predestination

[Gottle_of_Geer]

BryPGuy89:

I’m a little late into this so if I say something already said please tell me what post number so I can look over the posts please.

On the subject I beleive and have come to understand the teachings of the subject that we have free will on earth yes, but God is above the dimensions of time and thus knows our decisions though they be of free will they are in a sence predetermined.

Very well said - no need to be apologetic ​

The problem - or a problem - is that though God is not time bound, we are; so it is not easy (to say the least) to speak rightly of God in time-bound language. ##

 

[Contarini]

itsjustdave1988:

the Calvinist interpretation of this view is that “all men” who are saved are ONLY those among the elect, right?

And that is almost certainly St. Thomas’s view here as well. “Saved” pretty clearly refers to final salvation, at least as Thomas is interpreting it.

Jesus did not share the grace of atonement with the reprobate. Is this St. Thomas view? No.

I never claimed that it was, although most Calvinists agree in some form with the medieval formula that Christ died sufficiently for all but efficiently for the elect. Furthermore, limited atonement is the most controversial point of “TULIP”–it is part of developed, orthodox Calvinism, but Calvin is silent on it and there is a minority position within Calvinism that rejects it.

However, both Thomas and Augustine held the Catholic view that Baptism truly saves.

This is a clever argument. I’m not convinced by it, because in the passage in question St. Thomas clearly seems to be speaking of final salvation. He contrasts “saved” with “damned” which makes me think he is speaking of final states. So though, as he says in Part 3 (a passage you quoted earlier) that baptism “contains the perfection of salvation,” when he here speaks of “being saved” it sounds to me as if he is speaking of those who are finally saved.

In my experience–which I don’t claim to be exhaustive–medieval theologians generally use the word “saved” in this sense, to speak of people who are finally saved as opposed to being finally damned.

If you look at this context, it is clear that both men refute the Calvinist view that “all men” who are “saved” are necessarily only those who are the elect.

I can’t see anything of the sort. I agree of course that both St. Thomas and St. Augustine think that some of the reprobate experience regeneration and later fall away, and this is the single most obvious difference between their position(s) and Calvinism. But the context doesn’t look to me as if it is speaking of “saved” as including all the “regenerate.” You are reading that into the text to avoid (what you yourself earlier admitted with regard to the first two responses) the appearance of a “Calvinist” interpretation. The same is true of the passage you cited from St. Augustine’s De correptione et gratia 44. Note that he there speaks explicitly of the “all” who are saved as all those who are predestined, not all who are regenerate through baptism. I see no support for your interpretation, and a number of factors that point the other way.

In otherwords, the universality of saving grace includes even the reprobate, contrary to the Calvinist view of “all men.”

Even in your view, this “salvation” is not effectively offered to all, since many people have never been offered baptism. In the Thomist view as much as the Calvinist one, this fact is subject to God’s providence. So though baptism is implicitly offered to all, the fact is that many people never have the chance to be saved through baptism. But that’s probably another issue.

St. Thomas teaches explicitly that God gives grace to some, who He does not give the gift of perseverance.

I’m not disputing that. I have said over and over that I’m not maintaining that St. Thomas’s position is compatible with Calvinism. I’m maintaining that his interpretation of this particular passage is compatible with Calvinism. You have a legitimate point that the implications and nuances are different because his interpretation is in the context of a significantly different soteriology. But he makes the same exegetical “moves.” All three of his arguments–particularly the first two–could be taken up by Calvinists, and this is also true of the two arguments you cite from St. Augustine.

Is this congruent with the Calvinist interpretation that “all men” whom Jesus saves?

The point here turns on what St. Thomas means by “being saved.” I repeat–the context indicates strongly that he is speaking of final salvation.

However, the grace which only comes from Calvary is given to even the reprobate, according to St. Thomas, right?

That isn’t relevant here, because he isn’t speaking about the grace coming from Calvary being given to some of the reprobate. He is speaking of those who are saved as opposed to being damned–i.e., of final salvation. I entirely agree that he has a very different understanding from Calvinists of what happens on the way to that final state.

That’s one aspect of “free will” that Calvinist deny can happen, as for them all justifying grace is irresistible grace.

Again, true (in the sense that they don’t think a believer can act in such a way as to lose the gift of charity), but not relevant if (as I believe) St. Thomas is here speaking of *final *salvation.

 

[Contarini]

itsjustdave1988:

continued…

Furthermore, Calvinists also deny that men without justifying grace can freely will to do good. Yet, St. Thomas calls all voluntary human acts “moral acts.” He asserts, “moral acts are the same as human acts” (ST, IIa, 1, 3). Thus, there’s no distinction between natural good acts of humans and morally good acts, in St. Thomas’ view. St. Thomas (*Summa Theologica, *IIa, 109, 2) and St. Augustine both deny that fallen man is so totally deprave, so corrupt so as to not be able to do at least some good naturally (ie. by their natural gifts from God apart from supernatural gifts such as justifying grace).

Again, I agree. Calvinists are simply not interested in “natural” goodness. It isn’t a relevant category for them–though some posit a “common grace” that accounts for what Catholics call “natural” goodness. But I fail to see how this is relevant to our exegetical debate.

Edwin

 

[Justice2006]

A qoute:

Only God Has Free Will.

God Wills whatever He likes and it will always happen as He wills.

We have something called, “free choice” [or limited free-will-and-choice]. The difference is that:

what God “Wills” always happens
and
what we choose may or may not happen.

We are not being judged on the outcome of things, we are being judged on our choices.

This means that at the core of everything will always be our intentions. Whatever we intended, is what we will have the reward for. Each person will be judged according to what God gave them to work with, how they used it and what they intended to do with it.​

[Yusuf Estes]
islamtomorrow.com/yusuf/
[Priests & Preachers - Entering Islam?]

---

 

[BryPGuy89]

## Very well said - no need to be apologetic

The problem - or a problem - is that though God is not time bound, we are; so it is not easy (to say the least) to speak rightly of God in time-bound language. ##

Good point.

 

[Mercurius]

Not Without Us
A Brief History of the Forgotten Catholic Doctrine of Predestination During the Semipelagian Controversy

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1587365332.01.AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ.jpg

Contrary to popular assumption, the doctrine of predestination is part of the Catholic Church’s teachings. The research in Not Without Us aims at showing how saints, bishops, and theologians from Augustine to the Second Council of Orange (529 a.d.) upheld this theology and even defended it. Together with a forthcoming volume, covering the developments in the history of this doctrine from Orange to Thomas Aquinas, author Guido Stucco outlines, in an easily accessible way to nonspecialists, the Catholic Church’s comprehensive, pre-Reformation understanding of predestination.

 

[flameburns623]

This has been a very good and informative conversation about this subject. It has also been one of the most-sustained conversations on the topic that this forum has supported. Usually the issue provokes so much more heat than light that the mods are compelled to intervene. Thanks to all who have contributed to my own understanding of the Catholic versus the Protestant/Calvinist view. Some questions and observations of my own:

## What flameburn is denying in using the term “free will”, is not what the CC is asserting when she insists on it.

Same term - but two different things are meant. ##

Fascinating little tidbit. Could someone fill out the details a little? How does my understanding of the term ‘free will’ differ from the understanding of the Catholic Church?

Not Without Us
A Brief History of the Forgotten Catholic Doctrine of Predestination During the Semipelagian Controversy

Thanks for this suggestion. I might point out that several of the Calvinist writers I cited go into some detail about pre-Augustinian patristic writers whose views favored predestination. So this debate was not born of the fifth century with Augustine any more than it was born in the 16th century with John Calvin and Martin Luther.

Justice2006:

Only God Has Free Will.

God Wills whatever He likes and it will always happen as He wills.

We have something called, “free choice” [or limited free-will-and-choice].

Justice: thanks for offering forward an Islamic understanding of this debate. You did a very good job in the several posts you made on this topic in touching on the details of a Muslim view.

 

[flameburns623]

AmGd:

The information I have absorbed is neither Pelagian nor Arminian. It is derived from LDS theology and scripture, which is independent of them. Just because we and them believe in freewill, it does not mean that we have been influenced by them, or that our theology has been derived from their teachings.

At the time that I became a Latter-Day Saint, I was firmly convinced that LDS theology could be broadly described as ‘Arminian’. I was and I am well aware that the LDS Church did not develop it’s theology via historical progression but via direct revelation, so that Arminius could not fairly be said to have inspired LDS theology any more than Luis de Molin inspired it. I simply meant that what Mormonism teaches about soteriology was–I once believed–compatible with what Arminians and perhaps Molinists believe about soteriology. As I refined my understanding of Arminianism, Pelagianism/semi-Pelagianism, and Calvinism, I came to believe that the soteriology embraced by Mormonism is more properly understood to be Pelagian or semi-Pelagian. I also came to believe that Calvinism was a more scriptural and coherent view of soteriology than Arminianism.
AmGd:

If you have read all those books, and think that they give you a deeper insight on Biblical theology, then good for you. You have an advantage that I do not have. You bring all that great knowledge with you here to this board, and convince me verse by verse from the Bible that predestination is true and freewill is false, and I will believe you.

I would point out first that several of the authors whom I suggested DID in fact engage in Bible-verse-by-Bible-verse exegesis of the topic of predestination, and that I would simply be replicating their work here. Such a thing would be laborious for me and boring to most readers. Even if this website did not have a 5000-word limit on the length of posts, I wouldn’t be so intrepid as to attempt such a thing. The length of the posts involved would be massive, and you and I are not the only contributors to this discussion. Others would join in with their own misapprehensions and issues; and progress would be difficult or impossible. In all likelihood the discussion would become intemperate and the mods would have to close the discussion.

Moreover ‘converting’ you or others to Calvinism is not really compatible with the very presuppositions of my world view. I do believe that God ordains the means as well as the ends. I believe that He therefore appoints Preachers so that the Elect will–by the drawing of the Holy Ghost and the mediation of the proclamation of the Word of God–repent and receive the Gospel. This does not imply however that I think the Elect can be argued into the Kingdom of God. It is God who is the principle Actor in salvation, not human beings. If you are so truly and utterly disinterested in this topic that you will not trouble yourself to do some private study, then it may well be that God has not decreed you as part of the Elect. (It may also be that I am simply not the Preacher sent to you by God for the purpose of gathering you into His harvest–that honor being reserved to someone else at some future juncture in your walk).

I am sympathetic, as I acknowledged earlier, that everyone’s time is finite and that none of us can give full attention and devotion to every aspect of every argument on every issue. But if I cannot interest you in making even some efforts to engage in independent study, then the discussion isn’t likely to progress much further anyhow. Deconstructing some of the grosser misapprehensions about predestination and citing some of the sources by which folks can acquire a more accurate understanding of my view is about all I really expect to accomplish on a message board like this.

 

[Mercurius]

The following are additional prayers “For the Living and the Dead” found in the TRADITIONAL Roman Rite Missal:

“Almighty and eternal God, Who hast dominion over the living and the dead, and art merciful to all of whom Thou foreknowest that they will be Thine by faith and goodwoks…”

“O God, **to Whom alone is known the number of the elect ** who shall attain the happiness of heaven, grant we beseech Thee, that by the intercession of all Thy saints, the names of those who have been commended to our prayers and of all the faithful, may be written in the book of blessed predestination. Through our lord Jesus …”

We have free will (otherwise we are robots and CANNOT be punished for any sin we do. If we do not have free will, we certainly are not resposible for our crimes.

YET, GOD ALONE knows whom He has chosen; the Number of the Elect.

YET we will NOT be punished for anything we did without OUR WILL.

It is a MYTERY. God chose. We choose. All is fair.

 

[Contarini]

flameburns623:

Thanks for this suggestion. I might point out that several of the Calvinist writers I cited go into some detail about pre-Augustinian patristic writers whose views favored predestination. So this debate was not born of the fifth century with Augustine any more than it was born in the 16th century with John Calvin and Martin Luther.

I’d like to see this evidence.

As far as I know, it was Augustine who first pointed out problems with the view that predestination was based on foreknowledge of faith, thus giving rise to the entire Augustinian/Calvinist tradition w/ith regard to predestination.

Edwin