D
- Status
S
SyCarl
Guest
I am a Presbyterian and I can assure you that we do not follow a prosperity gospel.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Because a lot of people - often but not only other Catholics - do seem to have a lot of trouble understanding how election is not a motive for selfishness & laziness.
So it is necessary to try to explain that the very idea of it in Calvinism is if any a rebuke to such a perversion; it can be perverted to serve as a reason for selfishness & laziness, but that is not a necessary interpretation of it. It is a very rich idea, from the Bible, & so it is impossible to do justice to all that it means & implies for the life of the Christian; which is why that post was rather incoherent
Far from the elect themselves being unchangeable, God’s purpose for & through them is unchangeable - they become stable only by being in Christ, Whose stability in being, doing, & saying is changeless, yet dynamic & fruitful. They are of themselves as unstable & passing as every other creature on earth - whereas Christ comes from His Father, through them, to the world in which they live; & this world is God’s, & needs to be converted & reconciled to God.
Election is not primarily for our sakes - it is from, in, to, & for Christ. It is for His Glory, not (or not primarily) for the comfort of the elect: Christianity flows from, & is built around, God; not man. Since it is His Will that His redeemed People should do His Will, & not theirs any longer, & since He elects them to be His redeemed & obedient People, they are to fulfill His Will by (among other things) sharing His Gospel, so that His Name may be made known through the whole earth.
So election & evangelisation are both parts of a far larger scheme, which has its foundations in God’s Eternity & Purpose, & is given expression in His creatures on earth.
This BTW is one reason why His grace is irresistible - if it were not, His whole purpose could not be fulfilled. It cannot fail to be fulfilled, because “no purpose of [His] can be thwarted”: so the grace which gives rise to this purpose, must be irresistible. It is the very unchangeableness of His purpose to elect & to redeem that makes the calling of the elect effective & fruitful for them; & (through the obedience shown by them) for others.
I hope that helps - a Calvinist would give you a better answer.
Some Calvinists are opposed to evangelisation, on the ground that election makes evangelisation needless; this has the effect of making Calvinist beliefs as a whole incoherent, which is one reason that Hyper-Calvinism is criticised by other Calvinists - here, for example:
- monergism.com/directory/link_category/HyperCalvinism/
- spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm
- apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/McMahonABriefCritiqueOfHyper-Calvinism.htm
- www.apuritansmind.com/BookReviews/EngelsmaDavidHypercalvinismSourpuss.htm
64.13.227.128/directory/ is a very useful link for a lot of Calvinist things - as are these (parts of some of the sites at the links are not, shall we say, “Catholicism-affirming”; but CAF doesn’t always “affirm” Protestantism
):
Some Calvinists are wary of argument from the analogy of faith, which is a pity, because the analogy of faith helps to preserve the “shape” of the body of the Christian faith. Maybe HCs share this wariness.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
To clarify, I challenged the “value” to either the elect or God or anyone of evangelizing (among other things) if those who are named elect are unchangeable. Under this understanding of Calvinism, evangelization is an exercise in futility, whether or not it appears to glorify God.
This concept that those who are elect are unchangeable seems to me a barrier to the person’s call to love God if they have no capacity to ever reject Him.
C
Contarini
Guest
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Yes I do.
M
mikeledes
Guest
It is Catholic teaching that the number of the elect is immutable.The following is a good website on this issue:
thecatholicfaith.com/Teachings/predestination.htm
God Bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
Gottle of Geer;2957348 said:
I personally do not like to describe grace as irresistible. Not only does it smell of Calvinism, but it can easily be construed to mean that all who receive the grace of justification will be saved, and this contradicts Catholic theology. While we believe that the “elect”, namely, those predestined to grace and glory, cannot be lost, we do not believe that the number of the justified is coextesive with the number of the elect. We do believe that there will be those among the justified who will fail to persevere, and thus have “fallen from grace.”
God Bless,
Michael
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I see that, but it does not come into play in your quote of me on Calvinistic predestination, which is even deemed heretical in the article you cited!
M
mikeledes
Guest
Okay, I’m a little confused by your response.
What’s deemed heretical in the article I cited? The fact that the number of the elect is immutable?God bless,
Michael
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Oh…no Calvinistic predestination was called heretical in your article:Heretical Predestinationism in its various forms (the Southern Gallic priest Lucidus in the 5th century; the monk Gottschalk in the 9th century, according to reports of his opponents, which, however, find no confirmation in his recently re-discovered writings; Wycliffe, Hus, and esp. Calvin)Okay, I’m a little confused by your response.
God bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
Yes, it considered heretical for several reasons.Oh…no Calvinistic predestination was called heretical in your article:Heretical Predestinationism in its various forms (the Southern Gallic priest Lucidus in the 5th century; the monk Gottschalk in the 9th century, according to reports of his opponents, which, however, find no confirmation in his recently re-discovered writings; Wycliffe, Hus, and esp. Calvin)
- Double Predestination - That God predestines man to hell without taking into account their sins
- That the grace of justification is only limited to those who are predestined to glory.
Michael
M
manualman
Guest
Gottle of Geer;2953442## :thumbsup: Unless there are gaps in God’s knowledge of creatures said:
C
Contarini
Guest
OK, more precisely: if you had the choice between baked potatoes (or whatever other normal, wholesome food happens to appeal to you) and mud, is there any chance that you would pick mud?
If you wouldn’t, then what does it mean to say that you have free will in the matter?
Edwin
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
It means I could have picked mud. I just don’t want to! If I didn’t have free will then I could not have picked mud.
D
danonwaveland
Guest
Yes, it is Mr. Akin, and thank you for the link. I’m sorry I didn’t respond earlier, but my DSL was uncharacteristically behaving badly the last couple of days. This thread is interesting.
God bless!
C
Contarini
Guest
What does the word “could” mean? If you don’t want to do something, how can you possibly do it?
This is what you do not understand about the Augustinian/Calvinist tradition. People can do good if they want to. But sinful human beings don’t want to. Similarly, the blessed in heaven, or in Calvinism the regenerate on earth, can reject God if they want to–but there is no way they will ever want to. The elect can fall away finally, in the sense that they have all the “equipment” necessary to do so–but they will not.
Edwin
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Ah, well that’s different than the way I heard Sproul & Co. articulate it. And I earlier welcomed anyone to clarify that, so thank you. I certainly understood them to say that the elect not only will not want to reject God, but could not. The choice is gone. It’s not that they continually refuse to reject God, but that rejecting God is no longer even an option.
What is your take on this predestination/free will Edwin? Would you go more toward Calvin or perhaps the Catholic position, linked to earlier. Or perhaps something else?
D
danonwaveland
Guest
Add my ‘thanks’ to the previous post. This makes more sense than other explanations I have heard/read. And this is THE Calvinist viewpoint? Thanks again.
God bless!
C
Contarini
Guest
Well, there isn’t necessarily one Calvinist viewpoint. The question of moral ability/inability is a very difficult one. This post by a contemporary Calvinist is quite representative of what I’ve heard Calvinists say (though the initial analogy is deeply flawed, I think). The same poster has a website with a lot of resources expounding Calvinism. Check out the section on “Bondage/Free Will”–this essay is particularly clear (though you should ignore his biased characterizations of opposing viewpoints, both Catholic and Arminian).
Edwin
- Status