Tackling Predestination

[thegrons]

I think what a lot of people have trouble with are the scriptures that talk about the “elect” or the “chosen”. These “seem” to imply that there is a selection involved by God in eternity past; however the words elect and chosen also mean “objects of divine favor”. So with this in mind, it isn’t so difficult how someone can become one of the chosen or elect by simply placing faith in Christ of their own free will. The former narrow definition carries an implication of a sovereign selection in eternity past. Even Jesus was called the Elect One and the Chosen One; if we restrict the definitions of these words we would have to assume that Christ was chosen from a group of many to be the Messiah and I don’t think any of us would agree to that.

Something to think about; because at one time I used to buy into the Calvinistic doctrine of election and could never reconcile the terms elect and chosen with free will until I had a broader understanding of what these words meant.

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by paul c
Here is the catholic view of salvation:

Despite your mockery, you have got it mostly right. God desires man to willingly embrace him, so salvation is determined in part by the will of man. But if God doesn’t will it as well, there is no hope for salvation. Man gains his salvation by cooperating with God.

Quote:
To stay in the state of grace, a person must avoid mortal sin and do acts of love.

Unfortunately, you have to understand Catholicism better than you do to generate an accurate translation. Love is not a tightrope. If you have love, you want to do something for someone without expecting anything return. love is its own reward - there is no fear involved.

Quote:
if someone falls from the state of grace through sin, our merciful God will allow them to regain the state of grace through the sacrement of reconciliation

So you believe sin has no consequence and that every sin is pre-forgiven for the elect but damning for the reprobate? We believe if you sin, you must confess, repent and do penance in reparation for the sin and that only a priest, acting on the authority Jesus gave his church, can grant aboslution and return you to grace.

Quote:
If a man or woman dies in the state of grace, they will go to heaven. If they do not, they will be condemned. This is justice.

Well, life is a journey toward or away from God. God is merciful and will always take you back into his grace, right up to your dying breath. That said, the goal is to stay in the state of grace, out of love for God.

Quote:
Because God knows all, he knew whether the person would die in the state of grace before they existed but he did not force them to either be saved or condemned. This was of their own doing.

God judges us based on our actions. Read Romans 2: 5-10:

5 By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God,
6 who will repay everyone according to his works:
7 eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works,
8 but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.
9 Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek.
10 But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek.

Quote:
This process must be contrasted with that proposed by Calvin: In this system, God chooses those to save or condemn without regard to the individuals merits.

So by your accounting, Paul contradicts himself in the same letter to the Romans, saying that we will be judged according to our actions in Chapter 2 but in Romans 9 he says that everyone is predestined to heaven or hell regardless of what they do? if you read again, this is not what Paul Says. Chapter 2 is clearly about heaven and hell. But Chapter 9 is not. Lets look at what you quoted:
.10 And not only that, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one husband, our father Isaac –
11 before they had yet been born or had done anything, good or bad, in order that God’s elective plan might continue,
12 not by works but by his call–she was told, “The older shall serve the younger.”
13 As it is written: “I loved Jacob but hated Esau.”
It says nothing about heaven or hell, simply that Esau will serve Jacob.

Quote:
Such a system denies God’s justice for a man is condmnned to eternal suffering or given eternal bliss through no fault or merit of his own.

You have read Chapter 9 as saying that God predestines some to heaven or hell. but it doesn’t say that anywhere. It says that Esau was destined to serve Jacob. It says pharaoh was destined to be hardened against the Israelites. It says that only some of the Israelites will be saved and that it require faith in Jesus and not faithless works to be saved. But note, it requires Faith and works to be saved.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
It denies God’s love because to condemn an innocent man could never be construed as love.

It is true that God condemns the unrighteous. That is Catholic theology. Your error is that you think that no one is innocent. Well, those that have yet to be born that you declare have been predestined to hell are certainly innocent. They have done nothing wrong. An infant is similarly innocent.

Quote:
It denies God’s mercy because it is clear that some are condemned without mercy

Again, you don’t understand Catholic theology at all. You can not be an ethical athiest and be saved. You need to be baptized to be saved and you need to stay in the state of Grace, which you can only do with faith.

Quote:
It denies man’s free will, because nothing he does matters.

Romans 6:1-2 says that sin does matter. Which obliterates your argument that men are predestined to heaven or hell before they are born. And the bible does not teach that the will must be set free. The reason the bible holds us accountable for our actions is that we have free will, other wise it would make no sense. John 8 :32 says that the truth will set you free. This does not mean that you don;t have free will.

Quote:
As you can plainly see, The Calvinistic approach to predestination is in conflict with much of what we know about God and man.

I’m not arguing that People can respond to God’s grace without his initiative. I’m saying that God wills all people to be saved and that he initiates grace with all of us. And the ones who respond to his call are the ones that will go to heaven. That is the Catholic position. Aquinas did not deny free will or the role of man in his own salvation. That is Calvin’s innovation.

With all due respect, you need to do some homework on this issue.

With all due respect, do you still think this comment is true?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Again, you don’t understand Catholic theology at all. You can not be an ethical athiest and be saved. You need to be baptized to be saved and you need to stay in the state of Grace, which you can only do with faith.

Hold on there. There are two different threads debating those two issues. They are in no way as cut and dried as you’re making it out here.

Links:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=469500

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=466813

EDIT: I apologize, I read through the thread and realized you actually said nothing about infant damnation. Still, the point stands.

 

[Matorin]

Paul C: How can you say Romans 9 does not apply to us, and only to Jacob and Esau? Why would Paul assume people are thinking he is talking to/about them in verse 19 if he is just arbitrarily talking about Jacob and Esau? Just read chapter 8, then go into chapter 9 (remember there were no chapters divisions when Paul wrote this) and please do not read it thinking “How can I use this text to disprove predestination and how can I make it so this does not mean God prepares some of us for honor and some of us prepared for destruction.” Please, literally take 10 minutes and read Romans 8-9.

I do not pretend to know how God treats the sin (or lack thereof) of babies, young or even unborn. If I were God would I damn them to hell? I don’t think I would. Am I God? No I am not. If he damns them to hell HE CAN NOT BE BLAMED BECAUSE HE IS THE JUST GOD. If God so chooses, you say “That’s unfair we can’t do anything” I reply with Paul’s reply: Who are you, o man, to talk back to God? If God damns infants, he is just in doing so, because the holiness of God cannot even compare to the holiness that we perceive infants to have. I am not saying that I think it is fair, but if God does, he is a just God therefore he would be just in his decision.

Romans 2 has nothing to do with being saved by works. Heck, if you just keep reading from where you left off, Paul talks about how the Jews are NOT saved by what they did and that we are saved by faith which is born out through good works. Do I (or Christ, or Paul, or James) say that all we have to do is say a prayer and we are eternally saved? Like James says “I will show you my faith by what I do.” When our hearts are circumcised by the Holy Spirit we become a new creation. A good speaker on this (non Catholic but still a great speaker) is Paul Washer.

Quick question, if we are given God’s grace when we are still living in sin, why then does his grace not apply when we sin again? How does God’s grace depend on our actions after justification when they didn’t depend on our actions before, but on his will?

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Despite your mockery, you have got it mostly right. God desires man to willingly embrace him, so salvation is determined in part by the will of man.

Not mockery, but an attempt at humor. Sometimes you just have to laugh. Compare what you say above to the apostle John below:

“But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right o become children of God, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13).

This refutes election by birthright, election by free will (Pelagianism), election by cooperation (Semi-Pelagianism), leaving only unconditional election and a regeneration that is both logically and temporally prior to faith and good works. This verse is programatic, meaning John will pick up this theme throughout the gospel. “It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you” (John 15:16). So if I have to err one way or the other, I’m going with salvation as determined primarily by God’s will rather than my own. Can you at least appreciate how I might conclude that based on John?

Unfortunately, you have to understand Catholicism better than you do to generate an accurate translation. Love is not a tightrope. If you have love, you want to do something for someone without expecting anything return. love is its own reward - there is no fear involved.

Amen. I absolutely agree with you on this one. I wonder, however, how most people understand the requirement to “avoid mortal sin” and “do acts of love” within your communion. If these are prescriptions for salvation, then it would seem there would be fear, as in walking a tight rope. But if these are descriptions of how the saved person behaves, then mutatis, mutandis, I can live with this, as I too intrinsically desire to avoid sin and to do acts of love.

So you believe sin has no consequence and that every sin is pre-forgiven for the elect but damning for the reprobate? We believe if you sin, you must confess, repent and do penance in reparation for the sin and that only a priest, acting on the authority Jesus gave his church, can grant aboslution and return you to grace.

I believe that too, but the only priest I have is the High Priest himself, who hears my confession and absolves my sin, and paid both the eternal and temporal penalty for it! (Sorry, I get excited when I contemplate all He has done for me.)

Yes, sin has consequences. But for the elect, they are all nailed to the cross, past, present and future. My system, of course, has its trade-offs. (All systems do.) To borrow scholastic terminology, in the order of being, the destiny of the elect is secure and cannot be undone by the will of man. In that sense, my sin does not undo God’s election. Hence, the popular phrase, “once saved, always saved.” All well and good in the order of being, but what about the order of knowing? Well, I don’t believe anyone this side of eternity can know with absolute certitude the identity of the elect, including their own election. So I freely admit that I don’t “know” that I am saved in any absolute sense. This is not because my salvation is contingent upon my cooperation; rather it is because I simply can’t know what God decreed in eternity past. This implies that if I were to fall into serious sin or a pattern of sin and failed to repent before I died that my identity as a believer would rightly be questioned by those who know me. It could be, as John described:

“They went out from us, but they were not from us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us, But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:19).

That said, what about all the warnings (such as those found in Hebrews)? I take them seriously. In fact, I think they threaten real and not just hypothetical loss of salvation. But I also think they have a function. As God’s word, these warnings will accomplish their purpose–to keep the elect on the straight and narrow and to disclose those whom were ultimately not among us. Of course, I can’t elaborate on all that here, but I at least wanted to anticipate a likely objection.

God judges us based on our actions. Read Romans 2: 5-10:

Ah, but keep reading. Romans is a long argument and you have to follow its logical flow from beginning to end. Paul is setting us up in chapter 2, for they haymaker that comes in chapter 3. In principle, God does reward those who seek him with immorality etc. But what we learn is that no one actually seeks him, at least not of their own accord. Neither Jew, nor Gentile, i.e., no one in the world. Does that mean Paul was only speaking hypothetically in chapter 2? I don’t think so. I think he establishes principles for reward that only regenerated believers can obtain. But prior to that, “no one seeks God” (3:11).

So by your accounting, Paul contradicts himself in the same letter to the Romans, saying that we will be judged according to our actions in Chapter 2 but in Romans 9 he says that everyone is predestined to heaven or hell regardless of what they do?

I don’t see the contradiction. Chapter 2 takes the perspective of human beings looking forward, Chapter 9 takes God’s perspective in eternity past. Scripture puts together both human responsibility (chapter 2) and divine sovereignty (chapter 9) in many, many places. Leave them in tension. If you cut the tension, you have to ignore large parts of the Bible.

 

[Pete_Holter]

In John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter on Augustine, he wrote that “Grace is therefore necessary to remove the obstacles that prevent the will from fleeing evil and accomplishing what is good” (Augustinum Hipponsensem). In this same paragraph, he went on to quote from Augustine where he wrote,
“A man’s free-will, indeed, avails for nothing except to sin, if he knows not the way of truth; and even after his duty and his proper aim shall begin to become known to him, unless he also take delight in and feel a love for it, he neither does his duty, nor sets about it, nor lives rightly. Now, in order that such a course may engage our affections, God’s ‘love is shed abroad in our hearts,’ not through the free-will which arises from ourselves, but ‘through the Holy Ghost, which is given to us’” (, Ch. 5On the Spirit and the Letter).

Here’s what else Augustine wrote about our free will needing to be set free by grace:

“And oh that those who have learned to observe and bewail this may succeed in overcoming and escaping from this power of terrestrial things! Such victory and emancipation cannot, without God’s grace, be achieved by the human will, which is by no means to be called free so long as it is subject to prevailing and enslaving lusts; ‘For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.’ And the Son of God has Himself said, ‘If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.’

“The law, therefore, by teaching and commanding what cannot be fulfilled without grace, demonstrates to man his weakness, in order that the weakness thus proved may resort to the Saviour, by whose healing the will may be able to do what in its feebleness it found impossible” (Letter 145).

“The free will taken captive does not avail, except for sin; but for righteousness, unless divinely set free and aided, it does not avail. And thus, also, all the saints, whether from that ancient Abel to John the Baptist, or from the apostles themselves up to this time, and henceforth even to the end of the world, are to be praised in the Lord, not in themselves. Because the voice, even of those earlier ones, is, ‘In the Lord shall my soul be praised.’ And the voice of the later ones is, ‘By the grace of God I am what I am.’ And to all belongs, ‘That he that glories may glory in the Lord’” (, Bk. 3, Ch. 24Against Two Letters of the Pelagians).

“It is to be confessed, therefore, that we have free choice to do both evil and good; but in doing evil everyone is free from righteousness and a servant of sin, while in doing good no one can be free, unless he have been made free by Him who said, ‘If the Son shall make you free, then you shall be free indeed’” (, Ch. 2On Rebuke and Grace).

Let’s be careful not to overcorrect our Calvinist brothers. Let’s send them to Augustine, our Doctor of Grace!

“If you desire to be satiated with delicious food, read the works of the blessed Augustine… and seek not our chaff in comparison with his fine wheat” (Pope Gregory the Great, , Bk. 10, Epistle 37* Registrum Epistolarum*).

In Christ,
Pete

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

if you read again, this is not what Paul Says. Chapter 2 is clearly about heaven and hell. But Chapter 9 is not. It says nothing about heaven or hell, simply that Esau will serve Jacob.

Again, you have to read the whole chapter. 9:1-5 sets the entire theme: Paul wishes he could trade his own life for his kinsmen whom he regards as presently “cut off from Christ,” which I think we can take as “not saved.” So salvation is in view at this point. Is it still in view when we get to his point about the election of Jacob and Esau? Bear with me. “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (v. 6). Here Paul is trying to account for how it is that God can be faithful to the nation of Israel as a whole, but that the nation as a whole has rejected its own Messiah (which again, has to do with salvation). His answer is to distinguish believers within Israel from unbelievers. To that end Paul distinguishes the “children of Abraham” descended “through Isaac,” but is quick to add that it is not the physical ancestry that we use to determine the “children of God” but rather “the promise.” Now if you look at all the verses in Paul where “children of God” is mentioned, you’ll see that this phrase only is used of believers. The same is true when he says “children of promise” elsewhere. Paul is stating a principle for how to distinguish a believer from an unbeliever, the “Children of God” from “the Children of the Flesh.” That principle is “the promise,” which Paul will explicitly apply to the case of Jacob and Esau. Jacob is the believer, Esau is not (as far as Paul’s argument goes). So yes, salvation and eternal destinies are in view in Romans 9 and the destinies of Jacob and Esau are determined by God according to his elective purpose, before, they had done anything good or evil (and most likely not based on the foreknowledge of what they would do). Paul is teaching unconditional election and the election in question is to eternal destinies.

 

[paul_c]

Paul C: How can you say Romans 9 does not apply to us, and only to Jacob and Esau? Why would Paul assume people are thinking he is talking to/about them in verse 19 if he is just arbitrarily talking about Jacob and Esau? Just read chapter 8, then go into chapter 9 (remember there were no chapters divisions when Paul wrote this) and please do not read it thinking “How can I use this text to disprove predestination and how can I make it so this does not mean God prepares some of us for honor and some of us prepared for destruction.” Please, literally take 10 minutes and read Romans 8-9.

I never say that Romans 9 does not apply to us. I said"

So by your accounting, Paul contradicts himself in the same letter to the Romans, saying that we will be judged according to our actions in Chapter 2 but in Romans 9 he says that everyone is predestined to heaven or hell regardless of what they do? if you read again, this is not what Paul Says. Chapter 2 is clearly about heaven and hell. But Chapter 9 is not. Lets look at what you quoted:

.10 And not only that, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one husband, our father Isaac –
11 before they had yet been born or had done anything, good or bad, in order that God’s elective plan might continue,
12 not by works but by his call–she was told, “The older shall serve the younger.”
13 As it is written: “I loved Jacob but hated Esau.”

It says nothing about heaven or hell, simply that Esau will serve Jacob

.
And Chapter 8 says that some are predestined for heaven, to which Catholics Agree, but it does not say anyone is predestined for hell. That is one of Calvin’s innovations.

I do not pretend to know how God treats the sin (or lack thereof) of babies, young or even unborn. If I were God would I damn them to hell? I don’t think I would. Am I God? No I am not. If he damns them to hell HE CAN NOT BE BLAMED BECAUSE HE IS THE JUST GOD. If God so chooses, you say “That’s unfair we can’t do anything” I reply with Paul’s reply: Who are you, o man, to talk back to God? If God damns infants, he is just in doing so, because the holiness of God cannot even compare to the holiness that we perceive infants to have. I am not saying that I think it is fair, but if God does, he is a just God therefore he would be just in his decision.

I never said that God would damn infants. In fact, I said that infants were innocent. But you are adding to scripture here. It never says anything about God damning infants.

Romans 2 has nothing to do with being saved by works. Heck, if you just keep reading from where you left off, Paul talks about how the Jews are NOT saved by what they did and that we are saved by faith which is born out through good works. Do I (or Christ, or Paul, or James) say that all we have to do is say a prayer and we are eternally saved? Like James says “I will show you my faith by what I do.” When our hearts are circumcised by the Holy Spirit we become a new creation. A good speaker on this (non Catholic but still a great speaker) is Paul Washer.

Again, you are adding to scripture to try to justify your flawed theology. It does not say we are saved by faith which is born out of Good works. It says:

5 By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God,
6 who will repay everyone according to his works:
7 eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works,
8 but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.
9 Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek.
10 But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek

Now granted, he qualifies this over the next several chapters to say that you can’t be justified by works if you are doing them only because they are the law and not out of faith and love. But he most definitely is saying that you will be judged based on your actions. And that clearly means we have a role in our own salvation. There is no getting around that .

Quick question, if we are given God’s grace when we are still living in sin, why then does his grace not apply when we sin again? How does God’s grace depend on our actions after justification when they didn’t depend on our actions before, but on his will?

God gives us the grace to do the good works that he calls us to do . If we don’t cooperate with this grace and separate ourselves from God through sin, then we lose grace. We have free will to accept God’s call to do works of love and we are judged based on whether we do so or not. And by the way, God will continue to call us as long as we live and he will continue to guide us through conscience. But he will not force us to love him. because love must be freely given to be love.

 

[paul_c]

Again, you have to read the whole chapter. 9:1-5 sets the entire theme: Paul wishes he could trade his own life for his kinsmen whom he regards as presently “cut off from Christ,” which I think we can take as “not saved.” So salvation is in view at this point. Is it still in view when we get to his point about the election of Jacob and Esau? Bear with me. “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (v. 6). Here Paul is trying to account for how it is that God can be faithful to the nation of Israel as a whole, but that the nation as a whole has rejected its own Messiah (which again, has to do with salvation). His answer is to distinguish believers within Israel from unbelievers. To that end Paul distinguishes the “children of Abraham” descended “through Isaac,” but is quick to add that it is not the physical ancestry that we use to determine the “children of God” but rather “the promise.” Now if you look at all the verses in Paul where “children of God” is mentioned, you’ll see that this phrase only is used of believers. The same is true when he says “children of promise” elsewhere. Paul is stating a principle for how to distinguish a believer from an unbeliever, the “Children of God” from “the Children of the Flesh.” That principle is “the promise,” which Paul will explicitly apply to the case of Jacob and Esau. Jacob is the believer, Esau is not (as far as Paul’s argument goes). So yes, salvation and eternal destinies are in view in Romans 9 and the destinies of Jacob and Esau are determined by God according to his elective purpose, before, they had done anything good or evil (and most likely not based on the foreknowledge of what they would do). Paul is teaching unconditional election and the election in question is to eternal destinies.

You’ve taken the argument to places Paul did not. I agree with you that he distinguishes between those Israelites that will be saved and those that won’t not on the basis of physical ancestory but on the whether they believe in Jesus. I will further agree with you that God calls men to believe in Jesus. But you’ve extended this on your own (or perhaps with Calvin’s help) to say that God predestines some to hell. This is never, ever said in scripture. It is Calvin’s innovation. In fact, it says that God calls all men. The one’s who end up in hell are the ones that don’t follow Jesus in love (which means works)…

 

[Bengoshi]

Salve,

Right now I’m debating a non-denominational, former Baptist Christian. This person believes in Predestination, as well as salvation by faith alone.

Now, I know how to combat regular salvation by faith alone pretty well by now (I’ve debated that one a lot). But I’ve never met somebody who actually believed in predestination. This throws a whole new curveball in the mix. This person claims that works are unnecessary for salvation because you’re not really doing anything, it just seems like you are when in reality God is doing all the work of accepting his forgiveness and all that good stuff. She says that good works, like having love and forgiveness, can get us to higher “places” in Heaven…that even the most horrible sinner who has been “chosen” by God to have faith in him will make Heaven, just a low place in Heaven.

Now, this person is very well meaning and seems interested in real discussion. For that reason, I DON’T want to hear all the Catholics here complaining about how horrible this type of God would be and how cruel he would be to create creatures predestined not to choose him and all that. I agree with all of that. But that would only offend the person I’m debating and push them away from further discussion. What I’m asking for are reasons that predestination doesn’t make sense, preferably biblical.

Thanks for the help!

-Marc Anthony

Hi there!

I just came across this thread. Culling from your explanation above, it seems that your interlocutor has a faulty view of Reformed/Calvinist theology. I’ve read books about it and so far, the best treatment and explanation that I have read is the one by R.C. Sproul in his very good book “Chosen By God”. My reading of it enabled me to truly have peace n the doctrine as it was explained by Dr. Sproul. He gave apt proof texts taking into acount the context of the passages. He also tackled the common objections and misunderstandings about the Reformed position.

It’s a must-read!

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Despite your mockery, you have got it mostly right. God desires man to willingly embrace him, so salvation is determined in part by the will of man.

There is no argument that God calls men to himself. and that if God did not call men to himself, they would not be saved. The misunderstanding seems to be
a) Does God call ALL men to himself. I think scripture is pretty clear that he does
b) If God calls all men to himself, what aren’t all men saved. Catholics say that this is obvious: men have free will and some choose to separate themselves from God through their sinful actions.

Quote:
Unfortunately, you have to understand Catholicism better than you do to generate an accurate translation. Love is not a tightrope. If you have love, you want to do something for someone without expecting anything return. love is its own reward - there is no fear involved.

All properly Catechised Catholics understand the requirement is to love and that if you love, you will avoid mortal sin. This is the reason, you never hear Catholics discussing whether or not they’ve been saved. They know that they are called to love and if they do this, everything else follows.

Quote:
So you believe sin has no consequence and that every sin is pre-forgiven for the elect but damning for the reprobate? We believe if you sin, you must confess, repent and do penance in reparation for the sin and that only a priest, acting on the authority Jesus gave his church, can grant aboslution and return you to grace.

Well, Jesus set up a church for two main reasons: to spread the gospel and to administer the life giving sacraments. It is to your detriment that you shun these. to this point, I will reference the same quote you reference below:
“They went out from us, but they were not from us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us, But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:19).

Yes, sin has consequences. But for the elect, they are all nailed to the cross, past, present and future. My system, of course, has its trade-offs. (All systems do.) To borrow scholastic terminology, in the order of being, the destiny of the elect is secure and cannot be undone by the will of man. In that sense, my sin does not undo God’s election. Hence, the popular phrase, “once saved, always saved.” All well and good in the order of being, but what about the order of knowing? Well, I don’t believe anyone this side of eternity can know with absolute certitude the identity of the elect, including their own election. So I freely admit that I don’t “know” that I am saved in any absolute sense. This is not because my salvation is contingent upon my cooperation; rather it is because I simply can’t know what God decreed in eternity past. This implies that if I were to fall into serious sin or a pattern of sin and failed to repent before I died that my identity as a believer would rightly be questioned by those who know me. It could be, as John described:
Quote:
“They went out from us, but they were not from us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us, But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:19).

Your misunderstanding of the truth here is predicated by how you understand the statement that no man can undo the will of God. On the face of it, this has to be true. But you need to understand that the will of God is for men to have the ability to choose whether to come to him willingly or to separate themselves from him. And once you recognize that God has given man free will, it becomes clear that until the day he dies, a man may apostacize or reconcile with God so his destiny is not OSAS but a matter of perseverance to the end. St. Paul talks about this in more than one epistle including Hebrews as you discuss below…

 

[paul_c]

That said, what about all the warnings (such as those found in Hebrews)? I take them seriously. In fact, I think they threaten real and not just hypothetical loss of salvation. But I also think they have a function. As God’s word, these warnings will accomplish their purpose–to keep the elect on the straight and narrow and to disclose those whom were ultimately not among us. Of course, I can’t elaborate on all that here, but I at least wanted to anticipate a likely objection.

God doesn’t need to do things for appearances and if the purpose is to keep the elect on the straight and narrow as you say, then you are in fact, pointing out that it is possible for them to apostacize - obliterating your base argument that they are predestined to heaven or hell from birth.

Quote:
God judges us based on our actions. Read Romans 2: 5-10:

Again, there is no argument against the fact that to be saved, God has to call you. We all agree on that. You argue, in effect, that God chooses not to call all men, while Catholics say that God loves all men and calls them all to him. And if all men are called to do works of love but not all choose to do so, then those that fail to do so and are condemned do so because of their own will.

Quote:
So by your accounting, Paul contradicts himself in the same letter to the Romans, saying that we will be judged according to our actions in Chapter 2 but in Romans 9 he says that everyone is predestined to heaven or hell regardless of what they do?

Frankly, Catholic theology harmonizes all parts of the bible. And your statement above is actually the Catholic position: Both humans and God have responsibility and must cooperate for man’s salvation. Not because God needs men to validate his plan, but because he wills men to come to him willingly. This is love, which can never be forced.

 

[Matorin]

I never say that Romans 9 does not apply to us. I said “It says nothing about heaven or hell”

When mercy and compassion (generally viewed as heaven) are coupled with “honor” which is in direct odds with “dishonor” what is that dishonor? If Gods wants to show his wrath and to make his power known, what is the destruction that the vessels of destruction are prepared for?
paul c:

.
And Chapter 8 says that some are predestined for heaven, to which Catholics Agree, but it does not say anyone is predestined for hell. That is one of Calvin’s innovations.

God does not need to predestine anyone to hell as we have already damned ourselves. Also you are mistaken on Calvin’s theology, it is not one of his inventions.
paul c:

I never said that God would damn infants. In fact, I said that infants were innocent. But you are adding to scripture here. It never says anything about God damning infants.

I am not saying that he does. I am saying that if he were to damn every single person on earth including infants, he would be just in doing so. I certainly think that if God condemned babies or the unborn that it would be unjust. However, it is dangerous to make God in our own image and impute our justice on Him. I am not adding to scripture and it is rude of you to accuse me of such.
paul c:

Again, you are adding to scripture to try to justify your flawed theology. It does not say we are saved by faith which is born out of Good works.

But we ARE saved through Grace. By what? Grace. Through what? Faith. For what purpose? Good works. If you try to subtract from this, you are teaching heresy. If you deny that God’s grace is necessary and that simply by believing and following the teachings of Jesus we can attain salvation, you are preaching heresy. If you take out the purpose for which we were saved, to do good works in Christ Jesus as part of becoming more like him and hinge salvation solely on God’s divine grace and faith in his Son, you are preaching heresy. I have added nothing nor taken anything away to the Gospel. This is the Gospel. To quote from Romans 3 “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law…31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.”

Also, your comment “your statement is actually the Catholic position” should actually read “your statement is actually the Christian position.”

 

[Hesychios]

Greetings, brother!

You can check out the first 5 chapters of Garrigou-Lagrange’s Predestination.

And I saw a quote from Augustine in your signature! He’s the go-to guy on this doctrine (and most any doctrine, really) if you ask me. You’ll find that there is much that you’ll be able to affirm in your friend’s understanding. Reading any of his anti-Pelagian writings will help. But it may be best to start with On the Predestination of the Saints and On the Gift of Perseverance.
“Will any man dare to say that God did not foreknow those to whom He would give to believe, or whom He would give to His Son, that of them He should lose none? And certainly, if He foreknew these things, He as certainly foreknew His own kindnesses, wherewith He condescends to deliver us. This is the predestination of the saints,–nothing else; to wit, the foreknowledge and the preparation of God’s kindnesses, whereby they are most certainly delivered, whoever they are that are delivered” (On the Gift of Perseverance).I say, send your friend to Augustine! If your friend takes the time to read his writings, what will happen is that he will find much in what Augustine says to be pleasing, which will make him want to read more. But he will at the same time be adjusted and corrected in his own thinking and be exposed to a firm exposition on other Catholic doctrines that he would otherwise not be exposed to.
“[W]ho causes that men should be good save Him who said, ‘And I will visit them to make them good?’ And who said ‘I will put my Spirit within you, and will cause you to walk in my righteousness, and to observe my judgments, and do them?’ Are ye thus not yet awake? Do ye not yet hear, ‘I will cause you to walk’, ‘I will make you to observe’, lastly, ‘I will make you to do’? What! Are you still puffing yourselves up? We indeed walk, it is true; we observe; we do; but He makes us to walk, to observe, to do. This is the grace of God making us good; this is His mercy preventing us” (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Bk. 4).Catholics, he says in this book, “assert God’s grace above free will, as antecedent to all merit, so as truly to afford a gratuitous divine assistance” …] “Let them, then, who disdain, if they do not do any evil and if they do any good, to glory, not in themselves, but in the Lord, learn to be Catholics.”
“We do not say that by the sin of Adam free will perished out of the nature of men; but that it avails for sinning in men subjected to the devil; while it is not of avail for good and pious living, unless the will itself of man should be made free by God’s grace, and assisted to every good movement of action, of speech, of thought… all are born under sin on account of the fault of propagation, and…, therefore, all are under the devil until they are born again in Christ… nor does man at all begin to be changed by the beginning of faith from evil to good, unless the unbought and gratuitous mercy of God effects this in him” (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Bk. 2). “Augustine would seem to have wrested the palm from all. Of a most powerful genius and thoroughly saturated with sacred and profane learning, with the loftiest faith and with equal knowledge, he combated most vigorously all the errors of his age… How subtly he reasoned on… the will and free choice” (Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris).
“Hormisdas wrote in answer to Bishop Possessor’s request for direction these weighty words: ‘What the Roman, that is, the Catholic Church follows and maintains touching free will and the grace of God, can be learned from the different works of blessed Augustine’…

“Finally by a Divine impulse, he carried over many years his study of the ruin of the human race after the sin of our first parents, of the relation between the grace of God and free will, and of what goes by the name of predestination. So closely did he study the subject and with such happy results, that he was deemed the Doctor of Grace and was so entitled. He led the way for all other Catholic writers of later ages, to whom he reached a helping and a restraining hand, lest in their discussion of these intricate problems they err one way or the other: either by teaching that free will in man, once his original justice was lost, is but a name and no more, as the early Protestants and the Jansenists held; or that divine grace was not a free gift and was not all-powerful, as the Pelagians kept repeating” (Pope Pius XI, Ad Salutem Humani).In Christ,
Pete

This post is very interesting. I started a poll on the immaculate conception, whether or not it is an aspect of predestination as Catholics would understand it.

 

[dcastlen50]

I think what a lot of people have trouble with are the scriptures that talk about the “elect” or the “chosen”. These “seem” to imply that there is a selection involved by God in eternity past; however the words elect and chosen also mean “objects of divine favor”. So with this in mind, it isn’t so difficult how someone can become one of the chosen or elect by simply placing faith in Christ of their own free will. The former narrow definition carries an implication of a sovereign selection in eternity past. Even Jesus was called the Elect One and the Chosen One; if we restrict the definitions of these words we would have to assume that Christ was chosen from a group of many to be the Messiah and I don’t think any of us would agree to that.

Something to think about; because at one time I used to buy into the Calvinistic doctrine of election and could never reconcile the terms elect and chosen with free will until I had a broader understanding of what these words meant.

:newidea:Thgron, your explanation/definition of “elect” to mean objects of divine favor is very enlighting; can you give the source of your finding? Thank you very much

 

[MarcoPolo]

Salvation is here determined by the will of man.

That’s not a complete picture. That actually describes Pelagianism which believes we can come to God w/o the aid of His grace. God does not violate man’s will, but empowers it with grace. Without grace, man cannot will to come to God in the first place. So it would be more accurate for you to say “determined by the grace-powered will of man.” So the glory is ultimately all God’s.

It is the essence of the parable of the talents. The Master gives talents to 3 men. 2 of them go out and are fruitful with the gifts. God rewards them. The other guy denies the gift. He is punished. The first 2 could not do what they did without first receiving the free gift, i.e. the talents represent grace.

 

[Pete_Holter]

This post is very interesting. I started a poll on the immaculate conception, whether or not it is an aspect of predestination as Catholics would understand it.

Greetings, brother!

Mary’s having been immaculately conceived would have been held out by Augustine as one of predestination’s surest proofs. He saw this proof in the case of infants who variously die with or without baptism, and he saw Jesus Christ as the prime example of the truth concerning predestination. He would have employed similar reasoning in the case of Mary had he known that she was immaculately conceived:

“Moreover, the most illustrious Light of predestination and grace is the Saviour Himself,—the Mediator Himself between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. And, pray, by what preceding merits of its own, whether of works or of faith, did the human nature which is in Him procure for itself that it should be this? Let this have an answer, I beg. That man, whence did He deserve this—to be assumed by the Word co-eternal with the Father into unity of person, and be the only-begotten Son of God? Was it because any kind of goodness in Him preceded? What did He do before? What did He believe? What did He ask, that He should attain to this unspeakable excellence? Was it not by the act and the assumption of the Word that that man, from the time He began to be, began to be the only Son of God? Did not that woman, full of grace, conceive the only Son of God? Was He not born the only Son of God, of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,–not of the lust of the flesh, but by God’s peculiar gift?

…]

“Therefore in Him who is our Head let there appear to be the very fountain of grace, whence, according to the measure of every man, He diffuses Himself through all His members. It is by that grace that every man from the beginning of his faith becomes a Christian, by which grace that one man from His beginning became Christ. Of the same Spirit also the former is born again of which the latter was born. By the same Spirit is effected in us the remission of sins, by which Spirit it was effected that He should have no sin. God certainly foreknew that He would do these things. This, therefore, is that same predestination of the saints which most especially shone forth in the Saint of saints; and who is there of those who rightly understand the declarations of the truth that can deny this predestination?” (, Chs. 30 & 31On the Predestination of the Saints)

Pius XII wrote that “the revered Mother of God” was “from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination” (Munificentissimus Deus); and Lumen Gentium says that Mary was “predestined to be the mother of His Son” (Lumen Gentium).

“The Father predestined her, the prophets foretold her through the Holy Ghost. His sanctifying power overshadowed her, cleansed and made her holy, and, as it were, predestined her… Hail, predestined Mother of God. Hail, thou chosen one in the design of God from all eternity!” (St. John of Damascus, Three Homilies on the Dormition of Mary, Homily 1 and Homily 3)

Have a blessed day!

Your brother in the Lord,
Pete

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
I never say that Romans 9 does not apply to us. I said “It says nothing about heaven or hell”

I understand why, if you were predesposed to believe that God creates people just to condemn them to hell, that you would latch on to this, but it needn’t mean what you imply. Let’s review the sequence leading up to the scripture you quote:
14 What then are we to say? Is there injustice on the part of God? Of course not!
15 For he says to Moses: “I will show mercy to whom I will, I will take pity on whom I will.”
16 So it depends not upon a person’s will or exertion, but upon God, who shows mercy.
17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “This is why I have raised you up, to show my power through you that my name may be proclaimed throughout the earth.”
18 Consequently, he has mercy upon whom he wills, and he hardens whom he wills.
19 You will say to me then, “Why (then) does he still find fault? For who can oppose his will?”
20 But who indeed are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Will what is made say to its maker,“Why have you created me so?”
21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for a noble purpose and another for an ignoble one?
22 What if God, wishing to show his wrath and make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction?
23 This was to make known the riches of his glory to the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared previously for glory,
24 namely, us whom he has called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles.

So, he’s talking about how Pharoah was made to oppose Moses and thus cause God to be glorified. But you see, God called to Pharaoh very directly to do the right thing (Let my people go). And Pharaoh did have freedom to do so. Because he is omniscient, God knew that Pharoah would oppose him but God did not force it and it says that God endured him with much patience. Notice that God will have mercy and pity on who he wills.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
.
And Chapter 8 says that some are predestined for heaven, to which Catholics Agree, but it does not say anyone is predestined for hell. That is one of Calvin’s innovations.

So if you agree that God does not predestine anyone to hell, you are consistent with the Catholic position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c

I’m not being rude, just pointing out that you made a statement sound like it came from scripture when it obviously did not. And I agree with you that we can’t think as God does, so its fool hardy to try to apply our own morality to him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c

I don’t disagree with anything you are saying here. But this is not what you said in the first post. And I agree wholeheartedly that you need Grace, Faith and Good works to be saved. All three. That is Basic Catholic Theology. I was objecting to your statement that I read to imply that works weren’t required to get to heaven. It now appears that you agree that following Christ requires doing his works.

Also, your comment “your statement is actually the Catholic position” should actually read “your statement is actually the Christian position.”

That’s great that you agree with the Catholic position. Not everyone who calls themselves a Christian would agree, unfortunately.

 

[Pete_Holter]

It should be stated that when we say that infants are “innocent,” we mean that they are innocent of having committed any personal sins; but they are not innocent concerning original sin. And we believe that “the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains” (Council of Florence). We are not born innocent, but are conceived in original sin and are therefore “by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind” (Ephesians 2:3; cf. Psalm 51:5).

In Christ,
Pete