Dave Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 Mustbenothing claims God predestines people by choosing which individuals will accept his offer of salvation, that is, the "elect." It is because God has chosen them that they will desire to come to him in the first place. Those who are not among the elect, the "reprobate," will not desire to come to God, will not do so, and thus will not be saved. But is that really how it is? Actually, the notion that God positively chooses, rather than merely foresees, those who will come to him, is not against Catholic teaching. All Thomists and even some Molinists (such as Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suarez) taught unconditional election. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "God wills to manifest his goodness in men: in respect to those whom he predestines, by means of his mercy, in sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of his justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others.... Yet why he chooses some for glory and reprobates others has no reason except the divine will. Hence Augustine says, 'Why he draws one, and another he draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.'" However, what IS against Catholic teaching "double-predestination." This teaching claims that in addition to electing some people to salvation God also sends others to damnation. The alternative to double-predestination is to say that while God predestines some people, he simply passes over the remainder. They will not come to God, but it is because of their INHERENT SIN, not because God damns them. They beaver dam themselves. This is the doctrine of passive reprobation, which Aquinas taught. The Council of Trent stated, "If anyone says that it is not in the power of man to make his ways evil, but that God produces the evil as well as the good works, not only by permission, but also properly and of himself, so that the betrayal of Judas is no less his own proper work than the vocation of Paul, let him be anathema.... If anyone shall say that the grace of justification is attained by those only who are predestined unto life, but that all others, who are called, are called indeed, but do not receive grace, as if they are by divine power predestined to evil, let him be anathema." Mustbenothing has also stated the atonement is limited, that Christ offered it for some men but not for all. He claims Christ died only for the elect, but that is totally false. The Bible maintains that there is a sense in which Christ died for all men. John 4:42 describes Christ as "the Savior of the world," and 1 John 2:2 states that Christ "is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." 1 Timothy 4:10 describes God as "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." Aquinas stated, "Christ's passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2, 'He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.'" This is not to say there is no sense in which limitation may be ascribed to the atonement. While the grace it provided is sufficient to pay for the sins of all men, this grace is not made efficacious (put into effect) in the case of everyone. One may say that although the sufficiency of the atonement is not limited, its efficacy is limited. This is something everyone who believes in hell must acknowledge because, if the atonement was made efficacious for everyone, then no one would end up in hell. The difference between the atonement's sufficiency and its efficacy accounts for Paul's statement that God is "the Savior of all men, especially those who believe." God is the Savior of all men because he arranged a sacrifice sufficient for all men. He is the Savior of those who believe in a special and superior sense because these have the sacrifice made efficacious for them. According to Aquinas, "[Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, efficaciously for some, but sufficiently for all, because the price of his blood is sufficient for the salvation of all; but it has its effect only in the elect." True, Christ WANTS all men to be saved, but He knows there are some who choose to ignore Him, and unless they repent, His sacrifice, at least for them, cannot be efficacious. Who will you believe, Jesus Christ and the Church He founded, which has been teaching the truth for over 2000 years, or John Calvin, a mere man who came along 1500 years after the beginning of the Church and started promoting his own version of predestination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 Well I disagree wioth your explanation of single predestination,but you are right the Church does not condemn single predestination ,and does condemn double predestination--- Alright this is long but I believe important to explain the Catholic teaching on Predestination. This is from the Catholic encyclopedia. II. THE CATHOLIC DOGMA Reserving the theological controversies for the next section, we deal here only with those articles of faith relating to predestination and reprobation, the denial of which would involve heresy. A. The Predestination of the Elect He who would place the reason of predestination either in man alone or in God alone would inevitably be led into heretical conclusions about eternal election. In the one case the error concerns the last end, in the other the means to that end. Let it be noted that we do not speak of the "cause" of predestination, which would be either the efficient cause (God), or the instrumental cause (grace), or the final cause (God's honour), or the primary meritorious cause, but of the reason or motive which induced God from all eternity to elect certain definite individuals to grace and glory. The principal question then is: Does the natural merit of man exert perhaps some influence on the Divine election to grace and glory? If we recall the dogma of the absolute gratuity of Christian grace, our answer must be outright negative (see GRACE). To the further question whether Divine predestination does not at least take into account the supernatural good works, the Church answers with the doctrine that heaven is not given to the elect by a purely arbitrary act of God's will, but that it is also the reward of the personal merits of the justified (see MERIT). Those who, like the Pelagians, seek the reason for predestination only in man's naturally good works, evidently misjudge the nature of the Christian heaven which is an absolutely supernatural destiny. As Pelagianism puts the whole economy of salvation on a purely natural basis, so it regards predestination in particular not as a special grace, much less as the supreme grace, but only as a reward for natural merit. The Semipelagians, too, depreciated the gratuity and the strictly supernatural character of eternal happiness by ascribing at least the beginning of faith (initium fidei) and final perseverance (donum perseverantiœ) to the exertion of man's natural powers, and not to the initiative of preventing grace. This is one class of heresies which, slighting God and His grace, makes all salvation depend on man alone. But no less grave are the errors into which a second group falls by making God alone responsible for everything, and abolishing the free co-operation of the will in obtaining eternal happiness. This is done by the advocates of heretical Predestinarianism, embodied in its purest form in Calvinism and Jansenism. Those who seek the reason of predestination solely in the absolute Will of God are logically forced to admit an irresistibly efficacious grace (gratia irresistibilis), to deny the freedom of the will when influenced by grace and wholly to reject supernatural merits (as a secondary reason for eternal happiness). And since in this system eternal damnation, too, finds its only explanation in the Divine will, it further follows that concupiscence acts on the sinful will with an irresistible force, that there the will is not really free to sin, and that demerits cannot be the cause of eternal damnation. Between these two extremes the Catholic dogma of predestination keeps the golden mean, because it regards eternal happiness primarily as the work of God and His grace, but secondarily as the fruit and reward of the meritorious actions of the predestined. The process of predestination consists of the following five steps: (a) the first grace of vocation, especially faith as the beginning, foundation, and root of justification; (B) a number of additional, actual graces for the successful accomplishment of justification; © justification itself as the beginning of the state of grace and love; (d) final perseverance or at least the grace of a happy death; (e) lastly, the admission to eternal bliss. If it is a truth of Revelation that there are many who, following this path, seek and find their eternal salvation with infallible certainty, then the existence of Divine predestination is proved (cf. Matt., xxv, 34; Apoc., xx, 15). St. Paul says quite explicitly (Rom., viii, 28 sq.): "we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints. For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the first born amongst many brethren. And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified." (Cf. Eph., i, 4—11.) Besides the eternal "foreknowledge" and foreordaining, the Apostle here mentions the various steps of predestination: "vocation", "justification", and "glorification". This belief has been faithfully preserved by Tradition through all the centuries, especially since the time of Augustine. There are three other qualities of predestination which must be noticed, because they are important and interesting from the theological standpoint: its immutability, the definiteness of the number of the predestined, and its subjective uncertainty. (1) The first quality, the immutability of the Divine decree, is based both on the infallible foreknowledge of God that certain, quite determined individuals will leave this life in the state of grace, and on the immutable will of God to give precisely to these men and to no others eternal happiness as a reward for their supernatural merits. Consequently, the whole future membership of heaven, down to its minutest details, with all the different measures of grace and the various degrees of happiness, 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. Hence the Good Shepherd says of his sheep (John, x, 28): "And I give them life everlasting; and they shalt not perish forever, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand." But we must beware of conceiving the immutability of predestination either as fatalistic in the sense of the Mahommedan kismet or as a convenient pretext for idle resignation to inexorable fate. God's infallible foreknowledge cannot force upon man unavoidable coercion, for the simple reason that it is at bottom nothing else than the eternal vision of the future historical actuality. God foresees the free activity of a man precisely as that individual is willing to shape it. Whatever may promote the work of our salvation, whether our own prayers and good works, or the prayers of others in our behalf, is eo ipso included in the infallible foreknowledge of God and consequently in the scope of predestination (cf. 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 prædestinatus, fac ut prædestineris" (if you are not predestined, so act that you may be predestined). 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, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election." God's unerring foreknowledge and foreordaining is designated in the Bible by the beautiful figure of the "Book of Life" (liber vitœ, 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. 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)]. The correct explanation of this symbolic book is given by St. Augustine (De civ. Dei, XX, xiii): "Præscientia Dei quæ non potest falli, liber vitæ est" (the foreknowledge of God, which cannot err, is the book of life). 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. Finally there is a third class of books, wherein the wicked deeds and the crimes of individual sinners are written, and by which the reprobate will be judged on the last day to be cast into hell (cf. Apoc., xx, 12): "and the books were opened; ... and the dead were judged by those things which were written in the books according to their works". It was this grand symbolism of Divine omniscience and justice that inspired the soul-stirring verse of the Dies irœ according to which we shall all be judged out of a book: "Liber scriptus proferetur: in quo totum continetur". Regarding the book of life, cf. St. Thomas, I, Q. xxiv, a. 1—3, and Heinrich-Gutberlet, "Dogmat. Theologie", VIII (Mainz, 1897), section 453. (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. Furthermore, the very nature of omniscience demands that not only the abstract number of the elect, but also the individuals with their names and their entire career on earth, should be present before the Divine mind from all eternity. Naturally, human curiosity is eager for definite information about the absolute as well as the relative number of the elect. How high should the absolute number be estimated? But it would be idle and useless to undertake calculations and to guess at so and so many millions or billions of predestined. St. Thomas (I, Q. xxiii, a. 7) mentions the opinion of some theologians that as many men will be saved as there are fallen angels, while others held that the number of predestined will equal the number of the faithful angels. Lastly, there were optimists who, combining these two opinions into a third, made the total of men saved equal to the unnumbered myriads of berated spirits. But even granted that the principle of our calculation is correct, no mathematician would be able to figure out the absolute number on a basis so vague, since the number of angels and demons is an unknown quantity to us. Hence, "the best answer", rightly remarks St. Thomas, "is to say: God alone knows the number of his elect". By relative number is meant the numerical relation between the predestined and the reprobate. Will the majority of the human race be saved or will they be damned? Will one-half be damned the other half saved? In this question the opinion of the rigorists is opposed to the milder view of the optimists. Pointing to several texts of the Bible (Matt., vii, 14; xxii, 14) and to sayings of great spiritual doctors, the rigorists defend as probable the thesis that not only most Christians but also most Catholics are doomed to eternal damnation. Almost repulsive in its tone is Massillon's sermon on the small number of the elect. Yet even St. Thomas (loc. cit., a. 7) asserted: "Pauciores sunt qui salvantur" (only the smaller number of men are saved). And a few years ago, when the Jesuit P. Castelein ("Le rigorisme, le nombre des élus et la doctrine du salut", 2nd ed., Brussels, 1899) impugned this theory with weighty arguments, he was sharply opposed by the Redemptorist P. Godts ("De paucitate salvandorum quid docuerunt sancti", 3rd ed., Brussels, 1899). That the number of the elect cannot be so very small is evident from the Apocalypse (vii, 9). When one hears the rigorists, one is tempted to repeat Dieringer's bitter remark: "Can it be that the Church actually exists in order to people hell?" The truth is that neither the one nor the other can be proved from Scripture or Tradition (cf. Heinrich-Gutberlet, "Dogmat. Theologie", Mainz, 1897, VIII, 363 sq.). But supplementing these two sources by arguments drawn from reason we may safely defend as probable the opinion that the majority of Christians, especially of Catholics, will be saved. If we add to this relative number the overwhelming majority of non-Christians (Jews, Mahommedans, heathens), then Gener ("Theol. dogmat. scholast.", Rome, 1767, II, 242 sq.) is probably right when he assumes the salvation of half of the human race, lest "it should be said to the shame and offence of the Divine majesty and clemency that the [future] Kingdom of Satan is larger than the Kingdom of Christ" (cf. W. Schneider, "Das andere Leben", 9th ed., Paderborn, 1908, 476 sq.). (3) The third quality of predestination, its subjective uncertainty, is intimately connected with its objective immutability. We know not whether we are reckoned among the predestined or not. All we can say is: God alone knows it. When the Reformers, confounding predestination with the absolute certainty of salvation, demanded of the Christian an unshaken faith in his own predestination if be wished to be saved, the Council of Trent opposed to this presumptuous belief the canon (Sess. VI, can. xv): "S. q. d., hominem renatum et justificatum teneri ex fide ad credendum, se certo esse in numero prædestinatorum, anathema sit" (if any one shall say that the regenerated and justified man is bound as a matter of faith to believe that he is surely of the number of the predestined, let him be anathema). In truth, such a presumption is not only irrational, but also unscriptural (cf. I Cor., iv, 4; ix, 27; x, 12; Phil., ii, 12). Only a private revelation, such as was vouchsafed to the penitent thief on the cross, could give us the certainty of faith: hence the Tridentine Council insists (loc. cit., cap. xii): "Nam nisi ex speciali revelatione sciri non potest, quos Deus sibi elegerit" (for apart from a special revelation, it cannot be known whom God has chosen). However, the Church condemns only that blasphemous presumption which boasts of a faithlike certainty in matters of predestination. To say that there exist probable signs of predestination which exclude all excessive anxiety is not against her teaching. The following are some of the criteria set down by the theologians: purity of heart, pleasure in prayer, patience in suffering, frequent reception of the sacraments, love of Christ and His Church, devotion to the Mother of God, etc. B. The Reprobation of the Damned An unconditional and positive predestination of the reprobate not only to hell, but also to sin, was taught especially by Calvin (Instit., III, c. xxi, xxiii, xxiv). His followers in Holland split into two sects, the Supralapsarians and the Infralapsarians, the latter of whom regarded original sin as the motive of positive condemnation, while the former (with Calvin) disregarded this factor and derived the Divine decree of reprobation from God's inscrutable will alone. Infralapsarianism was also held by Jansenius (De gratia Christi, l. X, c. ii, xi sq.), who taught that God had preordained from the massa damnata of mankind one part to eternal bliss, the other to eternal pain, decreeing at the same time to deny to those positively damned the necessary graces by which they might be converted and keep the commandments; for this reason, he said, Christ died only for the predestined (cf. Denzinger, "Enchiridion", n. 1092-6). Against such blasphemous teachings the Second Synod of Orange in 529 and again the Council of Trent had pronounced the ecclesiastical anathema (cf. Denzinger, nn. 200, 827). This condemnation was perfectly justified, because the heresy of Predestinarianism, in direct opposition to the clearest texts of Scripture, denied the universality of God's salvific will as well as of redemption through Christ (cf. Wis., xi, 24 sq.; I Tim., ii, 1 sq.), nullified God's mercy towards the hardened sinner (Ezech., xxxiii, 11; Rom., ii, 4; II Pet., iii, 9), did away with the freedom of the will to do good or evil, and hence with the merit of good actions and the guilt of the bad, and finally destroyed the Divine attributes of wisdom, justice, veracity, goodness, and sanctity. The very spirit of the Bible should have sufficed to deter Calvin from a false explanation of Rom., ix, and his successor Beza from the exegetical maltreatment of I Pet., ii, 7—8. After weighing all the Biblical texts bearing on eternal reprobation, a modern Protestant exegete arrives at the conclusion: "There is no election to hell parallel to the election to grace: on the contrary, the judgment pronounced on the impenitent supposes human guilt .... It is only after Christ's salvation has been rejected that reprobation follows" ("Realencyk. für prot. Theol.", XV, 586, Leipzig, 1904). As regards the Fathers of the Church, there is only St. Augustine who might seem to cause difficulties in the proof from Tradition. As a matter of fact he has been claimed by both Calvin and Jansenius as favouring their view of the question. This is not the place to enter into an examination of his doctrine on reprobation; but that his works contain expressions which, to say the least, might be interpreted in the sense of a negative reprobation, cannot be doubted. Probably toning down the sharper words of the master, his "best pupil", St. Prosper, in his apology against Vincent of Lerin (Resp. ad 12 obj. Vincent.), thus explained the spirit of Augustine: "Voluntate exierunt, voluntate ceciderunt, et quia præsciti sunt casuri, non sunt prædestinati; essent autem prædestinati, si essent reversuri et in sanctitate remansuri, ac per hoc prædestinatio Dei multis est causa standi, nemini est causa labendi" (of their own will they went out; of their own will they fell, and because their fall was foreknown, they were not predestined; they would however be predestined if they were going to return and persevere in holiness; hence, God's predestination is for many the cause of perseverance, for none the cause of falling away). Regarding Tradition cf. Petavius, "De Deo", X, 7 sq.; Jacquin in "Revue de l'histoire ecclésiastique", 1904, 266 sq.; 1906, 269 sq.; 725 sq. We may now briefly summarize the whole Catholic doctrine, which is in harmony with our reason as well as our moral sentiments. According to the doctrinal decisions of general and particular synods, God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future events (cf. Denzinger, n. 1784), all fatalistic necessity, however, being barred and human liberty remaining intact (Denz., n. 607). Consequently man is free whether he accepts grace and does good or whether he rejects it and does evil (Denz., n. 797). Just as it is God's true and sincere will that all men, no one excepted, shall obtain eternal happiness, so, too, Christ has died for all (Denz., n. 794), not only for the predestined (Denz., n. 1096), or for the faithful (Denz., n. 1294), though it is true that in reality not all avail themselves of the benefits of redemption (Denz., n. 795). Though God preordained both eternal happiness and the good works of the elect (Denz., n. 322), yet, on the other hand, He predestined no one positively to hell, much less to sin (Denz., nn. 200, 816). Consequently, just as no one is saved against his will (Denz., n. 1363), so the reprobate perish solely on account of their wickedness (Denz., nn. 318, 321). God foresaw the everlasting pains of the impious from all eternity, and preordained this punishment on account of their sins (Denz., n. 322), though He does not fail therefore to hold out the grace of conversion to sinners (Denz., n. 807), or pass over those who are not predestined (Denz., n. 827). As long as the reprobate live on earth, they may be accounted true Christians and members of the Church, just as on the other hand the predestined may be outside the pale of Christianity and of the Church (Denz., nn. 628, 631). Without special revelation no one can know with certainty that he belongs to the number of the elect (Denz., nn. 805 sq., 825 sq.). III. THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES Owing to the infallible decisions laid down by the Church, every orthodox theory on predestination and reprobation must keep within the limits marked out by the following theses: (a) At least in the order of execution in time (in ordine executionis) the meritorious works of the predestined are the partial cause of their eternal happiness; (B) hell cannot even in the order of intention (in ordine intentionis) have been positively decreed to the damned, even though it is inflicted on them in time as the just punishment of their misdeeds; © there is absolutely no predestination to sin as a means to eternal damnation. Guided by these principles, we shall briefly sketch and examine three theories put forward by Catholic theologians. A. The Theory of Predestination ante prœvisa merita This theory, championed by all Thomists and a few Molinists (as Bellarmine, Suarez, Francis de Lugo), asserts that God, by an absolute decree and without regard to any future supernatural merits, predestined from all eternity certain men to the glory of heaven, and then, in consequence of this decree, decided to give them all the graces necessary for its accomplishment. In the order of time, however, the Divine decree is carried out in the reverse order, the predestined receiving first the graces preappointed to them, and lastly the glory of heaven as the reward of their good works. Two qualities, therefore, characterize this theory: first, the absoluteness of the eternal decree, and second, the reversing of the relation of grace and glory in the two different orders of eternal intention (ordo intentionis) and execution in time (ordo executionis). For while grace (and merit), in the order of eternal intention, is nothing else than the result or effect of glory absolutely decreed, yet, in the order of execution, it becomes the reason and partial cause of eternal happiness, as is required by the dogma of the meritoriousness of good works (see MERIT). Again, celestial glory is the thing willed first in the order of eternal intention and then is made the reason or motive for the graces offered, while in the order of execution it must be conceived as the result or effect of supernatural merits. This concession is important, since without it the theory would be intrinsically impossible and theologically untenable. But what about the positive proof? The theory can find decisive evidence in Scripture only on the supposition that predestination to heavenly glory is unequivocally mentioned in the Bible as the Divine motive for the special graces granted to the elect. Now, although there are several texts (e. g. Matt., xxiv, 22 sq.; Acts, xiii, 48, and others) which might without straining be interpreted in this sense, yet these passages lose their imagined force in view of the fact that other explanations, of which there is no lack, are either possible or even more probable. The ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans in particular is claimed by the advocates of absolute predestination as that "classical" passage wherein St. Paul seems to represent the eternal happiness of the elect not only as the work of God's purest mercy, but as an act of the most arbitrary will, so that grace, faith, justification must be regarded as sheer effects of an absolute, Divine decree (cf. Rom., ix, 18: "Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will; and whom he will, he hardeneth"). Now, it is rather daring to quote one of the most difficult and obscure passages of the Bible as a "classical text" and then to base on it an argument for bold speculation. To be more specific, it is impossible to draw the details of the picture in which the Apostle compares God to the potter who hath "power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour" (Rom., ix, 21), without falling into the Calvinistic blasphemy that God predestined some men to hell and sin just as positively as he pre-elected others to eternal life. It is not even admissible to read into the Apostle's thought a negative reprobation of certain men. For the primary intention of the Epistle to the Romans is to insist on the gratuity of the vocation to Christianity and to reject the Jewish presumption that the possession of the Mosaic Law and the carnal descent from Abraham gave to the Jews an essential preference over the heathens. But the Epistle has nothing to do with the speculative question whether or not the free vocation to grace must be considered as the necessary result of eternal predestination to celestial glory [cf. Franzelin, "De Deo uno", thes. lxv (Rome, 1883)]. It is just as difficult to find in the writings of the Fathers a solid argument for an absolute predestination. The only one who might be cited with some semblance of truth is St. Augustine, who stands, however, almost alone among his predecessors and successors. Not even his most faithful pupils, Prosper and Fulgentius, followed their master in all his exaggerations. But a problem so deep and mysterious, which does not belong to the substance of Faith and which, to use the expression of Pope Celestine I (d. 432), is concerned with profundiores difficilioresque partes incurrentium quœstionum (cf. Denz., n. 142), cannot be decided on the sole authority of Augustine. Moreover, the true opinion of the African doctor is a matter of dispute even among the best authorities, so that all parties claim him for their conflicting views [cf. O. Rottmanner, "Der Augustinismus" (Munich, 1892); Pfülf, "Zur Prädestinationslehre des hl. Augustinus" in "Innsbrucker Zeitschrift für kath. Theologie", 1893, 483 sq.]. As to the unsuccessful attempt made by Gonet and Billuart to prove absolute predestination ante prœvisa merita "by an argument from reason", see Pohle, "Dogmatik", II, 4th ed., Paderborn, 1909, 443 sq. B. The Theory of the Negative Reprobation of the Damned What deters us most strongly from embracing the theory just discussed is not the fact that it cannot be dogmatically proved from Scripture or Tradition, but the logical necessity to which it binds us, of associating an absolute predestination to glory, with a reprobation just as absolute, even though it be but negative. The well-meant efforts of some theologians (e. g. Billot) to make a distinction between the two concepts, and so to escape the evil consequences of negative reprobation, cannot conceal from closer inspection the helplessness of such logical artifices. Hence the earlier partisans of absolute predestination never denied that their theory compelled them to assume for the wicked a parallel, negative reprobation — that is, to assume that, though not positively predestined to hell, yet they are absolutely predestined not to go to heaven (cf. above, I, B). While it was easy for the Thomists to bring this view into logical harmony with their prœmotio physica, the few Molinists were put to straits to harmonize negative reprobation with their scientia media. In order to disguise the harshness and cruelty of such a Divine decree, the theologians invented more or less palliative expressions, saying that negative reprobation is the absolute will of God to "pass over" a priori those not predestined, to "overlook" them, "not to elect" them, "by no means to admit" them into heaven. Only Gonet had the courage to call the thing by its right name: "exclusion from heaven" (exclusio a gloria). In another respect, too, the adherents of negative reprobation do not agree among themselves, namely, as to what is the motive of Divine reprobation. The rigorists (as Alvarez, Estius, Sylvius) regard as the motive the sovereign will of God who, without taking into account possible sins and demerits, determined a priori to keep those not predestined out of heaven, though He did not create them for hell. A second milder opinion (e. g. de Lemos, Gotti, Gonet), appealing to the Augustinian doctrine of the massa damnata, finds the ultimate reason for the exclusion from heaven in original sin, in which God could, without being unjust, leave as many as He saw fit. The third and mildest opinion (as Goudin, Graveson, Billuart) derives reprobation not from a direct exclusion from heaven, but from the omission of an "effectual election to heaven"; they represent God as having decreed ante prœvisa merita to leave those not predestined in their sinful weakness, without denying them the necessary sufficient graces; thus they would perish infallibility (cf. "Innsbrucker Zeitschrift für kath. Theologie", 1879, 203 sq.). Whatever view one may take regarding the internal probability of negative reprobation, it cannot be harmonized with the dogmatically certain universality and sincerity of God's salvific will. For the absolute predestination of the blessed is at the same time the absolute will of God "not to elect" a priori the rest of mankind (Suarez), or which comes to the same, "to exclude them from heaven" (Gonet), in other words, not to save them. While certain Thomists (as Bañez, Alvarez, Gonet) accept this conclusion so far as to degrade the "voluntas salvifica" to an ineffectual "velleitas", which conflicts with evident doctrines of revelation, Suarez labours in the sweat of his brow to safeguard the sincerity of God's salvific will, even towards those who are reprobated negatively. But in vain. How can that will to save be called serious and sincere which has decreed from all eternity the metaphysical impossibility of salvation? He who has been reprobated negatively, may exhaust all his efforts to attain salvation: it avail's him nothing. Moreover, in order to realize infallibly his decree, God is compelled to frustrate the eternal welfare of all excluded a priori from heaven, and to take care that they die in their sins. Is this the language in which Holy Writ speaks to us? No; there we meet an anxious, loving father, who wills not "that any should perish, but that all should return to penance" (II Pet., iii, 9). Lessius rightly says that it would be indifferent to him whether he was numbered among those reprobated positively or negatively; for, in either case, his eternal damnation would be certain. The reason for this is that in the present economy exclusion from heaven means for adults practically the same thing as damnation. A middle state, a merely natural happiness, does not exist. C. The Theory of Predestination post prœvisa merita This theory defended by the earlier Scholastics (Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus), as well as by the majority of the Molinists, and warmly recommended by St. Francis de Sales "as the truer and more attractive opinion", has this as its chief distinction, that it is free from the logical necessity of upholding negative reprobation. It differs from predestination ante prœvisa merita in two points: first, it rejects the absolute decree and assumes a hypothetical predestination to glory; secondly, it does not reverse the succession of grace and glory in the two orders of eternal intention and of execution in time, but makes glory depend on merit in eternity as well as in the order of time. This hypothetical decree reads as follows: Just as in time eternal happiness depends on merit as a condition, so I intended heaven from all eternity only for foreseen merit. -- It is only by reason of the infallible foreknowledge of these merits that the hypothetical decree is changed into an absolute: These and no others shall be saved. This view not only safeguards the universality and sincerity of God's salvific will, but coincides admirably with the teachings of St. Paul (cf. II Tim., iv, 8), who knows that there "is laid up" (reposita est, apokeitai) in heaven "a crown of justice", which "the just judge will render" (reddet, apodosei) to him on the day of judgment. Clearer still is the inference drawn from the sentence of the universal Judge (Matt., xxv, 34 sq.): "Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat" etc. As the "possessing" of the Kingdom of Heaven in time is here linked to the works of mercy as a condition, so the "preparation" of the Kingdom of Heaven in eternity, that is, predestination to glory is conceived as dependent on the foreknowledge that good works will be performed. The same conclusion follows from the parallel sentence of condemnation (Matt., xxv, 41 sq.): "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat" etc. For it is evident that the "everlasting fire of hell" can only have been intended from all eternity for sin and demerit, that is, for neglect of Christian charity, in the same sense in which it is inflicted in time. Concluding a pari, we must say the same of eternal bliss. This explanation is splendidly confirmed by the Greek Fathers. Generally speaking, the Greeks are the chief authorities for conditional predestination dependent on foreseen merits. The Latins, too, are so unanimous on this question that St. Augustine is practically the only adversary in the Occident. St. Hilary (In Ps. lxiv, n. 5) expressly describes eternal election as proceeding from "the choice of merit" (ex meriti delectu), and St. Ambrose teaches in his paraphrase of Rom., viii, 29 (De fide, V, vi, 83): "Non enim ante prædestinavit quam præscivit, sed quorum merita præscivit, eorum præmia prædestinavit" (He did not predestine before He foreknew, but for those whose merits He foresaw, He predestined the reward). To conclude: no one can accuse us of boldness if we assert that the theory here presented has a firmer basis in Scripture and Tradition than the opposite opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 I have read it, I don't understand it, and I am not worried about it. I don't think it will be on the enterance exam for heaven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustbenothing Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 (davejc29201) Actually, the notion that God positively chooses, rather than merely foresees, those who will come to him, is not against Catholic teaching. All Thomists and even some Molinists (such as Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suarez) taught unconditional election. (Me) You are correct that Thomists teach unconditional election. My best understanding of Molinism would make it entirely incompatible with the doctrine, as Molina's system is founded on the emphasis of the resistibility of grace. (davejc29201) However, what IS against Catholic teaching "double-predestination." This teaching claims that in addition to electing some people to salvation God also sends others to damnation. (Me) Augustine affirmed it. (davejc29201) The alternative to double-predestination is to say that while God predestines some people, he simply passes over the remainder. They will not come to God, but it is because of their INHERENT SIN, not because God damns them. They beaver dam themselves. This is the doctrine of passive reprobation, which Aquinas taught. (Me) This (elect some, pass over the rest) is known as infralapsarianism, and has been taught by the majority of Calvinists throughout time. It is entirely separate from the question of whether or not reprobation/double predestination is true. (davejc29201) The Council of Trent stated, "If anyone says that it is not in the power of man to make his ways evil, but that God produces the evil as well as the good works, not only by permission, but also properly and of himself, so that the betrayal of Judas is no less his own proper work than the vocation of Paul, let him be anathema.... If anyone shall say that the grace of justification is attained by those only who are predestined unto life, but that all others, who are called, are called indeed, but do not receive grace, as if they are by divine power predestined to evil, let him be anathema." (Me) Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology was the standard Reformed Theology until Reymond's recent ST. I own Berkhof's and not Reymond's, so I will quote from Berkhof: "It is customary to speak of the decree of God respecting moral evil as permissive" (p. 105; Pt. One, The Work of God, I.D.7.). (davejc29201) Mustbenothing has also stated the atonement is limited, that Christ offered it for some men but not for all. (Me) So did Augustine :-) (davejc29201) He claims Christ died only for the elect, but that is totally false. The Bible maintains that there is a sense in which Christ died for all men. John 4:42 describes Christ as "the Savior of the world," (Me) By this, do you mean to argue that Christ actually saved literally every person who has or will live? If not, I don't see how this can be a problem for Limited Atonement. (davejc29201) and 1 John 2:2 states that Christ "is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." (Me) 1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. Consideration of the following points is important in understanding this text. 1. John's specific audience. a. John was specifically a minister/apostle to the Jews. Galatians 2:9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. b. John indicates that those to whom he wrote had received the word from the beginning. Paul teaches that salvation came first to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles (Romans 1:16). 1 John 2:7 Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard. c. The contrast between "us" and "the world" in the epistle indicates his audience. John likes to distinguish between the nearby Jews and those believers scattered throughout the world. John 10:16 16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. John 11:51-52 51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. d. The frequency of his attacks on false teachers, seducers, and antichrists indicates that his audience was close to the great number of these men, who were, in the 1st century, mostly Jewish. So, as John is concerned with the Jews, he is concerned with the actual salvation of men throughout the world, rather than the effectual redemption of some and the ineffectual redemption of others. 2. His specific purpose in writing this statement is to give consolation to believers in the face of their sins. a. He calls Christ their "advocate." b. He describes them as "little children" (2:1), saying that they have had "their sins forgiven for His name's sake" (2:12-13). So, I cannot see how John telling us that Christ died to save everybody is supposed to console these believers specifically. His words would be much more fitting if by them he means that (i.e., if he is interpreted as saying that) Christ died to save all believers, no matter where they are in the world or what they have done. 3. What it means for Christ to be the "propitiation" of the "whole world." a. Hilasmos ("propitiation") refers to reconciliation having been made. It refers to the covering of sins. b. "The whole world" does not clearly need to refer to literally everyone. Here are a few examples. Revelation 3:10 Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth. - This cannot refer to literally everyone, because it specifically states that some are preserved from it. Colossians 1:6 which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing—as it also does among you, since the day you heard it and understood the grace of God in truth, - Certainly not all are believers, so not literally every person in the world "is bearing fruit and growing." Thus, this does not refer to literally everyone. Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. - At the time of Paul's writing, the Gospel had not reached very far into Africa, Asia, or Europe, to say nothing of the Americas or Australia. Therefore, this cannot refer to literally everyone. c. "The whole world" may simply signify all nations. This kind of a focus for the extent of the Gospel's power and influence is certainly present elsewhere in the Scripture. Psalm 98:3 He has remembered his steadfast love and faithfulness to the house of Israel. All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God. Psalm 22:27 All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you. Psalm 72:11 May all kings fall down before him, all nations serve him! Joel 2:28 "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Acts 2:17 " 'And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; d. "The whole world" sometimes refers to only part of the world -- the evil part. Revelation. 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world— he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 1 John 5:19 We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. So, given these facts about Christ being the "propiation" for "the whole world," I present these arguments. e. 1 John 2:2 is dealing with the application of Christ's propitiation, and it is clearly not applied to everyone. f. Only believers can be intended here, because it is supposed to given them comfort. g. The phrasing/word choice cannot be claimed to refer to literally every person. h. The parallels to this in Scripture do not have literally everyone in mind (refer back to Colossians 1:6 and John 11:51, 52). i. If this refers to literally everyone, then the assertion itself is useless. For, John is consoling them in their faults by the fact that Christ has atoned for them. And yet, if Christ atoned for everyone, yet not everyone is saved, the fact that Christ atoned for the believers will not give them consolation in the fact of their sin. (davejc29201) 1 Timothy 4:10 describes God as "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." (Me) The verse itself explains that He is the Savior of the elect in a way different than everyone else. The atonement itself is not primarily in view. (davejc29201) Who will you believe, Jesus Christ and the Church He founded, which has been teaching the truth for over 2000 years, or John Calvin, a mere man who came along 1500 years after the beginning of the Church and started promoting his own version of predestination? (Me) John Gill's The Cause of God and Truth provides exhaustive quotations regarding the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination from Church Fathers throughout the centuries. You've also ignored Augustine (and, I would argue, Paul and Jesus) entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 29, 2003 Author Share Posted July 29, 2003 My words are in red. (davejc29201) However, what IS against Catholic teaching "double-predestination." This teaching claims that in addition to electing some people to salvation God also sends others to damnation. (Me) Augustine affirmed it. Can you prove that? (davejc29201) The alternative to double-predestination is to say that while God predestines some people, he simply passes over the remainder. They will not come to God, but it is because of their INHERENT SIN, not because God damns them. They beaver dam themselves. This is the doctrine of passive reprobation, which Aquinas taught. (Me) This (elect some, pass over the rest) is known as infralapsarianism, and has been taught by the majority of Calvinists throughout time. It is entirely separate from the question of whether or not reprobation/double predestination is true. But the two ARE related. Calvinism says that God actually sends the non-elect to hell, when in fact, he does no such thing. They send THEMSELVES to hell. They, by their own choice, forsake him, so God, as much as it pains Him, must pass over them. (davejc29201) Mustbenothing has also stated the atonement is limited, that Christ offered it for some men but not for all. (Me) So did Augustine :-) Proof? (davejc29201) He claims Christ died only for the elect, but that is totally false. The Bible maintains that there is a sense in which Christ died for all men. John 4:42 describes Christ as "the Savior of the world," (Me) By this, do you mean to argue that Christ actually saved literally every person who has or will live? If not, I don't see how this can be a problem for Limited Atonement. Not at all. Christ died so that ALL people CAN be saved. He wants ALL people to accept that gift. However, whether or not they WILL all be saved in another matter entirely. As I said, God wants all to accept His gift of salvation, but He knows that people have free will, and they may freely choose not to accept this gift. I cannot see how John telling us that Christ died to save everybody is supposed to console these believers specifically. His words would be much more fitting if by them he means that (i.e., if he is interpreted as saying that) Christ died to save all believers, no matter where they are in the world or what they have done. Jesus died to save you and me specifically. However, you can say the same thing about everyone else here on this forum. He died to save marielapin specifically, He died to save cmotherofpirl specifically, He died to save Jake Huether specifically, He died to save ironmonk specifically, and so forth, and so on. He died to save EVERYONE specifically! Jesus loves each one of us without exception. Does that mean the fact that Jesus died to save the whole world take away from the fact that he died to save each one of us specifically as if we were the only person in the world? I don't think so! God doesn't "cover" our sins; He takes them away! But that's another topic, and we should deal with that in another thread. So, given these facts about Christ being the "propiation" for "the whole world," I present these arguments. e. 1 John 2:2 is dealing with the application of Christ's propitiation, and it is clearly not applied to everyone. f. Only believers can be intended here, because it is supposed to given them comfort. g. The phrasing/word choice cannot be claimed to refer to literally every person. h. The parallels to this in Scripture do not have literally everyone in mind (refer back to Colossians 1:6 and John 11:51, 52). i. If this refers to literally everyone, then the assertion itself is useless. For, John is consoling them in their faults by the fact that Christ has atoned for them. And yet, if Christ atoned for everyone, yet not everyone is saved, the fact that Christ atoned for the believers will not give them consolation in the fact of their sin. As for points e and f, which refer to the passages in 1 John you cited, you're reading things into the passage that just aren't there (see my earlier remarks regarding that passage). As for point g and h, didn't Jesus tell his disciples to go out into ALL the world? He said that whoever believes is saved and whoever doesn't is damned. As I've said over and over again, the Gospel is for EVERYONE, but people are sinful and can choose their free will to reject the Gospel. So while Jesus died for all, not everyone will benefit from His death (unless, of course, they CHOOSE to -- they choose to do so by choosing to accept the Gospel). I basically already addressed point i. (davejc29201) 1 Timothy 4:10 describes God as "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." (Me) The verse itself explains that He is the Savior of the elect in a way different than everyone else. The atonement itself is not primarily in view. No, it doesn't. What it means is that Jesus died to save ALL men. However, as to the "especially those who believe" clause," it means Jesus' death, although it's intended to benefit ALL people, if people don't choose to correspond the graces He gained for us through His death, then His death won't help them. If, on the other hand, a person accepts those graces and believes, then Jesus' death will definitely benefit them. (davejc29201) Who will you believe, Jesus Christ and the Church He founded, which has been teaching the truth for over 2000 years, or John Calvin, a mere man who came along 1500 years after the beginning of the Church and started promoting his own version of predestination? (Me) John Gill's The Cause of God and Truth provides exhaustive quotations regarding the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination from Church Fathers throughout the centuries. You've also ignored Augustine (and, I would argue, Paul and Jesus) entirely. How do you know John Gill isn't taking things out of context or misinterpreting what the Church Fathers said? It doesn't sound like John Gill is Catholic. Besides, I've read some things Augustine wrote about predestination (I didn't include that in my original post simply for the sake of brevity). I know what Paul and Jesus said, yet you have yet to give me one verse that says they taught the Calvinistic version of predestination. Also, it doesn't seem to me you read Don John's post in this thread, as you never addressed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustbenothing Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 (Previous) Augustine affirmed it. (davejc29201) Can you prove that? (Me) "As the Supreme Good, he made good use of evil deeds, for the damnation of those whom He had justly predestined to punishment and for the salvation of those whom He had mercifully predestined to grace" (Enchiridion, 100). (Previous) This (elect some, pass over the rest) is known as infralapsarianism, and has been taught by the majority of Calvinists throughout time. It is entirely separate from the question of whether or not reprobation/double predestination is true. (davejc29201) But the two ARE related. Calvinism says that God actually sends the non-elect to hell, when in fact, he does no such thing. They send THEMSELVES to hell. They, by their own choice, forsake him, so God, as much as it pains Him, must pass over them. (Me) The Westminster Confession of Faith is probably the Calvinistic standard, and it teaches the following: Ch. III. VII The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice. (Previous) So did Augustine :-) (davejc29201) Proof? (Me) This I can remember off-hand where to locate. Sermon XLIV. de Verbis Apost. -- "He that bought us with such a price will have none perish whom He hath bought." Tract LXXXVII. John -- "He often calleth the church itself by the name of the world; as in that, 'God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself;' and that, 'The Son of man came not to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.' And John in his epistle saith, 'We have an Advocate, and he is the propitiation for[our sins, and not for outs only, but also for] the sins of the whole world.' The whole world, therefore, is the chruch, and the world hateth the church. The world, then, hateth the world; that which is at enmit, the reconciled; the condemned, the saved; the puolluted, the cleansed world. And that world which GOd in Christ reconcileth to Himself, and which is saved by Christ, is chosen out of the opposite, condemned, defiled world." (Previous) By this, do you mean to argue that Christ actually saved literally every person who has or will live? If not, I don't see how this can be a problem for Limited Atonement. (davejc29201) Not at all. Christ died so that ALL people CAN be saved. He wants ALL people to accept that gift. However, whether or not they WILL all be saved in another matter entirely. As I said, God wants all to accept His gift of salvation, but He knows that people have free will, and they may freely choose not to accept this gift. (Me) His being the Savior of the world, if taken literally, would mean that He actually saves the world. You choose to interpret this, instead, as meaning that He makes it possible for the world to be saved. And, in that sense, I certainly agree -- "believe and be saved" was a real promise, and so all who repent unto Christ will be saved. That offer is open for anyone, elect or unelect. (Previous) I cannot see how John telling us that Christ died to save everybody is supposed to console these believers specifically. His words would be much more fitting if by them he means that (i.e., if he is interpreted as saying that) Christ died to save all believers, no matter where they are in the world or what they have done. (davejc29201) Jesus died to save you and me specifically. However, you can say the same thing about everyone else here on this forum. He died to save marielapin specifically, He died to save cmotherofpirl specifically, He died to save Jake Huether specifically, He died to save ironmonk specifically, and so forth, and so on. He died to save EVERYONE specifically! Jesus loves each one of us without exception. Does that mean the fact that Jesus died to save the whole world take away from the fact that he died to save each one of us specifically as if we were the only person in the world? I don't think so! (Me) This was a statement of the thesis, which was to be argued from the points I was about to raise. You here simply state your position, rather than arguing with my own, so I will provide no new response. (davejc29201) So, given these facts about Christ being the "propiation" for "the whole world," I present these arguments. e. 1 John 2:2 is dealing with the application of Christ's propitiation, and it is clearly not applied to everyone. f. Only believers can be intended here, because it is supposed to given them comfort. g. The phrasing/word choice cannot be claimed to refer to literally every person. h. The parallels to this in Scripture do not have literally everyone in mind (refer back to Colossians 1:6 and John 11:51, 52). i. If this refers to literally everyone, then the assertion itself is useless. For, John is consoling them in their faults by the fact that Christ has atoned for them. And yet, if Christ atoned for everyone, yet not everyone is saved, the fact that Christ atoned for the believers will not give them consolation in the fact of their sin. (davejc29201) As for points e and f, which refer to the passages in 1 John you cited, you're reading things into the passage that just aren't there (see my earlier remarks regarding that passage). (Me) I am not reading into the passage that 1 John 2:2 is the dealing with the application of redemption, for it is talking specifically about the forgiveness of our sins by Christ's blood (the application of redemption). I am not reading into the passage that 1 John 2:2 is consoling believers, for he is referring to those who walk in the light, but sin (1 John 1:7-10). (davejc29201) As for point g and h, didn't Jesus tell his disciples to go out into ALL the world? He said that whoever believes is saved and whoever doesn't is damned. As I've said over and over again, the Gospel is for EVERYONE, but people are sinful and can choose their free will to reject the Gospel. So while Jesus died for all, not everyone will benefit from His death (unless, of course, they CHOOSE to -- they choose to do so by choosing to accept the Gospel). (Me) This is just another restatement of your position. You haven't actually interacted with either of the arguments I raised. (davejc29201) I basically already addressed point i. (Me) You've not addressed it at all. John was telling them not to fear, because Christ's blood already guaranteed their redemption. Christ's blood did not require their free will to redeem them -- Christ's blood had guaranteed their redemption, so they needn't worry. Therefore, to assert that "the whole world" is literally everyone is to assert that Christ has guaranteed redemption for everyone -- universalism! (Me) The verse itself explains that He is the Savior of the elect in a way different than everyone else. The atonement itself is not primarily in view. (davejc29201) No, it doesn't. What it means is that Jesus died to save ALL men. (Me) No explicit mention is made of Christ's death. (davejc29201) However, as to the "especially those who believe" clause," it means Jesus' death, although it's intended to benefit ALL people, if people don't choose to correspond the graces He gained for us through His death, then His death won't help them. If, on the other hand, a person accepts those graces and believes, then Jesus' death will definitely benefit them. (Me) You're now reading your position into the passage again. It says that God is the Savior of all men in one respect, and of believers in another respect. Therefore, either of our views are consistent with this passage. It is possible to claim that He is the Savior of all men in the respect that, if they would repent unto Him, they would be saved. Of course, that just makes Him the potential Savior of them, even though the text says that He is the actual Savior of them -- but I would imagine that such a reading is not completely beyond the bounds of coherency. Likewise, however, my view fits perfectly -- He is the Savior of all men in the sense of Common Grace, and He is the Savior of believers only in the sense of certain redemption. (Previous) John Gill's The Cause of God and Truth provides exhaustive quotations regarding the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination from Church Fathers throughout the centuries. You've also ignored Augustine (and, I would argue, Paul and Jesus) entirely. (davejc29201) How do you know John Gill isn't taking things out of context or misinterpreting what the Church Fathers said? It doesn't sound like John Gill is Catholic. Besides, I've read some things Augustine wrote about predestination (I didn't include that in my original post simply for the sake of brevity). (Me) John Gill is not Roman Catholic, no. But why must you assume that everything he writes is wrong just because he is not a Roman Catholic? Aren't you just assuming that you are right without reading the opposition's best arguments? I'm not sending you down a wild goose chase -- his book has been considered a very good work, whether or not its conclusions are right, for centuries. (davejc29201) I know what Paul and Jesus said, yet you have yet to give me one verse that says they taught the Calvinistic version of predestination. (Me) Proverbs 16:4 The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil. John 10:26 26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. Romans 9:8-23 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 9 For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son." 10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." 14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole Earth." 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. 19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory. Romans 11:5-8 5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. 7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; 8 just as it is written, "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes to see not and ears to hear not, down to this very day." Jude 1:4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. 2 Peter 2:8 and, "A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed. (davejc29201) Also, it doesn't seem to me you read Don John's post in this thread, as you never addressed it. (Me) It is against internet debate etiquette to require responses to long cut 'n' pastes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 St Augustine IS in Heaven. He was not infallible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroX Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 Here is a link to an article titled "The population of Hell" by Avery Cardinal Dulles. I think it does a good job of explaining the Catholic position. The article is from "First Things" a great conservative Catholic Journal. peace... http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0305...les/dulles.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 3, 2003 Author Share Posted August 3, 2003 (Previous) Augustine affirmed it. (davejc29201) Can you prove that? (Me) "As the Supreme Good, he made good use of evil deeds, for the damnation of those whom He had justly predestined to punishment and for the salvation of those whom He had mercifully predestined to grace" (Enchiridion, 100). First of all, Augustine, since he’s a human, can be mistaken. No one said the Church Fathers are infallible. However, your quotation seems to be at odds with a couple of other quotes from Augustine. True, Augustine believed in massa damnata, which, in a nutshell, means that most people go to hell. God willed to display mercy and justice, according to this theory, so to show mercy, He rescued a small percent. To display justice, God allowed the rest to go to hell. But let’s look at a couple things he wrote: “For not all who were called willed to come to that dinner which as the Lord says in the Gospel was prepared, nor would they who came have been able to come if they had not been called. And no neither should they who came attribute [it] to themselves, for they came, being called; nor should those who were unwilling to come attribute [it] to anyone but themselves, for in order that they might come, they were called in free will” (De diversis quaestionibus LXXXII. 68. 5). Similarly in De Actis cum Felice Manichaeo 2.8, he wrote: “Felix said: You call Manichaeus cruel for saying these things. What do we say about Christ who said” Go into eternal fire? Augustine said: He said this to sinners. Felix said: These sinners – why were they not purified? Augustine said: Because they did not will [it]. Felix said: Because they did not will it – did you say that? Augustine said: Yes, I said it, because they did not will it.” So while Augustine believed that God arbitrarily chooses who to save, that doesn’t mean he actually arbitrarily decided who to condemn. In those quotes, Augustine made it clear that those who go to hell send themselves there. As for the quote you cited, it’s apparent, in light of the quotes I cited, that when Augustine said they had been predestined to punishment, that he didn’t mean that God actually condemns people. God, according to Augustine, passes over the wicked, who, of course, will go to hell, but for God to condemn is to do something, whereas for God to pass over is, by contrast, not to do something. (Previous) This (elect some, pass over the rest) is known as infralapsarianism, and has been taught by the majority of Calvinists throughout time. It is entirely separate from the question of whether or not reprobation/double predestination is true. (davejc29201) But the two ARE related. Calvinism says that God actually sends the non-elect to hell, when in fact, he does no such thing. They send THEMSELVES to hell. They, by their own choice, forsake him, so God, as much as it pains Him, must pass over them. (Me) The Westminster Confession of Faith is probably the Calvinistic standard, and it teaches the following: Ch. III. VII The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice. The real question is whether or not it’s because of God’s arbitrary decision or the foreknowledge that a given person would refuse God’s offer of salvation that a person doesn’t receive mercy. Does God choose to withhold mercy, or do we make ourselves impervious to it? Based on the quotes I just cited above, Augustine would say the latter. (Previous) So did Augustine :-) (davejc29201) Proof? (Me) This I can remember off-hand where to locate. Sermon XLIV. de Verbis Apost. -- "He that bought us with such a price will have none perish whom He hath bought." Tract LXXXVII. John -- "He often calleth the church itself by the name of the world; as in that, 'God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself;' and that, 'The Son of man came not to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.' And John in his epistle saith, 'We have an Advocate, and he is the propitiation for[our sins, and not for outs only, but also for] the sins of the whole world.' The whole world, therefore, is the chruch, and the world hateth the church. The world, then, hateth the world; that which is at enmit, the reconciled; the condemned, the saved; the puolluted, the cleansed world. And that world which GOd in Christ reconcileth to Himself, and which is saved by Christ, is chosen out of the opposite, condemned, defiled world." If Augustine said the reason why people go to hell is because they don’t wish to be purified of their sins, then that would mean he did NOT believe in limited atonement. Why? Because if God didn’t die for the reprobate, then they would be stuck in sin because of GOD’s choice, not their own. You’ve got to take what Augustine said as a whole to understand what he meant, not take a passage here and there in order to suit your own doctrines. (Previous) By this, do you mean to argue that Christ actually saved literally every person who has or will live? If not, I don't see how this can be a problem for Limited Atonement. (davejc29201) Not at all. Christ died so that ALL people CAN be saved. He wants ALL people to accept that gift. However, whether or not they WILL all be saved in another matter entirely. As I said, God wants all to accept His gift of salvation, but He knows that people have free will, and they may freely choose not to accept this gift. (Me) His being the Savior of the world, if taken literally, would mean that He actually saves the world. You choose to interpret this, instead, as meaning that He makes it possible for the world to be saved. And, in that sense, I certainly agree -- "believe and be saved" was a real promise, and so all who repent unto Christ will be saved. That offer is open for anyone, elect or unelect. He literally saved the world in that he procured oceans of graces to lead all people without exception to accept his gift of salvation. Whether or not they make a choice to do that, however, is another thing entirely. Besides, look at what Sacred Scripture says (all caps are done for emphasis only, not shouting, and all emphasis is mine): 1 Timothy 2:4 – who wills EVERYONE to come to the knowledge of the truth. 1 Timothy 2:6 – who gave himself a ransom for ALL. 2 Peter 3:9 – The Lord does not delay his promise, as some regard “delay,” but He is patient with you, NOT WISHING THAT ANYBODY SHOULD PERISH BUT THAT ALL SHOULD COME TO REPENTANCE. Ezekiel 33:11 – answer them: As I live, says the Lord, I swear I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked man, but rather in the wicked man’s conversion, that he may live. Ezekiel 18:23 – do I indeed derive any pleasure from the death of the wicked? says the Lord God. Do I not rather rejoice when he turns from his evil way that he may live? Hebrews 2:9 – But we do see Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because He suffered death, He who “for a little while” was made lower than the angels,” that by the grace of God He might taste death for EVERYONE. 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 For the love of Christ impels us, once we have come to the conviction that one died for ALL, so that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for Him who for their sake died and was raised. *Notice that the last passage I cited uses the word “might.” It doesn’t say “will no longer …,” just “might no longer … .” Thus, Paul is saying that while Jesus died to give all people the opportunity to be saved, some will refuse to take advantage of it. (Previous) I cannot see how John telling us that Christ died to save everybody is supposed to console these believers specifically. His words would be much more fitting if by them he means that (i.e., if he is interpreted as saying that) Christ died to save all believers, no matter where they are in the world or what they have done. (davejc29201) Jesus died to save you and me specifically. However, you can say the same thing about everyone else here on this forum. He died to save marielapin specifically, He died to save cmotherofpirl specifically, He died to save Jake Huether specifically, He died to save ironmonk specifically, and so forth, and so on. He died to save EVERYONE specifically! Jesus loves each one of us without exception. Does that mean the fact that Jesus died to save the whole world take away from the fact that he died to save each one of us specifically as if we were the only person in the world? I don't think so! (Me) This was a statement of the thesis, which was to be argued from the points I was about to raise. You here simply state your position, rather than arguing with my own, so I will provide no new response. Then maybe I need to make myself clearer. John was telling us that Christ died to save us specifically, which, of course, would be a great comfort to us. But just because John was addressing believers to provide them comfort means nothing. You seem to imply that it’s got to mean one thing or the other, but it’s not an either/or argument; it’s a both/and argument. (Previous) So, given these facts about Christ being the "propiation" for "the whole world," I present these arguments. e. 1 John 2:2 is dealing with the application of Christ's propitiation, and it is clearly not applied to everyone. f. Only believers can be intended here, because it is supposed to given them comfort. g. The phrasing/word choice cannot be claimed to refer to literally every person. h. The parallels to this in Scripture do not have literally everyone in mind (refer back to Colossians 1:6 and John 11:51, 52). i. If this refers to literally everyone, then the assertion itself is useless. For, John is consoling them in their faults by the fact that Christ has atoned for them. And yet, if Christ atoned for everyone, yet not everyone is saved, the fact that Christ atoned for the believers will not give them consolation in the fact of their sin. (davejc29201) As for points e and f, which refer to the passages in 1 John you cited, you're reading things into the passage that just aren't there (see my earlier remarks regarding that passage). (Me) I am not reading into the passage that 1 John 2:2 is the dealing with the application of redemption, for it is talking specifically about the forgiveness of our sins by Christ's blood (the application of redemption). I am not reading into the passage that 1 John 2:2 is consoling believers, for he is referring to those who walk in the light, but sin (1 John 1:7-10). To revisit point e, I ask you to first reread the Bible verses I cited earlier in this post. Then, consider John 3:16 – “For God so loved THE WORLD (emphasis mine, as usual) that He gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him might not perish but might have eternal life.” In light of all those passages, we see that God loves the world, so that can only mean all humans without exception. Jesus wants His propitiation to apply to everyone, but they have to accept the graces He won by the shedding of His blood. So I guess I misunderstood what you said for that particular point. And as for point f, as I said earlier, sure, John is giving believers comfort, but in light of other Scripture passages, we can’t take an either/or approach. (davejc29201) As for point g and h, didn't Jesus tell his disciples to go out into ALL the world? He said that whoever believes is saved and whoever doesn't is damned. As I've said over and over again, the Gospel is for EVERYONE, but people are sinful and can use their free will to reject the Gospel. So while Jesus died for all, not everyone will benefit from His death (unless, of course, they CHOOSE to – they choose to do so by choosing to accept the Gospel). (Me) This is just another restatement of your position. You haven't actually interacted with either of the arguments I raised. No, rather, you missed the point of what I said. But allow me to revisit those points too. As for point g, what makes you so certain it can’t refer to everyone? You haven’t given me a single Bible verse to prove your point. As for the ones that you did cite, Colossians 1:6 and John 11:51-52, they don’t prove your point. The former verse says, “Just as in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing, so also among you, from the day you heard it and came to know the grace of God in truth.” Remember, at that time, continents like America hadn’t even been discovered and weren’t known to exist. That was to come centuries later. Paul was referring to what he THOUGHT to be the whole world, although the Gospel hadn’t reached those places that had not yet been discovered. The Bible isn’t a geography book, remember. The latter 2 verses say, “He did not say this on his own, but since he was high priest for that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not only for the nation, but also to gather into one the dispersed children of God.” If you’re referring to the part where it says Jesus was going to “die for the nation,” it DOES INDEED mean he died for every person in Israel. True, many in Israel refused to believe, but not because Jesus didn’t die for them. Rather, it was because they wouldn’t accept his atoning death and the salvation he won for them. It seems to me you’re twisting the meaning to fit your beliefs. (davejc29201) I basically already addressed point i. (Me) You've not addressed it at all. John was telling them not to fear, because Christ's blood already guaranteed their redemption. Christ's blood did not require their free will to redeem them -- Christ's blood had guaranteed their redemption, so they needn't worry. Therefore, to assert that "the whole world" is literally everyone is to assert that Christ has guaranteed redemption for everyone -- universalism! You say I didn’t address it, but once again, the only reason you say that is because you missed the point of what I wrote. But now I see that that’s because you’re confusing redemption and salvation. By dying for us, Jesus won for us our REDEMPTION. EVERYONE was redeemed without exception. However, we have to ACCEPT that redemption, and if we do so (and continue to do so until the end), then we will be saved. If not, then we won’t be. So no, no universalism is implied in any way, shape, or form. (Me) The verse itself explains that He is the Savior of the elect in a way different than everyone else. The atonement itself is not primarily in view. (davejc29201) No, it doesn't. What it means is that Jesus died to save ALL men. (Me) No explicit mention is made of Christ's death. Have you forgotten that Jesus saved us by His infinitely loving gesture of suffering and dying for us? It makes no difference His death isn’t explicitly mentioned. He’s the Savior, and He saved us by dying for us! (davejc29201) However, as to the "especially those who believe" clause," it means Jesus' death, although it's intended to benefit ALL people, if people don't choose to correspond the graces He gained for us through His death, then His death won't help them. If, on the other hand, a person accepts those graces and believes, then Jesus' death will definitely benefit them. (Me) You're now reading your position into the passage again. It says that God is the Savior of all men in one respect, and of believers in another respect. Therefore, either of our views are consistent with this passage. It is possible to claim that He is the Savior of all men in the respect that, if they would repent unto Him, they would be saved. Of course, that just makes Him the potential Savior of them, even though the text says that He is the actual Savior of them -- but I would imagine that such a reading is not completely beyond the bounds of coherency. Likewise, however, my view fits perfectly -- He is the Savior of all men in the sense of Common Grace, and He is the Savior of believers only in the sense of certain redemption. Ummmm . . . sorry, John, but the one who’s been reading his own interpretation of the passage is YOU. Once again, you’re confusing redemption and salvation. Jesus isn’t the potential Savior of anyone; He’s either their Savior or He isn’t. This is why you can’t just take certain Bible passages and isolate them from the rest of Scripture – you’ll just wind up believing things that are contradictory to what Scripture REALLY teaches. (Previous) John Gill's The Cause of God and Truth provides exhaustive quotations regarding the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination from Church Fathers throughout the centuries. You've also ignored Augustine (and, I would argue, Paul and Jesus) entirely. (davejc29201) How do you know John Gill isn't taking things out of context or misinterpreting what the Church Fathers said? It doesn't sound like John Gill is Catholic. Besides, I've read some things Augustine wrote about predestination (I didn't include that in my original post simply for the sake of brevity). (Me) John Gill is not Roman Catholic, no. But why must you assume that everything he writes is wrong just because he is not a Roman Catholic? Aren't you just assuming that you are right without reading the opposition's best arguments? I'm not sending you down a wild goose chase -- his book has been considered a very good work, whether or not its conclusions are right, for centuries. I’ve seen it time and time again – non-Catholics who want to back up erroneous doctrines and attempt to prove Catholics wrong often take what Early Church Fathers say out of context. But even if there were Church Fathers who DID believe in the Calvinistic version of predestination, remember, we don't follow them; we follow Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. (davejc29201) I know what Paul and Jesus said, yet you have yet to give me one verse that says they taught the Calvinistic version of predestination. (Me) Proverbs 16:4 The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil. John 10:26 26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. Romans 9:8-23 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 9 For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son." 10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." 14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole Earth." 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. 19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory. Romans 11:5-8 5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. 7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; 8 just as it is written, "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes to see not and ears to hear not, down to this very day." Jude 1:4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. 2 Peter 2:8 and, "A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed. None of these passages prove your point. It’s not doing violence to the passages to say that the people referred to who you claim were allegedly predestined to hell and were thus made sinners had made the choice to reject God of their own free will. As for the passage in Proverbs you cited, yes, God did make the wicked, but He didn’t intend them to be that way. But God nevertheless ALLOWS people to be evil and reject Him so that He can show that He is a God of justice. There’s a reason for everything, and that’s why God allows evil. The passage from the Gospel of John makes no sense if it’s said to mean Calvinistic predestination. Jesus didn’t say He made those people not part of His flock; He just said they weren’t part of it. So naturally, if we look at the Bible as a whole, we come to understand that these people CHOSE not to be part of Jesus’ flock. The first passage from Romans doesn’t show Calvinistic predestination either. First off, let’s start with the statement that God loved Jacob but hated Esau. Actually, St. Augustine thought this meant God really hated Esau and destined him to hell without even looking to see how he would live (Ad Simplicianum 1. 14). But at the bottom is a Hebrew way of speaking. Hebrew and Aramaic both lack the degrees of comparison, such as: good, better, best, or, clear, clearer, clearest. Not having such forms, when they have such ideas, they are forced to use other devices. One of them is to speak of hate vs. love. In our language we would say: I love one more than the other. In Luke 14:26 Jesus says we must hate our parents. But that is the same Semitic pattern. Matthew 10:37 softened it, using the western way of speaking, and said, "He who loves father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me." As for that passage, as well as the other passage from Romans and those from Jude and 2 Peter, well, let's think about it some more. There is a certain mystery involved in God’s predestined plan to be sure. There are many unanswerable questions that we could ask. For example, why does God give more grace to some than others? Why does God allow someone to be born and live, knowing that he will eventually choose to reject Him and go to hell? This is precisely what Paul is talking about in the text you quoted when he refers to these as "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction" (Romans 9:22). God knew they would freely reject Him, but He nevertheless allows them to be born, or, "fitted for destruction." Let me take it a step further. Why doesn’t God give the man who is rejecting Him more grace so that he will freely choose Him? It may be true that if God gave more grace to a particular person who is in hell, he would have made it to heaven! Think about that one for a while! We cannot answer questions such as these except as Paul did: "Who are you, O Man, who answers back to God" (Romans 9:20)? However, we cannot take this to such an extreme that we turn God into an unjust God! These verses must not be used to contradict what is clearly revealed elsewhere in Scripture. Even if some men are given more grace than others (see Romans 12:3-6), every man is given sufficient grace to be saved. That is clear in Scripture. Titus 2:11 tells us that ‘the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men.’ If God did not give a man sufficient grace to be saved, then God would truly be unjust in condemning him. There is no mystery there at all. And with regard to Paul’s words about God "hardening" people, giving them a "spirit of stupor," being "marked out for condemnation" or "appointed to doom," all according to His will, the answer is really quite simple. First, Paul has already told us who God "hardens" in Romans 1:25-28: "God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator. . . . For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. . . . And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct." The text speaks for itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Actually, I've been gifted with complete understanding of predestination and foreknowledge. I'd explain it, but I already know you will choose not to belive me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 3, 2003 Author Share Posted August 3, 2003 Something I forgot to address . . . The passage in Romans 9 referring to the potter that John cited. Let’s take a look at it. John, I can see how you can be misguided into denying freedom of the will from a surface reading of that text. However, I would ask you to consider something that I think you’ve missed. Look at verse 21 that you quoted: "Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?" Did you know that this is actually a reference to Jeremiah 18:6 from the Old Testament? "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? says the Lord. Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel." Does this text deny free will? If you were to take this verse alone, you might get that impression. However, let’s look at the very next four verses. "If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will repent of the evil that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will repent of the good which I had intended to do to it (Jeremiah 18:7-10)." Certainly, we do not want to say that Paul took Jeremiah 18:6 out of context to teach something that Jeremiah clearly denied! Jeremiah is not denying free will. In fact, he is affirming it. Neither is Paul denying free will. All throughout the book of Romans and elsewhere, Paul clearly teaches that we must freely cooperate with God’s grace to be saved. For example, Romans 11:22 says, "Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off." Obedience involves our free cooperation, and Paul makes it very clear that we must continue to obey in order to attain everlasting life in Romans 6:16: "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness [or salvation]?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustbenothing Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 (edited) (Previous) "As the Supreme Good, he made good use of evil deeds, for the damnation of those whom He had justly predestined to punishment and for the salvation of those whom He had mercifully predestined to grace" (Enchiridion, 100). (davejc29201) First of all, Augustine, since he’s a human, can be mistaken. No one said the Church Fathers are infallible. However, your quotation seems to be at odds with a couple of other quotes from Augustine. True, Augustine believed in massa damnata, which, in a nutshell, means that most people go to hell. God willed to display mercy and justice, according to this theory, so to show mercy, He rescued a small percent. To display justice, God allowed the rest to go to hell. But let’s look at a couple things he wrote: “For not all who were called willed to come to that dinner which as the Lord says in the Gospel was prepared, nor would they who came have been able to come if they had not been called. And no neither should they who came attribute [it] to themselves, for they came, being called; nor should those who were unwilling to come attribute [it] to anyone but themselves, for in order that they might come, they were called in free will” (De diversis quaestionibus LXXXII. 68. 5). Similarly in De Actis cum Felice Manichaeo 2.8, he wrote: “Felix said: You call Manichaeus cruel for saying these things. What do we say about Christ who said” Go into eternal fire? Augustine said: He said this to sinners. Felix said: These sinners – why were they not purified? Augustine said: Because they did not will [it]. Felix said: Because they did not will it – did you say that? Augustine said: Yes, I said it, because they did not will it.” So while Augustine believed that God arbitrarily chooses who to save, that doesn’t mean he actually arbitrarily decided who to condemn. In those quotes, Augustine made it clear that those who go to hell send themselves there. As for the quote you cited, it’s apparent, in light of the quotes I cited, that when Augustine said they had been predestined to punishment, that he didn’t mean that God actually condemns people. God, according to Augustine, passes over the wicked, who, of course, will go to hell, but for God to condemn is to do something, whereas for God to pass over is, by contrast, not to do something. (Me) Whether or not your citations accurately represent him, you've still not shown that he believes anything outside of the Calvinistic camp regarding reprobation. Saying that God "passes over the wicked" is the view expressed by the majority of Calvinistic theologians. (Previous) The Westminster Confession of Faith is probably the Calvinistic standard, and it teaches the following: Ch. III. VII The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice. (davejc29201) The real question is whether or not it’s because of God’s arbitrary decision or the foreknowledge that a given person would refuse God’s offer of salvation that a person doesn’t receive mercy. Does God choose to withhold mercy, or do we make ourselves impervious to it? Based on the quotes I just cited above, Augustine would say the latter. (Me) That is misleading. According to Augustine and all Calvinists, everyone will refuse God's offer when He makes it unless He makes it irresistibly. In that case, of course, no one would reject it. (Previous) This I can remember off-hand where to locate. Sermon XLIV. de Verbis Apost. -- "He that bought us with such a price will have none perish whom He hath bought." Tract LXXXVII. John -- "He often calleth the church itself by the name of the world; as in that, 'God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself;' and that, 'The Son of man came not to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.' And John in his epistle saith, 'We have an Advocate, and he is the propitiation for[our sins, and not for outs only, but also for] the sins of the whole world.' The whole world, therefore, is the chruch, and the world hateth the church. The world, then, hateth the world; that which is at enmit, the reconciled; the condemned, the saved; the puolluted, the cleansed world. And that world which GOd in Christ reconcileth to Himself, and which is saved by Christ, is chosen out of the opposite, condemned, defiled world." (davejc29201) If Augustine said the reason why people go to hell is because they don’t wish to be purified of their sins, then that would mean he did NOT believe in limited atonement. Why? Because if God didn’t die for the reprobate, then they would be stuck in sin because of GOD’s choice, not their own. You’ve got to take what Augustine said as a whole to understand what he meant, not take a passage here and there in order to suit your own doctrines. (Me) Please stop just ignoring the clear proof that I raise. These citations could be supplemented (it is a well-known fact that Augustine believed in Limited Atonement), but they are clearly sufficient to prove his belief. All Calvinists believe that people go to Hell "because they don't wish to be purified of their sins." (Previous) His being the Savior of the world, if taken literally, would mean that He actually saves the world. You choose to interpret this, instead, as meaning that He makes it possible for the world to be saved. And, in that sense, I certainly agree -- "believe and be saved" was a real promise, and so all who repent unto Christ will be saved. That offer is open for anyone, elect or unelect. (davejc29201) He literally saved the world in that he procured oceans of graces to lead all people without exception to accept his gift of salvation. Whether or not they make a choice to do that, however, is another thing entirely. Besides, look at what Sacred Scripture says (all caps are done for emphasis only, not shouting, and all emphasis is mine): 1 Timothy 2:4 – who wills EVERYONE to come to the knowledge of the truth. (Me) A quick look earlier in the chapter will show that Paul has in mind all types of people -- "kings and those in authority" and lowly peasants, male and female, Jews and Gentiles. (davejc29201) 1 Timothy 2:6 – who gave himself a ransom for ALL. (Me) Yes, and if all are ransomed, then there is no payment left to be made -- therefore, all would be saved. (davejc29201) 2 Peter 3:9 – The Lord does not delay his promise, as some regard “delay,” but He is patient with you, NOT WISHING THAT ANYBODY SHOULD PERISH BUT THAT ALL SHOULD COME TO REPENTANCE. (Me) "He is patient with you." The "you" is clearly Peter's audience -- that is, the elect. Additionally, noting the context, Peter is dealing with the fact that Christ has not returned yet (4), and responds that God's timing may be long or short (8). Verse 9, then, provides the reason that Christ has not yet returned -- because He is waiting until "all should reach repentance." If Christ is waiting for literally everyone, then He will never return, for not all will reach repentance. However, if He is waiting for the roll of the elect, He will return at the appointed time. (davejc29201) Ezekiel 33:11 – answer them: As I live, says the Lord, I swear I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked man, but rather in the wicked man’s conversion, that he may live. Ezekiel 18:23 – do I indeed derive any pleasure from the death of the wicked? says the Lord God. Do I not rather rejoice when he turns from his evil way that he may live? (Me) These are the same argument, so will be answered similarly -- we must balance this with Proverbs 16:4 -- "The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble." Paul provides the clear reconciliation of these two concepts in his discussion of election and reprobation -- "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" (Romans 9:22-23)? So, God has prepared the unelect for condemnation "in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy." (davejc29201) Hebrews 2:9 – But we do see Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because He suffered death, He who “for a little while” was made lower than the angels,” that by the grace of God He might taste death for EVERYONE. (Me) The meaning of "every one" should obviously be determined by the context. The writer is talking about many sons to be brought to glory (10), of the sanctified who with the sanctifier are all one (11), of those who are called the brethren of Christ (12), and of the children which God hath given Him (13) -- that is, Christ died for every one of those who are saved, which is all the elect. (davejc29201) 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 For the love of Christ impels us, once we have come to the conviction that one died for ALL, so that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for Him who for their sake died and was raised. (Me) Did you copy the verse incorrectly, or do my translations simply read differently than your own (or, have I misinterpreted your translation)? Specifically, I don't see "therefore all have died" in your translation. 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; 15 and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. For the following reasons, I maintain that this verse refers to all believers; that is, all the elect: 1. Christ's death and resurrection are conjoined ("died and was raised") here, and we know that Paul thinks that He rose for the justification of those for whom He rose (Romans 4:25), and they must be justified (Romans 8:34). So, by referencing the resurrection, Paul must be looking at those who are saved. 2. He speaks only of those who "live unto Him" (15), who are "new creatures" (17), those "to whom the Lord imputeth not their trespasses" (19), and those who "become the righteousness of God in Christ" (21) -- clearly, only those who are saved. 3. Paul uses "oi pantes," (them all) rather than simply "pantes" (all), meaning that he has a restraint on the "all." 4. Paul says that "one has died for all" proves that "all have died" by using "therefore." In other words, all for whom Christ died died to sin -- in other words, all for whom Christ died are saved. 5. Paul is pointing to the application of redemption (15 -- "might no longer live for themselves..."), and we know that redemption is not applied to all. (davejc29201) *Notice that the last passage I cited uses the word “might.” It doesn’t say “will no longer …,” just “might no longer … .” Thus, Paul is saying that while Jesus died to give all people the opportunity to be saved, some will refuse to take advantage of it. (Me) Hina ("so that") simply introduces a purpose clause. No indication is made on whether the purpose is merely potential or, in fact, actual. But we can tell that all those Christ died to save are saved, for: Hebrews 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. Hebrews 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (davejc29201) Then maybe I need to make myself clearer. John was telling us that Christ died to save us specifically, which, of course, would be a great comfort to us. But just because John was addressing believers to provide them comfort means nothing. You seem to imply that it’s got to mean one thing or the other, but it’s not an either/or argument; it’s a both/and argument. (Me) The fact that he is giving believers comfort means much, for he is pointing to a certainty of redemption. I have argued that without that certainty of redemption in mind, his words would not console them. And, to be sure, there cannot be the certainty of redemption for literally all men, for then all would be saved, which we know is false. (Previous) So, given these facts about Christ being the "propiation" for "the whole world," I present these arguments. e. 1 John 2:2 is dealing with the application of Christ's propitiation, and it is clearly not applied to everyone. f. Only believers can be intended here, because it is supposed to given them comfort. g. The phrasing/word choice cannot be claimed to refer to literally every person. h. The parallels to this in Scripture do not have literally everyone in mind (refer back to Colossians 1:6 and John 11:51, 52). i. If this refers to literally everyone, then the assertion itself is useless. For, John is consoling them in their faults by the fact that Christ has atoned for them. And yet, if Christ atoned for everyone, yet not everyone is saved, the fact that Christ atoned for the believers will not give them consolation in the fact of their sin. (davejc29201) As for points e and f, which refer to the passages in 1 John you cited, you're reading things into the passage that just aren't there (see my earlier remarks regarding that passage). (Me) I am not reading into the passage that 1 John 2:2 is the dealing with the application of redemption, for it is talking specifically about the forgiveness of our sins by Christ's blood (the application of redemption). I am not reading into the passage that 1 John 2:2 is consoling believers, for he is referring to those who walk in the light, but sin (1 John 1:7-10). (davejc29201) To revisit point e, I ask you to first reread the Bible verses I cited earlier in this post. Then, consider John 3:16 – “For God so loved THE WORLD (emphasis mine, as usual) that He gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him might not perish but might have eternal life.” In light of all those passages, we see that God loves the world, so that can only mean all humans without exception. Jesus wants His propitiation to apply to everyone, but they have to accept the graces He won by the shedding of His blood. So I guess I misunderstood what you said for that particular point. (Me) Don't bring up another text unless the point you raise is relevant to the argument at hand. I would be happy to discuss John 3:16 at a place where it is relevant to the arguments specifically in view. No one -- not Roman Catholic or Protestant -- believes that John 3:16 proves that redemption is applied to every member of the human race (and all would agree that the word 'world' does not always refer to literally every person in the world). I'm talking about the application of redemption in 1 John 2:2. In other words: Christ accomplished redemption, and now it is applied. 1 John 2:2 is obviously talking about the application of redemption in respect to various sins that have been committed (see verse 1 -- "but if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father"). We also know that redemption is not applied to all, for not all are saved. Therefore, as Christ cannot turn away God's wrath (that is, be the propitiation) for literally all men (for otherwise all would be saved), the "whole world" must not be looking at literally all men. (davejc29201) And as for point f, as I said earlier, sure, John is giving believers comfort, but in light of other Scripture passages, we can’t take an either/or approach. (Me) Therefore, your argument must be based on other passages of Scripture, and not this one. I'm dealing with specifically this passage right now. If you would like to prove the doctrine of universal atonement from another passage, please do so. (davejc29201) As for point g and h, didn't Jesus tell his disciples to go out into ALL the world? He said that whoever believes is saved and whoever doesn't is damned. As I've said over and over again, the Gospel is for EVERYONE, but people are sinful and can use their free will to reject the Gospel. So while Jesus died for all, not everyone will benefit from His death (unless, of course, they CHOOSE to – they choose to do so by choosing to accept the Gospel). (Me) This is just another restatement of your position. You haven't actually interacted with either of the arguments I raised. (davejc29201) No, rather, you missed the point of what I said. But allow me to revisit those points too. As for point g, what makes you so certain it can’t refer to everyone? You haven’t given me a single Bible verse to prove your point. As for the ones that you did cite, Colossians 1:6 and John 11:51-52, they don’t prove your point. The former verse says, “Just as in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing, so also among you, from the day you heard it and came to know the grace of God in truth.” Remember, at that time, continents like America hadn’t even been discovered and weren’t known to exist. That was to come centuries later. Paul was referring to what he THOUGHT to be the whole world, although the Gospel hadn’t reached those places that had not yet been discovered. The Bible isn’t a geography book, remember. (Me) But he has in mind all nations rather than all persons. I have argued that 1 John 2:2 has in mind all nations (that is, Jew and Gentile alike) and not all persons. (davejc29201) The latter 2 verses say, “He did not say this on his own, but since he was high priest for that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not only for the nation, but also to gather into one the dispersed children of God.” If you’re referring to the part where it says Jesus was going to “die for the nation,” it DOES INDEED mean he died for every person in Israel. True, many in Israel refused to believe, but not because Jesus didn’t die for them. Rather, it was because they wouldn’t accept his atoning death and the salvation he won for them. It seems to me you’re twisting the meaning to fit your beliefs. (Me) I didn't raise John 11 in reference to this. I pointed out Revelation 3:10; Colossians 1:6; Romans 1:8; Psalm 98:3; Psalm 22:27; Psalm 72:11; and Joel 2:28, as quoted in Acts 2:17. I can point out more, if you like. (Previous) You've not addressed it at all. John was telling them not to fear, because Christ's blood already guaranteed their redemption. Christ's blood did not require their free will to redeem them -- Christ's blood had guaranteed their redemption, so they needn't worry. Therefore, to assert that "the whole world" is literally everyone is to assert that Christ has guaranteed redemption for everyone -- universalism! (davejc29201) You say I didn’t address it, but once again, the only reason you say that is because you missed the point of what I wrote. But now I see that that’s because you’re confusing redemption and salvation. By dying for us, Jesus won for us our REDEMPTION. EVERYONE was redeemed without exception. However, we have to ACCEPT that redemption, and if we do so (and continue to do so until the end), then we will be saved. If not, then we won’t be. So no, no universalism is implied in any way, shape, or form. (Me) Webster's dictionary defines 'redeem': -- to buy back -- to free from what distresses or harms -- to change for the better -- to atone for : EXPIATE b (1) : to offset the bad effect of (2) : to make worthwhile So, I don't see how I'm confusing salvation with redemption. They are extremely similar. This is just a semantic issue, though. You also haven't dealt with my arguments above. You just said: "However, we have to accept that redemption." However, up through that point, I had argued, "Christ's blood did not require their free will to redeem them -- Christ's blood had guaranteed their redemption, so they needn't worry." So, your statements above simply provide the assertions that I had sought to assault in my previous arguments. Therefore, you have not answered my arguments, but just restated the position I am attacking. (Previous) You're now reading your position into the passage again. It says that God is the Savior of all men in one respect, and of believers in another respect. Therefore, either of our views are consistent with this passage. It is possible to claim that He is the Savior of all men in the respect that, if they would repent unto Him, they would be saved. Of course, that just makes Him the potential Savior of them, even though the text says that He is the actual Savior of them -- but I would imagine that such a reading is not completely beyond the bounds of coherency. Likewise, however, my view fits perfectly -- He is the Savior of all men in the sense of Common Grace, and He is the Savior of believers only in the sense of certain redemption. (davejc29201) Ummmm . . . sorry, John, but the one who’s been reading his own interpretation of the passage is YOU. Once again, you’re confusing redemption and salvation. Jesus isn’t the potential Savior of anyone; He’s either their Savior or He isn’t. This is why you can’t just take certain Bible passages and isolate them from the rest of Scripture – you’ll just wind up believing things that are contradictory to what Scripture REALLY teaches. (Me) My view holds that God is the Savior of literally all men in one sense, and believers only in another sense. Your view holds the same. This verse teaches that God is the Savior of literally all men in onse sense, and believers only in another sense. How, then, does this cause a problem for my view? (Previous) Proverbs 16:4 The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil. John 10:26 26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. Romans 9:8-23 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 9 For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son." 10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." 14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole Earth." 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. 19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory. Romans 11:5-8 5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. 7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; 8 just as it is written, "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes to see not and ears to hear not, down to this very day." Jude 1:4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. 2 Peter 2:8 and, "A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed. (davejc29201) None of these passages prove your point. It’s not doing violence to the passages to say that the people referred to who you claim were allegedly predestined to hell and were thus made sinners had made the choice to reject God of their own free will. As for the passage in Proverbs you cited, yes, God did make the wicked, but He didn’t intend them to be that way. But God nevertheless ALLOWS people to be evil and reject Him so that He can show that He is a God of justice. There’s a reason for everything, and that’s why God allows evil. (Me) Calvinism affirms that sinners choose to reject God. (davejc29201) The passage from the Gospel of John makes no sense if it’s said to mean Calvinistic predestination. Jesus didn’t say He made those people not part of His flock; He just said they weren’t part of it. So naturally, if we look at the Bible as a whole, we come to understand that these people CHOSE not to be part of Jesus’ flock. (Me) He is providing the reason that they do not believe in Him and follow Him, and says that this reason is that they are not His sheep. You say that they are not His sheep because they do not believe in Him and follow Him. So, by simple substitution, you would be reading Christ as saying that they do not believe in Him and follow Him because they do not believe in Him and follow Him. However, this would clearly be a meaningless statement for Jesus to make. (davejc29201) The first passage from Romans doesn’t show Calvinistic predestination either. First off, let’s start with the statement that God loved Jacob but hated Esau. Actually, St. Augustine thought this meant God really hated Esau and destined him to hell without even looking to see how he would live (Ad Simplicianum 1. 14). But at the bottom is a Hebrew way of speaking. Hebrew and Aramaic both lack the degrees of comparison, such as: good, better, best, or, clear, clearer, clearest. Not having such forms, when they have such ideas, they are forced to use other devices. One of them is to speak of hate vs. love. In our language we would say: I love one more than the other. In Luke 14:26 Jesus says we must hate our parents. But that is the same Semitic pattern. Matthew 10:37 softened it, using the western way of speaking, and said, "He who loves father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me." (Me) Yes, I have no problem with that (and would probably agree!). However, the passage indicates that there are "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction," and that whether or not one is saved and another is not "depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." So, God's choice to save the elect is unconditional, and the rest are predestined for condemnation. (davejc29201) As for that passage, as well as the other passage from Romans and those from Jude and 2 Peter, well, let's think about it some more. There is a certain mystery involved in God’s predestined plan to be sure. There are many unanswerable questions that we could ask. For example, why does God give more grace to some than others? Why does God allow someone to be born and live, knowing that he will eventually choose to reject Him and go to hell? This is precisely what Paul is talking about in the text you quoted when he refers to these as "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction" (Romans 9:22). God knew they would freely reject Him, but He nevertheless allows them to be born, or, "fitted for destruction." Let me take it a step further. Why doesn’t God give the man who is rejecting Him more grace so that he will freely choose Him? It may be true that if God gave more grace to a particular person who is in hell, he would have made it to heaven! Think about that one for a while! We cannot answer questions such as these except as Paul did: "Who are you, O Man, who answers back to God" (Romans 9:20)? However, we cannot take this to such an extreme that we turn God into an unjust God! These verses must not be used to contradict what is clearly revealed elsewhere in Scripture. (Me) Paul provides an answer, if not the answer, to your question (that is, Why does He not save all?): "in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" (verse 23). (davejc29201) Even if some men are given more grace than others (see Romans 12:3-6), every man is given sufficient grace to be saved. That is clear in Scripture. Titus 2:11 tells us that ‘the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men.’ If God did not give a man sufficient grace to be saved, then God would truly be unjust in condemning him. There is no mystery there at all. (Me) The "all people" is the "us" of v. 12, and clearly vv. 12-14 establish that the "us" is only Christians. (davejc29201) And with regard to Paul’s words about God "hardening" people, giving them a "spirit of stupor," being "marked out for condemnation" or "appointed to doom," all according to His will, the answer is really quite simple. First, Paul has already told us who God "hardens" in Romans 1:25-28: "God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator. . . . For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. . . . And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct." The text speaks for itself. (Me) Yes, this is the view that Calvinists hold. Hyper-Calvinists hold the view you are opposing. You have provided no exegesis of Romans 11:5-8; Jude 1:4; 2 Peter 2:8. They prove clearly the reality of reprobation -- men are predestined for condemnation. Edited August 4, 2003 by mustbenothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustbenothing Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 (edited) (davejc29201) Let’s take a look at it. John, I can see how you can be misguided into denying freedom of the will from a surface reading of that text. (Me) I was actually trying to establish the reality of Calvinistic/Augustinian election and reprobation. My denial of the libertarian/incompatibilistic freedom of the will is based in the Bible's teachings on man's nature and God's grace. (davejc29201) However, I would ask you to consider something that I think you’ve missed. Look at verse 21 that you quoted: "Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?" Did you know that this is actually a reference to Jeremiah 18:6 from the Old Testament? "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? says the Lord. Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel." Does this text deny free will? If you were to take this verse alone, you might get that impression. However, let’s look at the very next four verses. "If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will repent of the evil that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will repent of the good which I had intended to do to it (Jeremiah 18:7-10)." Certainly, we do not want to say that Paul took Jeremiah 18:6 out of context to teach something that Jeremiah clearly denied! Jeremiah is not denying free will. In fact, he is affirming it. (Me) Jeremiah is affirming the reality of God's responsiveness -- God has said that if we do certain things, then He will do certain things. I agree with that completely. No Calvinist would disagree. In regards to the reference -- I'm not convinced that Paul is actually trying to reference Jeremiah, although it is clear that he uses a similar analogy. The problem with your belief that since Jeremiah does not have in mind unconditional election, then Paul must have in mind unconditional election, is the fact that the rest of the Pauline passage up to this point has been a proof of unconditional election. At the end of Romans 8, Paul neared doxology in light of the certainty of God's salvation of His elect (Romans 8:28ff.). However, one problem is present -- the Jews. If God's salvation is so certain, the objection goes, what about the Jews -- they were God's chosen people, they were given God's covenantal blessings and promises, and yet they are clearly not all saved (Romans 9:1-5). Paul then goes on to explain: Not all of the nation Israel are members of the Israel that shal certainly be saved (6). He then gives a few examples. First, he proves that not all the physical descendants of Abraham are of the true Israel (7-8). Second, he shows that the choosing of those who are saved is unconditional, as the choice of Isaac over Esau was made "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad" (9-13). He then deals with an objection -- is this unjust of God (14)? No, because He make similar choices with Moses and Pharoah -- salvation is dependent upon God's choice, and not man's will or works (15-18). Now another objection arises -- surely God cannot find fault with men if He has chosen who will be saved and who will not be (19). Paul then answers this objection with the potter analogy -- God has the sovereign right to do whatever He pleases (20-21). Clearly, then, although Paul uses a similar analogy to Jeremiah, Paul has in mind the unconditionality of election, while Jeremiah has in mind God's right to raise and destroy as He chooses. In both cases, it is shown that God has the right and capacity to do as He pleases with men. (davejc29201) Neither is Paul denying free will. All throughout the book of Romans and elsewhere, Paul clearly teaches that we must freely cooperate with God’s grace to be saved. For example, Romans 11:22 says, "Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off." Obedience involves our free cooperation, (Me) Yes, Paul certainly believes that the free continuation in God's ways of nations or groups of people is required to keep the covenant and not be broken off from it (he explains elsewhere that this is also true of individuals, and the statement in this chapter may even be applicable to individuals). However, Paul explains earlier in that chapter that the reason that some individuals cooperate and others resist is that "there is a remnant, chosen by grace" (5) -- "the elect obtained it [salvation], but the rest were hardened" (7). (davejc29201) and Paul makes it very clear that we must continue to obey in order to attain everlasting life in Romans 6:16: "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness [or salvation]?" (Me) I clearly agree with this. How does this disprove unconditional election, as all Calvinists affirm that God has predestined both the ends (the salvation of individuals) and the means (e.g., perseverance) in His decree. Edited August 4, 2003 by mustbenothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 Jesus does give all men sufficient grace to be saved. Below is from John chapter one. "In Him was life, and the light was the life of men..." "That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world. He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. "But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God." Dave referred to Trent. Also expressed in the Missal of St. Pius V, in the consecration of the wine that while our Lord died to save all, the fruit of this is efficacious not for all, but for "as many as received Him." Consecration of the Wine: "For this is the chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustbenothing Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 (Donna) Jesus does give all men sufficient grace to be saved. Below is from John chapter one. "In Him was life, and the light was the life of men..." "That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world. He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. "But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God." (Me) John 1:11-13 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God. 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. This points ahead to Jesus' teaching in John 3:3 -- Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." So, it was not the nation of Israel that accepted Christ as Messiah (John 1:11). Rather, it was those "who did receive Him" (12). These people were those "born... of God" (13). In other words, they had to be born of God in order to accept Him (as this fits the contrast with the nation of Israel). Therefore, the passage itself indicates a selective distribution of the grace which enables men to believe, for only some are born of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now