Question for Calvinists

[guanophore]

They taught the former, but nowhere did they teach the latter. That’s an interpretative tradition, but not one that can be proven from the text.

It is a mystery to me how someone can read all the passages, and still not believe the Apostolic Teaching about the regenerative nature of baptism. However, I am also aware that those anti-Catholic blinders can shut out a lot of light. The Apostles taught that baptism is a “bath of regeneration” in which the soul is sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, which is the guarantee of our inheritance.

You’re asserting this with absolutely no exegetical support and you are reading the practice of the underground church during the explicit persecutions back to an earlier time when martyrdom was rare.

I was not asserting it on the basis of Scripture, but of history. I think, once you are willing to learn the history of your faith, you will find that unbelievers were not permitted to participate in the Sacred Mysteries. Catechumens were permitted for the Liturgy of the Word, but were taken from the assembly before Eucharist. There was quite a bit of martrydom, esp. until the Edict of Milan. Christians were careful not to allow anyone into the assembly that was not known. We see a good example of this in how Paul could not be accepted until he was sponsored by Barnabas.

But if you’d only think this through a bit, I think you’ll see that Christ described kingdom using many metaphors that show that there are both believers and unbelievers within it. There will be wheat and weeds, sheep and wolves dressed like sheep, sheep and goats, wheat and chaff, good and bad fish. Moreover, when we read the epistles, we see a lot of exhortations to self-examination to see if we’re in the faith, commands to confirm our election, and provisos that Paul’s words only apply to those who have learned Christ, which strongly suggests that not everyone in the communities he wrote to were believers.

On the contrary, it strongly suggests that Christians were not always acting like Christians. I think you will find, if you examine the salutations on the letters, that they are all addressed to saints/elect.

He gives advice to believers for how to deal with their unbelieving spouses, then castigates the Corinthians for their widespread immorality, suggesting that some of these may not really be in the faith, denounces false teachers, etc.

The letters are definitely corrective. Written to Christians, by, for, and about Christians. They are not meant for the unbelievers.

I agree, though, that there were baptized Christians behaving with immorality, and impropriety. To that extent, they were not “in the faith”. You make a good example that a believer can step “out” of the faith. When they sin, they are no longer “in Christ”.

Then there are people like Ananias and Sapphira and Simon Magus, all of whom appeared to be believers, but, given what happened to them, very likely were not.

I don’t find any evidence that Simon was ever converted. The most repentant thing he did was ask Peter to pray for him.

Ananias and Sapphira, on the other hand, appear to have been considered members of the Christian Community. They made a profession of faith and were baptized, or their gifts would not have been received. Definitely fell from grace.

 

[jwright82]

It’s wonderful to find THREE Reformed people here. We could have a convention.

Yes it is!

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

I fail to see the difference here. Please explain.

Hi, sorry I missed this for a few days. When I said God chooses in accordance with his foreknowledge but not on the basis of what he foresees I was trying to say this: God can’t but help see the future since He is omniscient and because, well, quite frankly, the future is God’s creation since itself is God’s creation. So any decision he makes must necessarily be that of an omniscient being for whom the future is an open book. That, however, does not mean that God uses his knowledge of the future to determine what will do in the present. God determines the future, the future doesn’t determine God.

Yes, God is the cause of all things in this world. Yes God can see everything as if it were the present moment to him. But we have free will and are able to seek out God.

Your “yes, but,” as it now stands is incoherent. How do you put the two together? And what implications do you draw from those facts? In other words, it won’t do to say “God causes all,” and then say, “But we’re free,” if what you really mean is, “God causes everything, except those things we freely chose,” which I suspect is what you really mean here.

Scripture explicitly says that God wants all men to be saved,

Yes it does. It might interest you to know, however, that there are very good reasons not to take “all men” in an absolute, quantitative sense, but rather a qualitative one. Thus “all” may very well mean “all kinds of men.” I could explain that further if you’re interested. That said, even if God does want “all men” to be saved, we know that “all men” most likely will not be. The reason for this is because God does not give every one the grace of final perseverance. Why he doesn’t do so is ultimately a mystery. If you want to argue that those he does give this grace are the ones who freely accept it–that’s fine. But if you make their freedom the reason that determines God’s action, then what you’re really saying is that man saves himself by freely choosing God, which makes man–not God–the final cause of salvation. There’s really no getting around that if free will determines who gets saving grace and who does not.

and that God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that who so ever should believe in Him would not die but have everlasting life.

I agree with this. But what I don’t see is this: “Whoever freely chooses God will be saved.” If you keep reading John’s gospel, you’ll see that belief in God is ultimately due to God’s having first chosen us. God’s election is both temporally and logically prior to our belief. Faith, therefore, is a gift. Thus, “whosoever believes” simply follows from the fact that “whosever God chooses” will in fact–at some point in time–come to believe in Jesus.

How can you combine the doctrine of predestined salvation and damnation and the idea of God creating people for the purpose of going to hell just to glorify him, with the scripture of God wanting all men to be saved and sacrificing his son for the WORLD?

Here’s how. What is crystal clear is this: God predestines. There’s no getting around that. What isn’t clear is this: The meaning of “all men” and the “the world.” All men doesn’t have to be taken as numerically every person. And “world” can refer to people from every nation, tongue and tribe without necessarily referring to every single person in the world. In other words, God’s sovereign choice in election is particular, not general.

That said, consider the alternative. If Jesus died for everyone in general “all men” and “the world,” then he died for no one in particular. That would mean that no one was actually saved on the cross, that he gave his life as a ransom for nobody in particular, that his blood redeemed no one in particular, that his life was given in exchange for no one in particular and that when he said “It is finished,” he didn’t actually accomplish a thing other than to make salvation “possible” for those who freely choose it. It would have been better for him to have said, “It is possible.”

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

, I think it is much more logical to say that “He creates with a purpose the plan of salvation for all the world, whom he *wants * to save but wont because of their willful sinful nature.”

What I meant was what Paul said in Romans 9 about there being “vessels of wrath” made for destruction, that God’s purpose in raising up Pharaoh was that his own name might be glorified etc. In other words, it doesn’t seem that Paul entertained for a second that God creates everyone in order to save them. My point about it being better that Judas had never been born is only to suggest that God–seeing what Judas would do ahead of time, still created him anyway, knowing full well that he would betray Jesus, commit suicide and “go to his own place” (most likely hell)–and yet created him anyway–a vessel of wrath if there ever was one. No one denies that Judas deserves his fate because he did what he did knowingly and willingly just as Pharaoh knowingly and willingly refused to humble himself before God. But that doesn’t change the fact that God’s purpose for creating them was most likely not to save them, but rather that through them, others might be saved. God still hardened Pharaoh’s heart. God permitted Satan to enter Judas’ heart. God had a hand in all of this. But yes, so did Judas and Pharaoh–no one in the Reformed camp is saying otherwise.

So, people can choose to enter into a saving relationship with God? This kind of sounds like free will, meaning that even Pharaoh and Judas could have done the same thing had they known God and Jesus’ teaching. It sounds to me that people could choose to follow God given the opportunity.

Those are great hypothetical questions for which I have no answer than this. If it is God’s good pleasure to save the likes of Judas and Pharaoh and Esau, then they will be saved. And if it is not, then they won’t be. Ultimately it is God who is free and sovereign in salvation. He is the potter, we are the clay. It’s that simple.

 

[guanophore]

Yes it does. It might interest you to know, however, that there are very good reasons not to take “all men” in an absolute, quantitative sense, but rather a qualitative one. Thus “all” may very well mean “all kinds of men.” I could explain that further if you’re interested.

Actually, this is very Catholic. It is interesting to note, however, that this principle is not allowed to be applied when Catholics say of the passage “all have sinned” that it does not apply to the Blessed Mother.

That said, even if God does want "all men" to be saved, we know that "all men" most likely will not be.  The reason for this is because God does not give every one the grace of final perseverance.

This is one of the Calvin heresies.

then what you’re really saying is that man saves himself by freely choosing God, which makes man–not God–the final cause of salvation.

No. God sets before us a choice. It does not change the cause of salvation. It just means that some choose not to participate.

There’s really no getting around that if free will determines who gets saving grace and who does not.

I agree. The Apostles taught that every person is given sufficient grace to be saved.

I agree with this. But what I don’t see is this: “Whoever freely chooses God will be saved.” If you keep reading John’s gospel, you’ll see that belief in God is ultimately due to God’s having first chosen us. God’s election is both temporally and logically prior to our belief. Faith, therefore, is a gift. Thus, “whosoever believes” simply follows from the fact that “whosever God chooses” will in fact–at some point in time–come to believe in Jesus.[/qutoe]

Both things are true. He first loves us. He gives us choice. When we choose to be with Him, we remain in Him, and our faith meets with His grace, resulting in salvation.
Miguel Sastre;7710627:

. What isn’t clear is this: The meaning of “all men” and the “the world.” All men doesn’t have to be taken as numerically every person. And “world” can refer to people from every nation, tongue and tribe without necessarily referring to every single person in the world. In other words, God’s sovereign choice in election is particular, not general.

It is clear to Catholics because we read the passages from the point of view of those who wrote them. Calvin jettisoned the Apostolic teachings in favor of his own, so he, and all of his followers such as yourself, became separated from the senes of the passage as it was taught and believed by the Apostles.

That said, consider the alternative. If Jesus died for everyone in general “all men” and “the world,” then he died for no one in particular. That would mean that no one was actually saved on the cross, that he gave his life as a ransom for nobody in particular, that his blood redeemed no one in particular,

No. This is a false conclusion, based upon a false premise. God loves every soul He creates.

that his life was given in exchange for no one in particular and that when he said “It is finished,” he didn’t actually accomplish a thing other than to make salvation “possible” for those who freely choose it. It would have been better for him to have said, “It is possible.”

Indeed, this is what the Apostles taught. He redeemed humanity. Not all will benefit from that redemption.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Actually, this is very Catholic. It is interesting to note, however, that this principle is not allowed to be applied when Catholics say of the passage “all have sinned” that it does not apply to the Blessed Mother.

It’s not a principle, it’s exegesis. “All” has a range of meanings. One has to use context to make a decision as to which of the many meanings is met. If I say “all Jerusalem” went out to see John the Baptist, does that mean the entire city vacated? Probably not. Thus “all” can be hyperbolic for “a large number.” If I say “all men sinned,” however, I would need compelling reasons to posit an exception. Here “all” means “all without exception.” If Paul tells us to “pray for all men, kings in those in authority,” he probably doesn’t mean that we should pray individually for every human being (that would take much too long). Here he probably means “all kinds” of men. So we go case by case to see which meaning fits the context.

This is one of the Calvin heresies.

Then it’s the heresy of Thomas and Augustine too. I think you might want to re-consider your words there. The Catholic position is that only those who die in the sate of grace will be saved. Theoretically that could be everyone. But probably it isn’t. Dying in the sate of grace is one and the same as being given the grace of final perseverance. So unless you’re positing universal salvation for all, then you have to accept the conclusion that God does not give everyone the grace of final perseverance. (On a side note: You clearly don’t know as much about your own faith as you let on. If you would read up on the distinction between predestination to grace verses predestination to glory, you’ll see that it is a very Catholic distinction. I can provide references for you if you wish.)

No. This is a false conclusion, based upon a false premise. God loves every soul He creates.

I agree that God loves his creation. I don’t agree that God intends to save everyone–and you won’t find any scriptures that say otherwise. But you will find scriptures that say things like, “Jacob I loved, Esau I hate” in contexts that speak about election of individuals to salvation. You will also find that there are “vessels of wrath fitted for destruction.” May I suggest that you read Romans 9 and consider God’s sovereign freedom in salvation? ( It will clear up a lot of your mistaken assumptions.)

 

[guanophore]

It's not a principle, it's exegesis.

It is both, Miguel. Exegesis contains a number of principles. One of them is that the text is to be interpreted within its historical and cultural situation. The NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic. The contents of it are best “exegeted” from the Catholic point of view. When this is not done, people derive meanings from the text that represent a significant departure from what the Apostles beleived and taught.

“All” has a range of meanings. One has to use context to make a decision as to which of the many meanings is met.

Yes. The context of the NT is the Catholic Church.

If I say “all Jerusalem” went out to see John the Baptist, does that mean the entire city vacated? Probably not. Thus “all” can be hyperbolic for “a large number.” If I say “all men sinned,” however, I would need compelling reasons to posit an exception. Here “all” means “all without exception.”

This is what you have been taught to believe, in part so that anti-Catholic polemics can be used to sully the Teaching of the Apostles bout the Mother of the Lord.

However, if you are honest with yourself, you can look at the Psalm from which this quote was taken. Just a few verses down from this verse, the Psalm begins to talk about “the righteous” in contrast to those that were just referenced as unrighteous.

But the If Paul tells us to “pray for all men, kings in those in authority,” he probably doesn’t mean that we should pray individually for every human being (that would take much too long). Here he probably means “all kinds” of men.

Yes. This is Catholic.

So we go case by case to see which meaning fits the context.

Unless, of course, one has a need to read one’s theology into the text, in whic case, one will twist the meaning of the passage so that it fits with ones preconceived notions.

The Catholic position is that only those who die in the sate of grace will be saved. Theoretically that could be everyone.  But probably it isn't.  Dying in the sate of grace is one and the same as being given the grace of final perseverance.

Yes. We are in agreement on this point.

So unless you’re positing universal salvation for all, then you have to accept the conclusion that God does not give everyone the grace of final perseverance.

The grace to be saved is available to all. Not all will persevere. No, I do not believe in universal salvation. Neither do I believe that God created souls for the purpose of damning them. It seems like the cynical perspective of a disgruntled lawyer.

(On a side note: You clearly don’t know as much about your own faith as you let on. If you would read up on the distinction between predestination to grace verses predestination to glory, you’ll see that it is a very Catholic distinction. I can provide references for you if you wish.)

Been there. Read that. I will let it rest. It is a point upon which I am content to leave in mystery.

I agree that God loves his creation.  I don't agree that God intends to save everyone--and you won't find any scriptures that say otherwise.

Actually, I do.

But you will find scriptures that say things like, “Jacob I loved, Esau I hate” in contexts that speak about election of individuals to salvation. You will also find that there are “vessels of wrath fitted for destruction.” May I suggest that you read Romans 9 and consider God’s sovereign freedom in salvation? ( It will clear up a lot of your mistaken assumptions.)

Thanks Miguel. You are quite correct. Scripture really does clear up a lot of my mistaken assumptions.

Dt 30:18-20
19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live, 20 loving the LORD your God, obeying him, and holding fast to him; for that means life to you and length of days, so that you may live in the land that the LORD swore to give to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

What you seem to be saying is that God is just playing/mocking. We don’t really have a choice?

Eze 18:23
23 Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord GOD, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live?

You seem to believe that God takes pleasure in the deaths of some, since they are vessels of His wrath.

 

[JRRTFAN]

Really? I’ve never met a Calvinist who ever claimed to know for certain that he/she is among the elect. But if you have, we’ll that is interesting.

I would answer that such a person has absolutely no legitimate expectation to eternal life with God and that Scripture warns such people that those who practice such things are in fact not of the kingdom and will be eternally lost. What Scripture does not allow us to affirm is that such persons were ever brought into a saving relationship with God in the first place.

Any “Calvinist” who claims to know with certitude that he/she is among the elect and can therefore sin with impunity is, by that very attitude, living proof that he/she is almost certainly not among the elect.

But that response does not answer the question, Miguel. The point is, if one is “elect” or “saved” and one does commit unrepented sin, for example, divorce and remarriage, does one continue to be saved or “elect”. In other words, via the sin that person has profoundly rejected the will and love of God and is not repentant.

The question is not “did you ever meet one” or “such a person was never elect/saved” It’s a theological question not one that requires a dodge, it’s fairly simple.

 

[Pwrlftr]

But that response does not answer the question, Miguel. The point is, if one is “elect” or “saved” and one does commit unrepented sin, for example, divorce and remarriage, does one continue to be saved or “elect”. In other words, via the sin that person has profoundly rejected the will and love of God and is not repentant.

The question is not “did you ever meet one” or “such a person was never elect/saved” It’s a theological question not one that requires a dodge, it’s fairly simple.

I used to be a “Calvinist” and your question reveals a misunderstanding of Reformed theology.

By definition one of the elect can not be unrepentant or else they wouldn’t be one of the elect. In a nutshell, the elect are given the grace of final perseverance.

 

[JRRTFAN]

I used to be a “Calvinist” and your question reveals a misunderstanding of Reformed theology.

By definition one of the elect can not be unrepentant or else they wouldn’t be one of the elect. In a nutshell, the elect are given the grace of final perseverance.

That’s very interesting! In Calvinist theology do the elect commit sin or are they free from all sin? If they do commit sin are they unrepentant at the moment before they commit the sin? During the sin? How do they get arounf the fact that sin is a deliberate transgression against God?

 

[Pwrlftr]

That’s very interesting! In Calvinist theology do the elect commit sin or are they free from all sin?

They sin.

If they do commit sin are they unrepentant at the moment before they commit the sin? During the sin?

I don’t know. I suppose a person could be repentant at one moment and sinning at the next. I don’t see how a person could be repentant and sin at the same time though.

How do they get arounf the fact that sin is a deliberate transgression against God?

Why do you think “they” have to get around anything?

 

[guanophore]

Why do you think “they” have to get around anything?

Because, unlike our Reformed brethren, Catholics have retained the Apostolic instruction that sin separates mankind from God. For the Reformed, the nature of sin changes after the death of Christ. It no longer holds the power to cause death in those that practice it. If a person is one of the “elect”, then one will be saved. No sins can prevent them from the gift of final perseverance.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Because, unlike our Reformed brethren, Catholics have retained the Apostolic instruction that sin separates mankind from God. For the Reformed, the nature of sin changes after the death of Christ. It no longer holds the power to cause death in those that practice it. If a person is one of the “elect”, then one will be saved. No sins can prevent them from the gift of final perseverance.

I’m not sure how that answers what it is “they” have to get around.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not sure how that answers what it is “they” have to get around.

From a Catholic point of view, they need to “get around” the mortal sin that will separate one eternally from God.

 

[CTrent1564]

It’s not a principle, it’s exegesis. “All” has a range of meanings. One has to use context to make a decision as to which of the many meanings is met. If I say “all Jerusalem” went out to see John the Baptist, does that mean the entire city vacated? Probably not. Thus “all” can be hyperbolic for “a large number.” If I say “all men sinned,” however, I would need compelling reasons to posit an exception. Here “all” means “all without exception.” If Paul tells us to “pray for all men, kings in those in authority,” he probably doesn’t mean that we should pray individually for every human being (that would take much too long). Here he probably means “all kinds” of men. So we go case by case to see which meaning fits the context.

Then it’s the heresy of Thomas and Augustine too. I think you might want to re-consider your words there. The Catholic position is that only those who die in the sate of grace will be saved. Theoretically that could be everyone. But probably it isn’t. Dying in the sate of grace is one and the same as being given the grace of final perseverance. So unless you’re positing universal salvation for all, then you have to accept the conclusion that God does not give everyone the grace of final perseverance. (On a side note: You clearly don’t know as much about your own faith as you let on. If you would read up on the distinction between predestination to grace verses predestination to glory, you’ll see that it is a very Catholic distinction. I can provide references for you if you wish.)

I agree that God loves his creation. I don’t agree that God intends to save everyone–and you won’t find any scriptures that say otherwise. But you will find scriptures that say things like, “Jacob I loved, Esau I hate” in contexts that speak about election of individuals to salvation. You will also find that there are “vessels of wrath fitted for destruction.” May I suggest that you read Romans 9 and consider God’s sovereign freedom in salvation? ( It will clear up a lot of your mistaken assumptions.)

Miguel Sastre:

Catholic doctrine does allow for some form of predestination, i.e. Positive predestination and as you note, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Domenican theologians posited positive predestination. It is included and discussed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in several paragraphs #257, 600, 1007, 1037, 2012, 2782, 2823]. One example is paragraph 600 where it states "To God, all moments of time are present in their immediateac. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his Grace: In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and people of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you annoited, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place [cf Acts 4:27-28; Ps 2:1-2]. For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted acts that flowed from their blindness. [cf Mt 26:54; Jn 18:36; 19:11; Acts 3:17-18]

However, Holy Mother Church does not accept “double predestination” and also does not reject free will. With respect to God Predestining someone to hell, the CCC in paragraph 1037 states "God predestines no one to go to hell. [citing the Council of Orange II in 529 and Council of Trent in 1547.

So from the Catholic perspective, it is only predestination to beatitude that is absolute and unconditional. Catholic theology does not accept that God predestined some to sin and an unconditional predestination to hell [i.e. independent of forseen sins and demerits that God’s foreknowledge new, etc].

In summary, you are correct to a point that predestination to glory is an acceptable position in Catholic theology and one that can be legitimately held as Thomists tend to hold this view of whereas the Jesuits followed Molina’s view, both of which are acceptable in Catholic Theology within limits. Molina and the Jesuits stressed mans Free will and his nature, while fallen and weakened due to original sin longs for God and once Grace is received from God comes into Faith, Hope and Love with God whereas the Domenicans and Thomist School started with predestination of Grace that then transformed man’s will. The debate between the Dominicans and Jesuits was very fierce and in the end the Pope heard both sides and stated that ultimately how God’s Grace and Free will and predestination fit into Justification is ultimately a mystery for which God has not fully revealed.

Regards

 

[guanophore]

In other words, it won't do to say "God causes all," and then say, "But we're free," if what you really mean is, "God causes everything, *except* those things we freely chose," which I suspect is what you really mean here.

The Apostles taught that both these things are true. Why won’t that “do” for you? God created us in His own likeness and image. That means He has allowed us sufficient freedom to choose. He created us out of His love. He loves us enough to allow us to walk away from Him.

...even if God does want "all men" to be saved, we know that "all men" most likely will not be.  The reason for this is because God does not give every one the grace of final perseverance.  Why he doesn't do so is ultimately a mystery.  If you want to argue that those he does give this grace are the ones who freely accept it--that's fine.  But if you make their freedom the reason that determines God's action, then what you're really saying is that man saves himself by freely choosing God, which makes man--not God--the final cause of salvation.  There's really no getting around that if free will determines who gets saving grace and who does not.

Catholics don’t suffer the logical disconnect that you do, Miguel. The Apostles taught that we are only saved by grace, through faith, and not of ourselves, lest any man should boast.

They also taught that God draws all men to Himself by grace, and that those who respond may enter into eternal life.

Acts 2:39-41
9 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." 40 And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “**Save yourselves **from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Surely you don’t believe the Apostle really means that they, by their choice, actually “save themselves”?! Instead, he is calling upon them to respond to God’s grace, and freely choose to enter into baptism.

I agree with this. But what I don’t see is this: “Whoever freely chooses God will be saved.”

I don’t think you will see that, either. The Apostles taught that salvation is not something that occurs one point in time, for all time. They taught that a person enters eternal life at baptism, works out their salvation throughout this life, and attained it only at the end of this life.

If you keep reading John's gospel, you'll see that belief in God is ultimately due to God's having first chosen us.

That is because John is Catholic.

God’s election is both temporally and logically prior to our belief. Faith, therefore, is a gift. Thus, “whosoever believes” simply follows from the fact that “whosever God chooses” will in fact–at some point in time–come to believe in Jesus.

God gives all men sufficient grace and revelation to come to Him. Those who choose Him, He also chooses.

That said, consider the alternative. If Jesus died for everyone in general “all men” and “the world,” then he died for no one in particular.

Really? Why can He not have died for each one in particular? Are you saying He did not know which ones would avail themselves of His gift?

That would mean that no one was actually saved on the cross, that he gave his life as a ransom for nobody in particular, that his blood redeemed no one in particular, that his life was given in exchange for no one in particular and that when he said "It is finished,"

You have some really kooky reasoning, Miguel. These comments are a direct departure from the Apostolic faith. Why entertain such vain imaginings?

he didn’t actually accomplish a thing other than to make salvation “possible” for those who freely choose it. It would have been better for him to have said, “It is possible.”

It is not up to you to decide what is “better” for God to do. He chose to give His One Son as a ransom for mankind. The life of every single human being was purchased. Not all those purchased will go home with Him. He allows this in His love.

 

[fbl9]

We know from scripture Jesus personally choose 12 men. Does this mean He also personally chosed the rest of those that followed Him? Why not? He was right there in person.

Since original sin was wrought by the flesh only pure flesh could atone for it. Being omipresent this atonement could only be for all, not limited to a select group.

 

[Pwrlftr]

From a Catholic point of view, they need to “get around” the mortal sin that will separate one eternally from God.

First, they don’t distinguish between venial and mortal sin. In their view all sin seperates man from God.

Secondly they believe they have to repent. The elect will be given the grace required so that they can repent or they wouldn’t be elect in the first place.

 

[JRRTFAN]

They sin.

I don’t know. I suppose a person could be repentant at one moment and sinning at the next. I don’t see how a person could be repentant and sin at the same time though.

Why do you think “they” have to get around anything?

Well “they” is Calvinists, no attempt to be offensive on my part, we are talking about a specific group and one presumed that that specific group could be referred to as they. Sorry.

To restate the question, how do Calvinists explain the unrepentance of someone in the act of sin within the framework of their concept of election that the elect could never be unrepentant if one has to be unrepentant at the moment of sin and Calvinists do sin?

No offense meant.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Well “they” is Calvinists, no attempt to be offensive on my part, we are talking about a specific group and one presumed that that specific group could be referred to as they. Sorry.

To restate the question, how do Calvinists explain the unrepentance of someone in the act of sin within the framework of their concept of election that the elect could never be unrepentant if one has to be unrepentant at the moment of sin and Calvinists do sin?

No offense meant.

No problem, I didn’t read anything offensive in your post and on my part I didn’t mean anything by the use of quotation marks. Internet communication is always an adventure.

I think I understand your questoin now It’s not that the elect are perfect or always going to repent immediately after sinning it’s just that they will always repent. Not of their own strenght but because God empowers them.

Like I said earlier I am now Catholic but used to be in the Reformed camp or Calvinist camp as some call it. There are a group of Reformed theologians, pastors and lay people who are now Catholic and have have formed an awesome web site. It’s www.calledtocommunion.com.

You may enjoy it, 100% loyal to the Magesterium.