Predestination

[mikeledes]

I originally posted this in the Golden Chain thread, but since the “hardening” issue continues to resurface, I decided to repost it here:

John 12:37-40 has been brought up as evidence against the idea that God gives prevenient grace to the reprobate. However, there is another variant of the passage from Isaiah in question quoted in Matthew 13:14-15 that sheds light on what that passage actually means. Here is that passage within its context:

**10And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”
11Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted.
12"For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him.
13"Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
14"In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,
‘YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND;
YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE;
15FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL,
WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR,
AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES,
OTHERWISE THEY WOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES,
HEAR WITH THEIR EARS,
AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN,
AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.’ **

In this variant, the “blindness” is clearly shown to be a result of a choice (i.e. “they closed their eyes”) of the unbelieving Pharisees and it also clearly hints that if they would have opened their eyes, God would have healed them. The point is this. The “blindness” in John 12 does not mean that prior to being “blinded”, God did not give them a genuine opportunity to repent by giving them prevenient/“drawing” grace. This prior illumination came through the Law and the Prophets and John the Baptist. Regarding John the Baptist, the Bible says:

John 1:6-7

**6There came a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. **

While many came to believe through John the Baptist, the Pharisess and the lawyers refused to believe in John. As a result, God abandoned them to their unbelief (i.e. blinded them) and ceased calling them. Let’s take a look at Matthew 21:28-30

32"For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him; but the tax collectors and prostitutes did believe him; and you, seeing this, did not even feel remorse afterward so as to believe him.

Now compare that with Luke 7:29-30:

29When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God’s justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John. 30But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.

Those that accepted the illumination/call that came through John the Baptist received further illumination, while those who rejected John remained in their state of unbelief. That is why Jesus states in Matthew 13:12, prior to quoting the same passage in Isaiah quoted in John 12:

**12"For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. **

This is Jesus’s explanation why the Father granted the mysteries of the kingdom to them and not to those outside. Those that believed the testimony of the Law and the Prophets and John the Baptist came to believe in Jesus and thus received more in the form of knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God. Those that rejected the testimony of John (i.e. “does not have”), what they did have was taken away. And what did they have?

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Continuation…

So what did the Pharisees have that was taken away? They had God’s constant call/invitation to enter the kingdom of God. In other words, a genuine opportunity to repent. There are several passaged in the Gospels that point to this truth:

Matthew 22:2-9

**2"The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son.
3"And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come.
4"Again he sent out other slaves saying, ‘Tell those who have been invited, “Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened livestock are all butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast.”’ 5"But they paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business,
6and the rest seized his slaves and mistreated them and killed them.
7"But the king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire.
8"Then he said to his slaves, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. **

Another variant of this parable found in Luke 14:16-24 ends the following way:

**24’For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste of my dinner.’" **

God gave the unbelieving Pharisees and other Jews more than one opportunity to repent and accept His invitation to salvation. They chose to reject. God, therefore, abandoned them to their unbelief and was no longer inviting them. They would not “taste of my dinner.” That’s why when Jesus finally manifested Himself to them, they did not believe and they could not because they no longer had an opportunity to believe since God was no longer calling them. Another parable vividly demonstrates this:

Matthew 21:33-40

**33"Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who PLANTED A VINEYARD AND PUT A WALL AROUND IT AND DUG A WINE PRESS IN IT, AND BUILT A TOWER, and rented it out to vine-growers and went on a journey.
34"When the harvest time approached, he sent his slaves to the vine-growers to receive his produce.
35"The vine-growers took his slaves and beat one, and killed another, and stoned a third.
36"Again he sent another group of slaves larger than the first; and they did the same thing to them.
37"But afterward he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’
38"But when the vine-growers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’
39"They took him, and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
40"Therefore when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine-growers?" **

The unbelieving Pharisees and scribes realized this parable was about them (v.45). Jesus also said to them in verse 43:

**43"Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it. **

To those who have (i.e. faith), more will be given. To those who do not have (i.e. unbelieving), even what he has will be taken away. The invitation to repent and enter the kingdom of God (i.e. through Moses, the prophets, and finally John the Baptist) was now taken away from the Pharisees. Hence they could not come to faith, fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy and explaining what John 12:38-40 actually means. God had ceased drawing them.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Contarini]

It’s no use saying “We know God is love and not cruel”, when your very premise is based on God committing unloving and cruel acts.

It’s like saying “X beats his wife, but he’s never violent.” Stating a contradiction does not make it so.

This is a flawed analogy. We know enough about what it means to be a husband and a wife to know what constitutes violent and cruel behavior in that relationship. I would not say that we can never say “behavior X would be cruel and unworthy of God,” but we should be cautious in doing so, because as St. Thomas reminds us we can never know “what” God is (in the sense that we can know “what” a husband or a wife is), and therefore we are limited in our knowledge of what would constitute cruelty or “violence” (in the sense of the unjust use of force) on the part of God. Again, I am not saying that we can never make such a judgment–I think we can, and the Catholic Church has done so by saying that, for instance, God does not actively predestine people to damnation “prior” to His knowledge of their actions. But that’s a very limited claim–more limited than I think you realize. You claim that the view being defended on this thread has been condemned by the Catholic Church many times. I have not read every post in this thread carefully, so I won’t argue with that. But if your previous post is a summary of the view you think has been condemned, then I can say with confidence that you are wrong. The dominant view in traditional Western Catholic theology is that God predestines some to life without regard to their foreseen actions. By implication, this means that everyone else is going to be damned (even though they are justly damned for the actions they have chosen to commit). The only way out (if one accepts the premises of Augustine and Aquinas) is to suggest that perhaps, unknown to us, God has graciously chosen everyone. As I understand the current state of Catholic teaching, this is a possible opinion to hold (though very controversial) as long as one does not teach that we can know for sure that all are elect (and, of course, as long as our formulation of election preserves human free will–but that’s true for all Catholic views).

I am aware that the above view is not held by all Catholic theologians, and has become increasingly unpopular in the past century or so (except for its “hopeful universalist” variant). I am not sure I agree with it myself. But given that it has been held by so many great and orthodox theologians, I would be very slow to reject it out of hand, however disturbing I find it.

Edwin

 

[mikeledes]

Therefore, hardening means that God confirms the free choice a person has made, the free choice to reject His grace. Hardening does not mean that God has never given the person sufficient grace, a genuine opportunity to repent.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Dear CAF friends,

As promised, I would post my thoughts on Predestination. The work of Robert Higby, best expresses my own thoughts. In particular this article titled: ‘God’s Sovereignty in Hardening Reprobate Hearts’ … (I have pasted the three verses that preceed what he wrote, for they are to me most clear and thereby leave you the option to read his comments as per the link)

SIncerely,
Pophead.

“Therefore he has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.” (Rom. 9:18)

“Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?” (Rom. 9:21)

“Then I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, so that he will pursue them; and I will gain honor over Pharaoh and over all his army, that the Egyptians may know that I am the LORD.” (Ex. 14:4)

So does God cause man to sin?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

So does God cause man to sin?

What do you think?

 

[mikeledes]

What do you think?

No He does not.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

No He does not.

Did He decree that that sin would be in the world?

 

[Pophead]

So does God cause man to sin?

God Bless,
Michael

Did God harden Pharoah’s heart ?



ps. God willing, we will reconvene to discuss this in a year or so…depending on how long it takes you to go through the Bible.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

What do you think?

What do you think, Sandusky?

 

[Pophead]

Let my people go

 

[mikeledes]

Did He decree that that sin would be in the world?

Are you implying that a righteous all-holy God is the cause of sin? What do you mean?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Did God harden Pharoah’s heart ?



ps. God willing, we will reconvene to discuss this in a year or so…depending on how long it takes you to go through the Bible.

Yes, by withholding His grace and thus allowing him to remain in his rebellious state. However, he did not positively increase his wickedness.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

Are you implying that a righteous all-holy God is the cause of sin? What do you mean?

Did God will that sin would be in the world? Or, did sin, being more powerful than God, leave Him no choice but to allow sin to be in the world?

 

[Melchior]

You are denying the logic of your own position.

Basically the argument “Soveriegn choice” Predestinarians make is this…

• God predestines some to heaven, others not. (These others necessarily go to “the other place.”)
• This predestination is definitely NOT made on the basis of any merits, free-choices, works or otherwise of those people chosen or not chosen. It is made for some other reason, known only to God.
• However this is not cruel or random.

The logic here is extremely rocky. By ruling out a decision by God made on the basis of ANY possible free choice or attribute of the individual, the choice made is NECESSARILY either ranom or arbitrary. And it results in sentient created beings being cast into eternal torment for something that is NOT THEIR FAULT.

This indeed would make God both random and cruel.

So you ignore the argument and restate your position. By the way, if God knows what will happen and still creates people who he knows will spend eternity in Hell, it does not solve your problem with predestination, because God is still responsible if you actually follow your own logic.

You set up another strawman by making yet another argument I did not make nor does it logically follow from what I said. I never denied freedom of the will. How is someone sinning not their fault? God doesn’t make people sin. And how do you escape this same dilemma? If God made them knowing they would go to hell it is the same result. That anyone is saved is by the grace of God. We are all sinners and all deserving of hell. That God saves anyone of us is an amazing mercy. Please stop re-packaging the same argument after it has already been refuted. Plus, you have to ignore alot of scripture.

The Potter can do with the clay what he likes. The real issue you have is that you don’t like the idea of God being sovereign so you elevate man and demote God.

 

[mikeledes]

Did God will that sin would be in the world? Or, did sin, being more powerful than God, leave Him no choice but to allow sin to be in the world?

God allowed sin in the world. It was part of His permissive will.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Melchior]

It’s no use saying “We know God is love and not cruel”, when your very premise is based on God committing unloving and cruel acts.

That’s absurd. Try reading the Bible you will have to conclude that God is unloving and cruel if you wish God to live by your superior standards. Read Romans 9 and the entire Old Testament, the book of Acts, Revelations etc. Your problem is with God.

It’s like saying “X beats his wife, but he’s never violent.” Stating a contradiction does not make it so.

Already refuted numerous times. You have a high view of man and a low view of God.

Not if He gave them Free Wil to choose to be with Him or not.

Free will is not absolute.

Actually in the form advocated here, they have been condemned several times

Unless the church has condemned Augustine and Aquinas you really don’t know what you are talking about. You should actually educate yourself on the matter instead of looking to score poelmical points by not engaging others arguments and restating your own strawmen.

You are actually the one denying and condemning Catholic Dogma. As St. Paul said who are you O man?

 

[Melchior]

Melchior;2681054:

Calvinism (I was a Calvinist for years) keeps being misrepresented in this thread. The vast majority of Calvinists, and Calvin himself were Infralapsarians not supralapsarians. They believe God actively predestines the elect and “passes over” or leaves the reprobate to their own devises, much the same as the Thomist view (with some differences). There is a minority who believe in positive reprobation but that is not “The Calvinist view”.

QUOTE]
No, that is not what Calvin taught. Calvin taught that from all eternity God definitely and explicitly chose some men for eternal life, and just as definitely and explicitly, other men for eternal damnation, his own glory being the end he sought. Nothing that man is going to do affects in any way that terrible decree by which heaven is chosen for some, hell for others.

As a necessary conseqjuence to Calvin’s heretical theory, according to Calvin, God does not will the salvation of all men.
You have it wrong: you say Calvin says God just leaves man to his own devices. No, no, no. It is much more than that. God chose some men for eternal damnation.

Let’s not let Calvin off the hook. Let’s not mention Thomas (or Augustine, for that matter) and the teaching of Calvin be mentioned in the same sentence.

peace

Youa re simply wrong. Go read Calvins Institutes of the Christian Religion and give me some quotes. Disagree with Calvin, btw. But you have him wrong He never said their is nothing man can do. He believed that if obe believes in Christ and follows Him he can know he is among the elect. He never taught fatallism. Rather that the unregenerate are those who don’t believe and don’t care and die in their unbelief. You cannot let your dislike for Calvin and Calvinism lead you to bare false witness. I am a Thomist. Calvin took it one step to far in leaving room for double predesitination to be sure. But if you actually read Calvin you will see that you are pouring your own bias into Calvinism. We don’t like it when non Catholics tell Catholics what they really believe. We should not do it to others.

The reality is that Calvin was closer (not identical) to Augustine on this than most modern Catholics who are heavily Molinist. Most modern Catholics would condemn Augustine and choose John Cassian’s inchorent views. Calvin was wrong but not on everything.

 

[mikeledes]

You are actually the one denying and condemning Catholic Dogma. As St. Paul said who are you O man?

You sound like a “fire and brimstone” preacher.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Did God harden Pharoah’s heart ?



ps. God willing, we will reconvene to discuss this in a year or so…depending on how long it takes you to go through the Bible.

Is God the cause of sin?

God Bless,
Michael