Predestination/Calvinism

[PRmerger]

No. Not in the literal sense. God did not create you, nor did God create me.

God created Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve procreated their children, and their children procreated theirs, and so on and so forth. I will admit that God has intervened in the birth of certain people (according to the Bible). But that in no way proves He is intimately involved in our personal creation. Otherwise, God is guilty of creating some pretty horrible monsters such as Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Che Guevera, etc. etc.

Yes, God created Hitler. He did not only create those whom we deem worthy to have lived.

And really, how bad does one have to be to say God did not create him? Is the guy who kicks a cat in this category? What about those Mean Girls who say you can’t sit with them at lunch? What about the pastor who says he’s giving to the poor but is really stealing from the plate?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes.

any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort

a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)

b) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2889&t=NKJV

These verses are all begging the question.

You are presuming what you want to prove.

[BIBLEDRB]Rom. 11:12[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]John 1:29[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]John 3:16;[/BIBLEDRB] 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 [BIBLEDRB]1 Cor. 4:9[/BIBLEDRB]; [BIBLEDRB]2 Cor. 5:19[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Cruxis117]

These verses are all begging the question.

You are presuming what you want to prove.

[BIBLEDRB]Rom. 11:12[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]John 1:29[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]John 3:16;[/BIBLEDRB] 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 [BIBLEDRB]1 Cor. 4:9[/BIBLEDRB]; [BIBLEDRB]2 Cor. 5:19[/BIBLEDRB]

Truid was banned PR Although I have to admit, I like these responses.

 

[PRmerger]

Truid was banned PR Although I have to admit, I like these responses.

Oh, I know. I post to refute his arguments regardless. Currently, while there’s only 249 replies, the thread lists 2,247 views. So these responses are for the lurkers, too!

I wouldn’t want someone to read truid’s post and think that his argument cannot be sliced, diced and put to rest!

 

[Cruxis117]

Oh, I know. I post to refute his arguments regardless. Currently, while there’s only 249 replies, the thread lists 2,247 views. So these responses are for the lurkers, too!

Touche! BTW, like I said, good responses!

 

[cooterhein]

What follows are examples of things that, if said of Catholics and Catholicism, would cause a non-Catholic to receive infractions and probably get banned. Along with each of them, I’m going to suggest an alternate course of action.

they are incapable of coming up with a coherent theology, they are unable to see that that is exactly the kind of god they have.

First, be more charitable. Then maybe you can ask the Calvinist to say for himself what kind of God he believes in.

That is why I keep saying Calvinism is an idiotic ism.

Be more charitable. Alternate course of action…don’t do this.

I…did not know people actually believe such ludicrous theologies of salvation.

Be more charitable. Perhaps you could do a better job of parsing out the relationship between Calvinist soteriology and the Calvinist doctrine of predestination.

Exercise the grey cells and follow the premises and conclusions.

Be more charitable, and assume that the person you’re talking to is functioning with the same mental capacity as you.

reason is in short supply.

Be more charitable, assume that Calvinists are reasonable people, and assume that these kinds of comments don’t help create a situation where you can reason together. It does the opposite.

Now, for a so called Christian nothing could be more stupid than that.

Be more charitable, and don’t call people stupid. For Christ’'s sake, do I really have to tell you this?

Apparently, Catholics are allowed to say these things on CAF and non-Catholics get banned for it. I understand that Truid came on a little strong, but comments like this don’t help a new person get a sense of what is and isn’t allowed on CAF.

 

[PRmerger]

Touche! BTW, like I said, good responses!

:tiphat:

 

[elvisman]

No. Not in the literal sense. God did not create you, nor did God create me. God created Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve procreated their children, and their children procreated theirs, and so on and so forth. I will admit that God has intervened in the birth of certain people (according to the Bible). But that in no way proves He is intimately involved in our personal creation. Otherwise, God is guilty of creating some pretty horrible monsters such as Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Che Guevera, etc. etc.

Yes, God is merciful.

Yes. God is Just.

Yes. God is love.

That argument only works if you ASSUME God personally created each and every human being ever born on this planet. I, for one, do not believe God is responsible for creating evil human beings (such as Hitler and his ilk).

Nope. That argument ONLY works if both parties agree that God created ALL of the human race (each and every person). I don’t believe He did. What an evil and cruel God He must be to create an entire race of people, only to have the Israelites slaughter and basically wipe them off the face of the earth. Isn’t that called Genocide? Yeah, God loves a little genocide in the morning!

That’s right! That’s what you have if you believe God personally created each and every single human being ever born on this planet! Glad you see it my way!

Jesus came to seek and save His sheep. He left the 99 to find the 1. Remember that parable. These were HIS sheep. Not someone elses. Jesus came to die on the cross for His sheep (the elect). Not for Hitler, not for rapists, murderers, child molesters, false prophets/teachers. And certainly not for the anti-Christ. But according to you, Jesus died on the cross for their sins too. No, I don’t believe so.

This is one of the most blasphemous and heterodox diatribes I’ve ever read on this forum by a person claiming to be a Christian. I can’t even begin to elaborate on how offensive this is - not only to our creator - but to ALL of us as Christians.**

 

[benedictus2]

But you don’t have a problem with God who predestined Pharaoh’s son to die. Gotcha!
So you believe in single predestination?

This deserves a major duh.

God killing Pharaoh’s son was NOT predestination as we are discussing it here.

Nowhere did it say that God damned that child to hell.

You are mixing up temporal and eternal realities.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

While it may not be totally resolved we certainly get a much more intelligent take on it than Calvinistic predestination.

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.

Only because you think that God knows the future rather than God being in the future.

It is not a case of God knowing X will do B so inevitably X will do B, rather that God knows X will do B because X has done B, and God knows this because He is in the Kairos, the Eternal Now (no past, no present, no future).

God’s foreknowledge does not determine X’s choice whether he will do either A or B so there is nothing inevitable about it.

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.

Huh! How does that work

Of course X really had a choice. X had a choice between doing A or B and he chose to do B. God knows that X will do B because X has chosen to do B. God’s foreknowledge does not coerce you into acting other than the way you choose to act.

We are not robots!

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.

Exactly!

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.

And here I do not agree with St Thomas Aquinas. I tend to go with Molina. I think he presents a more credible position.

St Thoma’s objection was that free-will tends to diminish God’s supremacy. So as not to diminish God’s supremacy he posits that God does not will the salvation of some. But that runs contrary to Scripture.

Much has been said about free will but no one has mentioned how grace and free-will interact in the way God effects our salvation.

I will post a summary I made of the Thomist and Molinist view in response to a request from another Protestant in this forum.

 

[benedictus2]

Predestination , Grace and Free Will

While much has been said regarding Free Will and how God damns some and saves other, there has been a striking silence on role of Grace in all this. How does Grace play into this?

Below is something I wrote a while back in answer to a request from Craig Kennedy to compare and contrast the Thomist (which is close to Calvinist) and Molinist positions.

Definitions :
Efficacious (irresistible) grace is a special gif of God by which a soul incapable by its own natural resources to perform an act conducive to eternal salvation, is given supernatural powers to freely perform said act.

Prevenient grace is divine grace which precedes human decision.(wikipedia)

The issue:
The question for both the Molinist and the Thomist is how to reconcile the efficacy of grace and the infallibility of its effect with human freedom because they seem to be mutually exclusive.

When does the infallible effect of efficacious grace come into effect without impairing the freedom of the will?

There is also the subtler question of when does the will under the influence of grace, move from being a mere natural faculty to actuality.

The differences:
Thomists: start from the point of efficacious grace
Molinists: proceed from a clear concept of freedom.
Thomist: maintains that God gives the grace only to those He has chosen (the elect)
Molinist: believes that God bestows the grace on everyone.
Thomist: Grace is intrinsically efficacious
Molinist: Grace extrinsically efficacious
Thomis: The will moves from potency into act by will of God
Molinist: The will freely consents to prevenient grace and this consent renders the completely sufficient grace efficacious.

My comments:
It seems to me that the Thomist position is almost similar to the Calvinist, because it posits that the will is moved to act by grace. To my thinking, if grace is efficacious such that it’s effect is infallible, the response from the will is no longer free.

I incline towards the Molinist view because this is more reconcilable with a God who is Love (as revealed in Scripture). If we take the Thomist view, then damnation becomes the sole act of God and not contingent at all upon man’s response to grace. Since God is the creator and has infallible foreknowledge, the Thomist/ Calvinist view paints a God that creates man for the sole reason of damning them (as explained by invincible ignorance).

The expressed view of the Church is that God created us for Himself.

Unless I have misunderstood Thomism, its thesis could only be reconciled with a loving God who made us for Himself, if we posit that though there is a Hell, it is highly unlikely that anyone will end up there since grace is efficacious and God loves everyone equally.

I think however that grace is not always efficacious but always sufficient.

**My biggest problem with the subject of predestination is that God’s Infinite Love, which should be one of the premises, does not seem to have been taken into consideration at all. **To my mind, this should be the first premise and the other two (grace and free will) proceed from it.

Thomism’s objection to Molinism is that the latter, due to its over-emphasis on man’s freedom of will, diminishes the supremacy of God over His Creation.
**However, I personally think that this objection is without basis because it can be argued that it is still God who wills that this is the way that grace and free will should play out. **God is still the one who decided to effect salvation in this manner; that in pulling us out of the ravine, He would require us to place our hands on His, even though He could quite easily have yanked us out without our cooperation.

The Thomist and Molinist view I think can be reconciled if we situate the former as operative during our last moment, and the latter during our lifetime.

The way I see it, the action of grace on the will in the Molinist view can be somewhat compared to building muscles. The more you exercise a particular muscle the more you increase the muscle mass and the easier the exercise becomes.

To apply to the Molinist view, sufficient grace is given so that the will can respond with a yes, and if the response is a yes, then the infallible conclusion to goodness ensues and so it goes during our lifetime.

Sufficient grace is always given to elicit a yes from us. But not being efficacious, it is therefore fallible. Our assent to grace however effects a change in the soul such that the merely sufficient grace becomes efficacious. The more we say yes to God the easier it is to say yes.
Such that at the end of our lives, saying yes is the only way we could have responded to God.

CONTINUED}

 

[benedictus2]

Predestination, Grace and Free Will - Part 2

Consequently, the more we say no (even in little ways) the easier it becomes to say no, such that at the end of our lifetime, the only way to respond is no. That is why some call Hell the final No to God. At this point, after a lifetime of nos, the only answer possible is a No.

But every time the no was given, God also gives enough grace for us to muster a yes. Each no to God shrivels up our soul and makes it harder and harder for her to given an expansive yes.

This is why the response to the first prompting of grace is important.

Here also lies the truism that while one will not go to hell because of a venial sin, mortal sins proceed from venial sins.

The first murder is hard but the succeeding ones become easier and easier.

But we know that God gives the grace of salvation to everyone because He died that all might have life through Him.

This analysis also links to how we understand salvation. If we understand salvation correctly as Theosis / Deification - the transformation into the image of Christ, then we know that Grace and our free response to Grace is what brings about this transformation.

We are called to Love because God is Love. And Love cannot be coerced, otherwise it is not love.

That is why our wills are free and Grace is the way God wooes us into saying Yes to His overtures of Love.

 

[benedictus2]

Me, too! Same experience! I spent 40 years of my life studying my faith, reading the Scriptures, discussing religion, and had never even considered that people could believe such an absurdity.

That was one of the first threads I engaged in and this guy called Sandusky started saying things along this line and I thought what an evil god he must have in his head.

He did not work out that it actually came to that if he only did a bit of logical thinking.

Truid is on the ball. He sees the problem but comes up with an even more problematic solution. Which ever way one goes, one will always end up with a psychopathic god so long as they follow Calvinism.

 

[benedictus2]

The rich man from Luke 16:16-31is in hell.

Your second question is not clear.

That story is a parable.

 

[benedictus2]

God’s primary attribute is Holiness.Rev 4:8 Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.”

Yes in deed Holiness is ONE of God’s attributes.

Love proceeds from His hoilness.

God’s very being is Love. God’s essense is Love. Attributes proceed from essence not the other way around.

John say’s God is love. God is not just someone who loves, but rather God is Love itself. So love is more than just an attribute of God. It is who God is.

He cannot tolerate sin.

Exactly. That is why He died for all men because all men sinned.

If he died only for some, then that means He CAN tolerate sin because He tolerates it in some but not in others.

He has unconditional love (grace is unmerited favor it is unconditional) for those He has called based on Christs finished work on the cross.

Nope He has unconditional love and grace for all because He died that all might have life in Him.

 

[benedictus2]

Our birth nature comes from original sin. We receive our heavenly nature when we are born again.

Nope, my question is who created our nature. Your response does not answer that.

 

[benedictus2]

As you see Esau’s life was in the flesh not the Spirit. Hope this helps.

Hebrews 12: 16Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

17For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

It still does not say that God damned him to hell.

Furthermore, his lack of repentance is solely his and has nothing to do with God choosing Jacob.

 

[benedictus2]

Yes. God is love.

No, God did not create people just for the “sole purpose of sending them to hell”. Hell (or the Lake of Fire) was created for Satan and his angels.

Do you believe in second chances? That if a person dies, they get a second chance to redeem themselves and be “saved”?

Not if they are already in hell. But yes, if they are in purgatory they will continue to be cleansed of their self-love until they can love as God loves.

But it is not a second chance as such.

 

[benedictus2]

For the record, I don’t believe in double predestination. I believe God has a plan and a purpose for certain individuals (as evidenced in the Bible). Some times, God uses groups of people (as opposed to individuals) to accomplish His will. Like I said before, man has a very limited point of view. God, otoh, has the clearest perspective of all. I will trust Him and take Him at His Word.

So what was the point of quoting Romans for?

 

[benedictus2]

Does Jesus give life (as in eternal life) to everyone (the world)? Or to a specific group of people (those who follow Him)?

John 6:33 says: "For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

He offers life to everyone. Not everyone accepts it though.