Tackling Predestination

[MarcoPolo]

Hi MarcoPolo

I am totaly confused my self about page 1 and 6 and what post to go to. can you please
Explain. Thanks

Please check with paul c for the post #.

 

[benedictus2]

Sounds like, God’s the waiter and you’re the customer. If you order salvation, God will deliver it. Salvation is here determined by the will of man.

No sounds like a failure to understand on your part. We do not order salvation by ourselves. More like God put the desire for salvation in our hearts because He wants to give us salvation. He put the desire there so that we will ask for it. God has made us for Himself.

Translation: You have to save yourself by walking the tight rope. “Acts of love” (i.e, “works”) is what prevents you from falling.

Terrible translation. Again due to a failure to understand what we mean by grace. Paul says that of faith, hope and love, love is the greatest. Love is work. Grace is given so that we will grow in love.
I find it really interesting that in all the discussion about predestination, the God is love hardly ever gets a mention, hence the error you fall into. Unless you grasp that very important fact, then any discussion about God’s justice, power, etc, etc, will not make sense.

Since all have sinned, all have fallen. And our merciful God did restore his elect to grace by dying for them in their place, thus reconciling us to Him.

So you are saying that Christ died only for some? If Adam caused the death of all, isn’t it that Christ being the second Adam overturned what the first Adam did, in its entirety?

The emphasis here seems to be on dying well more than living well.

Actually not. By living well, then you die in a state of grace. Christ said death comes like a thief in the night so be prepared. Besides, what is death but a mere transition to eternal life.

This system was actually proposed by Paul. Before Jacob or Esau had done anything good, or evil, God had already sovereigny chosen. (Romans 9:10-13)

No it was not. Paul wrote God chose Jacob over Essau not for the reasons you indicate. God has chosen for a purpose here on earth. The phrase does not mean that God had condemned Essau to hell. God does choose certain people for a reason (the Virgin Mary comes to mind) but it does not mean that by preferring one, He has already condemned the other to hell. The text does not say that at all.
Your problem it seems is misapplying the choices that God makes in relation to how salvation will be effected here on earth to the what happens at judgment.

“Is there any injustice on the part of God? May it never be!” (Romans 9:14). Neither Paul, nor Augustine nor Aquinas nor Calvin believe God is unjust for not having chosen everyone.

Paul is not saying what you claim he is saying. As for St Thomas, well, he thought that if you affirm free-will then it trumps God’s sovereignty. Quite the contrary because it is still God’s choice, God’s will to be “constrained” by free will. He could have created puppets without free will but He chose not to do that.
I am not sure what St Augustine’s stand is but I will check that out.

It would only be unjust of God not to choose everyone if he were under an obligation to do so.

Depends on what the choice is. If it is the offer of salvation then yes He would be unjust not to offer salvation to everyone because He created us all.
You have the idea that salvation is entirely passive on our part that is where the problem in your reasoning lie. If we are entirely passive then yes I can see how you can think that somehow it is all up to God.
But it was God’s choice that in effecting our salvation, He willed that we should cooperate. Otherwise, what is the point of the crucifixion?

But who can obligate God?

Certainly not us. God obligates Himself because He IS Love itself. By His very nature, His volition can only be towards Love and what you have been proposing is contrary to love.

You err because you suppose any of us are “innocent.” God does not condemn the innocent; rather he declares that “there are none righteous, none.” God condemns the unrighteous (i.e., everyone not in Christ).

Well actually, if a man is corrupt through no fault of his own then he is innocent. You said yourself that we don’t have free will. Therefore if we don’t have free will then we don’t sin because sin is a wilfull turning away from God.
Take a look at our justice system. If a killing is not done without premeditation it is not murder. One can even claim self-defense.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Wow! I don’t believe you could be anymore clear. But for my benefit, are you saying those not baptized as infants go to hell, but a hell where there are degrees of punishment and these little ones go to the least of punishments? :imsorry: :imsorry: :frighten:

…]Can you give me, in additon to what you noted (council of Florence), where this is found in the Catechism - if it is and where to find it in the writing of The Council of Florence?

Thank you very much

Greetings! I hope you have a blessed day!

The Catechism calls original sin “a sin which is the ‘death of the soul.’ Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin” (, Paragraph 403CCC). We baptize infants so that this sin can be “expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting.” For more on this, you can read the Decree Concerning Original Sin from the Council of Trent. Here is the link to Florence. You can do a Control-F to find the quote that I supplied in my previous post.

Augustine tells us that Pope Innocent I wrote about the Pelagians to the bishops of Numidia, saying to them that “what your Fraternity asserts that [the Pelagians] preach, that infants can be endowed with the rewards of eternal life even without the grace of baptism, is excessively silly; for ‘unless they shall eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, they shall not have life in themselves’ (John 6:54). And they who maintain this as being theirs without regeneration, appear to me to wish to destroy baptism itself, since they proclaim that these have that which we believe is not to be conferred on them without baptism.” Augustine then says that “by the letters of the venerable Innocent concerning the abode of infants in eternal death unless they were baptized in Christ, the antiquity of the catholic faith shone forth” (, Bk. 2, Chs. 7 & 8A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians).

Before Gregory was pope, he wrote:

“If [Job] had died at once from the womb, would he have got by this very destruction a title to a reward? Do abortive children enjoy eternal rest? For every man that is not absolved by the water of regeneration, is tied and bound by the guilt of the original bond… For that every living being is conceived in the guilt of our first parent the Prophet witnesses, saying, ‘And in sin hath my mother conceived me’ (Psalm. 51:5). And that he who is not washed in the water of salvation, does not lose the punishment of original sin, Truth plainly declares by Itself in these words, ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5)” (Pope Gregory the Great, , Bk. 4, Ch. 3Moralia in Job).

The grace of baptism is necessary for salvation. Trent anathematized anyone who says that the grace of justification can be obtained without at least the desire for baptism (cf. Decree on the Sacraments, Canon 4). And Aquinas wrote that infants “are not disposed for Baptism by any previous sacrament, and consequently before receiving Baptism, in no way have they Baptism in desire” (Article 3).

On the other hand, Aquinas quotes Augustine as having written, that “some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit” (qtd. in Article 2). Aquinas also wrote that infants who are still in the womb “cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb” (Article 11). Finally, he notes that God’s “power is not tied to visible sacraments” (Article 2).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church sums all of this up for us, while leaving the tension unresolved, by saying that “The Lord Himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation… The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude… [Nevertheless, although] God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism… He Himself is not bound by His sacraments” (, Paragraph 1257CCC).

Our Lord teaches that few in number are the elect in comparison with the reprobate. And within the number of the relatively few, Augustine wrote that his heroes in the faith, Sts. Cyprian and Ambrose, “were of the mind to understand that it is given to very few to receive the teaching of salvation through God Himself, or through the angels of heaven, without any human preaching to them; but that it is given to many to believe in God through human agency” (, Ch. 48On the Gift of Perseverance). Similarly, it may also be that very few infants are saved who die without baptism. So please pray for these, please pray for abortionists, please pray against the dangerous heresy of “believer’s baptism,” and please pray for all to come to the knowledge of the Truth, our Lord Jesus.

Your brother in Christ,
Pete

 

[benedictus2]

That God saves anyone is a mercy!

How can someone who is selectively merciful be said to be really merciful? A judge who arbitrarily condemns someone to flogging and death and gives another a reprieve can hardly be called merciful.

In fact, God says his elect will come from every nation, tribe and tongue. God is waiting patiently for the full number of the elect to come to fulfillment. The number of the elect is probably higher than we can imagine. But it’s probably no where near what many churches–including yours–hopes for. (My goodness, you can be an ethical atheist and according to Catholicism, you still might be saved.)

Yes, that is possible. According to Christ not everyone who calls Him Lord, Lord will be saved. Rather those who fed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc will see the kingdom of God.

If the atheist is atheist because he has not been given the chance to come to know Christ then you can hardly blame him for being atheist.

But the thing is it is precisely the system that Calvin bought into that paved the way for the rise of atheism. Man by nature is wired for God.

The philosophical bent that caused Calvin to come up with this kind of predestination is the same philosphy that is at the root of deconstructionism.

Furthermore, it is precisely the kind of god that you portray that makes people atheists, for if that kind of evil god is the only god there is, then better be atheist.

Absolutely not. Paul rules out that inference in Romans 6:1-2. Further, the idea that we have “free will,” is a secular concept imported from philosophy. The Bible teaches us that the will must be set free, not that the will is already free.

Only if you hold to the doctrine of total depravation. Total depravation is false for love is evident even in non-Christians.

Nevertheless, the Bible still holds us responsible. So God is sovereign and human beings are morally responsible for their actions.

You just contradicted yourself there. You said man’s will is not free. If so then how can you hold him morally responsible for his actions?

But “free?” Not until regeneration. And then “if the Son sets you free, you’ll be free in deed!” (John 8:36)

Ergo, only the regenerated can be held morally responsible for their actions.

As I can plainly see, you know neither Calvin nor Aquinas, who also taught unconditional election, without drawing the inferences that you draw.

I agree with you that Aquinas is closer to Calvin with regards predestination. That is why I think Molina has got a better presentation.

I think the problem with Acqinas’s theory is that He holds that grace is always efficacious. I think grace is not always efficacious but always sufficient. In the ordinary course of life, there will always be just enough grace to say yes to God but not too much to override your will.

 

[benedictus2]

Most Calvinists et al Christians don’t understand what grace is. Paul tells us in Romans 6 “you are not under law but grace, therefore sin shall not have dominion over you” and in Titus he says “the grace of God has appeared teaching men to say no to sin”. Grace is the power to live above sin; it is not ability for a Christian to sin daily and still be in good standing with God.

But salvation is not about being in “good standing God”. You have a very distant image of God it seems to me.

With regards to grace being the power to live above sin I say yes. But I qualify that with “just enough” power to live above sin. It does not mean that there is no longer the inclination to sin but just enough power to say no to sin and say yes to God.

I think this is the classic Calvinist position! Now you are starting to understand.

Yes and no. Because it seems the classic Calvinist position is that grace overpowers the elect and is withheld from the damned hence the reason they are damned.

The next three sections of scripture are the result of Gods irresistible grace enabling the believer to live a victorious life, overcoming the flesh and the world. Being freed to serve the Lord and bring Him glory.

And this is where the error lie. Grace is not always irresistible but always sufficient.

 

[benedictus2]

The next three sections of scripture are the result of Gods irresistible grace enabling the believer to live a victorious life, overcoming the flesh and the world. Being freed to serve the Lord and bring Him glory.

Here is an explanation I wrote contrasting the two views of predestination. The Thomist view is close to Calvinism.

Definitions :
Efficacious (irresistible) grace is a special gif of God by which a soul incapable by its own natural resources to perform an act conducive to eternal salvation, is given supernatural powers to freely perform said act.
Prevenient grace is divine grace which precedes human decision.(wikipedia)

The issue:
The question for both the Molinist and the Thomist is how to reconcile the efficacy of grace and the infallibility of its effect with the freedom of the human because they seem to be mutually exclusive.

When does the infallible effect of efficacious grace come into effect without impairing the freedom of the will?

There is also the subtler question of when does the will under the influence of grace, move from being a mere natural faculty to actuality.

The differences:
Thomists: start from the point of efficacious grace
Molinists: proceed from a clear concept of freedom.
Thomist: maintains that God gives the grace only to those He has chosen (the elect)
Molinist: believes that God bestows the grace on everyone.
Thomist: Grace is intrinsically efficacious
Molinist: Grace extrinsically efficacious
Thomis: The will moves from potency into act by will of God
Molinist: The will freely consents to prevenient grace and this consent renders the completely sufficient grace efficacious.

My comments:
it seems to me that the Thomist position is almost similar to the Calvinist, because it posits that the will is moved to act by grace. To my thinking, if grace is efficacious such that it’s effect is infallible, the response from the will is no longer free.

I incline towards the Molinist view because this is more reconcilable with a God who is Love (as revealed in Scripture). If we take the Thomist view, then damnation becomes the sole act of God and not contingent at all upon man’s response to grace. Since God is the creator and has infallible foreknowledge, the Thomist/ Calvinist view paints a God that creates man for the sole reason of damning them (as explained by invincible ignorance).

The expressed view of the Church is that God created us for Himself.

Unless I have misunderstood Thomism, its thesis could only be reconciled with a loving God who made us for Himself, if we posit that though there is a Hell, it is highly unlikely that anyone will end up there since grace is efficacious and God loves everyone equally.

I think however that grace is not always efficacious but always sufficient.

My biggest problem with the subject of predestination is that God’s Infinite Love, which should be one of the premises, does not seem to have been taken into consideration at all. To my mind, this should be the first premise and the other two (grace and free will) proceed from it.

Thomism’s objection to Molinism is that the latter, due to its over-emphasis on man’s freedom of will, diminishes the supremacy of God over His Creation.

However, I personally think that this objection is without basis because it can be argued that it is still God who wills that this is the way that grace and free will should play out. God is still the one who decided to effect salvation in this manner; that in pulling us out of the ravine, He would require us to place our hands on His, even though He could quite easily have yanked us out without our cooperation.

The Thomist and Molinist view I think can be reconciled if we situate the former as operative during our last moment, and the latter during our lifetime.

The way I see it, the action of grace on the will in the Molinist view can be somewhat compared to building muscles. The more you exercise a particular muscle the more you increase the muscle mass and the easier the exercise becomes.

To apply to the Molinist view, sufficient grace is given so that the will can respond with a yes, and if the response is a yes, then the infallible conclusion to goodness ensues and so it goes during our lifetime. Sufficient grace is always given to elicit a yes from us. But not being efficacious, it is therefore fallible. Our assent to grace however effects a change in the soul such that the merely sufficient grace becomes efficacious. The more we say yes to God the easier it is to say yes.
Such that at the end of our lives, saying yes is the only way we could have responded to God.

 

[jericho777]

But salvation is not about being in “good standing God”. You have a very distant image of God it seems to me.

Correct it is about what Christ has done for us. Not what we do.

[With regards to grace being the power to live above sin I say yes. But I qualify that with “just enough” power to live above sin. It does not mean that there is no longer the inclination to sin but just enough power to say no to sin and say yes to God.

I absolutely agree.

Yes and no. Because it seems the classic Calvinist position is that grace overpowers the elect and is withheld from the damned hence the reason they are damned.

It is the irresistible grace that powers the new nature.

And this is where the error lie. Grace is not always irresistible but always sufficient.

Yes as God said to Paul “My grace is sufficient “for everyday life. But grace unto salvation is irresistible.

 

[Pete_Holter]

I am saying that if he were to [condemn] every single person on earth including infants, he would be just in doing so.

Greetings!

I just thought I’d share this from Augustine, so that you could see your agreement with him and be encouraged:

“**ecause [Adam] forsook God of his free will, he experienced the just judgment of God, that with his whole race, which being as yet all placed in him had sinned with him, he should be condemned. For as many of this race as are delivered by God’s grace are certainly delivered from the condemnation in which they are already held bound. Whence, even if none should be delivered, no one could justly blame the judgment of God” (St. Augustine, the Doctor of Grace: On Rebuke and Grace, Ch. 28).

Come to the Lord!
Come home!

In Christ,
Pete**

 

[Matorin]

Greetings!

I just thought I’d share this from Augustine, so that you could see your agreement with him and be encouraged:

“ecause [Adam] forsook God of his free will, he experienced the just judgment of God, that with his whole race, which being as yet all placed in him had sinned with him, he should be condemned. For as many of this race as are delivered by God’s grace are certainly delivered from the condemnation in which they are already held bound. Whence, even if none should be delivered, no one could justly blame the judgment of God” (St. Augustine, the Doctor of Grace: On Rebuke and Grace, Ch. 28).

Come to the Lord!
Come home!

In Christ,
Pete

Which is why the argument of benedictus is heresy. “How can you hold man morally responsible for his actions” IS ROMANS 9:19-20 WHAT ARE YOU SAYING? Man is held morally responsible because man has the law written upon his heart and he has sinned. An atheist knows it is wrong to steal and lie, and yet he does it anyway. How dare you question the holiness of God. You say that God is love therefore he can’t hate, I tell you that because God is love he MUST hate. I love children, therefore I hate abortion. God HATES sin. He absolutely HATES it. And to say that God is NOT JUST in condemning those who have not been given the chance to hear the gospel is a complete and total lie. We should not be surprised that God condemns those who sin, but rather that he has given us a chance for repentance.

This is off topic, but I feel it is more important as to the nature of our predestination. Benedictus, do you TRULY BELIEVE that Jesus Christ is not the only way to the Father? Put another way, is it possible to come to the Father through any other name than Jesus Christ? Are our good works enough for God to overlook our sin? A question that hits close to home: If Mother Teresa had done all she had done for the poor and sick, yet had rejected Jesus Christ as the only way to God, would she spend eternity in hell?

 

[jericho777]

benedictus2:
Good post. I have never studied any of these different schools of thought. I just knew what I believed and why. I will try to explain as best as I can. I will only partially respond because it would take me a day to type that much.

1 Our freedom is bound by our natures. Those in Adam are bound to sin because it is their nature. Those in Christ are free to do His will because He has imparted His nature on them. It is really a matter of whose will/nature you posses that determines your destiny.

2 God’s first attribute is Holiness and therefore cannot tolerate sin. He calls and justifies only some. Rom 9:22-24What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? I’m not saying I like the outcome either. But this is a pretty strong scripture. V23 answers spells out why they were chosen for destruction. If our salvation relies on our will we will surely be lost because we are incapable of seeking and maintaining our salvation.

3 God only created those who are His children to be objects of His love. Eph 2:3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.

I will end here. Thank you for your time.

 

[jericho777]

Which is why the argument of benedictus is heresy. “How can you hold man morally responsible for his actions” IS ROMANS 9:19-20 WHAT ARE YOU SAYING? Man is held morally responsible because man has the law written upon his heart and he has sinned. An atheist knows it is wrong to steal and lie, and yet he does it anyway. How dare you question the holiness of God. You say that God is love therefore he can’t hate, I tell you that because God is love he MUST hate. I love children, therefore I hate abortion. God HATES sin. He absolutely HATES it. And to say that God is NOT JUST in condemning those who have not been given the chance to hear the gospel is a complete and total lie. We should not be surprised that God condemns those who sin, but rather that he has given us a chance for repentance.

This is off topic, but I feel it is more important as to the nature of our predestination. Benedictus, do you TRULY BELIEVE that Jesus Christ is not the only way to the Father? Put another way, is it possible to come to the Father through any other name than Jesus Christ? Are our good works enough for God to overlook our sin? A question that hits close to home: If Mother Teresa had done all she had done for the poor and sick, yet had rejected Jesus Christ as the only way to God, would she spend eternity in hell?

As you said man is morally responsible for his sin and has no excuse. Rom 1:18-32 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Greetings! I hope you have a blessed day!

The Catechism calls original sin “a sin which is the ‘death of the soul.’ Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin” (CCC, Paragraph 403). We baptize infants so that this sin can be “expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting.” For more on this, you can read the Decree Concerning Original Sin from the Council of Trent. Here is the link to Florence. You can do a Control-F to find the quote that I supplied in my previous post.

Good continued use of backing up your posts with Magisterial docs.

 

[benedictus2]

Correct it is about what Christ has done for us. Not what we do.

I think you misunderstand my point here.
I wrote: But salvation is not about being in “good standing God”. You have a very distant image of God it seems to me.”
What I mean here is that salvation is not how God sees us, as if He sits there like a cold and calculating kind Santa Claus checking out whether we are naughty or nice. That is why I said you have a very distant image of God.

It is the irresistible grace that powers the new nature.

Grace empowers our nature. But grace is not always irresistible.

Yes as God said to Paul “My grace is sufficient “for everyday life. But grace unto salvation is irresistible.

Can you explain how in your understanding grace for every day life differs from grace unto salvation?

 

[benedictus2]

Which is why the argument of benedictus is heresy. “How can you hold man morally responsible for his actions” IS ROMANS 9:19-20 WHAT ARE YOU SAYING? Man is held morally responsible because man has the law written upon his heart and he has sinned.

This is where I say Duhh! Of course man must be held morally responsible for his action because man his free will. But when you deny free will, then man cannot be held for his action because he is not free. Get that?
You cannot on the one hand hold man morally responsible and at the same time deny free will. A puppet (one without free will) is not morally responsible for its movements.

An atheist knows it is wrong to steal and lie, and yet he does it anyway.

Voila. Therefore man has free will. That is exactly what I am getting at. I think you better re-read my post as I mentioned qualifiers.

How dare you question the holiness of God.

And where did I question the holiness of God? As a matter of fact it is the Calvinistic position that puts the holiness of God in question. You in fact are the one who questions the holiness of God but you are shaking so hard in your boots because of this terriffying god you have in your head that you dare not utter it even though you think it.

You say that God is love therefore he can’t hate,

Correct. God IS love. If the essence of God IS love, then there is no hate in Him because hate is the absence of love.

I tell you that because God is love he MUST hate. I love children, therefore I hate abortion.

Your thinking is completely muddled. Children and abortion are two different things. One is a human being the other is an evil act.

God HATES sin. He absolutely HATES it.

Too right. But He loves the sinner. Big difference there.

And to say that God is NOT JUST in condemning those who have not been given the chance to hear the gospel is a complete and total lie.

No it is the truth. You are just incapable of thinking that rationally through.

Here again is the scenario. You as a parent, decide to have 10 children. 5 of them you decide you will love before even they were born. 5 of them you decided to hate, torture and maim even before they were born. In effect, you purposely gave birth to these children just to inflict the worst kind of pain on them. Tell me if that is a picture of a just person, becuase my friend that is exactly how you have portrayed God.

We should not be surprised that God condemns those who sin, but rather that he has given us a chance for repentance.

God will be only just if He gives everyone a chance at repentance. If he doesn’t then the scenario above applies.

This is off topic, but I feel it is more important as to the nature of our predestination. Benedictus, do you TRULY BELIEVE that Jesus Christ is not the only way to the Father?

Care to tell me where i said that?

Put another way, is it possible to come to the Father through any other name than Jesus Christ?

No.

Are our good works enough for God to overlook our sin?

Who says that God overlooks sins? You see this is where you have your theology completely askew. You think that God overlooks sin. Christ life death and resurrection did not happen just so God can over look sin. It happened so that Christ can conquer sin and that by His grace we may do as well.

 

[benedictus2]

A question that hits close to home: If Mother Teresa had done all she had done for the poor and sick, yet had rejected Jesus Christ as the only way to God, would she spend eternity in hell?

If she denied Jesus after knowing Him the answer is yes. If she was not given a chance to know Jesus the answer is No
.

• Matthew 25:32-46 When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’ And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.'Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."*

 

[benedictus2]

Good post. I have never studied any of these different schools of thought. I just knew what I believed and why. I will try to explain as best as I can. I will only partially respond because it would take me a day to type that much.

1 Our freedom is bound by our natures. Those in Adam are bound to sin because it is their nature. Those in Christ are free to do His will because He has imparted His nature on them. It is really a matter of whose will/nature you posses that determines your destiny.

But the question is, did Christ die only for some or did Christ die for all?

2 God’s first attribute is Holiness and therefore cannot tolerate sin.

God is first and foremost love. That is why He came to die for us on the cross and by so doing conquered sin and death.

I find it interesting that Calvinists always speak of God’s holiness and power but I have never heard anyone mention that God is love.

I think you need to encounter not just God’s holiness but God’s love.

He calls and justifies only some. Rom 9:22-24 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

Actually those verses do not say that at all. You need to read the entire chapter so you don’t fall into the error of taking things out of context.

I’m not saying I like the outcome either. But this is a pretty strong scripture. V23 answers spells out why they were chosen for destruction.

But the verse does not say that salvation was not offered to these as well. Salvation was also offered to them but they rejected it. Again, read the rest of Chapter 9.

If our salvation relies on our will we will surely be lost

Who said that our salvation relies on our will. Salvation depends on God. But the point I am making is that God offers this to everyone, but because of free will, we can accept or reject it.

because we are incapable of seeking and maintaining our salvation.

Correct. But we can cooperate with God’s grace. We are not puppets.

3 God only created those who are His children to be objects of His love. Eph 2:3

Since God created us all therefore we are all his children and therefore all objects of his love.

All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.

There is no them and. We are all sinners. You delude yourself if you somehow think you are better than “them”. You and me are no more special than them. We are all special in God’s eyes.

Here is something to think about – (I usually give this little exercise to people so that they can understand the kind of God they hold in their head).
Think of the time when you were at your best. Imagine that when you were being at your best your parents and God are looking at you. What is the expression on your parents face? The expression on God’s?

Then do opposite and try to remember the time when you were at your worst (or if you can imagine being worse than you actually were). What is the expression on your parent’s face? On God’s?

When I did this to a group I was giving a mini retreat to, almost everyone said that their parent’s showed approval when they were good and condemnation when they were bad. They also said that God’s expression was the same as that of their parents.

But the point that I made was that God loved and still loves us whether we are good or bad. Our standing before God does not change. We remain His children. However, by our sin, we turn away from God, but God does not turn away from us.

I will end here. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your time as well.

May the Peace and Joy of our Lord be with you.

 

[jericho777]

I think you misunderstand my point here.
I wrote: But salvation is not about being in “good standing God”. You have a very distant image of God it seems to me.”
What I mean here is that salvation is not how God sees us, as if He sits there like a cold and calculating kind Santa Claus checking out whether we are naughty or nice. That is why I said you have a very distant image of God.

I agree it is Christ’s imputed righteousness that He sees. He is not looking to see if we slipup so He can damn us to hell.

Grace empowers our nature. But grace is not always irresistible.

I believe just as sin powers the old nature to destruction so grace powers the new nature to salvation.

Can you explain how in your understanding grace for every day life differs from grace unto salvation?

I don’t know if it is or isn’t different. If they are different we need both. But as believers we posses whatever grace that is necessary.

 

[Matorin]

benedictus2:

How can someone who is selectively merciful be said to be really merciful? A judge who arbitrarily condemns someone to flogging and death and gives another a reprieve can hardly be called merciful.

Isn’t the selective mercy of God kind of a core tenet to Christianity? If he were not selective and instead gave everyone mercy, then there would be no one who goes to hell, and thus essentially no hell.

This is where I say Duhh! Of course man must be held morally responsible for his action because man his free will. But when you deny free will, then man cannot be held for his action because he is not free. Get that?

I do not deny man free will. Did I say that?

.
You cannot on the one hand hold man morally responsible and at the same time deny free will. A puppet (one without free will) is not morally responsible for its movements.

I am not the one who holds people responsible, God is. Can you say that if he does so (not saying he does or doesn’t, but for the sake of argument suppose he does) that he is unjust? If he arbitrarily condemns one man and not another, and if he ACTUALLY DID THAT, would he be unjust in doing so? Hypothetically speaking.

And do you disagree with myself and Augustine that if God condemned every single person and saved no one, there could be no complaint against him? If you disagree, I literally don’t know what to say. If you agree, then would be disagree that God showing mercy to one person is amazing, that there is no reason he must show mercy, but yet he does? If you agree to that, if he has mercy on whom he will have mercy, say 50% of the population, and the other 50% he hardens against his will, is that not still amazing that He has mercy on that half? I am not arguing double predestination here, as God does not need to condemn us as we are condemned already (John 3:18).

Correct. God IS love. If the essence of God IS love, then there is no hate in Him because hate is the absence of love.

Too right. But He loves the sinner. Big difference there

.

Did you just contradict yourself?

No it is the truth. You are just incapable of thinking that rationally through.

You are saying that God is not just in condemning whoever he pleases? That everyone deserves an equal chance?

Who says that God overlooks sins? You see this is where you have your theology completely askew. You think that God overlooks sin. Christ life death and resurrection did not happen just so God can over look sin. It happened so that Christ can conquer sin and that by His grace we may do as well.

Oh, I agree completely. I just was wondering whether or not someone who lives a good life, has sinned saying lie to his mother or stolen something from a neighbor, but overall a good person, and lives in deepest Peru and never hears the gospel of Jesus Christ, can that person be saved on the basis of his works in this life?

 

[jericho777]

But the question is, did Christ die only for some or did Christ die for all?
God is first and foremost love. That is why He came to die for us on the cross and by so doing conquered sin and death.

I find it interesting that Calvinists always speak of God’s holiness and power but I have never heard anyone mention that God is love.

I think you need to encounter not just God’s holiness but God’s love.
Actually those verses do not say that at all. You need to read the entire chapter so you don’t fall into the error of taking things out of context.

But the verse does not say that salvation was not offered to these as well. Salvation was also offered to them but they rejected it. Again, read the rest of Chapter 9.
Who said that our salvation relies on our will. Salvation depends on God. But the point I am making is that God offers this to everyone, but because of free will, we can accept or reject it.
Correct. But we can cooperate with God’s grace. We are not puppets.
Since God created us all therefore we are all his children and therefore all objects of his love.
There is no them and. We are all sinners. You delude yourself if you somehow think you are better than “them”. You and me are no more special than them. We are all special in God’s eyes.

Here is something to think about – (I usually give this little exercise to people so that they can understand the kind of God they hold in their head).
Think of the time when you were at your best. Imagine that when you were being at your best your parents and God are looking at you. What is the expression on your parents face? The expression on God’s?

Then do opposite and try to remember the time when you were at your worst (or if you can imagine being worse than you actually were). What is the expression on your parent’s face? On God’s?

When I did this to a group I was giving a mini retreat to, almost everyone said that their parent’s showed approval when they were good and condemnation when they were bad. They also said that God’s expression was the same as that of their parents.

But the point that I made was that God loved and still loves us whether we are good or bad. Our standing before God does not change. We remain His children. However, by our sin, we turn away from God, but God does not turn away from us.

Thank you for your time as well.

May the Peace and Joy of our Lord be with you.

1 I believe in limited atonement. If it was not Christ would have died in vain or the wicked could claim that God must let them in because the price would have been already for their sin. Jesus as the Kinsman Redeemer could only redeem those who are of His house by the law.

2 The angels around the throne in heaven cry day and night Holy, Holy Holy is the Lord Almighty. Rev 4:8 God is Holy and cannot tolerate sin but in His love saves some from their sin. The bible says He first loved us enabling us to love Him.

3 Rom 9 is about God’s sovereign election and how it is His choice not ours .

4 Paul in another place says they were blinded for our benefit. God does actively withhold salvation from some.

5 I’m confused I get 2 different responses here some say it is because of their will and like you I assume God is your salvation apart from you.

6 I believe we are compelled by His grace to seek Him. Just as sinners are compelled to sin by their sin nature.

7 What about those who are of their father the devil? Are they His children too?

8 No one is thinking they are better than someone else , you know better than that. Paul also warned against that. Why did God love Jacob and hate Esau?

God loves those who are His children weather we do good or bad just as in the story of the prodigal son. Most of the catholics I talk to here don’t have quite the same opinion of God’s reaction to sin as you do. It sounds too much like Calvinism. The U in tulip unmerited favor based on who He is not who we are.

 

[hopeordoom]

I would just like to clarify some issues in the original post. I am a Protestant, so I have heard a LOT of teaching on this subject. The person you are debating is WAY wrong. There is no higher and lower heaven, at least not according to the scripture. And sinner who don’t believe will not go to heaven under any circumstances. But a short and simple definition of predestination as many denominations of protestant (and all who claim the name “Calvinist”) accept is simple that everyone who in all of history from the begging of the world till the end of it that is going to get saved, i.e., believe in Jesus, was already chosen by God. God already knows who they are, even before they are born. He chooses who is and isn’t going to be saved, and those that are chosen are “predestined” to be saved. Personally, I think this is true from God’s perspective because He knows everything, but from our human perspective, it is a matter of free will and choice.