 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
princessleah
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 27th, 2007 |
| Location: | Adelaide, Australia |
| Posts: | 19 |
| First Name: | Leah | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Adelaide to Rome, I'd say I'm at about Naples!! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 2nd, 2007 10:46 pm |
|
| I know this is a pretty broad question to ask, but I was wondering if someonce could briefly explain what the church teaches about predestination. I tried to do some reading of this topic in a Catholic encyclopaedia, but ended way in over my head, not really knowing what the Church was teaching by the end of the article!!
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 2nd, 2007 11:48 pm |
|
princessleah wrote: I know this is a pretty broad question to ask, but I was wondering if someonce could briefly explain what the church teaches about predestination. I tried to do some reading of this topic in a Catholic encyclopaedia, but ended way in over my head, not really knowing what the Church was teaching by the end of the article!!
The Church rejects predestination. We decide whether we will go to heaven or hell based on our own actions. When we sin, we must repent. We must take care of the least of God's people. If we don't then we are freely choosing hell, and God will grant our request.
God has foreknowledge, which means that before the beginning of time, God already knew what choices we will make. That does not make us any less free. The choice is still ours, even though God knows the choice we will make.
The two concepts are different. We can look at our toddler and know that he is about to fall. Our knowledge does not restrict the child's freedom in any way, even though we are certain of the result. We can look at our 13-year old daughter and know that the guy she is crushing on will break her heart. That does not restrict her freedom, and we cannot prevent her heartbreak and still let her grow into an adult. She won't believe us even if we tell her.
God tells us exactly what to do. We don't listen. God knows we will not listen. Jesus knew every one of our sins when he hung on the cross for us. Our freedom to commit those sins or not is intact. We are not predestined for heaven or hell, even though God already knows our destination.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1792 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 3rd, 2007 12:29 am |
|
Predestination is a tough topic, one that no human being really understands. I spent most of a year studying it just a couple of years ago and am still not sure where to plant my feet. After hundreds of years of theological debate, the results are still inconclusive.
The one thing that can be said is that the Catholic Church does not accept either the Protestant (Calvinist) concept of predestination or the popular philosophical or psychological approach to it (such as what one is inevitably exposed to in Philosophy 101 in most institutions of higher learning). It is in this sense that Rick is correct in saying that “the Church rejects predestination.”
On the other hand, the word “predestined” does occur several times in the New Testament. (In my RSV-CE, it occurs in Acts 4:28 and Romans 8.) Rick’s explanation tells you what we believe the word does NOT mean in these contexts. Saying what it DOES mean is a rather different task, and it is here that you yourself got bogged down, as the text you were reading was “over your head.” I have had the same feeling. Fortunately, we don’t have to say much about the topic beyond what has already been said, because the Church has not defined anything positive concerning predestination. Let us just say that this is something that we will learn more about in heaven.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 3rd, 2007 12:58 am |
|
David W. Emery wrote: On the other hand, the word “predestined” does occur several times in the New Testament. (In my RSV-CE, it occurs in Acts 4:28 and Romans 8.) Rick’s explanation tells you what we believe the word does NOT mean in these contexts. Saying what it DOES mean is a rather different task, and it is here that you yourself got bogged down, as the text you were reading was “over your head.”
Romans 8:29-30 in the NAB is:
For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.Romans 8:29). God's redemptive action on behalf of the believers has been in process before the beginning of the world. Those whom God chooses are those he foreknew (Romans 8:29) or elected. Those who are called (Romans 8:30) are predestined or predetermined. These expressions do not mean that God is arbitrary. Rather, Paul uses them to emphasize the thought and care that God has taken for the Christian's salvation.
Again the term "predestination" is contingent on foreknowledge. This verse is also quoted in the Catechism in #2012.
Acts 4:27-28 reads:
Indeed they gathered in this city against your holy servant Jesus whom you anointed, Herod and Pontius Pilate, together with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,to do what your hand and (your) will had long ago planned to take place.
Again, the emphasis is on foreknowledge, rather than a choice by God for an event to be preordained.
The Catechism does cite one instance in which we are predestined (according to the common definition) and that is as adopted sons of God:
2782 We can adore the Father because he has caused us to be reborn to his life by adopting us as his children in his only Son: by Baptism, he incorporates us into the Body of his Christ; through the anointing of his Spirit who flows from the head to the members, he makes us other "Christs."
God, indeed, who has predestined us to adoption as his sons, has conformed us to the glorious Body of Christ. So then you who have become sharers in Christ are appropriately called "Christs." (St. Cyprian)
This is the Catholic view.
Last edited on Thu May 3rd, 2007 12:58 am by CajunRick
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 746 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu May 3rd, 2007 01:39 pm |
|
I tend to look at it as what a Christian is predestined for, and not that we are specifically chosen by God while he denies others who would also ling to be for Him, which is what I think Rick was telling you. To me anybody who enabled by grace of his free will longs to be a child of God and by grace acts accordingly will be one of the "predestined" or "chosen or "elect." The important thing for me is that God is not rejecting any would be prodigals or denying them the grace to return.
So in a sense the chosen are those who choose. Still, the fact is that God has this thing called sovereignty and foreknowledge and on this side of heaven we know little about the total ramifications of this.
I like the Ephesians passage because it says we were predestined Y=TO become.... what was determined from all eternity was not like God picking a team and rejecting others, it was determined that a Christian was called to be linked to God's holiness in a powerful way. There is a passage in Acts that says all those who were destined for eternal life believed. This one seems tricky but you can see it links believing with being destined for eternal life...
all I know is that from our perspective we are called to live faithfully corresponding with grace or our free will. Whatever else there is to the story I will let God worrry about. While ome passages seem strong enough for a Calivinist to come up with a theology on this matter, it seems there are dozens more pasages that seem to show how important our responsibility to live according to faith and obedience of our own free will are, and warnings for not doing so. If it were all a matter of predestination then these passages would really be just there as a novelty since there would be nothing to really warn us about.
Brian
|
|
|
Cindy
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 41 |
| First Name: | Cindy | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Catholic convert |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 3rd, 2007 07:45 pm |
|
Hi Leah,
I thought you might enjoy Christopher Cuddy's conversion story. He touches on this subject (Scott Hahn recommended that Chris read Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange's book Predestination).
Chris writes:
"Predestination was the axis upon which my entire Protestant understanding of theology spun. Ironically, it was also the axis which spun me all the way into the Catholic Church."
Here's the link:
http://www.envoymagazine.com/planetenvoy/081704-TeenageRoadToTradition-Full.htm
Blessings,
Cindy
____________________
"Where Peter is, there is the Church" -- St. Ambrose of Milan
|
|
|
Candlemass
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Hudson, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 462 |
| First Name: | Mark | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, AOG, Baptist, non - denominational, Anglican, CC for life! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 3rd, 2007 08:38 pm |
|
| I've wrestled with this for more years than I care to mention, I really don't care anymore, this is God's territory, not my problem, I have plenty others!
____________________
"For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles—when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries."--1st Peter 4:3 NKJV
|
|
|
Br_Carlo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tyler, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 150 |
| First Name: | Br_Carlo (Vince Brach) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Presbyterian, Episcopalian, CATHOLIC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 4th, 2007 12:58 am |
|
| God's peace. I heard predestination explained in an interesting way by Albert N. Martin, a Calvinist Baptist preacher (who I think was more Catholic than he knew when he said this): The names of all of the elect are written on the inside of doors to heaven. You can only read your name there once you are safely inside! Blessings, ~Br_Carlo~
|
|
|
nonsumdignus
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 7th, 2006 |
| Location: | Phoenix, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 33 |
| First Name: | Jay | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, "ex-static" to be Catholic! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 5th, 2007 04:33 pm |
|
The Church rejects double Predestination, i.e., the Predestination taught by Calvin and company, but Predestination as the Church teaches it is de fide (infallibly true, must be believed). It is also de fide that God wills all men to be saved and provides grace sufficient for their salvation. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott, p. 239, 242-44). It is a mystery.
Thanks for sharing your story, Bro Carlos. That's a keeper.
Jay
____________________
"All the waters of the Elbe would not yield me tears sufficient to weep for the miseries caused by the Reformation." Philip Melanchthon, Luther's cohort, Epistles, Book IV, Ep. 100
|
|
|
Candlemass
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Hudson, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 462 |
| First Name: | Mark | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, AOG, Baptist, non - denominational, Anglican, CC for life! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 5th, 2007 06:12 pm |
|
| Wich is exactly what I said, it is a mystery, it is God's buisness in these affairs, I no longer concern myself w/them.
____________________
"For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles—when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries."--1st Peter 4:3 NKJV
|
|
|
Jackie
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | Jersey Shore, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 114 |
| First Name: | Jackie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 11th, 2007 11:16 am |
|
Whew.......you guys are great!
I learn so much thru your insights.
While I have my Catechism and Bible, it has been thru the blessings of family and friends (& now here in CHN) that I really grasp Truths in laymens terms.
God's Mercy.
Jackie
Leah, your closer to Rome than you think! Keep on keeping on Princess!!
|
|
|
flameburns623
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | Wood River, IL |
| Posts: | 5 |
| First Name: | flameburns623 | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Independent Christian Church, Catholic, Evangelical Protestant, atheist, Buddhist/New Age/Occultist, Mormon, ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 03:41 am |
|
CajunRick wrote: princessleah wrote: I know this is a pretty broad question to ask, but I was wondering if someone could briefly explain what the church teaches about predestination. I tried to do some reading of this topic in a Catholic encyclopedia, but ended way in over my head, not really knowing what the Church was teaching by the end of the article!!
The Church rejects predestination. We decide whether we will go to heaven or hell based on our own actions. When we sin, we must repent. We must take care of the least of God's people. If we don't then we are freely choosing hell, and God will grant our request.
God has foreknowledge, which means that before the beginning of time, God already knew what choices we will make. That does not make us any less free. The choice is still ours, even though God knows the choice we will make.
The two concepts are different. We can look at our toddler and know that he is about to fall. Our knowledge does not restrict the child's freedom in any way, even though we are certain of the result. We can look at our 13-year old daughter and know that the guy she is crushing on will break her heart. That does not restrict her freedom, and we cannot prevent her heartbreak and still let her grow into an adult. She won't believe us even if we tell her.
God tells us exactly what to do. We don't listen. God knows we will not listen. Jesus knew every one of our sins when he hung on the cross for us. Our freedom to commit those sins or not is intact. We are not predestined for heaven or hell, even though God already knows our destination.
Unfortunately this is one of the areas that is a real sticking point for me. I know that CajunRick's point-of-view is popular in contemporary Roman Catholicism, which is essentially rotten to the core with a version of semi-Pelagianism known as Molinism. I also know that prior to the 16th and 17th centuries, the dominant soteriological view was Augustinian. The RCC has declined, for the most part to come down on one side or the other of this fight. What nonsumdignus wrote is accurate:
The Church rejects double Predestination, i.e., the Predestination taught by Calvin and company, but Predestination as the Church teaches it is de fide (infallibly true, must be believed). It is also de fide that God wills all men to be saved and provides grace sufficient for their salvation. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott, p. 239, 242-44). It is a mystery.
See for example the following link:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/councilorange.html
And this by Augustine:
http://www.lgmarshall.org/Augustine/augustine_willgrace.html
One of the issues I have with returning to the RCC is that in modern Catholic thinking, folks like CajunRick predominate, while folks with a thoroughgoing Augustinian worldview are pushed to the side. (Oddly, it has been widely reported that Benedict XVIth is strongly Augustinian . . . there is hope that he might turn the tide or at least equal the scales a bit, but so far this doesn't seem to be the case).
I do know that it would be very difficult for me to feel 'at home' in a Church that favors an interpretation of soteriology such as that which CajunRick tried to expound in his post.
|
|
|
Intercessor
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Southcentral, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 957 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 05:30 am |
|
| I'm with David and Mark on this one. I don't know how one can have both predestination and free will, but it certainly seems that's what is presented in the New Testament. Reducing predestination to simple foreknowledge or action based on foreknowledge is not, in my opinion, a satisfactory response to the apparent problem.
____________________
"If our charity is arrested by the difficulties encountered in dealing with our neighbor, . . . our relations with our brethren are not regulated by our love of God, but by our love of self." Divine Intimacy p. 781, Fr. Gabriel, O.C.D.
|
|
|
flameburns623
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | Wood River, IL |
| Posts: | 5 |
| First Name: | flameburns623 | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Independent Christian Church, Catholic, Evangelical Protestant, atheist, Buddhist/New Age/Occultist, Mormon, ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 11:24 am |
|
Cindy wrote:
Hi Leah,
I thought you might enjoy Christopher Cuddy's conversion story. He touches on this subject (Scott Hahn recommended that Chris read Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange's book Predestination).
Chris writes:
"Predestination was the axis upon which my entire Protestant understanding of theology spun. Ironically, it was also the axis which spun me all the way into the Catholic Church."
Here's the link:
http://www.envoymagazine.com/planetenvoy/081704-TeenageRoadToTradition-Full.htm
Blessings,
Cindy
Cindy:
Thanks for the link. Hopefully the theologian referenced in it, Garrigou-Lagrange is readable. God bless!
PS: Found the book in an online version. He is passably readable. Probably will be easier when I get a chance to buy the book in a printed format--I hate reading books online. But hey! at least it's a chace at an overview. Anone interest can go to the following link:
http://www.thesumma.info/predestination/index.php
God bless!
Last edited on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 11:37 am by flameburns623
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 04:05 pm |
|
From Merriam-Webster Online:
predestination
Function:noun
Date:14th century
1 : the act of predestinating : the state of being predestined 2 : the doctrine that God in consequence of his foreknowledge of all events infallibly guides those who are destined for salvation
predestine
Function:transitive verb
Etymology:Middle English, from Anglo-French or Latin; Anglo-French predestiner, from Latin praedestinare, from prae- + destinare to determine — more at destine
Date:14th century
: to destine, decree, determine, appoint, or settle beforehand; especially: predestinate
predestinate
Function:adjective
Etymology:Middle English, from Latin praedestinatus, past participle of praedestinare
Date:14th century
: destined, fated, or determined beforehand
God certainly knows our destiny before our birth; in fact, God knew the destiny of each one of us individually before time began. It is certainly also true that God gives each of us the graces we need to be saved, and without God's grace there can be no salvation whatsoever. As stated in the link above from the Council of Orange, life flows from the vine to the branches; God does not prune the dead branches because he wishes to cut off their life, but because they have already rejected their life, as sinners reject God's grace. However, foreknowledge is not the same as predestination as defined in the dictionary. If you wish to use a different definition, that's fine, but we determine our own fate by our own acceptance or rejection of God's life-giving grace. God will not force us to accept what we reject. God provides us with all that we need to obtain salvation, but God does not violate our free will by forcing us to accept it. Neither will God withhold life-giving grace from those who wish to accept it. God's grace is provided to all in sufficient measure.
I know that CajunRick's point-of-view is popular in contemporary Roman Catholicism, which is essentially rotten to the core with a version of semi-Pelagianism known as Molinism.
Pelagianism is a heresy. Molinism is not, at least not according to the Catholic Encyclopedia. And I reject the idea that "contemporary Roman Catholicism … is essentially rotten to the core" with anything.
I'm not a moderator, but detailed debates about the fine points of Catholic theology is not the purpose of this forum. My initial post was an attempt to give a simple answer to what I perceived to be a simple request, rather than a detailed theological dissertation. I began with the dictionary definition of the word "predestination" which I quoted above, assuming that most people asking a two-line question would begin with a similar understanding. Nor was I considering a Calvinist viewpoint in particular; predestination is a common belief in many eastern faiths such as the Ba'hai. So I was not responding to a question about a particular Protestant heresy, but rather to the meaning of a word and how the Catholic Church would respond to the definition of that word.
David and others responded with a more Protestant-based response, which is fine. It did clarify my response while I don't believe they in any way disagreed with me. In fact, going back and re-reading the entire thread, the only statement I found that I cannot agree with is the statement that modern Roman Catholicism is rotten to the core.
As to the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on Molinism, I find myself in the middle of the two camps (Molinism and Thomism). However, I notice the correlation between Molinism and the Jesuits, and I do admit that my theological training is from a Jesuit institution (Loyola University in New Orleans).
I might also point out that Molinism (again, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia), with its emphasis on free will flowing from grace, originated as a response to the Protestant heresy of predestination as espoused by people like John Calvin. It was held by such noted Catholic luminaries as St. Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit who was canonized in 1931 and declared a Doctor of the Church in the same year by Pope Pius XI. So if the Church is "rotten to the core" with Molinism, it finds itself in quite illustrious company.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
flameburns623
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | Wood River, IL |
| Posts: | 5 |
| First Name: | flameburns623 | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Independent Christian Church, Catholic, Evangelical Protestant, atheist, Buddhist/New Age/Occultist, Mormon, ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 05:38 pm |
|
CajunRick wrote: . . . . God will not force us to accept what we reject. God provides us with all that we need to obtain salvation, but God does not violate our free will by forcing us to accept it. Neither will God withhold life-giving grace from those who wish to accept it. God's grace is provided to all in sufficient measure . . . The question is--how does anyone "choose God"? The two primary illustrations used in Scripture are that of mortal enmity, and that of death versus life. The testimony of Scripture is that all human beings are, by virtue of sin, at enmity with God. By our very nature we are born hating God and want nothng to do with Him. Before we can ever love God, He must first change our nature so that we love Him. The testmony of Scripture is that we are born dead to God. Before we can 'choose God', God must first make us alive to Him.
I know that CajunRick's point-of-view is popular in contemporary Roman Catholicism, which is essentially rotten to the core with a version of semi-Pelagianism known as Molinism.
Pelagianism is a heresy. Molinism is not, at least not according to the Catholic Encyclopedia. And I reject the idea that "contemporary Roman Catholicism … is essentially rotten to the core" with anything.
I called Molinism a version of 'semi-Pelagianism', but I concede that is still a heresy, and that I'm still using loaded language. I have these same fights with Protestant Arminians, with the same issue at the core of things: I do NOT see how either Catholic Molinism or Protestant Arminianism are either one meaningfully distinct from semi-Pelagianism. And I have not suggested that Roman Catholicism is rotten 'in toto'--just a considerable portion of it's modern, public face. It's one of the things that drove me away from Catholicism some 28 years ago. I'm not a moderator, but detailed debates about the fine points of Catholic theology is not the purpose of this forum. My initial post was an attempt to give a simple answer to what I perceived to be a simple request, rather than a detailed theological dissertation. Sorry if I am derailing this thread or if I have misunderstood what this forum wants to accomplish. I'm not here to make trouble or stir up brush fires. These really do represent serious issues for me and it is not easy to thrash them out elsewhere than on a webforum, where a great variety of people who have thought seriously about such issues from different perspectives can offer their own insights and suggest resources. I have noted that I have gleaned one excellent prospective resource already. . . . . David and others responded with a more Protestant-based response, which is fine. It did clarify my response while I don't believe they in any way disagreed with me. In fact, going back and re-reading the entire thread, the only statement I found that I cannot agree with is the statement that modern Roman Catholicism is rotten to the core. I have noted that it was modern Roman Catholicism that I rejected long years ago. I attended Mass today for the first time in decades and was reminded just how much I was revolted by most observances of the Novus Ordo. I'm not crazy about a Latin Tridentine Mass, but at least it retains the dignity and reverence of worship that few priests seem willing to give to the NO. The Masses offered on television by EWTN come close to--or surpass--the sort of experience I would hope a Mass would offer, but rarely does. One of the things I have loved about traditional 1928 BCP Episcopal services is the intensity of devotion and worship one experiences in them. This is definitely off-topic but it illustrates what probably marks me off as different from you in temperament. You probably would have liked the church and the Mass I attended this morning.
As to the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on Molinism, I find myself in the middle of the two camps (Molinism and Thomism). However, I notice the correlation between Molinism and the Jesuits, and I do admit that my theological training is from a Jesuit institution (Loyola University in New Orleans).
Yeah, you and I would defintely have different tastes in theology and sprituality. Let's either carry on this sort of conversation in PM or via e-mail, or else drop it so that I am not detracting from the forum. I don't like the idea of provoking a fight less than three days after joining this webforum.
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1414 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical "Jesus Freak" (Arminian) / "Lewisian Schaefferite" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 24th, 2008 06:30 pm |
|
Hi flame,
Welcome to the forum.
Unfortunately this is one of the areas that is a real sticking point for me. I know that CajunRick's point-of-view is popular in contemporary Roman Catholicism, which is essentially rotten to the core with a version of semi-Pelagianism known as Molinism.
With all due respect, this is wildly incorrect. We don't allow such "oppositional" views of the Church on this forum (more on that later). We also don't allow personal attacks, such as you are making against Cajun Rick. A word to the wise is sufficient . . . I am assuming you have read the guidelines of discussion on this board. If not, please do so right away.
The Catholic teaching is neither Pelagian nor semi-Pelagian, though we are constantly falsely accused of this by Calvinists and even in the Lutheran confessions. Calvinists also unfairly accuse Arminian Protestants (including Lutherans) of semi-Pelagianism. Basically, many Calvinists (with their "either/or" mentality) collapse any position that holds to free will and predestination in paradox, as both true (like the Bible does), as Pelagian. It can't comprehend God predestining alongside human beings with free will. Its presuppositions don't allow that.
Nor can many Lutherans (who are Arminians) comprehend that Catholic soteriology is non-Pelagian, because we believe in things like merit, penance, and purgatory. They can't comprehend those as grace-caused and grace-soaked, and so they (in their own "official" confessions) accuse us of Pelagianism too. It's not true. I've written a lot about this issue:
A Primer on Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism
Did the Council of Trent Teach That Man is Saved By His Own Works?
Dialogue on the Alleged Semi-Pelagianism of the Catholic Catechism
Soteriology and Creation (Man's Cooperation, Pelagianism, Nature and Grace) (with Reformed pastor Peter J. Leithart)
1 Corinthians 3:9 and Man's Cooperation With God
Is Catholic Soteriology Pelagian? (Reginald de Piperno) (+ Discussion)
Confessional Lutheran, Arminian, and Melanchthonian Soteriology Compared (Are Philip Melanchthon and Arminians Semi-Pelagians?)
Catholics break down into two camps on the predestination issue: Thomism and Molinism. Sometimes Thomists accuse Molinists of being semi-Pelagian, but this is untrue as well, and the Church has stated that neither side can anathematize the other. Both choices are fully permissible. I myself am a Molinist. And I've engaged in extensive discussion of this issue as well (just so you know that I am quite aware of this dispute among Catholics):
Did God Harden Pharaoh's Heart? (Does God Positively Ordain Evil?) (vs. an atheist)
Supposed Contradiction Between 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 (God or Satan as Cause?)
On the Alleged Contradictions of 2 Samuel 24, and 1 Chronicles 21 and 27 (vs. an atheist)
Reply to a Calvinist Critique Concerning the "Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart" (+ Discussion) (vs. Reformed apologist Colin Smith)
A Dialogue on the Nature of God's Foreknowledge and Sovereignty
(with Dr. Alex Pruss; now a Catholic philosopher)
Dialogue on Molinism (Speculations on How God Predestines) (vs. "JS": a Thomist)
Molinism, Middle Knowledge, and Predestination: Suarez, Congruism, and the Elegantly Ingenious Solution of Fr. William G. Most
Dialogue on Molinism and God's Mode of Predestination (+ Part II | Part III | Part IV) (vs. "JS")
I also know that prior to the 16th and 17th centuries, the dominant soteriological view was Augustinian. The RCC has declined, for the most part to come down on one side or the other of this fight.
That's correct (at least as a broad observation). Why then, do you condemn one of the views, Molinism, as "semi-Pelagian" and call this "essentially rotten to the core"? This forum is not for debate of Catholic doctrines. You can do that on my blog, but not here (because of our specific purpose and mission). This forum is for educating inquirers as to the exact nature of Catholic teaching. It is assumed that people (being inquirers and seekers and considering conversion) will accept the teachings once they are explained, or at least accept that this is what the Church teaches, and not war against them here, if they continue to honestly disagree. Here are some basic papers about Catholics and predestination:
Do Catholics Believe in Predestination?
Catholic Predestination (Ludwig Ott)
What nonsumdignus wrote is accurate:
The Church rejects double Predestination, i.e., the Predestination taught by Calvin and company, but Predestination as the Church teaches it is de fide (infallibly true, must be believed). It is also de fide that God wills all men to be saved and provides grace sufficient for their salvation. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott, p. 239, 242-44). It is a mystery.
He is indeed correct. I state the same in the two papers above.
St. Augustine (whom you cite in a link) did not reject human free will, as the Calvinists do. His is a distinct position from theirs. See:
St. Augustine: Are Reformed Protestants or Catholics Closer Theologically to His Teaching?
One of the issues I have with returning to the RCC is that in modern Catholic thinking, folks like CajunRick predominate, while folks with a thoroughgoing Augustinian worldview are pushed to the side.
I haven't noticed that, and I have been active in the apologetic world now for 17 years. I would say that Thomism is still the dominant view, and I, as a Molinist, am in the minority. Many people, of course, talk about this issue without knowing much about it, too.
Cajun Rick was not writing a theological treatise, but simply defending free will. You are attributing to him things he may not necessarily believe at all, and making him a poster boy for what you see as terrible error in the Church. This is hardly fair or charitable. It's a very complex issue. You can't jump all over a person on the basis of one general post, and conclude all this negative stuff about them.
I would only directly quibble with one line of Rick's: "We are not predestined for heaven or hell." The Church teaches that the elect saved are predestined (and this is true in both Thomism and Molinism). It teaches (just like Augustine and over against Calvinism) that we have a free will, too. But it denies that the damned are predestined to hell. The saved persons choose to accept God's grace for salvation, entirely by God's grace. The damned choose to reject this grace, and so basically choose to separate themselves from God and go to hell for eternity. God doesn't predestine that, as Calvinism (and Martin Luther) teach. C.S. Lewis made an astute comment that "the doors of hell are locked on the inside."
(Oddly, it has been widely reported that Benedict XVIth is strongly Augustinian . . . there is hope that he might turn the tide or at least equal the scales a bit, but so far this doesn't seem to be the case).
There is no "tide" to turn. It's not a big issue at all. Catholics are content to live with mystery and paradox. We don't feel the need to resolve every deep issue in theology, like Protestants often do, with their interminable internal controversies.
I do know that it would be very difficult for me to feel 'at home' in a Church that favors an interpretation of soteriology such as that which CajunRick tried to expound in his post.
It would help if you would correctly intepret what Molinism means, and understand that it doesn't deny predestination and that it is not semi-Pelagian (nor is it officially required for any Catholic to believe in the first place). At least know what something is before you reject a caricature and straw man version of it . . . that's the first rule of any constructive discussion.
Again: you can ask questions about the Church here, and I and others will be happy to take a crack at answering the questions and giving you what we believe is Church teaching on the matter. But we can't allow bashing of the Church. That must be clearly understood upfront, so that all can most benefit from the discussions on this forum. If we start debating everybody under the sun then we lose our special distinctiveness and become like so many other forums on the Internet, that are grand exercises in mudslinging and personal attack (how well I know, personally, from my eleven very active years online).
As you can see from my papers above, I've extensively debated these issues (on my own, as an apologist who does things outside of this forum), but it's not my job to do that here, but rather, to simply present and defend Catholic teachings. In a nutshell, my job as "network apologist" is not to debate, but to present and educate, and to give a rationale as to why Catholics believe what they believe.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Kim M.
Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 442 |
| First Name: | Kim | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Assembly of God, Church of God, Assembly again, PCA, ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 24th, 2008 06:45 pm |
|
Catholics are content to live with mystery and paradox. We don't feel the need to resolve every deep issue in theology, like Protestants often do, with their interminable internal controversies.
That's a comfort to me, Dave. God seems to give us these mysteries and paradoxes so that we will not divide over them, since it is often not anywhere near being clear cut. Yet in our spiritual pride we feel we must "have all the answers". I know I'm tired of trying to. 
____________________
"A joyful heart is the health of the body, but a depressed spirit dries up the bones." Proverbs 17:22
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1414 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical "Jesus Freak" (Arminian) / "Lewisian Schaefferite" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 24th, 2008 07:16 pm |
|
The question is--how does anyone "choose God"?
The same way they choose to sin or not sin at any given moment. If we seek God (and the very seeking is necessarily and always caused by God), He will give us the enabling grace to refrain from sin, and to follow Him as well, all the way to salvation. But we do make that choice, and this is presupposed in the Bible (and Catholic theology), along with the absolute necessity of grace and predestination of the elect.
The two primary illustrations used in Scripture are that of mortal enmity, and that of death versus life. The testimony of Scripture is that all human beings are, by virtue of sin, at enmity with God. By our very nature we are born hating God and want nothng to do with Him. Before we can ever love God, He must first change our nature so that we love Him. The testmony of Scripture is that we are born dead to God. Before we can 'choose God', God must first make us alive to Him.
Exactly. That is what Trent teaches, and it is perfectly compatible with either Molinism or Thomism. This is what you fail to understand.
I called Molinism a version of 'semi-Pelagianism',
Which is a blatant falsehood . . . if it were semi-Pelagian at all, the Church would have condemned it along with the ancient heresy. But it has not.
but I concede that is still a heresy, and that I'm still using loaded language.
Then to that extent you differ from the Church, which means that if you decide to join the Catholic Church, you would have to reserve judgment on this and not publicly dissent from it. You would be required to accept what the Church has decreed. We have thousands of open dissenters in our ranks. We don't need any more.
I have these same fights with Protestant Arminians, with the same issue at the core of things: I do NOT see how either Catholic Molinism or Protestant Arminianism are either one meaningfully distinct from semi-Pelagianism.
Then -- with all due respect -- you have a lot of catching up to do on basic definitions. You're neck deep in Protestant "either/or" dichotomous thinking.
And I have not suggested that Roman Catholicism is rotten 'in toto'--just a considerable portion of it's modern, public face.
That's not how you expressed it, which was as follows:
I know that CajunRick's point-of-view is popular in contemporary Roman Catholicism, which is essentially rotten to the core with a version of semi-Pelagianism known as Molinism.
I'm happy to extend the charity towards you that you failed to accord to Rick: that (given your clarification) your statement was very poorly expressed. Rick explained what he meant, and it was exactly as I suspected. Not every comment is a technical treatise in theology. He was concentrating on what Catholics do not teach (the denial of free will and choice).
It's one of the things that drove me away from Catholicism some 28 years ago.
Then you were led out of the Church for the | | |
