Immaculate Conception = Predestination yes or no?

[Hesychios]

What we reject is Calvin’s concept of predestination.

I understand that.

What I am asking is if this dogma falls within the parameters of a person’s (Catholic or non) understanding of predestination.

Also, where do you find an Orthodox mass in China?

The priesthood was obliterated during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The local governments in various places (like Shanghai & Harbin) have rebuilt some of the Orthodox temples, but the law requires priests and bishops to be natives, and we are plumb out of those . So no regular services except in the embassy district in Beijing.

I have a Catholic parish I can attend if I want to take a long bus ride through the city. I have been there to pray. I do not take communion, but I have put money in the poor box.

 

[po18guy]

I understand that.

What I am asking is if this dogma falls within the parameters of a person’s (Catholic or non) understanding of predestination.

I would say yes.

The priesthood was obliterated during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The local governments in various places (like Shanghai & Harbin) have rebuilt some of the Orthodox temples, but the law requires priests and bishops to be natives, and we are plumb out of those . So no regular services except in the embassy district in Beijing.

What a shame. God is still here, but I see nothing of Mao.

I have a Catholic parish I can attend if I want to take a long bus ride through the city. I have been there to pray. I do not take communion, but I have put money in the poor box.

Since Catholic practice allows Orthodox communion if no Catholic Eucharist is available, I would think the converse is true as well. You simply can’t be the same without the Eucharist.

Christ’s peace be with you.

 

[IHeartAquinas]

It is my understanding that predestination is impossible with free will. The argument goes like this:

1. Free will is only free when the will is without constraint;
2. Predestination introduces constraint to the possible ends available;

---

1. Therefore, free will does not exist if predestination is true.

This is why I went into a lengthy description of how we perceive time as linear, but God exists in all times past, present, and future simultaneously (this was reiterated by others) and therefore is able to know our choices without making them for us. In this respect, predestination does not exist, and exception does not have to be made. I would reference my statement when I said that Mary’s conception without original sin, for God, did not necessarily precede her submission to him, but rather followed it. It is simply that within our linear understanding of the universe that conception precedes life. God instead would simply have to ask Mary “Do you submit to my will?” she answers “Yes” and then he allows her to be immaculately conceived.

To me, this makes God more awesome and more powerful than an all-knowing God confined to linear time and therefore is forced to make exceptions, precisely because by him doing so and predestining any to grace or glory fundamentally contradicts his promise and guarantee of free will.

Additionally, the fact that Saints and others “predestined for glory” (this just sounds like something a Baptist would say… ) represent for the Church an attainable state of grace, showing that the call to be like unto Christ is actually doable, to me, also is proof positive that these people all retained their free will and were raised to their exalted state as a result. If they are truly predestined and we confine God to the linear time under which we exist and he is required to make exception and predestine people, it absolutely makes this exalted state unattainable except for those whose free will has been completely abrogated.

Predestination can be used to explain a situation such as the Immaculate Conception, but only in understanding time the way I and others have explained it. If any other concept of time or any other method of predestination is presented as the basis of the argument, then predestination categorically must be false because it contradicts free will.

 

[bona_fides_1]

It is my understanding that predestination is impossible with free will. The argument goes like this:

1. Free will is only free when the will is without constraint;
2. Predestination introduces constraint to the possible ends available;

---

1. Therefore, free will does not exist if predestination is true.

This is why I went into a lengthy description of how we perceive time as linear, but God exists in all times past, present, and future simultaneously (this was reiterated by others) and therefore is able to know our choices without making them for us. In this respect, predestination does not exist, and exception does not have to be made. I would reference my statement when I said that Mary’s conception without original sin, for God, did not necessarily precede her submission to him, but rather followed it. It is simply that within our linear understanding of the universe that conception precedes life. God instead would simply have to ask Mary “Do you submit to my will?” she answers “Yes” and then he allows her to be immaculately conceived.

To me, this makes God more awesome and more powerful than an all-knowing God confined to linear time and therefore is forced to make exceptions, precisely because by him doing so and predestining any to grace or glory fundamentally contradicts his promise and guarantee of free will.

Additionally, the fact that Saints and others “predestined for glory” (this just sounds like something a Baptist would say… ) represent for the Church an attainable state of grace, showing that the call to be like unto Christ is actually doable, to me, also is proof positive that these people all retained their free will and were raised to their exalted state as a result. If they are truly predestined and we confine God to the linear time under which we exist and he is required to make exception and predestine people, it absolutely makes this exalted state unattainable except for those whose free will has been completely abrogated.

Predestination can be used to explain a situation such as the Immaculate Conception, but only in understanding time the way I and others have explained it. If any other concept of time or any other method of predestination is presented as the basis of the argument, then predestination categorically must be false because it contradicts free will.

IC and Single Predestination are both simultaniously required de fide Catholic beliefs. To be Catholic and understand the faiith with any depth one can not be constrained by linear time thinking.

BF

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Two observations:

1. Most people here are using Luke’s annunciation to prove the predestination/non-predestination of Jesus’ conception, which is better known as the “Virginal Conception,” not the Immaculate Conception, which has to do with Mary being conceived without sin, allegedly “in order that” she might be able to become the Theotokos.
2. Most people also point to Mary’s implied “consent” to the Virginal Conception as a disproof of predestination. That isn’t a good argument because predestination isn’t the claim that God’s sovereignty obliterates human responsibility; rather it is the claim that God’s providence is accomplished and that our responsibility is congruent with that providence, whether we cooperate or resist. How exactly that happens, no predestinarian claims to know. That it happens, however, is something we have to affirm biblically.

Now I’m basically a Calvinist on this subject. But I’m also a Thomist. Read Aquinas on predestination and prepare to be “blown away” as you read. See the Summa Theologica, I, Question 22, articles 1-8. (I’m sure its online somewhere.)

The question, then, as to whether Mary herself was immaculately conceived should itself be “conceived” as an act of predestination seems to require an affirmative. Mary’s own conception didn’t require her “yes” since we are talking about what happened in her mother’s womb. If God decided to create her without sin from the moment of conception, as the doctrine says, then God–the divine potter–simply made a “noble vessel” for a noble purpose. In Catholic theology, she was the most noble vessel of all. Did the potter spin his clay and accidentally come up with Mary? Or did he make her that way with a salvific purpose in mind? I think a Catholic absolutely has to answer that Mary’s Immaculate Conception is an act of predestination and more precisely, unconditional election.

As a Protestant, I would argue that Mary’s conception wasn’t Immaculate (as Thomas Aquinas argued), but that it was nevertheless foreordained by God and that she was certainly elected to salvation in eternity past. Does this destroy human responsibility in her? Absolutely not, and those who think it does, misunderstand what predestination actually claims.

 

[Hesychios]

Two observations:

1. Most people here are using Luke’s annunciation to prove the predestination/non-predestination of Jesus’ conception, which is better known as the “Virginal Conception,” not the Immaculate Conception, which has to do with Mary being conceived without sin, allegedly “in order that” she might be able to become the Theotokos.

I think you are right. People for some reason seem to confuse the issue.

However, the Virginal Conception of Jesus is linked as an idea with Saint Mary as suited especially for the purpose.

 

[po18guy]

Aquinas, theological giant that he was and is, was neither council nor pope, and did not enjoy infallibility. As such, he had the potential to be simply wrong. As to the thrust of this thread, Catholics do not believe in the concept of Calvinist double pre-destination. Calvin was also not “infallible”.

 

[IHeartAquinas]

Predestination as in the context of “God’s will be done” and trusting to divine providence is different from singling out a human being and predestining them to a certain end. The former allows free will. The latter abrogates it. The IC does not prove the latter, but proves the former.

 

[po18guy]

Predestination as in the context of “God’s will be done” and trusting to divine providence is different from singling out a human being and predestining them to a certain end. The former allows free will. The latter abrogates it. The IC does not prove the latter, but proves the former.

To my limited intellect, the term “pre-disposition” helps in understanding this, since God knows all hearts. The odd teachings of Calvin seem to imply that God is either mean-spirited or incompetent - creating only to destroy, or offering salvation to those whom He knows will not accept it. Either diminishes God in the sight of the believer, does it not? Both smack of cynicism, a mortal sin.

 

[Ghosty]

I think a good illustration of Predestination can be made using simple imagery. First, we start with what St. Paul said in Romans:

28] We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose.
29] For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren.
30] And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.

So God foreknows our place in Heaven, and the rest can be said to flow from this. Let’s take the image of a train and passengers.

God knows (being omniscient and outside of time) who will be with him in Seattle and sends a train to pick them up. He doesn’t send this train in a manner that is exclusive, such that no one else can board it, but He already knows who will meet Him in Seattle; others will not board the train, or will get off early, and God foreknows this as well. God does not send another train that leads people away from Seattle, however; the people who will not be in Seattle will fail by their own choosing, not because they were given tickets to a wayward train.

Those who arrive in Seattle, whom God foreknew to arrive in Seattle, get to Seattle by train and by no other means. They must cooperate with the train, obviously, but God already knows their cooperation because, again, He sees the result being outside time. He is the cause of them getting to Seattle, by sending them the train, but He has not forced them to board, but rather knew they would since the end of the trip is already present to Him.

So God has predestined those who will arrive in Seattle by sending them a one-way train; there is no other way for them to reach Seattle. God has NOT predestined the others to their various destinations, but He did know that they would not arrive in Seattle. They may not board, they may get off early, but God has not “sent” them anywhere, and therefore can’t be said to have predestined them. God has merely allowed for them to not arrive, by their own choices, just as He has provided the means (providence) for those who will be in Seattle to get there. We can also say that the train was sent specifically for those who would arrive in Seattle, but that all are able to board (they will just get off before arrival, by their own choosing).

In this metaphor, the train is Grace, Seattle is Heaven/Glorification, riding the train is cooperation with Grace, leaving the train is sin, and never boarding the train is refusing the call.

In “double-predestination”, God sends two trains, one to Seattle, and one to elsewhere, and only those who will certainly arrive in Seattle have tickets for that train, and everyone else has tickets for the other. This puts the non-Seattle-bound to destruction by God’s design, rather than by their own choosing.

Hope that helps!

Peace and God bless!

 

[IHeartAquinas]

But if God’s train TO Seattle leaves the station at 5:15 and travels at 60mph, and the train AWAY FROM Seattle leaves the station at 7:20 and travels at 63mph, what are they all having for lunch?

I love train metaphors. Well said Ghosty.

 

[po18guy]

But if God’s train TO Seattle leaves the station at 5:15 and travels at 60mph, and the train AWAY FROM Seattle leaves the station at 7:20 and travels at 63mph, what are they all having for lunch?

I love train metaphors. Well said Ghosty.

Unfortunately, Calvin was waiting at the airport…

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Ghosty,

I think a good illustration of Predestination can be made using simple imagery…

Thank you for the allegory, it may help come people.

So, what do you think?

Is the immaculate conception of Mary an example of or result of predestination or is it not?

Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[Ghosty]

Hi Ghosty,
Thank you for the allegory, it may help come people.

So, what do you think?

Is the immaculate conception of Mary an example of or result of predestination or is it not?

Inquiring minds want to know!

I would have to say of course it’s an example of predestination. Every act of Grace that leads the “foreknown” to God is an example of predestination, from Baptism on through life. That God gave such Grace to Mary at the moment of her conception doesn’t make it any different from what we receive at Baptism, after all.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Vince1022]

I would have to say of course it’s an example of predestination. Every act of Grace that leads the “foreknown” to God is an example of predestination, from Baptism on through life. That God gave such Grace to Mary at the moment of her conception doesn’t make it any different from what we receive at Baptism, after all.

Peace and God bless!

Mary was free to say “no”.

 

[po18guy]

Actually, Mary’s consent was neither requested, nor required. Gabrielle simply told her that it will happen.

Gabriel not only announced God’s plan, but explained how it was to occur. This was not necessary were it to be automatic. Gabriel also remained with her until Mary exercised her free will, saying “Let it be done to me according to your word”. Only then did Gabriel leave her. Despite what private interpretations of these verses have to say, the Church has declared that Jesus was conceived in Mary’s womb at the moment she gave assent. If no assent was needed, no annunciation or explanation would have been needed.

 

[bona_fides_1]

Gabriel not only announced God’s plan, but explained how it was to occur. This was not necessary were it to be automatic. Gabriel also remained with her until Mary exercised her free will, saying “Let it be done to me according to your word”. Only then did Gabriel leave her. Despite what private interpretations of these verses have to say, the Church has declared that Jesus was conceived in Mary’s womb at the moment she gave assent. If no assent was needed, no annunciation or explanation would have been needed.

Agree. God does not use his awesome powers in the manner Zeus of Olympus did to awe, seduce, and rape Leda any more so than He would send a biblical deluge over all the planet to force baptise everyone. Some people just do not “get it” that supernatural love can never compel by overwhelming and irresistible awe or intimidation even where reason should do so…

BF

 

[Ghosty]

Mary was free to say “no”.

In the sense that her cooperation was freely willed, you are of course correct. In the sense that God already knew the outcome (being outside of time), obviously Mary would not say no.

This goes into the balance between omniscience and free will; predestination doesn’t mean that people don’t freely will the outcomes, it just means that God knows what people freely will before they do.

Remember, to deny that God knows the outcome of all history is to deny that God is eternal, omniscient, and immutable.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Vince1022]

In the sense that her cooperation was freely willed, you are of course correct. In the sense that God already knew the outcome (being outside of time), obviously Mary would not say no.

This goes into the balance between omniscience and free will; predestination doesn’t mean that people don’t freely will the outcomes, it just means that God knows what people freely will before they do.

Remember, to deny that God knows the outcome of all history is to deny that God is eternal, omniscient, and immutable.

Peace and God bless!

Yes. Thanks.