Predestination

[Donna]

So, is it that you think if there not be limited atonement, then Christ's Passion is impotent?

I frankly think you're upsetting yourself, even if unknowingly, by wresting the Scriptures to prove that God would not distribute sufficient grace ro enable all men to believe in him.

Objective redemption: The Holy Passion, and death of Jesus Christ.

Subjective redemption: the fruits applied to each soul which must choose

to be subject to the King of Kings.

Why are you here?

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) To me, this only continues to prove that the Apocryphal literature contradict Scripture. But we already know this with Sirach:

Sirach 3:3, 30

Whoso honoureth his father maketh an atonement for his sins...Water will quench a flaming fire; and alms maketh an atonement for sin

And yet, Scripture teaches that atonement requires blood:

Leviticus 17:11

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

(cmotherofpirl) SCripture also says I require mercy not sacrifice.

(Me) This indicates that He rejected dead formalism. I really don't see how this reference is relevant :-/

(cmotherofpirl) SCripture says a lot of things. THats why we have a Church to interpret it.

(Me) Jesus said to test our teachings (Matthew 5) and traditions (Matthew 15) by a proper understanding of the Scripture. Indeed, the Bereans were praised for checking the Apostles' message against the Scripture (Acts 17:11)!

(God Conquers) Why be good, go to any Church or attempt any kind of holiness, study scripture, etc. if the end result is alreay decided?

(Me) Why be good, go to any Church or attempt any kind of holiness, study scripture, etc. if the end result is already known by God?'

If we do not do those things, we will not inherit eschatological life.

(God Conquers) If you believe you're already going to heaven, for sure, and that God decided it an eternity ago why do anything? If I'm one of the elect I could just choose to die right now and it would make no difference.

(Me) If you were one of the elect, you would not be so selfish and self-serving as to do that, though

(God Conquers) If we have no part in our Salvation then why bother? And why do we need Christ if God decided whether or not we were save at the beginning of "time"?

(Me) The Father chose to save us, the Son accomplished our redemption, and the Spirit applies that redemption. God's choice did not save us in and of itself.

(Previous) John 6:36-37, 44

36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.

37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

(StPiusX) "and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." (John 12:32)

(Me) Trying to juxtapose these passages is to destroy the different of context. In John 6, Jesus is explaining why some do not believe (36): they must be given to Him by the Father (37), and this is accomplished through His drawing them (44). In John 12, Jesus is looking at Jews and Gentiles (as shown by the fact that the passage goes from Jew to Gentile). To say that John 12:32 means that Christ will draw each and every person rather than both Jews and Gentiles, then, is to destroy Christ's meaning in John 6. For, John 6 says that the lack of drawing is the reason why some do not believe. If Christ drew everyone, then everyone would believe!

(Previous) Romans 3:10-12

10 as it is written:

"None is righteous, no, not one;

11 no one understands;

no one seeks for God.

12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;

no one does good,

not even one."

(StPiusX) "The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one... There they shall be in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous. You would confound the plans of the poor, but the LORD is his refuge." (Ps. 14:2-3, 5-6 - cited by St. Paul in the Romans passage above)

(Me) Absolutely!

(Previous) Psalm 51:5

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,

and in sin did my mother conceive me.

(StPiusX) "Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse... When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them" (Romans 1:20, 2:14-15)

(Me) Absolutely!

(Previous) Romans 9:16

So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

(StPiusX) "Therefore say to them, Thus says the LORD of hosts: Return to me, says the LORD of hosts, and I will return to you, says the LORD of hosts." (Zech. 1:3)

(Me) But Romans 9:16 is explaining the reason why some Jews have not returned to Him (Romans 9:1-5)

(Donna) So, is it that you think if there not be limited atonement, then Christ's Passion is impotent?

(Me) If there be not limited atonement, then Christ purchased possibilities, not people.

(Donna) Objective redemption: The Holy Passion, and death of Jesus Christ.

Subjective redemption: the fruits applied to each soul which must choose

to be subject to the King of Kings.

(Me) I agree that the redemption objectively accomplished at the cross must be subjectively applied in order to save us.

(Donna) Why are you here?

(Me) The health of souls.

Edited August 8, 2003 by mustbenothing

[Donna]

Catholics and others of good will:

Limited atonement is a condemned heresy.

John's views on the canonical 7 books of the OT that apostate monk Martin Luther threw out are heretical.

John:

If you are here for the health of souls as you say, then I assume you are solely here to propogate falsehood, though you would call that teaching.

From Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma:

Alexander VIII 1689-1691

Errors of the Jansenists

[Condemned in a decree of the Holy Office, Dec. 7, 1690]

5. Pagans, Jews, heretics and others of this kind do not receive in any way any influence from Jesus Christ, and so you will rightly infer from this that in them there is a bare and weak will without any sufficient grace.

(p.339, # 1295).

The above can be found in the the systematice Index under "The Distribution of Graces".

X, g: "God wills that all men be saved" 318, 794 f., I 380; and Christ died for

all, see VIIIg 1096, not only for the predestined 1096, 1382, not for only the

faithful 1294; although not all receive the benefit of redemption 319, 322f., (etc;)

There are more citations. The true li9berality of the Children of Jesus and Mary is not Jansenistic or Puritan. For that Jansenist heresy is why Our Lord appeared to St. Margaret Mary and showed her His Sacred Heart.

[Dave]

John, I’d like to start off with some food for thought for you. You claim that God saves the elect "according to His good pleasure," yet you say He didn’t choose them based on a glance into the future, as in, He didn’t say, “Oh, I see John is going to believe in me eventually, so I’ll choose him.” Instead, you believe it’s the reverse – God chose you, and that’s why you eventually chose Him.

But the question is, on what basis did God pre-beaver dam the condemned? Of course, if I asked you how it’s fair that I should go to hell when I never had a choice, I bet you’d say it’s because I was born a sinner because of Adam’s sin, right? In other words, since I was born God’s enemy, it’s totally fair for God to condemn me, right?

However, that position is totally inconsistent. The election of the chosen was NOT based on a future action on their part, but the election of the damned WAS – the future sin of Adam. You see, Adam hadn’t sinned when God did His predestining – Calvinists say it happened before the world began. But God can’t beaver dam us without cause; that would be unjust! So in order for you to maintain pre-damnation AND the justice of God, you have to admit that we’re damned because of Adam’s sin – a sin that hadn’t even taken place when God did all His predestining! So again, your position is totally inconsistent. Either God predestined us based on our future actions, or He didn’t.

Besides, you seem to forget is that God is outside of time. There’s no such thing as true “pre”-destination in His sight – for God, there’s no “before” or “after;” it’s all “now.” So right now, God is choosing His elect at the same moment that His elect are choosing Him. Think of it in terms of a train – humans are the ones sitting on the road watching each train car go by one by one, but God is seeing it all at once, sort of like He’s up in a helicopter. Thus, it’s possible for God to predestine the elect and still respect free will – because it all happens at once for Him.

Now let’s deal with the issue of Romans 9:8-23. You claim that the passage indicates that God arbitrarily chooses, according to whatever pleases Him, which vessels He will create for honor, and which vessels He will create solely for the purpose of destruction. He is absolutely sovereign, and therefore, He has the right to make vessels that are fitted for destruction, and He does so to show His power, to prove that He can do as He pleases.

If God is a merciful God, then to randomly create some souls merely for damnation in order to demonstrate his sovereign power is, as Donna said, sick. If it’s God who hardens people’s hearts and then damns them, then how can that possibly jive with His being a just God? In response, you may direct me to Paul’s question "O man, who art thou that repliest against God?"

Now, when I cited the Jeremiah 18:7-10 and said Paul was making reference to that passage, you gave a weak “I’m not convinced”-type argument that showed that you were reading your own biased interpretation into both passages. However, you need to read Paul’s letters with the understanding that he never prooftexts the passages of the Old Testament, and so we must not either. Like Paul, we must study harder to get a better understanding of the Old Testament texts so that we can fully grasp the contextual meaning of the citations. Paul, who was a zealous Pharisee and a brilliant scholar of the Law and the Prophets before his conversion, certainly knew the texts he was citing, and he selected them very carefully, in order to unfold their wider meaning.

But in those passages, he never explictly says, "It is written," or in any other way signals his readers that he is citing from the Old Testament, so what would give us any reason to pause and consider his meaning? Actually, he does signal us that he is citing from the Old Testament! The problem is that we aren't astute enough to recognize it right away, because we haven't studied the Old Testament like we should. However, to his Jewish readers, the words "potter" and "clay" would immediately alert them to the fact that he is quoting from none other than the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah. Far from the meaning that Reformed Calvinists impose upon St. Paul's words, he is actually saying exactly the opposite, and his contextual message is loaded with significance for his Jewish readers. Read this very carefully and see if you can see what the First Century Jew would see:

"The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying: Arise, and go down into the potter's house, and there thou shalt hear my words. And I went down into the potter's house, and behold he was doing a work on the wheel. And the vessel was broken which he was making of clay with his hands: and turning he made another vessel, as it seemed good in his eyes to make it. Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: Cannot I do with you, as this potter, O house of Israel, saith the Lord? behold as clay is in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. I will suddenly speak against a nation, and against a kingdom, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy it. If that nation against which I have spoken, shall repent of their evil, I also will repent of the evil that I have thought to do to them. And I will suddenly speak of a nation and of a kingdom, to build up and plant it. If it shall do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice: I will repent of the good that I have spoken to do unto it. Now therefore tell the men of Juda, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying: Thus saith the Lord: Behold I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: let every man of you return from his evil way, and make ye your ways and your doings good. And they said; We have no hopes: for we will go after our own thoughts, and we will do every one according to the perverseness of his evil heart." (Jeremiah 18:1-12)

This is totally different from the meaning that Calvinists give to Paul’s words! Where they would say that God predetermines from the beginning which vessels He will set apart for destruction, the text actually says that God gives man time to repent and change his ways. In Jeremiah's vision, the potter (who is a figure of God) finds the clay (who is a figure of Israel first, and humanity second) difficult to work with, for it breaks the first time through the molding process. But the potter, far from saying, "This is a vessel which I have predestined to destruction," takes the clay and re-shapes it into something useful. God then says, in plain terms, "I may have plans to destroy you, but if you repent, then I will change my plans, and I may have plans for your prosperity, but if you do evil and are disobedient, then I will change those plans too." Far from being destined to hell, created for the very purpose of destruction, man has the choice to either repent and be saved, or remain stubborn, and be destroyed.

In the historical context of this passage from Jeremiah, Israel says "we will go after our own thoughts, and we will do each one according to the perverseness of his evil heart." Israel refused to repent. To whom was Jeremiah prophesying? To the Jews in Jerusalem, only years before they were attacked by the Babylonians, sent into exile, and had their temple destroyed. (see Jeremiah 1:13-15) What might this passage mean to a 1st century Jew around 65 AD, with the rumor buzzing amongst the new Christian sect that within 40 years of Jesus' death, not one stone of the temple would be left upon another?

But the words which St. Paul uses are not only remniscent of Jeremiah, they also recall the words of Isaiah:

"And the Lord said: Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips glorify me, but their heart is far from me, and they have feared me with the commandment and doctrines of men: Therefore behold I will proceed to cause an admiration in this people, by a great and wonderful miracle: for wisdom shall perish from their wise men, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. Woe to you that are deep of heart, to hide your counsel from the Lord: and their works are in the dark, and they say: Who seeth us, and who knoweth us? This thought of yours is perverse: as if the clay should think against the potter, and the work should say to the maker thereof: Thou madest me not: or the thing framed should say to him that fashioned it: Thou understandest not." (Isaiah 29:13-16)

"Thus saith the Lord to my anointed Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of, to subdue nations before his face, and to turn the backs of kings, and to open the doors before him, and the gates shall not be shut. I will go before thee, and will humble the great ones of the earth: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and will burst the bars of iron. And I will give thee hidden treasures, and the concealed riches of secret places: that thou mayest know that I am the Lord who call thee by thy name, the God of Israel. For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have made a likeness of thee, and thou hast not known me... Woe to him that gainsayeth his maker, a sherd of the earthen pots: shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it: What art thou making, and thy work is without hands?" (Is. 45:1-4, 9)

Once again Paul's genius is displayed, for his subtle use of the words "potter" and "clay," without explicitly stating which passage he is referring to, causes the reader to remember all of these texts which speak of the potter and the clay. Isaiah, like Jeremiah, prophesied to Jerusalem regarding their impenitent hearts and their impending doom. The proud attitude which Israel displayed in Isaiah 29 is the attitude which Paul implicitly accuses the Jews in his day of having. The mention in Isaiah 45 of the Gentile ruler, Cyrus, who would ultimately conquer Jerusalem and overcome the Babylonians, is Paul's prophetic way of reminding First Century Jerusalem that their days are numbered, and that soon, another Gentile ruler (the Caesar of Rome) will be used as a chastening rod in God's hands against His people.

In summary, then, instead of explicitly citing from any of these three texts, St. Paul hints at some key words to evoke memories of all three texts, which combined give the force of this message: God will reshape you like a potter reshapes the clay, if you will only humble yourselves, repent, and be moldable, but if you won't, if you mimic your forefathers in their stubborn hard-heartedness, there is a Gentile ruler waiting in the wings to visit His destruction upon you. In other words, when Paul's opponents say, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will," the answer that he gives is more than just, "How dare you ask such things of God," it is, "Remember your history, you Jews -- you are resisting God's will, and so He does find fault with you!"

This is why Paul can say that God "endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction, That he might shew the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he hath prepared unto glory." Like with Pharaoh, who was given ten chances (in the ten plagues) to repent, so the Jews have been given a generation's time to repent and be saved, and so God is enduring with "much patience" these willing "vessels of wrath," who, because of their stubborn pride, are only "fitted for destruction." It is precisely because God shows so much patience to these vessels of wrath that the other nations will see how merciful He really is, especially when they realize that Israel's damnable attitude now is exactly the damnable attitude they (that is, the Gentile nations) once had. Egypt will look on and realize that what they once were, Israel now is, and they will understand that if God will destroy Israel for an Egypt-like attitude, then He would have been justified in destroying them too. God does with Israel what he did with Pharaoh: he recognizes a hard heart, and so He uses the impenitent as an example to the other nations.

I know I’m skipping around, and I apologize, but to further understand Romans 9, let’s look at its context by starting at the very beginning of the chapter. Please remember the general theme of Romans, that is, that Paul wishes to establish, 1) that the Jewish Law no longer set Israel apart as God's "only beloved," leaving the Gentiles with no hope, and 2) that God's inclusion of the Gentiles in the plan of salvation by faith, while the majority of Jews continue to miss the mark by trying to obligate God with works of their own doing, does not amount to His rejecting His chosen people. He seeks to show that God's dealings with His people have not changed throughout their history, and that men have been always declared righteous by God, not for relying on their own strength and mighty works, but by humbling themselves and obeying God by faith. With that in mind, we turn to Romans 9:

"I speak the truth in Christ: I lie not, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost: That I have great sadness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren: who are my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites: to whom belongeth the adoption as of children and the glory and the testament and the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises: Whose are the fathers and of whom is Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever. Amen." (Romans 9:1-5)

Paul's use of the phrase, "For I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren," echoes back to Moses, who used those very same words of himself:

"And returning to the Lord, he said: I beseech thee: this people hath sinned a heinous sin, and they have made to themselves gods of gold: either forgive them this trespass, Or if thou do not, strike me out of the book that thou hast written." (Exodus 32:31-32)

The context of this citation is, of course, the "heinous sin" of the Golden Calf, in which Israel utterly rejected God and His chosen mediator, Moses, by making a false god out of gold and saying, "These are thy gods, O Israel, that have brought thee out of the land of Egypt." (Exodus 32:4) Why does Paul cite from this passage? Most likely he is drawing to the attention of his opponents (the Judaizers) that he has become a second Moses for them, because the sin of the people in Moses' day is much like the sin of the people in St. Paul's day. Namely, Israel in Moses' day rejected God and His mediator, much like the Jews in St. Paul's day had only recently rejected God and His mediator, Jesus, by handing him over to the Romans for crucifixion.

The sin of the Golden Calf triggered a period of 40 years wherein God punished the people, in the hopes that they would repent of their sin and turn back to God. The sin of the Jews in St. Paul's day also triggered a penitential period of 40 years, in which God gave the Jews a generation's time to repent before Rome finally descended upon Jerusalem (in 70 AD) to destroy it. Jesus himself spoke of this:

"And Jesus being come out of the temple, went away. And his disciples came to shew him the buildings of the temple. And he answering, said to them: Do you see all these things? Amen I say to you, there shall not be left here a stone upon a stone that shall not be destroyed... And you shall hear of wars and rumours of wars. See that ye be not troubled. For these things must come to pass: but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: And there shall be pestilences and famines and earthquakes in places... Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted and shall put you to death: and you shall be hated by all nations for my name's sake... And many false prophets shall rise and shall seduce many. And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold... Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains... For there shall be then great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be... For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect... Amen I say to you that this generation shall not pass till all these things be done." (Matthew 24:1-2, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 16, 21, 24, 34)

All of this is in the forefront of Paul's mind, as he tries desperately to make his fellow Jews understand how similar their situation is to the events surrounding the Israelites in the Exodus, and as he pleads with them to repent while there is still time.

"Not as though the word of God hath miscarried. For all are not Israelites that are of Israel. Neither are all they that are the seed of Abraham, children: but in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is to say, not they that are the children of the flesh are the children of God: but they that are the children of the promise are accounted for the seed. For this is the word of promise: According to this time will I come. And Sara shall have a son." (Romans 9:6-9)

Paul here anticipates the objection of his opponents: if God promised great blessings to the Jewish people through their forefather, Abraham, yet now there is a great possibility of their nation being judged and destroyed for rejecting and crucifying Christ, then God has lied. But no, says Paul, because "Israelites" are not restricted to those who are merely biologically Israelites, and the "children of Abraham" are not restricted to those who are biologically descended from Abraham. St. Paul hammers this point home by citing from Genesis again:

"And when Sara had seen the son of Hagar, the Egyptian, playing with Isaac, her son, she said to Abraham: Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with my son Isaac. Abraham took this grievously for his son. And God said to him: Let it not seem grievous to thee for the boy, and for thy bondwoman: in all that Sara hath said to thee, hearken to her voice: for in Isaac shall thy seed be called." (Genesis 21:9-12)

This is a masterful stroke on the part of Paul, for the event that provides the context of the verse he cites is the expulsion of Ishmael. Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. One was the child of promise, and one was the child of the flesh. Ishmael was born as the result of Abraham taking Divine matters into his own hands, when he slept with Sara's maidservant, Hagar. This was not the child that God had promised Abraham, and thus, Ishmael remained a son of Abraham merely by natural descent. Isaac, on the other hand, was born as the result of a miraculous act of God, who revived Sara's "dead womb" so that she could bear Abraham a son. Thus, Isaac is both a natural son of Abraham and a supernatural son of the promise. In essence, Paul is saying, "Look, you think you're something special because you are biological sons of Abraham? Well, so was Ishmael, and he was disinherited." The conclusion of this argument, according to Paul, is clear: "Not they that are the children of the flesh are the children of God: but they that are the children of the promise are accounted for the seed."

Then Paul draws a distinction between the firstborn son (in this case, Ishmael), and the younger son (in this case, Isaac):

"And not only she. But when Rebecca also had conceived at once of Isaac our father. For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God according to election might stand): Not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said to her: The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written: Jacob I have loved: but Esau I have hated." (Romans 9:10-13)

Paul continues to develop his firstborn/secondborn distinction, this time referring to Esau (the older son) and Jacob (the younger son). An important concept is introduced here, something that also rebounds back to his previous example of Isaac and Ishmael: not of works, but of Him that calleth. Both Ishmael and Esau were firstborn sons, who, according to natural biology, would have been bigger, stronger, able to work harder. But God is not interested in the strength of our flesh, for the bigger and stronger we are on our own, the less likely we are to see our need for His life in us, and the more likely we are to become proud and boastful. Thus it is that both Isaac and Jacob, younger, weaker sons, are chosen by God to be blessed and to continue the genealogical line of God's promise (which ultimately ends in the birth of Christ). Paul has not yet snapped shut the trap that he is setting here, but in just a few verses, he will do just that.

What about that phrase, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated?" I talked about that in my last post, but I’d like to flesh it out even more. This citation, oddly enough, is not from Genesis, and does not refer to the individuals Jacob and Esau, but rather, to the nations which descended from those two men. This, then, is the passage that Paul utilizes:

"I have loved you, saith the Lord: and you have said: Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau brother to Jacob, saith the Lord, and I have loved Jacob, But have hated Esau? and I have made his mountains a wilderness, and given his inheritance to the dragons of the desert. But if Edom shall say: We are destroyed, but we will return and build up what hath been destroyed: thus saith the Lord of hosts: They shall build up, and I will throw down: and they shall be called the borders of wickedness, and the people with whom the Lord is angry for ever." (Malachi 1:2-4)

In this passage, God speaks of how he opposes the proud attitudes and works of Edom, which is the nation that descended from Esau. They do not receive the Lord's correction, for when He punishes them, they only determine all the more to overcome Him, saying, "We are destroyed, but we will return and build up what hath been destroyed." Once again, Paul shows how God deals with those who are prideful and who boast in their own works, who build up their kingdoms and cities by their own strength, instead of relying on God. But there is more to this prophecy:

"To you, O priests, that despise my name, and have said: Wherein have we despised thy name? You offer polluted bread upon my altar, and you say: Wherein have we polluted thee? In that you say: The table of the Lord is contemptible. If you offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if you offer the lame and the sick, is it not evil? offer it to thy prince, if he will be pleased with it, or if he will regard thy face, saith the Lord of hosts. And now beseech ye the face of God, that he may have mercy on you, (for by your hand hath this been done,) if by any means he will receive your faces, saith the Lord of hosts. Who is there among you, that will shut the doors, and will kindle the fire on my altar gratis? I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts: and I will not receive a gift of your hand. For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts." (Malachi 1:7-11)

Paul is saying very many things when he cites from the opening verses of this chapter, none of which are lost on his Jewish readers. In addition to the message that God opposes the proud and boastful, there is also the reminder that, at the time of this prophecy, God was also opposing Israel, and the priests in particular. There is a call to repentance ("now beseech ye the face of God, that he may have mercy on you"), and a prophecy that, one day, it will be the Gentiles who offer pure sacrifices to the Lord. All of these things are fraught with meaning for the Jews to whom Paul is writing. They have become proud, they have opposed God by murdering His Messiah, their priests were the ones leading the opposition against Jesus, and now, they need to repent, for the time has come, and now the Gentiles are being welcomed into the Covenant. This is, in essence, Paul's message: you, O Israel, have become like the Edomites you so despise.

But what are we to make of words, "Esau I have hated?" Doesn't the Scripture say that "God is love?" How can a God who is, in His very essence, love, say that He hates anyone? The trouble here is that we don't understand God's love, or His hate, and we can only interpret these words through our own weak, fleshly experiences. God, in fact, loves Edom just as He loves Israel, and it is because of His love that He opposes them. In other words, He loves them enough to desire that they repent and turn to Him, and the only way to do that is to oppose their wickedness. Any good parent will understand this. If your son or daughter wants to go out on a Friday night with some friends of ill-repute, your love for them and your desire for their safety causes you to oppose them, and you say, "I'm sorry, but I won't let you go." And what do they say? "Oh, Mom (or, "oh, Dad"), you hate me!" And it's true! You hate them (in the sense of opposing them) now, precisely because you love them. This is what Paul reveals about God in Romans 1:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice... Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves." (Romans 1:18, 24)

The wrath of God is shown when He lets us have our own way ("God gave them up to the desires of their heart"). His mercy is shown when He brings tragedy and calamity upon us, when He opposes our wicked desires by putting all manner of obstacles in our way, in the hopes that we will wake up and repent of our sin. This is the "hate" that God shows to Esau, and it is not based upon some arbitrary decision on the part of God, some passing fancy, wherein He decides, quite randomly to hate someone. Rather, it is based upon the actions of His children that He decides to either love them through "hate", by way of opposition and affliction, or to love them through mercy, by giving them prosperity and blessings.

"What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid! For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. And I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." (Romans 9:14-16)

Paul again anticipates the argument of his opponents. If God is showing mercy to the other nations, yet He promised His blessings to Israel and they are in danger of being destroyed, then isn't God being unjust? Paul responds by referring to Exodus and to Moses again:

"And the Lord said to Moses: This word also, which thou hast spoken, will I do; for thou hast found grace before me, and thee I have known by name. And he said: Shew me thy glory. He answered: I will shew thee all good, and I will proclaim in the name of the Lord before thee: and I will have mercy on whom I will, and I will be merciful to whom it shall please me. And again he said: Thou canst not see my face: for man shall not see me, and live. And again he said: Behold there is a place with me, and thou shalt stand upon the rock. And when my glory shall pass, I will set thee in a hole of the rock, and protect thee with my righthand till I pass: And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face thou canst not see." (Exodus 33:17-23)

What is the context of this story, in which Moses is allowed to behold the glory of God? It occurs right after Israel's idolatry with the Golden Calf. St. Paul has not left behind his firstborn/secondborn motif, for in this example, is it Moses, the younger brother, who is shown God's favor, and not Aaron, the eldest brother. Why does God pass over Aaron and show His glory to Moses instead? Any good Jewish reader will know immediately that this story follows the story of the Golden Calf, and will remember that it was Aaron, the firstborn son, who led the people in their sin. It was Aaron who gathered the gold from the people and fashioned the Golden Calf, and it was he who organized the abominable liturgy of the Golden Calf, with all of its sacrifices, dancing, and sexual orgies. Thus, it is not to older, stronger, more powerful Aaron that God shows His glory, but to the younger, holier, more humble Moses.

Is God unjust? No, for He deals with us according to our obedience to Him, as is shown to be the case with Moses and Aaron. In referring to this episode from Exodus, Paul springs the trap he has been preparing for the past few verses. He has given three examples in which the firstborn son is passed over in favor of the younger son, in the case of Ishmael and Isaac, in the case of Jacob and Esau, and in the case of Moses and Aaron. What significance does this have for the Jews to whom St. Paul is speaking? His reference to Israel and the Golden Calf makes it clear, for it recalls what God said of Israel at the inception of the Exodus:

"And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me, and thou wouldst not let him go: behold I will kill thy son, thy firstborn." (Exodus 4:22-23)

The judgment that Paul makes against the Jews to whom he is writing is now out in the open: just like Ishmael, just like Esau, and just like Aaron, Israel is the firstborn son. Yet, as Paul just reminded them by referring to the Golden Calf, Israel has shown themselves to be a proud, stubborn, and rebellious firstborn son, and thus, as has been the case for the Patriarchs all through their history, their firstborn sonship will be the grounds on which they are condemned, if they do not repent. God will pass over them and favor the younger nations of the Gentiles, for Israel is unrepentant. This is the force ofPaul's words, "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." (Romans 9:16) God does not favor those with the strongest will, those who can run the fastest, those who are the biggest and strongest. Rather, He favors those who are humble, and who, like Moses, embrace their weakness enough to ask God, "Show me Thy glory."

"For the scripture saith to Pharaoh: To this purpose have I raised thee, that I may shew my power in thee and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will. And whom he will, he hardeneth." (Romans 9:17-18)

Again, God does not arbitrarily predestine certain souls to eternal damnation, nor does He choose on a whim that He will hate certain people, and love others. Rather, He deals with men according to their obedience, as is shown in the case of Pharaoh. Does this passage mean that God actively hardened Pharaoh's heart, that He looked down from heaven and said, "That old Pharaoh, I'm afraid he might actually obey me and let my people go, but I want to show the world my power, so I'm going to keep him from doing the right thing?" Absolutely not!

"Thou shalt speak to him all that I command thee; and he shall speak to Pharaoh, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land. But I shall harden his heart, and shall multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt." (Exodus 7:2-3)

"And Pharaoh seeing that rest was given, hardened his own heart, and did not hear them, as the Lord had commanded." (Exodus 8:15)

So which one is it? Did God harden Pharaoh's heart, or did Pharaoh harden his own heart? Both! God does not show His wrath by actively hardening the heart of Man, so that he can not repent, even if he wanted to. No, God shows His wrath, as we saw in Romans 1:18 and following, by simply letting Man have his own way. He gives His grace only to those who humble themselves and ask for it, but to those who would rather live their lives without God, His punishment is that He does not force Himself upon them. So, in other words, Pharaoh (another firstborn, by the way) had placed his trust in himself, and in his power to establish his own kingdom, and refused to acknowledge the power and sovereign rights of God, and so God says, in effect, "You don't want me? Fine, you won't get me." Pharaoh hardened his own heart, and God "blessed" Pharaoh's decision. However, because He knows the state of Pharaoh's heart, and the extent of Pharaoh's foolish pride, He chooses to use Pharaoh as an example to the Israelites (and ultimately, to the world) of what happens when you are proud, boastful, and unwilling to humble yourself before God: you ultimately lose everything, even the temporal blessings you once enjoyed.

This becomes Paul's warning to and accusation against his Jewish readers. He says to them, you have these precepts written into your very own history, and so you ought to know what becomes of those who harden their hearts against God, those who reject God's mediator. He points out to the Judaizers that the Jewish people have, almost unbelievably, reached the full measure of wickedness, for they who were once God's firstborn son have become like Egypt, their worst enemy. This is nothing new for Paul, however, for both Jesus and John both said the exact same thing:

"Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." (Matt. 19:6-8)

"And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the abyss shall make war against them and shall overcome them and kill them. And their bodies shall lie in the streets of the great city which is called spiritually, Sodom and Egypt: where their Lord also was crucified." (Rev. 1:7-8)

In the first passage, Jesus describes the condition of the Israelites in Moses' time the same way God describes the condition of Pharaoh: hardness of heart. John says that the "great city" where the "Lord also was crucified," that is, Jerusalem, has become "Sodom and Egypt." A more damning sentence could hardly be pronounced against them. So we see that St. Paul is merely saying something that was well known to the Christians, that is, that Israel had become like Egypt, and just as Sodom and Egypt were judged with destruction by God, so Jerusalem will soon be handed over to the scourge of the Roman Armies.

"Thou wilt say therefore to me: Why doth he then find fault? For who resisteth his will? O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it: Why hast thou made me thus? Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction, That he might shew the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he hath prepared unto glory?" (Romans 9:19-23)

Now, on to something else . . . Consider Isaiah 53:6: “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Of course, the “him” refers to Jesus Christ – it’s a major Messianic prophecy. Well, if you go in at the door of the first "all," you have to be able to come out the door of the last "all"! So if "the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all" only means "the elect," then guess what? "All we like sheep have gone astray" only means "the elect" too!

I’m not going to discuss every single solitary thing that was brought up in my previous post. Why? Because there were a lot of Bible verses I cited that you tried to object to, and since you’ve decided to read your own interpretation into those passages, going around and around with them won’t get us anywhere. However, as for some of the other things we discussed, allow me to bring up 1 Timothy 2:4. I cited 1 Timothy 2:4, where it says that God “wills EVERYONE to come to the knowledge of the truth.” You said that judging from earlier in the chapter, Paul has in mind all types of people -- "kings and those in authority" and lowly peasants, male and female, Jews and Gentiles. Well, first of all, that particular verse doesn’t refer to all types of people. The text plainly says all men, and yet you seem to want to change the wording to say “all kinds of men!” Those are 2 totally different propositions. The Greek word for “kind” is “genos,” but that is not used in 1 Timothy 2:4. Everyone is everyone, yet you seem desperate to prove otherwise in order to salvage your belief system!

I’ll be dealing with 1 John 2:2 in the thread entitled “Are You Saved?” I think it might be even more relevant there.

As for this passage:

John 10:26

26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.

You missed the point of what I was saying. Jesus said that the people in question didn’t believe because they weren’t part of His flock. In light of what I’ve discussed earlier in this passage, they CHOSE not to be part of His flock. They could’ve freely chosen to be part of it, but instead they freely chose not to.

As for these passages:

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.

You said I didn’t deal with the above passages, but I did! Here’s what I wrote: “[W]ith 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.” I discuss it more in-depth earlier in this post.

[Dave]

A couple things I forgot to mention:

I'm willing to admit you may be right about what Augustine believed about predestination. I'm no expert on him. However, I feel that what Augustine believes is irrelevant because as Catholics we don't go by him; we go by the Bible, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium.

I also said I'd be dealing with 1 John 2:2 in the Are You Saved? thread because for some reason I thought it had been brought up there, but I was wrong.

Anyway, you claim 1 John 2:2 is dealing with the application of Christ's propitiation and that it is clearly not applied to everyone. But look the preceding verses, starting with 1 John 1:8 -- "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the [propitiation] for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 1:8-2:2)

Notice that if we sin, we have an advocate with the Father, because Jesus is the "propitiation" for our sins -- thus, if we "confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins." This means, if you want to impose the strict meaning of propitiation here, that every time we confess our sins to God, Jesus makes propitiation for those sins again and again and again and again, etc. This runs totally contrary to his idea of Christ's sacrifice being "once for all," doesn't it? You're being really inconsistent here.

The fact that John IS speaking to believers here raises the interesting question: why does he say, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness"? That "if" that begins the statement implies a condition -- meaning that if we DON'T confess our sins, he will NOT forgive our sins or cleanse us from all unrighteousness!

[FreeSoul]

So hold on a second. If God knows you before you exist...and God knows you're going to hell...then God made people to go to Hell.

Just doesn't square with me.

God's too nice for that imo.

[God Conquers]

I hear that Free Soul.

dave, you better copy and paste that into WORD and save it. That's an amesome article you just wrote there! Thanks!

[Dave]

Thanks, God Conquers, but I can't take credit for it. Let's just say before I posted it, I got by with a little, no, A LOT, of help from a friend. It's really his work more than anything else. I hope he doesn't mind me using the info I included in the thread.

[cmotherofpirl]

So hold on a second. If God knows you before you exist...and God knows you're going to hell...then God made people to go to Hell.

Just doesn't square with me.

God's too nice for that imo.

lol

God knows the result of your free will choice.

Hell is something we choose instead of God.

God is a just God and respects our individual decisions.

[mustbenothing]

(Donna) Limited atonement is a condemned heresy.

(Me) Ah, St. Augustine, that vile heretic!

(Donna) John's views on the canonical 7 books of the OT that apostate monk Martin Luther threw out are heretical.

(Me) According to the Catholic Church, yes. Of course, I've shown that they contradict Scripture. The committed Christian, then, should be forced to reconsider the Catholic Church claim that the Apocrypha are truly canonical.

[mustbenothing]

Dave -- I'll get to your post soon.

(FreeSoul) So hold on a second. If God knows you before you exist...and God knows you're going to hell...then God made people to go to Hell.

(Me) Proverbs 16:4

The Lord has made everything for its purpose,

even the wicked for the day of trouble.

Romans 9:21-23

21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?

22 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,

23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory

(FreeSoul) God's too nice for that imo.

(Me) You have pinpointed the problem. Modern culture demands that we sensitize the God of the Bible -- instead of just (that is, displaying wrath against evil) and merciful (that is, unconditionally pardoning sinners), He must be "nice" and "fair" according to our current standards.

(cmotherofpirl) Hell is something we choose instead of God.

(Me) I would say that it is chosen by both, in some sense:

1 Peter 2:8

They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

[cmotherofpirl]

God, being outside of time, knows what we are going to do. He doesn't choose it, He simply knows it. He knows the fruits of our free will choices.

However, look at the case of the pharaoh in Egypt.

FreeSoul : God is a God of justice. Justice preceeds mercy, it doesn't replace it. Have you read the Old Testament lately? God does not have a reputation for "niceness" or "tolerance".

[Dave]

According to the Catholic Church, yes. Of course, I've shown that they contradict Scripture. The committed Christian, then, should be forced to reconsider the Catholic Church claim that the Apocrypha are truly canonical.

You've given us no proof that the deuterocanonicals (they are NOT called the apocrypha) contradict the rest of scripture.

[cmotherofpirl]

PREDESTINATION

by Fr. William G. Most

(Documentation and details can be found in

Wm. G. Most, New Answers to Old Questions, London, 1971.

The book is out of print, but xeroxes of it can be

had from the office of Notre Dame Institute)

Definition of Terms: Predestination means an arrangement of

Divine Providence to see to it that someone gets either, 1) heaven

or 2) full membership in the Church. We specify full membership

because thee is also a lesser degree, a substantial membership

which can suffice for final salvation.

From the beginning, the two kinds have usually been

telescoped, i.e., no distinction was made. Thus the parable of

the banquet has been understood to refer to both final salvation

and to full membership in the Church. This is regrettable, for

the two are different in themselves, different in the principles

on which God makes His decisions.

Reprobation is the unfavorable decision, to let someone go

to final ruin.

It is asked: Does God make both kinds of decisions,

predestination and reprobation, before or after considering

merits and demerits? Since there is no time in God, this really

means with or without taking into account merits and demerits.

It has been assumed by all that if God decides to predestine

without considering merits, He must decide reprobation without

considering demerits. And if He decides to predestine with

considering merits and demerits, He must decide reprobation in

the same way. This view comes from the belief that a person is

either predestined or reprobated: both are two sides of the same

coin. This view has been considered as obvious, as inescapable.

Nonetheless, it is not inescapable. As we shall see there is

a way to separate the two sides, i.e., to say that He predestines

without merits, but reprobates only after considering demerits.

Views of the Thomists and the Molinists:

a) Thomists: they say that God predestines and reprobates

without considering merits or demerits. Objection: Here is Joe

Doaks, whom God has decided to reprobate without even seeing how

Joe lives. Can He do this, and also say (1 Tim 2:4) that He

wills all to be saved - which would include Joe Doaks? Obviously

not.

This impossibility was admitted by the real founder of the

"Thomist" system, Domingo Banez who was followed by Cardinal

Cajetan. But later generations of Dominicans insisted this view

is not incompatible with 1 Tim 2:4. What they failed to see is

this: To love is to will good to another for the other's sake. So

to will salvation to all is to love. So in this "Thomist"

view, God would not love Joe Doaks. And because He would decide to

reprobate many without any consideration of their demerits, He

would really not love anyone at all.

Did St. Thomas himself hold this view? By no means. Let us

picture Thomas as standing on the rim of a circle. On it he seems

to find two points from each of which he can draw a line to hit

the center, the true answer. He actually thought he had two such

points.

1) In Contra gentiles 3.159ss he started from 1 Tim 2:4:

"Since a man cannot be directed to his ultimate end except by the

help of divine grace, someone might think a man should not be

blamed if he lacks these things, especially since he cannot merit

the help of divine grace or turn to God unless God turns

him....But...many unsuitable things obviously follow...he would

not be worthy of punishment.... To solve this problem we must

notice that although a man by the movement of free will can

neither merit nor obtain divine grace, yet he can block himself

from receiving it. ...But they alone are deprived of grace who

set up in themselves an impediment to grace, just as, when the sun

shines on the world, he deserves blame who shuts his eyes...."

Had he continued this line, Thomas would not have arrived at the

position of Banez.

2) In his Commentary on Romans chapter 9, lessons 2 & 3 he

started from Romans 8.29ff as interpreted by St. Augustine, in

which God blindly picks those whom He will save or not save

"Since all men because of the sin of the first parent are born

exposed to damnation, those whom God frees through His grace, He

frees out of mercy alone." However he also wrote: "God, so far as

is in Him, interiorly stirs up a man to good...but the wicked man

abuses this stirring according to the malice of his heart. ...

Those whom He hardens, earn that they be hardened by Him."

St. Augustine had held that all humans form a <massa damnata

et damnabilis,> a damned and damnable blob from original sin. God

blindly picks a small percent to save, to show mercy; the rest,

the great majority, He deserts, to show justice.

It is evident that Thomas had two incompatible starting

points. So he pulled up short in drawing each of the lines, the

one from 1 Tim 2:4, and the one from Romans 8:29. In fact in his

Commentary on Romans, as above, he shows signs of both views. So

Baez was not right in claiming he merely took over the ideas of

St. Thomas. Baez was right in admitting his view was incompatible

with 1 Tim 2:4. St. Augustine said the same of his own view.

B) Molinists. Their view comes from Molina, a Spanish Jesuit.

He held that God predestines after considering merits. But this

is impossible, for our merits are a gift of God, according to 1

Cor 4:7: "What have you that you have not received?" St. Augustine

in Epistle 194 agrees: "When God crowns your merits, He crowns

nothing other than His own gifts". So the view of Molina

involves a vicious circle.

Debates in Rome: In 1597 Pope Clement VIII ordered both the above

schools to send delegates to Rome to debate before a commission

of Cardinals. The debates ran about 10 years. After a time the

Pope himself presided. Clement VIII died, and Paul V inherited

the debates. Paul V asked St. Francis de Sales, a saint and a

great theologian, for advice. Francis advised him to approve

neither school. He did that in 1607. Divine Providence was

protecting the Church from two great errors.

Position of New Answers to Old Questions:

Preliminary note: the author, William Most, in around 1950, in a

routine daily meditation, had what seemed a little grace of light.

At first the implication did not dawn. But in time it did, and it

seemed that it contained the germ of a new solution on the old

problem of predestination. Further, it would break with both the

major schools. Naturally, in such a case one should say: Perhaps

someone can shoot this down with one pop. So he consulted

Dominican and Jesuit theologians personally. The Jesuits all

liked the idea, about half the Dominicans did. Next he prepared

an 81 page single space summary of the idea - so many pages

needed because of so many centuries of detailed debates. Five

hundred copies were made and sent to Scripture scholars and

Theologians mostly in Europe, asking for criticism. --the summary

was in Latin, since so many Europeans find English difficult.--

About 100 letters came in, from all parts of the theological

spectrum. Some liked the proposal, some did not. He then took all

the positive suggestions and incorporated them, and tried to

answer all objections. The text then expanded into a book of

about 500 large pages, which was published in Rome in 1963, just

when the storm was breaking. The book drew 12 reviews in

Europe. One unfavorable, but only old line objections. Three were

merely descriptive. Others were favorable, e.g., Dom Mark Pontifex

in Downside Review:"...the discussion which has gone on for so

many centuries will be permanently affected." Divus Thomas called

it a "powerful volume." La Ciencia Tomista of Salamanca:"... the

contribution of the author to the theological investigation is

exemplary...the positive value of his work and his method seem to

be beyond question." --These things do not prove it right, only

that it has been seen and checked by solid scholars in Europe. If

it is right, the credit does not go to the author, but to an

unearned grace of light.

The solution: There is no time in God, but one thing may be

logically before another. There are three logical points in His

decisions on predestination:

1) God wills all men to be saved. This is explicit in 1 Tim

2:4, and since to love is to will good to another for the other's

sake, this is the same as saying God loves us. To deny that, as

Banez did is a horrendous error, it denies the love of God. How

strong this love is can be seen by the obstacle it overcame in

the work of opening eternal happiness to us: the death of Christ

on the cross.

2) God looks to see who resists His grace gravely and

persistently, so persistently that the person throws away the

only thing that could save him. With regrets, God decrees to let

such persons go: reprobation because of and in view of grave and

persistent resistance to grace.

3) All others not discarded in step two are positively

predestined, but not because of merits, which are not at all in

view yet, nor even because of the lack of such resistance, but

because in step 1, God wanted to predestine them, and they are

not stopping Him. This is predestination without merits.

This can also be seen from the Father analogy of the

Gospels. In even an ordinarily good family: 1)the parents want

all the children to turn out well. 2)No child feels he/she needs

to help around the house etc. to earn love and care. The children

get that because the parents are good, not because they, the

children are good. 3)Yet the children know that if they are bad

they can earn punishment, and if bad enough long enough, could be

thrown out and lose their inheritance.

Cf. 1 Cor 6:9-10 saying that those who do these things, great

sins, will not inherit the kingdom. And Rom 6:23: "The wages

[what one earns] of sin is death, but the free gift [unearned] of

God is everlasting life. Cf. also: "Unless you become like little

children...."

Note on Predilection: R. Garrigou-Lagrange (De Deo

uno, Turin, Paris, 1938, p. 525):" "Hence the comparison of these

different systems on predestination is reduced to this; what is

the force of the principle of predilection: no one would be

better than another, if he were not loved more by God. .... In the

order of grace, this principle of predilection is revealed in

these words of St. Paul in 1 Cor 4.7: "Who has distinguished you?

What have you that you have not received?' [omits fact that

resistance to grace is from us, not from God, and so arrives at

the view that there is nothing to distinguish one person from

another, so God decides blindly that these go to heaven, those to

hell].

Idem, De gratia (Turin, 1945) p. 63, note 2):"...a person is

not able of himself alone, to not place an obstacle [to

sufficient grace], for that [not placing an obstacle] is good."

Ibid. p. 190: "...although he could [possit] non resist, de facto

nevertheless he resists, but freely and culpably.... there is no

middle term in between to resist, which comes from our

defectibility, and to not resist, which comes from the font of

all good things, because 'to non-resist is already some good.'"

P. Lumbreras O.P. (De gratia, Rome, 1946, pp. 95-96, citing John

of St. Thomas I-II. q. 111. disp. 14.a. 1. n. 12) "To be deprived of

efficacious grace, it is not always required that we first desert

God by sin.... on our part, there is always some impediment to

efficacious grace not by way of fault, yet by way of

in consideration or some other defect.... 'Because of this

defective consideration [in the human intellect] because of this

voluntary defect - which is not yet a sin, since the

consideration is for the sake of the judgment, and the judgment

for the sake of the work, that is, the assent - God can refuse a

man efficacious grace." [without efficacious grace a man

infallibly sins, according to "Thomists". But Christ earned every

grace. cf. Romans 8:31-34 and 5:8-10.]

How much does God love humans? There are two measures:

a) Since to love is to will good to another for the

other's sake, if the love is strong, the lover will want to act

to make the other well off and happy. Then if a small obstacle

stops him, the love is small. If it takes a great obstacle to stop

him, the love is great. But if even an immense obstacle will not

stop him, the love is immense.

B) The Father in the new covenant and sacrifice accepted an

infinite price of redemption. So He bound Himself to make

forgiveness and grace available to our race infinitely, without

limit. The only limit is in our receptivity. But He did this not

just for our race as a whole, but even for each individual. St.

Paul said in Gal 2:20: "He loved me, and gave Himself for me."

This is not just for Paul. Vatican II in GS 22: "Each one of us

can say with the Apostle, the Son of God loved me, and gave

Himself for me." So there is an infinite title or claim to all

forgiveness and grace even for each individual.

Such then is the measure of His love.

So would be refuse to give grace merely because of an

inculpable an inadvertence? If he would, His love would be tiny, or

nonexistent.

Would a mere inadvertence which is not at sin at all be such

as to deprive a man of that without which he could not be saved?.

(Since efficacious grace, according to the "Thomists" is the

application of sufficient grace, it is clear that without

efficacious grace, the man infallibly will not do good, must sin)

cf. Garrigou-Lagrange above). Of course God would not deny grace

for that inculpable inadvertence. In Romans 8:31-34 Paul

exultantly exclaims: If God is for us, who is against us? He who

has given us His only Son, what will He not give us in addition?

- So would He see a soul go to hell because of an inculpable

inadvertence, with is no sin at all, when a grace, for which His

Son paid so dreadful a price, has already been earned and paid

for? Such a vain fantasy is contrary to the goodness of our

Father. So the theory of Garrigou and others like him is terribly

false, without any foundation.

Behind such an error is a misunderstanding of 1 Cor 4:7,

which says every good we have is God's gift. True. But the Father

has bound Himself to offer without limit. And an inculpable

inadvertence would not block it. Grace can readily overcome such

a thing. It is only if a person by much sin has made himself

blind, and so incapable of taking in the first movement of grace

when it is showing him something as good, only then could he

be deprived of grace. St. Thomas himself in CG 3:159 said: "But

they alone are deprived of grace who set up in themselves an

impediment to grace, just as, when the sun shines on the world, he

deserves blame who shuts his eyes...."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

[cmotherofpirl]

Deuterocanonical Books in Canon of Scripture

by Fr. William Most

The Rabbis meeting at Jamnia in 90 AD., after the ruin of

Jerusalem and trying to decide how to go on, did not accept Sirach

as canonical, even though it was originally written in Hebrew.

It is not in the canonical list of Melito of Sardes

(c.280AD) or Origen (321.AD) of the Council of Laodicea (360AD).

But it is in the list of the Apostolic Constitione (middle of 3rd

century, of Gelasius (382AD) and the African Councils of Hippo

393) and Carthage (397AD). But doubts about its canonicity lasted

into the Middle Ages, especially under the influence of St.

Jerome, who preferred the Palestinian Canon, such doubts lasted

even after the Council of Florence (1441) which included it in the

list of sacred books without denying its canonicity. It's

canonicity was finally defined at the Council of Trent.

Yet is was used for devout reading, and was considered as

inspired not only by those Fathers who adopted the longer

Alexandrian Canon, but also by those who held only the shorter

Palestinian. They include even St. Jerome (In Epist. ad Jul. PL

22.961 and On Is 3.13:PL 24.67, and against Pelagians 2.5, PL

23.541. It was also accepted as inspired by Clement of Alexandria,

in Paidagogos 1.1 and Stromata 10.3; by Origen Peri archon 2.8;

Against Celsus 6.7.12; On John 32.14; by St. Athanasius Paschal

Letter 39,and Against Arians 2.79; by St. Cyril of Jerusalem 6.3;

by St. Epiphanius, Against Heresies 3.1.76;and by St. Cyprian,

Epistle 5.45.60; by Tertullian, Against Marcion 1.16, and by St.

Augustine, Speculum de Scriptura sacra, PL 34.948ss.