S
shaky
Guest
Hi paul.
I am a bit confused my self how to get to your post and what page i am on and how to get
to page 6 where your post is.
I would be greatfull if you could explain. Thanks
- Status
I am a bit confused my self how to get to your post and what page i am on and how to get
to page 6 where your post is.
I would be greatfull if you could explain. Thanks
B
Bengoshi
Guest
This is the Arminian view. The Reformed view does not base God’s sovereign will on His foreknowledge of whether or not man will choose God. Foreknowledge is taken to mean that God “knows” the person him/herself in the same way that we know our parents, children or friends. The word “know” there indicates a relationship of intimacy, not in terms of knowing their future action or choices. However, this does not mean that God cannot se into our future, for indeed He can. Reformed theology, as taught by the Bible, merely teaches that God’s choice is not dependent on what man will choose in the future.
S
shaky
Guest
Hi MarcoPolo
Well that depends on our disposition. There are some people in this world that would not choose God and his will under any Circumstances. These people Know he is real. The Church of Satan.
The bible says many are called a Few are Chosen. Although many are called this dose not mean ALL are called. There are Many not called. {1 Corinthians 24-26}
When a child is Chosen. The Gifts and calling are without repentance and are Irrevocable
And No child will be Lost under any circumstances {Romans 11:29} {John 6:39}
The will of God can be for one person not to do his will and another person to do his will.
Vessels of Wrath are a Advantage to Vessels of Mercy.
Somebody had to be born Judas to betray Jesus Christ. And others had to be born to crucify Christ. Without the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. There would have been no salvation
For the Gentiles.
There are people who peddle the word of God for profit but this is wrong. The message of the Gospel is not only for Those that are being saved it is also for the Ones that are not being saved. for those savour of Life to Eternal Life. For those savour of Death to Eternal death. 2 corinthians 2:12-17
A child of God is Free to Choose God and do the will of God. But he was already Chosen
To do this first Before the foundation of the world.
A child of Satan is not free to do choose God or do his will. Because That choice has already been made First before the foundation of the world.
If you say the Reason why God chooses People because he already foreknew before the foundation of the world they would choose God. That still leaves Room to Give Glory to man. God is no respecter of persons. So God has to do the choseing First to give all the Glory to him…
Conclusion God has to choose that person first before that person can choose God.
God has to give Faith first before the person can believe. God has to give Gifts first before
That person can use These Gifts.
Everything has to be given first by God before that person can give back to God.
You are chosen First by God then you have the ability to choose God. The ability to obey God and the ability to do the will of God.
I agree with the view of Augustine and he was catholic. I focused on Chapters 25,32,33,36,40 and read the rest to the end. On his view on predestination.
Unless the view of the catholic church has changed on this i don’t know.
S
shaky
Guest
Hi Bengoshi
So does Reformed theology teach that man is chosen First by God before that person has the ability to choose?
S
shaky
Guest
B
Bengoshi
Guest
Yes. The only reason why we chose God is because God chose (predestined) us first before the creation of the world (Eph. 1:4-6). You see, we can only act according to our nature. After the fall of Adam in Genesis 3, human nature became corrupt, tainted by original sin. Since then, man’s inclination was evil. However, this does not mean that man is “utterly” depraved. God’s common grace prevents us from committing our maximum evil possible. For example, no matter how much we desire or will to fly or breathe naturally underwater, we cannot, because it is not within our nature. In the same way, having a fallen nature, an unregenerate person cannot choose God because it is not within his nature.
Now, God’s grace regenerates man, making him “born-again”, thus changing his nature. God’s grace is effectual in that it fulfils its purpose. As a result, the born-again person will choose God out of his own free will. God’s effectual grace puts that desire in the regenerated person. So there really is no coercion at all.
S
shaky
Guest
Hi hopeordoom.
As regards a higher heaven and a lower heaven. I am sure i read in the bible about the least in the kingdom of God and the greatest in the kingdom of God.
Also we are rewarded according to our works. And if any mans works are burnt up he himself will be saved. but only as if passed through fire.
If 2 people live 50 years in christ and 1 has worked twice as hard then the other and has done twice as much as the other. Surely they cant be rewarded the same. They have to be rewarded differently.
B
benedictus2
Guest
No. That is an invention by Calvin. The core tenet of Christianity is that God is merciful to everyone.
Not at all. God’s mercy is evident in that He offers everyone salvation. BUT we need to respond to that offer. God stretches out His hand to us but He has given us the freedom to put our hand in his or to turn away. This is when we say we go to hell. God does not put us in hell, we do that by ourselves by turning away from God. Hell is where God is not.
That is wonderful then. Praise be to God. I thought that because you espouse Calvinist belief you also deny free will. You will then more easily see why God is merciful but that we reject that mercy by our choice.
No He is not unjust at all for holding man responsible. The only reason I said by your reasoning man is not responsible is because I thought you did not believe man had free will. If you believe in free will then you reason right to say God is just to hold man accountable.
If He did it ARBITRARILY, then yes He would be unjust because by its very nature, reprieve and condemnation done arbitrarily means they are done without reference to justice.
Same thing when you decide to whip some of your children and love the others for no reason. If you smack someone for no reason then that is unjust.
On the basis that He is creator, yes - one cannot complain because after all He is creator. However all that says is God is supreme. But it does not say that God IS Love and God is just. These two (love and justice) must always be taken into account, along with God’s omnipotence when we talk about predestination.
First of all, there is a real problem of your and Jericho’s interpretation of that text. That text no way says that God is being arbitrary and that His mercy is selective. All it says is that Mercy is His choice, His prerogative, nothing at all about loving some and condemning others.
If you read the rest of that text (actually back up to chapter 8 and read the whole of 8 and 9, you will see a clearer picture of what Paul is trying to say and it is in no way saying that God’s mercy is selective. In fact, God is saying here that those who we think are beyond mercy, is still within His mercy. Man will not decide who God will have mercy on and God’s mercy is always way above that of man’s. God treats with mercy those whom man will condemn.
I would like to point out the wording of that text: “whoever does not believe has already been condemned”. We are condemned if after we have been offered that faith we reject it.
I am posting here a link to Fr Bob Barrons’ comment on hell.
youtube.com/watch?v=x8zhnooySk4
B
benedictus2
Guest
No but I can see why you are heaving a problem understanding our position. For you the sin and the sinner are the same. The sin (say abortion) God hates. But God loves the person even though that person commits abortion.
The proof of this is in the fact that God died for us while we were still sinners. He loves us unto death, while we were still sinners. And it is by his dying that God reclaims us from sin. It is because of His great and passionate love for us that He does not want to see us mired in sin.
This is where your view and the Catholic view diverge greatly. God does NOT condemn. We condemn ourselves. It is our sins that condemn us. What God does is offer us the way out of that condemnation.
Just think of being an addicted gambler, who is so steeped in debt and yet cannot stop gambling till he has lost everything. His gambling has condemned him to a life poverty, loneliness and fear. But God steps in to offer Him a way out of that. Now it is up to that person to accept that offer and cooperate with God’s grace or he can go his old sinful way and reject it.
And yes, everyone deserves an equal chance because God is just. A human being reasons that a truly fair and just man will give everyone an equal chance. If we expect that from a mere human being, then it follows that we can expect that from Justice Himself.
Yes. He has not had a chance to either believe or not believe in Jesus but he has lived a relatively moral life. Therefore we cannot say that He rejected Christ.
I have not checked whether it is in the Catechism but I think (based on what I’ve read) – that at the moment of death, we will all come face to face with Jesus and we will have a chance to say yes or no to Him.
A person who has lived a life of sin will probably find it harder saying yes to him because the state of his soul will find the Holiness of Christ painful to behold – much like someone who has been in a dark cell years being brought out into the brightness of the sun… But a person who has always lived in the light will not be blinded by the light of the Son so a yes to the Son will come more easily.
God is the sum of all goodness. Whatever goodness we have comes from God, so even though someone may not formally know Christ, whatever Truth he assents to or whatever Good he does will always be a participation in the divine life because God is all truth and all goodness.
B
benedictus2
Guest
G
guanophore
Guest
Do you realize this doctrine was invented by Calvin? It is a significant departure from the Apostolic Teaching.
All of humanity belongs to God, we are His creation. Besides, since when do the “claims of the wicked” have any impact on the actions of God? God so loved the world, that He gave His only son. some choose not to receive the gift. He paid the price for all. Some decide not to allow Him to purchase their souls. He loves us, that is why He gives us the freedom to choose.
Latin Catholics call this “prevenient grace” and some of our separated brethren call it “drawing grace”.
Calvin extended it to mean that people were saved so that they could experience it.
I think you are lacking the Hebraic notion of “blinded”.
Both things are true. God’s will, and human will. When His grace mixes with our faith, salvation happens.
Yes, this is very Catholic!
In the sense that He has created all of us, He is the Father of all creation. They are not His sons by adoption, though. I am not sure what you believe about original sin, but it appears that you have retained the Catholic teaching that we are all born into this world in a state of separation from God. We are, by default, all slaves to the devil until He frees us from the bondage of sin.
Because Jacob followed His commandments, and Esau lived according to his flesh.
There are a great many poorly catechized Catholics, as your own situation demonstrates.
What I see Calvanists do,a nd a great many modern American Evangelicals by default, is confuse God’s Love with salvation. Yes, He loves us whether we do good or bad, but He does not save those who refuse his commandments. This is part of the Apostolic Teaching that was jettisoned by Calvin.
M
Matorin
Guest
“Why did God love Jacob and hate Esau? Because Jacob followed His commandments, and Esau lived according to his flesh.”
Are you sure about this comment? You might not have thought it through all the way.
Anyways, I leave you with A tiptoe through Tulip, and a great sermon by Paul Washer on the misunderstanding in the modern US Evangelical church and what seems to be a big misunderstanding of Catholics on the views of Evangelicals, because often Catholics argue a straw man position.
Are you sure about this comment? You might not have thought it through all the way.
Anyways, I leave you with A tiptoe through Tulip, and a great sermon by Paul Washer on the misunderstanding in the modern US Evangelical church and what seems to be a big misunderstanding of Catholics on the views of Evangelicals, because often Catholics argue a straw man position.
P
paul_c
Guest
post #90: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6803169&postcount=90Please check with paul c for the post #.
P
paul_c
Guest
I’ve been out of town for the long weekend and just caught up with this thread. Rather than cover the same ground that has been hashed over the last three days, let me take it up a notch or two.
First of all, this debate on Grace has always been about the balance of free will and God’s sovereignty.
On one side of the argument are those that feel that’s man’s salvation is solely dictated by the good works he does through his free will without God’s involvement. These are the Pelagians. On the other side of the scale are the Calvinist, who deny man’s free will in its entirety and recognize only God’s sovereignty. The Catholic position recognizes both truths: God is sovereign, man has free will and that both are true without impacting the other. How this works is a mystery. Thomas, Augustine, and Molina are three Catholic theologians among many who have theorized on the mechanism. But in the end, the mechanism is unimportant because both truths are undeniable.
This is not the first time I’ve been in a discussion on predestination so let me anticipate and answer the obvious response to those questions:
First of all, this debate on Grace has always been about the balance of free will and God’s sovereignty.
On one side of the argument are those that feel that’s man’s salvation is solely dictated by the good works he does through his free will without God’s involvement. These are the Pelagians. On the other side of the scale are the Calvinist, who deny man’s free will in its entirety and recognize only God’s sovereignty. The Catholic position recognizes both truths: God is sovereign, man has free will and that both are true without impacting the other. How this works is a mystery. Thomas, Augustine, and Molina are three Catholic theologians among many who have theorized on the mechanism. But in the end, the mechanism is unimportant because both truths are undeniable.
The most obvious defense of man’s free will is that a significant portion of the Bible, both old and New Testaments, are devoted to instruction on how to live a moral life. Jesus taught morality extensively, including the sermon on the Mount, recalled in Matthew, and the Sermon on the Plains, recalled in Luke. Virtually every epistle has a section on how to live the Christian life. Leviticus, Proverbs, Wisdom, and Sirach are Old Testament books devoted to moral teaching. So** if man’s eternal destiny is decided before his birth, why spend time teaching him how to act? And if all this effort is expended on moral teaching, what are the ramifications for those that don’t follow them?**
This is not the first time I’ve been in a discussion on predestination so let me anticipate and answer the obvious response to those questions:
B
Bengoshi
Guest
P
paul_c
Guest
Let me add a little more to the previous post.
If the elect are the ones who follow the moral law, does it follow that everyone that follows the moral law is elect? Does this include athiests? This is the Pelegian viewpoint would be that actions are what counts, but I would argue that intent matters. If people follow the moral law out of love of God and neighbor, then they will be saved. If people follow the moral law not out of love but out of fear of punishment if they don’t , then no, they won’t be saved. This is the point that Paul makes about not being saved by the law. So the net, is that you need to do good works out of love for God and Neighbor.
Now, can a person love God and neighbor without the grace of God? Well, the obvious answer is no. God created every man and God gave every man conscience to guide him. Furthermore, we believe that God provides sanctifying grace through the sacraments that help men to follow him. So know man can be saved without God.
So if God’s grace is necessary for salvation, isn’t the obvious extension the Calvinist position that God chooses those that will be saved and damned. Well, no. this extension would clearly be false if God willingly gives his grace to all men (the Catholic position). If God offers sufficient grace to all men, then the defining factor for salvation becomes man’s taking that grace and doing the works of love he was called to do. Again, this does not preclude the sovereignty of God because God’s grace preceeds everything. Instead, it highlights the fact that God loves all men. that He is merciful in offering his grace to all and He is just in rewarding men according to actions which derives from men cooperating with the graces given them.
So the only argument that I can see against this is the argument that God would deny his grace to someone. But we are told that Jesus came to call ALL men to himself. We are also told that God lets the rain fall and the sun shine on the good and bad alike. And of course back to where we started: God has placed the natural law in the heart of all men and has made his moral law known. And of course, it is hard to find the justice in the arbitrary denial of grace to some men. Now you could argue that God’s morality is not our morality but its very hard to argue that God would have a morality counter to what Jesus taught and Jesus taugth us to love everyone, including our enemies.
If the elect are the ones who follow the moral law, does it follow that everyone that follows the moral law is elect? Does this include athiests? This is the Pelegian viewpoint would be that actions are what counts, but I would argue that intent matters. If people follow the moral law out of love of God and neighbor, then they will be saved. If people follow the moral law not out of love but out of fear of punishment if they don’t , then no, they won’t be saved. This is the point that Paul makes about not being saved by the law. So the net, is that you need to do good works out of love for God and Neighbor.
Now, can a person love God and neighbor without the grace of God? Well, the obvious answer is no. God created every man and God gave every man conscience to guide him. Furthermore, we believe that God provides sanctifying grace through the sacraments that help men to follow him. So know man can be saved without God.
So if God’s grace is necessary for salvation, isn’t the obvious extension the Calvinist position that God chooses those that will be saved and damned. Well, no. this extension would clearly be false if God willingly gives his grace to all men (the Catholic position). If God offers sufficient grace to all men, then the defining factor for salvation becomes man’s taking that grace and doing the works of love he was called to do. Again, this does not preclude the sovereignty of God because God’s grace preceeds everything. Instead, it highlights the fact that God loves all men. that He is merciful in offering his grace to all and He is just in rewarding men according to actions which derives from men cooperating with the graces given them.
So the only argument that I can see against this is the argument that God would deny his grace to someone. But we are told that Jesus came to call ALL men to himself. We are also told that God lets the rain fall and the sun shine on the good and bad alike. And of course back to where we started: God has placed the natural law in the heart of all men and has made his moral law known. And of course, it is hard to find the justice in the arbitrary denial of grace to some men. Now you could argue that God’s morality is not our morality but its very hard to argue that God would have a morality counter to what Jesus taught and Jesus taugth us to love everyone, including our enemies.
P
paul_c
Guest
Okay…So how do you see Calvinists such as yourself differing from Catholics on this issue?
B
benedictus2
Guest
From the Calvinist point of view, once you affirm free will, then Calvinistic pre-destination goes down the gurgler.
So you either accept Calvin’s view of predestination or you accept free will. You can’t have both.
P
paul_c
Guest
Let’s let Bengoshi explain how his view of Calvinism differs from Catholicism. We may find that he actually thinks they are the same… and if not, we can debate the differences.
B
Bengoshi
Guest
True Calvinists do not differ that much from the Thomistic and Augustinian views of Catholic soteriology. I think the main difference lies in our doctrine of reprobation. Again, Dr. Sproul explained this well in his book. Most Christians, both Catholics and Protestants, do not have an accurate notion of reprobation. To be clear, God does not cause any person to reject Christ nor to sin. Our rejection of Christ is a result of our sinful nature (original sin). God does not make people sin. Reprobation is defined as “The sovereign act of God in sorrow, of choosing to pass over some, not giving them the grace needed for them to be regenerated, resulting in their ultimate rejection of Christ, thereby condemning themselves to eternal punishement in hell.” So God actively chooses whom to condemn, but because He knows they will have a sinful nature, the way He foreordains them is to simply let them be (He doesn’t need to do anything) - this is sometimes called “preterition.” Therefore this foreordination to wrath is passive in nature (unlike God’s active predestination of His elect where He needs to overcome their sinful nature).
People who do not receive the effectual (irresistable) grace of God, cannot, due to their sinful nature, choose or even seek God. Reprobation is not a parallel of election as some think it is. The term “equal ultimacy” is sometimes used of the view that the two decrees are symmetrical: God works equally to keep the elect in heaven and the reprobate out of heaven. R. C. Sproul argues against this position on the basis that it implies God “actively intervenes to pen work sin” in the lives of the reprobate. This view is sometimes erroneously referred to as “double predestination”.
I think, understood correctly, Catholics and Reformed (Calvinist) Protestants/Evangelicals should have no problem with the doctrine of predestination. Understood correctly, we can see that the Reformed position on this doctrine is very biblical.
- Status