I
IamDust
Guest
Can someone give a little blurb about Proverbs 16:9 within context and how it pertains to free will and or predestination? Thank you!
- Status
R
Robbinson
Guest
"A man’s mind plans his way, but the LORD directs his steps."
Its a great mystery (this concept of predesination and free will). Scripture tells us that God’s ways are higher than our ways and we can’t fully understand.
We have free will in that we certainly make our own choices - but God is ultimately sovereign and nothing happens contrary to his will and he knows what we will do. While God does not cause us to do evil (we choose to do it), God nevertheless uses even evil actions for the good of those who love Him (scripture tells us this too). It is a difficult concept to get our hands around (our free will and yet full soverignty of God).
I am writing this email - but God is not directing me to do it (literally)- but He is watching me. He clearly has a purpose for my life, but he doesnt control me (though He could) - He doesn’t make me love Him (though He could, that would not be love), He urges me to “choose life” to repent (but that choice would be meaningless and and petition to repent would be meaningless if He makes some do it and makes some not do it).
Yet, on another level, God is directing me here - how? through the love He has put in my heart when he created me as a new creature in Christ. In that way, He is directing, or guiding, my steps.
Blessings,
Brian
S
St_Gregory
Guest
Are you guys Thomists or Molinists?
I used to very stanch Thomist but then my priest would keep saying “no Catholics don’t really believe in predestination any more, we believe simply in prescience” so I sort of backed away.
On later reflection I think he is simply quite under-educated in the complexities of Catholic doctrine because Thomism (in terms of Predestination) is fine…
As a note on Catholic Predestination:
Thomism emphasizes Grace, God does things knowing how we react to them, so in that sense He sets our destiny while still allowing our freewill.
Molinism emphasizes Freewill, God does not interfere with our spiritual decisions but mealy knows of them.
Anyway now I’m sort of unsure either way: Does God cause or direct, albeit passively or indirectly, someone to accept Him, at heart and mind (ordinarily), as lord by acting in certain ways which would cause effects which He knows we will respond do in a certain way but still with Freewill? (what do we really mean by “freewill” then?)… or does God mealy offer the calling of Himself to all men but not interfere, at all, in their decisions to love/hate Him while seeing all time/space at once? (is it even possible for God to not even slightly affect one’s decision? - or is it possible that God’s Divine plan could have ever failed since His plan is affected by us, such as Judas for example?)
I used to very stanch Thomist but then my priest would keep saying “no Catholics don’t really believe in predestination any more, we believe simply in prescience” so I sort of backed away.
On later reflection I think he is simply quite under-educated in the complexities of Catholic doctrine because Thomism (in terms of Predestination) is fine…
As a note on Catholic Predestination:
Thomism emphasizes Grace, God does things knowing how we react to them, so in that sense He sets our destiny while still allowing our freewill.
Molinism emphasizes Freewill, God does not interfere with our spiritual decisions but mealy knows of them.
Anyway now I’m sort of unsure either way: Does God cause or direct, albeit passively or indirectly, someone to accept Him, at heart and mind (ordinarily), as lord by acting in certain ways which would cause effects which He knows we will respond do in a certain way but still with Freewill? (what do we really mean by “freewill” then?)… or does God mealy offer the calling of Himself to all men but not interfere, at all, in their decisions to love/hate Him while seeing all time/space at once? (is it even possible for God to not even slightly affect one’s decision? - or is it possible that God’s Divine plan could have ever failed since His plan is affected by us, such as Judas for example?)
F
fhansen
Guest
How about this:
God’s plans don’t fail-His will will be done-so any evil, whether it be the fall of angels or man or any events thereafter, have occurred because He allows it. Our wills are quite radically free but still less free than His relatively speaking and, in any case, we’re free enough to be accountable for our actions. God won’t force us to do anything but He does work on our wills because they’re the problem-He wants them to be one with His perfect will. But He won’t force the issue so concepts such as a potter molding clay, man being drawn by God, or “We love Him because He first loved us”, are seen in scripture. But this is a process that we can cooperate with -or not.
God’s plans don’t fail-His will will be done-so any evil, whether it be the fall of angels or man or any events thereafter, have occurred because He allows it. Our wills are quite radically free but still less free than His relatively speaking and, in any case, we’re free enough to be accountable for our actions. God won’t force us to do anything but He does work on our wills because they’re the problem-He wants them to be one with His perfect will. But He won’t force the issue so concepts such as a potter molding clay, man being drawn by God, or “We love Him because He first loved us”, are seen in scripture. But this is a process that we can cooperate with -or not.
R
Robbinson
Guest
I agree - Chapters 306-308 of the CCC address this:
**306 God is the sovereign master of his plan. But to carry it out he also makes use of his creatures’ co-operation. This use is not a sign of weakness, but rather a token of almighty God’s greatness and goodness. For God grants his creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles for each other, and thus of co-operating in the accomplishment of his plan.
307 To human beings God even gives the power of freely sharing in his providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of “subduing” the earth and having dominion over it. God thus enables men to be intelligent and free causes in order to complete the work of creation, to perfect its harmony for their own good and that of their neighbors. Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their prayers and their sufferings. They then fully become “God’s fellow workers” and co-workers for his kingdom.
308 The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator. God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes: “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it. Drawn from nothingness by God’s power, wisdom and goodness, it can do nothing if it is cut off from its origin, for “without a Creator the creature vanishes.” Still less can a creature attain its ultimate end without the help of God’s grace.**Blessings,
Brian
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Calvinist - as far as is compatible w/ Catholicism 
(which is pretty far, on this topic anyway - on others, less far)
Prescience doesn’t go far enough - predestination, foreknowledge, election are all there in both Testaments.
Prescience doesn’t suggest Divine activity - it all too easily lets God sound like a mere onlooker. That is not Biblical at all: God’s “jealousy/zeal” for His Name & His People expresses His intimate involvement with them: the Incarnation & Crucifixion (the whole Triduum, in fact) are the supreme example of this - He is an intensely active God, not an onlooker, but God-with-us. The Presence of the Holy Spirit in the world & the Church proves this to the hilt.Molinism is semi-Pelagian - it makes God’s sovereign liberty subject to man’s choosing: it does not let God be utterly absolute. Only if God is totally Sovereign, totally at liberty to do exactly as He wills, totally totalitarian in every imaginable respect (& all respects that are not imaginable), is there a from basis for creaturely freedom. It’s a paradox: a “democratic” God, a God Who is not an Omnipotent Autocrat Whose Good Pleasure is final, is too limited to be a true help to limited creatures - we need God to be a Tyrant, irresistible, unanswerable, all-ruling, if we are to stand firm. Because His liberty is infinite & absolute & dynamic & unceasing, there is “room” for the liberty of creatures too. And that is what we have: God the Despotes (1 Tim.6.16)
That’s the wrong way round, for Judas did not affect His plan: God used the free agency of Judas as a means by which He carried out His saving purpose. (For some reason, we human beings seem to see Divine things in reverse 
) That purpose did not require the action of Judas; still less is God the author of the sin of Judas, or of any sin. Judas freely chose to act as he did, & his created activity was “commandeered,”, over-ruled, by God; Judas’ action was “acted through” by God, so that a single act was at one & the same time both:
- the sin of a man
- & the holy action of God.
Judas did his will - & God did His Will. Joseph’s brethren in Gen. 37 meant him evil: but their ill-will was over-ruled by God, Who used it to bring Joseph into honour in Egypt as second man in the kingdom. That he was in position to help them in a time of famine does not make their act good - it remains bad; but it was used by God for His purposes (which were not known to Joseph or his family) even so. If God could use only faultless actions by creatures, He could not have dealing with men at all. we sin - so, He “stoops” to using even our sins & our less-than-perfect actions, to bring good from them. He is not the author evil in this, but shows a sort of humility
This raises problems about prayer of petition, change in God, & so on. God works through what seem to be changes in His purposes as they are experienced on earth - just don’t ask me how
We are dealing with mysteries that far exceed any created intelligence to understand - & “we see in a glass, darkly” as long as we are on earth (1 Corinthians 13)I know that leaves out most of your questions - hope it helps though.
P
PEPCIS
Guest
Great point.
But, of course, the only doctrine that matters is that which is derived from the Bible, and not tradition.
Actually, it does teach nearly that. The Bible states that ALL OF US are born into this world on the path for hell and damnation. It’s just that SOME OF US are predestined to be saved from that path.
The truth of the matter is that we are ALL born without free will. We mostly wander through this world in the grip of Satan’s power, with the ILLUSION of free will. But, once again, the Bible teaches the opposite.
M
mikeledes
Guest
Calvinist - as far as is compatible w/ Catholicism
Why Calvinist and not Thomist or Augustinian? Why identify yourself with a theology that’s not completely compatible with Catholcism?While I lean more towards Thomism - particularly on the issue of unconditional election - I wouldn’t consider Molinism semi-pelagian. Arminianism equates prescience with predestination. In Molinism, predestination is much more than prescience and the order of grace or the world God has actualized is solely based on His free good pleasure. God is absolutely sovereign and has aboslute freedom in how He choses to exercise that sovereignty. Though Molinism is not free from problems.
God Bless,
Michael
A
AndyF
Guest
All after the fact.
St. Paul allows us the liberty to consider the justification of conducts of all beings. Rom 9,21.
For aware created beings free choice to exist might be an inalienable right. The situation presented is one where this Deity and His creation are unique. Much has Paul would like it to be, we cannot appeal to a supreme norm or cosmic moral guide of conduct of deities and their creation to ascertain the correctness of conducts. Perhaps the consensus among them would be that beings do have the right.
The result is we say it is just because we are told it is but not because we have evidence of it.
The upshot is that at every trial of conduct of aware creatures, the defense should never be able to state that he was deprived of the primal choice, because if he can, he can claim a default on a technical issue not yet resolved. The case not yet brought on the docket as it is now is that both parties claim a right they can’t justify through an overriding supreme law.
Allowing existential choice holds many more advantages to the common good than it does in the present system. Original sin stigma becomes warranted, those facing condemnation chose to accept the test, predestination issues are immediately irrelevant relieving God of the continuing appeals of explanation that the eons of answers could not manage to satisfy,etc and many more.
Andy
J
JWB152
Guest
Why is predestination wrong? Good question. If you are thinking why should I do any thing more or less because I am predestined to go here or there. That would be wrong. God knows if we are going to heaven or hell, but it is what we do between our birth and our bodily death that counts. If you truly love God, you will keep His commandments.( All eleven of them.) Love one another as I have loved you. God did not predestine before He foreknew, but for those whose merits he foresaw He predestined their reward.
God bless you, John J. Gillette
S
SHW
Guest
Paul states that we are “predestined.” This means that God knew before we were born that we would use our free will to choose Him and to obey Him until we died. Romans 8:29 He predestined each of us using His foreknowledge. He condemned those by His foreknowledge who did not choose to believe in Him and obey Him.
Please see members.cox.net/studyhisword/Predestined.pdf for a Biblical study on this topic.
Please see members.cox.net/studyhisword/Predestined.pdf for a Biblical study on this topic.
M
mikeledes
Guest
Here is the Haydock Catholic Commebatry’s exgesis of the famous “predestination” passage in Romans 9:
**Ver. 10. &c. And not only she (Sara) brought forth Isaac, who was the only child of Abraham, to whom the promises descended, though he was the father of Ismael, by Agar, and of all the Ismaelites. And lest the Jews should say that the Ismaelites, though descending from Abraham, according to the flesh, were not to be reputed as his children for another reason, because they came of Agar, who was only the handmaid of Sara; he brings them another example to which they could make no such reply; to wit, that Rebecca also at once had two sons of Isaac, Esau and Jacob; where, though Esau was the first-born, these promises were not reputed as made to him, and his descendants, the Idumeans, who were equally the descendants of Isaac, yet not the favourite people, nor the children of God, as the Jews saw very well. (Witham) — Not yet born. By this example of these twins, and the preference of the younger to the elder, the drift of the apostle is, to shew that God, in his election, mercy, and grace, is not tied to any particular nation, as the Jews imagined, nor to any prerogative of birth, or any foregoing merits. For as, antecedently, to his grace, he sees no merit in any, but finds all involved in sin, in the common mass of condemnation; and all children of wrath; there is no one whom he might not justly leave in that mass; so that whomsoever he delivers from it, he delivers in his mercy: and whomsoever he leaves in it, he leaves in his justice. As when, of two equally criminal, the king is pleased out of pure mercy to pardon one, whilst he suffers justice to take place in the execution of the other. (Challoner) — Nor had done any good or evil. God was pleased to prefer, and promise his blessings to the younger of them, Jacob, declaring that the elder shall serve the younger; that is, that the seed of the elder should be subject to that of the younger, as it happened afterwards to the Idumeans. And the prophet, Malachias, said of them, I have loved Jacob, but hated Esau, and turned his mountains into a desert, &c. — That the purpose of God, his will, and his decree, (see the foregoing chap. ver. 28.) might stand according to election, might be, not according to any works they had done, or that he foresaw they would do, but merely according to his mercy. And though the preference which God gave to Jacob was literally true, as to temporal benefits; yet St. Augustine observes in divers places, that Jacob was a figure of the elect or predestinate, and Esau of the reprobate; and that as Jacob and his posterity was more favoured, purely by the mercy of God, without any merits on their side; so are God’s elect, whom he has called, and to whom, according to his eternal purpose, he decreed to give eternal glory, and special graces to bring them thither. (Witham)
Ver. 14. What shall we say, then? Is there injustice with God, when he bestows special favours and benefits on some, and not on others? He answers, by no means. And he justifies almighty God’s conduct, ver. 22. In the mean time, it is certain that there is no injustice in not giving what another has no right to: and besides all men having sinned, deserved punishment. If then, he shews mercy to some, it is an effect of his goodness and liberality only which they do not deserve. If he leaves others in their sins, they are only punished according to their deserts. His mercy shines upon his elect; and his divine justice is displayed against the wicked and the reprobate, but only according to what they have deserved. (Witham)
Ver. 15-16. I will have mercy, &c. Then it is not of him that willeth, &c. By these words he again teaches that God’s call and predestination of those whom he has decreed to save, is not upon account of any works or merits in men, but only to be attributed to the mercy and goodness of God. See St. Thomas Aquinas on this chap. lect. iii. See St. Augustine, Encher. chap. xcviii. Epis. 194. in the new Ed. Ep. 105. ad Sixtum de lib. Arbit. chap. xxv. &c. (Witham)
Ver. 17. For the Scripture saith to Pharao, &c. St. Paul had shewn that there was no injustice in God by his giving special graces to the elect; now he shews that God cannot be accounted unjust for leaving the reprobate in their sins, or for punishing them as they deserve; for this purpose he brings the example of Pharao, who remained hardened against all the admonitions and chastisements of him and his kingdom. — Have I raised thee up, placed thee king over Egypt; I have done so many miracles before thee, I have spared thee when thou deservedst to be punished with death, and at last shall punish thee with thy army in the Red Sea, that my name may be known over all the earth. (Witham)
Ver. 18. And whom he will, he hardeneth.[3] That is, permits to be hardened by their own malice, as it is divers times said in Exodus, that Pharao hardened his heart. God, says St. Augustine, is said to harden men’s hearts, not by causing their malice, but by not giving them the free gift of his grace, by which they become hardened by their own perverse will. (Witham) — Not by being the cause, or author of his sin, but by withholding his grace, and so leaving him in his sin, in punishment of his past demerits. (Challoner)**
(Continues in next post)
**Ver. 10. &c. And not only she (Sara) brought forth Isaac, who was the only child of Abraham, to whom the promises descended, though he was the father of Ismael, by Agar, and of all the Ismaelites. And lest the Jews should say that the Ismaelites, though descending from Abraham, according to the flesh, were not to be reputed as his children for another reason, because they came of Agar, who was only the handmaid of Sara; he brings them another example to which they could make no such reply; to wit, that Rebecca also at once had two sons of Isaac, Esau and Jacob; where, though Esau was the first-born, these promises were not reputed as made to him, and his descendants, the Idumeans, who were equally the descendants of Isaac, yet not the favourite people, nor the children of God, as the Jews saw very well. (Witham) — Not yet born. By this example of these twins, and the preference of the younger to the elder, the drift of the apostle is, to shew that God, in his election, mercy, and grace, is not tied to any particular nation, as the Jews imagined, nor to any prerogative of birth, or any foregoing merits. For as, antecedently, to his grace, he sees no merit in any, but finds all involved in sin, in the common mass of condemnation; and all children of wrath; there is no one whom he might not justly leave in that mass; so that whomsoever he delivers from it, he delivers in his mercy: and whomsoever he leaves in it, he leaves in his justice. As when, of two equally criminal, the king is pleased out of pure mercy to pardon one, whilst he suffers justice to take place in the execution of the other. (Challoner) — Nor had done any good or evil. God was pleased to prefer, and promise his blessings to the younger of them, Jacob, declaring that the elder shall serve the younger; that is, that the seed of the elder should be subject to that of the younger, as it happened afterwards to the Idumeans. And the prophet, Malachias, said of them, I have loved Jacob, but hated Esau, and turned his mountains into a desert, &c. — That the purpose of God, his will, and his decree, (see the foregoing chap. ver. 28.) might stand according to election, might be, not according to any works they had done, or that he foresaw they would do, but merely according to his mercy. And though the preference which God gave to Jacob was literally true, as to temporal benefits; yet St. Augustine observes in divers places, that Jacob was a figure of the elect or predestinate, and Esau of the reprobate; and that as Jacob and his posterity was more favoured, purely by the mercy of God, without any merits on their side; so are God’s elect, whom he has called, and to whom, according to his eternal purpose, he decreed to give eternal glory, and special graces to bring them thither. (Witham)
Ver. 14. What shall we say, then? Is there injustice with God, when he bestows special favours and benefits on some, and not on others? He answers, by no means. And he justifies almighty God’s conduct, ver. 22. In the mean time, it is certain that there is no injustice in not giving what another has no right to: and besides all men having sinned, deserved punishment. If then, he shews mercy to some, it is an effect of his goodness and liberality only which they do not deserve. If he leaves others in their sins, they are only punished according to their deserts. His mercy shines upon his elect; and his divine justice is displayed against the wicked and the reprobate, but only according to what they have deserved. (Witham)
Ver. 15-16. I will have mercy, &c. Then it is not of him that willeth, &c. By these words he again teaches that God’s call and predestination of those whom he has decreed to save, is not upon account of any works or merits in men, but only to be attributed to the mercy and goodness of God. See St. Thomas Aquinas on this chap. lect. iii. See St. Augustine, Encher. chap. xcviii. Epis. 194. in the new Ed. Ep. 105. ad Sixtum de lib. Arbit. chap. xxv. &c. (Witham)
Ver. 17. For the Scripture saith to Pharao, &c. St. Paul had shewn that there was no injustice in God by his giving special graces to the elect; now he shews that God cannot be accounted unjust for leaving the reprobate in their sins, or for punishing them as they deserve; for this purpose he brings the example of Pharao, who remained hardened against all the admonitions and chastisements of him and his kingdom. — Have I raised thee up, placed thee king over Egypt; I have done so many miracles before thee, I have spared thee when thou deservedst to be punished with death, and at last shall punish thee with thy army in the Red Sea, that my name may be known over all the earth. (Witham)
Ver. 18. And whom he will, he hardeneth.[3] That is, permits to be hardened by their own malice, as it is divers times said in Exodus, that Pharao hardened his heart. God, says St. Augustine, is said to harden men’s hearts, not by causing their malice, but by not giving them the free gift of his grace, by which they become hardened by their own perverse will. (Witham) — Not by being the cause, or author of his sin, but by withholding his grace, and so leaving him in his sin, in punishment of his past demerits. (Challoner)**
(Continues in next post)
M
mikeledes
Guest
Ver. 19. &c. Thou wilt say, therefore, to me, &c. The apostle makes objection, that if God call some, and harden, or even permit others to be hardened, and no one resisteth, or can hinder his absolute will, why should God complain that men are not converted? St. Paul first puts such rash and profane men in mind, that is unreasonable and impertinent for creatures to murmur and dispute against God their Creator, when they do not comprehend the ways of his providence. — O man, [4] who art thou that repliest against God? This might stop the mouths, and quiet the minds of every man, when he cannot comprehend the mysteries of predestination, of God’s foreknowledge, his decrees and graces, or the manner of reconciling them with human liberty. He may cry out with St. Paul again, (chap. xi. 33.) O the riches of the wisdom, and of the knowledge of God! how incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! — Shall the thing formed, &c. Hath not the potter power, &c.[5] To teach men that they ought not to complain against God and his providence, when they cannot comprehend his works, he puts them in mind of their origin. Every one may say to God, with the prophet Isaias, (vi. 48.) Lord, thou art our Father, and we are but clay; thou art our Maker who framed us, and we are all of us the work of thy hands. Hath not the potter power as he pleaseth, out of the same lump of clay to make some vessels for honourable uses, and some for less honourable. St. Chrysostom observes very well, that this comparison must not be extended further than the apostle designed; which was to teach us, how submissive we ought to be to God, in what we do not understand; but we must not pretend from hence, nor from any expression in this chapter, as divers heretics have done, that as vessels of clay are destitute of free will and liberty, so are men. This is against the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and against the Scriptures, in many places. (Witham) — The potter. This similitude is used, only to shew that we are not to dispute with our Maker: nor to reason with him why he does not give as much grace to one as to another: for since the whole lump of our clay is vitiated by sin, it is owing to his goodness and mercy that he makes out of it so many vessels of honour; and it is no more than just that others, in punishment of their unrepented sins, should be given up to be vessels of dishonour. (Challoner)
haydock1859.tripod.com/id153.html
God Bless,
Michael
haydock1859.tripod.com/id153.html
God Bless,
Michael
J
JWB152
Guest
Salvation is free to everyone, but it is not automatic. God grants to us, free will through the sin of our first parents. When we are baptized it starts us on the road to a joyful conclusion, but ultimately it is what we do with our free will, between the parameters of our earthly existence that determines our end condition.
God bless you, John J. Gillette
M
mikeledes
Guest
The above links are good resources for a Catholic understanding of predestination. There is a difference between Catholic predestination and Calvinism and also between Catholic predestination and Arminianism (i.e. election merely based on foreknowledge of man’s choices). Catholics are not Calvinist or Arminian.
God Bless,
Michael
C
coco2
Guest
I remember my mother telling me when I was young that God knew if we would go to heaven or not. He knows what you are going to do even before you do it. I am having trouble understanding this. What is the point of giving us free will if He already knows what we are going to do, and if He predestined us for heaven? This makes me think that He not only allows evil, but actually creates souls to become evil? I am positive this is wrong, but I am having trouble understanding this. How can you teach others about God’s love for all and His desire for all souls to be near Him, when it is already written in stone who is in and who is out? If there is predestination, where is the HOPE? I have read some of the sites that people have posted here, but am still struggling.
P
PEPCIS
Guest
You have some excellent questions, Coco. You ask: “What is the point of giving us free will if He already knows what we are going to do, and if He predestined us for heaven?”
He never gave us free will. But he did give us a will that can choose. The difference is that free will is an illusion. Only God has true free will, because he is completely unfettered by any power that could possibly control or mitigate his actions or will.
Man is not born with free will, but is born under the control of Satan, subject to his will. Christ came to the earth to pay the ultimate penalty which frees us from this curse. What is Christ freeing us from if we have free will to do it ourselves?
There are many in this forum who wrongly teach that we have free will, but we don’t. Our will is either subject to the Devil, or it is subect to the Father in heaven. This is determined by who we align ourselves up with.
You also state that “This makes me think that He not only allows evil, but actually creates souls to become evil?” Actually, that’s pretty close to the truth.
The Bible teaches that God has concluded EVERYONE to be under sin, in order that He might offer EVERYONE salvation. (Romans 11:32)
Everyone knows John 3:16, but John 3:18 says: “Whoever believes in Christ is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already…” In other words, we ALL stand condemned from the moment of our birth, until we choose Christ.
I hope this answered your questions.
M
mikeledes
Guest
P
PEPCIS
Guest
Hi Michael,
God Bless,
Michael
I guess I’m a “Calvinist Baptist”, though I really don’t like such an assocation, because I cringe at what I see at a lot of Calvinist Baptist churches. I can only tell you what I see in God’s Word, and leave the Baptist church out of the argument, just as I would leave the Catholic church out of the argument. Both churches have saved peoples, and both churches also have those who are not. I don’t necessarily believe that any sect of Christianity has any specific advantage over another when it comes to salvation, because salvation comes from God, not the Pope, or a Baptist Pastor.
God Bless to you, too.
Mark
- Status