Non Catholics who is right and who is wrong?

[wisdomseeker]

Wow … I bet you feel real high and mighty now huh?

You’re the one whose been making little ad hom attacks, in your snips throughout this so called dialog. At least I have the intellectual honestly to not try to slip weasel snippets in under the belt. Your little cryptic insults haven’t gone unnoticed … at least be man enough to insult me with a plain tongue. I can take it don’t worry.

Reformed protestants don’t run after Catholics as you charge. Moreover we are the most scholarly tradition in Christianity.

You’re thinking of evangelicals, who are Arminians in their soteriology. If you would like to debate this issue in a scholarly manner, then bring it — I’ll be glad to prove you wrong! I have a reserve drill this weekend (but we can debate this throughout next week if you like) & I don’t know if this forum has a debate format (like some of the protestant sites I blog on). Whatever the case, even if in a separate thread, solely devoted to election and predestination (forget about the Catholic Protestant references, pure theology) I’m always glad to debate this issue.

let’s go back to the post. please.

Sola Scriptura

have you read Eph again ? what have you found out?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Calvinism is the inevitable conclusion to the false teaching of the faith alone. If you have read my previous posts it is based upon Luther’s fear and his juxtaposing scripture. Calvin although did not admit the same weakness it is believe that he accepted faith alone out of fear of damnation. Calvinist will try and link St. Thomas and Augustine to this theory; however, the conclusion of perseverance of the saints (one can not lose salvation) was not supported by St. Thomas or Augustine and is a huge departure from their teachings.
Catholics may not believe in double predestination as the Council of Trent infallibly rejected that God creates evil. Why? Simply because it is unbiblical, double predestination is built upon a few verses taken out of context. Most will cite the texts of John 10:11, John 15:13-14, Acts 20:25 Eph 5:25, John 6:37-39, John 10: 27-29 (Which when taken out of context does not correlate with John 15: 1-6) Romans 8:35-39 (Which is taken out of context and does not correlate with Romans 11:20-24)
Below I will present many verses that show double predestination as a fallacy. Note the points of errors are that one can not lose salvation, one can not resist God’s graces and that one can not work with Christ graces. They also believe that Christ only died for the elect. That God creates all things including evil as such he creates beings that were created to be damned. This is the major issue between the concepts of free-will, single predestination, which Catholics can support, and double predestination which they can not. Vatican II states that “since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate calling of man is in fact one divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.”

Roman 1 20 – 32 Paul states that God gave pagans up to their sinful desires after they refused to acknowledge him.
John 4:42 “the savior of the world”
1 John 2:2 “is the propitiation for our sins and not for our sins only but also for the whole world”
1 Timothy 4:10 “the savior of all men, especially of those who believe”
Acts 7:51 “you stiffed neck people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you”
Hebrews 6:4-6 “who have been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word and the powers of the age to come, and have fallen away.

Robert Shank a Baptist shows in his book “Life in the Son” 85 passages that show one can lose salvation.

As stated above Calvinist do not believe that man can work with God, often they will mistranslate the Bible to cover the error in their theology. Proper translation of the Bible shows that man can work with God and that there is a synergy “work with” between the two. The Bible uses this exact phrase several times.

Romans 8:28 “in everything God works for good with (sunergei eis agathon) those who love him, who are called according to his purpose.”
2 Cor 6:1 “Working together with (sunergountes) him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.”

Calvinist in the early part of the Reformation were the more affluent Protestants and were more educated. This has left them with many very flowery paragraphs to quote from; however, the theology is unbiblical and can not be accepted by the Catholic faithful.

i have been in their Bible study and i have seen how they do it. they pick a verse and apply to themselves just like they do when reading about the authority given to the apostles by Jesus. they immediatly assume that Jesus is speaking to them. yet we see they dont have the authority is only on their heads.

they pick a verse they like and apply to themselves.

i believe the reason that some protestants churches are seeking Rome is because they are tired of being in such a confusion of enterpretation of the Bible and they cannot stop because they have no authority, so they want out.

sola scriptura is arguing about Eph1, 2. my take on this is that St Paul is speaking about the promise of God given to his people the jews. i have explained why i believe this. St Paul tells us they are the chosen people and not the gentiles. what is your take on this?

peace.

 

[sola_scriptura]

I listed NINE passages that show divine sovereignty, you guys attacked ONE (without addressing any of the others) saying it refers to Jews (the silliest exegetical statement I’ve ever heard). I’ve even posted the Catholic exegesis of Ephesians 1 verifying my own view (from newadvent.org, which I consider a solid source for RCC doctrine). But I guess I’ll repeat myself:

the words:

just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself

is referring to Christians and no one else.

You’re broad attacks on protestantism will not help your poor exegesis. I understand the entire epistle to Ephesians very well. We do not take statements out of context in the reformed tradition. Before any passage is used to support an idea, its context and typology is thoroughly examined.

At any rate I’m not going to sit here and defend protestantism to you. Let’s get on with it, provide me your exegesis as to why you think this passage applies to Jews?

 

[wisdomseeker]

I listed NINE passages that show divine sovereignty, you guys attacked ONE (without addressing any of the others) saying it refers to Jews (the silliest exegetical statement I’ve ever heard). I’ve even posted the Catholic exegesis of Ephesians 1 verifying my own view (from newadvent.org, which I consider a solid source for RCC doctrine). But I guess I’ll repeat myself:

the words:

just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself

is referring to Christians and no one else.

You’re broad attacks on protestantism will not help your poor exegesis. I understand the entire epistle to Ephesians very well. We do not take statements out of context in the reformed tradition. Before any passage is used to support an idea, its context and typology is thoroughly examined.

At any rate I’m not going to sit here and defend protestantism to you. Let’s get on with it, provide me your exegesis as to why you think this passage applies to Jews?

read verse 13 on please and tell if St Paul when mention the word US included all of us. he begin with these words: and the same hapened to YOU…

 

[Ronald_E]

I am confused by the last statement of the above post which reads “I am always glad to teach.”
When I went to respond to this from the quote button the end of the message had been changed to read if I remember correctly “I am glad to debate these issues.”
What influenced the change?

 

[sola_scriptura]

I am confused by the last statement of the above post which reads “I am always glad to teach.”
When I went to respond to this from the quote button the end of the message had been changed to read if I remember correctly “I am glad to debate these issues.”
What influenced the change?

I thought I would be nice & not make a seemingly arrogant statement; but as has been the focus of this thread, you guys like to mead out character assaults rather than actually provide exegesis (it’s no wonder – given the attempts at exegesis I’ve seen so is anything but).

 

[sola_scriptura]

read verse 13 on please and tell if St Paul when mention the word US included all of us. he begin with these words: and the same hapened to YOU…

In verse 13 Paul associates the Ephesians with himself and the rest who were the first fruits, for they in a like manner trusted Christ.

This is not a rendering the RCC would disagree with. I’ve never heard your assertion from any theologian, Catholic or Protestant. The disagreement pertains to how we are elected – and whether election is particular or corporate (not whether we are elected).

In fact the same disagreement exists within the RCC (study and contrast the Benedictines with the Jesuits). Obviously Calvin went further than Augustine did in his theories on election and grace (Augustine did believe in predestination, but not necessarily “double - predestination”).

 

[PerryJ]

I am not refuting predestination I am refuting double predestination and not one of these verses you published conflict with free-will or predestination. Not one of them states that God created a man in order to send him to Hell. I do not mean to be demeaning; however, Calvinist tend to infer God’s intentions into verses.

Ephesians 1 3- 5: Bless be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love he predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of his will…

To provide an example “he predestined us to adoption”. Us could mean he predestined every single person to go to heaven. Some men simply refuse Gods grace and go to Hell of their own volition. This verse does not contradict free-will. This verse also does not state that God created man in order to condemn him to Hell, God may simply be passing over some individuals; which, is passive reprobation and predestination. It appears that you are inferring irresistible grace in your reading; which, is not supported by this verse, or in my opinion in any verse. For this example I did not review any other verses around it and as such it may not fit within the scope of the chapter. I took it as presented one verse excluded from others.

As a second example that Calvinist often quote is Proverbs 16:4 The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day. Let us look at the verses around 16:4.

It is the part of man to prepare the soul: and of the Lord to govern the tongue. 2 All the ways of a man are open to his eyes: the Lord is the weigher of spirits. 3 Lay open thy works to the Lord: and thy thoughts shall be directed. 4 The Lord hath made all things for himself: the wicked also for the evil day. 5 Every proud man is an abomination to the Lord: though hand should be joined to hand, he is not innocent. The beginning of a good way is to do justice; and this is more acceptable with God, than to offer sacrifices…9 The heart of man disposeth his way: but the Lord must direct his steps.

Verse 1: implies that man is actively working with God. This does not fit with Double Predestination as man does not prepare his soul he is presented with irresistible grace.

Verse 3: implies that if one is open to God than he shall direct you. In this verse man takes the initiative. This again goes against irresistible grace and double predestination.

Verse 9: implies that man has free will as a man disposeth his way. God directs a man open to accepting his grace.

Let us focus on the verse you sited. This verse does not state that he created man in order to condemn him. The verse does not show a conclusion of action. This verse also does not state that God intentionally created the evil. He created and then man could chose to be wicked by resisting grace. Or if you wish to formulate predestination God created a man then chose to overlook him. This verse neither rules out free-will or predestination.

If read in context each of the verses you site can be explained via free-will or predestination and do not support double predestination. A rebuttal of yours will be of course that cooperation of man can be the result of the operation of God; however, this again is inferring God’s will that can not be proofed by text within the Bible.

I did not do a full exegesis of these verses for the sake of time. I believe you get my point from the two examples that Calvinist infer into verses more than what is truly there.

As I am sure you also know the order of action or interaction between God and man is different for Calvinist versus other theologies and as such each verse can be read from a different perspective. You can provide verse after verse and I will be able to refute the implications just as you probably can of mine.

 

[sola_scriptura]

I am not refuting predestination I am refuting double predestination and not one of these verses you published conflict with free-will or predestination. Not one of them states that God created a man in order to send him to Hell. I do not mean to be demeaning; however, Calvinist tend to infer God’s intentions into verses.

I never said I necessarily agree with Calvin on “double predestination” (at least the way he framed it). I cannot say the reprobate will burn in hell, I think it’s wrongful to charge who will ascend to heaven & who to hell (on an individual basis); and its theological speculation to charge who will be saved and who won’t be even on a corporate level.

I see merit in double predestination. However, while we know being under grace is a special thing – does that necessarily mean those who aren’t will burn eternally? They are condemned so much is verified by the Scriptures; and some people will go to hell.

Moreover, if God elected one group for one thing it is absurd to say He did not also elect the other group to not have that thing. This is the logic of Calvin. It certainly makes sense. We learn that those who are saved through faith are saved by God through no effort of their own. Nothing good or bad they did and in fact the decision was made before they even born (eternal decree).

When you say there’s no verse telling us what happens to the reprobate, I would somewhat disagree.

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son (John 3:19 NIV).

In fact this verse not only verifies the condemnation of non-believers it also tells us they are condemned ALREADY. Their condemnation is revealed as past tense, just as election is in the verses I noted previously.

However, I can’t necessarily say what condemnation means. Revelation gets into this in more detail & it seems pretty clear some will go to hell. However, Rev. 20 seems to leave room for at least some unbelievers entering the kingdom.

 

[Ronald_E]

I thought I would be nice & not make a seemingly arrogant statement; but as has been the focus of this thread, you guys like to mead out character assaults rather than actually provide exegesis (it’s no wonder – given the attempts at exegesis I’ve seen so is anything but).

I think that the sacrament of confession is working for me because it makes me more sensitive to the harm of the smallest sin and how it connects the Body of Christ with anger instead of love.
Each side is wrong if we do not love as Jesus wants us to be united in love as He and the Father are One.
What is written to one of us in scripture is written to all of us. I agree. When we sin against one another it harms the whole Church and the entire human family.

 

[PerryJ]

When you say there’s no verse telling us what happens to the reprobate, I would somewhat disagree.

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son (John 3:19 NIV).

I agree. It appears that my choice of words was poor.

As a Catholic you realize that I can agree with predestination or free will; however, I can not agree with double predestination as the Church defines it.

 

[sola_scriptura]

I agree. It appears that my choice of words was poor.

As a Catholic you realize that I can agree with predestination or free will; however, I can not agree with double predestination as the Church defines it.

Well yes, believe me Catholics aren’t the only ones who dislike double predestination. The church didn’t adopt all of Augustine’s idea (though certainly Calvin took the idea farther than Augustine did). They felt his hints at double predestination were overly harsh, and later theologians softened it a bit.

This is a question I wrestled with for years, and I wound up agreeing with Calvin. If God predestined the “elect” then by caveat of not choosing the “reprobate” He condemned them.

So to me the idea of I guess “single” predestination (for lack of a better term) is sort of logically bizarre?

Louis Molina came up with a creative theory that synthesized free will and divine omniscience (he was a RCC Jesuit). However, he winds up saying that divine foreknowledge preceded providence, which was an idea both Calvin and Augustine thought absurd (and I agree). It would make God a reactive God imprisoned in a sense by His knowledge. Even human action is not restricted by our knowledge in such a way.

Calvin’s theology also matches up well with the Scriptural presentation of grace. So while I don’t find opposing theories irrational, I do think they have a humanistic twinge that just does not match the preponderance of Scripture.

That said I understand many Christians (Catholic & Protestant alike) disagree; and I certainly can find fellowship with non-Calvinist Christians (frankly soteriology is one of the more complex topics in theology).