Struggling with the difference between single and double predestination

[Latin]

@Latin. The Church does not teach universalism.

I agree with you Cathoholic and I agree with Gorgias.

It does not matter how many Catholic Theologians and Priests will teach it, Universal Salvation will never be official teachings.

God bless

 

[Latin]

He wants everyone to come to Him - and the fact that many people will still reject Him

To tell the truth I have no critical point against the Protestants or the Catholics.
.
I believe God predestined everyone to heaven or if not, for whatever reason some people end up in hell, then there is double predestination.

One to Heaven and one to Hell.
.
If there is predestination to both places (Heaven and Hell) God predestination is from all eternity to both places, so both count as predestination.

.
In your post J Dudycha you stated, “He wants everyone to come to Him - and the fact that many people will still reject Him.” – For their rejection of God they are end up in hell, for this reason there is no Universal Salvation.

.
LET’S CARRY OUT AN INVESTIGATION
.
The question is: Would anyone reject God’s call to heaven?

If the answer is yes there is no Universal Salvation.

If the answer is no one rejects God’s call to Heaven, then there is Universal Salvation.

.
There are two kind of free will, Libertarian free will and Aided free will.

LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL
Libertarian free will is basically the concept that, metaphysically and morally, man is an autonomous being, one who operates independently, not controlled by others or by outside forces.
.
AIDED FREE WILL
The divine initiative in the work of grace precedes, prepares, and elicits the free response of man.
.
According to your view J Dudycha, what kind of free will we have Libertarian or Aided free will?

The question is, in your view J Dudycha, they reject God with their Libertarian free will or with their Aided free will?

.
The Scripture is useless to prove God predestined everyone to heaven or not because in the Scriptura in parallel there are two lines of teachings.

One line is only a few people saved, the other line is God’s Universal Salvific Will and He saves everyone (Rom.5:18; Eph.1:10-11; Col.1:20; etc.).
.
God bless

 

[Gorgias]

I disagree. My claim was exceedingly modest, and is easily verifiable.

Here’s the problem, though: you’re making a claim about “Protestantism”, as if it were a unified whole. It isn’t. It’s kinda like saying “Americans (in toto) are Christian.” Well… some are, and some aren’t. You can’t make a claim for the group that only holds for a subset, can you?

then I would kindly inform them that this information is a Red Herring

Certainly it isn’t! I’m pointing out that you’re making a claim for a group that doesn’t hold for the group as a whole.

Not all doctrines, just the one we were previously discussing: double-predestination.

Fine: some Protestants believe in double predestination, and some do not. So… what are you claiming? It’s clearly false that all Protestants believe in it, and likewise that all do not. So… what’s the claim “Protestantism (in toto)” mean, here?

 

[J_Dudycha]

He wants everyone to come to Him - and the fact that many people will still reject Him

Excuse me ? I do believe that you’re confusing someone else’s words with mine. Scroll up and you’ll see that I never said (typed?) that.

 

[J_Dudycha]

If you want to rebut me, then you need to offer some sort of evidence that ALL Protestants believe in double-predestination. My argument was a negative: not all Protestants believe in double-predestination. Case in point: Lutherans.

You are indeed arguing a moot point by declaring that I cannot say “all Protestants,” because I never said that. The keyword was not.

In Toto is Latin for in totality, or as a whole.

Once again, please re-read my original post. I honestly don’t see why you’re disagreeing with what I’ve written.

 

[Latin]

Latin:

He wants everyone to come to Him - and the fact that many people will still reject Him

Excuse me ? I do believe that you’re confusing someone else’s words with mine. Scroll up and you’ll see that I never said (typed?) that.

I’m sorry J Dudycha, that you don’t recognise your own typing.

You typed that text in your post addressed to me. Post No. 34.

I only highlighted it and I hit the reply button on your post no: 34.

This is the way it works.

I want to answer specially that part of your post.

God bless

 

[J_Dudycha]

Aha, okay, now I see what you were referring to. Please excuse me; I’ve only been on this forum for 2 days, and am still trying to learn how quotes/posts work.

What you “quoted” of me was merely a summary of 1 Timothy 2:4. I think it’d be better if you interacted directly with 1 Timothy 2:4, rather than my ensuing commentary.

If I may, I think that you’re demonstrating quite clearly the trouble with Reformed theology: you are placing your reasoning above what the Bible says. As 1 Timothy 2:4 clearly demonstrates, God desires that all should be saved. Because all are not, you use your human reasoning to infer that God must have predestined some to Hell, despite what the Bible and tradition clearly teach. Truly, the idea of double-predestination was foreign to the church for ~1500 years; does not this fact say something, also ?

Personally, I think that both Calvinism and Arminianism stem from a flawed understanding of how God interacts in time; that is, they presume that our human minds can how God can interacts in time.

 

[J_Dudycha]

Consider:

To predestine is an action, thereby occurring within time. To say that God predestined before Creation is to imply that God acted in time before time existed.

I submit that God’s knowledge of who would and would not be saved has existed within Him past-eternally. That is, who is and is not saved is knowledge that is implicit within God. He did not make a conscious decision before time, because this violates any meaningful philosophy of time in the first place (pun intended).

Rather than trying to read man’s reasoning into the text, accept the text for what it is, and admit that an infinite God may work in ways which our limited minds are simply unable of comprehending.

 

[Gorgias]

If you want to rebut me, then you need to offer some sort of evidence that ALL Protestants believe in double-predestination.

Nice try.

My argument was a negative: not all Protestants believe in double-predestination.

Let’s look at your assertion again. I don’t think it is what you’re attempting to refashion it as, here:

RaisedCatholic made the point that Protestantism (in toto) does not adhere to the doctrine double-predestination

Actually, that wasn’t his point (at least in the way he expressed it):

Like I said Protestantism doesn’t teach double predestination.

So, if you and he want to say “not all Protestants believe in double-predestination”, I’m with you. However, there’s no such entity as “all Protestants”, such that you can appeal to them as a group.

But, I’m with you: some Protestants do teach it, and some do not. “In toto”, there’s no agreement.

You are indeed arguing a moot point by declaring that I cannot say “all Protestants,” because I never said that.

You referenced the group as a whole. And then you made an assertion about what the group believes.

In Toto is Latin for in totality, or as a whole.

I can read Latin.

If there isn’t a single consensus in the group to which you refer, you can’t make an assertion about that group. Bachelors (in toto) are not women. However, it is not the case that Steelers fans (in toto) are not women.

I honestly don’t see why you’re disagreeing with what I’ve written.

Because it obfuscates.

To predestine is an action, thereby occurring within time.

The creation of the universe is an action. Did it occur within time?

 

[J_Dudycha]

I’ll be perfectly honest: I have zero desire to get involved in a protracted back-and-forth with someone who — please forgive my frankness — does not seem at all gentle, or kind, or willing to admit that they might be wrong.

Years ago, I would have. But now, well, let’s just say that I have better things to do than argue online.

Besides, nobody ever converted because they lost an argument.

May we allow the Spirit to lead us into all Truth.

Peace.

 

[Gorgias]

I have zero desire to get involved in a protracted back-and-forth with someone who — please forgive my frankness — does not seem at all gentle, or kind, or willing to admit that they might be wrong.

Funny that, considering you’re responding to a post in which I wrote “well, if you mean this, then yeah, but if that, then no.” Maybe I should reconsider getting involved in a back-and-forth with someone who does not seem willing to admit that others aren’t always wrong.

And yeah, I’m prickly. So was St Paul. I’m working on it…

 

[EndTimes]

The Difference between 1 and 2 is 1 over 2?

The Catholic Church doesn’t accept any e.g., Calvinistic notions e.g of Predestination.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

And how easy for us to look down on those whom God not yet recreated, and
call them wicked being unwilling & unable to believe in Jesus.

The term is not meant to be derogatory, but descriptive and distinct from the elect of God, which is also a descriptive term in scripture to describe those who God has predestined to salvation. The term, the wicked, it’s simply a descriptive term in the Bible to describe those who are not God’s elect

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Yep. There it is. You made a claim for all Protestants. A claim which, by the way, is demonstrably false.

The whole basis of Protestantism is sola scriptura. And scripture does not teach double predestination, which was my point. The fact that there are those who classify themselves as “protestant,” but still teach double predestination, Is not the same thing as saying that all protestants reject double predestination. Again, there is a difference between Protestantism, and protestants. The former go strictly by scripture alone, while the latter is a Descriptive term to distinguish between Catholics, but not all of them go by scripture alone, which is why not all protestants reject double predestination. To not get this is to paint Protestantism with a very broad brush.

 

[EasternCelt]

The problem is that certain perfectly orthodox theologians, like Sts. Augustine and Aquinas, did believe in things that are essentially the same as Calvin’s system. It gets defended by calling it single predestination, but there’s no real essential difference between single and double predestination and the justifications in defense of the “differences” are just sophistry, kinda like the Thomistic arguments for the distinction between sufficient and efficacious grace.

 

[EndTimes]

The problem is that certain perfectly orthodox theologians, like Sts. Augustine and Aquinas, did believe in things that are essentially the same as Calvin’s system.

they’re never ‘perfectly orthodox’ … Not even St. Peter was perfectly correct all the time .

As individuals they are not always at the same level of Authority as is the Church’s Magisterium …

John Calvin? Some say he’s not even a Christian…

Predestionation? That’s a never-ending discussion?