Predestination/Calvinism

[benedictus2]

And right on cue, I’m doing something new. Not only am I rebutting you, I’m making a demand. You better believe I’ll do it like a broken record until you concede, too. Here’s the demand.

Oh possum, I thought you’d never ask.

There are several Catholic apologists directly affiliated with CAF and/or Catholic Answers Live that were formerly Calvinists. Show me material from any one of them that supports your assertions about the inescapable and monstrous god of Calvinism. In the meantime, I will show you examples of “how-to guides” from these very individuals that advise you to take an entirely different strategy than the one you’ve chosen.

But you are “pulling a cooterheim” again.

**You are making another illogical argument. Just because these two former Calvinists did not raise the issue does not mean the issue does not exist!
**
You sound like homosexuals who said that Jesus must have approved of homosexuality since he did not say anything about it being sinful! Don’t you see how devoid of reason such an argument is?

Now it would be different if you read somewhere that the kind of problem with Calvinism that I am presenting now has been explained away by these two former Calvinists.

If they have, then perhaps you would care to enlighten me as to the solutions they proposed.

Now, if they haven’t you are still stuck with the burden of showing how you cannot come up with a psychopathic god if one espouses Calvinistic predestination.

So here is a summary of my argument.

According to Calvinistic Predestination, Even before human beings are are born, God has predestined some to heaven, and damned some to hell.

This means that from the time of conception (or even prior to that, from the time God thought of bring certain persons into existence) , there is nothing anyone can do as to where they will go at the end of their life. Those that have been predestined to heaven will go to heaven, those that have been predestined to hell will go to hell.

But, since God is the only Creator there is, that means God purposely created men and women just for the sole purpose of sending them to hell.

Now you tell me, what sort of a god is that?

If it were a human being, we would call that person a psychopath.

So, stop trying to appeal to what former Calvinists said or did not say and instead get stuck into the refutation and show me where I got any of the premises wrong. Because if all the premises are correct, i.e. I represented correctly Calvinistic belief of double predestination, then the “psychopathic evil god” conclusion is inescapable.

There’s the argument for you. All logically laid out.

Prove me wrong.

 

[benedictus2]

Actually, I’ve heard a pretty good argument for the rich man being in purgatory based on the fact that hell is the privation of all good, which means that those in hell hate themselves and everyone else. The rich man wouldn’t care one wit about his brothers if he were in hell, but if he were in purgatory…

Just a thought.

Actually that is an Excellent Point! :clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[benedictus2]

Because they don’t exist. Simple.

Nope. That is your assumption. You do not know that for a fact. Otherwise, you would have given me a nice clean rebuttal already. Yet here we are several posts later and still I am waiting.

Three things.

One, I am a Calvinist. I don’t need to ask an ex-Calvinist about the beliefs that I already have.

Great. Then where is your logical rebuttal then. What are you waiting for? Easter? That’s still several months away.

Two. You do. And I’m sure you’d listen to him before you’d listen to me. Scott Hahn is another source you could make use of. Maybe give him a try, too.

Why should I ? I am not the one who is defending Calvinism. That deserves another major duh.

Three. Jimmy also makes regular appearances on EWTN. I think he’s usually on from 3-4 PT doing an open Q&A. So how about this: Go check the schedule, see when he’s on next, call him up, and ask him whatever you want. Maybe you can ask him if his former Calvinist beliefs led him to a monstrous concept of God when followed to their logical conclusion. Maybe you can tell him what you’ve been doing on the forums lately and ask if it was a good idea. Maybe you can ask him for some general advice on how to talk to Calvinists.

And what has all that got to do with anything. The problem is simple. You are a Calvinist so surely you must be able to extricate Calvinism from the obvious quandary.

For goodness sake, if you have the answer, then just blurt it out instead of going on and on about Hahn and Akin.

Are you trying to buy time until you can think up a suitable answer? Is this why you are leading me on this merry go round?

I mean to do whatever I deem best on this thread, and what I deem best is to point you toward a course of action that will effectively stop you from interacting with Calvinists in the way that you’ve been doing. You should follow the examples of your superstar apologists. I assume you’re already at least as familiar with them as I am.

Said like a man who has got absolutely no clue how to mount a good rebuttal.

Oh cooterhein. I was on to you from the beginning.

What did you say back then? That you were playing devil’s advocate? I think my answer was : And you are advocating for the devil very well.

 

[benedictus2]

Do people in hell desreve to be there?

Not if there is a heaven and the only reason they are there is because a psychotic god made them that way.

 

[benedictus2]

I have been reading “Dancing Alone” by Frank Schaffer the Orthodox son of the famous Cavinist Francis Schaffer.

Part of it tells of how Calvin got his teachings from St Augustine, and Roman Catholicism and Cavinism are related. Calvin just took Augustine to extremes.

I cannot beleive in a God who creates humans and predestins them to hell.

Why I went East.

As our priest once said, it is the most cruel doctrine ever invented.

So one wonders how comfortable Calvinists are with such a god.

I mean, how do they know that they are not ones who are actually predestined to hell but they just don’t know it yet.

 

[benedictus2]

Yes. This is indeed curious. What would possess anyone to use ex-Calvinists–those who clearly REJECT the doctrine–as a means of supporting one’s position. :whacky:

As Mark Shea states: “the good things in Calvinism are the things it retains from the Catholic Tradition, while the evil and destructive things in Calvinism are, well, the Calvinism.”

That is brilliant.!

 

[benedictus2]

Ok, this one, under the “Personal Encounters” section. envoymagazine.com/planetenvoy/081704-TeenageRoadToTradition-Full.htm
"I expected Catholicism to fall into a typical “semi-Pelagian” category where God’s sovereignty and power is severely undermined by human free-will. To my utter surprise, however, Dr. Hahn said that a Catholic could agree – in a qualified sense – with the Calvinists. He explained that the Catholic Church was emphatic about salvation being accomplished by grace alone, and that a Catholic in the tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas could agree with many aspects of the Calvinist understanding of predestination.

Many is the operative word. NOT ALL. And the few aspects that they do disagree on, makes all the difference*.*Here is another thing that this article failed to mention.

St Thomas or St Augustine is not the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church did not affirm St Augustine’s nor St Aquina’s entire proposition.

But of late the Church has come to a certain clarify with regards her teaching on the matter and her pronouncement runs counter to St Augustine’s which (because St Thomas followed St Augustine) went against St Thoma’s view as well.

 

[cooterhein]

Nope. Just because you brought it up a dozen times does not make it so, **since you are not the sole determiner of what is and what is not. **That really smacks of arrogance and meeism. Which of course is not surprising.

You got that all backwards. What I said was “It is. That’s why I brought it up a dozen times.” What you seem to have heard was “I brought it up a dozen times. That’s why it is.” Do you see the difference?

You know what, you sounded like the authoritarian Luther then. It is so because I said so.

You know I’m laughing, because I said no such thing. But that’s entirely beside the point, and talking about these kinds of things with you is a giant waste of time.

Just because someone who used to be Calvinist did not mention a major flaw in Calvinism does not mean that the flaw is not there.

Here’s a thought. What if I demonstrate that there are no well-respected Catholic apologists of the formerly Calvinist variety who give an ounce of credence to the “monstrous Calvinist god” argument? You’d have to wait a few days, but I can do it with one phone call. You up for it? I can do this on January 6th.

It is extremely illogical to rebut a proposition with the reasoning that a former adherent to a belief did not dispute certain aspects of that belief for the simple reason that they no longer hold that belief which means that they must hold that belief false.

I happen to think it makes a lot of sense to assume that you have a certain amount of respect for people like Jimmy Akin and Scott Hahn, and if Jimmy Akin literally tells you something is a very bad idea and you should stop doing it, you will listen to him.

Scott and Akin I would say are very intelligent men. If Calvinism is an intelligent position to hold, then the fact that these two intelligent men are no longer Calvinists speak volumes.

There are equally intelligent men on both sides of the aisle, but yes, Hahn and Akin are two such men that are on your side. You should be proud of them.

When you debate, rebuttal consists in refuting my statement with a counter argument that disproves what I say and not through an appeal to persons who no longer believe what you are defending.

I know what you’re trying to do, and you’ll find very little success. I will do this my way, and it’s happening on the afternoon of January 6th.

I’m a results-oriented person. I’m not going to waste valuable hours this close to Christmas arguing with someone that isn’t willing to respect anything I say. Instead, I’ll wait a couple of weeks and go with an easier approach that’s also very effective.

Well, how about asking those former Calvinists what they think of the flaw I am presenting here. You are** assuming **that they do not see it.

That’s a fair point. And that is exactly what I’ll do. We’ll know for sure on the 6th. I already have a pretty good idea of what’s going to happen, but this way you’ll know too.

 

[benedictus2]

Here’s a thought. What if I demonstrate that there are no well-respected Catholic apologists of the formerly Calvinist variety who give an ounce of credence to the “monstrous Calvinist god” argument? You’d have to wait a few days, but I can do it with one phone call. You up for it? I can do this on January 6th.

Yes I am up for it.
But here’s the thing. They must refute my argument. You should be able to show me why my argument is flawed. So please if you are going to ask someone, tell them the argument the way I posed it.

I happen to think it makes a lot of sense to assume that you have a certain amount of respect for people like Jimmy Akin and Scott Hahn, and if Jimmy Akin literally tells you something is a very bad idea and you should stop doing it, you will listen to him.

My respect for them has nothing to do with it. As I have shown you before, I love St Thomas Aquinas and yet I do not agree with his take on predestination.
Please read my two part posts and then you can tell me where the error in my reasoning is.

There are equally intelligent men on both sides of the aisle, but yes, Hahn and Akin are two such men that are on your side. You should be proud of them.

I am extremely proud of them. I love Scott Hahn and have a few of his books. Jimmy Akin not so much since I don’t know if he has written any book. I have visited his website though.

I know what you’re trying to do, and you’ll find very little success. I will do this my way, and it’s happening on the afternoon of January 6th.

Good. Waiting with bathed breath.

I’m a results-oriented person. I’m not going to waste valuable hours this close to Christmas arguing with someone that isn’t willing to respect anything I say.

It’s not about disrespecting what you say. I like logical and well reasoned responses. You have not provided them to date.
As a matter of fact I like Truid because I know he thinks. Except that his solution was no solution at all. But he has a good grasp of the problem.

That’s a fair point. And that is exactly what I’ll do. We’ll know for sure on the 6th. I already have a pretty good idea of what’s going to happen, but this way you’ll know too.

I have summarized my argument in a previous post.

If you can present it to them that way then I know that they are addressing the problem as I see it.
**
You can give them a link to my posts so that they know where I am coming from.

PS. Should the thread close in the meantime, can you start a new thread with the reply and pm me the link? Thanks.
**

 

[benidict]

january 6! Shootout at the o.k. Coral!HI NOON! Get your tickets! Get your tickets here! :d

 

[Sylvester8719]

I loose more faith in free will everyday.

Predestination, or determinism makes much more sense to me in that they explain insane human behaviour better than saying people chose to be “bad”.

 

[benidict]

I loose more faith in free will everyday.

Predestination, or determinism makes much more sense to me in that they explain insane human behaviour better than saying people chose to be “bad”.

but what about the recipients of this bad behavior? did God predestine and ordain, that a child would be murdered? or that some two bit dictator would put his people through plastic chippers, for some imagined slight? what a viscious God indeed, if that were the case. no, i will stick to the premise, that people have and use, free will. im not blaming a persons bad behavior on God or the Devil. it lies squarely on their shoulders. Peace

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

january 6! Shootout at the o.k. Coral!HI NOON! Get your tickets! Get your tickets here! :d

**Just remember I’m the one with the six-shooter.

Shoot with charity.**

 

[benidict]

**Just remember I’m the one with the six-shooter.

Shoot with charity.**

hi Eric. didnt forget you. may you and yours have a Blessed Christmas. Peace

 

[UniversalistGuy]

Inside Calvinism, why does God predestine people to hell? Does the God of the Calvinists have an arbitrary rule that not everybody can be saved so therefore some have to be damned?

 

[jericho777]

Yet you still sin despite the fact that your will is now controlled by God.

All sin is equal in God’s eyes.

So one still has the free will to sin.Or not to sin. the choice is ours not God’s.
I see Jeff fall from a 20 story building, i know he will be dead when he hits the ground did my knowing jeff would be dead cause his death? How can God’s knowing be the cause?

The difference is those whom the Spirit is not controlling cannot stop sinning. They are dead in their sin and trespass. Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith.

Rom 8:29-30 For those whom He has known beforehand He has also pre-destined to bear the likeness of His Son, that He might be the Eldest in a vast family of brothers; ***and those whom He has pre-destined He also has called; and those whom He has called He has also declared free from guilt; and those whom He has declared free from guilt He has also crowned with glory. ***

God will not let those He has predestined to be lost. Prov.24:16 for though a righteous man falls seven times, he rises again,
but the wicked are brought down by calamity.

Seven is the number of completion which means he falls completely but rises up. The wicked cannot rise up.

 

[jericho777]

Actually, I’ve heard a pretty good argument for the rich man being in purgatory based on the fact that hell is the privation of all good, which means that those in hell hate themselves and everyone else. The rich man wouldn’t care one wit about his brothers if he were in hell, but if he were in purgatory…

Just a thought.

There is no release from hell it is eternal. Abraham makes it clear that there is no exit from his destination.

 

[jericho777]

I appreciate your trying to use Catholic language, but you still are not understanding Catholic teaching.

Being “in the act of committing a mortal sin” when one dies is not sufficient for our condemnation of a person to hell.

As the great saint, John Vianney responded, when asked whether we could definitively say that a man who jumped off a bridge in an act of suicide (a mortal sin) was in hell: we do not know. For the man could have repented between the moment he jumped off the bridge and his feet hit the water.

Works do not save us, jericho.

It is interesting you are relying on Gods mercy to save Pharaoh after his death as with infants and unborn children. That would make salvation totally based on God’s choice and not mans. Sounds like Calvinism to me.

 

[jericho777]

Not if there is a heaven and the only reason they are there is because a psychotic god made them that way.

We are all created sinners and deserve hell. WE did not ask to be created that way. Not everyone has the same chance for salvation. Is that fair they will be in hell because they did not have the same oppourtunity?

 

[benidict]

There is no release from hell it is eternal. Abraham makes it clear that there is no exit from his destination.

i would have to agree with you on this. Peace, and my you and yours have a Blessed Christmas season.