Predestination/Calvinism

[PRmerger]

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.

Well, yes, indeed, this is very Catholic.

Except I know many Calvinists would object to total depravity being described as being “better stated as man’s total inability with regards to seeking God without first receiving God’s grace.”

 

[Pwrlftr]

Well, yes, indeed, this is very Catholic.

Except I know many Calvinists would object to total depravity being described as being “better stated as man’s total inability with regards to seeking God without first receiving God’s grace.”

Okay

 

[benedictus2]

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?

As a matter of fact I have read one of Sproul’s work which another Calvinist by name of Bengoshi kept pressuring me to read. This is on the thread called Tackling Predestination forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=469776&page=35

So in the end I read the article and refuted it over 5 post from post 525 to 529 starting on page 35

Below are the direct links to this.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6900939&postcount=525

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6900949&postcount=526

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6900963&postcount=527

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6900976&postcount=528

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6901005&postcount=529

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.

But if man is totally depraved such that the will is absolutely corrupt and unable to make an assent to God freely, then therefore reprobation is the only reason for damnation.

Which leaves us once again with a monster of a god.

As I have said before, there is no way of escaping this conclusion once we allow in all the premises of Calvinist predestination.

 

[benidict]

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.

hey yeah. i was kinda wondering about this too. maybe hes delayed his challenge until may 21? or perhaps 2012 in december?

 

[benedictus2]

hey yeah. i was kinda wondering about this too. maybe hes delayed his challenge until may 21? or perhaps 2012 in december?

As PRMerger posted, Cooterhein rang Catholic Answers live and spoke to Jimmy Akin.

By the way Cooterhein, if you are still reading, it is good to put a voice to a post . You have a nice voice.

Akin confirmed the problem but I felt he did not sufficiently address the question. So I wrote Akin but I don’t think I will be getting a reply as the guy is probably too busy.

The gist of my problem with his reply was that I felt it still failed to take into account that God created all of us and before He did so He knew that everyone He creates after Adam’s fall will be born into sin.

So we cannot just say that but God is omnipotent and so can do what ever He wishes. That may be so but that hardly gels with a God who is supposed to be just and supposed to be Love.

So I go back to my initial point that any theologizing has to have this as first premise. God is Love and we proceed from that truth.

 

[PRmerger]

Akin confirmed the problem but I felt he did not sufficiently address the question. So I wrote Akin but I don’t think I will be getting a reply as the guy is probably too busy.

Did you by chance reference this thread in your email to Akin? It would be interesting to see if he visits this thread. No doubt he’d be too busy to respond…but, still, it might give him food for thought! And give him a reference/context for responding to you and cooter’s private emails to him.

 

[stormy99]

Well, let’s talk about predestination/Calvinism.

While it is known that God has predestined some events, I’m talking about pure predestination (people chosen to go to heaven or hell). What’s your opinion? Maybe a discussion on this can flourish.

**I sure wasn’t taught this in the Presbyterian Church but it is true…some people will go to heaven and others will no…no matter what they do…what a bunch of BS that is…who in their right mind would want to be in a religion where it has already been decided you’re not going to make it and you don’t even know…

stormy**

 

[benedictus2]

Did you by chance reference this thread in your email to Akin? It would be interesting to see if he visits this thread. No doubt he’d be too busy to respond…but, still, it might give him food for thought! And give him a reference/context for responding to you and cooter’s private emails to him.

No I didn’t give a link. I should have. But it should be easy for him to find it if he was interested. I think it is not very honest of cooterhein though to not just reply considering he was the one who threw the challenge.

So I wonder what he thinks of Calvinism now considering that he has been proven wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

No I didn’t give a link. I should have. But it should be easy for him to find it if he was interested. I think it is not very honest of cooterhein though to not just reply considering he was the one who threw the challenge.

So I wonder what he thinks of Calvinism now considering that he has been proven wrong.

Indeed.

:coffeeread:

 

[jwright82]

**I sure wasn’t taught this in the Presbyterian Church but it is true…some people will go to heaven and others will no…no matter what they do…what a bunch of BS that is…who in their right mind would want to be in a religion where it has already been decided you’re not going to make it and you don’t even know…

stormy**

Not to call you out directly but your response is very charectoristic of critiques against Calvinism. I will try to respond.

Number one is that God is God and just as He told Moses that He has the right “to show mercy on whom He will show mercy on”, He is under no obligation other than His grace and mercy to save even one person at all. In fact He could send all of us sinners to hell and be perfectly justified to do so. So then, if He saved just one person would this be merciful? Yes, just as He is under no obligation to save anyone He can therefore extend His salvation to any number of sinners and retain His mercy and holiness. So the concept that He is justified to save some and not all is really not that contraversial but only an exstension of His divine rights.

But most people appeal to Scripture to show that His gospel is to for all. And that is true but in our theology He only definantly acomplished salvation for His Covenant community of elect. The gospel is for all but again we are talking about sinners who hate God, that is who this message is being given to. So Godf must work withen us to guarrentee anyone whatsoever salvation, and He is perfectly justified to work this in only some and not all. Calvinist generaly say that the only two options are limited atonment and universalism because only these two options have a definant atonement for sin, aprt from the sinners acceptance of it.

 

[benedictus2]

Not to call you out directly but your response is very charectoristic of critiques against Calvinism. I will try to respond.

Number one is that God is God and just as He told Moses that He has the right “to show mercy on whom He will show mercy on”, He is under no obligation other than His grace and mercy to save even one person at all. In fact He could send all of us sinners to hell and be perfectly justified to do so. So then, if He saved just one person would this be merciful? Yes, just as He is under no obligation to save anyone He can therefore extend His salvation to any number of sinners and retain His mercy and holiness. So the concept that He is justified to save some and not all is really not that contraversial but only an exstension of His divine rights.

But most people appeal to Scripture to show that His gospel is to for all. And that is true but in our theology He only definantly acomplished salvation for His Covenant community of elect. The gospel is for all but again we are talking about sinners who hate God, that is who this message is being given to. So Godf must work withen us to guarrentee anyone whatsoever salvation, and He is perfectly justified to work this in only some and not all. Calvinist generaly say that the only two options are limited atonment and universalism because only these two options have a definant atonement for sin, aprt from the sinners acceptance of it.

Hi JWWright,

Have you read through the thread? All the points you’ve raised have been answered in the preceding exchange.

I do recommend having a thorough read. You will recognize the flaws in Reformed thinking on this matter once you’ve gone through the thread.

Peace!

Cory

 

[jwright82]

Hi JWWright,

Have you read through the thread? All the points you’ve raised have been answered in the preceding exchange.

I do recommend having a thorough read. You will recognize the flaws in Reformed thinking on this matter once you’ve gone through the thread.

Peace!

Cory

Fair enough I will read through and see what comes up. If I disagree to anything I will post my critiques and see where things go.

 

[benedictus2]

Fair enough I will read through and see what comes up. If I disagree to anything I will post my critiques and see where things go.

Yes, I think that would be best because the discussion has been quite detailed.

I would like to hear your critiques though once you’ve had a chance to read through.

Peace!

Cory

 

[cooterhein]

No I didn’t give a link. I should have. But it should be easy for him to find it if he was interested. I think it is not very honest of cooterhein though to not just reply considering he was the one who threw the challenge.:shrug:Hey, I’m finally responding. Jimmy didn’t respond in quite the way I expected. I did expect him to group Calvinism and Thomism together even though I didn’t really ask him to, but that’s what he tends to do. I was hoping for an e-mail response at some point, but it doesn’t look like that will happen. I was kind of hoping he would say whether or not he’s heard this from another apologist before, so maybe I can try again and see about that. I was also hoping he would give his own opinion on the matter, but instead he made favorable statements about bringing the idea up…although I’m sure he wouldn’t be the one to bring it up. And I’m still not sure if it’s the kind of thing any other apologist would bring up. But yes, he was much more favorable to such discussion than I thought he would be.

So I wonder what he thinks of Calvinism now considering that he has been proven wrong.

 

[benedictus2]

Hey, I’m finally responding. Jimmy didn’t respond in quite the way I expected. I did expect him to group Calvinism and Thomism together even though I didn’t really ask him to, but that’s what he tends to do. I was hoping for an e-mail response at some point, but it doesn’t look like that will happen. I was kind of hoping he would say whether or not he’s heard this from another apologist before, so maybe I can try again and see about that. I was also hoping he would give his own opinion on the matter, but instead he made favorable statements about bringing the idea up…although I’m sure he wouldn’t be the one to bring it up. And I’m still not sure if it’s the kind of thing any other apologist would bring up. But yes, he was much more favorable to such discussion than I thought he would be.

I’ve been proven wrong in my expectations of how Jimmy would respond, if that’s what you mean. If you want to keep talking about this, I guess I could answer a couple more questions. Long as you’re willing to answer a couple as well.

Hey I am all for continuing this discussion. I don’t have any more questions but if you have then please raise them.

Your argument that “ex-Calvinists did not ever raise this problem” is not a good one. It must be one that addresses the issue directly, not someone else’s perceived silence on the matter.

I do commend you for the effort you have put towards this.

Peace!

Cory