Tackling Predestination

[Pete_Holter]

I would like to back up a bit to verse 6 “For Christ, while we were still helpless, yet died at the appointed time for the ungodly.”

Yes indeed. But grace is not limited to this one time giving of salvific grace.

Grace is not limited to the sacraments. While God has instituted these sacraments as avenues of grace, He is not limited by the sacraments and has worked and continues to work outside of the sacraments.

That anyone comes to knowledge of Him at all is purely grace. And this grace is bestowed even before the person is baptised to enable the person to be baptized, and thus avail more of the superabundance of grace that is present in all the sacraments.

Greetings in the Lord, Benedictus!

Christ died for all. This is Catholic dogma. We agree.

I am afraid that what you are doing with Paul’s teaching in Romans 5 and 6 is to read all of the varied forms of God’s grace into Paul’s use of grace in these chapters. Paul makes it clear that the grace he is talking about here is the grace available in Jesus Christ that we receive when we are baptized and that leads to eternal life.

God “justifies the ungodly” (Romans 4:5). Paul says that the “free gift… brought justification” (Romans 5:16). But God does not justify all of the ungodly. And the free gift did not bring justification to everyone, but only to as many as will be baptized with faith. The “many” in Adam are not coextensive with “the many” in Christ. “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:19). The “many” in Christ that Paul is talking about are the many who will be saved in baptism and who are thereby “made righteous” by dying to sin and living to God. (Romans 5:19; cf. Romans 6:10-11). Paul is not comparing numbers. He is comparing effects.

Grace abounds all the more where sin abounds because the one thing that abounds the more overcomes the other thing that merely abounds but does not abound the more. It is the grace that has the effect of making us righteous when we are baptized. It is the grace that puts to death the death bringing sin that came before it. This is the grace that abounds all the more. You have God offering a grace that abounds where sin abounds all the more. You have reversed Paul’s argument and given sin the supremacy – you have given sin the role of abounding all the more over grace, a grace that merely abounds but not the more – if you hold that the abounding grace of Romans 5:20 is the grace that gets rejected and defeated by sin.

Paul’s argument in Romans 5:12 – 6:23 is the very same argument that he presents in Ephesians 2:1-10 and Colossians 2:11-15. Each time we find ourselves dead in our sin. And each time we see what grace Paul is talking about. For “God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ – by grace you have been saved – and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:4-7). This grace of being raised up with Christ takes its beginning in us when we are baptized.

The rest of your posts seem to present general statements about what you believe about God’s grace; but I was talking specifically about what Paul has in view in Romans 5:20.

If Christ died for the ungodly (which includes everyone) why would He then offer the grace that flows from His death and resurrection only to some.?

Another question is, “If Christ died for all, why does He not save all?” He is able.

If Christ is the second Adam, and the first Adam caused the fall of all, it stands to reason that being the second Adam salvation will be offered to all. But it does not necessarily mean that every soul will cooperate with the grace that is being offered.

This actually doesn’t follow any more than the hypothesis, “If Adam caused the fall of all, then it stands to reason that Christ will cause the salvation of all.”

Have a blessed day!

“For I am not worthy to receive You, Lord. No, I am not worthy of Your Body and Your Blood.”

A little brother in Christ,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

Here is a partial side-by-side comparison between Augustine and Calvin on the issue of free will.

Augustine wrote that “the violence with which present things acquire sway over our weakness is exactly proportioned to the superior value by which future things command our love. And oh that those who have learned to observe and bewail this may succeed in overcoming and escaping from this power of terrestrial things! Such victory and emancipation cannot, without God’s grace, be achieved by the human will, which is by no means to be called free so long as it is subject to prevailing and enslaving lusts; ‘For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage’ (2 Peter 2:19). And the Son of God has Himself said, ‘If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed’ (John 8:36)” (Letter 145).

And elsewhere: “How is it then that miserable men dare to be proud, either of their free will, before they are freed, or of their own strength, if they have been freed? They do not observe that in the very mention of free will they pronounce the name of liberty. But ‘where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty’ (2 Corinthians 3:17). If, therefore, they are the slaves of sin, why do they boast of free will? ‘For by what a man is overcome, to the same is he delivered as a slave’ (2 Peter 2:19). But if they have been freed, why do they vaunt themselves as if it were by their own doing, and boast, as if they had not received? Or are they free in such sort that they do not choose to have Him for their Lord who says to them: ‘Without me you can do nothing’ (John 15:5); and ‘If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed’ (John 8:36)?” (, Ch. 52On the Spirit and the Letter).

After considering these and other passages, John Calvin wrote: “When [Augustine] asserts that man’s freedom is nothing but emancipation or manumission from righteousness he seems aptly to mock its empty name” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 2, No. 8Institutes).

Calvin sees a mockery, but does Augustine? Augustine, for his part, wrote that “since there are some persons who so defend God’s grace as to deny man’s free will, or who suppose that free will is denied when grace is defended, I have determined to write somewhat on this point” (, Ch. 1On Grace and Free Will); noting along the way “how very plainly is set before our view the free choice of the human will” (Ch. 3). “Now wherever it is said, ‘Do not do this,’ and ‘Do not do that,’ and wherever there is any requirement in the divine admonitions for the work of the will to do anything, or to refrain from doing anything, there is at once a sufficient proof of free will. No man, therefore, when he sins, can in his heart blame God for it, but every man must impute the fault to himself” (Ch. 4).

John Calvin says that, “If anyone, then, can use [the word “free will”] without understanding it in a bad sense, I shall not trouble him on this account. But I hold that because it cannot be retained without great peril, it will, on the contrary, be a great boon for the church if it be abolished. I prefer not to use it myself, and I should like others, if they seek my advice, to avoid it” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 2, No. 8Institutes).

Augustine, on the other hand, wonders “who of us will say that by the sin of the first man free will perished from the human race? Through sin freedom indeed perished, but it was that freedom which was in Paradise” (, Bk. 1, Ch. 5Against Two Letters of the Pelagians).

These are minor distinctions and perhaps very little of actual substance; but they do show, if nothing else, a noticeable difference in attitude between these two men.

In Christ,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

Calvin wrote:

“But it has not yet been demonstrated whether man has been wholly deprived of all power to do good, or still has some power, though meager and weak; a power, indeed, that can do nothing of itself, but with the help of grace also does its part. The Master of the Sentences meant to settle this point when he taught: ‘We need two kinds of grace to render us capable of good works.’ He calls the first kind ‘operating,’ which ensures that we effectively will to do good. The second he calls ‘co-operating,’ which follows the good will as a help. The thing that displeases me about this division is that, while he attributes the effective desire for good to the grace of God, yet he hints that man by his very own nature somehow seeks after the good – though ineffectively… But this is far from Augustine’s thought, from whom Peter Lombard pretended to have taken this distinction.” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 2, No. 6Institutes).

And Peter Lombard wrote:

“This is operating and cooperating grace: for operating grace prepares the will of man, to will the good, cooperating grace helps, lest it will in vain… For operating grace is (that) which goes before a good will; for by it there is liberated and prepared the will of man, to be good and to will the good efficaciously. But cooperating grace follows an already good will by helping (it)… With these testimonies there is openly insinuated, that man’s will is anticipated and prepared by God’s grace, to become good, not to become a will, because before grace there was also a will, but it was not a good and upright will” (, Bk. 2, Distinction 26, Ch. 1Sentences).

Did Augustine distinguishing between operating and cooperating grace?

Augustine said that for Paul’s call “from heaven and his conversion by that great and most effectual call, God’s grace was alone.” But after this gift of operative grace, “neither was it the grace of God alone, nor was it he himself alone, but it was the grace of God with him.” This is cooperative grace. Paul, “in order to exhibit also his free will, … added in the next clause, ‘And His grace within me was not in vain, but I have laboured more abundantly than they all’ (1 Corinthians 15:10). This free will of man he appeals to in the case of others also, as when he says to them, ‘We beseech you that ye receive not the grace of God in vain’ (2 Corinthians 6:1)” (, Ch. 12On Grace and Free Will). Operating grace establishes us in cooperation with God: “in one of these cases He co-operates with man as the agent, in the other He does it alone” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 20Against Two Letters of the Pelagians).

“[W]ho was it that had begun to give [Peter] his love, however small, but He who prepares the will, and perfects by His co-operation what He initiates by His operation? Forasmuch as in beginning He works in us that we may have the will, and in perfecting works with us when we have the will… He operates, therefore, without us, in order that we may will; but when we will, and so will that we may act, He co-operates with us. We can, however, ourselves do nothing to effect good works of piety without Him either working that we may will, or co-working when we will” (, Ch. 33On Grace and Free Will).

Calvin’s main concern was to reject the idea that “man by his very own nature somehow seeks after the good – though ineffectively.” And yet, the distinction between operating and cooperating grace is certainly to be found with Augustine.

In Christ,
Pete

 

[shaky]

Well, clearly we have the ability and will to act before grace, but it is not in the direction of God.

Yes, yes, and yes.

We are made to seek Him. He draws us toward Himself. When we recognize His drawing and respond, He gives more grace. “To those that have, more will be given”.

No, it means that the God given desire which he created in us does not function anymore, and that we are unable to respond to His grace drawing us to Himself. We are unable to choose to come to Him, or to engage in an act of faith that will mix with His grace resulting in salvation.

This piece of the TULIP is predicated upon others. God does not sanctify those he has not justified. According to Calvin, a person is regenerated apart from his will. God also sanctifies the saved apart from his will.

Please show us this, so we can discuss it.

Hi guanophore

From as far back as i can remember i think i was about 9 years of age. I always believed
In a Existence of God. It was something natural in me. From what i remember my dad believed in God. But he was never a church goer. because he could not make his mind
up which church to go to. He said it was take your pick and if it is the wrong one it i Sin
He was christened and i was chritened as a baby

Just before he died some Jehovah witnesses was trying to convert him to there way.
But he disagreed with what they preached.
He always pulled me up when i went on wrong paths. Saying what do you think God is thinking about what you are doing.
He was wrongly Locked up in Prison Once for 7 months waiting for trial. During that time
He read the whole bible to keep his mind occupied.

My dad was in the army for 22 years and was in world war 2. He was a Tank commander
In charge of a squadron of tanks. Some times he had to fire on Church spires a high point
Of the building. Because the enemy could be up there giving radio directions to p(name removed by moderator)oint
The Big Guns on him.

I do sense the grace of God working in my Life And i am focused on the catholic church because i have been asking God to Show me the Truth and the Right Church.
I do Know Atheist and one of them said to me. He was 8 years old and he was in church
And he Just cannot believe in the existence of God and he never has since.
Why has this happened to him in such a early age.?
Later he reads the bible and does not like the God of the Bible.

Well in the bible Jesus Said many are called. He does not say all are called.
Then only a Few are chosen
Romans 8:28 says those who are called. Those don’t mean all
1 corinthians 1:26 Not many mighty wise or noble are called. This seems to indicate out of this group some are not called.
You have to take into account plenty that have died not hearing the gospel and babies.
I am focusing on all the all scriptures at the moment and asking God For revelation.
I came across this predestined and foreknowledge stuff It seems unfair to me. before i was lookeing into the catholic church.

 

[guanophore]

: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.

You can use the thread tools to open a printable version and save it to disk till you have time to read it.

Most of the threads remail available and you can subscribe to them and read till you catch up by using the “last read” link at the top.

 

[guanophore]

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).

We use infusion to describe the net effect of the imputation, and encompass the concept of “pouring” that we see in Scripture.

Catholics also believe that righteousness is “imputed”. We just have a different understanding of it. We believe, when Jesus credits our account, He does not just doctor the “books” but actually makes a DEPOSIT on our behalf. He does not just cover us with His grace, but brings His grace to live in us, and through us, so that it is no longer we that live, but Christ that lives in us.

 

[guanophore]

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)

No, Ben, you have misunderstood the scripture.

Let’s slow down and take it a phrase at a time.

2 Tim 3.
14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
[15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Where did Tim learn his faith?

From people. The Scipture here that is instructing is the OT. I don’t think any modern Christian thinks he can live a Christian life without the NT, do you?

Scripture is inspired, and what??? PROFITABLE. Profitable for what?

teaching
reproof
correction
training in righteousness

Now, to whom did Jesus give the gift to equip the saints for the work of the ministry? was it scripture that was to do the equipping?

Eph. 4 11] And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,
[12] to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
[13] until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;
[14] so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.
[15] Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,

The apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers are charged with equipping the saints. Scripture is PROFITABLE in this duty, but is not to be used separately from those appointed by Christ to build the Body. Separating the scriptures from those that were ordained by God to USE them in PROFITING the Body is what has caused the divisions that exist in Christendom today.

Who has authority? Is is the Scripture?

Tit.2
[1] But as for you, teach what befits sound doctrine. …
[4] and so train …
[15] Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

Jesus gave authority to the Apostles, and they to their successors, the bishops. It falls to them to declare the faith and “exhort and reporove with all authority”. Scripture is PROFITABLE in these duties, which goal is to equip the saints for the work of the ministry.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I think we are in agreeement on this point.

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".

Do you believe this about the righteous acts of those who are in Christ as well?

The “all” here pertains to the elect.

Can you please show or explain how you determined this? It is contrary to the Teaching we have received from the Apostles, and I am curious about the origin.

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.

Do you believe it is possible for a person to reject God’s purpose for themselves?

 

[guanophore]

True Christians don’t think that way. True Christians have faith in Jesus and as a result love others as Jesus commanded us; and these are all products of God’s grace.

The Scripture makes no distinction between “true” Christians and any others. It distinguishes between Christians walking according to the flesh, or the Spirit, but not “true” and “false” believers.

 

[guanophore]

I am focusing on all the all scriptures at the moment and asking God For revelation.
I came across this predestined and foreknowledge stuff It seems unfair to me. before i was lookeing into the catholic church.

Glad you are here, shaky. I will pray that you find what you need.

 

[shaky]

Greetings in the Lord, Benedictus!

Christ died for all. This is Catholic dogma. We agree.

I am afraid that what you are doing with Paul’s teaching in Romans 5 and 6 is to read all of the varied forms of God’s grace into Paul’s use of grace in these chapters. Paul makes it clear that the grace he is talking about here is the grace available in Jesus Christ that we receive when we are baptized and that leads to eternal life.

God “justifies the ungodly” (Romans 4:5). Paul says that the “free gift… brought justification” (Romans 5:16). But God does not justify all of the ungodly. And the free gift did not bring justification to everyone, but only to as many as will be baptized with faith. The “many” in Adam are not coextensive with “the many” in Christ. “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:19). The “many” in Christ that Paul is talking about are the many who will be saved in baptism and who are thereby “made righteous” by dying to sin and living to God. (Romans 5:19; cf. Romans 6:10-11). Paul is not comparing numbers. He is comparing effects.

Grace abounds all the more where sin abounds because the one thing that abounds the more overcomes the other thing that merely abounds but does not abound the more. It is the grace that has the effect of making us righteous when we are baptized. It is the grace that puts to death the death bringing sin that came before it. This is the grace that abounds all the more. You have God offering a grace that abounds where sin abounds all the more. You have reversed Paul’s argument and given sin the supremacy – you have given sin the role of abounding all the more over grace, a grace that merely abounds but not the more – if you hold that the abounding grace of Romans 5:20 is the grace that gets rejected and defeated by sin.

Paul’s argument in Romans 5:12 – 6:23 is the very same argument that he presents in Ephesians 2:1-10 and Colossians 2:11-15. Each time we find ourselves dead in our sin. And each time we see what grace Paul is talking about. For “God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ – by grace you have been saved – and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:4-7). This grace of being raised up with Christ takes its beginning in us when we are baptized.

The rest of your posts seem to present general statements about what you believe about God’s grace; but I was talking specifically about what Paul has in view in Romans 5:20.

Another question is, “If Christ died for all, why does He not save all?” He is able.

This actually doesn’t follow any more than the hypothesis, “If Adam caused the fall of all, then it stands to reason that Christ will cause the salvation of all.”

Have a blessed day!

“For I am not worthy to receive You, Lord. No, I am not worthy of Your Body and Your Blood.”

A little brother in Christ,
Pete

Hi Pete

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

 

[Pete_Holter]

Hi Pete

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

Hi Shaky!

I was trying to say that the reasoning that Benedictus was using, it appeared to me, is the same reasoning that a universalist would use. And if the basis of Benedictus’ reasoning is that God is Love – which is true – then I don’t see why we would stop short of embracing universalism given that God is also Omnipotent.

I don’t actually hold this reasoning for myself. I believe that Jesus taught that few will be saved in comparison with the many who will continue in their sin and go to hell.

You had mentioned to Guanophore that predestination seemed unfair, so I’ll try to say something helpful…

One thought that some people have is that, had you or I been chosen to live the life that Adam lived, we would have done nothing different. We too would have sinned had we been in his position.

Have you ever done something evil just because you could? I’m talking about a time when you didn’t even have an internal urge to do that evil thing. You knew that it was wrong, you didn’t really care one way or another – from a position of desire – and yet you just did it anyway? And I’m talking about something small. Because eating the fruit from the tree, in and of itself, seems like a very small thing. It’s not like Adam was beating his wife!

But God, the One Who had given Adam life and dominion over every good thing that He had created, had very clearly forbidden this one little thing; and Paul tells us that “Adam was not deceived” (1 Timothy 2:14). These two facts made his transgression most heinous.

That’s what Adam did. He freely chose to sin without any internal compulsion, without an uncorrupted nature. But had I been in his shoes, I would have done just the same or worse. Thought about in this way, we see that when God has mercy on anyone, it is completely undeserved. But hell, on the other hand, is well deserved. Doctor of the Church John Chrysostom helps us see why:

“And say not unto me, ‘where is the rule of justice preserved entire, if the punishment has no end?’ Rather, when God does anything, obey His decisions and submit not what is said to human reasonings. But moreover, how can it be anything else than just for one who has experienced innumerable blessings from the beginning, and then committed deeds worthy of punishment, and neither by threat nor benefit improved at all, to suffer punishment? For if you enquire what is absolute justice; it was meet that we should have perished immediately from the beginning, according to the definition of strict justice. Rather not even then according to the rule of justice only; for the result would have had in it kindness too, if we had suffered this also. For when any one insults him that has done him no wrong, according to the rule of justice he suffers punishment: but when it is his benefactor, who, bound by no previous favor, bestowed innumerable kindnesses, who alone is the Author of his being, who is God, who breathed his soul into him, who gave ten thousand gifts of grace, whose will is to take him up into heaven;— when, I say, such an one, after so great blessings, is met by insult, daily insult, in the conduct of the other party; how can that other be thought worthy of pardon? Do you not see how He punished Adam for one single sin?

“ ‘Yes,’ you will say; ‘but He had given him Paradise and caused him to enjoy much favor.’ Nay, surely it is not all as one, for a man to sin in the enjoyment of security and ease, and in a state of great affliction. In fact, this is the dreadful circumstance that your sins are the sins of one not in any Paradise but amid the innumerable evils of this life; that you are not sobered even by affliction, as though one in prison should still practice his crime. However, unto you He has promised things yet greater than Paradise. But neither has He given them now, least He should unnerve you in the season of conflicts; nor has He been silent about them, lest He should quite cast you down with your labors. As for Adam, he committed but one sin and brought on himself certain death; whereas we commit ten thousand transgressions daily. Now if he by that one act brought on himself so great an evil and introduced death; what shall not we suffer who continually live in sins, and instead of Paradise, have the expectation of heaven?” (Homily 9 on 1 Corinthians)

 

[Bengoshi]

But that does not say that every single truth is found in the Bible. Further more, what I was giving was my exegesis so you cannot find the exegesis itself in the Bible.

So again, where in the Bible did it say that all truth must be found in the Bible? I think you hold to the Trinity but the doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

The Doctrine of the Trinity is found in the Bible. The word itself may not be there but the principle is definitely there. You may mention purgatory, that it is also not there but believed. The difference however is that heaven and hell are expressly mentioned, hence excluding purgatory. If I may use a principle of statutory construction: expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Those which are expressly mentioned exclude those which are not. Anyway, that was just a side note in anticipation of a possible point.
benedictus2;6823527:

But we have never questioned that He has predestined the elect to salvation.

Pray tell however where in the above text can you find that God lovingly, and mercifully condemns the others to hell? This is the bone of contention in this discussion.

I think the word you or rather Sproul used was “sorrowfully passes over those who He will condemn”. Sorrowfully passes over when He has the capacity to not pass over? More like crocodile tears don’t you think.

Where, I ask, is that in the Bible?

It was Grudem’s definition that I quoted. Just like the Trinity, reprobation is a necessary implication of election. Notice that Paul in Romans and Ephesians was addressing the presumptive elect, i.e. believers. All genuine believers are elect. The unbelievers unto death are the reprobates.

God chooses to pass them over in sorrow because He desires all men to be saved. However, because He has a greater purpose which we are unaware of, we just have to trust Him that His decision in passing over others are accordingly just, in accordance with His nature.

 

[Bengoshi]

No it isn’t implied. And no it doesn’t follow. So again, where in the Bible does it say that God damns people to hell.

They are not there because God damned them by deciding to withold His grace even from before their conception. Think about that, even before they were born the cards have already been stacked against them.

No, they are there because inspite of God offering them grace, they refused this grace and in the process damn themselves into hell. But even to the last moment God offers the grace of repentance. They are there becuase contrary to what you say, grace is not always irresistable. Yes it is alays sufficient but not always irresisitible.
Nope. nope. nope. The scripture that I have cited before said Christ died for all. It does not mean however that all will be saved. All it means is that everyone will be given a chance at salvation.

You tried to water it down by saying that the “all” meant there refer to the elect but sorry my friend, “all” means “all”. And these you see in different instances, not just Paul. You have Peter, you have John and I suggest you read this one too.
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.”

What does this passage have to do with the issue at hand? :banghead:

 

[Bengoshi]

That is a very good verse to quote. It would seem if we go along with Bengoshi’s interpretation that God is unable to do what He is asking us to do. So now god is even a hypocrite.

The verse again is not about salvation. It is a command for us. God is just and must punish sin. You seem to get your Bible verses mixed up. Please take the context into consideration.

And another point on this verse which Bengoshi has cited himself.

This little god goes to all the trouble of causing the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike, take time and patience to care for all but deep inside he is thinking “once they’re dead I am shoving them into the furnace to torture them” (while he twirls his moustache)

That passage refers to “common grace” not “saving grace”.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Sorry, Shaky. I thought I posted this earlier today when I posted my other response to you…

When Jesus christ Died did he decend to hell for a few days?

Yes! This is the teaching of the Church!

I introduce Wayne Grudem here for Bengoshi’s benefit. Grudem is a Reformed Baptist theologian. In explaining why Christ did not descend to hell, Grudem tells his readers that,

“The most satisfactory explanation of 1 Peter 3:19-20 seems rather to be one proposed (but not really defended) long ago by Augustine: The passage refers not to something Christ did between his death and resurrection but to what he did “in the spiritual realm of existence” (or “through the Spirit”) at the time of Noah. When Noah was building the ark, Christ “in spirit” was preaching through Noah to the hostile unbelievers around him” (Systematic Theology).

What he doesn’t tell us here is that Augustine also said of this passage, that it is “wont to perplex me most seriously,” and that he asked Bishop Evodius to “remove and terminate my perplexities on the subject” by offering his own interpretation. Augustine approached this text with profound diffidence, but before he offered his interpretation, he also had this to say: “It is established beyond question that the Lord, after He had been put to death in the flesh, descended into hell”; and he went on to ask, “Who, therefore, except an infidel, will deny that Christ was in hell?” (Letter 164)

Doctor of the Church Cyril of Jerusalem gives the best presentation of this teaching:

“The one [Jonah] was cast into a whale’s belly: but the other [Jesus] of His own accord went down thither, where the invisible whale of death is. And He went down of His own accord, that death might cast up those whom he had devoured, according to that which is written, ‘I will ransom them from the power of the grave; and from the hand of death I will redeem them’ (Hosea 13:14)…

“…I believe that Christ also was raised from the dead; for I have many testimonies of this, both from the Divine Scriptures, and from the operative power even at this day of Him who arose—who descended into hell alone, but ascended thence with a great company (cf. Ephesians 4:8); for He went down to death, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose through Him (cf. Matthew 27:52).

“Death was struck with dismay on beholding a new visitant descend into Hades, not bound by the chains of that place (cf. 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6). Why, O porters of Hades, were you scared at sight of Him? What was the unwonted fear that possessed you? Death fled, and his flight betrayed his cowardice. The holy prophets ran unto Him, and Moses the Lawgiver, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; David also, and Samuel, and Esaias, and John the Baptist, who bore witness when he asked, ‘Art Thou He that should come, or look we for another?’ (Matthew 11:3) All the Just were ransomed, whom death had swallowed; for it behoved the King whom they had proclaimed, to become the redeemer of His noble heralds. Then each of the Just said, ‘O death, where is your victory? O grave, where is your sting?’ (1 Corinthians 15:55) For the Conqueror has redeemed us.

“Of this our Saviour the Prophet Jonas formed the type, when he prayed out of the belly of the whale, and said, ‘I cried in my affliction,’ and so on; ‘out of the belly of hell’ (Jonah 2:2), and yet he was in the whale; but though in the whale, he says that he is in Hades; for he was a type of Christ, who was to descend into Hades” (Catechetical Lecture 14).

You can read about this truth of our faith in the Catechism here.

Christ is risen from the dead!

May the LORD be with you!
Pete

 

[Bengoshi]

How can he have believers in mind when he says “where there is sin” without any qualifications. He did not say where believers sin, they will be given grace.

Furthermore, Paul writes not just to believers but to unbelievers so that they will become believers. And grace is necessary in the first instance to make them believers.

As in my response to Pete Holter I go back to the beginning of the chapter in verse 6 “For Christ, while we were still helpless, yet died at the appointed time for the ungodly.” This means all ungodly without any qualification.

The point you are trying to make contradicts your take on grace only you don’t even realize it.

You said that grace is given so that we will have faith and that through grace we can turn away from sin. If grace has already been given to believers to turn away from sin then how can this apply to believers?

Your position basically states (if you will really think about it) that believers no longer sin.

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

But this answer does not come close to answering what you are trying to refute.

Please read point 2 again.

What I’m saying is that God did not reaveal eveything to us. He only revealed the things we need to know while on this fallen world.

Sorry but no matter how you slice it total and utter are the same thing. Total depravity means utter depravity. This making of distinctions where non exist is a habit with protestants. In the same way they made this distinction between justification and sanctification when for centuries, the Church Fathers never made any.

The term total depravity is admittedly a poor choice of words. They just wanted to retain the acrostic TULIP. You have to understand what the intention really was. Justification hapens only once while sanctification is a continuous process until death.

Nope. All men means all men no exception. Otherwise he would have said “the elect”. This is why I keep saying that when you do your exegesis you should do it in light of Scripture not some insy tinsy bits of it.

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

You missed that part about God so loved the world. Not some of the world or a bit of the world or the elect of the the world but the world in its entirety.

Yes, He loves the world, the elect are al oover the world. Juyst do yourself a favor, just try reading Sproul’s book “Chosen By God” with an open mind then come back after. As I’ve said, the way he explained it is really good. It’s the best presentation I’ve read so far. Mucnh on it, meditate on it instead of doing your best to try and prove the doctrine of election and reprobation wrong.

 

[Bengoshi]

 God has only one will.  Some of of the aspects of that will He has chosen to reveal.  God cannot have contradictory wills. You are making God to be suffering from MPD again as you have done before.

But that does not come even close to explaining your point that God has 2 wills. If it is not the parent’s will to punish the child, then why would the parent punish the child. Is someone holding a gun to the parent’s head?

Our actions proceed from our will. There may be a very reason for the parent to punish the child but the parent none the less wills to punish the child. It is a just willing but it is still His will.

So again, sorry but you failed to give a reasonable explanation of what these two wills are.

Go desires all men to be saved, right? In the same way that all parents desire comfort for their children. However, God, and the parents must punish in case the children sin and fail to repent. So, they then will to punish the children. It’s really as simple as that.

You fail to see it but your defense of Calvinistic predestination is so full of holes and all because you fail to account for the things I mentioned in my previous post.

God IS love. You need to start from there.

The problem with you is you are so stuck up with God being love only. Yes, God is love, but remember, He is also just. Wrath is also one of His attributes. He seriously hates sin. God’s wrath is all over the Bible in the OT. God is immutable, unchanging. His attributes and character remain the same.

 

[Bengoshi]

It seems to me that this whole discussion of Calvinist predestination hinges on two points :

1. That there is a class of people (You call them reprobates) that were born with absolutely no chance of salvation.
2. That men’s actions have no effect on their own salvation.

Bengoshi, you’ve stated both points but can you actually show in scripture where these points are stated explicitly?

Indeed, the Catholic church teaches the opposing view of these two points and can back them up with scripture:

1A) Everyone has a chance at salvation:
- Jesus came to call all men to himself.
- God allows the sun to shine on the good and the bad
- There is more joy in heaven over a repentent sinner than over 99 people who didn’t need to repent
- and many, many more

2A) Your actions do effect your salvation:
- Luke 18: 18-23: What must I do to inherit eternal life: follow the commandments.
- Romans 2: 5-10: God will repay everyone according to his works.
- Matthew 25: 32-46: Final judgement based on works of mercy
- Matthew 7: 21: Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
- And many, many more

In fact, the Catholic viewpoint is pervasive in scripture, which is not surprising since the bible was compiled by the Catholic Church for use as a teaching and liturgical tool. It really makes no sense to use a Catholic book to try to prove the Catholic church is wrong, but yet people try. In any case, can you support your position on these points?
By the way, you don’t really have to do that here… I’m not trying to put you on the spot. I just hope that it will give you something to think about…

First, let me be clear that our actions matter.
Second, I already addressed these issues in my previous posts.
Third, some of the verses you cited do not refer to saving grace but to common grace.
Fourth and last, yes, sinners repent and are therefore saved but this doesn’t disprove the doctrine of reprobation. It just means that those who repent are the elect.

 

[Bengoshi]

Dear Brother Benedictus,
do accept my sincere apology for the below quoted post of mine; it was sent after I erroneously failed to notice your above reply. I was also tricked by the deceiver to become angry for no valid reason and find fault with you. Please forgive me.

And yes, your reply was very clarifying and I feel refreshed. Thank you and God bless you.

Regards
Pitcharan
PREVIOUS POST OF MINE TO BE DISCARDED

Benedictus2 is a female.