Trent Horn debate with James White: watch here!

[PRmerger]

Is the 3rd person of the Holy Trinity still not on the radar add the infallible interpreter if scripture? Jesus told us that the helper, the Holy Spirit, would come and lead us.

Yes. And that’s what keeps the Church holy and inspires the magisterium.

But there is no Scripture verse which says that the Holy Spirit will guide you in to interpreting Scripture correctly.

That, too, is something you just heard your pastor say, who heard another man say, who heard another man say, but no one read that in a single page of the Bible.

And the proof that not every Christian who reads the Bible will read it correctly is in the existence of tens of thousands of different Christian denominations.

 

[MT1926]

God bless MT1926,

Your question:
The thread is about the debate “Can a Christian lose their Salvation”. Are you saying no?

My answer:
I don’t believe a reprobate can be saved. As a Catholic this is the best answer I free to give.

I don’t disagree with the reprobate part but, As a Catholic I don’t think that “this is the best answer I free to give” is Catholic teaching? When you specifically state “As a Catholic” you are saying to uninformed readers this is what the Church teaches, not this is my opinion of what the Church teaches. I just want to point out that as a Catholic you would not want to accidentally teach something that is not professed by the Church.

You pointed towards Jimmy Akin, I like him as well. Here is what he has to say on the subject.

Full Question
A Baptist friend told me that he believes that so long as your name is “written in the book,” you’re saved. How do I answer?
Answer
True, the Bible uses the metaphor of having the names of all the righteous written in a book (actually, the Greek word means “scroll”) which is kept in heaven. In Scripture it is referred to as “the book of life,” and your friend is correct. Everyone whose name appears in this book on the last day will be saved: “*f any one’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. . . . [N]othing unclean shall enter [the New Jerusalem], nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life” (Rv 20:15, 21:27).

People’s names are written in this book during the present life. Paul speaks of certain women who “have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life” (Phil 4:3).

The question is: Does the fact that one’s name was written in the book of life when one came to God and received initial salvation mean that one’s name will stay in the book of life until the last day, when one would receive final salvation?*

The answer is: No. Scripture indicates in dozens of places that one can lose salvation, and it does so in specific connection with the book of life metaphor.

In Revelation 3:5, Jesus states: “He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life; I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.”

The implication is that if you end up giving in to sin, your name will be blotted out of the book of life and you will be denied before God and the angels, something Jesus elsewhere emphasizes (Mt 10:33, Lk 12:9).

As Jesus puts it, “He who endures to the end will be saved” (Mt 10:22, 24:13; Mk 13:13).

Justification is a one instant event (initial justification), and a continues event from baptism until we die.

Agreed. But that is not what you said. “justification and sanctification is one event and cannot be separated”. If what you meant is initial that’s fine, it was just confusing to me and came across as a one and done.

Concerning your quote MT1926. I never read it before. There are countless teachings and reading materials around which are not accepted by the Catholic Church.

I found it on this site in the Catholic Encyclopedia

catholic.com/encyclopedia/predestination

I’m am not a canon lawyer and can’t explain all of the ins and outs of a dogma, so I tend to stick to this site and have Faith that the writers are following the Church’s teachings and guiding me into all Truths.

I made a point that an elect predestined to heaven cannot end up in hell and a reprobate predestined to hell cannot end up in heaven.

In my opinion, when we quote a DE FIDE Dogma of the Catholic Church we can believe that quote is correct.

God bless.

LatinRight

I have no problem with what is written here. However, this statement is kind of worthless and on it’s own tells us absolutely nothing about our own personal salvation. I had this exact same discussion with a Calvinist about John 6. He insists that John 6 speaks of the elect and the unsaved period. Just like what you quote here sure there are elect and reprobates, however it never includes nor excludes the possibility of there being a group of people in the middle. The Bible makes it pretty clear that this middle group are the ones that need to endure to the end.

Thanks for the response

God Bles

 

[MT1926]

But, I am not doing this to spite anyone. I do this because I honestly believe that the CC has departed from the faith once handed down. I care. And, if I am wrong, where else should I be but a Catholic Answers Forum! (I don’t think I am wrong. I am hard headed like that! hahaha)

God Bless Brando. I for one am glad you are here. I think I can speak for many here when I say welcome and thank you for coming here. I for one don’t offend easily, ask me anything. I have no problem with you believing the CC has departed from the faith once handed down, because most of what you are saying is not new. We have heard it before, because it was handed down to you, just as it was handed down to others who came before you.

I don’t say this to be mean, I say it to let you know we understand where you are coming from. We hold nothing against you because it is not your fault that someone gave you half truths, like quoting only the beginning of the story about Jerome or what the Pope really meant when he used the phrase not canonical. You see every religion defines words to mean different things. Just look at our back and forth on the word infallible. Or how we define the 7 books as DC and you call them Apocryphal.

PS: I stopped using RCC because I didn’t want that to get in the way of conversation. I do still, in my head, think RCC, but that’s not for insulting. That’s for entirely different reasons.

See we are making headway already.

I just wanted to try to help you out a little more on the DC and get your (name removed by moderator)ut on this verse of scripture.

1 Corinthians 2:9 But, as it is written,

“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the heart of man conceived,
what God has prepared for those who love him,”

I’m pretty sure we both agreed that what is written in the Bible is the inspired “Word of God”. We just seem to argue over interpretation. However, the only interpretation needed here is the fist line:

But, as it is written.
I am 99.99999999999999% sure that we both agree when St. Paul says “as it is written”, just like Jesus, he is quoting from the inspired, inerrant, cannonized “Word of God” in the Old Testament. I am hoping you agree with this?

Now let us work through what is written in the next 3 quotations.

“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,

The first phrase is pretty close to a direct quote from:
Isaiah 64:4 From of old no one has heard
or perceived by the ear,
no eye has seen a God besides thee,
who works for those who wait for him.

nor the heart of man conceived,

In the second phrase when St. Paul says conceived (meaning take into the mind), he appears to be rephrasing the words from:
Jeremiah 3:16 And when you have multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, says the Lord, they shall no more say, “The ark of the covenant of the Lord.” It shall not come to mind, or be remembered, or missed; it shall not be made again.[a]

**
what God has prepared for those who love him,”**

Now here is the tough one. What the heck is St. Paul referencing here. How can it be written, if we search the Old Testament it’s not in there. That is until we search the deuterocanonical books in the Septuagint.

Sirach 1:1-10
In Praise of Wisdom
1 All wisdom comes from the Lord
and is with him for ever.
2 The sand of the sea, the drops of rain,
and the days of eternity—who can count them?
3 The height of heaven, the breadth of the earth,
the abyss, and wisdom—who can search them out?
4 Wisdom was created before all things,
and prudent understanding from eternity.[c]
6 The root of wisdom—to whom has it been revealed?
Her clever devices—who knows them?[d]
8 There is One who is wise, greatly to be feared,
sitting upon his throne.
9 The Lord himself created wisdom;[e]
he saw her and apportioned her,
he poured her out upon all his works.
10 She dwells with all flesh according to his gift,
and he supplied her to those who love him.

Both Sirach 1:1-10 and 1 Cor 2:6-9 are talking about God’s wisdom and the characteristic of this wisdom. According to Sirach 1:1-10 God’s **4 Wisdom was created before all things,***and he supplied her [wisdom] to those who love him. Also in 1 Cor 2:6-9 Paul was talking about a wisdom 7 which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. which God has prepared for those who love him,”

St. Paul brings these 3 “canonical” Old Testament verses together to stress that what God has long prepared in secret he has now made known to the world through the spirit.

There are many many verses in the NT that bring us to the conclusion that the inspired writers were using the Septuagint, that includes the DC. This is the most obvious one that I just learned. I wanted to share it with you. I hope it helps open you up to giving the DC a second look and not just dismissing it because it was handed down to you.

God Bless

 

[Lenten_ashes]

PS: I stopped using RCC because I didn’t want that to get in the way of conversation. I do still, in my head, think RCC, but that’s not for insulting. That’s for entirely different reasons.

That is appreciated.

Often times in conversations with non Catholics, I find that they do not feel as though they are protesting anything. So, therefore, find the protestant label as offensive. So I try to stick to “non-Catholics”, especially If I know there are persons or person reading/listening who may not appreciate the label.

 

[PRmerger]

PS: I stopped using RCC because I didn’t want that to get in the way of conversation. I do still, in my head, think RCC, but that’s not for insulting. That’s for entirely different reasons.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[LatinRight]

1. I don’t disagree with the reprobate part but, As a Catholic I don’t think that “this is the best answer I free to give” is Catholic teaching? When you specifically state “As a Catholic” you are saying to uninformed readers this is what the Church teaches, not this is my opinion of what the Church teaches. I just want to point out that as a Catholic you would not want to accidentally teach something that is not professed by the Church.
2. Agreed. But that is not what you said. “justification and sanctification is one event and cannot be separated”. If what you meant is initial that’s fine, it was just confusing to me and came across as a one and done.

God bless MT1926,

Thank you for your post.

1. I’m sorry about that. You are perfectly correct. It was my poor choice of words.
2. I realized you referring to my following statement what I have written one of my previous post.

“Just as justification and sanctification is one event and cannot be separated,** in the same way baptism into the Body of Christ and in the Body of Christ being built into God’s Holy Temple is one event and cannot be separated.”**

What I meant:

Justification and sanctification always goes together, cannot be separated, a person cannot have one without the other.

In the same way baptism into the Body of Christ and in the Body of Christ being built into God’s Holy Temple is one event and cannot be separated.

If a person is justified that person is automatically sanctified as well.

A short overview of our salvation:

At baptism (called initial justification) we are sanctified as well, this is an instant event.

If someone dies one second after his baptism he is going instantly to heaven in heavenly glory.

As far as the legal right for an elect to enter to heaven, is done with and over at baptism. – This is crucial to know to do supernatural work, because the works we do to achieve our salvation or to keep our salvation is NOT supernatural works (because we do it needlessly for our own interest), it is wood, hay and straw rejected by God at the judgment of our works. – 1 Cor.3:12-15.

Conditions MUST BE PRESENT to make SUPERNATURAL MERIT possible. – Please see my post on this thread. Post # 256.

If an elect lives 40 years after his baptism then comes a 40 years hard Christian works on his further justification and sanctification and many different kind of Christian works. – This is the time to do supernatural works freely out of love to the Glory of God.

If we do it to obtain our salvation or we do it to keep our salvation, we do it slavishly and needlessly for our own interest, this works are wood, hay and straw, rejected by God!!!

This works nothing to do with our legal right to enter heaven, our legal right to enter heaven is done and over at baptism.

This 40 or any years works nothing to do with our legal right to enter heaven, but everything to do with our supernatural merit.

God rewards our works if it is up to the standard of supernatural works.

For us to enter heaven is God’s free gift, our glory and position in heaven is determined by God according to our supernatural works.

I’m sorry MT1926 I have no time at this moment to answer the rest of your questions but in my next post I will answer them. – Of course you could ask further questions and I will answer them as well.

God bless.

LatinRight.

 

[MT1926]

God bless MT1926,

Thank you for your post.

1. I’m sorry about that. You are perfectly correct. It was my poor choice of words.
2. I realized you referring to my following statement what I have written one of my previous post.

“Just as justification and sanctification is one event and cannot be separated,** in the same way baptism into the Body of Christ and in the Body of Christ being built into God’s Holy Temple is one event and cannot be separated.”**

What I meant:

Justification and sanctification always goes together, cannot be separated, a person cannot have one without the other.

In the same way baptism into the Body of Christ and in the Body of Christ being built into God’s Holy Temple is one event and cannot be separated.

If a person is justified that person is automatically sanctified as well.

I follow what you are saying here. Thanks for clearing it up. When I read one event, my mind went straight to one and done. However, I see now you are speaking of initial justification and salvation. Sorry I jumped to a wrong conclusion.

A short overview of our salvation:

At baptism (called initial justification) we are sanctified as well, this is an instant event.

If someone dies one second after his baptism he is going instantly to heaven in heavenly glory.

As far as the legal right for an elect to enter to heaven, is done with and over at baptism. – This is crucial to know to do supernatural work, because the works we do to achieve our salvation or to keep our salvation is NOT supernatural works (because we do it needlessly for our own interest), it is wood, hay and straw rejected by God at the judgment of our works. – 1 Cor.3:12-15.

Conditions MUST BE PRESENT to make SUPERNATURAL MERIT possible. – Please see my post on this thread. Post # 256.

If an elect lives 40 years after his baptism then comes a 40 years hard Christian works on his further justification and sanctification and many different kind of Christian works. – This is the time to do supernatural works freely out of love to the Glory of God.

If we do it to obtain our salvation or we do it to keep our salvation, we do it slavishly and needlessly for our own interest, this works are wood, hay and straw, rejected by God!!!

I understand where you are going with this. I am just having troubles with your terminology. Could you maybe post some links to what you are quoting. The term “legal right” just doesn’t sound like the right term to me? But maybe I am just reading it out of context of the entire teaching. See when you say “legal right” my mind defines that as a legal guarantee. I know we are talking about the “elect” here but isn’t the fact that they are the elect the legal right regardless of whether they are baptized or not. If God wants to elect a non-baptized person that is his right. We are bound by the sacraments He is not. So in my mind baptism doesn’t make someone “elect” most likely they got baptized because they were among the elect. I hope I am not confusing you with my understanding, it’s just your statements are a little vague and seems to lean away from Catholic teaching.

This works nothing to do with our legal right to enter heaven, our legal right to enter heaven is done and over at baptism.

See this statement is why you leave me confused. Baptism doesn’t give us a “legal right” to enter heaven, that is unless we die right after baptism without sinning. Just the way you present it, it leaves me with the question, if a reprobate were Baptized why don’t they have a legal right then? When we are baptized we receive the free gift of God’s grace. Just don’t see how receiving a free gift gives us a “legal right” to a future heaven?

This 40 or any years works nothing to do with our legal right to enter heaven, but everything to do with our supernatural merit.

God rewards our works if it is up to the standard of supernatural works.

For us to enter heaven is God’s free gift, our glory and position in heaven is determined by God according to our supernatural works.

God bless.

LatinRight.

Sorry once again I don’t think I agree with this. Heaven is God’s free gift can once again leave uninformed Catholic confused. Grace is God’s free gift not heaven. If heaven were a free gift no one would be dammed, unless God is unjust and doesn’t invite everyone to the wedding feast. Now if you are baptized and die before you sin yep it’s a free gift. However, if you sin mortally you need to repent and if you have to repent you have to now do something which no longer makes heaven free.

I understand what you are saying about supernatural works determining our position in heaven. However, I disagree that works have nothing to do with our “legal right” to enter heaven. If we want to come to God, be saved and go to heaven we need to repent, have faith, and be baptized. All of these are good works. We have to repent an action, we have to be Baptized, sure I was a child but someone still had to do the work and we have to have faith. Not only is faith and action of the will but faith without works is dead. Sure no work will get us into heaven, but it is pretty clear that good works are necessary for attaining salvation. If God gave you a gift of a talent that could be used to help others and you selfishly keep that gift for yourself and don’t use that gift for the good of the world you are practicing a dead faith.

Here’s a good article by Jimmy Akin…“How to Go to Heaven”

catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/how-to-go-to-heaven

God Bless

 

[LatinRight]

God bless MT1926,

I agree, the legal guarantee may sound better, but both could mean the same thing, the question is the way we understand it.

When I speak about salvation, I always speak the salvation of the elect for to make it clear to understand.

You are correct, God baptizes the elect because they are elect.

Concerning salvation, my posts based on the following teachings of the Catholic Church.

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE? by James Akin

Quote: “In fact, in TRADITIONAL WORKS OF CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, one regularly encounters the statement that FORMED FAITH IS JUSTIFYING FAITH. If one has formed faith, one is justified. Period. End quote. Emphasis mine.

**Sola fide formata = (formed) FAITH ALONE
THE COMPOSITE OF GOD’S GIFT OF FAITH:

a. BELIEF (Unconditional BELIEF in what God says.)

b. HOPE (Unconditional TRUST in God.)

c. CHARITY (Unconditional LOVE for God.)**

HOW TO READ THE NEW TESTAMENT By Etienne Charpentier

Nihil obstate: Father Anton Cowan

Imprimatur: Monsignor John Crowley, VG Westminster, 28 May 1985

Quote: “There is ONE CENTRAL QUESTION here: how can we become RIGHTEOUS and be SAVED?

We NOT justified by what we do (works, observing law) but by FAITH IN CHRIST.

Salvation is NOT a matter of achieving but RECEIVING IT FREELY from God hands, in faith.” End quote. Emphasize mine.

JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church

3/17 Justification is SOLELY due to the forgiving and renewing mercy that God imparts as a gift and we RECEIVE IN FAITH, and NEVER CAN MERIT IT ANY WAY.

4/25 We confess together that sinners are justified by faith in the saving action of God in Christ. WHATEVER in the JUSTIFIED PRECEDES or FOLLOWS the free gift of faith is NEITHER THE BASIS of justification NOR MERITS it.

4/27.The Catholic understanding also sees faith as fundamental in justification. For without faith, no justification can take place. Thus justifying grace never becomes a human possession. While Catholic teaching emphasizes the renewal of life by justifying grace, this RENEVAL in FAITH, HOPE, LOVE is always dependent on God’s unfathomable grace and contributes NOTHING to JUSTIFICATION.

4/37 We confess together that good works - a Christian life lived in faith, hope and love - FOLLOW JUSTIFICATION and ARE ITS FRUITS. Emphasize mine.

JUSTIFICATION: “BY FAITH ALONE”? James Akin

Quote: On the subject of the kind of justification discussed in James 2:24, Trent quotes this verse only once and then applies it to progressive, not initial justification, so one does not have to do good works to get into a state of justification; good works are fruits of the state of justification, not causes for entering it.

The fact this passage does not refer to initial justification should be obvious since the justification of Abraham it refers to occurred years after Abraham was first justified by faith in Genesis 12, when By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go (Heb. 11:8).

Thus James 2:24 refers to later, progressive justification, by which one grows in righteousness, not initial justification, when ones sins are forgiven. End quote.

Church Watch 02/06/09

**Pope Benedict XVI: ‘Luther Was Right’ **

“Luther would have been amazed at the efforts of the Vatican today to put the Bible back into the heart of the Roman Catholic Church,” writes Jeff Fountain of Christian Today.

Fountain reports that during Pope Benedict XVI’s recent weekly public addresses in St. Peter’s Square, he quoted Martin Luther in declaring “Sola fide,” that salvation is by faith alone.

According to this report, Benedict affirmed that Luther had correctly translated Paul’s words as ‘justified by faith alone’ – the well known sola fide.

It was disagreement over the doctrine of salvation by faith that sparked the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, splitting Christianity in Western Europe. “Yet, said the Pope, it was indeed biblical to say, as did Luther, that it was the faith of a Christian, not his works that saved him.”

According to Fountain, the Pope highlighted the fact that prior to his Damascus Road conversion, Paul had strictly adhered to all the Pharisaical laws and rules. However, after meeting the Lord Jesus in his vision, Paul began leading a lifestyle of faith alone. End quote.

THE KEYS TO UNDERSTAND OUR SALVATION

As God’s elect, our irrevocable initial justification is God’s free gift.

We can contribute nothing to our salvation.

Whatever works we do after our baptism, it is the fruit of our initial justification not the cause it.

At the judgment of our works, even if God declares all our works, wood, hay and straw, and all our works are rejected by God, we still enter to heaven, of course without rewards. – 1 Cor.3:12-15.

God bless.

LatinRight

 

[LatinRight]

I understand what you are saying about supernatural works determining our position in heaven. However, I disagree that works have nothing to do with our “legal right” to enter heaven. If we want to come to God, be saved and go to heaven we need to repent, have faith, and be baptized. All of these are good works. We have to repent an action, we have to be Baptized, sure I was a child but someone still had to do the work and we have to have faith. Not only is faith and action of the will but faith without works is dead. Sure no work will get us into heaven, but it is pretty clear that good works are necessary for attaining salvation. If God gave you a gift of a talent that could be used to help others and you selfishly keep that gift for yourself and don’t use that gift for the good of the world you are practicing a dead faith.

God bless MT1926,

What I meant:

Salvation/heaven is God’s free gift for His elect.

Initial justification is God’s free gift, whatever we do after our baptism or initial justification, we cannot contribute it to our salvation.

We do everything out of love freely for the Glory of God.

God bless.

LatinRight.

 

[PRmerger]

At this time period we work on to improve our justification and sanctification and we do every kind of Christian works by co-operating with the grace of God.

Hi, Latin,

I think it should be noted that grace without free will is not truly grace and free will without grace is not truly free will.

 

[MT1926]

God bless MT1926,

I agree, the legal guarantee may sound better, but both could mean the same thing, the question is the way we understand it.

When I speak about salvation, I always speak the salvation of the elect for to make it clear to understand.

Thank you for the continued dialogue. I follow what you are saying with what you post, but I think the main problem we are having is what you say here. Maybe I am wrong on this, I don’t know. I also do not want to come off as argumentative or unkind. However, when you say:

“I always speak the salvation of the elect for to make it clear to understand”.

However, this statement makes me scratch my head. I guess my next question would be, in your own words (please don’t link any quotes from others) why do you think it makes it clear to understand?

The reason I ask this is because I have been a Catholic all my life, although not well catechized. However, for the past 2 years I have jumped in with both feet listening and reading about 4 to 5 hours a day. Until this debate I really haven’t heard a whole lot of talk about the “elect”. You are actually the first Catholic I have talked to that explains salvation from an elect point of view.

I made the mistake of asking more questions so you never responded to this link.

catholic.com/encyclopedia/predestination

It speaks of what you say about the book of life but goes onto say:

However, as intimated by the Bible, there exists a second, more voluminous book, in which are entered not only the names of the elect, but also the names of all the faithful on earth.

I think this statement, which is from catholic.com which I would assume is a reputable source, is what confuses me most with your posts. I understand there are elect and there are reprobates. However, we have absolutely no way of knowing if we are in one of these 2 groups. This statement however, speaks of another book that has everyone’s names in it. Now we know our names are definitely in this book and if it remains we will be saved. So in my mind when we talk about salvation wouldn’t it make more sense, and be more clear, to talk about it from the view point of a book we know our names are in and not from a book that might have our names in it or might not.

Like I said earlier I mean no disrespect, I just worry about some of the things you are pointing to might lead some away from the Catholic faith.

You quoted and emphasized a quote from Jimmy Akin, which comes across as we are Justified by faith alone. However, you did not link the article for me to read. I was able to find it though and read the entire article to understand what he means by the words FORMED faith. He states: jimmyakin.com/library/justification-by-faith-alone

Adding the word “formed” to clarify the nature of the faith in “sola fide” renders the doctrine completely acceptable to a Catholic.

The rest of the article speaks to why we as Catholics don’t use the term faith alone.

This leads me to why Catholics do not use the formula “faith alone.” Given the different usages of the term “faith” in the Bible, the early Church had to decide which meaning would be treated as normative. Would it be the Galatians 5 sense or the Romans 14/James 2 sense? The Church opted for the latter for several reasons:

He further expands what this formed faith is:

Thus the Catholic Church normally expresses the core essences of these virtues like this:

Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us . . . because he is truth itself. (CCC 1814)

Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit. (CCC 1817)

Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God. (CCC 1822)

Finally he puts it into an equation:

We may put the relationship between the two concepts as follows:

Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith + Catholic idea of hope + Catholic idea of charity

The three theological virtues of Catholic theology are thus summed up in the (good) Protestant’s idea of the virtue of faith. And the Protestant slogan “salvation by faith alone” becomes the Catholic slogan “salvation by faith, hope, and charity (alone).”

I mean no disrespect, but some of what you are passing on as Catholic teaching appears to be quotes that you are picking and choosing from articles that sound protestant and leaving out the parts that explain what these other quotes mean.

I am not trying to be unkind, I am just trying to point out what I hope others would, and have done in the past, for me. It would break my heart to find out something I misstated lead someone away from the faith.

God Bless

 

[LatinRight]

God bless MT1926,

You said:

I found it on this site in the Catholic Encyclopedia
catholic.com/encyclopedia/predestination

Quote: For easier understanding I put the quote into 6 groups.

1. St. Thomas, I, Q. xxiii, a. 8). It is in such practical considerations that the ascetical maxim (falsely ascribed to St. Augustine) originated: “Si non es praedestinatus, fac ut praedestineris”
   (if you are not predestined, so act that you may be predestined).
2. Strict theology, it is true, cannot approve this bold saying, except in so far as the original decree of predestination is conceived as at first a hypothetical decree, which is afterwards changed to an absolute and irrevocable decree by the prayers, good works, and perseverance of him who is predestined, according to the words of the Apostle (II Pet., i, 10): “Wherefore, brethren, labor the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election.”
3. God’s unerring foreknowledge and foreordaining is designated in the Bible by the beautiful figure of the “Book of Life” (liber vitae, Greek: to biblion tes zoes). This book of life is a list which contains the names of all the elect and admits neither additions nor erasures.
4. From the Old Testament (cf. Ex., xxxii, 32; Ps. lxviii, 29) this symbol was taken over into the New by Christ and His Apostle Paul (cf. Luke, x, 20; Heb., xii, 23), and enlarged upon by the Evangelist John in his Apocalypse [cf. Apoc., xxi, 27: “There shall not enter into it anything defiled. but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb” (cf. Apoc., xiii, 8; xx, 15)].
5. The correct explanation of this symbolic book is given by St. Augustine (De civ. Dei, XX, xiii): “Praescientia Dei, quae non potest falli, liber vitae est”
   (the foreknowledge of God, which cannot err, is the book of life).
6. However, as intimated by the Bible, there exists a second, more voluminous book, in which are entered not only the names of the elect, but also the names of all the faithful on earth. Such a metaphorical book is supposed wherever the possibility is hinted at that a name, though entered, might again be stricken out [cf. Apoc., iii, 5: “and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life” (cf. Ex., xxxii, 33)]. The name will be mercilessly cancelled when a Christian sinks into infidelity or godlessness and dies in his sin. End quote.

If someone has a reasonable theological knowledge would be easy to understand the way as it written above.

But for those who don’t have much prier theological learning, not very easy to understand.

So I rearrange it for you MT1926, the way can be understand easily.

In first the step as it is follow, I separate the essentials from the filling material for make the essentials easier to understand.

1. St. Thomas, I, Q. xxiii, a. 8). It is in such practical considerations that the ascetical maxim (falsely ascribed to St. Augustine) originated: “Si non es praedestinatus, fac ut praedestineris”
   (if you are not predestined, so act that you may be predestined).
2. Strict theology, it is true, cannot approve this bold saying, except in so far as the original decree of predestination is conceived as at first a hypothetical decree, which is afterwards changed to an absolute and irrevocable decree.
3. God’s unerring foreknowledge and foreordaining is designated in the Bible by the beautiful figure of the “Book of Life” (liber vitae, Greek: to biblion tes zoes). This book of life is a list which contains the names of all the elect and admits neither additions nor erasures.
4. Filling material taken out.
5. The correct explanation of this symbolic book is given by St. Augustine (De civ. Dei, XX, xiii): “Praescientia Dei, quae non potest falli, liber vitae est”
   (the foreknowledge of God, which cannot err, is the book of life).
6. However, as intimated by the Bible, there exists a second, more voluminous book, in which are entered not only the names of the elect, but also the names of all the faithful on earth.
   Such a metaphorical book is supposed wherever the possibility is hinted at that a name, though entered, might again be stricken out [cf. Apoc., iii, 5: “and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life” (cf. Ex., xxxii, 33)]. The name will be mercilessly cancelled when a Christian sinks into infidelity or godlessness and dies in his sin.

Continue

 

[LatinRight]

continuation

Now in the second step, I put the article together in the way for easy to understand even for those who newer leaned theology.

I. 3. God’s unerring foreknowledge and foreordaining is designated in the Bible by the beautiful figure of the “Book of Life” (liber vitae, Greek: to biblion tes zoes). This book of life is a list which contains the names of all the elect and admits neither additions nor erasures.

II. 5. The correct explanation of this symbolic book is given by St. Augustine (De civ. Dei, XX, xiii): “Praescientia Dei, quae non potest falli, liber vitae est”
(the foreknowledge of God, which cannot err, is the book of life).

III. 1 & 6. St. Thomas, I, Q. xxiii, a. 8). It is in such practical considerations that the ascetical maxim (falsely ascribed to St. Augustine) originated: “Si non es praedestinatus, fac ut praedestineris”
(if you are not predestined, so act that you may be predestined).

However, as intimated by the Bible, there exists a second, more voluminous book, in which are entered not only the names of the elect, but also the names of all the faithful on earth. Such a metaphorical book is supposed wherever the possibility is hinted at that a name, though entered, might again be stricken out [cf. Apoc., iii, 5: “and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life” (cf. Ex., xxxii, 33)]. The name will be mercilessly cancelled when a Christian sinks into infidelity or godlessness and dies in his sin.

[Please keep in mind MT1926, (Rev.3:5; Ex.32:33) written in our “chronological order” but the Book of Life is written in God’s “chronological order.”] – If we overlook this fact causes confusions for us.

The key to understand the article (in particular the second, more voluminous book) as follows:

IV. 2. Strict theology, it is true, cannot approve this bold saying.

Except in so far as the original decree of predestination is conceived as at first a hypothetical decree.

Which is afterwards changed to an absolute and irrevocable decree.

THEOLOGICAL FACTS

There is no HYPOTHETICAL DECREE of predestination exists in Catholic theology and as the results, there is no second more voluminous book exists.

There is only ONE ABSOLUTE DECREE of predestination exists in Catholic theology.

Even if would exists a HYPOTHETICAL DECREE of predestination, that couldn’t make any practical differences, because could not change the names and the numbers of the elect, neither could change the names and the numbers of the reprobates. – Practically would be a meaningless book.

There is only ONE ABSOLUTE DECREE of predestination exists in Catholic theology and only ONE BOOK OF LIFE as follows.

**The Catholic Church affirms predestination as a *DE FIDE *Dogma (the highest level of binding theological certainty).

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

THE CATHOLIC DOGMA. – The predestination of the elect**

Consequently, the whole future membership of heaven, down to its minutest details, has

been IRREVOCABLY FIXED FROM ALL ETERNITY. Nor could it be otherwise. For if it

were possible that a predestined individual should after all be CAST INTO HELL or that

one not predestined should in the end REACH HEAVEN, then God would have been

MISTAKEN in his foreknowledge of future events; He would NO LONGER be omniscient.

God’s unerring foreknowledge and foreordaining is designated in the Bible by the beautiful

figure of the “Book of Life” (liber vitæ, to biblion tes zoes). This book of life is a list which

contains the names of ALL THE ELECT and admits NEITHER ADDITIONS NO ERASURES.

(2) The second quality of predestination, the DEFINITENESS of the number of the elect,

follows NATURALLY from the first. For if the eternal counsel of God regarding the

predestined is UNCHANGEABLE, then the number of the predestined must likewise be

UNCHANGEABLE and DEFINITE, subject NEITHER to ADDITIONS nor to

CANCELLATIONS. Anything indefinite in the number would eo ipso imply a lack of

certitude in God’s knowledge and would DESTROY His omniscience. End quote. Emphasis added.

God bless.

LatinRight

 

[LatinRight]

God bless MT1926

Here is the rearranged article for you for easy understanding.

God’s unerring foreknowledge and foreordaining is designated in the Bible by the beautiful figure of the “Book of Life” (liber vitae, Greek: to biblion tes zoes). This book of life is a list which contains the names of all the elect and admits neither additions nor erasures.
The correct explanation of this symbolic book is given by St. Augustine (De civ. Dei, XX, xiii): “Praescientia Dei, quae non potest falli, liber vitae est” (the foreknowledge of God, which cannot err, is the book of life).

St. Thomas, I, Q. xxiii, a. 8). It is in such practical considerations that the ascetical maxim (falsely ascribed to St. Augustine) originated: “Si non es praedestinatus, fac ut praedestineris”
(if you are not predestined, so act that you may be predestined).

However, as intimated by the Bible, there exists a second, more voluminous book, in which are entered not only the names of the elect, but also the names of all the faithful on earth. Such a metaphorical book is supposed wherever the possibility is hinted at that a name, though entered, might again be stricken out [cf. Apoc., iii, 5: “and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life” (cf. Ex., xxxii, 33)]. The name will be mercilessly cancelled when a Christian sinks into infidelity or godlessness and dies in his sin.

Strict theology, it is true, cannot approve this bold saying.
Except in so far as the original decree of predestination is conceived as at first a hypothetical decree.
Which is afterwards changed to an absolute and irrevocable decree.

As you see MT1926 above is the conditions of the existence of the second bigger book, but there are no such conditions exists in Catholic theology.

God bless.

LatinRight.

 

[LatinRight]

Hi, Latin,

I think it should be noted that grace without free will is not truly grace and free will without grace is not truly free will.

God bless PRmerger,

Thanks you for your post.

That is a very wise statement and in fact very true.

When I read your statement, at once the conditions of supernatural merit came into my mind.

To do supernatural merit which God’s rewards, we need God’s grace and free will.

Meaning: Freely decide to work, without the fear of hell.

If we decide to work because of the fear of hell, that work is wood, hay and straw, rejected by God.

God bless.

LatinRight

 

[PRmerger]

God bless PRmerger,

Thanks you for your post.

That is a very wise statement and in fact very true.

When I read your statement, at once the conditions of supernatural merit came into my mind.

To do supernatural merit which God’s rewards, we need God’s grace and free will.

Meaning: Freely decide to work, without the fear of hell.

**If we decide to work because of the fear of hell, that work is wood, hay and straw, rejected by God.
**

God bless.

LatinRight

Now, this ^^ in bold, I don’t agree with.

The Church has never made such a statement.

True, it’s not the highest virtue, to work because of the fear of hell, but works done for this reason are not “rejected by God.”

 

[LatinRight]

Hi, Latin,

I think it should be noted that grace without free will is not truly grace and free will without grace is not truly free will.

God bless PRmerger,

Thanks you for your post.

That is a very wise statement and in fact very true.

When I read your statement, at once the conditions of supernatural merit came into my mind.

To do supernatural merit which God’s rewards, we need God’s grace and free will.

Meaning: Freely decide to work, without the fear of hell.

If we decide to work because of the fear of hell, that work is wood, hay and straw, rejected by God.

If we not set free to love freely, we cannot love.

If we not set free to freely decide to work, we cannot do supernatural work/merit.

We cannot please God with the work we MUST do, because we cannot do it FREELY,

WITHOUT any EXTERNAL COERCION or INTERNAL NECESSITY. **– The work we

MUST do is NOT supernatural work!!!**

MUST always kills our supernatural works/good works.

God bless.

LatinRight

 

[LatinRight]

Now, this ^^ in bold, I don’t agree with.

The Church has never made such a statement.

True, it’s not the highest virtue, to work because of the fear of hell, but works done for this reason are not “rejected by God.”

God bless PRmerger,

According to the teaching of the Catholic Church:

**CONDITIONS THAT OUR WORKS (OUR DEEDS) COUNT FOR ANYTHING

Conditions MUST BE PRESENT to make SUPERNATURAL MERIT possible.**

The meritorious work must be morally good, that is, in accordance with the moral law in its

object, intent, and circumstances.

It MUST be done FREELY, WITHOUT any EXTERNAL COERCION or INTERNAL NECESSITY.

It MUST be SUPERNATURAL, that is, AROUSED and ACCOMPANIED by ACTUAL

GRACE, and proceeding from a SUPERNATURAL motive.

Strictly speaking only a person in the STATE OF GRACE can merit, as defined by the

Church (Denzinger 1576, 1582).

JUSTIFICATION IN CATHOLIC TEACHING by Jimmy Akin

Quote: “The essence of supernatural love is unselfishness—doing something NOT

BECAUSE IT WILL HELP US SOMEHOW, but because we want to do it out of SHEER

LOVE for the other person, whether that person is God or one of our fellow human beings

out of the love of God.

This is THE ONLY KIND of love that ultimately pleases God and therefore the ONLY

KIND that ultimately gets us a reward IN heaven.” End quote. Emphasize mine.

If we not set free to love freely, we cannot love.

If we not set free to freely decide to work, we cannot do supernatural work/merit.

We cannot please God with the work we MUST do, because we cannot do it FREELY,

WITHOUT any EXTERNAL COERCION or INTERNAL NECESSITY. **– The work we

MUST do is NOT supernatural work!!!**

MUST always kills our supernatural works/good works.

God bless.

LatinRight

 

[PRmerger]

God bless PRmerger,

According to the teaching of the Catholic Church:

**CONDITIONS THAT OUR WORKS (OUR DEEDS) COUNT FOR ANYTHING

Conditions MUST BE PRESENT to make SUPERNATURAL MERIT possible.**

The meritorious work must be morally good, that is, in accordance with the moral law in its

object, intent, and circumstances.

It MUST be done FREELY, WITHOUT any EXTERNAL COERCION or INTERNAL NECESSITY.

It MUST be SUPERNATURAL, that is, AROUSED and ACCOMPANIED by ACTUAL

GRACE, and proceeding from a SUPERNATURAL motive.

Strictly speaking only a person in the STATE OF GRACE can merit, as defined by the

Church (Denzinger 1576, 1582).

JUSTIFICATION IN CATHOLIC TEACHING by Jimmy Akin

Quote: “The essence of supernatural love is unselfishness—doing something NOT

BECAUSE IT WILL HELP US SOMEHOW, but because we want to do it out of SHEER

LOVE for the other person, whether that person is God or one of our fellow human beings

out of the love of God.

This is THE ONLY KIND of love that ultimately pleases God and therefore the ONLY

KIND that ultimately gets us a reward IN heaven.”

End quote. Emphasize mine.

If we not set free to love freely, we cannot love.

If we not set free to freely decide to work, we cannot do supernatural work/merit.

We cannot please God with the work we MUST do, because we cannot do it FREELY,

WITHOUT any EXTERNAL COERCION or INTERNAL NECESSITY. **– The work we

MUST do is NOT supernatural work!!!**

MUST always kills our supernatural works/good works.

God bless.

LatinRight

Amen! Very Catholic, this ^^

 

[MT1926]

God bless MT1926

The correct explanation of this symbolic book is given by St. Augustine (De civ. Dei, XX, xiii): “Praescientia Dei, quae non potest falli, liber vitae est” (the foreknowledge of God, which cannot err, is the book of life).

God bless.

LatinRight.

Latin,

Thanks for taking the time to post the wealth of information. You are still kind of talking over my head. I think that is the main point we can get from this debate. From the standpoint of the believer, who is not fully submersed in theology, what is the sense of speaking of salvation from the elect point of view, as Dr. White does? It’s like trying to explain calculus to someone who has yet to take basic algebra.

When we speak in such deep theological terms just spouting facts without explanations, as Dr. White does, it comes down to this is how it is, you just need to believe it. Like he said in the debate the average person can not understand the book of Hebrews so they just need to believe what I am telling them. Huh?? Why?? That would be my response.

That is basically what I hear when salvation is talked about from the point of view of the elect. Since it is impossible to prove who these elect are, why would one believe that these elect even exist? I would be like Huh?? Why do I care that the elect are saved if I have know way of knowing if I am among the elect? How about we talk about how the average Christian is saved?

The statement quoted above I do understand and pretty much sums it up for me. It all comes down to God’s foreknowledge. God has foreseen how we will live our lives and this is why our names are or are not written. However, he foresees our works good or bad and they do play a role in our salvation. Not just our status in heaven.

I think the part that no one is bringing up in this debate is when Dr. White speaks of salvation he is technically speaking from God’s point of view (which is the Book of Life), he already knows the end therefore “NO” a Christian can not lose there salvation because God already knows the end of the race. However, from man’s point of view (the second book), which is the way I believe we, being man, should approach this subject. We do not know the end of the race, so “YES” from our point of view a Christian can lose their salvation. Unless we endure to the end we will not know the end of the race.

Strict theology, it is true, cannot approve this bold saying.
Except in so far as the original decree of predestination is conceived as at first a hypothetical decree.
Which is afterwards changed to an absolute and irrevocable decree.

Please excuse my stupidity but I have no idea what this quote is referring to.

God Bless