Predestination, free will, Augustine Pelagian controversy, Catholic views, Calvinism...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Christian_Unity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CONTINUED

But wait, how is this possible? The Confession says that it is within “the power of man to fulfill it”: On the one hand, asserting that grace is necessary for eternal life for those in sin, but saying the opposite (that it is within the power of man) when man is not fallen or chained by sin (Adam and Eve). In other words, the only impediment to eternal life is sin–that man, by his uncorrupted nature, is worthy of the glory of God (that’s what happens when you take Romans 3:23 literally). This is why the author (of the web article) says naturally in a state of sin. A false dichotomy is presented: either man is in a state of sin, or he is in a state of communion and grace. Why is this? Because the effectual calling is, inadvertently or not, translated as an ordination by the nature. That is to say, that somehow man is called by his very nature, by very “image of God”, and is inherently worthy of a relationship and communion with God. This is false, for two reasons:

A. Because God’s supernatural virtue is incommunicable by means of the natural. God’s holiness and glory can only be communicated by the supernatural mystery of grace.
B. Because communion with the Creator, when as a friendship and virtue, is supernatural and disproportionate to the nature of the creature. Therefore, God’s friendship can only be communicated by the supernatural mystery of grace.

Now, this image of God is glorified in Christ, instead of Adam who failed (1 Corinthians 15:22). But this image first imparted onto the nature of man in Genesis is not glorified (Acts 17:29).

Now you are wondering what this has to do with predestination. God predestined to elevate the human nature to his glory. It is by the grace of God, not our own nature however splendid it might be, that we are elected to go to heaven. It is not by the works of Adam in his humanity that he would achieve eternal life by a covenant of works. It is by grace. Sola gratia.
For if those who adhere to the law are the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law produces wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there violation. For this reason,** it depends on [the grace of] faith, so that it may be a gift**, and the promise may be guaranteed to all his descendants… Romans 4:15-16
We can see how this is applicable to Genesis. Adam and Eve could not God see face to face (as in heaven, 2 Corinthians 5:7), but they were friends with him, and so this was a grace to them as faith; and faith leads to sanctification (Ephesians 2:8-9). But the law prohibiting the eating of the fruit would not lead to eternal life, for then the promise of eternal life would not be a grace, but void. Transgression of the law “produces wrath”, but where there is no law (do not eat of the fruit or else you shall die), “neither is there violation”. Therefore, in a sense, the warning of transgression immediately followed the ordination. It seems, even further, that this ordination was not in the nature of man, or else he would naturally know the consequences–that is, God would not have to tell him not to eat the fruit.

And in regards to the individual, it seems that this is, in fact, a foreknowledge then, and not a double-predestination. God truly wills all men to be saved, and he gives us the means to that end–in grace, that is. Therefore, all humans are Israel, so to speak. But what of the Gentiles?
What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened.
How beautiful. What humanity is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who are chosen obtain it, and the rest are hardened. What does this mean in regards to predestination? The “hardened” ones are the Gentiles. But who are these Gentiles? Strictly speaking, fallen humanity is the Gentiles. When we fell, our nature was damaged–not totally, but partially. We lost, to a certain degree, that image of God. We fell from grace to dust–not only as Adam and Eve were before they were ordained, but more-so even. We became as the animals, though we were being glorified in grace (Romans 1:23). And so we needed Christ to a) heal our nature and b) give us the grace to be elevated once more. In Christ, we become chosen, but it is not by the works of man that we are chosen. It by the free gift of grace to which we lay down our lives in obedience as Christ did. Grace builds upon nature. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He did not come to “make a way”, where we are created into Christs. Rather, he is the Way because we participate in** his** Life, which is the Truth. He is the only Way, because there is no other eternal Life (John 3:16). If we do not submit to this free gift of grace, we are hardened and some even become like stone, unreceptive to grace at all.

I think this about covers everything. I will do the other link later, if need be.
 
A worthy challenge. But in entering such a debate, one must be cognizant that Catholics do not derive doctrine by piecing together single or small collection of verses as do our separated brethren. We receive the doctrine from the Church, to which it was entrusted by Christ, then we understand what is written in the light of what the Aposltes believed and taught.

Such a debate would necessitate that we incorporate ALL of the Scripture including the great many conditional verses that are contained within it.😉
Okay, let’s debate a Reformed understanding of predestination with a Catholic understanding of predestination using Scripture. Please start with the Catholic position by using Sacred Scripture and then I’ll post the Reformed position of predestination according to the Scriptures.
 
Okay, let’s debate a Reformed understanding of predestination with a Catholic understanding of predestination using Scripture. Please start with the Catholic position by using Sacred Scripture and then I’ll post the Reformed position of predestination according to the Scriptures.
:confused::confused::confused: Using Scripture? We catholics can quote the same passages as you and come to different conclusions.

Maybe you meant your interpretation of Scripture versus the Catholic interpretation of the same scripture.

The question you maybe seeking…is what makes your interpretative tradition, which you espouse from your protestant forebears and grandfathers…to that of Catholic interpretative tradition using Sacred Tradition.

Ponder on this article…before you go on to the debate…I suggest…

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology.

This pick-and-choose approach to the tradition shows that it is not the fact that an Ecumenical Council declared something definitively that makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler. What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.
 
:confused::confused::confused: Using Scripture? We catholics can quote the same passages as you and come to different conclusions.

Maybe you meant your interpretation of Scripture versus the Catholic interpretation of the same scripture.

The question you maybe seeking…is what makes your interpretative tradition, which you espouse from your protestant forebears and grandfathers…to that of Catholic interpretative tradition using Sacred Tradition.

Ponder on this article…before you go on to the debate…I suggest…

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology.

This pick-and-choose approach to the tradition shows that it is not the fact that an Ecumenical Council declared something definitively that makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler. What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.
It’s official. Called to Communion has been pulled out of the back pocket. We got a bad to the bone man over here.

Thanks for the post in general, anyway.

I should like to add this link as well.
 
I like the idea of sufficient grace in which you stated… which was also coined by the Apostle Paul. If you guys give me some patience and liberty on this issue of sufficient grace, and degrees of grace in which people receive, it seems this would be the area to continue our discussion. Obviously, we both believe that not all will end up in Heaven including those who profess Christ or have been baptized. Therefore, there is a concept of how effectual the grace of God is in regarding the work of God in redeeming sinners as eternal adopted children of God.
No, I don’t think so. The grace of God is always completely effectual. Not everyone chooses to accept His effectual grace, and walk within it. Some people reject God’s purpose for themselves.

Luke 7:28-30

28 I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." 29(When they heard this all the people and the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John; 30** but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves**, not having been baptized by him.)

God is omnipotent and His grace is always sufficient and effectual. He has deigned that His creatures have the freedom to choose whether or not to accept it.

2 Cor 6:1-2
6:1 Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.

Here the Apostle uses the word synergism (working together with God) to describe the ministry of the Apostles. He exhorts the faithful not to accept the grace of God in vain. What might that mean? Surely not that God’s grace lacks effectiveness.
 
Code:
If we say that if the wild card is man's will, then shouldn't we conclude that man is sovereign over God in salvation?/quote]
Only if you wish to depart from the Teachings of the Apostles.

Jesus taught that God created mankind for Himself, so that we can be in relationship with Him. Love does not compel relationship, but invites. Love allows the one loved to refuse the relationship. It is the sovereignty of God that has allowed this to happen.
Christian Unity;10084237:
Code:
God cannot be sovereign in salvation if man control's his own fate and destiny.
This is a falsehood. God is sovereign, and there is nothing you can construct in a human mind that changes this fact. Your conclusion, based upon a false premise, results in a falsehood. God, in His sovereignty, has given mankind choice:

Deut 30:19-20
19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live, 20 loving the LORD your God, obeying his voice, and cleaving to him; for that means life to you and length of days, that you may dwell in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them."

He commands us to choose life, but allows us to choose death.
I do agree that all mankind are without excuse, and are accountable for his actions, including the sin of unbelief. However, we do know that some are saved and will be in Heaven, and others are not and will receive divine justice and eternal punishment. Those who will be saved will boast that salvation is of the Lord, and not of themselves.
God does not command us to do that which He will not also enable us to do.

2 Thess 1:7-11
when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not** obey the gospel **of our Lord Jesus. 9 They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, 10 when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at in all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.

He gives sufficient grace to enable all to obey the gospel.
 
Aww, has the thread died? I was looking forward to seeing how things would progress.
 
Christian Unity,

I have read through this thread, that seems to go in circles, and have just one thought. Catholics believe all are destined for Jesus Christ. We are born for God. I can’t see that you disagree with this. The diverging thought/belief I see is free will.

Catholic teaching is, God created us as rational beings, and gifted us with free will. This gift is given us so that we can love God freely. When we use our free will to go against God (aka sin), this is an abuse of our free will.

Sin separates us from God, which is not God’s desire, and not for what we are destined. Not only is this Catholic teaching, it is self-evident. Just look at us (the human race).

So I think, in conclusion, you are viewing predestination as “heaven assured”, stamped on our foreheads. No matter what love one has for God, or not, doesn’t matter. (?)

Where, we view predestination as God’s Will, made most evident by the Cross. However, God is not going to force us to love Him, as forced love is no love at all. Meaning, there is meaning to the love we have for God in return (or lack of).
 
LOL… thanks for the reminder. We are on the non-catholic forum site. I thought Scripture falls under that category of Sacred written tradition?
This topic is truly controversial. I do not expect a satisfactory answer here except the sort of ones like ‘a catholic is bound to believe it because the church teaches so’ etc.
 
This topic is truly controversial. I do not expect a satisfactory answer here except the sort of ones like ‘a catholic is bound to believe it because the church teaches so’ etc.
There have been no posts from Catholics, from what I have read, that say anything like that.

Could you direct us to those posts that you think have proclaimed this?

Rather, what we proclaim is fides quarens intellectum. Which is exactly what the Apostles did. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top