Are we just trying to understand the inconceivable?

[redleghunter]

I said God always makes the first move...God reveals Himself to man...THEN man must decide if he wishes to follow God or not.
And the remark about dead men not hearing is rather silly. Everyone in a church hears the sermon. Some do not wish to answer the call.

What did Jesus mean by the many are called but few are chosen?

Yes anyone can hear the Gospel but it is not given to all the ears to hear it.

Luke 8:10

 

[Radagast]

No one interprets Paul as precluding free will except Predestinarians, Calvinists, Jansenists, and perhaps one or two other groups.

Well, Calvinists believe in (compatibilist) free will, actually.

On matters of Grace, they're much the same as Thomist Catholics.

 

[Radagast]

It's just Calvinists trying to inflate their tiny minority into a sizable proportion.

Hey, let's hold off on the ad hominum, huh?

 

[GodsGrace101]

Well, Calvinists believe in (compatibilist) free will, actually.

On matters of Grace, they're much the same as Thomist Catholics.

Why don't you explain compatiblist free will?
Then explain HOW that is free will.

Thanks.

 

[GodsGrace101]

What did Jesus mean by the many are called but few are chosen?

Yes anyone can hear the Gospel but it is not given to all the ears to hear it.

Luke 8:10

Easy.

Who are the many?

In the parable of the Marriage Banquet, the called are the Jews - those to whom God first revealed Himself.
Since they were too busy to attend the wedding banquet, the next to be called were the gentiles. Not all gentiles answered the call...but some did.

Not only did the called have to enter the banquet to attend,,,but they had to be properly dressed...the proper dressing is Jesus. Those that were not dressed properly were cast out...those that were dressed properly celebrated with the King.

God does not cast out for no reason at all. ALL THE WORLD is called. The World means The World...it does not mean a "type"of person. If I invite the world to write to me,,,it means EVERYONE...not just a plumber here or a teacher there.

So many are called, as Jesus stated in Mathew 7:13 few there be that find the narrow gate.

John 12:32, JESUS said He would draw ALL MEN to Himself when He would be lifted up.

God desires that ALL MEN be saved....
2 Peter 3:9

When the jailer asked how he could be saved in
Acts 16:31 he was told to believe in the Lord Jesus,,,He was NOT told that God would decide whether or not he and his household would be saved.

It is, after all OUR decision to accept the conditions of God.

Luke 8:10
10And He said, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is in parables, so that SEEING THEY MAY NOT SEE, AND HEARING THEY MAY NOT UNDERSTAND."

This refers to Isaiah 6:9-10 in which case the news might harden people's hearts instead of softening them.

What needs to be asked is WHY Jesus spoke in parables. It would be interesting to know why YOU believe He spoke in parables. Here are some reasons:

Jesus spoke in parables because He wanted those listening to add their own ideas to what He was saying...He wanted pesons to personalize what they had heard -- perhaps making the parable easy to understand in some way that only they knew.

Another reason is because Jesus wanted some effort to be made to understand t he parable. Some didn't care enough, some would never understand anything. People had to look into their heart to see if they could accept what He was saying and if they wanted to be a member of the Kingdom (here on earth).

He explained the mysteries to those who could understand them...mysteries are revelations which could only partly be understood. God reveals to us only what we could know.

We should NEVER assume from anything in scripture that God does NOT want us to know Him..why else would He have come to earth and gone to the cross for us?

Some of Jesus sayings were difficult to accept...He had just finished telling the parable of the seeds and how some would be lost because the persons they represented stopped believing...He just didn't want to discourage anyone.

 

[zippy2006]

On matters of Grace, they're much the same as Thomist Catholics.

This is a common misunderstanding.

Hey, let's hold off on the ad hominum, huh?

It's spelled "ad hominem," and it's a Latin phrase denoting the attempt of someone to infer the falsity of an argument from a personal characteristic of the person arguing. So ...no.

Following me around and making petty criticisms of my posts because I pointed out an instance of invalid logic in a different thread isn't overly helpful, and it's also against forum etiquette.

 

[Radagast]

This is a common misunderstanding.

On matters of Grace, Calvinists are much the same as Thomist Catholics. I've confirmed this in conversations between Calvinists and Thomists.

It's spelled "ad hominem,"

Sorry, spellchek fail. But please stop, anyway.

Following me around and making petty criticisms of my posts because I pointed out an instance of invalid logic in a different thread isn't overly helpful, and it's also against forum etiquette.

No, sorry, that's just paranoia on your part.

 

[GodsGrace101]

On matters of Grace, Calvinists are much the same as Thomist Catholics. I've confirmed this in conversations between Calvinists and Thomists.



Sorry, spellchek fail. But please stop, anyway.



No, sorry, that's just paranoia on your part.

I've never heard of a Thomist Catholic.
I looked it up on the net and it says that Thomas Aquinas did believe in free will.

How does that make them the same as Calvinists??

 

[zippy2006]

I've never heard of a Thomist Catholic.
I looked it up on the net and it says that Thomas Aquinas did believe in free will.

How does that make them the same as Calvinists??

Thomists and Calvinists both emphasize aspects of God's ad extra activity that seem, prima facie, to be in tension with free will (e.g. participation, causality, sovereignty). Yet when one digs beyond superficial appearances they will find that Thomists affirm free will while Calvinists deny it (and you are right about Thomas Aquinas' position). This is of course why, according to Catholic teaching, the Calvinist understanding of grace is heretical while the Thomist understanding is not.

The core difference between Calvin and Thomas is found in De Malo, Question 6, Article 1.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Thomists and Calvinists both emphasize aspects of God's ad extra activity that seem, prima facie, to be in tension with free will (e.g. participation, causality, sovereignty). Yet when one digs beyond superficial appearances they will find that Thomists affirm free will while Calvinists deny it (and you are right about Thomas Aquinas' position). This is of course why, according to Catholic teaching, the Calvinist understanding of grace is heretical while the Thomist understanding is not.

The core difference between Calvin and Thomas is found in De Malo, Question 6, Article 1.

Thanks. I thought I understood....
I'll be looking up DeMalo. I wonder if it's one of those questions Aquinas asks and answers...

 

[GodsGrace101]

Thomists and Calvinists both emphasize aspects of God's ad extra activity that seem, prima facie, to be in tension with free will (e.g. participation, causality, sovereignty). Yet when one digs beyond superficial appearances they will find that Thomists affirm free will while Calvinists deny it (and you are right about Thomas Aquinas' position). This is of course why, according to Catholic teaching, the Calvinist understanding of grace is heretical while the Thomist understanding is not.

The core difference between Calvin and Thomas is found in De Malo, Question 6, Article 1.

Oh boy....
It's in French and I can't translate it for some reason.
Will work on this tomorrow, unless you have a good link?

 

[zippy2006]

Oh boy....
It's in French and I can't translate it for some reason.
Will work on this tomorrow, unless you have a good link?

There is a link to an English translation here, but if you've never read Aquinas before it will be difficult to understand one of the quaestiones disputatae. The difference between the two theologians comes down to their disagreement on the nature of the legitimacy of coercion as contrary to human will, namely internal coercion.

Calvin lived later and is somewhat easier to understand. There is a paper that may interest you from Calvin Studies that can be found here (Pighius sparred will Calvin on free will during his lifetime).

The short story is that Thomists affirm free will and Calvinists deny it. Some Calvinists, when pushed, will part company with Calvin (as jimmyjimmy did here). Others will stand firm.

 

[redleghunter]

What needs to be asked is WHY Jesus spoke in parables.

He told us in Luke 8:10

So some can hear and some not.

It would be interesting to know why YOU believe He spoke in parables.

Again Jesus tells us in Luke 8:10

Here are some reasons:

None of which address many are called few are chosen.

Not only did the called have to enter the banquet to attend,,,but they had to be properly dressed...

Where did they get the approved garment? How did they merit the garment?

the proper dressing is Jesus.

Indeed. I guess God is just waiting for people to accept Jesus to Predestinate them.

Those that were not dressed properly were cast out...those that were dressed properly celebrated with the King.

Of course. The many were called and the few were chosen. You seem to think somehow the people at the banquet merited the garment that was acceptable.

God does not cast out for no reason at all. ALL THE WORLD is called. The World means The World...it does not mean a "type"of person. If I invite the world to write to me,,,it means EVERYONE...not just a plumber here or a teacher there.

Yes the Gospel is a command to all. God saves some of us but not all. We are all condemned and God in His Mercy and Grace saves some.

Another reason is because Jesus wanted some effort to be made to understand t he parable. Some didn't care enough, some would never understand anything. People had to look into their heart to see if they could accept what He was saying and if they wanted to be a member of the Kingdom (here on earth).

So our efforts to understand God’s parables in some way merits us to be chosen by Him?

 

[Radagast]

Yet when one digs beyond superficial appearances they will find that Thomists affirm free will while Calvinists deny it

Actually, Calvinists accept (compatibilist) free will.

 

[Radagast]

I've never heard of a Thomist Catholic.
I looked it up on the net and it says that Thomas Aquinas did believe in free will.

How does that make them the same as Calvinists??

Thomists are followers of Thomas Aquinas. Traditionally, that includes the Dominican Order. The Thomists had a big dustup with the Jesuits on grace a few centuries back.

On matters of grace, the Thomist view of predestination is much like the Calvinist one (although Bañezian Thomists go further: they believe that you can be predestined to enter a genuine state of grace and still be predestined to go to hell after that).

 

[zippy2006]

Actually, Calvinists accept (compatibilist) free will.

So do many atheist materialists. "Compatibilist free will" is just contemporary academic jargon for a disbelief in the colloquial understanding of free will. At the very best this argument is a deeply problematic equivocation between academic terms and colloquial terms.

(For those who do not know, compatibilists believe that free will is compatible with causal determinism. So your whole life can be 100% causally determined by antecedent events and you can still have "free will." Fun stuff. )

 

[zippy2006]

Thomists are followers of Thomas Aquinas. Traditionally, that includes the Dominican Order. The Thomists had a big dustup with the Jesuits on grace a few centuries back.

On matters of grace, the Thomist view of predestination is much like the Calvinist one (although Bañezian Thomists go further: they believe that you can be predestined to enter a genuine state of grace and still be predestined to go to hell after that).

This is false. ...Radagast is apparently adept at giving horribly inaccurate presentations of Catholic theology, and you will never see him cite a source or construct an actual argument. All you get from him are arguments from authority--his authority. I would advise finding a better source, perhaps someone who is actually Catholic.

 

[Radagast]

So do many atheist materialists. "Compatibilist free will" is just contemporary academic jargon for a disbelief in the colloquial understanding of free will.

Well, that shows a substantial lack of understanding of the issues.

For those who do not know, compatibilists believe that free will is compatible with causal determinism.

Compatibilist free will says that you do the thing that you want to do. I'm having eggs for breakfast; that's what I want. To quote Thomas Hobbes, free will is finding "no stop, in doing what he has the will, desire, or inclination to doe."

Libertarian free will says that you could have done something else. I'm having eggs for breakfast, but I might have chosen oatmeal.

Libertarian free will is, of course, incompatible both with predestination and with the foreknowledge of God (because if God foresaw that I would have eggs, it would be impossible for me to have oatmeal).

 

[zippy2006]

Well, that shows a substantial lack of understanding of the issues.



Compatibilist free will says that you do the thing that you want to do. I'm having eggs for breakfast; that's what I want.

Libertarian free will says that you could have done something else. I'm having eggs for breakfast, but I might have chosen oatmeal.

Libertarian free will is, of course, incompatible both with predestination and with the foreknowledge of God (because if God foresaw that I would have eggs, it would be impossible for me to have oatmeal).

We can just skirt around the sophistry and take an actual authoritative source, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Compatibilism offers a solution to the free will problem, which concerns a disputed incompatibility between free will and determinism. Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism.
​

...like I said, compatibilists hold that free will is compatible with determinism.

 

[Radagast]

Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism.

Keep reading.