Romans 8:30

[DojoGrant]

This may have already been said, but what the heck:

God knows all that will happened; he knows who will be saved and who will be damned. Those that He knows will be saved are by virtue of that knowledge predestined, for He knows that they will answer the call to justification.

This passage does not speak of God's omnipotence, but His omniscience.

[Livin_the_MASS]

I can't understand how one can take one verse out of the whole Bible and pin point it and say that it means this or that. You have to read Scripture in the four fold sense as a whole. Many books, but One Book. Many authors but One Divine Author.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='DojoGrant' date='Jun 17 2004, 02:08 PM'] This may have already been said, but what the heck:

God knows all that will happened; he knows who will be saved and who will be damned. Those that He knows will be saved are by virtue of that knowledge predestined, for He knows that they will answer the call to justification.

This passage does not speak of God's omnipotence, but His omniscience. [/quote]
NO! This is [i]conditional election[/i], and completely unbiblical. God does not elect anyone according to wether or not they will come to Him, for this would be election according to merit. Rather, he foreknows those [i]people[/i] - not [i]actions[/i] who will come to him, and predestines them accordingly.

[Archangel Raphael]

If I'm correct, OSAS means Once Saved Always Saved right? I read the scripture itself and I have to agree with what many of you have said. I'd give some of my own insight but most of you pointed out alot of the key factors, so I don't really feel like just being a parrot lol

What I find funny too is the lack of common sense as well. You should have asked your baptist friend, "So does that mean I can murder you and care less and I'll get to heaven?" I think that'll change his mind REAL quick lmao. It's so true though, I guess since I am Saved then I can go do whatever I wish even if it isn't holy. Riiiiigghhhttt....

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jun 17 2004, 06:07 PM'] NO! This is [i]conditional election[/i], and completely unbiblical. God does not elect anyone according to wether or not they will come to Him, for this would be election according to merit. Rather, he foreknows those [i]people[/i] - not [i]actions[/i] who will come to him, and predestines them accordingly. [/quote]
The Church never condemned the Molinist position, so it is incorrect to say that a conditioned predestintion based on foreseen supernatural merits is [i]unbliblical[/i]. The biblical texts themselves are open to various interpretations, and so, until the Magisterium definitively pronounces on the matter is is improper to accuse a person who favors a Molinist position of being [i]unbiblical[/i]. Although I personally favor the Thomist position on predestination, I accept that the Magisterium has left this as an open question, and as a consequence, a Catholic is free to hold either position.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Archangel Raphael' date='Jun 17 2004, 07:26 PM'] If I'm correct, OSAS means Once Saved Always Saved right? I read the scripture itself and I have to agree with what many of you have said. I'd give some of my own insight but most of you pointed out alot of the key factors, so I don't really feel like just being a parrot lol

What I find funny too is the lack of common sense as well. You should have asked your baptist friend, "So does that mean I can murder you and care less and I'll get to heaven?" I think that'll change his mind REAL quick lmao. It's so true though, I guess since I am Saved then I can go do whatever I wish even if it isn't holy. Riiiiigghhhttt.... [/quote]
St. Paul dealt with this very clearly in Romans: "Shall you continue to sin all the more then? By no means". So that argument doesn't work.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 17 2004, 09:17 PM'] St. Paul dealt with this very clearly in Romans: "Shall you continue to sin all the more then? By no means". So that argument doesn't work. [/quote]
A little off the topic...

I was thinking about just this verse, and how it was totally the opposite of Martin Luther's quote to "sin vigorously":

[quote]"God does not work salvation for fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin vigorously.... Do not for a moment imagine that this life is the abiding place of justice; sin must be committed."

"Sin cannot tear you away from him [Christ], even though you commit adultery a hundred times a day and commit as many murders." [/quote]

vs.

[quote]Romans 6:1 "What then shall we say? Shall we persist in sin that grace may abound? Of course not!"[/quote]

[Brother Adam]

So true.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 17 2004, 06:58 PM'] The Church never condemned the Molinist position, so it is incorrect to say that a conditioned predestintion based on foreseen supernatural merits is [i]unbliblical[/i]. The biblical texts themselves are open to various interpretations, and so, until the Magisterium definitively pronounces on the matter is is improper to accuse a person who favors a Molinist position of being [i]unbiblical[/i]. Although I personally favor the Thomist position on predestination, I accept that the Magisterium has left this as an open question, and as a consequence, a Catholic is free to hold either position. [/quote]
Okay, but I defy any Molinist to [i]prove[/i] conditional election with any kind of certainty. For it is written:

Romans 11:1-10

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? Of course not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2
God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the scripture says about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?
3
"Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have torn down your altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life."
4
But what is God's response to him? "I have left for myself seven thousand men who have not knelt to Baal."
5
So also at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.
6
[b]But if by grace, it is no longer because of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. [/b]7
What then? What Israel was seeking it did not attain, but the elect attained it; the rest were hardened,
8
as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of deep sleep, eyes that should not see and ears that should not hear, down to this very day."
9
And David says: "Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them;
10
let their eyes grow dim so that they may not see, and keep their backs bent forever."

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jun 17 2004, 08:08 PM'] [Romans 11:6]

"[b]But if by grace, it is no longer because of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. [/b]"
[/quote]
Although, as I said before, I am not a Molinist; I would suppose that a Molinist would point out that you proceed from a false assumption, i.e., that the foreseen merits referred to in this theological school are simply the unaided acts of the human person working by himself. But nothing could be further from the truth, for the Molinist system insists that the foreseen merits of the elect are by definition supernatural; in other words, that the foreseen merits are the effects of grace upon the human person, which is all the while perfecting the human will and empowering it to act freely in consenting to its own salvation. Thus all is by grace and not by works, if by works one means works accomplished by the unaided natural abilities of man. So, a Molinist would agree fully with Romans 11:6 which says, "But if by grace, it is no longer because of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace."

As I am sure you are aware, Catholic teaching holds that salvation is by grace alone, and this is true whether one is a Molinist or a Thomist. Therefore, one must hold that both faith and works are gifts of God's grace, for as St. Augustine eloquently said, "What merit of man is there before grace by which he can achieve grace, as only grace works every one of our good merits in us, and God, when He crowns our merits, crowns nothing else but His own gifts." [St. Augustine, Letter 194:5-19] It is a complete misreading of the theology of Molina to think that his system is a form of the Pelagian or the Semi-Pelagian heresy, clearly it is not, and had it been a type of that heresy, it would have been condemned by either Pope Clement VIII or Pope Paul V during or after the debates between the Thomists and the Molinists on the doctrine of predestination (1597 to 1607) in Rome; instead, Pope Paul V reprobated neither theological system, thus allowing a Catholic to hold either viewpoint.

[Archangel Raphael]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jun 17 2004, 08:30 PM'] I was thinking about just this verse, and how it was totally the opposite of Martin Luther's quote to "sin vigorously" [/quote]
Where did you find that quote btw?

[ICTHUS]

[quote]Although, as I said before, I am not a Molinist; I would suppose that a Molinist would point out that you proceed from a false assumption, i.e., that the foreseen merits referred to in this theological school are simply the unaided acts of the human person working by himself. But nothing could be further from the truth, for the Molinist system insists that the foreseen merits of the elect are by definition supernatural; in other words, that the foreseen merits are the effects of grace upon the human person, which is all the while perfecting the human will and empowering it to act freely in consenting to its own salvation. Thus all is by grace and not by works, if by works one means works accomplished by the unaided natural abilities of man. So, a Molinist would agree fully with Romans 11:6 which says, "But if by grace, it is no longer because of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace."[/quote] The hypothetical Molinist response is untenable: St. Paul makes it perfectly clear that God elects unconditionally.

Romans 9:10-18

[color=blue]And not only that, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one husband, our father Isaac 4 --
11
before they had yet been born or had done anything, good or bad, in order that God's elective plan might continue,
12
not by works but by his call--she was told, "The older shall serve the younger."
13
As it is written: "I loved Jacob but hated Esau." 5
14
6 What then are we to say? Is there injustice on the part of God? Of course not!
15
For he says to Moses: "I will show mercy to whom I will, I will take pity on whom I will."
16
So it depends not upon a person's will or exertion, but upon God, who shows mercy.
17
For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "This is why I have raised you up, to show my power through you that my name may be proclaimed throughout the earth."
18
Consequently, he has mercy upon whom he wills, and he hardens whom he wills. 7 [/color]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jun 18 2004, 01:38 PM'] The hypothetical Molinist response is untenable: St. Paul makes it perfectly clear that God elects unconditionally.

Romans 9:10-18

[color=blue]And not only that, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one husband, our father Isaac 4 --
11
before they had yet been born or had done anything, good or bad, in order that God's elective plan might continue,
12
not by works but by his call--she was told, "The older shall serve the younger."
13
As it is written: "I loved Jacob but hated Esau." 5
14
6 What then are we to say? Is there injustice on the part of God? Of course not!
15
For he says to Moses: "I will show mercy to whom I will, I will take pity on whom I will."
16
So it depends not upon a person's will or exertion, but upon God, who shows mercy.
17
For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "This is why I have raised you up, to show my power through you that my name may be proclaimed throughout the earth."
18
Consequently, he has mercy upon whom he wills, and he hardens whom he wills. 7 [/color] [/quote]
A Molinist once again would say that nothing in the text of Romans 9 denies the [i]scientia media[/i], i.e., the idea that God foresees all that will occur and by this knowledge provides the requisite grace for the person in question to perform the supernatural acts that will lead to his salvation. If you read Romans 9 with Calvinist presuppositions, then certainly it would be problematic for a Molinist, but since the view of predestination promoted by Calvin has already been condemned by the Church, i.e., the doctrine of double predestination, it follows that a Catholic cannot read the text in a Calvinist way. Once again, I believe you are judging the Molinist school without having understood the nature of its position. I am not a Molinist myself, nor have I read the works of Molina, but I have read various texts that touch on his position, so I refuse to condemn him without first understanding where he is coming from, and since the Magisterium has not condemned his position, I refuse to say that Molinism is incompatible with either scripture or tradition.

Further, I would point out that a Molinist would agree completely with the statement that ". . . it depends not upon a person's will or exertion, but upon God, who shows mercy," because man, without the aid of God's grace, cannot rightly exercise his free will in the supernatural order, and so man's salvation does not depend upon his own natural abilities, but depends upon grace. Salvation is wholly by the grace of God, although it must always be borne in mind that man is not thereby passive in his salvation, but that he cooperates with grace, and yet even this cooperation is achieved by a further gift of grace. I'm sure that nothing in the verses you quoted would be denied by a Molinist. Molinism is quite clear that without grace man can do nothing that will avail unto his salvation, but that with the infusion of God's grace, a man can and does act as he should in the order of salvation, and that God, through the [i]scientia media[/i], foresees the result and predestines the person to salvation. Ultimately, I still think you are laboring under the misconception that Molinism is a form of Pelagianism, when clearly, it is not.

The Catholic Church has defined two things which all Catholics must hold: (1) God predestines the elect to salvation, but positively reprobates no one, and (2) man has free will, and grace restores, perfects and elevates man's will so that he can act meritoriously in the supernatural order. It denies that the doctrine of predestination involves a positive reprobation of those not saved, for as the Council of Quiersy (853 AD) defined, ''. . . that certain ones are saved, is the gift of the One [i.e., God] who saves; that certain ones perish, however, is the deserved punishment of those who perish." [Deferrari, [u]The Sources of Catholic Dogma[/u], page 127] It should be noted that the Council of Quiersy, like the Second Council of Orange (529 AD), is considered to be a part of the ordinary and universal teaching of the Church's Magisterium. Nothing in Molinism contradicts either of the two councils mentioned, nor anything defined by the Council of Trent. As far as it concerns the verses you are quoting from scripture, they would argue against Molinism, but only if Molinism were a form of Pelagianism, which it is not.

In conclusion I want to point out that, using anachronistic terminology, in other words, using terms like "unconditional election" which Paul himself never uses, and which has various shades of meaning depending upon the presuppositions of the school of thought to which one subscribes, is always, and by definition problematic. A Catholic is free to hold that election is unconditional, but since Pope Paul V decided not to reprobate the Molinist position, one can also quite legitimately hold a form of conditional election based on the [i]scientia media[/i] spoken of by the Molinist school of thought. I am not an expert on Molinism, nor do I pretend to be, but I refuse to condemn as heretical or unbiblical something that the Church's Magisterium, divinely appointed by Christ to judge such matters, has chosen not to anathematize.

Edited June 18, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Archangel Raphael' date='Jun 18 2004, 12:17 PM'] Where did you find that quote btw? [/quote]
Actually, I believe the quotes were cited by an atheist (Don Morgan). Just as a disclaimer, he isn't a fan of religion in general.

Here's the original link: [url="http://www.2think.org/hii/mlquotes.shtml"]http://www.2think.org/hii/mlquotes.shtml[/url]

The following is an apologist for Martin Luther's quote (the first one I listed). There is some variation in the translation; but I think that it's still the same quote (though he seems to have said something to this effect (i.e. "sin boldly...") a few times.

[url="http://www.stnm.org/UncleMarty/luther/02.html"]Pro-Luther Apologist link[/url]

[url="http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Y-BQ_atbG1YJ:www.cuis.edu/ftp/WITTENBERG/LUTHER-QUOTE_ID_NEEDED.-9601+%22Sin+boldly%22+luther&hl=en"]Another Pro-Luther Link (it's a Google back-up, so it's got high-lighted words)[/url]

The apologists also refer to when and to whom he wrote the "sin boldly" statement.

Despite the apologist's responses (which may have merit), I still think the quote was a dumb thing to say!

God bless!