Predestination

[voiciblanche]

Okay, so I was going through the threads in the Apologetics section and read the "Free Will" one, where predestination was mentioned, and talked about to a point. Four different people verified predestination as Catholic doctrine. I understand the points made in the thread, and agree with them. I then read the information from New Advent that was linked to in the Reference Section - and I agree with that. I still don't understand how predestination is correct, however. In a Catholic school, I've been taught that it was wrong, so I'm assuming my definition and my teacher's definition of predestination are different than yours and that of the Church, which worries me because I don't want to be believing something that is against Catholic doctrine.

Here's what I think of as predestination:

God creates human beings, deciding whether they go to Heaven or Hell. They have no choice in the matter; they cannot change their fate by going to Confession, etc, no matter what, they go where God has predestined them to go.

This [i]must[/i] be wrong. This can't be the same predestination the Church teaches is true. Anyone care to explain it to me? I'm so confused, and I want to be in line with Church teaching.

[Hananiah]

Calvin taught double, unconditional predestination. God picks some to go to heaven, and some to go to hell. That is contrary to Church teaching.

Ss. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas taught single, unconditional election. God picks some to go to heaven, and some he passively allows to send themselves to hell. He doesn't predestine them to hell. This is allowed.

Louis Molina taught conditional election. God looked into the future, and took what he saw into account before he decided whom to predestine to heaven. This is allowed.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='voiciblanche' date='Jun 19 2004, 11:06 AM'] I still don't understand how predestination is correct, however. In a Catholic school, I've been taught that it was wrong, so I'm assuming my definition and my teacher's definition of predestination are different than yours and that of the Church, which worries me because I don't want to be believing something that is against Catholic doctrine.

Here's what I think of as predestination:

God creates human beings, deciding whether they go to Heaven or Hell. They have no choice in the matter; they cannot change their fate by going to Confession, etc, no matter what, they go where God has predestined them to go.

This [i]must[/i] be wrong. This can't be the same predestination the Church teaches is true. Anyone care to explain it to me? I'm so confused, and I want to be in line with Church teaching. [/quote]
[quote]I still don't understand how predestination is correct, however. In a Catholic school, I've been taught that it was wrong, so I'm assuming my definition and my teacher's definition of predestination are different than yours and that of the Church, which worries me because I don't want to be believing something that is against Catholic doctrine.[/quote] Your teacher was greviously wrong and needs to read the Letter to the Romans.

Romans 8:29-31

[color=blue]For those God foreknew he also [b]predestined[/b] to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. [/color]

Romans 9:11-26

[color=blue]Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger."[4] 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."[5]
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[6] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[7] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[8] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory-- 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one,"[9] 26and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.' "[10] [/color]

[quote]Here's what I think of as predestination:

God creates human beings, deciding whether they go to Heaven or Hell. They have no choice in the matter; they cannot change their fate by going to Confession, etc, no matter what, they go where God has predestined them to go.[/quote]

God foreknew persons as His Own, and those He foreknew, He infallibly predestined to eternal bliss. Those whom He did not predestine, he allows to perish because of their sin. It's simple.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Double (Calvin) predestination is wrong. When somebody says predestination, people usually think of Calvin. There is, however, a Catholic form of predestination, which is discussed in this article:
[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ120.HTM"]http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ120.HTM[/url]

[Aloysius]

ICTHUS, that's the first time you've posted on predestination in which your post actually made complete sense to me lol, most of the time you just confuse me with TULIPs and stuff

pAx

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I found this to be the easiest presentation of Catholic predestination to understand:
[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num21.htm"]http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num21.htm[/url]

Here are a few select quotes:
[quote][b]SUMMARY OF CATHOLIC TEACHING[/b]

1. God knows all things, including those who will be saved (THE ELECT). 2. God's foreknowledge does not destroy, but includes, free will. 3. God desires all men to be saved. 4. Jesus died to redeem all men. 5. God provides sufficient grace for all men to be saved. 6. Man, in the exercise of his free will, can accept or reject grace. 7. Those who accept grace are saved, or born-again. 8. Those who are born-again can fall away or fall into sin. 9. Not everyone who is saved will persevere in grace. 10. Those who do persevere are God's elect. 11. Those who do not persevere, or who never accepted grace, are the reprobate. 12. Since we can always reject God in this life, we have no absolute assurance that we will persevere. 13. We can have a moral assurance of salvation if we maintain faith and keep God's commandments (1 John 2:1-6; 3:19-23; 5:1-3,13).[/quote]

[quote][b]CALVINISM AND CATHOLICISM CONTRASTED[/b]

Calvin : God's sovereignty determines the will.
Catholic : God's sovereignty includes free will.

Calvin : Predestination as predetermination.
Catholic : Predestination as infallible foreknowledge.

Calvin : God desires only the salvation of the elect.
Catholic : God desires the salvation of all.

Calvin : God provides grace only to the elect.
Catholic : God provides grace to all, though not all accept it.

Calvin : Christ died only for the elect.
Catholic : Christ died for all men.

Calvin : God predetermines some for hell.
Catholic : Men merit hell by their own wickedness.

Calvin : The elect include all those born-again.
Catholic : The elect are those who persevere to the end.

Calvin : Grace co-opts human free will.
Catholic : Grace perfects the free will that cooperates.

Calvin : Those in grace (born-again) can't fall away.
Catholic : Those in grace can freely sin and lose grace.

Calvin : The elect will unfailingly persevere.
Catholic : The elect are those who have persevered.

Calvin : The elect are assured of their salvation.
Catholic : Yes, but only God knows who they are.

Calvin : Predestination eliminates merit and guilt.
Catholic : Predestination includes merit and guilt.[/quote]

[voiciblanche]

Okay, thank you very much ICTHUS, Hananiah, and thedude. I understand it perfectly now. When school starts, I shall be having a little chat with my theology teacher.

[Aloysius]

that seems to be increasingly common amoung Catholic Theology people who talk to kids, me and a friend were just talking about this.

[qfnol31]

[quote]Calvin : Christ died only for the elect.
Catholic : Christ died for all men.[/quote]

Why's it say that His blood is shed for "the many" in the Eucharistic Prayer?

[Aloysius]

hmm... you not in line with the ICEL? well, that's a good thing in a way, the ICEL messed it up.

but still in the scripture the prase is for "the many" and in the original language that's an idiomatic expression that means for "the people" meaning all. But for many is also good in the sense that only many will receive the benefit, while He did it for all to make those benefits available to all only many will actually accept them.

pAx

[qfnol31]

Then why not change it to be more accurate for us today? I know in the new translation coming out, that's one of the things set to be changed back.

[Aloysius]

the entire point of my post was to show that BOTH WAYS are accurate. He died for many in the sense that only many will receive it, so looking at it from the perspective of us looking at Jesus, He died for many. Looking at it from the perspective Jesus looking at us, He died for ALL. He knew only some would accept it, but He saw every single sinner and did it for them, so they'd have a chance to accept it (even though He foreknew some wouldn't accept it)

"many" is theologically correct and was explained by the Council of Trent, "all" is theologically correct and supported by the meaning of the idiomatic expression in the scriptures, and i'm sure there's some council i could show to affirm that but i don't feel like looking.


Christ died for All, the Eucharistic Blood is poured out for many. The Eucharistic Blood is AVAIABLE to all, though.
pAx

[qfnol31]

LoL,

Me=devil's advocate*


*Not a job I think I could live up to in real life.

[Aloysius]

didn't the Catholic Church coin that phrase with an office specifically dedicated to investigating why someone SHOULDN't be cannonized? yeah, i believe that was us. we should get royalties everytime someone uses it

[qfnol31]

My Theology advisor met one of them once...

[ICTHUS]

[quote]didn't the Catholic Church coin that phrase with an office specifically dedicated to investigating why someone SHOULDN't be cannonized?  [/quote] I don't think being cannonized sounds like fun. I wouldn't like to be shot out of a cannon.

[Quietfire]

[quote]God creates human beings, deciding whether they go to Heaven or Hell. They have no choice in the matter; they cannot change their fate by going to Confession, etc, no matter what, they go where God has predestined them to go.[/quote]

Wow, Is this what Calvin taught?
Glad I never learned it.

We always have the choice, although we may choose wrong (sin) and we may not even realize we are choosing wrong. How often has someone jusified their wrong actions, and never 'got the point''? God knows though.
Confession only 'works' when one is truly, truly repentent. If one goes just to 'clean house', so to speak, and there is no honesty in the act of repentance, (and of course the priest doesnt know this) then confession is actually a waste for them, since they are not sincere.
God also knows this though.

We always have a choice, and sometimes the choices are tough.
And God knows this too.

Peace.

[VeraMaria]

Thanks for posting the contrasts between the Catholic and Calvin's POV, thedude. That helps with some questions a friend had! Gracias!

[ICTHUS]

VeraMaria, I would rephrase some of thedudes ways of comparing Calvinism with Catholicism.

[quote]Calvin : God's sovereignty determines the will.
Catholic : God's sovereignty includes free will.[/quote]

To the extent that everyone has control over their actions, yes. Everyone has free will. Only Christians, however, have [i]liberty of the will.[/i] There is a key distinction.

[quote]Calvin : Predestination as predetermination.
Catholic : Predestination as infallible foreknowledge.[/quote]

This is also incorrect. Predestination includes infallible foreknowledge and predetermination, cf. Romans 8:28-31

[quote]Calvin : God desires only the salvation of the elect.
Catholic : God desires the salvation of all.[/quote]

Yes, though not all are Elect.

[quote]Calvin : God provides grace only to the elect.
Catholic : God provides grace to all, though not all accept it.[/quote]

Rather, I would say that the unelect do sin by [i]rejecting[/i] grace. I think we are passive in our salvation unless we sin against it, like a river sweeping you towards a dock. You can choose to swim against the river, but if you just float, you'll eventually get to the dock.

[quote]Calvin : Christ died only for the elect.
Catholic : Christ died for all men.[/quote]

The Thomistic doctrine of limited efficacy of the atonement teaches that though Christ died for all, the atonement will only be efficacious in bringing about the salvation of the Elect.

[quote]Calvin : God predetermines some for hell.
Catholic : Men merit hell by their own wickedness.[/quote]

In Augustinian thought, the Elect are predestined, and God simply passes over the rest - the [i]Massa Damnata[/i]

[quote]Calvin : The elect include all those born-again.
Catholic : The elect are those who persevere to the end.[/quote]

One and the same - one must be born again [i]in order[/i] to persevere - one must persevere in the state of being born again. This is really a battle of semantics.

[quote]Calvin : Grace co-opts human free will.
Catholic : Grace perfects the free will that cooperates.[/quote]

Rather, I would say that grace prompts the will to co-operate.

[quote]Calvin : Those in grace (born-again) can't fall away.
Catholic : Those in grace can freely sin and lose grace.[/quote]

Yes - and it is only because of His grace that they are able to recover it.

[quote]Calvin : The elect will unfailingly persevere.
Catholic : The elect are those who have persevered.[/quote]

A battle of semantics, really. However, those whom God has called according to His purpose will infallibly persevere, as Augustine teaches. In this sense, Calvin was right.

[quote]Calvin : The elect are assured of their salvation.
Catholic : Yes, but only God knows who they are.[/quote]

Yep.

[quote]Calvin : Predestination eliminates merit and guilt.
Catholic : Predestination includes merit and guilt.[/quote]

Not if you're a Thomist or an Augustinian - predestination is [i]ante praevista meritas[/i] (before foreknowledge of merits)

[Apotheoun]

A few points of clarification on the doctrine of justification are necessary.

First, the Augustinian position has not be endorsed by the Magisterium [i]in toto[/i], thus one must balance the Augustinian viewpoint by reference to the teachings of the other Church Fathers, of both east and west. In fact, in the Eastern Catholic Churches, which are in communion with the Pope, the Augustinian doctrine has had little or no influence in the theology of man's justification by grace. Eastern Catholic theology focuses on the doctrine of justification as the beginning of the process of [i]theosis[/i], whereby man is deified by grace and made a partaker of the divine nature. [cf., 2nd Peter 1:4]

Second, as to the views of the Augustinians and Thomists about predestination being before the divine foreknowledge of supernatural merits ([i]ante praevista meritas[/i]), this has not been endorsed by the Magisterium as the only possible position that a Catholic may hold on this topic, therefore it is wrong to ascribe to it a position equivalent to a defined doctrine of the faith; instead, it is a theological opinion.

Third and finally, the Church rejects the notion of man as merely passive in his own salvation. Grace is always primary in the order of salvation, but free will, [i]restored[/i], [i]perfected[/i] and [i]elevated[/i] by grace, truly participates in the supernaturally meritorious works performed by a man in a state of grace, so that it is true to say that the supernatural works performed are wholly by grace, and yet they are also wholly performed by man. They are gifts of God, and yet they are also inherently ours. As St. Paul said, "It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me," and this being so, all the things done by a man who is incorporated into Christ's Body, are done, [i]in[/i], [i]with[/i], and [i]through[/i] Christ; and it should be noted that this truth was pointed out to Luther in his meetings with Cardinal Cajetan in 1517. In addition it should be pointed out that the view of man as merely passive in his own salvation was rejected and condemned by the Tridentine Fathers in the [u]Decree on Justification[/u] when they infallibly declared that in the preparation for justification ". . . in adults, the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called; that they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace to [i]convert themselves[/i] to their own justification [i]by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace[/i]; so that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, [i]man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, since he can also reject it, nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in His sight[/i]." [Trent, [u]Decree on Justification[/u], chap. 5] The Catholic doctrine that man can cooperate in his own salvation accounts for the fact that man can grow in the justification that he has received from God, for as the Fathers of Trent defined, "Having, therefore, been thus justified and made friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day, that is, mortifying the members of their flesh, and presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith cooperating with good works, increase in that justice received through the grace of Christ and are further justified." [Trent, [u]Decree on Justification[/u], chap. 10] The Tridentine Fathers went on to declare that our actions performed in a state of grace are meritorious, for "to those who work well unto the end and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward promised by God Himself, to be faithfully given to their good works and merits. For this is the crown of justice which after his fight and course the Apostle declared was laid up for him, to be rendered to him by the Just Judge, and not only to him, but also to all that love his coming. For since Christ Jesus Himself, as the head into the members and the vine into the branches, continually infuses strength into those justified, which strength always precedes, accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they could not in any manner be pleasing and meritorious before God, we must believe that nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained in its due time, provided they depart this life in grace." [Trent, [u]Decree on Justification[/u], chap. 16] Clearly, the Church has rejected any form of a merely passive conception of the doctrine of justification by grace, and to hold that man is merely passive in his salvation is to fall, in varying degrees, under the anathemas of canons 4, 9, 18, 20, 24, and 31, of the [u]Decree on Justification[/u], all of which speak of man's ability to cooperate with grace in the process of his justification and his salvation.

Edited June 20, 2004 by Apotheoun