There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

[TriuneUnity]

I think the mistake you’re making is assuming that believing in free will automatically makes man sovereign. Calvinists believe that Adam - who did not posses a sinful nature - freely chose to sin and yet what he did was the fulfillment of a Divine decree. In this case, Calvinists are somehow able to reconcile free will with Divine Sovereignty and simply say it’s a mystery. The argument that believing in free will makes man sovereign may be the case in Arminianism, but that is not the case in Catholic theology. In Arminianism - whether it’s the Classic/Wesleyan verison or the OSAS variety - predestination is purely God’s foreknowledge of man’s free choices. God forsees how man responds to His grace and elects those who believe. In other words, election is merely divine rubber stamping of man’s choices. Consequently, Arminians have difficulty explaining why prevenient grace is efficacious in one person and not in the other or why one person perseveres and the other does not. In fact, the efficaciousness of grace really depends on something inherent in man. Unlike Arminians, we believe that the infallible efficaciousness of grace in the elect ultimately depends on God, not on man. There are two basic explanations of the relationship between grace and free will in Catholic theology (Thomism and Molinism), but both maintain that the infallible efficacy of grace ultimately depends on God. We believe that man freely choses God under the influence of His grace. The precise relationship between grace and free will, however, remains a mystery.

God Bless,
Michael

Good thoughts, mikel. Though to clarify. When Calvinists (and Lutherans for that matter) discuss man’s lack of a free will, we are not saying that man doesn’t make free choices. We are saying that his will is not neutral. It is bent against God and toward self. The person makes free choices, but always in a certain direction; that of sin, rebellion, and hatred of God. It is not that there is an outside force that is reaching down and controlling man’s actions. It is that there is an inner force - the Adamic nature - that the mind and soul is always choosing to do that which it knows is evil.

 

[Reformed]

I think the mistake you’re making is assuming that believing in free will automatically makes man sovereign. Calvinists believe that Adam - who did not posses a sinful nature - freely chose to sin and yet what he did was the fulfillment of a Divine decree. In this case, Calvinists are somehow able to reconcile free will with Divine Sovereignty and simply say it’s a mystery. The argument that believing in free will makes man sovereign may be the case in Arminianism, but that is not the case in Catholic theology. In Arminianism - whether it’s the Classic/Wesleyan verison or the OSAS variety - predestination is purely God’s foreknowledge of man’s free choices. God forsees how man responds to His grace and elects those who believe. In other words, election is merely divine rubber stamping of man’s choices. Consequently, Arminians have difficulty explaining why prevenient grace is efficacious in one person and not in the other or why one person perseveres and the other does not. In fact, the efficaciousness of grace really depends on something inherent in man. Unlike Arminians, we believe that the infallible efficaciousness of grace in the elect ultimately depends on God, not on man. There are two basic explanations of the relationship between grace and free will in Catholic theology (Thomism and Molinism), but both maintain that the infallible efficacy of grace ultimately depends on God. We believe that man freely choses God under the influence of His grace. The precise relationship between grace and free will, however, remains a mystery.

God Bless,
Michael

I think Reformed Christians will state that Adam and Eve actually had free will before the fall. Our ability and free will to obey God was lost at the fall. Therefore, our will is inclined to sin as our fallen nature causes us to run from God (the light). If I understand you, I think we are trying to determine if Roman Catholicism teaches a form or sovereign grace designed and applied to God’s elect only. Does Rome teach that the elect receive a more effectual grace than the non-elect?

 

[sandusky]

ralphinal:

Double predestination is easily reconcilled with this idea. For God to allow someone to be born knowing full well that he would have absolutely no chance to beleive and thus enter heaven is not the act of a kind and merciful God. Even Allah would not do that.

What proof do you offer that in “double predestination” God allows “someone to be born with absolutely no chance to believe?”

 

[ralphinal]

Thank you for sharing that information. I would like to add that sometimes we think things are evil, but are not. For example, when God flooded the entire world, we might consider that the worldwide flood was an evil act which almost all perished. However, we know that God cannot do evil, and it was an act of divine holy judgement against sinful mankind. Here are Scriptures that helps me understand divine providence. What do you think about natural disasters that occur today which many perish? I think we are born into this world in enmity with God and are all on the road to Hell. God in Christ came to rescue sinners. Does God have the power and ability to rescue all sinners from Hell? If you say yes, why doesn’t He rescue all mankind from what they deserve? How does your answer line-up with the truth of mercy and grace?

Isaiah 5:20

Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!

1 John 1:5

This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Well, the Flood shows a merciful God in that he did not scrap the whole thing and start over. You are correct that things may seem bad to us but may not be bad. God’s judgement is true and right, and fair. Show me the fairness in sending Aztecs to hell because they were born in 100 bc in Central America.

Now, as far as natural disasters go, how do you know that Nature, redeemed by Christ, isn’t revolting against man? Further, it is also possible, and likely, that God set natural disasters up as part of the system to give people an opportunity to grow in faith and to offer up sufferings for the Church to make up that which was lacking in the sufferings of Christ.

 

[ralphinal]

What proof do you offer that in “double predestination” God allows “someone to be born with absolutely no chance to believe?”

Because if they could then beleive, they would not be damned, thus proving the predestination wrong.

 

[ralphinal]

That may have been the case for some of the reformers, though I am not sure. The nominalism charge is laid at them often, however, many of them, such as Calvin and Luther, rejected nominalism (especially Luther).

Though I’m not a Calvinist and double predestination is something I could never accept, to play devil’s advocate for a moment, the person who is created and never chooses to believe in God is no reflection on God’s creative act. I think the problem when discussing Calvinism is that a lack of free will simply means a lack of moral will. The will is in bondage to sin and the person freely rebels against God.

At any rate, taking the road of theodicy is never a good idea.

Can a man’s thoughts still be influenced by that which he rejects? If man cannot ever decide to do good, then why do some atheists help others?

 

[mikeledes]

Good thoughts, mikel. Though to clarify. When Calvinists (and Lutherans for that matter) discuss man’s lack of a free will, we are not saying that man doesn’t make free choices. We are saying that his will is not neutral. It is bent against God and toward self. The person makes free choices, but always in a certain direction; that of sin, rebellion, and hatred of God. It is not that there is an outside force that is reaching down and controlling man’s actions. It is that there is an inner force - the Adamic nature - that the mind and soul is always choosing to do that which it knows is evil.

Thanks for the clarification! In Catholicism, grace must precede faith. Apart from God’s grace, no one can come to faith.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

ralphinal:

Because if they could then beleive, they would not be damned, thus proving the predestination wrong.

They refuse to believe; how is their refusal to believe not a choice?

 

[mikeledes]

I think Reformed Christians will state that Adam and Eve actually had free will before the fall. Our ability and free will to obey God was lost at the fall. Therefore, our will is inclined to sin as our fallen nature causes us to run from God (the light). If I understand you, I think we are trying to determine if Roman Catholicism teaches a form or sovereign grace designed and applied to God’s elect only. Does Rome teach that the elect receive a more effectual grace than the non-elect?

The Catholic Church teaches as dogma the unequal distribution of grace. If there wasn’t an unequal distribution of grace, then everyone would go to heaven and we would end up with universalism. What primarily distinguishes the elect from the non-elect in general is that only the elect will receive what the Catholic Church calls the gift of final perseverance (living and dying in a state of grace).

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Correct.

TriuneUnity, I still a little confused on this issue. How does your experiential assurance differ from that of a Calvinist?

I also wonder whether Calvinist are certain that they are justified? And if they are certain that they are justified, how can they not be certain that they are of the elect, since only the elect will be justified?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Reformed]

John Calvin, like the other reformers then and today, actually ignore history and ‘shape’ scripture to fit their man-made theology, that frankly, are actually new ideas.

It seems to me that those that leave Catholicism do so because of feelings and without understanding what the church teaches and why, an unstudied move based on emotion only.

Those that convert to Catholicism do so through study of scripture and history, and with that background, their feelings of connection with Christ through the Eucharist are immense.

Not that I’ll badmouth those that, through emotion, leave the church to go to a place that gets them more interested and focused on God. That is extremely important.
These same people though, I’ve seen come back to the Catholic Church once they get serious about reading scripture and history.

Christ founded a visible church.
It is still here, because Jesus said it would be.

By your unwillingness to answer the questions regarding the men forgiving sins through the power of Jesus tells me that this very basic, scriptural command of Jesus’ is not practiced in your church.

I would say that your church has not yet ‘discovered’ the church Jesus Christ founded.

You would have us believe that the Holy Spirit messed up real bad until the 1500’s, THEN got it right. The Holy Spirit couldn’t get it right, so good thing Calvin came along. I think better of the Holy Spirit.

Scriptural arm-wrestling will be your tactic, but the bottom line is that the visible church Jesus founded was there in the first century … and in the second century, the 3rd century, the 4th century, the 5th century, the 6th century, the 7th century, the 8th century, the 9th century, the 10th century, the 11th century, the 12th century, the 13th century, the 14th century, the 15th century, the 16th century, the 17th century, the 18th century, the 19th century, the 20th century, the 21st century, … is still here today, and it is the Catholic Church.

You typically provide a position then quote sections of scripture seemingly from a tract with a title. Scripture that actually does not show what you think it means, as I point out over and over again.

To find the church that Jesus founded is to find the visible church that has the authority of the apostles and is one with each other in doctrine.
Protestantism that I see today is so contrary to these basic attributes of His church: one, apostolic, and authoritative.

Don’t get me wrong. In my faith journey, I’ve had my questions regarding the Catholic faith, and my studies of scripture and history over a ten year period present overwhelming evidence that the Catholic Church is the church that Jesus founded. Not one protestant religion bourne of 1500s and later holds any water.

‘Reformer’ is not even a correct title for these men such as Calvin and Luther. They didn’t reform a church, but left it. This is the lesson they’ve taught. If you don’t like it, or agree with it, leave and start your own. This is not a tenant of Jesus’.

I think it is great to question. Even necessary. This is what I did. I pray that you do as I did, and read the bible … without the footnotes of a Catholic or non-Catholic … and devour it. Pray to the Holy Spirit to open your heart. Read the early Christian writings. This is a point I got to in my journey that has led me to where I am today.

If you truly want to follow Christ, pray, pray, pray, listen to what He says, and please honestly seek the church that he founded.

Cheers, brother.

michel

Thanks for sharing your personal views based on subjective experiences and opinions. I rather base my Faith on the unchanging Word of God alone. Through prayer and Scripture, I could never join the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Reformed]

Well, the Flood shows a merciful God in that he did not scrap the whole thing and start over. You are correct that things may seem bad to us but may not be bad. God’s judgement is true and right, and fair. Show me the fairness in sending Aztecs to hell because they were born in 100 bc in Central America.

Now, as far as natural disasters go, how do you know that Nature, redeemed by Christ, isn’t revolting against man? Further, it is also possible, and likely, that God set natural disasters up as part of the system to give people an opportunity to grow in faith and to offer up sufferings for the Church to make up that which was lacking in the sufferings of Christ.

Exactly, there is a remnant throughout redemptive history that are rescused from the righteous judgment of God for sin. That remnant is chosen by grace. Please define fairness. The idea of fairness is receiving what we deserve. Do you want fairness or mercy and grace? Be careful for what you ask for. Did the Aztecs receive what they deserve in God’s fairness?

The Remnant of Israel - Rom 11

11:1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, [1] a member of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” 4 But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, 8 as it is written,

“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that would not see
and ears that would not hear,
down to this very day.”

9 And David says,

“Let their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them;
10 let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see,
and bend their backs forever.”

 

[cazayoux]

Thanks for sharing your personal views based on subjective experiences and opinions. I rather base my Faith on the unchanging Word of God alone. Through prayer and Scripture, I could never join the Roman Catholic Church.

Since you base your faith on the unchanging Word of God alone, which includes the Word where Jesus gave the power to forgive sins to men… is this something practiced in your faith?

michel

 

[Reformed]

The Catholic Church teaches as dogma the unequal distribution of grace. If there wasn’t an unequal distribution of grace, then everyone would go to heaven and we would end up with universalism. What primarily distinguishes the elect from the non-elect in general is that only the elect will receive what the Catholic Church calls the gift of final perseverance (living and dying in a state of grace).

God Bless,
Michael

Aah… a very similar teaching in what Reformed Christians call “sovereign grace” given to the Elect of God only. I think all those Roman Catholics who are sharing a semi-pelagius or Arminian idea of free will should listen to the official teaching of Rome!



Is an unequal distribution of grace fair?

 

[ralphinal]

They refuse to believe; how is their refusal to believe not a choice?

Now I am confused. I thought that the grace that lead to the gift of faith was not something that you could act in any way upon, at least in non-Catholic theology. Are you saying that, like Catholics, you teach we can choose not to accept faith?

 

[TriuneUnity]

TriuneUnity, I still a little confused on this issue. How does your experiential assurance differ from that of a Calvinist?

God Bless,
Michael

My assurance is not based on my experience, but solely on the promises of God in Christ.

Standard Protestant Syllogism
Major Premise: Whoever believes in Christ will be saved
Minor Premise: I believe in Christ
Conclusion: I am saved.

Now here’s where the logic becomes important: in order to get from the major promise to the conclusion you need a minor premise, which applies the principle to the particular case in hand. How do I get saved? Well, by believing, of course. This is an explicit condition of the promise. For the major premise is logically equivalent to the conditional statement: “if you believe in Christ, you are saved,” where the if-clause states the condition. So the logic follows from this condition: you are saved on condition that you have faith, so if I am to know I am saved I must know I meet the condition.

Indeed, because the content of the promise is conditional, explicitly making everything conditional upon faith, I am in no position to say the Gospel promise is about me until I can say, “I believe”. For most Protestants, this is a really big deal. The hour I first believed, the moment when I can first say “I truly believe in Christ” is the moment of my salvation, of my conversion and turning from death to life. What matters is that moment of conversion, not the sacrament of baptism, because everything depends on my being able to say “I believe.” For only if I know that I truly believe can I confidently conclude: I am saved.

Notice what this requires of us: not just that we believe, but that we *know * we believe. I call this the requirement of “reflective faith.” Protestant faith has to be reflective in that it’s not enough just to believe; you have to believe you believe, maybe even know you believe. That’s a pretty hefty requirement for those of us who are weak in faith, or who believe that all sin is rooted in unbelief and we are still sinners at heart (simul justus et peccator, both justified and sinner still). It discourages us from confessing our unbelief and encourages us instead to profess our belief. This actually becomes a technical term in English Calvinism: the Puritans spoke of those who were “professors of religion,” meaning that they professed to know that they had been truly converted and regenerated by faith in Christ, whereas those who were not professors might they had true, saving faith. Those who thus could sincerely confess the faith but not confidently
profess faith were taught to believe they were not truly regenerate or born again. A peculiarly Protestant agony of conscience lies here, as Calvinist ministers realized, and they devoted much of their pastoral practice to dealing with it, addressing the problem they called “the assurance of faith.” The problem was to attain assurance that you really had true faith. If that’s your problem, then you are quite Protestant.

 

[East_and_West]

Thanks for sharing your personal views based on subjective experiences and opinions. I rather base my Faith on the unchanging Word of God alone. Through prayer and Scripture, I could never join the Roman Catholic Church.

Well, then you are simply not following the Scirptures. First the Scriptures teach us that we are to “hold fast to the traditions handed down either by word of mouth or by letter.” Second, the scriptures teach that we are “justified by works and not by faith alone.” Jesus teaches, “if you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you.” Sounds like if you were really following the word of God, as you claim, you would not follow the man-made protestant religion.

 

[mikeledes]

Aah… a very similar teaching in what Reformed Christians call “sovereign grace” given to the Elect of God only. I think all those Roman Catholics who are sharing a semi-pelagius or Arminian idea of free will should listen to the official teaching of Rome!

http://3gold.com/pictures/animal/6.jpg

Is an unequal distribution of grace fair?

I think the problem is that too many people make this into an either/or situation. It is either predestination or free will. It is either Divine Sovereignty or free will. Catholics believe it’s a both/and situation. When people hear that the Catholic Church affirms free will, they unfortunately resort to an Arminian explanation, as if that is the only “free will” alternative.

Regarding your question, Catholic teachings on predestination/ salvation has never been about what’s fair from a human perspective.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[East_and_West]

My assurance is not based on my experience, but solely on the promises of God in Christ.

Standard Protestant Syllogism
Major Premise: Whoever believes in Christ will be saved
Minor Premise: I believe in Christ
Conclusion: I am saved.

Our contention is with your minor premise. If you are a follower of a man made religion (protestantism) rather than the faith established by Christ, are you really believing in Christ or an idol fashioned by Luther and Calvin?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Our contention is with your minor premise. If you are a follower of a man made religion (protestantism) rather than the faith established by Christ, are you really believing in Christ or an idol fashioned by Luther and Calvin?

Sorry, I should have clarified; I wasn’t stating my view of it in that syllogism, but the typical Reformed way of looking at it.