Tackling Predestination

[benedictus2]

Second, Rom. 5:20 does not talk about predestination. So it is out of context to quote it here.

Oh yes, it so very much does.

Let’s take this point by point.

1. 
   *]You say that how God reprobates is by refusing to give the grace that will allow man to turn to HIm.
   
   *]Well, then, if according to St Paul, where ever there is sin, grace abounds even more, then that means God gives grace in every instance of sin. With me so far?
   
   *]So, if at every instance of sin, God correspondingly gives grace and St Paul even says, an even more abounding of grace, then that means, God does not withold grace to anyone. Still with me?
   
   *]If God does not withold grace to anyone, then it cannot be said that God predestines man to hell.
   
   As I have said before, the reason Calvinistic predestination is erroneous is because :
   1. He has a rather deficient understanding of grace
   2. He is a nominalist and so hold to the philosophical position that we cannot understand the nature of God which of course is completely erreneous since God has revealed Himself.
   3.He believes in total depravity which again is erroneous as it fails to account for the goodness that is evident in people who are not “believers”.
   1. He completely ignores passages in the Bible that contradict his proof texts. To cite some:
   Romans 5:20 Where sin abounds, grace abounds even more.
   
   Titus 2:11 For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men”
   
   John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, **so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. ** (Notice it did not say that God will give the grace only to some that will enable them to believe in Him.
   
   Tim 2:3-4This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.
   
   2Peter 3:9 The Lord does not delay his promise, as some regard “delay,” but he is patient with you, **not wishing **that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

No righteousness is not imputed. It is infused. If righteousness is imputed, then as Luthersays, we go to heaven as dungheaps covered with snow. And as someone in another thread commented, it makes God a collector of dungheaps.

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

Sin does not power the nature as such. More like our old nature is inclined to sin is weak in its battle against sin.

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.

I would not say that we posses whatever grace is necessary. And necessary does not mean irresistible. If we are so hungry we could hardly walk, God will give us enough sustenance to enable us to walk. However He does not overpower our will, He allows us to say yes or no to that offering of grace.

But the thing with grace is, the more we say yes, the easier it becomes to say yes to God. Our capacity say yes increase.

The more we love, the more loving we become. Grace has ontological effects in our soul.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Man’s inclination is not evil but towards 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.

You were trying to explain comon grace. This analogy has nothing to do with common grace.

In the same way, having a fallen nature, an unregenerate person cannot choose God because it is not within his nature.

How do you explain Abraham, Moses, David, the prophets and every good person in the OT considering that Christ has not arrived yet.

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.

If the person is truly regenerate in that instant, then that person should not be able to sin. So how come there is not one single person who we cannot call a sinner on this earth today?

 

[dcastlen50]

:thumbsup:This is a fantastic thread. I do not have time to read it all. Is there anyone who would be willing to summarize it, print it (publish it) and distribute it when it is done?

I will be the first to buy it.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Hi Benedictus and Paul C!

Benedictus: Here are my thoughts on Romans 5:20…

The abounding grace of Romans 5:20 takes place in the lives of Christians when they are baptized. The grace abounds because the wages of sin is death. “For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation” (Romans 5:16). And yet, even though there were innumerable sins deserving a thousand deaths, “the free gift following many trespasses brought justification” (Romans 5:16). This “free gift” was made our own when we were “buried… with Him by baptism into death” (Romans 6:4) “For the death He died He died to sin” and the “one who has died has been justified from sin” (Romans 6:10, 7). Grace abounds because it overcame the sin that enslaved us and “reigned in death” (Romans 5:21; cf. Romans 6:20). For those who have been baptized “have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God” (Romans 6:22). The “free gift” of Romans 5:15 is the “free gift” of Romans 6:23, and it is made our own when we die to sin through faith by being “baptized into Christ Jesus” (Romans 6:3), the One Who died to sin for us so that we might live to God in Him.

You seem to hold that the grace of Romans 5:20 is working in the lives of all people as a drawing force. The way you seem to be thinking about it would imply that God’s drawing grace becomes greater and greater the more and more we reject His grace. Because the more we reject Christ, the more sin abounds. Therefore, the more grace must abound. But this is the opposite of what we believe (cf. Romans 1:24, 26, 28). We believe that this type of empowering grace increases through cooperation with grace and by grace (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:10; 2 Corinthians 6:1). The grace that Paul has in view in Romans 5:20 is the grace of God available in Christ that He bestows in the lives of baptized believers; this grace does not abound for all people, but only for the many who will be made righteous (cf. Romans 5:19).

Again, it appears that, to Paul’s mind, the grace of Romans 5:20 is the grace won by Christ and that is received by us in baptism when, no matter how many sins we may have previously committed, all are forgiven. What makes this grace abounding is its effects of overcoming sin and death, and of making us slaves of righteousness “leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 5:21; cf. Romans 6:23). This grace is objectively sufficient to potentially abound for all, but only actually abounding in those who receive the grace of regeneration in baptism and who persevere in cooperating with that grace.

Paul C: I’ll try to put something together for you on free will…

Thank you for your advice!

In Christ,
Pete

 

[jericho777]

No righteousness is not imputed. It is infused. If righteousness is imputed, then as Luthersays, we go to heaven as dungheaps covered with snow. And as someone in another thread commented, it makes God a collector of dungheaps.

Sin does not power the nature as such. More like our old nature is inclined to sin is weak in its battle against sin.
I would not say that we posses whatever grace is necessary. And necessary does not mean irresistible. If we are so hungry we could hardly walk, God will give us enough sustenance to enable us to walk. However He does not overpower our will, He allows us to say yes or no to that offering of grace.

But the thing with grace is, the more we say yes, the easier it becomes to say yes to God. Our capacity say yes increase.

The more we love, the more loving we become. Grace has ontological effects in our soul.

The bible says imputed strongs 3049
Word Origin
from logos (in the sense of an account or reckoning)
Definition
to reckon, to consider.

James 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Rom 4:22-24And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Where did you find the definition for infused?

As far as our old nature, it is bound by sin unto the purposes of sin. It can never please God because it is His enemy. In any of its endeavors it is hopelessly lost.

His grace is sufficient. When we are born from above we posses His will and become adopted children. It is our old nature that rises against us trying to cause us sin. When we walk in the Spirit we will not fulfill the lust of the flesh (old nature).

 

[Bengoshi]

And where does the Bible say that every single truth is to be found in the Bible?

You didn’t really answer my question first, did you? Everything we need to know is in the Bible. “So that the man of God may be thoroughly eqipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:17)

You have not been able to show that with any of your post.

You have shown how it relates to His omnipotence. You have show that it is definitely his prerogative but you have not been able to reconcile it with the fact that God IS love, God IS Merciful and God is Just.

The way you have presented your case has portrayed a God that is NOT love, NOT really merciful and NOT just, because you failed to take into account 1) that He created us, 2) the nature of grace, and 3) that man has free will.

Here it is again. Take note that St. Paul is writing to believers here:

“*Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. **In love *he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.” (Ephesians 1:3-14 ESV)

 

[Bengoshi]

Fair enough. But then explain how you can keep saying the same thing when I have already shown that since God created us therefore, predestining us to damnation means that He created us for for the sole purpose of sending us to hell.

And I asked you to please think hard about that. But all you replied was more of the same thing.

How do you reconcile this view of reprobation with the fact that a supposedly loving God could create us just so He can damn us? I have brought this point up up from the beginning but you have not been able to answer that.

I gave you an analogy of a parent whose children are sure to be born deformed and he has the medicine to make them all well yet these parents will only give that medicine to some of the children.

So answer this, will you give the medicine to all of your children or only to some leaving the others to suffer in extreme agony?

Also, I pointed out Romans 5:20 Where sin abounds grace abounds even more. So where there is sin (i.e. all inclusive where ever there is sin, no exception), God also sends grace. How can you can then says that God reprobates some by refusing to give them grace?

So I await your answer.

Romans 5:20 is for believers, the elect. Thatis why they have this grace. Otherwise they wouldn’t.

Here’s a better definition of Reprobation by Wayne Grudem: Reprobation is the sovereign decision of God before creation to pass over some persons, in sorrow deciding not to save them, and to punish them for their sins, and thereby to manifest his justice.

If I were the dad, I would give my children the drink. The difference between me and God is that I may have a different purpose from God. We do not have the same mind as God. So we do not know His purposes and “we know that in all things, God works for the good of those who love Him.” The reprobate, however, do not love God.

Sometimes people regard the doctrine of election as unfair, since it teaches that God chooses some to be saved and passes over others, deciding not to save them. How can this be fair?

Two responses may be given at this point. First, we must remember that it would be perfectly fair for God not to save anyone just as he did with the angels: “God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment” (2 Peter 2:4). What would be perfectly fair for God would be to do with human beings as he did with angels, that is, to save none of those who sinned and rebelled against him. But if he does save some at all then this is a demonstration of grace that goes far beyond the requirements of fairness and justice. But at a deeper level this objection would say that it is not fair for God to create some people who he knew would sin and be eternally condemned, and whom he would not redeem. Paul raises this objection in Romans 9. After saying that God “has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills” (Rom. 9:18),16 Paul then raises this precise objection: “You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”’ (Rom. 9:19). Here is the heart of the “unfairness” objection against the doctrine of election. If each person’s ultimate destiny is determined by God, not by the person himself or herself (that is, even when people make willing choices that determine whether they will be saved or not, if God be fair?

Paul’s response is not one that appeals to our pride, nor does he attempt to give a philosophical explanation of why this is just. He simply calls on God’s rights as the omnipotent Creator:

“But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me thus?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” (Rom. 9:20–24)

Paul simply says that there is a point beyond which we cannot answer back to God or question his justice. He has done what he has done according to his sovereign will. He is the Creator; we are the creatures, and we ultimately have no basis from which to accuse him of unfairness or injustice. When we read these words of Paul we are confronted with a decision whether or not to accept what God says here, and what he does, simply because he is God and we are not. It is a question that reaches deep into our understanding of ourselves as creatures and of our relationship to God as our Creator. This objection of unfairness takes a slightly different form when people say that it is unfair of God to save some people and not to save all. This objection is based on an idea of justice among human beings that we sense intuitively. We recognize in human affairs that it is right to treat equal people in an equal way. Therefore it seems intuitively appropriate to us to say that if God is going to save some sinners he ought to save all sinners. But in answer to this objection it must be said that we really have no right to impose on God our intuitive sense of what is appropriate among human beings. Whenever Scripture begins to treat this area it goes back to God’s sovereignty as Creator and says he has a right to do with his creation as he wills (see Rom. 9:19–20, quoted above). If God ultimately decided to create some creatures to be saved and others not to be saved, then that was his sovereign choice, and we have no moral or scriptural basis on which we can insist that it was not fair.

 

[Bengoshi]

Read up on how nominalism shaped Luther’s and Calvin’s theology and you will understand that they created a false dichotomy which was not existent at all in the Church.

Nope. Good works is evidence of our cooperation with grace.

I can accept this. We are only able to cooperate precisely only because of that grace.
benedictus2;6819722:

If good works is evidence of faith and salvation, then how do you account for the good works done by those who do not have faith in Jesus?

Apart from God’s grace, all our “righteous acts are like filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6).

You do not realize it but you have actually argued yourself into “salvation by works”

No, I did not. The end result may be the same, but the motives are different.

 

[Bengoshi]

May I share my thoughts with both of you?

• Were the reprobate created by God at all?
• In the parable of the weeds, our Lord says they were planted on earth by the Evil one!

The Devil never created anything. God created everything. The Devil plants the reprobate into the Church. That’s why there are those inside the Church that are not really saved, i.e. not true Christians.

 

[paul_c]

You didn’t really answer my question first, did you? Everything we need to know is in the Bible. “So that the man of God may be thoroughly eqipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:17)

Its not actually true. You need tradition to properly interpret the Bible. As you well know, without tradition, any two people (like for instance, you and I) can come up with very different interpretations of the same verses.

Here it is again. Take note that St. Paul is writing to believers here:

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. **In love **he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.” (Ephesians 1:3-14 ESV)

Again, Catholics agree that some are predestined to heaven. This quote supports this. But it does not support your contention that some are predestined to hell.

 

[Bengoshi]

Look, either works matter or they don’t. You can’t logically say that our actions matter and in the next sentence say they have no impact on salvation.

Here’s where I think the confusion rests. Protestants seem to think of salvation in either / or terms. Either mans actions drive salvation (which you reject) or God’s grace drives salvation (which you support). Catholics, on the other hand, see this as an “and” function meening that both pieces have to be in place for it to be true. God must give us grace AND man must cooperate with those grace by living a life of love for him to go to heaven. This is not because God could not force man to do his will - he obviously could. It is because God WILLS man to come to him williingly.

Your final sentence is telling. To paraphrase: If man doesn’t live a transformed life, he isn’t saved. This is exactly the Catholic position: Man must live a transformed life to go to heaven.

I have found that in the deepest part of men’s hearts, they know they must follow Jesus’ words and actions to get to heaven.

I think we’re getting close to an agreement here.

As I’ve said in a nearlier post to Benedictus, the result is the same. We need good works to be saved. The Catholic and Protestant difference is on the motive and merit of the good works. In Protestant theology, good works do not merit us salvation in any way. However, they are indicators or manifestations of the elect’s faith. Genuine faith resulting in salvation is manifested by good works. “You will know them by their fruits.” We also believe that our good works will determine our rewards in heaven but not our salvation itself.

In Catholic theology, correct me if I’m wrong, good works have certain merits in themselves which are added to God’s grace. In short, good works give us brownie points in heaven in addition to God’s grace.

These are the main differences in our soteriology.

 

[Bengoshi]

That only applies to things here on earth, that is why we have what we call “blessings in disguise”. If God allows us to become ill so that we may learn to turn to him then that is God’s purpose.

BUT and this is a huge BUT, that kind of reasoning you cannot apply to eternity, because Hell is the penultimate evil. It is a separation from all that is Good so how can you call that good?

So therefore God glories and takes pleasure in the damnation of man? Then why did He bother sending His Son to die for our sins?
Bengoshi, read Romans again and not just this tiny bit of verse. Read from Chapter 8, then you will see it all in context.

Paul did not write this in anticipation of the kind of objection that we make. So yes, read the whole of Chapters 8 and 9.
And we never said it did. But please show where in this verse does it say that God will have mercy on some and not on others. All this verse says is that Mercy is His prerogative. Nothing more.
But neither does it say that Pharaoh has been damned for all eternity.
All that this says is that God has a right to do as He pleases. But it does not say that He creates people to damn them for eternity.
Yes. But nowhere does it say that God damns people arbitrarily. If you read the beginning of Chapter 9 it actually speaking quite the opposite. That in His compassion, His extending salvtion to those outside of the Old Covenant.

No it isn’t. All Paul is trying to say here is that the God has the right to create as He pleases. Here is a commentary from the NAB.
For Paul, this objection is in the last analysis a manifestation of human insolence, and his “answer” is less an explanation of God’s ways than the rejection of an argument that places humanity on a level with God. At the same time, Paul shows that God is far less arbitrary than appearances suggest, for God endures with much patience (Romans 9:22) a person like the Pharaoh of the Exodus.*
*And if man is guilty for his sin then he therefore has free will.
But nowhere does he say that God damns people to hell.

You keep on saying that it doesn’t say that God damns people to Hell. It is implied. It follows. There are people in Hell, right? So there you go, they are the reprobate.

Jesus only died for His elect. His atoning work is sufficient for all but only efficient for some.

 

[paul_c]

Romans 5:20 is for believers, the elect. That is why they have this grace. Otherwise they wouldn’t.

You are making an extension of scripture that is not there. Show me any verse that says that God with holds his grace from some people…

Here’s a better definition of Reprobation by Wayne Grudem: Reprobation is the sovereign decision of God before creation to pass over some persons, in sorrow deciding not to save them, and to punish them for their sins, and thereby to manifest his justice.

You do understand that just because you can describe something doesn’t make it true. This statement is not scriptural (i.e, you can not find it in scripture)

If I were the dad, I would give my children the drink. The difference between me and God is that I may have a different purpose from God. We do not have the same mind as God. So we do not know His purposes and “we know that in all things, God works for the good of those who love Him.” The reprobate, however, do not love God.

Again, this is an extension of scripture that is not there. Scripture does not say that God limits his love to those that love him. It says in Matthew 5:
44 But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,
45 that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust

Sometimes people regard the doctrine of election as unfair, since it teaches that God chooses some to be saved and passes over others, deciding not to save them. How can this be fair?

Two responses may be given at this point. First, we must remember that it would be perfectly fair for God not to save anyone just as he did with the angels: “God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment” (2 Peter 2:4). What would be perfectly fair for God would be to do with human beings as he did with angels, that is, to save none of those who sinned and rebelled against him. But if he does save some at all then this is a demonstration of grace that goes far beyond the requirements of fairness and justice.

Please note that the reason that the Angels were expelled was because they sinned, not because they were preordained to go to hell.

But at a deeper level this objection would say that it is not fair for God to create some people who he knew would sin and be eternally condemned, and whom he would not redeem. Paul raises this objection in Romans 9. After saying that God “has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills” (Rom. 9:18),16 Paul then raises this precise objection: “You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”’ (Rom. 9:19). Here is the heart of the “unfairness” objection against the doctrine of election. If each person’s ultimate destiny is determined by God, not by the person himself or herself (that is, even when people make willing choices that determine whether they will be saved or not, if God be fair?

Paul’s response is not one that appeals to our pride, nor does he attempt to give a philosophical explanation of why this is just. He simply calls on God’s rights as the omnipotent Creator:

“But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me thus?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” (Rom. 9:20–24)

Paul simply says that there is a point beyond which we cannot answer back to God or question his justice. He has done what he has done according to his sovereign will. He is the Creator; we are the creatures, and we ultimately have no basis from which to accuse him of unfairness or injustice. When we read these words of Paul we are confronted with a decision whether or not to accept what God says here, and what he does, simply because he is God and we are not. It is a question that reaches deep into our understanding of ourselves as creatures and of our relationship to God as our Creator. This objection of unfairness takes a slightly different form when people say that it is unfair of God to save some people and not to save all. This objection is based on an idea of justice among human beings that we sense intuitively. We recognize in human affairs that it is right to treat equal people in an equal way. Therefore it seems intuitively appropriate to us to say that if God is going to save some sinners he ought to save all sinners. But in answer to this objection it must be said that we really have no right to impose on God our intuitive sense of what is appropriate among human beings. Whenever Scripture begins to treat this area it goes back to God’s sovereignty as Creator and says he has a right to do with his creation as he wills (see Rom. 9:19–20, quoted above). If God ultimately decided to create some creatures to be saved and others not to be saved, then that was his sovereign choice, and we have no moral or scriptural basis on which we can insist that it was not fair.

Of course we can’t second guess God. That argument is a meaningless distraction to the real point at hand. The real question is whether God created people without hope of redemption. No where in scripture does it state that this is true, including Romans 8-9.

 

[Bengoshi]

Oh yes, it so very much does.

Let’s take this point by point.

1. 
   *]You say that how God reprobates is by refusing to give the grace that will allow man to turn to HIm.
   
   *]Well, then, if according to St Paul, where ever there is sin, grace abounds even more, then that means God gives grace in every instance of sin. With me so far?
   
   *]So, if at every instance of sin, God correspondingly gives grace and St Paul even says, an even more abounding of grace, then that means, God does not withold grace to anyone. Still with me?
   
   *]If God does not withold grace to anyone, then it cannot be said that God predestines man to hell.
   
   St. Paul was writing to believers. He had believers in mind when he was saying this.
   benedictus2;6819722:
   As I have said before, the reason Calvinistic predestination is erroneous is because :
   1. He has a rather deficient understanding of grace
   2. He is a nominalist and so hold to the philosophical position that we cannot understand the nature of God which of course is completely erreneous since God has revealed Himself.
   The secret things are God’s but those He revealed belong to us and our children forever (Deut. 29:29). There are things which God didn’t reveal to us. He cannot because if He reveals to us all His knowledge, we will not be able to contain it. He only revealed to us what we need to know.
   

   3.He believes in total depravity which again is erroneous as it fails to account for the goodness that is evident in people who are not “believers”.

   As I’ve said before, all of our righteous acts are like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:4). Total depravity does not mean utter depravity but corruption. This is where God’s common grace comes in. He gives us enough grace so as not to completely destroy each other. “He makes the rain fall on the just and the unjust”.
   

   1. He completely ignores passages in the Bible that contradict his proof texts. To cite some:

   Romans 5:20 Where sin abounds, grace abounds even more

   .
   
   Titus 2:11 For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men”
   
   The “all” here pertains to the elect.
   

   John 3:16 For God so loved the world

   that he gave his only Son, **so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. ** (Notice it did not say that God will give the grace only to some that will enable them to believe in Him.
   
   This passage only says that those who believe in him will have eternal life. It doesn’t say “how” they come to believe in him.
   

   Tim 2:3-4This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone

   to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.
   
   2Peter 3:9 The Lord does not delay his promise, as some regard “delay,” but he is patient with you, **not wishing **that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

1. 
   God has 2 wills, a secret will and a revealed will. It’s just like a parent who has a child who did something wrong. It is not the parent’s will to punish the child, but because he has to because the child did something wrong, then he does it.

 

[paul_c]

I think we’re getting close to an agreement here.

As I’ve said in a nearlier post to Benedictus, the result is the same. We need good works to be saved. The Catholic and Protestant difference is on the motive and merit of the good works. In Protestant theology, good works do not merit us salvation in any way. However, they are indicators or manifestations of the elect’s faith. Genuine faith resulting in salvation is manifested by good works. “You will know them by their fruits.” We also believe that our good works will determine our rewards in heaven but not our salvation itself.

In Catholic theology, correct me if I’m wrong, good works have certain merits in themselves which are added to God’s grace. In short, good works give us brownie points in heaven in addition to God’s grace.

These are the main differences in our soteriology.

Catholics believe that the reward of heaven is being with God. We don’t believe in this concept of more or less heavenly rewards (or brownie points as you describe them).

You see, in Catholic Sotierology, you need to die in the state of grace to go to heaven. You get in the state of grace by being baptized and you stay in the state of grace by avoiding sin and by loving god and neighbor. Through the mercy of God, If you fall from grace through sin, you can get back into the state of grace through the sacrament of reconciliation. If you die in the state of grace but still have a tendency to sin, you will be purified in purgatory. You see, this isn’t about accounting, its about becoming personally holy because nothing unclean will enter heaven.

Oh, and by the way, motivation is important. Devout Catholics are motivated by love and the have the desire to follow the lord into holiness. I worry that people that are taught that faith is all that matters will not be motivated to actually become holy and will fall short of their heavenly goal.

 

[Bengoshi]

Man’s inclination is not evil but towards evil.

Okay. Same thing to me!

You were trying to explain comon grace. This analogy has nothing to do with common grace.

No, I was trying to explain total depravity.

How do you explain Abraham, Moses, David, the prophets and every good person in the OT considering that Christ has not arrived yet.

Are you serious with this question? Hebrews says that they had faith in the coming Messiah. “It was credited to them as righteousness.”

If the person is truly regenerate in that instant, then that person should not be able to sin. So how come there is not one single person who we cannot call a sinner on this earth today?

It sems you have a flawed understanding of grace. We still live in a fallen world. We can still sin. That’s why you have to look at TULIP as a whole, not by parts only. This is where Perseverance of the Saints come in.

 

[Bengoshi]

:thumbsup:This is a fantastic thread. I do not have time to read it all. Is there anyone who would be willing to summarize it, print it (publish it) and distribute it when it is done?

I will be the first to buy it.

LOL! I’m glad you like it! It is kinda tiring though!

 

[Bengoshi]

Hi Benedictus and Paul C!

Benedictus: Here are my thoughts on Romans 5:20…

The abounding grace of Romans 5:20 takes place in the lives of Christians when they are baptized. The grace abounds because the wages of sin is death. “For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation” (Romans 5:16). And yet, even though there were innumerable sins deserving a thousand deaths, “the free gift following many trespasses brought justification” (Romans 5:16). This “free gift” was made our own when we were “buried… with Him by baptism into death” (Romans 6:4) “For the death He died He died to sin” and the “one who has died has been justified from sin” (Romans 6:10, 7). Grace abounds because it overcame the sin that enslaved us and “reigned in death” (Romans 5:21; cf. Romans 6:20). For those who have been baptized “have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God” (Romans 6:22). The “free gift” of Romans 5:15 is the “free gift” of Romans 6:23, and it is made our own when we die to sin through faith by being “baptized into Christ Jesus” (Romans 6:3), the One Who died to sin for us so that we might live to God in Him.

You seem to hold that the grace of Romans 5:20 is working in the lives of all people as a drawing force. The way you seem to be thinking about it would imply that God’s drawing grace becomes greater and greater the more and more we reject His grace. Because the more we reject Christ, the more sin abounds. Therefore, the more grace must abound. But this is the opposite of what we believe (cf. Romans 1:24, 26, 28). We believe that this type of empowering grace increases through cooperation with grace and by grace (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:10; 2 Corinthians 6:1). The grace that Paul has in view in Romans 5:20 is the grace of God available in Christ that He bestows in the lives of baptized believers; this grace does not abound for all people, but only for the many who will be made righteous (cf. Romans 5:19).

Again, it appears that, to Paul’s mind, the grace of Romans 5:20 is the grace won by Christ and that is received by us in baptism when, no matter how many sins we may have previously committed, all are forgiven. What makes this grace abounding is its effects of overcoming sin and death, and of making us slaves of righteousness “leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 5:21; cf. Romans 6:23). This grace is objectively sufficient to potentially abound for all, but only actually abounding in those who receive the grace of regeneration in baptism and who persevere in cooperating with that grace.

Paul C: I’ll try to put something together for you on free will…

Thank you for your advice!

In Christ,
Pete

Well said!

This is what I was trying to say all along! Well, except maybe for the baptismal regeneration part, nevertheless, the Church of Christ believes in that as well and I may have no problem in agreeing that baptism is necessary, otherwise, we wouldn’t have done it in our congregation. Baptism for us is evidence of our true faith in Christ. But that’s not the issue on this thread, and I’m not totally against it anyway!

 

[Bengoshi]

Its not actually true. You need tradition to properly interpret the Bible. As you well know, without tradition, any two people (like for instance, you and I) can come up with very different interpretations of the same verses.

We believe in tradition but not in Tradition the way the RCC does. We do read the works of other Christians/scholars/church fathers/theologians to aid us in interpretation.

Again, Catholics agree that some are predestined to heaven. This quote supports this. But it does not support your contention that some are predestined to hell.

It is a necessary implication.