Predestination/Calvinism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cruxis117
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In Matthew 19:17-22, Jesus tells the Rich Young Man that he must give away all he had in order to follow him and have treasure in heaven. Yet the Rich Young Man would not. He chose to not do so. How is it that this man was able to resist the will of God? Christ himself told the man what he must do in order to achieve perfection. Yet the man wouldn’t. These verses clearly express that predestination to the degree of all people already having their fate decided by God is impossible, if there are so many different calls to choose life and to be perfect, as well as the fact that those who are predestined to heaven wouldn’t need to beware the devil, as stated above.
And how do you know the rich young ruler wasn’t already predestined to make the choice that he did? Again, with your limited point of view, you assume the rich young ruler made a choice that went against God’s will. Perhaps, in this instance it was God’s will for the rich young ruler to make the choice that he did. This doesn’t mean (at a later time) he continued on that path. It’s also just as likely that he repented and later followed after Christ. We simply do not know. What we do know is what is recorded in the Bible. And clearly, it was God’s will that these events be recorded for our benefit.
 
Sounds like a loaded question to me. Why don’t you just pull the trigger sport.
If you are sure of your theology then why can’t you give a straight answer?

There are no loaded questions for those who are confident of their defense.
 
For many years I relied on the argument that while God knew what our actions and choices are, were, and will be, that knowledge did not interfere with His gift to us of our free will. We were absolutely free to make our own choices and He, not being bound by the constraints of time as we understand it, knew our choices ‘a priori’. I still am comfortable with this view and I see it as a facinating possibility of our comprehension of quantum physics (that opens up a whole new line of discussion).
However, I remember a conversation with a wise old Jesuit concerning our relationship to God and how we should approach Him. The good Father asked me to recall how Our Lord taught us to pray. He said to address God as OUR FATHER. Then he asked me what language did Our Lord use when speaking to the people of his time on Earth. Aramaic, I answered. Right, and what word in Aramaic was used? ABBA. Now, he smiled, ABBA is actually the familiar diminuitive form of the word for father and is best translated as ‘daddy’.
We are taught to approach God as loving children to our loving Father.
I gave some thought to this and in addition to realizing the wonderful implications of actually being the loved child of a loving Father I saw something else that applied to the discussion at hand. If we take for granted that God does exist and that He is as our Lord and Saviour taught us, then it naturally follows that as a loving Father He could not arbitrarilly condenm untold millions of His beloved children to eternal damnation because they simply were not part of the ‘elect’ and were lost no matter what they did or how they lived. Such action would be contrary to the Nature of God Who we were taught to love by Our Lord Himself, being one Person of this Triune God.
To my knowledge, the only ‘god’ in history who fits this description was Molloch who demanded child sacrifice.
Therefore, it is not too much of a stretch to conclude that calvinists and their ilk actually worship the pagan ‘god’ Molloch. It seems to be a strong argument that we should pray for them to turn away from this false belief and return to the worship of our loving Father, our Daddy who gives us His unconditional love.
One more thought on this subject, our late Holy Father John Paul II said in a widely quoted address regarding what should we think about what happens after we die struck me as providing blazing insight into something that if we think it through to its conclusion should be seen obvious. The Holy Father said, “Because our Holy Mother the Church tells us so we must believe that there is a hell. We are not, however, required to believe that there is anyone in it!”
Ilk? Really? You must really hate Calvinists to use such disrespectful language like that. Let me ask you this question. When you were physically born, were you automatically a child of God? Was God your “daddy, Father”?
 
Jericho, Jericho, Jericho. i shall be kind to you. you are aware that a Catholic and a Calvinist like yourself, have different view on salvation itself? i do not believe i am saved my friend. i do not believe you are saved. biblically, we are redeemed. with the Death of Christ on the cross, the entire world was redeemed. even creation itself. Christ opened the way for us to walk the path that leads to salvation. it is our responsibility to take it. i think we must go by what the aposle paul said. we are redeemed, and we need to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. i could buy a weight lifting set my friend, but if i never utilize it, i will never reap the benefits of having it. its the same thing with God. he offers us the way to salvation, but if we dont walk the path, partake of the grace he freely gives, if we do not cooperate with his plan, then whos fault is it? certainly not Gods. he gave us the opportunity. we do have free will and a choice. are you married? could you have forced your spouse to love you? if they didnt have the free will to choose, then its not love. its something twisted, and wrong. Peace 🙂
benidict, benidict, benidict. I shall be kind to you (and hopefully less condescending than you were to Jericho).

I’m glad you admit to not being saved. That’s a relief. The funny thing is, you aren’t even redeemed. And neither is the world. Death and decay are still part of our existence (in this world). Therefore, to say the world has been redeemed is completely false as evidenced by our present decaying world. I have no doubt the world will be redeemed and transformed into a state of existence that endures forever. You see, the problem really is you don’t understand the difference between justification and sanctification. At least not from a Calvinist point of view. So, by all means, continue in your ignorance. Because as they say, “ignorance is bliss.” 👍
 
If you remember Pharaoh decided to let the Jews go. But then persued them to kill them.Ex 14:4,17-18 And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord.” So the Israelites did this.
17I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will go in after them. And I will gain glory through Pharaoh and all his army, through his chariots and his horsemen. 18The Egyptians will know that I am the Lord when I gain glory through Pharaoh, his chariots and his horsemen.”

Then God destroyed Pharaoh and the Egyptions that He would be glorified. It’s pretty self evident Pharaoh was not saved.
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.
If your heart is hard you cannot accept God. Please do a word search.
Interesting.

What do you make of Paul then? “But then persued them to kill them” :hmmm:
 
Not at all.

God doesn’t send us to hell, nor does he drag us into heaven against his will. Just like the Father in the parable of the Prodigal Son, he loves us so much that he allows us to decide for ourselves whether or not we wish to stay with him.

The Prodigal Son came back and repented but there are those who will not. This is not God’s doing - it is ours. The Parable of the Prodigal Son is a classic example of the love of God and the complete falsehood that is of Calvinism.

God doesn’t preordain any of us to hell. He allows us to choose or reject him.
What’s truly sad about this post is that you ignore the fact that the prodigal son is in fact His SON! You are not God’s Son! You weren’t born into this world and automatically a “child of God”. That is the lie straight from the lips of Satan! “I’m a child of God and so are you!” What a crock of horse manure! John 1:12 makes it perfectly clear: “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:”

Only those who believe in Jesus name are the ones who are given the right to BECOME children of God. You weren’t a child of God at your physical birth! Therefore, the story of the Prodigal Son is dealing with someone who is ALREADY a Son. And if a Son, they have a right to their inheritance. But even if they squander away their inheritance, they are STILL a child of God, still part of God’s family. And they do NOT lose their salvation!

One thing you obviously missed in that particular parable is that it was not so much about the son as it was about the FATHER! What did the Father do in that parable? Did he chase the son away, because the son made some really bad choices? No! He ran out to meet the son and put his robe and ring on his son! He unconditionally loved his son and welcomed him back home!

Now, let’s assume for a moment that all people EVERYWHERE and in EVERY time period are the “children of God” as the myth goes. Why oh WHY would Paul say we must be ADOPTED as sons if we are ALREADY by nature, children of God!?? That makes absolutely NO sense! See: Gal. 4:5 and Eph. 1:5 (feel free to read it in context).
 
When you were physically born, were you automatically a child of God? Was God your “daddy, Father”?
No. Like you, we were born pagan, and then became a child of God through baptism.
 
Hi PRMerger: Then I can only reason that the malfunction had to be inherent in the design, and the chance of it manifesting itself in the creation must have been accounted for by the Creator at the time of design, along with the probability of it being expressed over time as imperfect creations. I hope you don’t think I am arguing with you. The issue is that I truly honestly and don’t see how that could happen. This issue puzzles me terribly. My hope is to get an understanding. The reason I keep asking blunt questions is because I still don’t understand it.

Your friend
Sufjon
The original design (Adam & Eve) was perfect. It was only after the fall (when sin was introduced) that the design became flawed. The next generation had this flaw and this flaw (original sin) is passed down to each of us. God didn’t create the flaw. One wonders why God didn’t simply destroy all of creation and start all over. But He didn’t. So, we are left with questions and something I think God wants us to have. FAITH. If we had all the answers, then there would be no need for faith.
 
Hi Elvisman: I have to say that what you are saying makes some sense. I am still stuck on how much free will we actually have though, and I think it relates back to the original question in the thread. I am wondering how much free will we actually have. Some people think none, some say a lot, and I just really can’t say, but the answer is key to a lot of things.

Your friend
Sufjon
We have very limited free will. That is the answer. Ever heard the expression: “your rights end where my nose begins”? Or something like that? Basically, in the USA, we are free to express our opinions (Freedom of Speech). However, we are NOT free to go around punching people in the face. That’s called assault and will land you in jail. Therefore, even though I have the “free will” to do as I please (at least in my own mind) the reality is my free will is limited by how it affects other people. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Free will exists, sure. But it is also very constrained.
 
Hi Benedictus:
  1. Sentencing someone to hell for all time is the same as accidentally hurting your child while pushing her out if the way of an oncoming vehicle. You don’t send someone to hell trying to save them. I still don’t get that one.
Your friend
Sufjon
Sufjon, I think you’re missing the concept of analogies here.

Let’s take a basic one:

Christmas tree : ornaments :: earlobe : earrings

A Christmas tree is not an earlobe and ornaments are not earrings.

The analogy benedictus2 is making is this:

being hit by a truck : hell :: broken arm caused by being pushed by father :: sufferings allowed by God not understood by his children.

Thus you are saying A : B :: C : D and saying B and D are equal. They are not. They are analogous only.
 
Read Post #91 where I explained eternity to you and the false notion of predestination.
You fail to understand that words like "predestination" are used to explain God’s omniscience - *not *his pre-ordaining a situation.
Your “explanation” is wrong. If Paul had meant to explain God’s omniscience then Paul would have used the word “foreknowledge” not “predestination”.
 
I agree one can choose between the flesh and God.

Is it an essential doctrine to beleive whether one has a choice or not?
It’s not that simple. Theoretically, yes, we have the “power” to choose. The problem is, in practicality, we often “choose” based on our innate urges and instincts. Our instincts such as the desire for food, shelter, clothing, sex, etc. These are all programmed in our genes. The “natural” response is to indulge in things that make us feel good. Moderation is not something we are born with. That is a learned trait. So, to say we have the ability to choose between the flesh and God is not so cut and dry.
 
We have very limited free will. That is the answer. Ever heard the expression: “your rights end where my nose begins”? Or something like that? Basically, in the USA, we are free to express our opinions (Freedom of Speech). However, we are NOT free to go around punching people in the face. That’s called assault and will land you in jail. Therefore, even though I have the “free will” to do as I please (at least in my own mind) the reality is my free will is limited by how it affects other people. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Free will exists, sure. But it is also very constrained.
I agree. It seems to me that we have very limited free will.

Your friend
Sufjon
 
Sufjon, I think you’re missing the concept of analogies here.

Let’s take a basic one:

Christmas tree : ornaments :: earlobe : earrings

A Christmas tree is not an earlobe and ornaments are not earrings.

The analogy benedictus2 is making is this:

being hit by a truck : hell :: broken arm caused by being pushed by father :: sufferings allowed by God not understood by his children.

Thus you are saying A : B :: C : D and saying B and D are equal. They are not. They are analogous only.
I must be really messing up the way I am explaining my question. No one is seeing what I am saying, so it must be in the way I am saying it.

Your friend
Sufjon
 
Yup - precisely why it is false. 👍

If Calvinism is true - Jesus was a complete fool for telling the Apostles to evangelize. And he ain’t no fool!
I agree, Jesus “ain’t no fool”. Your posts reveal that you really don’t know anything at all about Calvinism. You are ignorant and yet you continue to mock something without truly understanding it. How foolish is that? It would be equally foolish for a non-Catholic to mock and ridicule Catholic doctrine without trying to understand it. But yet, this is exactly what you are doing.

ETA: shall I mock you by falsely accusing you of worshiping Mary? Yes, that would be foolish. Especially since you don’t worship Mary. But the fool is one who thinks he knows what you believe when in reality they don’t even have a clue.
 
I must be really messing up the way I am explaining my question. No one is seeing what I am saying, so it must be in the way I am saying it.

Your friend
Sufjon
Your humility is noble, Sufjon.

And perhaps the fault lies with me. :sad_yes:
 
I’m not entirely sure that Calvinists would accept your conclusion as a valid criticism of their belief system. I think they draw a distinction between predestination and fatalism.

Convivially,
Mick
👍
That’s because it is NOT a valid criticism of our beliefs. But he’ll just keep on punching that fallacious argument because it makes him feel superior to the “foolish” people who are called Calvinists.
 
Oh I’m sure, but I haven’t read the “exact” thinking" of Calvin with Predestination. My point has been through this thread, that Calvin like “all” his other thinking didn’t bring anything new to the table. He took Catholic thinking and added his twist to it which in all case’s I can see is clearly incorrect. Where has he “once” been right?
Check out Monergism.com and you’ll see lots of examples of his being right. 👍
 
Then let’s just address Jericho’s version of Calvinism - which does fall into that category.

He has stated that God creates some for heaven and others for eternal damnation. *Most *Calvinists that I know personally believe this as well.
God creates according to His divine will, purpose and pleasure. Can we agree on that?

Why did God turn Pharaoh’s heart stone cold? Why not simply allow Pharaoh’s heart to soften naturally and let Pharaoh willingly set the children of Israel free?

Is there some universal law that God must abide by that says He cannot interfere with our “free will”? If so, I’d like to see it. Because the Bible is replete with stories of divine intervention where God interfered with the will of man. Does this make God unjust?

If God created a person for a specific task, does that man’s “free will” over-ride the original purpose and task God created him for? Was Judas predestined to betray Jesus? Was Jesus predestined to be whipped & scourged and hung on the cross? Could Jesus have changed His mind and said, “eh, my will be done, not your’s Father” when He prayed in the Garden? Some things are the way they are and can be no other way simply because God has decreed it.
 
Hi PRMerger: Perhaps the third option was mentioned and I missed it.
I did not see a third option, either.

I saw yours–“that the malfunction had to be inherent in the design”

and my (that is, the Catholic) option: We were originally created holy, sinless and good, but due to the free will of our first parents, we lost this Sanctifying Grace. Thus, when one looks at this world and shakes his head in sadness and disbelief–what are we doing to each other??–it is not a result of a defect in God’s creative design, but rather a self-imposed consequence of the loss of Sanctifying Grace.

Thus, I don’t understand why you are proposing that you can “only” reason your option.
If we were given free will to do either right or wrong, then even a being that is designed to do mostly right 99.9999999% of the time will still do a lot of evil over the course of a very long stretch of time like eternity. That means the likelihood of the unfortunate events in the Garden of Eden was known by God when He set the cosmos in motion, and left Adam and Eve only to act it out at some point.
Indeed. He knows all. He exists in the Eternal Now. I don’t see how that is a problem whatsoever.
Either that or it took Him by surprise. I still only see the two possibilities.
Just consider the Catholic one!

All time is the Eternal Now to Him Who IS Eternity.
Either we are accidentally full of bad tendencies or we are intentionally full of the potential for evil.
Or, the Catholic response which is: we are by Grace what He is by nature.
I think God either made it that way or He didn’t see it coming. I think the latter is unlikely, but I am open to any possibilities. Citing Free Will doesn’t cut it, because in giving free will, God would have known the exact mathematical probability, indeed the inevitability of our eventual failure to live up to our charter.
I am citing the Eternal Now.
What is the third option? It is not free will. Free will falls under the “it was a set up” option.
Your friend
Sufjon
I don’t know about any third option. I just know yours, and the Catholic answer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top