Predestination/Calvinism

[benedictus2]

What would you say if someone told you that is what it means, and the fact that you don’t see it means you aren’t exercising the gray matter and following this to its logical conclusion?

I would say that I have exercised the grey matter and followed it to its logical conclusion that is why I came up with this.

The logical conlcusion has to be Biblical because after all, the debate rages around a Biblical issue.

Here are my reasons why the conclusion most protestant arrive at is wrong based on the exercise of the grey matter.

The verses they provide for predestination to damnation do not say that at all. The verses all pertain to temporal punishment or physical death or something to do with earthly life, and not a single one of them says that because of such and such, this soul or that soul has been damned.

Second. Exercising the grey cells, I reason that the whole Bible is about God being love, God being just, and God being Merciful.

Exercising the grey cells while reading the Bible I reason that Christ died for all.

So exercising the grey cells I come to this: either God is above all those things or He is a God who predestine some to hell.

So since the Bible tells me that God is above all those things, then the protestants must have made the wrong conclusion based on an erroneous interpretation of some passages of the Bible.

Though I did make an error as it is not only protestants who thought that way. So there was some failure in the exercise of the grey matter in that statement.

Mea Culpa.

 

[cooterhein]

Exercising the grey cells while reading the Bible I reason that Christ died for all.

This is one key statement on which you believe you’re disagreeing with certain people, but you’re actually not. The idea of limited atonement is that “atonement” is synonymous with the entire salvific transaction that causes a person to spend eternity with God; thus, since God knows how many people will spend eternity with Him and how many will not (and there are some who will not), atonement is limited to the exact number of people that will spend eternity with God. As for the question of who Christ died for (in the sense of who He summons and to whom He is offered as the door to salvation), guess who wrote this.

“Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto all men without distinction, His blood being shed not for a part of the world only, but for the whole human race; for although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet He holds out the propitiation to the whole world, since without exception He summons all to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than the door unto hope.”

It’s a major theologian. You don’t like him very much, but sometimes he will surprise you. Can you guess who it is?

So exercising the grey cells I come to this: either God is above all those things or He is a God who predestine some to hell.

I’m not sure if this part is entirely logical. The reason I’m not sure is because I don’t know what you mean by “God is above all those things,” and whatever that may mean, I’m not so sure that it and double predestination are mutually exclusive.

I think your arguments have a way of consistently relying on the validity of those kinds of statements- ie., this thing about God and that sort of doctrine are mutually exclusive. But then you don’t attempt to demonstrate that it’s actually true. Instead, you express a combination of incredulity and disgust while implying that the person you’re talking to is either an idiot or someone who stubbornly refuses to stop acting like one.

Last time we talked about this, I don’t recall that you saw anything wrong with doing this. Has that changed, or are you still pulling a Benedictus?

 

[benedictus2]

This is one key statement on which you believe you’re disagreeing with certain people, but you’re actually not. The idea of limited atonement is that “atonement” is synonymous with the entire salvific transaction that causes a person to spend eternity with God; thus, since God knows how many people will spend eternity with Him and how many will not (and there are some who will not), atonement is limited to the exact number of people that will spend eternity with God. As for the question of who Christ died for (in the sense of who He summons and to whom He is offered as the door to salvation), guess who wrote this.

If Christ died for all, that means that the grace of salvation is offered to all. I am not sure I agree with your concept of atonement.

Predestination says that the grace is only offered to the elect.

What you have written above, says the same thing, the grace is only offered to the elect.

“Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto all men without distinction, His blood being shed not for a part of the world only, but for the whole human race; for although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet He holds out the propitiation to the whole world, since without exception He summons all to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than the door unto hope.”

So now you are saying the contrary, that grace is offered to all?

Also, I believe the correct term is expiation not propitiation.

It’s a major theologian. You don’t like him very much, but sometimes he will surprise you. Can you guess who it is?

If you are referring to St Thomas or St Augustine, I like them both I just don’t agree with their view of predestinatoin.

If you are referring to Sproul, I halved and quartered his arguments on another thread.

I’m not sure if this part is entirely logical. The reason I’m not sure is because I don’t know what you mean by “God is above all those things,” and whatever that may mean, I’m not so sure that it and double predestination are mutually exclusive.

They are mutually exclusive because the one thing we must remember is that God created every one.

If He created everyone and He is Love, Merciful and Just, then that just does not go together with someone who creates people knowing that He will condemn them to hell.

I think your arguments have a way of consistently relying on the validity of those kinds of statements- ie., this thing about God and that sort of doctrine are mutually exclusive. But then you don’t attempt to demonstrate that it’s actually true.

That is a very valid argument. Top marks.

Okay, suppose I ride along with you and say okay maybe i am wrong they are not mutally exclusive.

Show me how they are not mutually exclusive.

Instead, you express a combination of incredulity and disgust while implying that the person you’re talking to is either an idiot or someone who stubbornly refuses to stop acting like one.

That is a more than fair enough comment.:tiphat:

So I concede. You have a point there. But the concession goes with this challenge. Show me why the conclusions I say idiotic are not idiotic.

Last time we talked about this, I don’t recall that you saw anything wrong with doing this. Has that changed, or are you still pulling a Benedictus?

Nope, I never pull a cooterhein. But you said January 6 so I wait. But if you are able to bring it forward today, why. that would be wonderful.

So have you made the necessary calls and can now explain yourself better?

 

[cooterhein]

If Christ died for all, that means that the grace of salvation is offered to all. I am not sure I agree with your concept of atonement.

Atonement is a word; it has a meaning. Expiate, make amends for, clear of wrongdoing, something along those lines. When Calvinists say atonement is limited, we mean that the elect are cleared of wrongdoing and the reprobate are not. In this sense, and especially in the sense that God always knew that some would be elect and some would be reprobate, the entire act of clearing wrongs, making amends such that people can spend eternity in heaven, and expiating sins is limited to the elect.

And we can still say Christ died for all.

So now you are saying the contrary, that grace is offered to all?

What kind of grace? There’s lots of ways to talk about grace.

What’s the starting condition? Do you affirm total depravity/inability? If so, in what way and to what degree? If not, why not?

If you are referring to St Thomas or St Augustine, I like them both I just don’t agree with their view of predestinatoin.

It was Calvin! Come on, you didn’t see that coming? It was from one of his commentaries that he wrote later in life. It had to do with 1 John 2:2.

If you are referring to Sproul, I halved and quartered his arguments on another thread.

Oh, please tell me you aren’t a clone of PR. She’s all about slicing and dicing. If you plan on acting like her, an offer to correspond via PM will be forthcoming.

They are mutually exclusive because the one thing we must remember is that God created every one.

Yes…and the people He created are either elect or reprobate. Some are destined for eternal life; others for perdition.

If He created everyone and He is Love, Merciful and Just

Indeed. And yet there is the problem of evil, the problem of pain and suffering, and the problem of eternal damnation, pain, suffering, all of which need explanations.

That last one often comes in the form of an argument for annihilationism. Some reason that God could annihilate a soul just as easily as He causes it to exist, and perhaps some parts of the Bible (especially something like “the second death”) refer to a more merciful, loving approach to eternity where the souls of the reprobate are terminated instead of being subjugated to eternal conscious torment.

Perhaps if you could show me why this sort of eternal conscious torment is more consistent with God’s character than a doctrine like annihilationism, that can help you work through a very similar problem pertaining to why a loving, merciful God would predestine some to avoid this torment but not others. I assume you already have a really good handle on why God would allow the existence of such painful, conscious, eternal torment in the first place?

then that just does not go together with someone who creates people knowing that He will condemn them to hell.

If someone told you they refuse to believe in the existence of hell because it “just does not go together with” the idea of a loving merciful God, I’m sure you wouldn’t be entirely impressed with that argument. You did something a lot like that, except instead of talking about God being responsible for what happens in hell, you’re talking about God being responsible for who goes there.

Additionally, let’s take a look at the possible alternatives to this scenario. You aren’t willing to assent to a situation where God is the “someone” who creates people “knowing that He will condemn them to hell.” What’s a good solution to that?

This is a God who creates people (doing good so far), but hell exists (I hope you can give me a good explanation for that one!), and He knows that He will condemn them to hell. Ok, here’s a solution: God creates them, but He doesn’t know whether or not He will condemn them to hell. Any problems there?

Serious question here. Some of the people that God creates are reprobate. Sure, sure, they will be reprobate, but God exists outside of time, for him all times are immediately present and so forth. So when God creates these people, does He know that he will condemn them to hell or doesn’t He know that? He’s going to do one thing or another with them. Does He know what that will be or doesn’t he? For the sake of example, let’s say we’re dealing with one of the reprobate people. God created all of them; He’s entirely responsible for their existence. There isn’t a single reprobate individual that He’s not responsible for, so when He created any one of those reprobate people, did He know that He would condemn that person to hell or did He not know that?

If so, why not just…not create that person, or any of the other things He could do instead? Why is it more loving, merciful, and just for God to create that person when He knows what’s going to happen?

The alternative, of course, is that God doesn’t know. Do you see that as a viable option?

So I concede. You have a point there. But the concession goes with this challenge. Show me why the conclusions I say idiotic are not idiotic.

Why don’t you choose a new starting point and at least refrain from saying someone’s beliefs are idiotic even if you think they are? At least figure out if it’s a good idea before you say this kind of stuff. Who told you this was a good idea, anyway?

 

[benedictus2]

In this sense, and especially in the sense that God always knew that some would be elect and some would be reprobate, the entire act of clearing wrongs, making amends such that people can spend eternity in heaven, and expiating sins is limited to the elect.

And we can still say Christ died for all.

Explain the mechanism of reprobation.
How does reprobation happen in terms of Free Will and Grace?

What kind of grace? There’s lots of ways to talk about grace.

You tell me. What kind of grace are you talking about when you speak of grace. I think I was already very clear about what I mean by grace in my other posts.

What’s the starting condition? Do you affirm total depravity/inability? If so, in what way and to what degree? If not, why not?

No. I do not believe in total depravity. It is evident that this is not so because we see natural goodness in men who we call “not saved” for the simple fact that they are not Christians and they are not baptized.

Christ said that those who “feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc, etc” has done it to Him and will enter into His kingdom.

Since there are many non-Christians who do this, then that means that total depravity is a false doctrine.

Do you know why Calvin and Luther believed in total depravity? They were heavily influenced by Nominalism.

It was Calvin! Come on, you didn’t see that coming? It was from one of his commentaries that he wrote later in life. It had to do with 1 John 2:2.

I have not read Calvin. What I know of his predestination came from Calvinists in this forum.

But based on that little quote from him, explain how if Christ died for all, reprobation works.

Oh, please tell me you aren’t a clone of PR. She’s all about slicing and dicing. If you plan on acting like her, an offer to correspond via PM will be forthcoming.

Nope. I did exactly that in another thread. A certain Bengoshi kept pressuring me to read a link and fnally I acquiesced and and I think he wished he had not pushed me. The article was so full of inconsistencies and bad reasoning it was downright laughable.

So I proceeded to rebut the entire article in the thread.

By the way, I got a very major telling off from a moderator for saying that some of Sproul’s statements were idiotic. He even edited my post to take out the offending bits. So that shows you that there are no favouritisms in this forum.

Yes…and the people He created are either elect or reprobate. Some are destined for eternal life; others for perdition.

**So you end up where I knew you would end up. God creates people so He can send them to hell.

If that described a human being you would call them psychopath.** **

So therefore, you have not refuted my claim that this is where your theology takes you. A psychopathic God.

**I thought you said that the when your reply comes you will show me that I was wrong to say that the Calvinistic god is a psychopath.

Thanks you for affirming what I have said all along. I thought you were going to come up with a different conclusions and yet……

Indeed. And yet there is the problem of evil, the problem of pain and suffering, and the problem of eternal damnation, pain, suffering, all of which need explanations.

If it is just temporal suffering I can understand that. God allow suffering on this earth to bring about a greater good.

How can creating people who will always sin be a good?

If you say He allows misfortune, disease, etc, etc, to fall on men so that they will repent and return to Him, well that’s’ the problem of evil explained.

But, what you have just said is He created sinful men so that they will remain sinful so that He can send them to hell. That is an entirely different thing altogether.

There is no escaping the truth that your theology lleads to an evi and psychopathic god whichever way you go.

That last one often comes in the form of an argument for annihilationism. Some reason that God could annihilate a soul just as easily as He causes it to exist, and perhaps some parts of the Bible (especially something like “the second death”) refer to a more merciful, loving approach to eternity where the souls of the reprobate are terminated instead of being subjugated to eternal conscious torment.

A loving God who is more than capable of saving people don’t.

So you see, I was right after all. A loving, just, merciful God and one who creates people so that he can damn them are mutually exclusive.

One cannot be evil and psychopathic and at the same just, merciful and loving. Otherwise your god is a Jekyll and Hyde.
**
**(continued)

 

[benedictus2]

Perhaps if you could show me why this sort of eternal conscious torment is more consistent with God’s character than a doctrine like annihilationism, that can help you work through a very similar problem pertaining to why a loving, merciful God would predestine some to avoid this torment but not others. I assume you already have a really good handle on why God would allow the existence of such painful, conscious, eternal torment in the first place?

This is absurd. Why are you asking me to defend a position I never claimed to support? Ask those who are annihilists to explain their view.

If someone told you they refuse to believe in the existence of hell because it “just does not go together with” the idea of a loving merciful God, I’m sure you wouldn’t be entirely impressed with that argument.

Nope. I would be totally unimpressed because that would not be true.

You did something a lot like that, except instead of talking about God being responsible for what happens in hell, you’re talking about God being responsible for who goes there.

Nope, because I do not say that God is responsible for who goes there. I don’t know where you got that idea. If I wrote anything like that, then that was an error for not proofreading my post well enough.

That’s your stance not mine. I’m the Molinist remember, the one who safeguards free will.

Additionally, let’s take a look at the possible alternatives to this scenario. You aren’t willing to assent to a situation where God is the “someone” who creates people “knowing that He will condemn them to hell.” What’s a good solution to that?

I have already stated my position many times. We do. We condemn ourselves to hell.

Watch this video and you will know where I am coming from.

youtube.com/watch?v=x8zhnooySk4

This is a God who creates people (doing good so far), but hell exists (I hope you can give me a good explanation for that one!), and He knows that He will condemn them to hell. Ok, here’s a solution: God creates them, but He doesn’t know whether or not He will condemn them to hell. Any problems there?

I won’t answer this because the video I linked to answers this.

Serious question here. Some of the people that God creates are reprobate.

Reprobate: 1) A morally unprincipled person. 2) One who is predestined to damnation.
If you mean 1, then I would give a qualified yes, but as to 2 , a most definite no.

Sure, sure, they will be reprobate, but God exists outside of time, for him all times are immediately present and so forth. So when God creates these people, does He know that he will condemn them to hell or doesn’t He know that? He’s going to do one thing or another with them.

What happened to free will? The problem is you are trying to argue my points from a Calvinistic premise – total depravity.

Since I do not believe in that and that does not play at all into my system, so all these things you are saying are irrelevant.

Does He know what that will be or doesn’t he? For the sake of example, let’s say we’re dealing with one of the reprobate people.

You can’t use that example because already you argument is Calvnistically loaded. You say reprobate. I don’t agree there are reprobates as in those predestined to damnation.

Can you see where your errors are? You are mixing everything up.

Step outside the Calvinistic presupposition of Total Depravity and you will understand better what I mean.

You keep falling into this error that somehow it is God who chose to damn us. Well it isn’t. If we are damned, that would be because we chose to damn ourselves.

I will skip rest because it is based on the same wrong assumption.

Why don’t you choose a new starting point and at least refrain from saying someone’s beliefs are idiotic even if you think they are? At least figure out if it’s a good idea before you say this kind of stuff.

Okay I will. But so you know, when I say something is idiotic, it is because I have figured out that to say this is a good idea. And the reason I think it is a good idea is because I think one should call a spade a spade.

But to accede to your request I will refrain from calling a spade a spade.

 

[benedictus2]

Hey cooterhein

Do you know the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayam?

There are verses that tells exactly whta predestination is like:

***From the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayam (as translated by Edward Fitzgerald)

******But helpless pieces in the game He plays
Upon this chequer-board of Nights and Days
He hither and thither moves, and checks … and slays
Then one by one, back in the Closet lays

“The Moving Finger writes: and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”***

 

[Carlan]

I would say that I have exercised the grey matter and followed it to its logical conclusion that is why I came up with this.

The logical conlcusion has to be Biblical because after all, the debate rages around a Biblical issue.

Here are my reasons why the conclusion most protestant arrive at is wrong based on the exercise of the grey matter.

The verses they provide for predestination to damnation do not say that at all. The verses all pertain to temporal punishment or physical death or something to do with earthly life, and not a single one of them says that because of such and such, this soul or that soul has been damned.

Second. Exercising the grey cells, I reason that the whole Bible is about God being love, God being just, and God being Merciful.

Exercising the grey cells while reading the Bible I reason that Christ died for all.

So exercising the grey cells I come to this: either God is above all those things or He is a God who predestine some to hell.

So since the Bible tells me that God is above all those things, then the protestants must have made the wrong conclusion based on an erroneous interpretation of some passages of the Bible.

Though I did make an error as it is not only protestants who thought that way. So there was some failure in the exercise of the grey matter in that statement.

Mea Culpa.

I have just fininshed going through some of my notes on this.
I offer them for what they are worth.

when we study Scripture and predestination, we must remember that there are two sides to the equation: what God does, and what we do. Some Scriptures deal only with what God does, and others only with what we do, but we cannot interpret them in isolation. Proper exegesis of Scripture means to read what the text says, and harmonize it with the entire Bible. We further cannot assert what is not there, and deny what is not there either.

Let’s remember this as we look at Romans 9: Verses 18-19 is about what God does, verses 20 is about what we do, verses 21-24 is about what God does. There is nothing in these verses that says that God predetermines anyone to heaven or hell. There is nothing in these verses that tell us how we know we are in the elect. The verses are only about God’s power (which is infinite), and our human response (which is not). Note in the same letter, Paul clearly teaches that God judges people based upon their works, and that people can lose their salvation if they do evil. See Rom. 2:5-8; 14:10,12.

John 6:37-44. In verse 37, Jesus is saying that those the Father draws by His prevenient grace will come to Jesus. But note that it doesn’t say that the drawing is an “irresistible decree” like the Calvinists claim, or that the people who are drawn will remain with Jesus until “the last day.” In verse 39, Jesus says it is not the Father’s will that Jesus should lose any of what He gave Jesus. This is true. But this only deals with the Father’s will, not human will, which could ultimately reject Jesus. Verse 40 again is about God’s will; it does not address the human will, which could choose to reject Jesus at some point in the future.

In verse 44, Jesus affirms that no one comes to Him unless the Father draws him. This is true; it is speaking of the fact that we cannot come to Christ but by God’s grace. But again, it says nothing about remaining with Jesus or being eternally secure with Jesus. There are many other Scriptures that talk about how we can actually lose our salvation (Rom. 11:20-23; 1 Cor. 9:24-27; 2 Cor. 11:2-3, etc.). So, when a Scripture describes God’s divine action (the predestination side), we cannot exclude human response (the free will side). Calvinists, for example, automatically isogete the passages that deal with God’s divine action by excluding human free will actions. But this is not proper biblical exegesis."
johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com

link to the full respone:scripturecatholic.com/justifi…ml#scripture-I

peace, Carlan

 

[benedictus2]

I have just fininshed going through some of my notes on this.
I offer them for what they are worth.

when we study Scripture and predestination, we must remember that there are two sides to the equation: what God does, and what we do. Some Scriptures deal only with what God does, and others only with what we do, but we cannot interpret them in isolation. Proper exegesis of Scripture means to read what the text says, and harmonize it with the entire Bible. We further cannot assert what is not there, and deny what is not there either.

Let’s remember this as we look at Romans 9: Verses 18-19 is about what God does, verses 20 is about what we do, verses 21-24 is about what God does. There is nothing in these verses that says that God predetermines anyone to heaven or hell. There is nothing in these verses that tell us how we know we are in the elect. The verses are only about God’s power (which is infinite), and our human response (which is not). Note in the same letter, Paul clearly teaches that God judges people based upon their works, and that people can lose their salvation if they do evil. See Rom. 2:5-8; 14:10,12.

John 6:37-44. In verse 37, Jesus is saying that those the Father draws by His prevenient grace will come to Jesus. But note that it doesn’t say that the drawing is an “irresistible decree” like the Calvinists claim, or that the people who are drawn will remain with Jesus until “the last day.” In verse 39, Jesus says it is not the Father’s will that Jesus should lose any of what He gave Jesus. This is true. But this only deals with the Father’s will, not human will, which could ultimately reject Jesus. Verse 40 again is about God’s will; it does not address the human will, which could choose to reject Jesus at some point in the future.

In verse 44, Jesus affirms that no one comes to Him unless the Father draws him. This is true; it is speaking of the fact that we cannot come to Christ but by God’s grace. But again, it says nothing about remaining with Jesus or being eternally secure with Jesus. There are many other Scriptures that talk about how we can actually lose our salvation (Rom. 11:20-23; 1 Cor. 9:24-27; 2 Cor. 11:2-3, etc.). So, when a Scripture describes God’s divine action (the predestination side), we cannot exclude human response (the free will side). Calvinists, for example, automatically isogete the passages that deal with God’s divine action by excluding human free will actions. But this is not proper biblical exegesis."
johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com

link to the full respone:scripturecatholic.com/justifi…ml#scripture-I

peace, Carlan

Great Post!

I hope Calvinists read this.

 

[fbl9]

Just curious as just how far into our actions does predestination goes. ie when faced with good or evil one will pick evil cause he is destined for hell iow we have no choice in what we do we are just characters in an already written book.

 

[Carlan]

Just curious as just how far into our actions does predestination goes. ie when faced with good or evil one will pick evil cause he is destined for hell iow we have no choice in what we do we are just characters in an already written book.

Put that ways Fbl, It just shows how some reformists are so blind to common sense. Peace, Carlan

 

[benedictus2]

Why don’t you choose a new starting point and at least refrain from saying someone’s beliefs are idiotic even if you think they are? At least figure out if it’s a good idea before you say this kind of stuff. Who told you this was a good idea, anyway?

Hi cooterhein,

I was wondering if this is the extent of the challenge that you wrote about? You said you were going to come up with something to refute the points I raised and you set the date at January 6.

I was wondering if you are still planning on doing that or was your last post it?

Thanks.

 

[benedictus2]

Just curious as just how far into our actions does predestination goes. ie when faced with good or evil one will pick evil cause he is destined for hell iow we have no choice in what we do we are just characters in an already written book.

Unfortunately that is what it is like with a doctrine like total depravity.

It really does sound like the lines I quoted from the Rubaiyat.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi cooterhein,

I was wondering if this is the extent of the challenge that you wrote about? You said you were going to come up with something to refute the points I raised and you set the date at January 6.

I was wondering if you are still planning on doing that or was your last post it?

Thanks.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi cooterhein,

I was wondering if this is the extent of the challenge that you wrote about? You said you were going to come up with something to refute the points I raised and you set the date at January 6.

I was wondering if you are still planning on doing that or was your last post it?

Thanks.

I heard the question posed on Catholic Answers Live to Jimmy Akin by “Cooter” here.

It turns out to not really be the silver bullet that was originally proposed by Cooterhein.

Originally posted by Cooter: 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.

In fact, Jimmy Akin does give at least some, if not quite a bit of, credence to “the Calvinistic God is a monstrous god.”

Akin does say that there seems to be a “lack of utility” in arguing this point of a monstrous god;HOWEVER, he does propose that this “monstrous god” is a logical conclusion and it is a “profound insight”. This portrays an immoral god that is incongruous with a God who is love.

And, of course, Akin urges charity in the continued dialogue.

In the end, Akin was sympathetic to the “valid insight” that if God behaves this way, “it certainly looks like there’s something monstrous going on” while also acknowledging that this tension between a monstrous god and a God who is so far above us may not ever be resolved.

Not so much what was originally proposed by Cootehein.

Just sayin’.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Just curious as just how far into our actions does predestination goes. ie when faced with good or evil one will pick evil cause he is destined for hell iow we have no choice in what we do we are just characters in an already written book.

I used to be Reformed in my theology (a Calvinist) and now am Catholic.

Reformed theology does not teach that we are robots or that we have no choice at all. If you are truely curious try googling RC Sproul or Spurgeon to get a better idea of what Reformed theology is and is not.

Or you can head over to calledtocommunion.com which is a Catholic website set up by former Reformed Christians. Calledtocommunion is an awesome website that addresses many of the questions you may have plus it’s run by several ex-Reformed ministers and theologians who are now faithful to the Church.

Now that I think about it, head over to calledtocommuion.com and let me know what you think.

 

[benedictus2]

I used to be Reformed in my theology (a Calvinist) and now am Catholic.

Reformed theology does not teach that we are robots or that we have no choice at all. If you are truely curious try googling RC Sproul or Spurgeon to get a better idea of what Reformed theology is and is not.

I think the only reason reformed theology gets out of us being robots is because they have not really taken their basic theology to its logical conclusion.

If you take all their premises together, then it does end up as if we are mere robots in a sense that we have no free will.

Some try to affirm free will but if you look at the other underlying premises in their theology, you wonder how there can be free will if we are totally depraved.

 

[benedictus2]

I heard the question posed on Catholic Answers Live to Jimmy Akin by “Cooter” here.

It turns out to not really be the silver bullet that was originally proposed by Cooterhein.

In fact, Jimmy Akin does give at least some, if not quite a bit of, credence to “the Calvinistic God is a monstrous god.”

Akin does say that there seems to be a “lack of utility” in arguing this point of a monstrous god;HOWEVER, he does propose that this “monstrous god” is a logical conclusion and it is a “profound insight”. This portrays an immoral god that is incongruous with a God who is love.

And, of course, Akin urges charity in the continued dialogue.

In the end, Akin was sympathetic to the “valid insight” that if God behaves this way, “it certainly looks like there’s something monstrous going on” while also acknowledging that this tension between a monstrous god and a God who is so far above us may not ever be resolved.

Not so much what was originally proposed by Cootehein.

Just sayin’.

.
I sort of gathered that there was no such thing forthcoming because in his last post here he suggested approaching the discussion from adifferent angle. I also asked him the same thing on another thread and he has not replied to that one as well.

I have not listened to the audio yet but just based on what you have written above which I have highlighted, I disagree with Akin that there is any tension at all.

Once we get rid of the premise of total depravity and look at the passages on predestination from a different angle, then the supposed tension disappears.

The problem arises only if because they read “eternity” into punishments that are “temporal”. I think a lack of a robust understanding of overall economy of salvation is what leads them to this kind of thinking.

By the way, thanks for the good work in getting that link. I will download it and listen later.

 

[PRmerger]

By the way, thanks for the good work in getting that link. I will download it and listen later.

:tiphat:

It’s the very last question on the audio.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I think the only reason reformed theology gets out of us being robots is because they have not really taken their basic theology to its logical conclusion.

If you take all their premises together, then it does end up as if we are mere robots in a sense that we have no free will.

Some try to affirm free will but if you look at the other underlying premises in their theology, you wonder how there can be free will if we are totally depraved.

You seem to have some misunderstandings and that is understandable since you aren’t in a Reformed church.

If you are serious about trying to understand Reformed theology why not go over to Sproul’s website (ligonier.something) and peruse their materials or ask them a question?

Total depravity is better stated as man’s total inability with regards to seeking God without first receiving God’s grace. In other words, without God’s grace none of us will respond to the gospel. No Catholic should have an issue with that since it has been taught both in scripture and formerly and explicitly since the Council of Orange.

If you have any other questions, try Sproul’s website…I have no desire to get into a debate over a position I no longer hold.