provide any further graces. However, he never ordained that those people would go to hell and their own damnation was due to their free choice to reject his grace. In that, we can say that God “predestined” them to go to hell, but always in light of their foreseen demerits. This is the Catholic view of reprobation.
However, it is indeed permitted to hold that God predestines certain people to heaven and we can indeed believe that God does predestine them but not without accounting for their free will. Again you can hold the Thomist (which emphasizes grace and is similar to the Calvinist view) or Molinist view (which emphasizes free will). If you hold the Thomist view, then we can believe that God, for no other reason that his own will, elects certain people to glory and knowing how they will freely respond to his grace, gives them those graces to ensure that his decree of election is fulfilled. In the Thomist view, God does not even account for their future merits. Basically, he says, “I decree that Brony will go to heaven, no matter what.” He then uses his omniscience to see how Brony will respond to the graces he gives and gives Brony those graces he knows will respond to to attain salvation.
In short, we are permitted to hold that God can unconditionally elect or predestine to blessedness, but we are not permitted to hold that God unconditionally predestines to damnation. In other words, God does not say, “I decree that Brony will go to hell no matter what.”
He can however probably say (and I use “he” here as a generic pronoun), “I see that Brony will not respond to the graces I will give him, even through they would have been sufficient for his salvation. I therefore decree that Brony will go to hell.” This is conditioned reprobation and is compatible with Catholic thought.
Also, this shows that predestination and reprobation is one of the most difficult theological mysteries. We know they are truths because Scripture tells us, but we also know that free will and God’s desire for universal salvation are also true. That’s why theologians such as Aquinas, de Molina, Arminius and Calvin have tried to reconcile these and even in Catholic circles, the Church has not defined exactly how God predestines both to heaven and hell, but only that he does. The Church has simply stated which schools of thought we are permitted to hold (Thomism and Molinism are distinct from each other and permitted. Calvinism has similarities to Thomism but where it holds to double predestination and denies free will, it’s out).
B
Brony4life
Guest
From my point of view, double predestination is evil and I refuse to believe it. It essentially says that people go to hell, ultimately, through no fault of their own. This is incompatible with an all-loving, all-just God. I violently reject double predestination; such a thing would be terribly and viciously cruel.
God knows where we are going. This is truth, and we should never run from the truth or fear the truth. But God gave us free will, which in and of itself is very good. Jesus told St. Faustina that He condemns no one; people condemn themselves by refusing God’s grace. Here are some scripture passages to help clear up the issue
James 1:13-14; Sirach 15:11-20; 1 Cor 10:13, 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; Matt 23:37; Ezek 18:23-32; 33:11
It is. This is why the Church cannot hold on to double predestination because it denies the justice and holiness of God, as well as the Scriptural axiom that God desires the salvation of every person.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Molinists say that God predestines because He has perfect foreknowledge of the free will choices that people will make.
Thomists don’t agree with that because they think that means that God is not entirely sovereign because His predestination is caused by the choices of man before He predestines.
What I’ve always wondered is this: God being infinitely knowledgeable is able to do more than one thing at once:
That being the case wouldn’t it be possible for God to BOTH predestine and FOREKNOW at exactly the same time?
If that is indeed true then the Molinists and the Thomists are BOTH right.
Is that possible? Could God have both middle knowledge and predestine at exactly the same time with neither being dependent on the other?
Some say that God is pure act and outside of time. If that is true then couldn’t He predestine and with middle knowledge foreknow at the same time?
I think the real answer is that the Molinists and the Thomists are both right.
I think that Father Most’s view of the issue is close to the truth and of course St. Alphonsus Liguori’s view that prayer is always needed.
Thomists don’t agree with that because they think that means that God is not entirely sovereign because His predestination is caused by the choices of man before He predestines.
What I’ve always wondered is this: God being infinitely knowledgeable is able to do more than one thing at once:
That being the case wouldn’t it be possible for God to BOTH predestine and FOREKNOW at exactly the same time?
If that is indeed true then the Molinists and the Thomists are BOTH right.
Is that possible? Could God have both middle knowledge and predestine at exactly the same time with neither being dependent on the other?
Some say that God is pure act and outside of time. If that is true then couldn’t He predestine and with middle knowledge foreknow at the same time?
I think the real answer is that the Molinists and the Thomists are both right.
I think that Father Most’s view of the issue is close to the truth and of course St. Alphonsus Liguori’s view that prayer is always needed.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Amen!
To add, in order to argue with a well read Calvinist you need to be well versed with Augustine, Aquinas at the least. Also, while painful to read - you need to read Calvin’s Institutes and see what he actually wrote. It has been a long time since I read it and I don’t think I’ll read it again, lol.
God Bless
B
bogeydogg
Guest
I think we must remember that the God who knows and foreordains all things is the same God who foreordains that men will be free and has perfect knowledge of all their decisions. To that end God need not violate man’s will nor need He base election on man’s decision in order to effect the salvation of all the elect.
Augustine argued that a man will do that toward which his heart has placed its affections. In fact this predisposition is so powerful that a man cannot do what he will not do. Paul says we are born enemies of God and pursue only the lusts of this world and the pleasures therein. Therefore a God who knows us perfectly need not violate our ability to choose Him in order to save us. He needs only to change the disposition of our hearts. Or as Augustine would say it, he would change our affections from being bent inward on our self consuming lusts to being outward toward God and our fellow man. He would change our affections and so also our will.
Which of course is exactly what Scripture says God does in that He gives us a new nature and new hearts capable of seeing and entering into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Therefore with this new nature our ability to choose has not been altered in the least but that toward which our affections tend has been changed and so our hearts desire God because of His working in us. So a man may truly say that he has heard the call of God and come to the Sacraments to receive the Graces unto eternal life, and at the same time confess that he has done nothing of himself and only that which God has worked in him.
This same God who has foreordained this choosing and election has also ordained the means of that salvation; those being prayer, the Sacraments, the intercession of the priests before the altar, evangelism, missions, charity, etc. All of these means are God’s way of using jars of clay to pour priceless treasure out onto the whole world and so it is our response to grace and responsibility in light of that grace to spread this Gospel to our brethren and teach them the truths of God’s mercy wherever we go.
God Bless
C
cap76
Guest
Yes, but Theojunkie is right. They are a minority among Calvinists. However, such Calvinists would argue that, to say God had ‘merely’ set the parameters which would lead reprobates to Hell ie, given them a sinful nature, hardened their hearts, blinded their eyes, etc… then you might as well admit that God had predestined it.
T
Theojunkie
Guest
I have heard of it, but I haven’t read it. Thanks for the link.
T
Theojunkie
Guest
My experience has been that people in debate/argument tend to over emphasize their point, just to make the point. This is true for many Calvinists, but I have seen the same from “free willers” as well.
There are some “Calvinists” who actually think we are happy puppets. BUT, I think that even Calvin would disagree with them. Anyone who thinks that God puppets our every move outside of our will (or, that he puppets our every willful thought), has moved beyond Calvinism into hyper-Calvinism (which isn’t Calvinism).
Real Calvinists will deny libertarian free will (i.e., the idea that one is able to choose something that one does not desire at all)… and this is the view of free will typically held by “free willers”. But real Calvinists-- except as noted in the zeal to make a point-- will affirm that nobody is forced to make a choice they do not want to make. No one is dragged kicking and screaming into heaven-- or hell for that matter.
T
Theojunkie
Guest
Port, well put. And this is why I came back to the CC… I realized that what I had always held as Calvinism/Reformed theology in this area was in fact Thomism – and since the CC likes Thomas, the only thing I needed to wrap my head around again was the priesthood, communion of the saints (including understanding the CC view of Mary)… and after that, I figured, what should keep me away.
You are right that some Calvinists hold to double active predestination. I never did. And honestly (and full disclaimer), I never read much of Calvin himself. Maybe Calvin held to double predestination-- I wouldn’t be surprised. I was Reformed-- I never was a follower of “John Calvin” per se.
But I do know that the majority view in modern Reformed theology is more Thomist in this sense. See RC Sproul and the like. RC Sproul vehemently denies double active election.
T
Theojunkie
Guest
T
Theojunkie
Guest
I don’t think even John Calvin said that God gave anyone a sinful nature.
Natural man (the descendants of Adam) have a sinful nature, as a result of Adam’s fall.
But yes, there are Calvinists who believe in active hardening/etc (vs. simply passively “not gracing”).
Personally (not that it matters), I think that creatures naturally always will drift away from God, unless God actively keeps them near (or brings them back) by his Grace. It seems to make sense… creatures are not God. And it seems there is a pattern (angels fell, man fell… ). But this is neither Catholic teaching nor Reformed teaching… just my conjecture and musing…
- Status