Protestants: Could you please do us all a favor??

[josie_L]

do you get any of your information from self-study? In other words it seems that rather than knowing scripture you always have to Google your answers?

Moreover, you’ve ignored everything I said (and posted a summary of the Catholic view of Christianity that’s not even relevant to what we were talking about). Why should I believe you’re a serious student of theology?

I’ll ask again … how do you understand verses like 1 Peter 2:8 (I’ll wait until you Google the Catholic position ).

Francis, I never said I was a serious student of theology, however, I’m in the process of learning scripture (and my faith) therefore if googling the Catholic position is necessary (at times) because it delineates things more effectively than I can at the moment than I will do so. And even though you have read more on the topic than I have it is the manner which you understand what you read that’s important. And I don’t think you’re as good at that as you think you are. As for my quotation on baptism you said it was pretty much irrelevant to salvation which is totally false (it is a necessary component to salvation).

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Acts 2:38

 

[humble_in_doubt]

"As the Catholic Catechism says so aptly, “To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination,’ he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace." (Para 600).”

that’s just sophistic rhetoric … since there’s no real scriptural or traditional basis for imagining how god perceives time. I know philosophers like Boethius did some interesting work in this area; but it all amounts to speculation. However, even if you imagine god’s omniscience in that way … it still cannot abrogate the idea presented so emphatically in scripture that predestination is not predicated on man’s desire or efforts.

Moreover, you can’t logically harmonize the above statement taken from your catechism with the Thomistic position. You can harmonize it with Molinism though (indeed it’s a very Molinistic statement). BTW do understand what Luis Molina taught with regard to predestination? Wikipedia probably has a good summary of his work (check it out; and look up Thomism while your at it).

I found a really good article taken from Summa Theologica:

newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm

It’s worth checking out if you’re interested in this topic.

 

[SHW]

John 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him

John 3:17
"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

How might we be saved through Him? We are saved through His Church. This is His representative on earth which has His authority. (Matthew 16:17-19) He sent His Church (Apostles and Disciples) to baptize persons in the name of the Trinity so that these persons could become members/disciples of His Church (believers in Him). Baptism is what makes us disciples of Christ because Baptism removes original sin from our souls and makes us adopted children of God whereas original sin had made us enemies of God. (Romans 5)

Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

Baptism makes us Christ’s disciples. Baptism washes away our sins, both original and personal. Baptism sanctifies us and justifies us.

Acts 22:16
And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

1 Corinthians 6:11
And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

This is describing Baptism and its effects. Baptism applies the merits of Jesus’ sacrifice to our souls since we can’t have His real blood poured over us in order to cleanse our souls. Baptism cleanses our souls from original sin and also from all the personal sins on our souls at the time of our baptisms. Baptism sanctifies us, justifies us, and saves us.

After Baptism (make disciples of all nations), we are “in Christ.” Obedience (teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you) is what determines whether a person continues/remains “in Christ” or not. (Acts 5:32, Hebrews 5:9, James 2:14-26)

1 John 5:13
These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

2 Timothy 3:14
**But you must continue **in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,

They have eternal life only if they continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

Colossians 1:21-23
And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight— 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

What happens if they do not continue to believe? They are cut off the Vine (Christ).

Romans 11:22
Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness (grace), if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.

How do they continue in the grace of God (continue to believe)? They steadfastly live the Apostles’ doctrine (obey the gospel of Christ) and participate in Church fellowship; and they partake of the breaking of bread; and they devote their lives to prayer and good works, etc.

Acts 2:42
And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Romans 12:1
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.

Titus 3:14
And let our people also learn to maintain good works, to meet urgent needs, that they may not be unfruitful.

What does “continue to believe” entail? Obedience to God’s commandments and doing good works is imperative if a person desires to continue to be saved.

Colossians 1:9-10
For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; 10 that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God;

Acts 13:43
Now when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
**
If they were already saved and could not possibly lose their salvation, then the Apostles would have not had to persuade them to continue in the grace of God.**

Salvation is a lifelong process, not a one-time event.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I’m reluctant to “butt in” when you too are talking, but the phrase “in spite of my family” is totally different from the phrase “to spite my family”.

it depends on the context … but even if I made a grammatical error, to infer it was a Freudian slip is absurd (since it’s a common way to phrase it).

For instance, to spite the fact that I can’t stand hot and humid climates, I still think Austin is a great town.

Does that sound better or worse than: in spite of the fact that I can’t stand hot and humid climates, I still think Austin is a great town? I think the first statement is a better way to phrase the idea (if it’s grammatically incorrect, oh freagin well).

 

[SHW]

He is a son His baptism made him an adoptive son of God. He doesn’t believe in his Father anymore, but that doesn’t mean he still isn’t His son.

Yes, the Prodigal Son is an adoptive son of God, and during his disobedience he was called a “son of disobedience” and if he did not repent of his disobedience before death, then he would have received the wrath of God when he died as do all sons of disobedience.

Ephesians 5:5-7
For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things** the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience**. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them.

A person cannot become a “son” of disobedience unless first he has become an adopted “son.”

 

[SHW]

That is soooooo old its pathetic! St. Peter was a Catholic!!! And what about all the protestant denominations that believe Catholics are not even Christians. Lets stop all this garbage and truly work for Unity as Our Lord prayed for. Why are we sooooo afraid of the “TRUTH.” If the Catholic Church is the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ, then WHAT is there to be afraid of??? Wouldn’t we be much wiser to set aside our own false pride and work WITH Jesus and not against HIM. Any one who studies history without prejudice can see that the the Catholic Church is the same in its doctrine as it was from the very beginning, 2000 years ago. If we really want to be followers of Christ then lets follow HIM in Truth and Grace. God Bless, Memaw

Lighten up, please. It was a joke.

I believe it was St.Teresa who once said, "May God deliver me from gloomy saints!"

 

[josie_L]

that’s just sophistic rhetoric … since there’s no real scriptural or traditional basis for imagining how god perceives time. I know philosophers like Boethius did some interesting work in this area; but it all amounts to speculation. However, even if you imagine god’s omniscience in that way … it still cannot abrogate the idea presented so emphatically in scripture that predestination is not predicated on man’s desire or efforts.

Moreover, you can’t logically harmonize the above statement taken from your catechism with the Thomistic position. You can harmonize it with Molinism though (indeed it’s a very Molinistic statement). BTW do understand what Luis Molina taught with regard to predestination?

God is outside of space and time so he can see everything past, present, future. He is the eternal God. And only something eternal is privy to all events at all times. And furthermore what I quoted from the CCC states that it “includes” not that it is the basis for predestination. And the Church has not stated anything contrary to Thomism as the aforementioned requirements for accepting such a view are well within the bounds of what the Church has established as truth (in respect to soteriology). And I understand the basis for the Molinistic view. Is this supposed to mean anything? The Church has I have already posted does not have a particular view to which it attaches itself too. In other words I can believe whichever view I wish.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

To solidify my view of proper doctrine in the matter of predestination and grace, I appeal to Aquinas and Augustine:

*The reason for the predestination of some, and reprobation of others, must be sought for in the goodness of God. Thus He is said to have made all things through His goodness, so that the divine goodness might be represented in things. Now it is necessary that God’s goodness, which in itself is one and undivided, should be manifested in many ways in His creation; because creatures in themselves cannot attain to the simplicity of God. Thus it is that for the completion of the universe there are required different grades of being; some of which hold a high and some a low place in the universe. That this multiformity of grades may be preserved in things, God allows some evils, lest many good things should never happen, as was said above (Question 22, Article 2). Let us then consider the whole of the human race, as we consider the whole universe. God wills to manifest His goodness in men; in respect to those whom He predestines, by means of His mercy, as sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of His justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others. To this the Apostle refers, saying (Romans 9:22-23): “What if God, willing to show His wrath [that is, the vengeance of His justice], and to make His power known, endured [that is, permitted] with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction; that He might show the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He hath prepared unto glory” and (2 Timothy 2:20): “But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver; but also of wood and of earth; and some, indeed, unto honor, but some unto dishonor.” Yet why He chooses some for glory, and reprobates others, has no reason, except the divine will. Whence Augustine says (Tract. xxvi. in Joan.): “Why He draws one, and another He draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.” Thus too, in the things of nature, a reason can be assigned, since primary matter is altogether uniform, why one part of it was fashioned by God from the beginning under the form of fire, another under the form of earth, that there might be a diversity of species in things of nature. Yet why this particular part of matter is under this particular form, and that under another, depends upon the simple will of God; as from the simple will of the artificer it depends that this stone is in part of the wall, and that in another; although the plan requires that some stones should be in this place, and some in that place. Neither on this account can there be said to be injustice in God, if He prepares unequal lots for not unequal things. This would be altogether contrary to the notion of justice, if the effect of predestination were granted as a debt, and not gratuitously. In things which are given gratuitously, a person can give more or less, just as he pleases (provided he deprives nobody of his due), without any infringement of justice. This is what the master of the house said: “Take what is thine, and go thy way. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will?” (Matthew 20:14-15). *

newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm

Now guess who wrote the following words:

*THE covenant of life not being equally preached to all, and among those to whom it is preached not always finding the same reception, this diversity discovers the wonderful depth of the Divine judgment. Nor is it to be doubted that this variety also follows, subject to the decision of God’s eternal election. If it be evidently the result of the Divine will, that salvation is freely offered to some, and others are prevented from attaining it—this immediately gives rise to important and difficult questions, which are incapable of any other explication, than by the establishment of pious minds in what ought to be received concerning election and predestination—a question, in the opinion of many, full of perplexity; for they consider nothing more unreasonable, than that, of the common mass of mankind, some should be predestinated to salvation, and others to destruction. But how unreasonably they perplex themselves will afterwards appear from the sequel of our discourse. Besides, the very obscurity which excites such dread, not only displays the utility of this doctrine, but shows it to be productive of the most delightful benefit. We shall never be clearly convinced as we ought to be, that our salvation flows from the fountain of God’s free mercy, till we are acquainted with His eternal election, which illustrates the grace of God by this comparison, that He adopts not all promiscuously to the hope of salvation, but gives to some what He refuses to others. *

 

[josie_L]

Lighten up, please. It was a joke.

I believe it was St.Teresa who once said, "May God deliver me from gloomy saints!"

I think it was St. Theresa (of Avila) who said that if sufferings was the means by which God shows his love for us " I wish He wouldn’t love me so much".

 

[Memaw]

just because this universe likely didn’t exist before the big bang (btw it was created from a singularity, not exactly nothing) doesn’t mean something didn’t exist before that. We just don’t know (although we can show the beginning chapters of Genesis to be nothing more than primitive mythology; similar to other creation stories during that period in the near east).

How far back do you want to go with this before you have to come face to face with God ???

Seems there was a meeting between God and a scientist, and the scientist said, “I can create life too, just like you.” And God said, “OK, show ME.” The scientist picked up a handful of dirt and God said, “Oh NO, get your own.”

Oh yes, and just what do you mean by “it was created from a singularity”??? Just curious, God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

Lighten up, please. It was a joke.

I believe it was St.Teresa who once said, "May God deliver me from gloomy saints!"

Bad enough protestants “joke” that way, but for a Catholic to do so on a forum where there are plenty of others who probably actually believe stuff like that.

I am not gloomy, (just ask my family and friends), and I am certainly not a saint, so you don’t have anything to worry about. God Bless, Memaw

 

[humble_in_doubt]

How far back do you want to go with this before you have to come face to face with God ???

Seems there was a meeting between God and a scientist, and the scientist said, “I can create life too, just like you.” And God said, “OK, show ME.” The scientist picked up a handful of dirt and God said, “Oh NO, get your own.”

Oh yes, and just what do you mean by “it was created from a singularity”??? Just curious, God Bless, Memaw

The universe is said to have existed as an incredibly dense singularity that eventually exploded (forming the universe we now live in). There’s no well accepted theory that posits where this singularity came from. For all we know it always existed, or the universe continually explodes, expands, then contracts, implodes, and starts all over again. We simply don’t know anything about this singularity or what might have formed it.

If it was some sort of superior being that initiated creation that still wouldn’t affirm the Christian version of creation. Indeed these are two unrelated questions (in other words we cannot use the discovery of the big bang to bolster the veracity of any religion … much less Christianity, since the big bang itself along with its chronology abrogates a literal interpretation of Genesis).

We can only examine Christianity on its merits (apart from the question of whether or not a superior being might exist). The simple fact that the claims of our ancient predecessors contained in the bible posits a god who manifested himself in all sorts of profound ways that no one could mistake for anything except for a manifestation of divine power; yet this god ceased revealing himself in objectively verifiable ways just as mankind began examining our natural world and cosmology critically (through the prism of science) is simply too convenient of a coincidence to pass the smell test.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I noticed how everyone ignored my comparison of Aquinas and Augustine with a still unnamed theologian? Hmmm …

 

[SHW]

St. Augustine is one of the most preeminent theologians in Catholic history; and Pope Benedict is a huge fan of his work. So he remains important. In short Augustine did not believe predestination of the individual is determined by foreseen faith. While Augustine did incorporate the idea of divine prescience and human free will into his soteriology; he ultimately came to the conclusion that election is god’s sovereign choice (and is not determined by foreseen merit in man). Conflict arose because the resurgence of Augustinian soteriology was driven by the first protestant reformers.

Augustine was a good theologian. This does not mean that he was correct in all his ideas. Until a dogma is defined by the Church, its members are free to believe what they wish to believe unless what they believe has already been condemned.

For example “Predestination” has, since Augustine, been defined by the Church:

“To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore He establishes His eternal plan of ‘predestination,’ He includes in it each person’s free response to His grace” (No. 600).

In other words, what God foresees and wills takes into account how we use our freedom in responding to Him or in rejecting Him. God’s foreknowledge in no way detracts from our freedom.

Sacred Scripture assures us that “God our Savior … wills all men to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth” (1 Tm 2:3-4). Moreover, Christ Jesus “gave himself as ransom for all” (1 Tm 2:5).

The Church teaches that God “predestines” us both to good works and to eternal happiness in heaven. That is His plan for our lives. We are free to reject Him, but even our rejection itself is somehow a part of God’s overall plan.

God always holds out the grace of conversion to sinners, even as He foresees who will reject that grace and be forever lost. The Church also teaches that apart from special revelation no one can know with absolute certainty whether he or she belongs among the elect in heaven.

You should ponder Romans 8:28-30. It is Scripture’s fullest statement of the working of predestination in the lives of the elect. “Elect” refers to those persons who will respond to God’s infinite grace.

And remember: The freedom of the elect will always be unimpaired.

From Catholic Answers

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Augustine was a good theologian. This does not mean that he was correct in all his ideas. Until a dogma is defined by the Church, its members are free to believe what they wish to believe unless what they believe has already been condemned.

For example “Predestination” has, since Augustine, been defined by the Church:

From Catholic Answers

Actually it was also defined by the church during the lifetime of Augustine. Research the Council of Carthage. I’m not sure whether or not catechism is considered completely infallible; but I know Episcopal Councils are.

 

[josie_L]

. . . . Yet why He chooses some for glory, and reprobates others, has no reason, except the divine will. Whence Augustine says (Tract. xxvi. in Joan.): “Why He draws one, and another He draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.” Thus too, in the things of nature, a reason can be assigned, since primary matter is altogether uniform, why one part of it was fashioned by God from the beginning under the form of fire, another under the form of earth, that there might be a diversity of species in things of nature. Yet why this particular part of matter is under this particular form, and that under another, depends upon the simple will of God; as from the simple will of the artificer it depends that this stone is in part of the wall, and that in another; although the plan requires that some stones should be in this place, and some in that place. Neither on this account can there be said to be injustice in God, if He prepares unequal lots for not unequal things. This would be altogether contrary to the notion of justice, if the effect of predestination were granted as a debt, and not gratuitously. In things which are given gratuitously, a person can give more or less, just as he pleases (provided he deprives nobody of his due), without any infringement of justice. This is what the master of the house said: “Take what is thine, and go thy way. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will?” (Matthew 20:14-15).

Now guess who wrote the following words:

*THE covenant of life not being equally preached to all, and among those to whom it is preached not always finding the same reception, this diversity discovers the wonderful depth of the Divine judgment. Nor is it to be doubted that this variety also follows, subject to the decision of God’s eternal election. If it be evidently the result of the Divine will, that salvation is freely offered to some, and others are prevented from attaining it—this immediately gives rise to important and difficult questions, which are incapable of any other explication, than by the establishment of pious minds in what ought to be received concerning election and predestination—a question, in the opinion of many, full of perplexity; for they consider nothing more unreasonable, than that, of the common mass of mankind, some should be predestinated to salvation, and others to destruction. But how unreasonably they perplex themselves will afterwards appear from the sequel of our discourse. Besides, the very obscurity which excites such dread, not only displays the utility of this doctrine, but shows it to be productive of the most delightful benefit. We shall never be clearly convinced as we ought to be, that our salvation flows from the fountain of God’s free mercy, till we are acquainted with His eternal election, which illustrates the grace of God by this comparison, that He adopts not all promiscuously to the hope of salvation, but gives to some what He refuses to others. *

I will have to respond to this post to a fuller degree (I didn’t have time to fully absord everything) but one thing is for sure the Church does not believe in double predestination. And can you tell me what T.U.L.I.P stands for and how it is defined? Well, here is something for you to read.

T – total depravity. This doesn’t mean people are as bad as they can be. It means that sin is in every part of one’s being, including the mind and will, so that a man cannot save himself.

U – unconditional election. God chooses to save people unconditionally; that is, they are not chosen on the basis of their own merit.

L – limited atonement. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross was for the purpose of saving the elect.

I – irresistible grace. When God has chosen to save someone, He will.

P – perseverence of the saints. Those people God chooses cannot lose their salvation; they will continue to believe. If they fall away, it will be only for a time.

**Now compare this to the 5 requirements that the CC views as absolutely necessary to its understanding of predestination in which Thomism, Molinism (and I forgot the other one) are accepted (but Calvinism is not)? **

TOTAL DEPRAVITY OR INABILITY (= “T” of TULIP)

The first point asserts that the entire or TOTAL human being–body and soul, intellect and will, etc.–is fallen and that everyone is born spiritually dead, helpless, and passive; indeed, everyone is worse than volitionally dead or unable to desire spiritual good but is actually enslaved to sin, positively and actively hostile to the things of the Spirit (Calvinists cite, e.g., John. 1:13; 8:43, 47; 10:26; 12:37-40; 18:37; Romans. 7:18; 8:5-8; 1 Corinthians. 2:9-14).

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION (= “U” of TULIP)

The second point inescapably follows from the first: since one is born totally depraved and enslaved to sin, one’s ELECTION cannot be dependent or CONTINGENT on any spiritually worthy actions one commits. According to this point, God predestines or chooses to soften the hard, sin-enslaved hearts of certain fallen individuals and liberate them from their death not because of any merit they have but despite their demerits–i.e., He ELECTS to change their hearts (and thereby join them to Christ and His saving work) DESPITE the fact that they hate God and oppose Him and have hard hearts, not soft hearts, and have sin-enslaved wills, not free wills. Thus, believers have no reason to boast about themselves or their own actions: the only thing that differentiates them from Judas, Esau, or others who never respond in faith is that God gave them grace that He withheld from such reprobates (Calvinists cite, e.g., Ezek. 11:19-20; 36:26-27; Rom. 9:11-18; 1 Cor. 4:7; Eph. 2:8-10; cf. Jn. 1:13; 15:16; Acts 13:48; 16:14; 18:27; Phil. 2:13).

thecaveonline.com/APEH/calvinTULIP.html

to be continued. . . . .

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I will have to respond to this post to a fuller degree (I didn’t have time to fully absord everything) but one thing is for sure the Church does not believe in double predestination. And can you tell me what T.U.L.I.P stands for and how it is defined? Well, here is something for you to read.

T – total depravity. This doesn’t mean people are as bad as they can be. It means that sin is in every part of one’s being, including the mind and will, so that a man cannot save himself.

U – unconditional election. God chooses to save people unconditionally; that is, they are not chosen on the basis of their own merit.

L – limited atonement. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross was for the purpose of saving the elect.

I – irresistible grace. When God has chosen to save someone, He will.

P – perseverence of the saints. Those people God chooses cannot lose their salvation; they will continue to believe. If they fall away, it will be only for a time.

**Now compare this to the 5 requirements that the CC views as absolutely necessary to its understanding of predestination in which Thomism, Molinism (and I forgot the other one) are accepted (but Calvinism is not)? **

TOTAL DEPRAVITY OR INABILITY (= “T” of TULIP)

The first point asserts that the entire or TOTAL human being–body and soul, intellect and will, etc.–is fallen and that everyone is born spiritually dead, helpless, and passive; indeed, everyone is worse than volitionally dead or unable to desire spiritual good but is actually enslaved to sin, positively and actively hostile to the things of the Spirit (Calvinists cite, e.g., John. 1:13; 8:43, 47; 10:26; 12:37-40; 18:37; Romans. 7:18; 8:5-8; 1 Corinthians. 2:9-14).

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION (= “U” of TULIP)

The second point inescapably follows from the first: since one is born totally depraved and enslaved to sin, one’s ELECTION cannot be dependent or CONTINGENT on any spiritually worthy actions one commits. According to this point, God predestines or chooses to soften the hard, sin-enslaved hearts of certain fallen individuals and liberate them from their death not because of any merit they have but despite their demerits–i.e., He ELECTS to change their hearts (and thereby join them to Christ and His saving work) DESPITE the fact that they hate God and oppose Him and have hard hearts, not soft hearts, and have sin-enslaved wills, not free wills. Thus, believers have no reason to boast about themselves or their own actions: the only thing that differentiates them from Judas, Esau, or others who never respond in faith is that God gave them grace that He withheld from such reprobates (Calvinists cite, e.g., Ezek. 11:19-20; 36:26-27; Rom. 9:11-18; 1 Cor. 4:7; Eph. 2:8-10; cf. Jn. 1:13; 15:16; Acts 13:48; 16:14; 18:27; Phil. 2:13).

thecaveonline.com/APEH/calvinTULIP.html

to be continued. . . . .

I’m very familiar with TULIP … and the doctrines of Calvin (actually TULIP cannot be fairly said to completely represent Calvin’s theology, since he never developed the concept of limited atonement).

But did you take the time to read the excerpt I provided form Aquinas’ Summa Theologica (who quotes Augustine)? Did you compare it to Calvin? Also, guess where these words came from:

*That without the grace of God we can do no good thing

It seemed good that whosoever should say that the grace of justification was given to us only that we might be able more readily by grace to perform what we were ordered to do through our free will; as if though grace was not given, although not easily, yet nevertheless we could even without grace fulfill the divine commandments, let him be anathema. For the Lord spoke concerning the fruits of the commandments, when he said: “Without me you can do nothing,” and not “Without me you could do it but with difficulty.”*

More to follow …

 

[SHW]

I guess one difference is I don’t place any hope in what I view to be ancient mythology with no factual basis; whereas Catholics do.

Funny, you should mention “hope” as an atheist. You are one of the few people on this forum who can actually state factually, that as of right now, that you will not be inheriting eternal life. Powerful!

I think it is more reasonable/rational to believe that a Supernatural Power created this universe than to think that it just happened all on its own.

I see that humans have much greater intelligence compared to other created things, but as far as I know, I have seen no evidence that there is a human who can create something out of nothing.

I as a human, however, have been given the gifts for recognizing that on my plate is a tomato; I see the colorful beauty and form of this tomato, smell its delightful fragrance, feel its smooth skin, hear my knife as it touches the plate as I slice through it, taste its satisfying flavor, and I also comprehend that I actually have the ability to do all these things when I decide to eat a tomato.

Now, I have put my hope in the One who created me. This seems much more reasonable/rational than to state that God does not exist since I see evidence of His Divine Providence in everything that is good about this universe. I also see evidence of evil which is not of God who is all Good, but evil is allowed by God’s permissive Will because of His precious gift to all of us (human and angel) of “free will.”

Isn’t it great that He allows you to be saved or not be saved? He forces no one against his will to be saved and He prevents no one against his will to be damned. But, a man’s own free will choices determine whether he is saved or not and this man does not get to change his mind once he dies.

People like Moondweller think that all a person has to do is believe that Christ will save him and it is automatic salvation from then on with no chance of losing it. This is not what the Scriptures state. “To Believe” takes more than “hearing the Word” and agreeing that Christ will save. We must also be “doers of the Word” and not “hearers only” in order to inherit eternal life. Until we die, we have hope of eternal life, not guarantee of eternal life and unless the Holy Spirit (Who is our guarantee) is living in our souls at our deaths, we will not be saved. The Holy Spirit cannot live in a soul that is defiled by sin. (1 Corinthians 3:16-18)

James 1:21-24
Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.
22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; 24 for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was.

1 Corinthians 15:2
by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

I’ll stick to Catholicism. It is Christ’s teachings. He only started one Church (Catholic) and gave it His authority on earth and He promised to be with this one Church until He returned. He promised that the Holy Spirit would lead it into ALL Truth and that the gates of Hades would not prevail against this one Church.

If His Church teaches error, then the gates of Hades has prevailed against it, so it is impossible for His one Catholic Church to teach error since Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and He cannot lie.

 

[SHW]

I think it was St. Theresa (of Avila) who said that if sufferings was the means by which God shows his love for us " I wish He wouldn’t love me so much".

I remember reading this somewhere, too.

C.S. Lewis said something like, “We’re not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be.”

I’ve thought this many times.

 

[SHW]

Actually it was also defined by the church during the lifetime of Augustine. Research the Council of Carthage. I’m not sure whether or not catechism is considered completely infallible; but I know Episcopal Councils are.

Yes, I agree that Catholics believe that Episcopal Councils are infallible in their teachings about faith and morals.

I do not know of this precise teaching of Augustine’s which you claim was also defined by the Council of Carthage. Do you have quotes?

It would depend on the individual Catechism as to whether it is infallible or not. I could write a Catholic Catechism and I can guarantee that it will not be infallible.