F
fhansen
Guest
No, its not -as far as i know. Tasted may be a part of the process of drawing us to Him, however.
Last edited:
- Status
F
fhansen
Guest
Is His death insufficient for non-believers? Anyway, for those who believe and follow, Christs death reconciles and unites man back with God, which is the right and just order of things for us to begin with. From there we do our part-because God wants that for us-it’s not so hard to understand-and this is simply a matter of His sovereign will based on His perfect wisdom. Scripture is replete with passages that make this clear. And the Parable of the Talents describes the dynamics of this quite well. We’re to do the best we can with whatever gifts we’re given: time, opportunity, experience, revelation/knowledge, and grace, with more expected from those given more-Luke 12:48.
Last edited:
F
fhansen
Guest
Well, if no sinners enter heaven-which makes too much sense-then we should be extremely grateful for the wisdom and mercy behind such a “place”-or state.
Last edited:
P
PSUCath
Guest
Thank you for directing me to this tract!
Last edited:
I
Ilija
Guest
Then you should seriously not argue with them about 1. Kor 1:8, but instead focus on apostolic succession.
It’s like saying I believe cars exist but I don’t think machines exist, then obviously you start arguing machines first, and IF that fails there is no point to argue 1 Kor 1:8, end of story.
Mat 10:14
Recall that mission of our Lord Jesus was to proclaim gospel to it’s “sheep” not to argue with those who reject him in an attempt to convert them by any means possible.
Same way our mission is to proclaim gospel to those who never met Jesus, not to argue with them just because we know the letters or because we want to end up being smart over someone.
John 10:27
My advice to you is to show them verses which clearly state that discipleship is inherited, if they refuse those by rejecting scriptures, then there is nothing to discuss further since your tool (the bible) is worthless to them.
I’m not really sure what the problem here is.
Catholicism does not reject the perseverance of saints.
Catholicism accepts predestination, and holds that the number of the predestined is fixed. This means that if one is of the elect, he will be saved. That is a clear indication that Catholicism teaches perseverance of the saints. We in fact can use this verse to support the teaching, not refute it.
Of course the difference is that Catholicism teaches that this plan of predestination accounts for man’s free will and his free choices, and the Church stops short at trying to define how exactly that is the case. Only that it is so.
So if you’re trying to refute perseverance of the saints in the name of Catholicism, you’re not taking the theologically correct position. We in fact share a lot of things in common with Calvinism on this question.
However, if one’s arguing this verse to refute free will, then no. This verse is about grace. To exclude free will on this verse alone is an example of the non sequitur fallacy. Free will is not mentioned here, true, but it is mentioned or alluded to elsewhere. This verse does not teach against free will, but it does teach efficacious and sufficient grace.
Catholicism does not reject the perseverance of saints.
Catholicism accepts predestination, and holds that the number of the predestined is fixed. This means that if one is of the elect, he will be saved. That is a clear indication that Catholicism teaches perseverance of the saints. We in fact can use this verse to support the teaching, not refute it.
Of course the difference is that Catholicism teaches that this plan of predestination accounts for man’s free will and his free choices, and the Church stops short at trying to define how exactly that is the case. Only that it is so.
So if you’re trying to refute perseverance of the saints in the name of Catholicism, you’re not taking the theologically correct position. We in fact share a lot of things in common with Calvinism on this question.
However, if one’s arguing this verse to refute free will, then no. This verse is about grace. To exclude free will on this verse alone is an example of the non sequitur fallacy. Free will is not mentioned here, true, but it is mentioned or alluded to elsewhere. This verse does not teach against free will, but it does teach efficacious and sufficient grace.
Last edited:
F
fhansen
Guest
One of the problems is that many wish to insist that they have complete assurance of their own salvation-that they, specifically, are numbered among the elect-and that all believers should have this. In Catholicism such confidence borders on rash arrogance-unless for special private revelation. Otherwise, yes, the Church agrees that the elect are a fixed and known number, known by God. None of us can predict our own perseverance IOW so it’s somewhat of an academic point that the elect, are, well, the elect.
Last edited:
This is correct. Catholicism teaches that the number of the predestined is unknown. And further, that no one is assured with the certainty of faith of one’s own predestination, even though certain signs can be recognized as strong indicators.porthos11:
One of the problems is that many wish to insist that they have complete assurance of their own salvation-that they, specifically, are numbered among the elect-and that all believers should have this. In Catholicism such confidence borders on rash arrogance-unless for special private revelation. Otherwise, yes, the Church agrees that the elect are a fixed and known number, known by God. None of us can predict our own perseverance IOW so it’s somewhat of an academic point that the elect, are, well, the elect.
An issue with Catholics is that a lot of us, likely out of an overreaction to Calvinism, swing right to the other extreme of the pendulum and reject predestination and perseverance altogether. That is not an option. Predestination is Catholic, and moreover, it is “de fide”.
P
PSUCath
Guest
Thank you very much for this, because the more I read, the more I see that I don’t even fully understand my own position as a Catholic. One of the things I am most confused about is the concept of the “elect.” I watched Trent Horn’s 2017 debate against James White on YouTube and, while I think Pastor White gets a lot of things wrong about Christianity, I was just as confused as him on Mr. Horn’s explanation of the elect.
Here is what I know: God gives sufficient grace to all that they might be able to understand his truth and accept him. Because He is outside of time, therefore he knows who will freely choose to accept this grace, and thus accept him. Those who he knows will accept this grace are given more grace in order to persevere to the end and achieve final salvation.
This is where I get confused. Firstly, is the group of people that he gives the grace of perseverance to “the elect?” Secondly, I previously thought Catholicism teaches that we are at all times capable of rejecting God’s grace. Therefore, I can be saved once by accepting God’s initial grace of salvation, but forsake my salvation later on if I reject God’s gift of perseverance in favor of sin.
But this verse in 1 Corinthians 1:8 would seem to suggest that I am unable to do that because God “will keep you firm to the end.” It would seem that St. Paul is claiming that God does not allow me to exercise free will and commit personal apostasy, arguing in favor of a system where I cannot truly leave the faith because God will not allow me to do so. This seems to draw a parallel with Jeremiah 32:40 in the OT. God was saving the Israelites from the Babylonians, and in doing so he did not allow the Israelites to reject him:
So my question would be this: are there people who cannot turn away from God? Have these people lost their free will?
Please correct where I am not understanding this concept, and thank you for your help!
Last edited:
The answer to a lot of this depends on the answer to this question: Are you a Thomist or a Molinist?
Catholicism is content to affirm a set of truths and lay out a framework within which we can play and even have varying, or even contradicting opinions but all within orthodox thought, without going into a binding definition. Predestination is one of those areas. It’s like the Church lays out a perimeter. Whatever remains within is fine. Whatever falls outside is heresy. These are the truths that must be affirmed by all.
The two proposals are completely different and incompatible with each other, but the Church has ruled that they fit the framework and are acceptable to hold.
Calvinism is rejected because it proposes an unconditioned reprobation to hell without consideration of man’s free actions, and of course, the denial of free will. Neither Thomism nor Molinism explicitly confess that error.
Catholicism is content to affirm a set of truths and lay out a framework within which we can play and even have varying, or even contradicting opinions but all within orthodox thought, without going into a binding definition. Predestination is one of those areas. It’s like the Church lays out a perimeter. Whatever remains within is fine. Whatever falls outside is heresy. These are the truths that must be affirmed by all.
- God desires the salvation of all. 2 Peter 3:9. 1 Timothy 2:4.
- God gives sufficient grace as a consequence of #1 such that all men can attain salvation.
- Man has the free capacity to cooperate with grace or reject it.
- God, by an eternal resolve of his will, elects some people to eternal blessedness.
- God, on account of demerits he foresees, reprobates some people to hell.
The two proposals are completely different and incompatible with each other, but the Church has ruled that they fit the framework and are acceptable to hold.
Calvinism is rejected because it proposes an unconditioned reprobation to hell without consideration of man’s free actions, and of course, the denial of free will. Neither Thomism nor Molinism explicitly confess that error.
Last edited:
F
fhansen
Guest
If I may I think it’s interesting that the Church places the word “predestination” in parentheses in the following teaching from the catechism:
600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: “In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.
The basic understanding as I see it is that the Church refuses to accept strict determinism, and, in her teachings on human nature and man’s relationship with God in general, the will is never taken completely out of the equation. We can’t possibly be saved without God, and yet we can still refuse to be saved. And according to Ott, efficacious grace is still resistible, a de fide doctrine according to him.
600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: “In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.
The basic understanding as I see it is that the Church refuses to accept strict determinism, and, in her teachings on human nature and man’s relationship with God in general, the will is never taken completely out of the equation. We can’t possibly be saved without God, and yet we can still refuse to be saved. And according to Ott, efficacious grace is still resistible, a de fide doctrine according to him.
Last edited:
I
Ilija
Guest
Obviously if you put “predestination” out of quotes then there is no free will.
How could the Church be sure you’re predestined to either good or bad works?
That someone is predestined to heavens or hell?
It clearly must be quoted, otherwise the Church would be judging us instead of pointing out the free will on which predestination depends.
EDIT:
Clearly these 2 have already made their plan to kill Jesus with the support of Israelite horde.
and in this second quote the term “predestination” is NOT quoted as you can see!
It’s a huge difference.
Last edited:
F
fhansen
Guest
The Church only knows that God knows, and that our choices have something to do with it, i.e. not strict determinism, at least not in regards to personal salvation. God may well determine events that impact His plan of salvation for humankind, without predetermining that this person will do good or that one will do bad. He can use our foreknown good and bad choices as a framework within which to work out His plans. His predestined plan was that Jesus would suffer and die a sacrificial death, then using the choices of the players in this drama to work it out.
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
Col 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church
God desires to make us perfect, and for our cooperation in that, and our offering up ourselves with Christ, without whom it would be impossible for us.
This accusation of making Jesus Christ insufficient, where do you draw the line? If anything you do matters, is Christ insufficient? If people still suffer in this life even after becoming Christian, is Christ insufficient? If God does not offer universal salvation to all, is Christ insufficient? No, of course not, Calvinists just draw the line at monergism.
Last edited:
F
fhansen
Guest
Right, whoever they are. I think the main point is that a said, self-assessed faith, may mean very little. Again, Scripture tells us that many who think they’re saved, won’t end up that way.
F
fhansen
Guest
It’s through faith, via faith, on the basis of faith (Phil 3:9). With a real righteousness or justice received (Phil 3:9 again), and a real righteousness that we’re expected to exercise and express. That righteousness comes by communion with God, as we come to know, and then believe in Him as this faith establishes the relationship with God that man was made for at the beginning. “Knowledge of God” was lost at the Fall; Jesus came to rectify that situation when the time was ripe in human history for this knowledge; He came to reveal the true “face” of God as we’re ready to receive it:
"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." John 17:3
The more we know God the more we love Him; it cannot be helped, and therefore the more fully is the Greatest Commandment fulfilled in us. And that intimate knowledge, that relationship and the love which is its natural offspring, is the essence of man’s justice/righteousness. Not faith, alone, which is why Paul could say in 1 Cor 13:
"…if I have a faith that can move mountains but have not love, I am nothing."
and Augustine would say later:
"Without love faith may indeed exist, but avails nothing."
And, again, this is also why the Church can rightly teach:
"At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."
Last edited:
J
Justin_Mary
Guest
I understand what you are saying, but we can’t let ourselves get caught up in that trap, refuting proof texting with proof texting.
Instead we should present them with the truth, as historically documented & appeal to their faith by way of reason. Instead of trading chapters & verse we need to somehow (I don’t know how) steer the conversation to right understanding.
T
Tommy999
Guest
Most Protestants (me included) put a high value on Scripture as the primary basis of doctrine because there is no official Protestant magisterium like there is with Catholicism.
Perhaps you could say that each Protestant denomination’s leadership is their own magisterium, so to speak.
However, I am open to reason and am impressed, receptive, and grateful when knowledgeable Catholics rationally point out the background and context of different scripture passages to ensure they are understood in proper context, like some have been doing on this thread with Benny.
Unfortunately, when a Catholic says, “such-and-such doctrine is true because the Church says so”, that may be a sufficient reason for Catholics but not for most Protestants, to whom it sounds like a parent saying “because I said so”.in response to a child’s honest question.
Perhaps you could say that each Protestant denomination’s leadership is their own magisterium, so to speak.
However, I am open to reason and am impressed, receptive, and grateful when knowledgeable Catholics rationally point out the background and context of different scripture passages to ensure they are understood in proper context, like some have been doing on this thread with Benny.
Unfortunately, when a Catholic says, “such-and-such doctrine is true because the Church says so”, that may be a sufficient reason for Catholics but not for most Protestants, to whom it sounds like a parent saying “because I said so”.in response to a child’s honest question.
Last edited:
F
fhansen
Guest
Thank you. I used to feel the same way but now I view the Church’s authority as a cherished gift. With Scripture alone each person, really, necessarily becomes their own infallible magisterium, wielding the same kind of authority for all practical purposes-and often with contradictory views when compared to their neighboring Sola Scriptura-led magisterium. From a logical viewpoint alone, however, it makes much more sense that God would’ve designated a single entity for that purpose, of interpreting revelation, a place where He guides and where the buck stops. A place that actually has a continuous historical legacy dating to the beginning. A place where reading and exegesis aren’t the only resources but also a lived experience, having received the gospel first hand.
And this is why the eastern and western ancient churches, despite centuries of virtual isolation, diverge so little from each other on the basics such as, for examples, justification, the liturgy, doctrines on Baptism, the Real Presence, the sacraments, etc.
Last edited:
J
Justin_Mary
Guest
Understood. But if the parent says it out of love it should suffice.
Sometimes it’s just easier to say “because I said so” until the chil understands the basics.
- Status