Catholic doctrine on Predestination

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Here is a new one for me.

Since when is:

"A. The Predestination of the Elect.—He who would place the reason of predestination either in man alone or in God alone would inevitably be led into heretical conclusions about eternal election. In the one case the error concerns the last end, in the other the means to that end. Let it be noted that we do not speak of the "cause" of predestination, which would be either the efficient cause (God), or the instrumental cause (grace), or the final cause (God's honor), or the primary meritorious cause, but of the reason or motive which induced God from all eternity to elect certain definite individuals to grace and glory. The principal question then is: Does the natural merit of man exert perhaps some influence on the Divine election to grace and glory? If we recall the dogma of the absolute gratuity of Christian grace, our answer must be outright negative (see Grace). To the further question whether Divine predestination does not at least take into account the supernatural good works, the Church answers with the doctrine that heaven is not given to the elect by a purely arbitrary act of God's will, but that it is also the reward of the personal merits of the justified (see Merit).

Source

Just a plain reading says that believing isn't enough to get you into heaven. While works alone won't get you into heaven.

Entrance to heaven is granted to you by "meritorious" works, heaven, is your "reward".

Learn something new everyday.

God Bless

Till all are one.
The key question:

Does the natural merit of man exert perhaps some influence on the Divine election to grace and glory?​

No, but do note, the key word there is merit, and the best definition of grace I can muster is 'unmerited favor'. Catholics even have something called the 'treasury of merit' where the good deeds of the saints are...I don't know...stored.

I can save you some time, the question is about where the grace of God comes from. is it through the sacraments of the RCC or is it through Christ alone.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I already posted, briefly, on the meaning of predestination, in post #32 on the previous page.

Well, I hate to disagree but...

To quote a source that even on the cover is recommended by Catholic's, I submit.

Let us look at the definition given in Kittels dictionary. From Rom. 8:29, we have the word: "prowpisev." From the root word: "proorizw," which means: to limit or mark out beforehand, predestine.

According to the dictionary (Kittel's), K. L. Schmidt comments:

"This comparatively rare and late word is used in the Greek Bible only six times in the NT in the sense "to foreordain" "to predestinate.". Since God is eternal and has ordained everything before time, proopizein is a stronger form of opizein (to set bounds to). The synonyms and textual history show that the reference in proginwskien is the same. Rom. 8:29; ouv proginw kai prowpisen summorfouv tnv eikonov tou niou autou, Rom. 8:30; ous...prowpisen (A: proegnw) toutov kai ekalesen. The omniscient God has determined everything in advance, both persons and things in salvation history, with Jesus Christ as the goal. When Herod and Pilate work together with the Gentiles and the mob against Christ, it may be said: "h boulh [sou] prowrisen genesqai, Acts 4:28. Herein lies the hidden wisdom of God in a mystery,"hn prowrisen o qeoV pro twn aiwnwn eiV doxan hmwn," 1 Cor. 2:7, cf. IV, 819. The goal of our predestination is divine sonship through Jesus Christ: "proorisaV hmaV eiV uioqesian dia ihsou cristou ," Eph. 1:5. That we have our inheritance in Christ rests in the fact that we are proopisqentev kata proqesin tou ta panta energountov, Eph. 1:11.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Edited by: Gerhard Kittel, Translated by: Geoffery W. Bromiley, Vol. V, "proopizw", p. 456, K. L. Schmidt.

So there you have it, predestination is the mode by which God used to conform the elect to the image of His Son, by which we (the elect) are appointed to divine sonship.

So where you said:

To restate predestination in more personal terms:
this doctrine means that God has a plan for each one of us who is open to such a possibility and willing to accept it. This means that each of us who intends on following the will of God has a destiny laid out before us. This divine plan was not something God made up as he went along. It isn’t something he drafted and amended as we grew into adulthood. Rather, as Ephesians tells us, this destiny was set before the foundations of the world. Wow.

Here’s where predestination and free will meet: God has a plan for us, but we must cooperate in that plan.

Is wrong.

You are right in that God has a goal set for us, but that goal is only reached after the point of salvation. In Romans 8:29, the goal is "to be conformed to the image of Christ".

In Eph. 1:5 the goal is adoption.

In Eph. 1:11 we have "obtained an inheritance".

Now you take issue with me because your own article links both "predestination" and "justification", but it leads you to another section where " justification" is linked to works.

And I have shown it to be wrong in that according to Romans 4, the moment Abraham believed, it was "accounted unto him" (imputed to him) as righteousness. And both righteousness and justification cannot be separated.

It's like the theme song for "Married with Children", "you can't have one without the other".

So as far as this: "but that it is also the reward of the personal merits of the justified" is concerned, it is wrong.

I am already "justified". I did not "merit" any reward. Most especially I did not "merit" being given heaven.

Sorry.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Last edited:
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The key question:

Does the natural merit of man exert perhaps some influence on the Divine election to grace and glory?​

No, but do note, the key word there is merit, and the best definition of grace I can muster is 'unmerited favor'. Catholics even have something called the 'treasury of merit' where the good deeds of the saints are...I don't know...stored.

I can save you some time, the question is about where the grace of God comes from. is it through the sacraments of the RCC or is it through Christ alone.

I am forced to agree.

I have read that particular dogma.

And here again, that goes contrary to what Paul wrote in Romans 4:

"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt." -Rom. 4:4 (KJV)

No matter how you slice it, no matter how you read it, if something like "heaven" by the "personal merits of the justified believer" it is not grace.

I was justified by God the moment I accepted, repented and believed:

"We may finally inquire into the time at which justification occurs.

1. It does not occur periodically but is a single act, and not one repeated with reference to new sins. This arises from its nature as an act of God declaring the relation of the believer to the law and from the ground of that act, the never failing merits of Christ. The pardon which the Christian seeks of God is that of a child for offences against a father's love, and not of a culprit before an avenging judge. The sufferings which Christians endure are not avenging punishments for sin, but chastisements from a Father who chastises those whom he loves and scourges those whom he receives.

2. It is an instantaneous and not a continuing work as is sanctification. It is God's act declaring the sinner's relation to the law. That sinner is under condemnation until justified. As soon as justified his condemnation ceases. He cannot be partly condemned and partly justified. He is under condemnation until brought into that condition which secures his justification. When that moment comes God must justify.

3. But when is that moment? The Scriptures teach that it is when man believes. It is in the moment of trust in a personal Saviour.

It was not at the time that Christ finished his work and laid the foundation of justification in his merits and satisfaction. By these justification was secured but not bestowed. It was not in Eternity as is Election by which the subjects of the future justification were chosen. It is at the moment of belief when faith, which is its condition, is experienced. Then is consummated that which was purposed in eternity and which was made possible and certain by the work of Christ. The hour of faith was even the period of justification before the incarnation of Christ because of the faith which rested personally upon him through the promises of God, and the acceptance by God of the meritorious work of Christ as though already existing because of the absolute certainty that it would be performed."

Abstract of Systematic Theology, James P. Boyce, Chapter XXXV, Justification, Section VII: The Time of Justification.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I am forced to agree.

I have read that particular dogma.

And here again, that goes contrary to what Paul wrote in Romans 4:

"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt." -Rom. 4:4 (KJV)

No matter how you slice it, no matter how you read it, if something like "heaven" by the "personal merits of the justified believer" it is not grace.

I was justified by God the moment I accepted, repented and believed:

"We may finally inquire into the time at which justification occurs.

1. It does not occur periodically but is a single act, and not one repeated with reference to new sins. This arises from its nature as an act of God declaring the relation of the believer to the law and from the ground of that act, the never failing merits of Christ. The pardon which the Christian seeks of God is that of a child for offences against a father's love, and not of a culprit before an avenging judge. The sufferings which Christians endure are not avenging punishments for sin, but chastisements from a Father who chastises those whom he loves and scourges those whom he receives.

You just described justification which starts the sanctification process. It's never complete until the redemption of the purchase price. Salvation is based on a promise and that is always between you and God.

2. It is an instantaneous and not a continuing work as is sanctification. It is God's act declaring the sinner's relation to the law. That sinner is under condemnation until justified. As soon as justified his condemnation ceases. He cannot be partly condemned and partly justified. He is under condemnation until brought into that condition which secures his justification. When that moment comes God must justify.

It is both, the new nature is like a seed. If it survives the hardness of heart because of unbelief, the Devil doesn't steal it away with the trouble he can cause you, the cares of this life or the deceitfulness of riches, it will bear fruit. That is the fruit of the Holy Spirit and God is glorified when the sinner survives those hazards. Make no mistake, every step in the process is by grace through faith, you are justified by grace through faith, sanctified by the same faith and equipped for ministry by grace through faith.

If that seed dies, it's called perdition.

3. But when is that moment? The Scriptures teach that it is when man believes. It is in the moment of trust in a personal Saviour.

It was not at the time that Christ finished his work and laid the foundation of justification in his merits and satisfaction. By these justification was secured but not bestowed. It was not in Eternity as is Election by which the subjects of the future justification were chosen. It is at the moment of belief when faith, which is its condition, is experienced. Then is consummated that which was purposed in eternity and which was made possible and certain by the work of Christ. The hour of faith was even the period of justification before the incarnation of Christ because of the faith which rested personally upon him through the promises of God, and the acceptance by God of the meritorious work of Christ as though already existing because of the absolute certainty that it would be performed."

Abstract of Systematic Theology, James P. Boyce, Chapter XXXV, Justification, Section VII: The Time of Justification.

God Bless

Till all are one.

The only one who knows that moment is God himself. Should you come to that point the Holy Spirit confirms in your spirit that you are a child of God. Once that happens, it's eternal security and nothing can ever separate you from God. Mind you, that is if, and only if.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I love what Charles Hodge wrote on "Justification" too:

“Justification is an act, and not, as sanctification, a continued and progressive work. The two gifts (justification and sanctification), although inseparable, are distinct, and justification, instead of being an efficient act changing the inward character of the sinner, is a declarative act, announcing and determining his relation to the law and justice of God. It is a declarative act in which God pronounces the sinner just or righteous, that is, declares that the claims of justice, so far as he is concerned, are satisfied, so that he cannot be justly condemned, but is in justice entitled to the reward promised or due to perfect righteousness.”

“According to the doctrine of the Lutherans and Reformed, the works excluded from the ground of our justification are not only ritual or ceremonial works, nor merely works done before regeneration, nor the perfect obedience required by the law given to Adam, but works of all kinds, everything done by us or wrought in us. The declaration of Scripture is that we are not justified ‘by works.’ No specific kind of works is designated to the exclusion of all others. But it is ‘works;’ what we do, anything and everything we do.”

“Grace of necessity excludes works of every kind, and more especially those of the highest kind, which might have some show of merit. But merit of any degree is of necessity excluded, if our salvation be by grace (Rom. 4:4, 11:6).”

“The righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer for his justification. It is not what we do or are, but solely what Christ is and has done that can avail for our justification before the bar of God. Faith is never said to be the ground of justification. We are saved simply ‘by’ faith, by receiving and resting upon Christ alone for salvation. The thing received is out of ourselves. It is Christ, his righteousness, his obedience, the merit of his blood or death. We look to him. We flee to him. We lay hold on him. We hide ourselves in him. We are clothed in his righteousness.”

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Volume III, Chapter XVII, Justification

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Augustine made a mistake and confessed it...Chapter 7 [III.]— Augustine Confesses that He Had Formerly Been in Error Concerning the Grace of God.

Another "red herring".

Did you actually read what he said he was in error about?

Let me quote it for you:

"It was not thus that that pious and humble teacher thought—I speak of the most blessed Cyprian—when he said “that we must boast in nothing, since nothing is our own.” Cyprian, Testimonies to Quirinus, Book iii. ch. 4; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. v. p. 528. And in order to show this, he appealed to the apostle as a witness, where he said, “For what hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received it, why boastest thou as if thou hadst not received it?” 1 Cor. iv. 7. And it was chiefly by this testimony that I myself also was convinced when I was in a similar error, thinking that faith whereby we believe on God is not God’s gift, but that it is in us from ourselves, and that by it we obtain the gifts of God, whereby we may live temperately and righteously and piously in this world. For I did not think that faith was preceded by God’s grace, so that by its means would be given to us what we might profitably ask, except that we could not believe if the proclamation of the truth did not precede; but that we should consent when the gospel was preached to us I thought was our own doing, and came to us from ourselves."

St. Augustine, Anti-Pelagian Writings, A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints, Chapter 7 [III.]—Augustin Confesses that He Had Formerly Been in Error Concerning the Grace of God."

And that, is just within the first paragraph!

Fact is, Augustine also held to one of the earliest doctrines about reprobation.

"Augustine maintained is an internal operation of God upon those whom He designs to save, imparting not only the power, but also the will to do good. The fact that some are saved and some are lost he attributed to the will of God. Hence his doctrines on unconditional predestination, of particular redemption, and of special and irresistible grace. Reprobation he granted, was based upon foreseen guilt, but apparently unconscious of the inconsistency, he denied the same applicability to election. In 529, the system of Augustine was established as church doctrine by the Council of Arausio (Orange).

Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Volume 8, By John McClintock, James Strong, New York, Harper and Brothers Publishers, Franklin Square, 1879, Predestination, p. 499

Well, I guess that also proves "Calvin invented the heresy of double predestination and it never went away."

Completely false.

Augustine, as shown, believed in some form of "double predestination" some 1100 years prior to Calvin.

Oh this just keeps getting better and better.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I love what Charles Hodge wrote on "Justification" too:

“Justification is an act, and not, as sanctification, a continued and progressive work.

Hang on, justification starts the sanctification process...Ok...brother Hodge was saying...

The two gifts (justification and sanctification), although inseparable, are distinct, and justification, instead of being an efficient act changing the inward character of the sinner,

Forgive me brother Hodge, I must interrupt again. If indeed we are born again of incorruptible seed at the moment of conversion then how can our 'inward character' remain unchanged. At justification we receive the promise of God like a seed. That seed, the holy and incorruptible divine nature. Obviously, we must still contend with our own earthly and carnal nature, our stubborn self will and the many temptations that surround us in the veil of tears. I must object though to the idea that the seed, the new nature, the new creature in Christ is anything less then the righteousness of God in Christ. Perhaps I misunderstood the meaning, but these things were brought to mind.

is a declarative act, announcing and determining his relation to the law and justice of God. It is a declarative act in which God pronounces the sinner just or righteous, that is, declares that the claims of justice, so far as he is concerned, are satisfied, so that he cannot be justly condemned, but is in justice entitled to the reward promised or due to perfect righteousness.”

Ok, I can only assume the declarative acts involves God actually crediting us righteousness like money going into a bank account.

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[Gen. 15:6]

Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. (Romans 4:1-5)
I can only guess because brother Hodge isn't here to correct me. It seems to me it's like credits and debits on a ledger. God forgives us our debts and adds spiritual capitol to our account, in the form of righteousness. Of course we learn initially that we are spiritually bankrupt since we are wretched sinners, then by grace through faith we are saved, thus we are declared righteous. My debts are forgiven, the ledger is clear, but what am I to do when I am forgiven if I am not righteous in some practical way?

I have a point and I mean no disrespect to brother Hodge. We receive the righteousness of God in Christ, the new nature, the divine nature, indeed we are born again by grace through faith. That is so much more then the debt being paid and our sins forgiven, of course it is. But now the process that takes us from what we are saved from to what we are to become has begun.

“According to the doctrine of the Lutherans and Reformed, the works excluded from the ground of our justification are not only ritual or ceremonial works, nor merely works done before regeneration, nor the perfect obedience required by the law given to Adam, but works of all kinds, everything done by us or wrought in us. The declaration of Scripture is that we are not justified ‘by works.’ No specific kind of works is designated to the exclusion of all others. But it is ‘works;’ what we do, anything and everything we do.”

Truly and without qualification justification is apart from works of any kind, to include rite and rituals.

“Grace of necessity excludes works of every kind, and more especially those of the highest kind, which might have some show of merit. But merit of any degree is of necessity excluded, if our salvation be by grace (Rom. 4:4, 11:6).”

Yes of course, our merit counts for nothing, God alone is glorified by our repentance. Confession, repentance and our submission to the Lordship of Christ is always a work of God's sovereign grace, none but the foolish would deny this.

“The righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer for his justification. It is not what we do or are, but solely what Christ is and has done that can avail for our justification before the bar of God. Faith is never said to be the ground of justification. We are saved simply ‘by’ faith, by receiving and resting upon Christ alone for salvation. The thing received is out of ourselves. It is Christ, his righteousness, his obedience, the merit of his blood or death. We look to him. We flee to him. We lay hold on him. We hide ourselves in him. We are clothed in his righteousness.”

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Volume III, Chapter XVII, Justification

God Bless

Till all are one.

Oh but brother Hodge covered a lot of ground in such a short statement. He went from justification to sanctification to pure submission and obedience in a painfully quick statement. Indeed we never proceed alone, God's grace brings us to repentance and grace, as the hymn tells us, will lead us home.

An elegant quote, beautifully crafted and articulated by a wonderful expositor and exegetical scholar. It bears reflection so I suppose brother Hodge would forgive the intrusions into the ebb and flow of his statement here. Certain points seemed important to emphasis.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Last edited:
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Another "tid-bit" Catholicism won't admit:

"And this my error is sufficiently indicated in some small works of mine written before my episcopate. Among these is that which you have mentioned in your letters Hilary’s Letter, No. 226 in the collection of Augustin’s Letters. wherein is an exposition of certain propositions from the Epistle to the Romans. Eventually, when I was retracting all my small works, and was committing that retractation to writing, of which task I had already completed two books before I had taken up your more lengthy letters,—when in the first volume I had reached the retractation of this book, I then spoke thus:—“Also discussing, I say, ‘what God could have chosen in him who was as yet unborn, whom He said that the elder should serve; and what in the same elder, equally as yet unborn, He could have rejected; concerning whom, on this account, the prophetic testimony is recorded, although declared long subsequently, “Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated,” Mal. i. 2, 3. Cf. Rom. ix. 13. I carried out my reasoning to the point of saying: ‘God did not therefore choose the works of any one in foreknowledge of what He Himself would give them, but he chose the faith, in the foreknowledge that He would choose that very person whom He foreknew would believe on Him,—to whom He would give the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he might obtain eternal life also.’ I had not yet very carefully sought, nor had I as yet found, what is the nature of the election of grace, of which the apostle says, ‘A remnant are saved according to the election of grace. Rom. xi. 5. Which assuredly is not grace if any merits precede it; lest what is now given, not according to grace, but according to debt, be rather paid to merits than freely given. And what I next subjoined: ‘For the same apostle says, “The same God which worketh all in all;” 1 Cor. xii. 6. but it was never said, God believeth all in all;’ and then added, ‘Therefore what we believe is our own, but what good thing we do is of Him who giveth the Holy Spirit to them that believe:’ I certainly could not have said, had I already known that faith itself also is found among those gifts of God which are given by the same Spirit. Both, therefore, are ours on account of the choice of the will, and yet both are given by the spirit of faith and love. For faith is not alone but as it is written, ‘Love with faith, from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Eph. vi. 23. And what I said a little after, ‘For it is ours to believe and to will, but it is His to give to those who believe and will, the power of doing good works through the Holy Spirit, by whom love is shed abroad in our hearts,’—is true indeed; but by the same rule both are also God’s, because God prepares the will; and both are ours too, because they are only brought about with our good wills. And thus what I subsequently said also: ‘Because we are not able to will unless we are called; and when, after our calling, we would will, our willing is not sufficiently nor our running, unless God gives strength to us that run, and leads us whither He calls us;’ and thereupon added: ‘It is plain, therefore, that it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy, that we do good works’—this is absolutely most true. But I discovered little concerning the calling itself, which is according to God’s purpose; for not such is the calling of all that are called, but only of the elect. But that even the merit itself of faith was God’s gift, I neither thought of inquiring into, nor did I say. And in another place I say: ‘For whom He has mercy upon, He makes to do good works, and whom He hardeneth He leaves to do evil works; but that mercy is bestowed upon the preceding merit of faith, and that hardening is applied to preceding iniquity.’ And this indeed is true; but it should further have been asked, whether even the merit of faith does not come from God’s mercy,—that is, whether that mercy is manifested in man only because he is a believer, or whether it is also manifested that he may be a believer? For we read in the apostle’s words: ‘I obtained mercy to be a believer.’ 1 Cor. vii. 25. He does not say, ‘Because I was a believer.’ Therefore although it is given to the believer, yet it has been given also that he may be a believer. Therefore also, in another place in the same book I most truly said: ‘Because, if it is of God’s mercy, and not of works, that we are even called that we may believe and it is granted to us who believe to do good works, that mercy must not be grudged to the heathen;’—although I there discoursed less carefully about that calling which is given according to God’s purpose."

Ibid

Everything said here, some 1400 years prior to the Council of Trent, is exactly opposite.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Forgive me brother Hodge, I must interrupt again. If indeed we are born again of incorruptible seed at the moment of conversion then how can our 'inward character' remain unchanged. At justification we receive the promise of God like a seed. That seed, the holy and incorruptible divine nature. Obviously, we must still contend with our own earthly and carnal nature, our stubborn self will and the many temptations that surround us in the veil of tears. I must object though to the idea that the seed, the new nature, the new creature in Christ is anything less then the righteousness of God

Once we have been declared "righteous", God also declares us "justified". Which means we cannot come into condemnation, especially in regards to the "Law" (Torah).

Hodge shows:

"That to justify means neither simply to pardon, nor to make inherently righteous or good is proved,

From the Usage of Scripture.

1. By the uniform usage of the word to justify in Scripture it is never used in either of those senses, but always to declare or pronounce just. It is unnecessary to cite passages in proof of a usage which is uniform. The few following examples are enough. Deuteronomy xxv. 1, “If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked.” Exodus xxiii. 7, “I will not justify the wicked.” Isaiah v. 23, “Which justify the wicked for reward.” Proverbs xvii. 15, “He that justifieth the wicked” is “abomination to the Lord.” Luke x. 29, “He willing to justify himself.” Luke xvi. 15, “Ye are they which justify yourselves before men.” Matthew xi. 19, “Wisdom is justified 121of her children.” Galatians ii. 16, “A man is not justified by the works of the law,” v. 6, “Whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” Thus men are said to justify God. Job xxxii. 2, “Because he justified himself, rather than God.” Psalms li. 4, “That thou mightest be justified when thou speakest.” Luke vii. 29, “All the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God.” The only passage in the New Testament where the word δικαιόω is used in a different sense is Revelation xxii. 11, 6, ὁ δίκαιος, δικαιωθήτω ἔτι, “He that is righteous, let him be righteous still.” Here the first aorist passive appears to be used in a middle sense, ‘Let him show himself righteous, or continue righteous.’ Even if the reading in this passage were undoubted, this single case would have no force against the established usage of the word. The reading, however, is not merely doubtful, but it is, in the judgment of the majority of the critical editors, Tischendorf among the rest, incorrect. They give, as the true text, δικαιοσύνην ποιησάτω ἔτι. Even if this latter reading be, as De Wette thinks, a gloss, it shows that ὁ δίκαιος δικαιωθήτω ἔτι was as intolerable to a Greek ear as the expression, ‘He that is righteous, let him justify himself still,’ would be to us.

The usage of common life as to this word is just as uniform as that of the Bible. It would be a perfect solecism to say of a criminal whom the executive had pardoned, that he was justified, or that a reformed drunkard or thief was justified. The word always expresses a judgment, whether of the mind, as when one man justifies another for his conduct, or officially of a judge. If such be the established meaning of the word, it ought to settle all controversy as to the nature of justification. We are bound to take the words of Scripture in their true established sense. And, therefore, when the Bible says, “God justifies the believer,” we are not at liberty to say that it means that He pardons, or that He sanctifies him. It means, and can mean only that He pronounces him just.

Justification the Opposite of Condemnation.

2. This is still further evident from the antithesis between condemnation and justification. Condemnation is not the opposite either of pardon or of reformation. To condemn is to pronounce guilty; or worthy of punishment. To justify is to declare not guilty; or that justice does not demand punishment; or that the person concerned cannot justly be condemned. 122When, therefore, the Apostle says (Rom. vii. 1), “There is therefore, now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,” he declares that they are absolved from guilt; that the penalty of the law cannot justly be inflicted upon them. “Who,” he asks, “shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? God who justifieth? Who is he that condemneth? Christ who died?” (vers. 33, 34.) Against the elect in Christ no ground of condemnation can be presented. God pronounces them just, and therefore no one can pronounce them guilty.

This passage is certainly decisive against the doctrine of subjective justification in any form. This opposition between condemnation and justification is familiar both in Scripture and in common life. Job ix. 20, “If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me.” xxxiv. 17, “And wilt thou condemn him that is most just.” If to condemn does not mean to make wicked, to justify does not mean to make good. And if condemnation is a judicial, as opposed to an executive act, so is justification. In condemnation it is a judge who pronounces sentence on the guilty. In justification it is a judge who pronounces or who declares the person arraigned free from guilt and entitled to be treated as righteous."

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Volume III, Chapter XVII, Justification, Section 2, Justification is a Forensic Act.,

Hodge goes on in the next chapter to show how "justification" and "sanctification" differ.

He says:

"...justification differs from sanctification, (1.) In that the former is a transient act, the latter a progressive work. (2.) Justification is a forensic act, God acting as judge, declaring justice satisfied so far as the believing sinner is concerned, whereas sanctification is an effect due to the divine efficiency. (3.) Justification changes, or declares to be changed, the relation of the sinner to the justice of God; sanctification involves a change of character. (4.) The former, therefore, is objective, the latter subjective. (5.) The former is founded on what Christ has done for us; the latter is the effect of what He does in us. (6.) Justification is complete and the same in all, while sanctification is progressive, and is more complete in some than in others."

Ibid, Chapter XVIII, Sanctification, Section 1. It's Nature

I hope this helps.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Another "tid-bit" Catholicism won't admit:

I'm confused, Catholics won't admit Augustin Confesses that He Had Formerly Been in Error Concerning the Grace of God? From what I understand of Catholics this seems incomprehensible to me. Well let's see what you have here:

I'm going to snip the opening lines because I'm not especially interested in why he wrote it.

I then spoke thus:—“Also discussing, I say, ‘what God could have chosen in him who was as yet unborn, whom He said that the elder should serve; and what in the same elder, equally as yet unborn, He could have rejected; concerning whom, on this account, the prophetic testimony is recorded, although declared long subsequently, “Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated,” Mal. i. 2, 3. Cf. Rom. ix. 13.

Why did God choose Jacob over Esau, why would God choose me? Indeed, a lot to consider there.

I carried out my reasoning to the point of saying: ‘God did not therefore choose the works of any one in foreknowledge of what He Himself would give them, but he chose the faith, in the foreknowledge that He would choose that very person whom He foreknew would believe on Him,—to whom He would give the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he might obtain eternal life also.’

Oh wait, 'by doing good works he might obtain salvation', it doesn't work that way. Other then that, let's see.

I had not yet very carefully sought, nor had I as yet found, what is the nature of the election of grace, of which the apostle says, ‘A remnant are saved according to the election of grace. Rom. xi. 5. Which assuredly is not grace if any merits precede it; lest what is now given, not according to grace, but according to debt, be rather paid to merits than freely given.

Much better, had me going there for a minute.

And what I next subjoined: ‘For the same apostle says, “The same God which worketh all in all;” 1 Cor. xii. 6. but it was never said, God believeth all in all;’ and then added, ‘Therefore what we believe is our own, but what good thing we do is of Him who giveth the Holy Spirit to them that believe:’

God gets the credit I think is what he is saying here, even if not, he gets the benefit of the doubt.

I certainly could not have said, had I already known that faith itself also is found among those gifts of God which are given by the same Spirit. Both, therefore, are ours on account of the choice of the will, and yet both are given by the spirit of faith and love. For faith is not alone but as it is written, ‘Love with faith, from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Eph. vi. 23. And what I said a little after, ‘For it is ours to believe and to will, but it is His to give to those who believe and will, the power of doing good works through the Holy Spirit, by whom love is shed abroad in our hearts,’—is true indeed; but by the same rule both are also God’s, because God prepares the will; and both are ours too, because they are only brought about with our good wills. And thus what I subsequently said also: ‘Because we are not able to will unless we are called; and when, after our calling, we would will, our willing is not sufficiently nor our running, unless God gives strength to us that run, and leads us whither He calls us;’ and thereupon added: ‘It is plain, therefore, that it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy, that we do good works’—this is absolutely most true. But I discovered little concerning the calling itself, which is according to God’s purpose; for not such is the calling of all that are called, but only of the elect. But that even the merit itself of faith was God’s gift, I neither thought of inquiring into, nor did I say. And in another place I say: ‘For whom He has mercy upon, He makes to do good works, and whom He hardeneth He leaves to do evil works; but that mercy is bestowed upon the preceding merit of faith, and that hardening is applied to preceding iniquity.’ And this indeed is true; but it should further have been asked, whether even the merit of faith does not come from God’s mercy,—that is, whether that mercy is manifested in man only because he is a believer, or whether it is also manifested that he may be a believer? For we read in the apostle’s words: ‘I obtained mercy to be a believer.’ 1 Cor. vii. 25. He does not say, ‘Because I was a believer.’ Therefore although it is given to the believer, yet it has been given also that he may be a believer. Therefore also, in another place in the same book I most truly said: ‘Because, if it is of God’s mercy, and not of works, that we are even called that we may believe and it is granted to us who believe to do good works, that mercy must not be grudged to the heathen;’—although I there discoursed less carefully about that calling which is given according to God’s purpose."

Ibid

Everything said here, some 1400 years prior to the Council of Trent, is exactly opposite.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I really don't see any problem with the rest of it, I had forgotten what great emotion and passion he poured into the Confessions. At any rate, it's been a while. I thought I would throw in this quote from the council of Trent

If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema. (The Council of Trent, The Fifth Session DECREE CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN)
So they do understand the problem but the solution doesn't sound like gospel to me:

5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema.
I guess that makes me anathema because the grace of God doesn't require the rite of baptism administered by a priest. It is imputed by God's declaration not imparted by Catholic sacraments and that is that.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I guess that makes me anathema because the grace of God doesn't require the rite of baptism administered by a priest. It is imputed by God's declaration not imparted by Catholic sacraments and that is that.

Grace and peace,
Mark

The only problem is, how can you be declared "anathema" from something that you've never been a part of?

Let me put Augustine's words in clearer language.

Augustine admits, that as far as "grace" was concerned, and that takes in quite a few items, he was mistaken.

  1. "And it was chiefly by this testimony that I myself also was convinced when I was in a similar error, thinking that faith whereby we believe on God is not God’s gift, but that it is in us from ourselves, and that by it we obtain the gifts of God, whereby we may live temperately and righteously and piously in this world. For I did not think that faith was preceded by God’s grace, so that by its means would be given to us what we might profitably ask, except that we could not believe if the proclamation of the truth did not precede; but that we should consent when the gospel was preached to us I thought was our own doing, and came to us from ourselves." He admits, that as far as the faith to believe was not a gift of God. But he corrects that by saying: " I certainly could not have said, had I already known that faith itself also is found among those gifts of God which are given by the same Spirit. Both, therefore, are ours on account of the choice of the will,.. I certainly could not have said, had I already known that faith itself also is found among those gifts of God which are given by the same Spirit. Both, therefore, are ours on account of the choice of the will, and yet both are given by the spirit of faith and love. For faith is not alone but as it is written, ‘Love with faith, from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Eph. vi. 23. And what I said a little after, ‘For it is ours to believe and to will, but it is His to give to those who believe and will, the power of doing good works through the Holy Spirit, by whom love is shed abroad in our hearts,"
  2. He admits he was wrong in in his beliefs on "election" (cf. Jacob and Esau): " I say, ‘what God could have chosen in him who was as yet unborn, whom He said that the elder should serve; and what in the same elder, equally as yet unborn, He could have rejected; concerning whom, on this account, the prophetic testimony is recorded, although declared long subsequently, “Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated,” Mal. i. 2, 3. Cf. Rom. ix. 13. I carried out my reasoning to the point of saying: ‘God did not therefore choose the works of any one in foreknowledge of what He Himself would give them, but he chose the faith, in the foreknowledge that He would choose that very person whom He foreknew would believe on Him,—to whom He would give the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he might obtain eternal life also.’ In fact, he admits that in reality, he was completely wrong and admitted that "calling" was for the "elect": "But I discovered little concerning the calling itself, which is according to God’s purpose; for not such is the calling of all that are called, but only of the elect."
  3. Augustine also admits he was wrong as far as merits prior to grace saying: "is not grace if any merits precede it; lest what is now given, not according to grace, but according to debt, be rather paid to merits than freely given." In this statement alone, Augustine denies that heaven is given to the justified believer based upon merit.
  4. Augustine did in fact, hold to a "form" of "double predestination" (as most Catholics define it) saying: "Therefore what I said a little afterwards: ‘For as in those whom God elects it is not works but faith that begins the merit so as to do good works by the gift of God, so in those whom He condemns, unbelief and impiety begin the merit of punishment, so that even by way of punishment itself they do evil works’—I spoke most truly."
Some of what Augustine believed, he came to the realization that he was wrong. DEAD WRONG!

As many prior to him believed there was something in man that merited grace, Augustine came to believe that was wrong. He was in error about the grace of God.

Augustine realized that man had to be taken out of the equation. Five times in his "Error" he attributed everything I mentioned "of God."

In fact, Augustine goes even further to deny men are justified by works.

Chapter 12 [VII.]—Why the Apostle Said that We are Justified by Faith and Not by Works.

Funny, now that I think about it, St. Augustine would be declared "anathema".

A great deal of the T.U.L.I.P. outline, can be found in "A Treatise on The Predestination of the Saints" and "A Treatise on the Gift of Perseverance".

Again, man must be taken out of the equation. Augustine came to reject that the above named items, proceeded from man. But he was wrong, it proceeded from God.

Augustine rejected what I term the "I" theology.

Heaven, given to the "justified believer" (merits), Augustine would have rejected.

Its not grace if it of works, rather of debt. -Romans 4:4 (KJV); St. Augustine

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Last edited:
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
To be honest, I had forgotten Augustine.

But what a blessing it was to have his work mentioned.

It done nothing but help to proven my point.

Thank you Lord.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Show me in it, where Augustine recanted please.

I have that particular work btw.

God Bless

Till all are one.
Then you don't need me to spoon feed you.
CHURCH FATHERS: On the Predestination of the Saints, Book I (Augustine)
Chapter 7 [III.]— Augustine Confesses that He Had Formerly Been in Error Concerning the Grace of God.
It was not thus that pious and humble teacher thought— I speak of the most blessed Cyprian— when he said that we must boast in nothing, since nothing is our own. And in order to show this, he appealed to the apostle as a witness, where he said, For what have you that you have not received? And if you have received it, why do you boast as if you had not received it? 1 Corinthians 4:7 And it was chiefly by this testimony that I myself also was convinced when I was in a similar error, thinking that faith whereby we believe in God is not God's gift, but that it is in us from ourselves, and that by it we obtain the gifts of God, whereby we may live temperately and righteously and piously in this world. For I did not think that faith was preceded by God's grace, so that by its means would be given to us what we might profitably ask, except that we could not believe if the proclamation of the truth did not precede; but that we should consent when the gospel was preached to us I thought was our own doing, and came to us from ourselves. And this my error is sufficiently indicated in some small works of mine written before my episcopate. Among these is that which you have mentioned in your letters wherein is an exposition of certain propositions from the Epistle to the Romans. Eventually, when I was retracting all my small works, and was committing that retractation to writing, of which task I had already completed two books before I had taken up your more lengthy letters—when in the first volume I had reached the retractation of this book, I then spoke thus:— Also discussing, I say, 'what God could have chosen in him who was as yet unborn, whom He said that the elder should serve; and what in the same elder, equally as yet unborn, He could have rejected; concerning whom, on this account, the prophetic testimony is recorded, although declared long subsequently, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated,' I carried out my reasoning to the point of saying: 'God did not therefore choose the works of any one in foreknowledge of what He Himself would give them, but he chose the faith, in the foreknowledge that He would choose that very person whom He foreknew would believe in Him—to whom He would give the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he might obtain eternal life also.' I had not yet very carefully sought, nor had I as yet found, what is the nature of the election of grace, of which the apostle says, 'A remnant are saved according to the election of grace.' Romans 11:5 Which assuredly is not grace if any merits precede it; lest what is now given, not according to grace, but according to debt, be rather paid to merits than freely given. And what I next subjoined: 'For the same apostle says, The same God which works all in all; 1 Corinthians 12:6 but it was never said, God believes all in all;' and then added, 'Therefore what we believe is our own, but what good thing we do is of Him who gives the Holy Spirit to them that believe:' I certainly could not have said, had I already known that faith itself also is found among those gifts of God which are given by the same Spirit. Both, therefore, are ours on account of the choice of the will, and yet both are given by the spirit of faith and love. For faith is not alone but as it is written, 'Love with faith, from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.' Ephesians 6:23 And what I said a little after, 'For it is ours to believe and to will, but it is His to give to those who believe and will, the power of doing good works through the Holy Spirit, by whom love is shed abroad in our hearts,'— is true indeed; but by the same rule both are also God's, because God prepares the will; and both are ours too, because they are only brought about with our good wills. And thus what I subsequently said also: 'Because we are not able to will unless we are called; and when, after our calling, we would will, our willing is not sufficiently nor our running, unless Godgives strength to us that run, and leads us whither He calls us;' and thereupon added: 'It is plain, therefore, that it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, that we do good works'— this is absolutely most true. But I discovered little concerning the calling itself, which is according to God's purpose; for not such is the calling of all that are called, but only of the elect. Therefore what I said a little afterwards: 'For as in those whom God elects it is not works but faith that begins the merit so as to do good works by the gift of God, so in those whom He condemns, unbelief and impiety begin the merit of punishment, so that even by way of punishment itself they do evilworks'— I spoke most truly. But that even the merit itself of faith was God's gift, I neither thought of inquiring into, nor did I say. And in another place I say: 'For whom He has mercy upon, He makes to do good works, and whom He hardens He leaves to do evilworks; but that mercy is bestowed upon the preceding merit of faith, and that hardening is applied to preceding iniquity.' And this indeed is true; but it should further have been asked, whether even the merit of faith does not come from God's mercy—that is, whether that mercy is manifested in man only because he is a believer, or whether it is also manifested that he may be a believer? For we read in the apostle's words: 'I obtained mercy to be a believer.' 1 Corinthians 7:25 He does not say, 'Because I was a believer.' Therefore although it is given to the believer, yet it has been given also that he may be a believer. Therefore also, in another place in the same book I most truly said: 'Because, if it is of God's mercy, and not of works, that we are even called that we may believe and it is granted to us who believe to do good works, that mercy must not be grudged to the heathen;'— although I there discoursed less carefully about that calling which is given according to God's purpose.
CHURCH FATHERS: On the Predestination of the Saints, Book I (Augustine)

CHURCH FATHERS: On the Predestination of the Saints, Book I (Augustine)

CHURCH FATHERS: On the Predestination of the Saints, Book I (Augustine)
 
Upvote 0

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
The key question:

Does the natural merit of man exert perhaps some influence on the Divine election to grace and glory?​

No, but do note, the key word there is merit, and the best definition of grace I can muster is 'unmerited favor'. Catholics even have something called the 'treasury of merit' where the good deeds of the saints are...I don't know...stored.

I can save you some time, the question is about where the grace of God comes from. is it through the sacraments of the RCC or is it through Christ alone.
It's both/and, not either/or.
 
Upvote 0

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
The only problem is, how can you be declared "anathema" from something that you've never been a part of?

Let me put Augustine's words in clearer language.

Augustine admits, that as far as "grace" was concerned, and that takes in quite a few items, he was mistaken.

  1. "And it was chiefly by this testimony that I myself also was convinced when I was in a similar error, thinking that faith whereby we believe on God is not God’s gift, but that it is in us from ourselves, and that by it we obtain the gifts of God, whereby we may live temperately and righteously and piously in this world. For I did not think that faith was preceded by God’s grace, so that by its means would be given to us what we might profitably ask, except that we could not believe if the proclamation of the truth did not precede; but that we should consent when the gospel was preached to us I thought was our own doing, and came to us from ourselves." He admits, that as far as the faith to believe was not a gift of God. But he corrects that by saying: " I certainly could not have said, had I already known that faith itself also is found among those gifts of God which are given by the same Spirit. Both, therefore, are ours on account of the choice of the will,.. I certainly could not have said, had I already known that faith itself also is found among those gifts of God which are given by the same Spirit. Both, therefore, are ours on account of the choice of the will, and yet both are given by the spirit of faith and love. For faith is not alone but as it is written, ‘Love with faith, from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Eph. vi. 23. And what I said a little after, ‘For it is ours to believe and to will, but it is His to give to those who believe and will, the power of doing good works through the Holy Spirit, by whom love is shed abroad in our hearts,"
  2. He admits he was wrong in in his beliefs on "election" (cf. Jacob and Esau): " I say, ‘what God could have chosen in him who was as yet unborn, whom He said that the elder should serve; and what in the same elder, equally as yet unborn, He could have rejected; concerning whom, on this account, the prophetic testimony is recorded, although declared long subsequently, “Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated,” Mal. i. 2, 3. Cf. Rom. ix. 13. I carried out my reasoning to the point of saying: ‘God did not therefore choose the works of any one in foreknowledge of what He Himself would give them, but he chose the faith, in the foreknowledge that He would choose that very person whom He foreknew would believe on Him,—to whom He would give the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he might obtain eternal life also.’ In fact, he admits that in reality, he was completely wrong and admitted that "calling" was for the "elect": "But I discovered little concerning the calling itself, which is according to God’s purpose; for not such is the calling of all that are called, but only of the elect."
  3. Augustine also admits he was wrong as far as merits prior to grace saying: "is not grace if any merits precede it; lest what is now given, not according to grace, but according to debt, be rather paid to merits than freely given." In this statement alone, Augustine denies that heaven is given to the justified believer based upon merit.
  4. Augustine did in fact, hold to a "form" of "double predestination" (as most Catholics define it) saying: "Therefore what I said a little afterwards: ‘For as in those whom God elects it is not works but faith that begins the merit so as to do good works by the gift of God, so in those whom He condemns, unbelief and impiety begin the merit of punishment, so that even by way of punishment itself they do evil works’—I spoke most truly."
Some of what Augustine believed, he came to the realization that he was wrong. DEAD WRONG!

As many prior to him believed there was something in man that merited grace, Augustine came to believe that was wrong. He was in error about the grace of God.

Augustine realized that man had to be taken out of the equation. Five times in his "Error" he attributed everything I mentioned "of God."

In fact, Augustine goes even further to deny men are justified by works.

Chapter 12 [VII.]—Why the Apostle Said that We are Justified by Faith and Not by Works.

Funny, now that I think about it, St. Augustine would be declared "anathema".

A great deal of the T.U.L.I.P. outline, can be found in "A Treatise on The Predestination of the Saints" and "A Treatise on the Gift of Perseverance".

Again, man must be taken out of the equation. Augustine came to reject that the above named items, proceeded from man. But he was wrong, it proceeded from God.

Augustine rejected what I term the "I" theology.

Heaven, given to the "justified believer" (merits), Augustine would have rejected.

Its not grace if it of works, rather of debt. -Romans 4:4 (KJV); St. Augustine

God Bless

Till all are one.
Augustine admitted he was wrong and all you can do is highlight his admissions? Would Calvin admit to the monster god he created?

The word anathema is one of the most misunderstood terms in anti-Catholic apologetics. Almost all anti-Catholics, from the lowbrow end of the spectrum to those who give themselves airs of scholarship, misunderstand it.
Anathema | Catholic Answers


church_bible_based.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
The only problem is, how can you be declared "anathema" from something that you've never been a part of?

Let me put Augustine's words in clearer language.
Augustine admits, that as far as "grace" was concerned, and that takes in quite a few items, he was mistaken.
  1. "And it was chiefly by this testimony that I myself also was convinced when I was in a similar error, thinking that faith whereby we believe on God is not God’s gift, but that it is in us from ourselves, and that by it we obtain the gifts of God, whereby we may live temperately and righteously and piously in this world. For I did not think that faith was preceded by God’s grace, so that by its means would be given to us what we might profitably ask, except that we could not believe if the proclamation of the truth did not precede; but that we should consent when the gospel was preached to us I thought was our own doing, and came to us from ourselves." He admits, that as far as the faith to believe was not a gift of God. But he corrects that by saying: " I certainly could not have said, had I already known that faith itself also is found among those gifts of God which are given by the same Spirit. Both, therefore, are ours on account of the choice of the will,.. I certainly could not have said, had I already known that faith itself also is found among those gifts of God which are given by the same Spirit. Both, therefore, are ours on account of the choice of the will, and yet both are given by the spirit of faith and love. For faith is not alone but as it is written, ‘Love with faith, from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Eph. vi. 23. And what I said a little after, ‘For it is ours to believe and to will, but it is His to give to those who believe and will, the power of doing good works through the Holy Spirit, by whom love is shed abroad in our hearts,"
  2. He admits he was wrong in in his beliefs on "election" (cf. Jacob and Esau): " I say, ‘what God could have chosen in him who was as yet unborn, whom He said that the elder should serve; and what in the same elder, equally as yet unborn, He could have rejected; concerning whom, on this account, the prophetic testimony is recorded, although declared long subsequently, “Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated,” Mal. i. 2, 3. Cf. Rom. ix. 13. I carried out my reasoning to the point of saying: ‘God did not therefore choose the works of any one in foreknowledge of what He Himself would give them, but he chose the faith, in the foreknowledge that He would choose that very person whom He foreknew would believe on Him,—to whom He would give the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he might obtain eternal life also.’ In fact, he admits that in reality, he was completely wrong and admitted that "calling" was for the "elect": "But I discovered little concerning the calling itself, which is according to God’s purpose; for not such is the calling of all that are called, but only of the elect."
  3. Augustine also admits he was wrong as far as merits prior to grace saying: "is not grace if any merits precede it; lest what is now given, not according to grace, but according to debt, be rather paid to merits than freely given." In this statement alone, Augustine denies that heaven is given to the justified believer based upon merit.
  4. Augustine did in fact, hold to a "form" of "double predestination" (as most Catholics define it) saying: "Therefore what I said a little afterwards: ‘For as in those whom God elects it is not works but faith that begins the merit so as to do good works by the gift of God, so in those whom He condemns, unbelief and impiety begin the merit of punishment, so that even by way of punishment itself they do evil works’—I spoke most truly."
Some of what Augustine believed, he came to the realization that he was wrong. DEAD WRONG!
As many prior to him believed there was something in man that merited grace, Augustine came to believe that was wrong. He was in error about the grace of God.
Augustine realized that man had to be taken out of the equation. Five times in his "Error" he attributed everything I mentioned "of God."

In fact, Augustine goes even further to deny men are justified by works.

Chapter 12 [VII.]—Why the Apostle Said that We are Justified by Faith and Not by Works.

Funny, now that I think about it, St. Augustine would be declared "anathema".

A great deal of the T.U.L.I.P. outline, can be found in "A Treatise on The Predestination of the Saints" and "A Treatise on the Gift of Perseverance".

Again, man must be taken out of the equation. Augustine came to reject that the above named items, proceeded from man. But he was wrong, it proceeded from God.

Augustine rejected what I term the "I" theology.

Heaven, given to the "justified believer" (merits), Augustine would have rejected.

Its not grace if it of works, rather of debt. -Romans 4:4 (KJV); St. Augustine

God Bless

Till all are one.
[E]ven those good works of ours, which are recompensed with eternal life, belong to the grace of God, . . . the apostle himself, after saying, “By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast;” saw, of course, the possibility that men would think from this statement that good works are not necessary to those who believe, but that faith alone suffices for them . . . “Not of works” is spoken of the works which you suppose have their origin in yourself alone; but you have to think of works for which God has moulded (that is, has formed and created) you. . . . grace is for grace, as if remuneration for righteousness; in order that it may be true, because it is true, that God “shall reward every man according to his works.”
(A Treatise on Grace and Free Will; Chapter 20; NPNF 1, Vol.)
St. Augustine Was CATHOLIC, Not Proto-Protestant!
Augustine denies justification by works if the works are not gifts from God in the first place. You are reading into Augustine what isn't there, and highlighting what he admitted was wrong, and ignoring everything else.


019ae608e402944eed12a971607638d3--st-augustine-quotes-augustine-of-hippo.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Augustine admitted he was wrong and all you can do is highlight his admissions? Would Calvin admit to the monster god he created?

The word anathema is one of the most misunderstood terms in anti-Catholic apologetics. Almost all anti-Catholics, from the lowbrow end of the spectrum to those who give themselves airs of scholarship, misunderstand it.
Anathema | Catholic Answers


church_bible_based.jpg

I never said he didn't admit he was wrong.

But you did not read what he said he was wrong about.

I highlighted what he said he was wrong about, AND what he said to correct his mistake.

"
  1. "And it was chiefly by this testimony that I myself also was convinced when I was in a similar error, thinking that faith whereby we believe on God is not God’s gift, but that it is in us from ourselves, and that by it we obtain the gifts of God, whereby we may live temperately and righteously and piously in this world. For I did not think that faith was preceded by God’s grace, so that by its means would be given to us what we might profitably ask, except that we could not believe if the proclamation of the truth did not precede; but that we should consent when the gospel was preached to us I thought was our own doing, and came to us from ourselves." He admits, that as far as the faith to believe was not a gift of God. [But he corrects that by saying: " I certainly could not have said, had I already known that faith itself also is found among those gifts of God which are given by the same Spirit. Both, therefore, are ours on account of the choice of the will,..](emphasis here where he corrected his previous belief) I certainly could not have said, had I already known that faith itself also is found among those gifts of God which are given by the same Spirit. Both, therefore, are ours on account of the choice of the will, and yet both are given by the spirit of faith and love. For faith is not alone but as it is written, ‘Love with faith, from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Eph. vi. 23. And what I said a little after, ‘For it is ours to believe and to will, but it is His to give to those who believe and will, the power of doing good works through the Holy Spirit, by whom love is shed abroad in our hearts,"
  2. He admits he was wrong in in his beliefs on "election" (cf. Jacob and Esau): " I say, ‘what God could have chosen in him who was as yet unborn, whom He said that the elder should serve; and what in the same elder, equally as yet unborn, He could have rejected; concerning whom, on this account, the prophetic testimony is recorded, although declared long subsequently, “Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated,” Mal. i. 2, 3. Cf. Rom. ix. 13. I carried out my reasoning to the point of saying: ‘God did not therefore choose the works of any one in foreknowledge of what He Himself would give them, but he chose the faith, in the foreknowledge that He would choose that very person whom He foreknew would believe on Him,—to whom He would give the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he might obtain eternal life also.’ In fact, he admits that in reality, he was completely wrong and admitted that "calling" was for the "elect": "But I discovered little concerning the calling itself, which is according to God’s purpose; for not such is the calling of all that are called, but only of the elect." (emphasis here where he corrects his error)
  3. Augustine also admits he was wrong as far as merits prior to grace saying: "is not grace if any merits precede it; lest what is now given, not according to grace, but according to debt, be rather paid to merits than freely given." In this statement alone, Augustine denies that heaven is given to the justified believer based upon merit.
  4. Augustine did in fact, hold to a "form" of "double predestination" (as most Catholics define it) saying: "Therefore what I said a little afterwards: ‘For as in those whom God elects it is not works but faith that begins the merit so as to do good works by the gift of God, so in those whom He condemns, unbelief and impiety begin the merit of punishment, so that even by way of punishment itself they do evil works’—I spoke most truly." (emphasis here where Augustine admits to believing in a form of "double predestination)
  5. Some of what Augustine believed, he came to the realization that he was wrong. DEAD WRONG!
"

You quoted the same article as I. Yet I took the time to read and show what he said he was in error about, and his statements to correct it.

If you can't read plain English, then I don't know what to do.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Augustine denies justification by works if the works are not gifts from God in the first place. You are reading into Augustine what isn't there, and highlighting what he admitted was wrong, and ignoring everything else.

In his letter of "Error" he freely admits that if you add merit to grace, it was not grace. PERIOD!

"Which assuredly is not grace if any merits precede it; lest what is now given, not according to grace, but according to debt, be rather paid to merits than freely given"

You ignore that.

In his letter "Why the Apostle Said that We are Justified by Faith and Not by Works", he FLAT OUT says:

"But perhaps it may be said: “The apostle distinguishes faith from works; he says, indeed, that grace is not of works, but he does not say that it is not of faith.” This, indeed, is true. But Jesus says that faith itself also is the work of God, and commands us to work it. For the Jews said to Him, “What shall we do that we may work the work of God? Jesus answered, and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent.” John vi. 28. The apostle, therefore, distinguishes faith from works, just as Judah is distinguished from Israel in the two kingdoms of the Hebrews, although Judah is Israel itself. And he says that a man is justified by faith and not by works, because faith itself is first given, from which may be obtained other things which are specially characterized as works, in which a man may live righteously. For he himself also says, “By grace ye are saved through faith; and this not of yourselves; but it is the gift of God,” Eph. ii. 8. —that is to say, “And in saying ‘through faith,’ even faith itself is not of yourselves, but is God’s gift.” “Not of works,” he says, “lest any man should be lifted up.” For it is often said, “He deserved to believe, because he was a good man even before he believed.” Which may be said of Cornelius Acts x. since his alms were accepted and his prayers heard before he had believed on Christ; and yet without some faith he neither gave alms nor prayed. For how did he call on him on whom he had not believed? But if he could have been saved without the faith of Christ the Apostle Peter would not have been sent as an architect to build him up; although, “Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain who build it.” Ps. cxxvii. 1. And we are told, Faith is of ourselves; other things which pertain to works of righteousness are of the Lord; as if faith did not belong to the building,—as if, I say, the foundation did not belong to the building. But if this primarily and especially belongs to it, he labours in vain who seeks to build up the faith by preaching, unless the Lord in His mercy builds it up from within. Whatever, therefore, of good works Cornelius performed, as well before he believed in Christ as when he believed and after he had believed, are all to be ascribed to God, lest, perchance any man be lifted up."

Source

And your right, everything here Augustine attributes to God.

Justification by FAITH, not WORKS!

But the RCC's doctrine on "Predestination" says differently.

Sorry.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
True works follow, initially your merit counts for nothing, later bearing fruit glorifies God but it's always by grace.

Agreed, our so-called "works" bear witness to us and our confession to be "Christians".

"Ye shall know them by their fruits." -Mt. 7:16 (KJV)

But even that is not the litmus test. For on that great day:

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." -Mt. 7:22-23 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0