Tackling Predestination

[Bengoshi]

In terms of your understanding of predestination, your position is in full accord with the presentation found in Ott that MarcoPolo linked to earlier. Let me know if I’m wrong. If I’m not, welcome to the Catholic faith!

“It is grace alone that separates the redeemed from the lost, all having been involved in one common perdition through their common origin… [for] the whole human race was condemned in its rebellious head by a divine judgment so just, that if not a single member of the race had been redeemed, no one could justly have questioned the justice of God; and that it was right that those who are redeemed should be redeemed in such a way as to show, by the greater number who are unredeemed and left in their just condemnation, what the whole race deserved, and whither the deserved judgment of God would lead even the redeemed, did not His undeserved mercy interpose, so that every mouth might be stopped of those who wish to glory in their own merits, and that he that glories might glory in the Lord.

“These are the great works of the Lord, sought out according to all His pleasure, and so wisely sought out, that when the intelligent creation, both angelic and human, sinned, doing not His will but their own, He used the very will of the creature which was working in opposition to the Creator’s will as an instrument for carrying out His will, the supremely Good thus turning to good account even what is evil, to the condemnation of those whom in His justice He has predestined to punishment, and to the salvation of those whom in His mercy He has predestined to grace. For, as far as relates to their own consciousness, these creatures did what God wished not to be done: but in view of God’s omnipotence, they could in no wise effect their purpose. For in the very fact that they acted in opposition to His will, His will concerning them was fulfilled. And hence it is that the works of the Lord are great, sought out according to all His pleasure, because in a way unspeakably strange and wonderful, even what is done in opposition to His will does not defeat His will. For it would not be done did He not permit it (and of course His permission is not unwilling, but willing); nor would a Good Being permit evil to be done only that in His omnipotence He can turn evil into good” (The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Love, Chs. 99 & 100).

Your brother in the Lord,
Pete

I totally agree with this!

The following is also from the link you provided above. I find it surprising that it is also in full agreement to what Sproul has been saying in his book as well!

Chapter 30. Men are Not Saved by Good Works, Nor by the Free Determination of Their Own Will, But by the Grace of God Through Faith.

But this part of the human race to which God has promised pardon and a share in His eternal kingdom, can they be restored through the merit of their own works? God forbid. For what good work can a lost man perform, except so far as he has been delivered from perdition? Can they do anything by the free determination of their own will? Again I say, God forbid. For it was by the evil use of his free-will that man destroyed both it and himself. For, as a man who kills himself must, of course, be alive when he kills himself, but after he has killed himself ceases to live, and cannot restore himself to life; so, when man by his own free-will sinned, then sin being victorious over him, the freedom of his will was lost. For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. This is the judgment of the Apostle Peter. And as it is certainly true, what kind of liberty, I ask, can the bond-slave possess, except when it pleases him to sin? For he is freely in bondage who does with pleasure the will of his master. Accordingly, he who is the servant of sin is free to sin. And hence he will not be free to do right, until, being freed from sin, he shall begin to be the servant of righteousness. And this is true liberty, for he has pleasure in the righteous deed; and it is at the same time a holy bondage, for he is obedient to the will of God. But whence comes this liberty to do right to the man who is in bondage and sold under sin, except he be redeemed by Him who has said, If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed? And before this redemption is wrought in a man, when he is not yet free to do what is right, how can he talk of the freedom of his will and his good works, except he be inflated by that foolish pride of boasting which the apostle restrains when he says, By grace are you saved, through faith.

Chapter 31. Faith Itself is the Gift of God; And Good Works Will Not Be Wanting in Those Who Believe.

And lest men should arrogate to themselves the merit of their own faith at least, not understanding that this too is the gift of God, this same apostle, who says in another place that he had obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful, here also adds: and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. And lest it should be thought that good works will be wanting in those who believe, he adds further: For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them. We shall be made truly free, then, when God fashions us, that is, forms and creates us anew, not as men— for He has done that already— but as good men, which His grace is now doing, that we may be a new creation in Christ Jesus, according as it is said: Create in me a clean heart, O God. For God had already created his heart, so far as the physical structure of the human heart is concerned; but the psalmist prays for the renewal of the life which was still lingering in his heart.

 

[Bengoshi]

Cont…

Chapter 99. As God’s Mercy is Free, So His Judgments are Just, and Cannot Be Gainsaid.

Now after commending the mercy of God, saying, So it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, that he might commend His justice also (for the man who does not obtain mercy finds, not iniquity, but justice, there being no iniquity with God), he immediately adds: For the scripture says unto Pharoah, Even for this same purpose have I raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. And then he draws a conclusion that applies to both, that is, both to His mercy and His justice: Therefore has He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens. He has mercy of His great goodness, He hardens without any injustice; so that neither can he that is pardoned glory in any merit of his own, nor he that is condemned complain of anything but his own demerit. For it is grace alone that separates the redeemed from the lost, all having been involved in one common perdition through their common origin. Now if any one, on hearing this, should say, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will? as if a man ought not to be blamed for being bad, because God has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens, God forbid that we should be ashamed to answer as we see the apostle answered: Nay, but, O man, who are you that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why have You made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? Now some foolish people, think that in this place the apostle had no answer to give; and for want of a reason to render, rebuked the presumption of his interrogator. But there is great weight in this saying: Nay, but, O man, who are you? and in such a matter as this it suggests to a man in a single word the limits of his capacity, and at the same time does in reality convey an important reason. For if a man does not understand these matters, who is he that he should reply against God? And if he does understand them, he finds no further room for reply. For then he perceives that the whole human race was condemned in its rebellious head by a divine judgment so just, that if not a single member of the race had been redeemed, no one could justly have questioned the justice of God; and that it was right that those who are redeemed should be redeemed in such a way as to show, by the greater number who are unredeemed and left in their just condemnation, what the whole race deserved, and whither the deserved judgment of God would lead even the redeemed, did not His undeserved mercy interpose, so that every mouth might be stopped of those who wish to glory in their own merits, and that he that glories might glory in the Lord.

 

[Bengoshi]

Cont…

Chapter 100. The Will of God is Never Defeated, Though Much is Done that is Contrary to His Will.

These are the great works of the Lord, sought out according to all His pleasure, and so wisely sought out, that when the intelligent creation, both angelic and human, sinned, doing not His will but their own, He used the very will of the creature which was working in opposition to the Creator’s will as an instrument for carrying out His will, the supremely Good thus turning to good account even what is evil, to the condemnation of those whom in His justice He has predestined to punishment, and to the salvation of those whom in His mercy He has predestined to grace. For, as far as relates to their own consciousness, these creatures did what God wished not to be done: but in view of God’s omnipotence, they could in no wise effect their purpose. For in the very fact that they acted in opposition to His will, His will concerning them was fulfilled. And hence it is that the works of the Lord are great, sought out according to all His pleasure, because in a way unspeakably strange and wonderful, even what is done in opposition to His will does not defeat His will. For it would not be done did He not permit it (and of course His permission is not unwilling, but willing); nor would a Good Being permit evil to be done only that in His omnipotence He can turn evil into good.

Chapter 101. The Will of God, Which is Always Good, is Sometimes Fulfilled Through the Evil Will of Man.

Sometimes, however, a man in the goodness of his will desires something that God does not desire, even though God’s will is also good, nay, much more fully and more surely good (for His will never can be evil): for example, if a good son is anxious that his father should live, when it is God’s good will that he should die. Again, it is possible for a man with evil will to desire what God wills in His goodness: for example, if a bad son wishes his father to die, when this is also the will of God. It is plain that the former wishes what God does not wish, and that the latter wishes what God does wish; and yet the filial love of the former is more in harmony with the good will of God, though its desire is different from God’s, than the want of filial affection of the latter, though its desire is the same as God’s. So necessary is it, in determining whether a man’s desire is one to be approved or disapproved, to consider what it is proper for man, and what it is proper for God, to desire, and what is in each case the real motive of the will. For God accomplishes some of His purposes, which of course are all good, through the evil desires of wicked men: for example, it was through the wicked designs of the Jews, working out the good purpose of the Father, that Christ was slain and this event was so truly good, that when the Apostle Peter expressed his unwillingness that it should take place, he was designated Satan by Him who had come to be slain. How good seemed the intentions of the pious believers who were unwilling that Paul should go up to Jerusalem lest the evils which Agabus had foretold should there befall him! And yet it was God’s purpose that he should suffer these evils for preaching the faith of Christ, and thereby become a witness for Christ. And this purpose of His, which was good, God did not fulfill through the good counsels of the Christians, but through the evil counsels of the Jews; so that those who opposed His purpose were more truly His servants than those who were the willing instruments of its accomplishment.

Chapter 102. The Will of the Omnipotent God is Never Defeated, and is Never Evil.

But however strong may be the purposes either of angels or of men, whether of good or bad, whether these purposes fall in with the will of God or run counter to it, the will of the Omnipotent is never defeated; and His will never can be evil; because even when it inflicts evil it is just, and what is just is certainly not evil. The omnipotent God, then, whether in mercy He pities whom He will, or in judgment hardens whom He will, is never unjust in what He does, never does anything except of His own free-will, and never wills anything that He does not perform.

 

[Bengoshi]

Cont…(Last)

Chapter 103. Interpretation of the Expression in I Tim. II. 4 "Who Will Have All Men to Be Saved."

Accordingly, when we hear and read in Scripture that He will have all men to be saved, although we know well that all men are not saved, we are not on that account to restrict the omnipotence of God, but are rather to understand the Scripture, Who will have all men to be saved, as meaning that no man is saved unless God wills his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will, but that no man is saved apart from His will; and that, therefore, we should pray Him to will our salvation, because if He will it, it must necessarily be accomplished. And it was of prayer to God that the apostle was speaking when he used this expression. And on the same principle we interpret the expression in the Gospel: The true light which lights every man that comes into the world: not that there is no man who is not enlightened, but that no man is enlightened except by Him. Or, it is said, Who will have all men to be saved; not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will (for how, then, explain the fact that He was unwilling to work miracles in the presence of some who, He said, would have repented if He had worked them?), but that we are to understand by all men, the human race in all its varieties of rank and circumstances—kings, subjects; noble, plebeian, high, low, learned, and unlearned; the sound in body, the feeble, the clever, the dull, the foolish, the rich, the poor, and those of middling circumstances; males, females, infants, boys, youths; young, middle-aged, and old men; of every tongue, of every fashion, of all arts, of all professions, with all the innumerable differences of will and conscience, and whatever else there is that makes a distinction among men. For which of all these classes is there out of which God does not will that men should be saved in all nations through His only-begotten Son, our Lord, and therefore does save them; for the Omnipotent cannot will in vain, whatsoever He may will? Now the apostle had enjoined that prayers should be made for all men, and had especially added, For kings, and for all that are in authority, who might be supposed, in the pride and pomp of worldly station, to shrink from the humility of the Christian faith. Then saying, For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, that is, that prayers should be made for such as these, he immediately adds, as if to remove any ground of despair, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. God, then, in His great condescension has judged it good to grant to the prayers of the humble the salvation of the exalted; and assuredly we have many examples of this. Our Lord, too, makes use of the same mode of speech in the Gospel, when He says to the Pharisees: You tithe mint, and rue, and every herb. For the Pharisees did not tithe what belonged to others, nor all the herbs of all the inhabitants of other lands. As, then, in this place we must understand by every herb, every kind of herbs, so in the former passage we may understand by all men, every sort of men. And we may interpret it in any other way we please, so long as we are not compelled to believe that the omnipotent God has willed anything to be done which was not done: for setting aside all ambiguities, if He has done all that He pleased in heaven and in earth, as the psalmist sings of Him, He certainly did not will to do anything that He has not done.

 

[Bengoshi]

Hi Benigoshi

Having a mix-up in translation confuses thinks a bit.

{Hell should be translated Sheol/hades} {Which is in the Grave the pit}

What about the scripture that say about those that are sleepeth when they are Dead. Lazarus {John 11:11}+{mathew 27:52 9:24} {Luke 8:59}???

Also in Sheol/hades you say 2 places {paradise for the righteous} The other place i have found is {Gehenna,Tartarus, lower hell, shoel/hades}={2 peter 2:4-9 Jude 1:6} {Luke8:31}

I thought {Paradise} was in the {Third heaven}={Between the heaven and the Earth}!!!
{2 Cor 12:2-4} {Ezekiel 8:3}

You say Jesus took the burden for the whole Human race. What about all the ones in Tarturas lower hell I Know Angels are there. {But also the Ungodly humans that are there}
Did Jesus take the Burden for These??

I think we would go to the particular application of the atonement (Limited Atonement in TULIP) for that.

As to the places, Sheol(Heb.) = Hades(Gk.), while Gehenna(Heb.) = Tartarus(Gk.)

We can see that there is another distinct place other than heaven or hell after we die. And neither are these “purgatory” I suppose because even according to Catholic theology, purgatory is not described in that way.

Taking that into consideration, I think the explanation given by GotQuestions is quite convincing.

The sleep thing may be a figure of speech in that our bodies will lie in wait after we die but before the second coming in which new bodies will be provoded for us.

 

[guanophore]

If adam did cause the fall for all. You say it stands to reason that christ will cause the salvation for all. Does that also mean for all the people that came from adam who have died before Jesus Christ came?
When Jesus christ Died did he decend to hell for a few days?

Do you not think the Scriptures testify to these things?

Yes, all died in Adam. Yes all are redeemed in Christ. However, it is important not to confuse redemption with salvation. Though He paid the price for the sins of the whole world, not all of them will be saved, because they do not choose to accept His sacrifice.

No, it did not take HIm “a few days” - more like a few hours.

He released the righteous dead who were awaiting him.

 

[guanophore]

No, I’m sorry, it would be too long and laborious for me to do that. Let me just instead refer you to Sproul’s book, “Chosen By God” and Wayne Grudem’s explanation in his Systematic Theology book. I have a softcopy I can e-mail you if you would PM me you e-mail address.

No need, I have studied them. I wondered if you knew it was an extrabiblical tradition of men that you were embracing, which is why I asked.

 

[Bengoshi]

No need, I have studied them. I wondered if you knew it was an extrabiblical tradition of men that you were embracing, which is why I asked.

Well, the books I referred you too are based on the Bible…

 

[guanophore]

Grace is grace. The distinction made about grace being “common” is Calvinistic invention. This is a kind of loophole he needed to try to make sense of the other bits of predestination that does not make sense.

There is nothing “common” about grace

Anyway, I will grant you the distinction.

Since all grace comes from God, why go to all the lengths of giving them “common grace” when He was going to throw them shrieking into the furnace of eternal fire by withholding “saving grace”?

See here, every time you try to explain a poverty in the Calvinist understanding of salvation, what you end up doing is portray God as some sort of a Jekyll and Hyde.

I think Calvin’s notion of “common grace” is akin to the Catholic prevenient or drawing grace.

 

[guanophore]

The following is also from the link you provided above. I find it surprising that it is also in full agreement to what Sproul has been saying in his book as well!

I never thought of this, but perhaps there should be “Sproul” denomination? He has written so much, and has so many followers. What would they be called? Sproulists? Sproulians? Sproulics?

 

[Bengoshi]

I think Calvin’s notion of “common grace” is akin to the Catholic prevenient or drawing grace.

Actually, it isn’t. Common grace is the grace of God by which he gives
people innumerable blessings that are not part of salvation. Catholic prevenient or drawing grace, as you call it, is the equivalent of the Reformed notion of the “Gospel Call” or “General Call”, although they’re not exactly the same. We have “common”, “saving” and “sanctifying” grace.

 

[Bengoshi]

I never thought of this, but perhaps there should be “Sproul” denomination? He has written so much, and has so many followers. What would they be called? Sproulists? Sproulians? Sproulics?

Sproulists perhaps? LOL!

But seriously, he considers himself of the Reformed/Calvinist camp.

 

[benedictus2]

 The Doctrine of the Trinity is found in the Bible. The word itself may not be there but the principle is definitely there.

Sorry but no. The doctrine ( Three Persons in One God) is not there. Otherwise there would not have been such kerfuffle over so many Trinitarian heresies.

You may mention purgatory, that it is also not there but believed.

Actually it is there. The reason you do not believe it is in scripture is because Protestants have a mangled version of scripture. You should visit the threads on purgatory, there are quite a few here.

The difference however is that heaven and hell are expressly mentioned, hence excluding purgatory.

Praying for the dead is in Mac2 (which of course Luther conveniently exised from the Bible) and Revelation says that nothing unclean will enter heaven. And there are others but this is not the topic of this thread.

If I may use a principle of statutory construction: expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Those which are expressly mentioned exclude those which are not.

Sorry but you are pulling at straws here. That is a legal principle and legislative in nature. Has no bearing on the matter under discussion whatsoever.
Now if you mentioned philosophical principles, that is another matter.

Anyway, that was just a side note in anticipation of a possible point.

Sorry to say this but a totally irrelevant side note.

It was Grudem’s definition that I quoted. Just like the Trinity, reprobation is a necessary implication of election.

Reprobation is only a necessary implication of election if you apply the statutory construction that you mentioned above. But, sorry to say this, it just does not apply, because all it is a legal principle.

But on another point. You said : . “Just like the Trinity, reprobation is a necessary implication of election”

That is a very interesting statement, that the Trinity is a necessary implication of election.

So how (in Calvinistic Theology) is the Trinity (and I mean here the doctrine that states 3 persons in One God) a necessary implication of election?

I can explain it from the Catholic point of view but the Reformed theology will be stretch to the max to correlate the two.

Notice that Paul in Romans and Ephesians was addressing the presumptive elect, i.e. believers. All genuine believers are elect. The unbelievers unto death are the reprobates.

Another interesting choice of words. Unto death. Precisely. People who with their very last will deny God. But what is being questioned here is the Calvinistic proposition that God even before He proceeds to create human beings WILLS that they will not be given the opportunity to believe. Remember, you said that one only believes because God has given the grace to believe.

God chooses to pass them over in sorrow because He desires all

men to be saved.

Now that has got to be the height of irrationality. ‘He desires ALL men to be saved so He WILLFULLY chooses to send them to Hell???!! How does that compute?

You are establishing a causality here.

Let me rephrase that so you can see how mind-bogglingly absurd that is.

“This deity wishes ALL men to live in love and happiness, enjoy eternity with him, and in order to do that, he MADE SURE that some men wlll never ever be in his presence by casting them to hell.”

However, because He has a greater purpose which we are unaware of, we just have to trust Him that His decision in passing over others are accordingly just, in accordance with His nature.

Sorry friend, but the greater purpose He has already revealed. That is what our religion is all about, it is a revealed religion. And the purpose is the salvation of man.

Here again have re-hashed your arguments from a few posts before when we have already debunked it.

In a debate, what you are supposed to do is to refute / debunk our debunking not just re-state what you have stated before.

I have already shown before that based on your line of argument the god of your theology is unjust. To do a proper rebuttal you need to show how I am wrong and that God is just after all in creating men with the express purpose of damning them.

Explain how this is just: "god says that in order to be saved you must eat choc chip cookies. But only he can provide choc chip cookies. He wilfully decides to not give some people these choc chip cookies. Then he stomps in and yells in anger: “you have not obeyed what I commanded that you should eat choc chip cookies so from now on I will roast you in an open flame while little red evil creatures poke you with their forks.”

 

[benedictus2]

  All persons are sinners, even believers. Paul was writing to the Church (believers). Your saying that he was also writing to unbelievers is merely your unfounded speculation.

Let me ride along with your premise that the address is limited to whowever Paul is writing to.

Once you go down that track, I can also say, sorry but he is not reffering to you eitherl. You were not even a thought in your great, great, great to the nth degree grand father’s head when Paul was writing.

Once you go down that track, you limit the cover of his writings to precisely just the Romans, Ephesians, etc. and even more narrowly, only to those who were Roman, Ephesians etc, **during **his time because the letters were addressed to them.

Poor us in the 20th century, western, eastern, African culture. Who will write an epistle to us to tell us we are saved?

please tell that to yourself. You’re the one quoting verses out of context.

No I’m not and you know it. The Catholic position takes scripture allows it to speak for itself. That is what is exegesis is all about.
You on the other hand do eisegesis. You read into scripture your preconceived notions and force scripture to say what you want it to say even if you have to chop this and that verse out. This is just not you though. This is the whole manner of protestant eisegesis although some are more faithful to the real intent of scripture and tradition more than others.

Yes, He loves the world, the elect are al oover the world. Juyst do yourself a favor, just try reading Sproul’s book “Chosen By God” with an open mind then come back after.

Well that is not what scripture says. Scripture say God so loved the World not the elect who are all over the world.

And why would I read an author who teaches heresy? I have not even read all fo the works of the Fathers of the Church. My humble aim at the moment is to be able to read all of Pope Benedicts work. Now that, is one super brilliant man. Thanks be to God.

As I’ve said, the way he explained it is really good. It’s the best presentation I’ve read so far.

You claim to be a lawyer. With that kind of education you would have been able to explain whatever it is you grasped from Sproul’s book. Whatever you have explained here is so weak. If that is coming from Sproul’s work then sorry but it ireally is not worth reading.

I suggest you pick up Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict. If there is only 1 book that a Christian should read apart from the Bible, I think that is it.

Speaking of brilliance, pick up Chesterton. I think anyone who engages Chesterton will come out thinking clearer.

Mucnh on it, meditate on it instead of doing your best to try and prove the doctrine of election and reprobation wrong.

Based on what you have shared here of his work, there is nothing to chew on.

I’ve already poked so many holes on your argument which I presume you got from him.

If he is so brilliant, rebutting my points should be a walk in the park. You can quote him verbatim if you like.

 

[benedictus2]

Augustinians do not agree to this. For us, free will is only the answer for why we deserve hell.

But this is illogical If the will is free, it is free to either choose good or choose evil. This kind of thinking seems to be saying one freely chooses hell but is coerced into salvation.

But when we talk about salvation, we do not give this answer. We answer with the grace of God.

Yes it is indeed the grace of God. But Catholic teaching says we can freely choose to either cooperate with this grace or we can chose to disregard it.

The only way you can say that salvation is an overpowering of our wills is if you posit total depravity.

But total depravity is a totally depraved doctrine. It makes of a man a puppet when it comes to salvation.

Another thing that this kind of thinking has not really thought about is** that the doctrine of total depravity says that man’s will trumps God’s will.** God who willls everything to goodness is trumped by one single “No” from one man such that there is not one itty bitty bit of goodness left in this creature of God. And so God is left to creating totally depraved men after totally depraved men.

And we ascribe salvation to a decision of the Lord that is beyond us to answer. In the final analysis, when wondering why one person is saved and another is not, we only say, “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways!” (Romans 11:33).

But saying i don’t know does not suffice.

I think this is the reason why the Church has not made a dogma out of either St Augustine or St Thomas’s view. The Church knows that something is lacking.

If you say that the will of man is the determining distinction between the saved and the lost, then you make salvation to depend on “man who wills” rather than on “God Who shows mercy,” and you have reason in yourself to boast over the non-elect.

Not at all. Because man cannot will God to show Mercy to him. Rather I say God is ALWAYS merciful and does not cease to run after us, to search for us to bring us home. And all we need is conversion , to turn.
This is how I see it. God’s mercy and God’s love it follows us so closely, willing us to stop in our haste and turn ever so slightly and wham, we bump right into this grace. He follow us so closely that He allows Himself to step on our shoelace to cause us to halt and so recognize just how near He is, ever ready to embrace us.

However, our free-will, is God’s choice. Everyone needs to remember that. It is not like we created ourselves and willed free will into our selves. No, God created us and chose to give us free will so that our yes and our no may be uttered in freedom. In HIS WISDOM, He chose to create us with free will.

Think of it this way. Say you are so terribly in love with this girl who is not at all in love with you. But, there is a potion that will over power her and make her yield to you. Will you give her that potion knowing that if she does say yes to you it is only because you coerced her by thought it?. God does not want puppets. God wants people who love him freely. And the thing is, because we came from God, we are wired for God in our deepest being.

You see, even after the fall, the fact that God created us in His image and for Himself did not change. We are still made in His image and we are still created for Himself. We maybe a much weaker, much dirtier, much sullied and vile version of our first parents before the fall, but none the less each and everytime He creates, He creates an image of Him for Him.

We are all wired for God.

 

[benedictus2]

Well, the books I referred you too are based on the Bible…

You mean little bits and pieces of a truncated version of it.

 

[benedictus2]

I think Calvin’s notion of “common grace” is akin to the Catholic prevenient or drawing grace.

Then it becomes even worse for the Calvinist.

god draws people to him so he can throw them in hell.

As I said, a psychopath.

 

[benedictus2]

Actually, it isn’t. Common grace is the grace of God by which he gives
people innumerable blessings that are not part of salvation. Catholic prevenient or drawing grace, as you call it, is the equivalent of the Reformed notion of the “Gospel Call” or “General Call”, although they’re not exactly the same. We have “common”, “saving” and “sanctifying” grace.

And it gets worse and worse for the Calvinist.

As I said before, he toys with them, giving them nice things on earth but wham, come reckoning time, off they go to the oven.

Is there any explanation at all ever made as to why god would be so nice to the people on earth giving them common grace, when all the time he is relishing the day when they die so he can roast them in hell?

 

[benedictus2]

“Making Since Out of Suffering” by Kreeft, is another book addressing suffering and evil that I practically memorized. I look forward to getting Webb’s book.

Benedictus, you seem to be sharper than the average knife. Do you have publications, or a web sight? Do you recommend any books, publication or any other forms of literature for our Faith?

Sorry if I got off the thread topic

I looooove Kreeft. He is brilliant. I downloaded his talk on Priestesses from his website and I decided after that that I am in love with him . I have quoted him quite a few times here. He’s remake of the Screwtape Letters (The Snakebite Letters) is wonderful. It us updated for our times.

No I don’t have publications or a website. CAF is the extent of my musings put into words.

I have found that conversion stories (especially those by people who are highly erudite and steeped in scripture) is a treasure trove of “defence of the hope that we have in us”.

God has been wonderful in providing me with books. This is how He intervenes in my education.

Just to illustrate. Very often I would go to the Catholic Bookshop not intending to buy anything just to browse. Then a book would catch my eye (somethign I had not noticed before) and I would buy it. A few days later, something would come up where that book would prove invaluable. And that scenario has happened so often I now think when I buy a new one, okay, I wonder who would need to hear the content of this book.

The other month I went there to buy a magazine. Found out I needed to spend at least $20 to be able to pay by card so I was forced to buy a book. Picked up Francis Becwith’s Return to Rome and that has proven to be most valuable in my understanding of the reformed perspective on justification and sanctification.

But I highly recommend that book by Dom Bruno Webb. That really summed up for me the whole economy of salvation. It is like viewing all these little topics we discuss (Mary, Eucharist, the sacraments, purgatory, infallibility) and captures that in this concept of the economy of salvation and how everything makes for this one big beautiful tapestry.

And of course, one cannot go past Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict. I have cried in the train when I read that. I was just struck by the brilliance of our Pope and I so thank God that he is our Chief Shepherd here on earth.

Another thing that has given me a wider vision of salvation is Fr Barron’s Eucharist DVD and book. A must read for Catholics and non Catholics if they want to make sense of this wonderful Sarcrament.

But really they are innumerable.

If you like, pm me your email and I will send you some really good articles which I have collected. I download them from the web and re-format them for easy reading.

 

[dcastlen50]

Speaking of brilliance, pick up Chesterton. I think anyone who engages Chesterton will come out thinking clearer.
.

“A Christian who knows history is condemned to be a Catholic” G.K. Chesterton