Predestination, for us stupider folks

[twinc]

My understanding, after reading up on this to debate with a really annoying Calvinist, is that it is acceptable for Catholics to believe that God specifically predestines some to salvation, provided that you don't also hold that God positively damns anyone.  If that makes sense.  So, God desires that all would be saved and gives everyone that opportunity.  It's permissible to believe that He also specifically predestines some people to salvation, but not that He specifically damns some people to hell.  If you wind up in hell, it's because of your free will, not because God predestined it.  He would only will damnation to in passive sense, He does not positively damn anyone.

the great presumption to start off is that we have free will - we cannot know God's complete and final plan - HE might yet descend into hell again and set the poor prisoner's free as the true saviour of all mankind - twinc

of course most have not at all checked it out to factually know whether we have free will or not but say we have free will because they think so,not even realising that they are not even free to think for they only think they think whereas thoughts occur - a fractured,fragmented,flawed,faulty freewill is not really free as Paul tells us at Rmns.7:15-24 - -btw God does have favourites,for reasons we know not like John and Lazarus and Jacob He loved and Esau He hated - see Rmns.9:11-13 etc

[JoniCath]

My understanding, after reading up on this to debate with a really annoying Calvinist, is that it is acceptable for Catholics to believe that God specifically predestines some to salvation, provided that you don't also hold that God positively damns anyone.  If that makes sense.  
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
No, it doesn't make sense to me. What it says to me is that God gives SOME people free will, by which they can choose evil.......others He either denies free will or He manipulates circumstances within their lives so that they will not die in serious sin.


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).

"Predestination is God's decree of the happiness of the elect. God's infallible foreknowledge (and thus predestination also) includes free will. God's 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, predestination is not predetermination of the human will.

[randomtradguy]

I agree. Predestination of any type makes me uncomfortable, thought I just and I mean just found out it's a Catholic doctrine. We need better catechesis on this topic.

[Vetus Ordo]

I agree. Predestination of any type makes me uncomfortable, thought I just and I mean just found out it's a Catholic doctrine. We need better catechesis on this topic.

Predestination is a necessary dogma because God is omniscient (foreknows all things from all eternity) and omnipotent (elects whom He wills) when it comes to salvation.

St. Augustine's teaching on predestination has been accepted by the Church as her own. However, the topic is rather dense and it's certainly not for everyone, I gather, especially laymen.

[randomtradguy]

But how does God being all-knowing and all-powerful automatically means he makes people accept His grace? All those words mean are that He knows all and can do anything.
So I must have missed St. Augustine's opinion.
As to God predestining some to heaven and some passively not, I can get around that. All one must remember is that no one really deserves God's grace. However, some may deserve it more than others. In the same way, are not there supposed to be levels to heaven? (Seventh heaven, for example, that St. Paul went to. But I forget which heaven, may not have been seventh.)

[Vetus Ordo]

But how does God being all-knowing and all-powerful automatically means he makes people accept His grace? All those words mean are that He knows all and can do anything.
So I must have missed St. Augustine's opinion.
As to God predestining some to heaven and some passively not, I can get around that. All one must remember is that no one really deserves God's grace. However, some may deserve it more than others. In the same way, are not there supposed to be levels to heaven? (Seventh heaven, for example, that St. Paul went to. But I forget which heaven, may not have been seventh.)

Perhaps it will be worth repeating what I said in another thread:

God's will cannot be frustrated, otherwise He wouldn't be omnipotent and thus would not be God. We cannot believe that the omnipotent God has willed anything to be done which was not done.

Adam and Eve sinned and suffered along with their posterity the dire consequences of the fall. God already knew this was going to happen before He created the world - in fact He foreknew it from all eternity - and, nonetheless, He did create them in a state where they could and would rebel against Him. So, in certain a way, He certainly willed it to happen, the same way He wills the reprobate to fall, otherwise they would not fall.

Remember St. Augustine's teaching on this, which is the Church's:

‘Hence we must inquire in what sense is said of God what the apostle has mostly truly said: ‘who will have all men to be saved.’ For, as a matter of fact, not all, nor even a majority, are saved: so that it would seem that what God wills is not done, man’s will interfering with, and hindering the will of God. When we ask the reason why all men are not saved, the ordinary answer is: ‘because men themselves are not willing.’ This indeed cannot be said of infants, for it is not in their power either to will or not to will. But if we could attribute to their will the childish movements they make at baptism, when they make all the resistance they can, we should say that even they are not willing to be saved. Our Lord says plainly, however, in the Gospel, when upbraiding the impious city: ‘how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!’ as if the will of God had been overcome by the will of men, and when the weakest stood in the way with their want of will, the will of the strongest could not be carried out. And where is that omnipotence which hath done all that it pleased on earth and in heaven, if God willed to gather together the children of Jerusalem, and did not accomplish it? or rather, Jerusalem was not willing that her children should be gathered together? But even though she was unwilling, he gathered together as many of her children as he wished: for he does not will some things and do them, and will others and do them not; but ‘he hath done all that he pleased in heaven and in earth.’’ (Enchiridion 97)

‘Accordingly, when we hear and read in scripture that he ‘will have all men to be saved,’ although we know well that all men are not saved, we are not on that account to restrict the omnipotence of God, but are rather to understand the scripture,‘who will have all men to be saved,’ as meaning that no man is saved unless God wills his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation he does not will, but that no man is saved apart from his will; and that, therefore, we should pray him to will our salvation, because if he will it, it must necessarily be accomplished. And it was of prayer to God that the apostle was speaking when he used this expression. And on the same principle we interpret the expression in the Gospel: ‘the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world:’ not that there is no man who is not enlightened, but that no man is enlightened except by him. Or, it is said, ‘who will have all men to be saved;’ not that there is no man whose salvation he does not will (for how, then, explain the fact that he was unwilling to work miracles in the presence of some who, he said, would have repented if he had worked them?), but that we are to understand by ‘all men,’ the human race in all its varieties of rank and circumstances, – kings, subjects; noble, plebeian, high, low, learned, and unlearned; the sound in body, the feeble, the clever, the dull, the foolish, the rich, the poor, and those of middling circumstances; males, females, infants, boys, youths; young, middle-aged, and old men; of every tongue, of every fashion, of all arts, of all professions, with all the innumerable differences of will and conscience, and whatever else there is that makes a distinction among men. For which of all these classes is there out of which God does not will that men should be saved in all nations through his only-begotten Son, our Lord, and therefore does save them? For the Omnipotent cannot will in vain, whatsoever he may will. Now the apostle had enjoined that prayers should be made for all men, and had especially added, ‘for kings, and for all that are in authority,’ who might be supposed, in the pride and pomp of worldly station, to shrink from the humility of the Christian faith. Then saying, ‘for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our saviour,’ that is, that prayers should be made for such as these, he immediately adds, as if to remove any ground of despair, ‘who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.’ God, then, in his great condescension has judged it good to grant to the prayers of the humble the salvation of the exalted; and assuredly we have many examples of this. Our Lord, too, makes use of the same mode of speech in the Gospel, when he says to the Pharisees: ‘ye tithe mint, and rue, and every herb.’ For the Pharisees did not tithe what belonged to others, nor all the herbs of all the inhabitants of other lands. As, then, in this place we must understand by ‘every herb,’ every kind of herbs, so in the former passage we may understand by ‘all men,’ every sort of men. And we may interpret it in any other way we please, so long as we are not compelled to believe that the omnipotent God has willed anything to be done which was not done: for setting aside all ambiguities, if ‘he hath done all that he pleased in heaven and in earth,’ as the psalmist sings of him, he certainly did not will to do anything that he hath not done.’ (Enchiridion 103)

[twinc]

besides all the eloquence and wise conjectures,opinions and conclusions would anyone like to short circuit and comment on Rmns.7:15-24 and Rmns.9:11-13 - twinc

[Vetus Ordo]

Here is Haydock's commentary on those passages, twinc.

Ver. 15. For that which I work, I understand not. To know, or understand is often, in the style of the Scriptures, the same as to approve or love: so the sense here is: I approve not what I do, that is, what happens to me in my sensitive part, in my imagination, or in the members of my body, which indeed the just man rather suffers than does; and this is the sense, by what immediately follows, the evil which I hate, that I do, i.e. that I suffer, being against my will; and I do that which I would not. (Witham) --- I do not that good which I will, &c. The apostle here describes the disorderly motions of passion and concupiscence; which oftentimes in us get the start of reason, and by means of which even good men suffer in the inferior appetite what their will abhors: and are much hindered in the accomplishment of the desires of their spirit and mind. But these evil motions, (though they are called the law of sin, because they come from original sin, and violently tempt and incline to sin) as long as the will does not consent to them, are not sins, because they are not voluntary. (Challoner)

Ver. 17-18. Now then it is no more I that do it: To will good is present with me. These expressions all shew that he speaks of temptations that affect the sense only, the imagination, or the members of the body, but to which the mind and the will give no consent, but retain an aversion to them; and so long they never can be truly and properly sins, which must be with full deliberation and consent. (Witham) --- The apostle here means to say, that he knew by experience that evil and not good dwelt within him, according to the flesh. He does not contradict this passage when he says elsewhere, that our members are the temples of the Holy Ghost: (1 Corinthians iii. 6.[16.?] &c.) for good cannot be found in our flesh, inasmuch as it is corrupted by sin; whence our Saviour says, "What is born of flesh, is flesh." (John iii.) But good is in our body, when our members under the influence of the soul, renewed by the Holy Ghost residing in it, are employed in good works. The meaning of this passage is, that although now healed and renewed by grace, he could have a perfect desire of doing good; yet still on account of the evil of concupiscence dwelling in his flesh, he found not himself able to perform all the good he wished, because concupiscence was always urging him on to evil against his will. (Estius)

Ver. 22. I am delighted with the law of God according to the inward man. As long as the inward man, or man's interior, is right, all is right. --- (I perceive another law in my members, fighting, and different from the law of my mind: this is true in any man just striving against and resisting temptations, but not of the sinner, whose mind also and will consent to them. A man can never lose God's favour and grace, unless his mind and interior consent. --- These hold me as it were captive in the law of sin, or sinful inclinations, but which are in the members only. I cry out, who shall deliver me from the body of this death, from this mortal body with its sinful lusts, which if consented to would bring death to the soul? Nothing but the grace of Jesus Christ can secure me from such temptations, and by freeing me from this body, can make me perfectly happy; which cannot be hoped for in this life. But I have still this greatest of consolations, that I myself, with my mind and will, still serve God, and remain firm in obedience to his laws; but with the flesh, or in the flesh, I am subject to the law of sin, i.e. of sinful inclinations. --- We must avoid here two heretical errors; that of those late pretended reformers, who denying man's free will, hold the commandments of God impossible, even to a just man. See also the first heretical proposition of Jansenius. Next we must detest the late abominable error of those called Quietists, who blushed not to say that a man might yield and abandon himself to the most shameful disorders of the flesh, pretending that it was not they themselves, but sin and the devil that caused these abominations in their flesh. St. Augustine foresaw this frivolous excuse: (lib. i. de. nup. and Concup. chap. xxviii.) "That man (saith he) is in a grievous mistake, who, consenting to the concupiscence of the flesh, and to do what the flesh prompts him to, thinks he can still say: It is not I that do that," &c. (Witham)

--- Not yet born. By this example of these twins, and the preference of the younger to the elder, the drift of the apostle is, to shew that God, in his election, mercy, and grace, is not tied to any particular nation, as the Jews imagined, nor to any prerogative of birth, or any foregoing merits. For as, antecedently, to his grace, he sees no merit in any, but finds all involved in sin, in the common mass of condemnation; and all children of wrath; there is no one whom he might not justly leave in that mass; so that whomsoever he delivers from it, he delivers in his mercy: and whomsoever he leaves in it, he leaves in his justice. As when, of two equally criminal, the king is pleased out of pure mercy to pardon one, whilst he suffers justice to take place in the execution of the other. (Challoner) --- Nor had done any good or evil. God was pleased to prefer, and promise his blessings to the younger of them, Jacob, declaring that the elder shall serve the younger; that is, that the seed of the elder should be subject to that of the younger, as it happened afterwards to the Idumeans. And the prophet, Malachias, said of them, I have loved Jacob, but hated Esau, and turned his mountains into a desert, &c. --- That the purpose of God, his will, and his decree, (see the foregoing chap. ver. 28.) might stand according to election, might be, not according to any works they had done, or that he foresaw they would do, but merely according to his mercy. And though the preference which God gave to Jacob was literally true, as to temporal benefits; yet St. Augustine observes in divers places, that Jacob was a figure of the elect or predestinate, and Esau of the reprobate; and that as Jacob and his posterity was more favoured, purely by the mercy of God, without any merits on their side; so are God's elect, whom he has called, and to whom, according to his eternal purpose, he decreed to give eternal glory, and special graces to bring them thither. (Witham)

Ver. 14. What shall we say, then? Is there injustice with God, when he bestows special favours and benefits on some, and not on others? He answers, by no means. And he justifies almighty God's conduct, ver. 22. In the mean time, it is certain that there is no injustice in not giving what another has no right to: and besides all men having sinned, deserved punishment. If then, he shews mercy to some, it is an effect of his goodness and liberality only which they do not deserve. If he leaves others in their sins, they are only punished according to their deserts. His mercy shines upon his elect; and his divine justice is displayed against the wicked and the reprobate, but only according to what they have deserved. (Witham)

[randomtradguy]

I'm talking with another guy about this, he says that if we hold to our Catholic predestination, that we could perhaps by observation say that St. Francis was predestined to heaven, because he gave up worldly riches to live for Christ, but St. Augustine was not, since he had a very turbulent and hedonistic youth and later found Christ. What do the forum philosophers think about this statement? Can we tell who was/is predestined or not? And does that mean God does not love the unpredestined as much? I still see predestination as kind of Calvinistic.

[Vetus Ordo]

I'm talking with another guy about this, he says that if we hold to our Catholic predestination, that we could perhaps by observation say that St. Francis was predestined to heaven, because he gave up worldly riches to live for Christ, but St. Augustine was not, since he had a very turbulent and hedonistic youth and later found Christ.

Both were predestined as we can attest by their renowned sainthood. St. Augustine, from the moment he converted to Christ and became a regenerated creature by virtue of sanctifying grace, was on the path to heaven. Predestination is manifested by a life of holiness but especially by final perseverance. It does not matter when one abandons the old man but rather if one perseveres in the new man until the very end.

I still see predestination as kind of Calvinistic.

Only if by "Calvinistic" you mean "Augustinian."

Predestination is a dogma of the Church. A necessary dogma as I stated above.