B
Bishopite
Guest
I think perhaps Ryan means foreknowledge as God for knows who will be saved and who will go to hell.
- Status
B
Bishopite
Guest
I never said that starting off with God as sovereign is wrong, however, starting off as God’s essential nature as being sovereign and everything that flows from that is because of His sovereignty and an over emphasis on His sovereignty makes God a puppet master because mans free choice isn’t actually involved.
My sources are numerous as I will gather a few to post later and I have a good friend who is a Reformed Protestant Calvinist who has his Masters from Westminster Seminary (a Calvnist Seminary) who I speak with often. And listening to numerous debates of James White. One I can think of is White against the Fundamentalist Dave Hunt from Whites website. And I used to be a Protestant fundmentalist with Calvinist views although I wasn’t a strict five point TULIP Calvinist.
.
Yes, I know, I have and have read Akins book and I’ve read and have Ott’s book also. Calvinism and Thomism are close but Calvinists view God as controlling the human will without a free cooperation; that man doesn’t actually freely choose because God moves the heart as He wills.
Right that’s also in Otts books page 248.
NO. I was NOT responding to you, just giving information to the OP.
Huh?
Who’s denied the other views? Look at page 248-249 of Ott and he gives the Thomistic, Augustinian, Molinist, Congruism, Syncretism view. I just gave A view not THE Catholic view.
B
Bishopite
Guest
Here are two sources of what Calvinist’s teach and how they over stress God sovereignty over our will. Even Dave Hunt of all people makes a case against James White. Look for James White discusses Calvinism with Dave Hunt.
aomin.org/ReformedIndex.html
The second is from a debate (look for weeks 5 and 6) of Matt Slick (Protestant Reformed Calvinist) vs Mark Bonocore (Catholic apologist). They discuss Calvinism and Mark correctly points out that Calvinists over emphasize God’s sovereignty to the exclusion of mans free choice.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2722617&highlight=Bonocore#post2722617
R
ryanoneil
Guest
Eph. 1:5 - Paul teaches that God “predestined” us in love to be His sons through Jesus Christ. Predestination means that God knows what we will do before we do it (it does not mean that God determines what we do; otherwise, we would have no freewill). Predestination is taken from the Greek word “prooridzo” which means to know or declare in advance by God’s foreknowledge.
1 Peter 1:2 where Peter writes about the “elect according to the foreknowledge of God.” The terms “predestination” and “the elect” always refer to God’s knowledge (not human knowledge) because God is outside of time (and humans cannot predict the future). This would be an example of predestination of grace, which means becoming a Christian.
Rom. 8:29-30 – Paul also writes that we are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. This is an example of predestination to glory, which means not only becoming a faithful Christian during our lives, but persevering to the end by conforming our will to Christ’s will.
1 Cor. 15:49 – Paul writes that we are conformed in His image at the resurrection, when we shall bear the image of the man of heaven. These are the people who were predestined to glory.
I think Rev. 3:5 describes it best. Jesus warns that He can blot out the names that are in the book of life. This refers to those currently, not ultimately, justified (those who are predestined to grace, but not to glory).
Hope that clarifies things,
Ryan
J
Joab_Anias
Guest
Yes please because I have been called a Molinist and have no idea of what that is. I find it strange though because I agree with St. Aquinas 100%.
Peace.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
You know, I’ll have to apologize because, in reading through the responses to my last few e-mails, I don’t see much that I disagree with, so there must be a breakdown in communication. I think people are thinking I’m asserting something I’m not, and I believe I must have made the same error with some of you.
In particular, Bishophite, your earlier post began with the pronoun “he”, something like “Yes, he incorrectly …”
I thought I was “he” because your post followed a large number that were directed at me. After reading your response, it becomes obvious that Calvin is “he”, and so my response to you must have looked like a criticism of your critique of Calvin, which it was not meant to be.
As for ryanoneil, I have no problem with the Scripture verses you quoted, but your earlier post seemed to indicate to me that you felt “predestination” meant exclusively “foreknowledge”, which it does not, which is why I asked for an authoritative source. "Foreknowledge definitely is a part of the spectrum of thought on predestination, which is why I have no problems with the quotes you offered or, for that matter, your explanation of them. However, I misread you as saying that it means foreknowledge exclusively.
Getting past this recent rash of disagreements, reading back one can see that my issue has to do with earlier parts of the conversation, in which it seemed that some were denying the Thomistic interpretation of predestination. Perhaps I was wrong in that, too, so to clarify, let me make the following statement, and if anyone who is a Catholic disagrees, please post, because it will clarify exactly where the lines in this discussion are:
Statement:
"It is a valid and allowable statement, within the realms of Catholic orthodoxy, to believe that predestination (simply put) comes down to God forseeing our decision to accept or reject him and predestining those of us who, through his foreknowledge, he knows will choose Heaven.
But …
It is also a valid and allowable statement, within the realms of Catholic orthodoxy, to believe that predestination (simply put) means that, while God desires that we all reach Heaven, he does not will that we all reach Heaven (because his will cannot be contradicted), and that for reasons we cannot know here on earth, while all of us will receive sufficient grace to redeem us from sin, some of us will receive efficacious grace which will allow us to perform the supernatural love necessary for entrance into Heaven, while others of us will be passively reprobated by having that efficacious grace withheld."
Again, I am not asking you to pick one or the other to agree with. I am not asking for your personal reaction to one or the other. I am simply trying to clarify that both of these statements are allowed within Catholic orthodoxy and we should be careful to define one or the other as “the Catholic teaching”.
In particular, Bishophite, your earlier post began with the pronoun “he”, something like “Yes, he incorrectly …”
I thought I was “he” because your post followed a large number that were directed at me. After reading your response, it becomes obvious that Calvin is “he”, and so my response to you must have looked like a criticism of your critique of Calvin, which it was not meant to be.
As for ryanoneil, I have no problem with the Scripture verses you quoted, but your earlier post seemed to indicate to me that you felt “predestination” meant exclusively “foreknowledge”, which it does not, which is why I asked for an authoritative source. "Foreknowledge definitely is a part of the spectrum of thought on predestination, which is why I have no problems with the quotes you offered or, for that matter, your explanation of them. However, I misread you as saying that it means foreknowledge exclusively.
Getting past this recent rash of disagreements, reading back one can see that my issue has to do with earlier parts of the conversation, in which it seemed that some were denying the Thomistic interpretation of predestination. Perhaps I was wrong in that, too, so to clarify, let me make the following statement, and if anyone who is a Catholic disagrees, please post, because it will clarify exactly where the lines in this discussion are:
Statement:
"It is a valid and allowable statement, within the realms of Catholic orthodoxy, to believe that predestination (simply put) comes down to God forseeing our decision to accept or reject him and predestining those of us who, through his foreknowledge, he knows will choose Heaven.
But …
It is also a valid and allowable statement, within the realms of Catholic orthodoxy, to believe that predestination (simply put) means that, while God desires that we all reach Heaven, he does not will that we all reach Heaven (because his will cannot be contradicted), and that for reasons we cannot know here on earth, while all of us will receive sufficient grace to redeem us from sin, some of us will receive efficacious grace which will allow us to perform the supernatural love necessary for entrance into Heaven, while others of us will be passively reprobated by having that efficacious grace withheld."
Again, I am not asking you to pick one or the other to agree with. I am not asking for your personal reaction to one or the other. I am simply trying to clarify that both of these statements are allowed within Catholic orthodoxy and we should be careful to define one or the other as “the Catholic teaching”.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
You know, I’ll have to apologize because, in reading through the responses to my last few e-mails, I don’t see much that I disagree with, so there must be a breakdown in communication. I think people are thinking I’m asserting something I’m not, and I believe I must have made the same error with some of you.
In particular, Bishophite, your earlier post began with the pronoun “he”, something like “Yes, he incorrectly …”
I thought I was “he” because your post followed a large number that were directed at me. After reading your response, it becomes obvious that Calvin is “he”, and so my response to you must have looked like a criticism of your critique of Calvin, which it was not meant to be.
As for ryanoneil, I have no problem with the Scripture verses you quoted, but your earlier post seemed to indicate to me that you felt “predestination” meant exclusively “foreknowledge”, which it does not, which is why I asked for an authoritative source. "Foreknowledge definitely is a part of the spectrum of thought on predestination, which is why I have no problems with the quotes you offered or, for that matter, your explanation of them. However, I misread you as saying that it means foreknowledge exclusively.
Getting past this recent rash of disagreements, reading back one can see that my issue has to do with earlier parts of the conversation, in which it seemed that some were denying the Thomistic interpretation of predestination. Perhaps I was wrong in that, too, so to clarify, let me make the following statement, and if anyone who is a Catholic disagrees, please post, because it will clarify exactly where the lines in this discussion are:
Statement:
"It is a valid and allowable statement, within the realms of Catholic orthodoxy, to believe that predestination (simply put) comes down to God forseeing our decision to accept or reject him and predestining those of us who, through his foreknowledge, he knows will choose Heaven.
But …
It is also a valid and allowable statement, within the realms of Catholic orthodoxy, to believe that predestination (simply put) means that, while God desires that we all reach Heaven, he does not effect that we all reach Heaven (because his will cannot be contradicted), and that for reasons which are not determined by our merits, while all of us will receive sufficient grace to redeem us from sin, some of us will receive efficacious grace which will infallibly allow us to perform the supernatural love necessary for entrance into Heaven, while others of us will have that efficacious grace withheld."
Note, just for clarity, that I’m quoting and paraphrasing most of the Thomistic view from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, so if I’ve misrepresented anything, feel free to quote from there to show my error.
Again, I am not asking you to pick one or the other to agree with. I am not asking for your personal reaction to one or the other. I am simply trying to clarify that both of these statements are allowed within Catholic orthodoxy and we should be careful to define one or the other as “the Catholic teaching”.
In particular, Bishophite, your earlier post began with the pronoun “he”, something like “Yes, he incorrectly …”
I thought I was “he” because your post followed a large number that were directed at me. After reading your response, it becomes obvious that Calvin is “he”, and so my response to you must have looked like a criticism of your critique of Calvin, which it was not meant to be.
As for ryanoneil, I have no problem with the Scripture verses you quoted, but your earlier post seemed to indicate to me that you felt “predestination” meant exclusively “foreknowledge”, which it does not, which is why I asked for an authoritative source. "Foreknowledge definitely is a part of the spectrum of thought on predestination, which is why I have no problems with the quotes you offered or, for that matter, your explanation of them. However, I misread you as saying that it means foreknowledge exclusively.
Getting past this recent rash of disagreements, reading back one can see that my issue has to do with earlier parts of the conversation, in which it seemed that some were denying the Thomistic interpretation of predestination. Perhaps I was wrong in that, too, so to clarify, let me make the following statement, and if anyone who is a Catholic disagrees, please post, because it will clarify exactly where the lines in this discussion are:
Statement:
"It is a valid and allowable statement, within the realms of Catholic orthodoxy, to believe that predestination (simply put) comes down to God forseeing our decision to accept or reject him and predestining those of us who, through his foreknowledge, he knows will choose Heaven.
But …
It is also a valid and allowable statement, within the realms of Catholic orthodoxy, to believe that predestination (simply put) means that, while God desires that we all reach Heaven, he does not effect that we all reach Heaven (because his will cannot be contradicted), and that for reasons which are not determined by our merits, while all of us will receive sufficient grace to redeem us from sin, some of us will receive efficacious grace which will infallibly allow us to perform the supernatural love necessary for entrance into Heaven, while others of us will have that efficacious grace withheld."
Note, just for clarity, that I’m quoting and paraphrasing most of the Thomistic view from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, so if I’ve misrepresented anything, feel free to quote from there to show my error.
Again, I am not asking you to pick one or the other to agree with. I am not asking for your personal reaction to one or the other. I am simply trying to clarify that both of these statements are allowed within Catholic orthodoxy and we should be careful to define one or the other as “the Catholic teaching”.
B
bogeydogg
Guest
I used to be a Calvinist, but then I began to study Calvin and was cured because Calvin was not a Calvinist either.
When Zwingli formulated the idea of what would be come to be known as “Double- Predestination” Calvin accused him of adopting a docrtine which was essentially Greek Stoicist Determinism. The sharp criticism led to a split between Calvin’s followers and Zwingli’s. The irony is that a few generations later the Calvinists adopted Zwingli’s doctrine so go figure.
John Calvin felt that God’s most defing attribute was His holiness, however it should be noted that at no time did Calvin ever express the idea of one of God’s attributes being greater than any other.
When Calvin, who wrote some 24,000 pages in his life, took up the issue of predestination in his third volume of the Institutes, he committed a grand total of four chapters to it and stressed that it should never be a stand alone doctrine but rather a human idea which attempted to explain why some people would refuse the free offer of God’s grace.
These days, when John Calvin’s name is mentioned the first thought in the minds of many if not most Christians is predestination, but the central idea of Calvin’s theology was the supremacy of Holy Scripture.
Calvin did believe in a sovereign God but he also noted that, “man not only can, but necessarily will violate God’s will.” In modern times lazy people have dumbed down his theology to predestination and they use it to club other people over the head but I don’t think that such position is congruent to Calvin’s actual teachings.
Just a thought.
When Zwingli formulated the idea of what would be come to be known as “Double- Predestination” Calvin accused him of adopting a docrtine which was essentially Greek Stoicist Determinism. The sharp criticism led to a split between Calvin’s followers and Zwingli’s. The irony is that a few generations later the Calvinists adopted Zwingli’s doctrine so go figure.
John Calvin felt that God’s most defing attribute was His holiness, however it should be noted that at no time did Calvin ever express the idea of one of God’s attributes being greater than any other.
When Calvin, who wrote some 24,000 pages in his life, took up the issue of predestination in his third volume of the Institutes, he committed a grand total of four chapters to it and stressed that it should never be a stand alone doctrine but rather a human idea which attempted to explain why some people would refuse the free offer of God’s grace.
These days, when John Calvin’s name is mentioned the first thought in the minds of many if not most Christians is predestination, but the central idea of Calvin’s theology was the supremacy of Holy Scripture.
Calvin did believe in a sovereign God but he also noted that, “man not only can, but necessarily will violate God’s will.” In modern times lazy people have dumbed down his theology to predestination and they use it to club other people over the head but I don’t think that such position is congruent to Calvin’s actual teachings.
Just a thought.
B
Bishopite
Guest
No problem, I perhaps wasn’t clear enough either as I’ve been busy and have rushed through my posts.
B
Bishopite
Guest
Don’t worry about it. It is perfectly acceptable to be a Molinist Catholic if you so decide or be a Thomist; it really doesn’t matter as the whole subject of predestination, grace and mans free will is a HUGE subject. Some Thomists are go a bit overboard (as I do also) at times because St. Thomas is such a popular and brilliant theologian and of course very holy. I will post the differences on my next post from Ludwig Ott’s book which isn’t copywrighted any longer.
B
Bishopite
Guest
Just to let anyone know. I am happy to post what the differences within Catholicism between the differing beliefs of how grace operates with mans free will, however I’m not going to argue one way or another as all views are at the status of what’s known as “theolegoumena” or theological opinions, ergo they are all acceptable within Catholicism as none have been elevated to the statues of dogma.
continued…
B
Bishopite
Guest
**
Augustinianism seeks to preserve the freedom of the will, but conceives grace too one-sidedly as delectatio, and does not adequately explain the infallible success of efficacious grace, or the Divine prescience.
3. Molinism
Molinism, which derives from the Spanish Jesuit Louis Molina and which is principally supported by the theologians of the Society of Jesus, teaches that there is no intrinsic substantial difference, but only an external accidental difference between sufficient grace and efficacious grace. God equips the faculty of will with sufficient grace for supernatural activity, so that man if he wishes can perform salutary acts leading to salvation. If the free will assents to the grace and with it accomplishes the salutary act, sufficient grace is, ipso facto, efficacious grace. If the free will refuses its assent the grace remains sufficient only. God from all Eternity foresees the free assent of the will by reason of His Scientia Media. The Molinistic system upholds the freedom of the human will in the salutary act, but it seems to destract somewhat from the Divinity as Prima Causa. The explanation of the infallible foreknowledge by God of the outcome of man’s free choice by Scientia Media and the consequent infallible efficacy of gratia efficax is very obscure in this system.
Ludwig Ott. ibid
**
Augustinianism, which was developed in the 17th and 18th centuries of the Augustinian Order of Hermits, notably by Cardinal Heinrich Noris and Laurentius Berti, assumes like Thomism, an efficacious grace (gratia perse sive ab intrinseco efficax). However, as distinct from Thomism, it teaches that this efficacious grace determines the will to perform the salutary act not by physical but by moral pressure, so thta the will is lead by an irresistible desire to perform freely those salutary acts which lead to salvation.
Augustinianism seeks to preserve the freedom of the will, but conceives grace too one-sidedly as delectatio, and does not adequately explain the infallible success of efficacious grace, or the Divine prescience.
3. Molinism
Molinism, which derives from the Spanish Jesuit Louis Molina and which is principally supported by the theologians of the Society of Jesus, teaches that there is no intrinsic substantial difference, but only an external accidental difference between sufficient grace and efficacious grace. God equips the faculty of will with sufficient grace for supernatural activity, so that man if he wishes can perform salutary acts leading to salvation. If the free will assents to the grace and with it accomplishes the salutary act, sufficient grace is, ipso facto, efficacious grace. If the free will refuses its assent the grace remains sufficient only. God from all Eternity foresees the free assent of the will by reason of His Scientia Media. The Molinistic system upholds the freedom of the human will in the salutary act, but it seems to destract somewhat from the Divinity as Prima Causa. The explanation of the infallible foreknowledge by God of the outcome of man’s free choice by Scientia Media and the consequent infallible efficacy of gratia efficax is very obscure in this system.
Ludwig Ott. ibid
**
A
awfulthings9
Guest
**
I’ve struggled with both of these lately, and most especially how gratia sufficiens is truly sufficient, but I suppose the topic of this thread isn’t for that type of discussion as the OP was merely asking for a distinction, not a satisfaction of the mystery.**
B
Bishopite
Guest
Calvin did believe that man will violate Gods will because he taught totaly depravity; that ALL actions man takes are evil. Only the regenerate (elect) can choose good because they are the only ones predestined and chosen to receive grace. All others are simply dead without hope or choice since any choice they make is against God. It’s a real harsh and extreme view of God. I will look for my Calvin quotes to show this as soon as I can.I used to be a Calvinist, but then I began to study Calvin and was cured because Calvin was not a Calvinist either.
When Zwingli formulated the idea of what would be come to be known as “Double- Predestination” Calvin accused him of adopting a docrtine which was essentially Greek Stoicist Determinism. The sharp criticism led to a split between Calvin’s followers and Zwingli’s. The irony is that a few generations later the Calvinists adopted Zwingli’s doctrine so go figure.
John Calvin felt that God’s most defing attribute was His holiness, however it should be noted that at no time did Calvin ever express the idea of one of God’s attributes being greater than any other.
When Calvin, who wrote some 24,000 pages in his life, took up the issue of predestination in his third volume of the Institutes, he committed a grand total of four chapters to it and stressed that it should never be a stand alone doctrine but rather a human idea which attempted to explain why some people would refuse the free offer of God’s grace.
These days, when John Calvin’s name is mentioned the first thought in the minds of many if not most Christians is predestination, but the central idea of Calvin’s theology was the supremacy of Holy Scripture.
Calvin did believe in a sovereign God but he also noted that, “man not only can, but necessarily will violate God’s will.” In modern times lazy people have dumbed down his theology to predestination and they use it to club other people over the head but I don’t think that such position is congruent to Calvin’s actual teachings.
Just a thought.
B
Bishopite
Guest
That’s an honest answer as I too have gone from the Molinist side to the Thomistic side and neither nor any other version like Congruism or Syncretism can completely describe the way gratia sufficiens operates within the human soul. It is a mystery indeed.
As Ott says:
“Is efficacious grace intrinsically different from sufficient grace or only extrinsically different by reason of the free will assent of the will?”
B
Bishopite
Guest
Wow that’s interesting history indeed. Would have happen to know of any online link of articles to read with more of this information?
Well, wouldn’t you say Calvin put an over emphasis on God’s sovereignty to our freedom of the will so that he made Christians out to have a sort of self abrogation without seeing ourselves as truly children of God.
Interesting. Do you know of any articles that would reference this? I would be interested in them.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Are there any theologians who would be in between Father Most and St. Thomas Aquinas? I think that is where the truth resides.
R
ryanoneil
Guest
It happens to the best of us. The wonderful thing about the forum is being able to clarify one’s postition.
Peace,
Ryan
J
Joab_Anias
Guest
B
bogeydogg
Guest
The idea of total depravity is not that man is evil in everything he does. After all even Hitler’s dog like him… probably. The idea is that rather the effect of sin on fallen man is such that man cannot escape it’s grasp apart from the Grace of God to empower man to know and love God. BTW, I am not sure I completely agree with this because Romans 1 indicates that man willfully ignores the manifest things of God in creation so I’m not sure that this teaching is right.
- Status