T
truid
Guest
I’ve heard that term before “preserved this ancient text and discerned it to be . . .” what does theopneustos mean? And what do you mean when you say it was the CC that “discerned” it?
- Status
T
truid
Guest
But you don’t have a problem with God who predestined Pharaoh’s son to die. Gotcha!
So you believe in single predestination?
S
SyCarl
Guest
The question of God’s providence and man’s freewill has confounded Christians for a long time. I don’t really think that it can be resolved.
The question is not resolved by trying to differentiate between predetermination and foreknowledge. God infallibly knows everything that will happen.If this is true then when He knows that Mr. X will do B then inevitably Mr. X will do B. Since nothing else can occur Mr. X has no real choice over what he will do. If he did, then there would be a possibility that God’s foreknowledge would be wrong. Mr. X’s choice is B is a necessity over which Mr. X has no control.
However, if Mr. X has no control over his choice, how can he be held responsible for his actions? Freewill is seen as necessary if man is to be more than a robot.
Thomas Aquinas recognized that God’s providence requires predestination. (see Summa Theologica, Part 1, Question 23). He also recognizes that God does reprobrate people, if only by not willing their salvation. He maintains that freewill still exists by using Boethius’ distinction between simple necessity and conditional necessity and God’s use of contingent or secondary causes.
A simple necessity is something that must happen because of the nature of the thing. The inevitably of death is a simple neceesity because it is part of our nature as mortal beings. Conditional necessity arises from something that occurs at some time but is not a result of the things nature. Thus if I see Mr. X sitting it is a conditional necessity that he is sitting. It is not a simple necessity since the condition can change by Mr. X deciding to stand.
If God is outside of time then He will see every moment in time as present. He can therefore infallibly know what Mr. X will choose because He sees it as present. tt is then reasoned that Mr. X still retains freewill because he, being within time, has the choice to change his condition.
My explanation is terribbly oversimplied but I believe it accurately reflects Scholastic thinking…
There is a problem though. Originally a problem arosw because if God was in time and knew in the past that something in the future would happen, the freewill would require we have the ability to change the past. This was remedied by God being outside of time so that if we choose something different we are not changing the past since there is no past with God but only the present. Howver if Mr. X has the power to change his action in time, then he would have the power to change God’s timeless knowledge of the present. However if this can happen, then God’s timeless knowledge is subject to change which would indicate His knowledge is not timeless.
Again I have oversimplified and hope that I have not explained things incoorectly but I do think that it illustrates the difficulty of trying to reconcile predestination and freewill.
After all this, my question is why is it necessary to reconcile these two things? Do we need to know or does it come done to our feeling that we must and should be able to know? We feel that we should know so reason until we think we can explain it. But what does Paul say?
I think we must recognize that there are somethings that are simply beyond our comprehension when it comes to knowing God and His ways. As God spoke through Isaiah:
(Isa 55:8-9 NASB)
We view predestination and freewill as incompatable yet there are passages in Scripture that support each of them. Calvinists cite those passages supporting the former and others cite those passages supporting the latter.
Can we not accept that there is validity in both views but that neither encompasses the whole reality? It seems impossible to us to have predestination while at the same time having freewill that is required to make us accountable and subject to punishment. But what does Jesus tell us about the impossible?
For my part I am willing to trust that with God both predestination and freewill are possible whether I understand or not.
The question is not resolved by trying to differentiate between predetermination and foreknowledge. God infallibly knows everything that will happen.If this is true then when He knows that Mr. X will do B then inevitably Mr. X will do B. Since nothing else can occur Mr. X has no real choice over what he will do. If he did, then there would be a possibility that God’s foreknowledge would be wrong. Mr. X’s choice is B is a necessity over which Mr. X has no control.
However, if Mr. X has no control over his choice, how can he be held responsible for his actions? Freewill is seen as necessary if man is to be more than a robot.
Thomas Aquinas recognized that God’s providence requires predestination. (see Summa Theologica, Part 1, Question 23). He also recognizes that God does reprobrate people, if only by not willing their salvation. He maintains that freewill still exists by using Boethius’ distinction between simple necessity and conditional necessity and God’s use of contingent or secondary causes.
A simple necessity is something that must happen because of the nature of the thing. The inevitably of death is a simple neceesity because it is part of our nature as mortal beings. Conditional necessity arises from something that occurs at some time but is not a result of the things nature. Thus if I see Mr. X sitting it is a conditional necessity that he is sitting. It is not a simple necessity since the condition can change by Mr. X deciding to stand.
If God is outside of time then He will see every moment in time as present. He can therefore infallibly know what Mr. X will choose because He sees it as present. tt is then reasoned that Mr. X still retains freewill because he, being within time, has the choice to change his condition.
My explanation is terribbly oversimplied but I believe it accurately reflects Scholastic thinking…
There is a problem though. Originally a problem arosw because if God was in time and knew in the past that something in the future would happen, the freewill would require we have the ability to change the past. This was remedied by God being outside of time so that if we choose something different we are not changing the past since there is no past with God but only the present. Howver if Mr. X has the power to change his action in time, then he would have the power to change God’s timeless knowledge of the present. However if this can happen, then God’s timeless knowledge is subject to change which would indicate His knowledge is not timeless.
Again I have oversimplified and hope that I have not explained things incoorectly but I do think that it illustrates the difficulty of trying to reconcile predestination and freewill.
After all this, my question is why is it necessary to reconcile these two things? Do we need to know or does it come done to our feeling that we must and should be able to know? We feel that we should know so reason until we think we can explain it. But what does Paul say?
(1Co 3:18-20 NASB)
I think we must recognize that there are somethings that are simply beyond our comprehension when it comes to knowing God and His ways. As God spoke through Isaiah:
.
(Isa 55:8-9 NASB)
We view predestination and freewill as incompatable yet there are passages in Scripture that support each of them. Calvinists cite those passages supporting the former and others cite those passages supporting the latter.
Can we not accept that there is validity in both views but that neither encompasses the whole reality? It seems impossible to us to have predestination while at the same time having freewill that is required to make us accountable and subject to punishment. But what does Jesus tell us about the impossible?
(Mat 19:26 NASB)
For my part I am willing to trust that with God both predestination and freewill are possible whether I understand or not.
T
truid
Guest
The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart had more to do with setting the slaves free. Moreso than having anything to do with his eternal salvation. Though, I may believe Pharaoh is in hell, I have no biblical evidence to say for a certainty that is where his soul currently resides. Does the Bible say what his condition is one way or the other?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Greek for God-breathed.
You would not know that Paul’s letter to the Romans is theopneustos were it not for the CC proclaiming, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that it was.
And the reason that you know that the Gospel of Thomas is not inspired, is also because of the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
T
truid
Guest
This does make sense. And I suppose from that story, I’ve just assumed Pharaoh and his army died and went to hell. But I can’t say the Bible explicitly says this. But I think it is implied.
T
truid
Guest
I love this response!
May I quote you? Seriously, this is the best response I’ve seen from the old “that’s a loaded question” retort! 
T
truid
Guest
Kind of like the man-made tradition that Peter was the first Pope? Oops!This is a man-made tradition, jericho, for you have not read in a single page of Scripture that Pharaoh is in hell.
In fact, you cannot name a single person, from any page in Scripture, that is definitively in hell.
What you have done is added your man-made tradition to Scripture.
Interesting.
What do you make of Paul then? “But then persued them to kill them”
Or how about the man-made tradition that the Roman Catholic Church gave us the Bible. 
That’s a real knee slapper.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Nope. I don’t have a problem with that at all.But you don’t have a problem with God who predestined Pharaoh’s son to die. Gotcha!
But I do have a problem with a doctrine which states that God predestined Pharaoh’s son to go to hell.
The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh. Blessed be the name of the Lord!
I believe in the teaching of predestination as revealed to the Apostles.So you believe in single predestination?
That is, “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.” (Mt 26:54; Jn 18:36; 19:11; Acts 3:17-18) For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.” (Isa 53:11; cf. 53:12; Jn 8:34-36; Acts 3:14.) CCC 600
P
PRmerger
Guest
truid, sarcasm is the protest of the weak.Kind of like the man-made tradition that Peter was the first Pope? Oops!) That’s a real knee slapper.
If you have an argument that you’re proposing against the CC, this is the place to do it, but of course, under the admonition of Peter, to do this always with “gentleness and respect.”
Indeed, please offer your explanations of what organization discerned and preserved these Scriptures for you.
T
truid
Guest
I suppose that’s possible if you believed at your baptism. Personally, I believed before I was baptized. That’s why I believe in Believer’s Baptism vs Infant Baptism.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, this is a great example of why Catholics believe that God’s grace is something that’s TOTALLY UNMERITED. This tiny little babe had to do nothing, yet received the greatest gift!
[SIGN]How’s that for a a grace that’s unearned?[/SIGN]
And, what did you have to DO, again? Come again?
T
truid
Guest
I love this post!
The way I’ve explained it is by PERSPECTIVE. There is God’s unlimited perspective and then there is Man’s very limited perspective. From our perspective, we have “free will”. And from God’s perspective, (and ultimate reality) He is in control, the sovereign King. :bowdown2:
T
truid
Guest
That’s funny. :whacky: I knew Paul’s letters were inspired by God long before you (a Roman Catholic) told me the CC proclaimed it. Do you know much about how the Bible (and specifically the New Testament) was compiled? I can assure you the books of the New Testament were already considered inspired by God long before the RCC decided it would “proclaim” it as such. But then I guess you also believe the RCC has been around since Christ was on the earth. So it’s no wonder you view it that way.
T
truid
Guest
I do not deny that the RCC had a part to play in the preservation of the holy scriptures. I just deny that it was the sole guardian of the scriptures. And I adamantly reject the idea that it “discerned” which books were inspired and which were not.
Sorry, I get a little sarcastic when I’m tired. Probably a good sign it’s time for me to go to sleep so I can wake up refreshed tomorrow morning.
I may start a new thread on the subject of how the Bible (specifically the NT) was compiled. That should be interesting.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Why do you find this funny? Is this another example of sarcasm? There is no need for that here, truid. We can have a very thoughtful discussion without that. It lowers the elegance of your arguments.
At any rate, how is it that you knew Paul’s letters were inspired?
Indeed I do. Quite a bit, actually.
This is very Catholic of you to say, truid.
However, God used men, infallible men (unless you think they erred) in proclaiming what books were theopneustos and what were not.
Just like God knew, from eternity, that you would be born. But he used your parents to create you.
T
truid
Guest
Believe. As the Scriptures clearly state. I don’t have a problem with dedicating a child to the Lord’s service. If you want to sprinkle it’s head with water or dip your finger in “holy water” and make the sign of the cross on it’s face, fine by me. I just don’t think getting wet cleanses you of spiritual dirt. It’s not bad for physical dirt, but I digress. . . .
P
PRmerger
Guest
You might consider doing a search here first, as it has been discussed at great detail, in a multitude of threads.
Non-Catholic Christians really have a hard time with this, especially because most have not ever considered how the Bible came into existence. It is understandably shocking for them to realize that each and every time they quote Scripture they are giving tacit approval to
-infalliblity
-Sacred Tradition
But perhaps you have some new arguments to present.
However, there is no arguing with history.
It simply cannot be denied that it was the Catholic Church which discerned what books were theopneustos.
C
Cruxis117
Guest
What bothers me a slight bit is that people always assume that a Catholic must be Roman, when one can be a Ukrainian or Byzantine Catholic etc., and it’s known as the Catholic Church, not the Roman Catholic Church (when addressing the full community, rather than the individual rites. Back to the point I was about to make though…
Considering the historical record (Councils of Rome, Hippo, Carthage, etc.) as being rather well known to be when the biblical canon was compiled (who else compiled the books? If you can present some sort of historical proof, I’d be rather shocked). And of course it was considered by God long before, because God was the one who inspired them! (Duh.) However, the Catholic Church (CC) has proclaimed this on Earth, whereas no other ‘church’ was around to compile, and authoritively define the scriptures that are commonly used today.
Moving on though, this is a thread about Predestination/Calvinism, NOT Biblical canon or Church history. Focus on the topic presented please.
T
truid
Guest
This ASSUMES the Catholic Church (as in the RCC) was in existence when the first NT manuscripts were written. I personally don’t believe the RCC (as it is now recognized) existed prior to the 4th century.
- Status