Catholic doctrine on Predestination

Thursday

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
6,034
1,562
59
Texas
✟49,429.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
And calvinist Irresistible Grace says if you are in the elect, you will walk in obedience; you have no choice in the matter.


Yes, but that's not what the bible says. The bible is full of warnings. It warns us to endure, to resist temptation, to confess our sins, and that sin can shipwreck our faith.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Dave-W
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yes, but that's not what the bible says. The bible is full of warnings. It warns us to endure, to resist temptation, to confess our sins, and that sin can shipwreck our faith.
I totally agree with you on that.

That is just one of the reasons I disagree with calvinism. (all 5 points)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Thursday
Upvote 0

nonaeroterraqueous

Nonexistent Member
Aug 16, 2014
2,915
2,724
✟188,987.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Yes, but that's not what the bible says. The bible is full of warnings. It warns us to endure, to resist temptation, to confess our sins, and that sin can shipwreck our faith.

The slug of metal on the anvil is destined to become a sword. That's what I say if I'm a Calvinist. You say that can't be true, or the blacksmith would not need the hammer and the anvil. It's like you think the slug was only destined to become a sword if it magically morphs into one, apart from external influences. I say that the hammer and the anvil are tools that the blacksmith uses to bring about his predestination.

You say, "look at the slugs of metal that were never formed."

I say that they were not destined to become swords.

You say, "Look at the slugs that he began to hammer at, and then made them into something else, or worked on and then tossed into the coals."

I say that the slug did not hammer itself. It did not decide to become a sword and then change its mind. It did not toss itself back onto the coals. The blacksmith is not hog-tied and sitting in a corner whimpering helplessly as his possessed shop operates autonomously, with hammers banging away with no hand to move them, and bellows blowing at the coals by no human hand.

The warning is the anvil. The circumstances are the hammer. The hand is the hand of destiny. The slug is the believer, and the sword is his outcome. The blacksmith is God.
 
Upvote 0

Thursday

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
6,034
1,562
59
Texas
✟49,429.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The slug of metal on the anvil is destined to become a sword. That's what I say if I'm a Calvinist. You say that can't be true, or the blacksmith would not need the hammer and the anvil. .

A human being is not a slug of metal, but is a thinking being made in the image of God, capable of accepting or rejecting God's will.

Bad analogy.
 
Upvote 0

HighCherub

Active Member
Jul 20, 2017
361
158
36
Richmond, VA
✟4,182.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Catholicism holds to predestination, they just don't like that the Reformers, namely Calvin, minimized free will to emphasize Sovereign Election.

Most of all, it was also a slap to the Pope because Sovereign election rendered the Church's authority altogether moot.
 
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
Calvinist predestination claims that God chooses those who will be saved with no regard for their actions on earth. That is inconsistent with scripture which lays out multiple conditions for salvation.

Yes and no.

The Calvinist position is that God chose the "elect" for whatever poupose He deemed fit. The "elect" were chosen out of His Sovereign will.

Catholics make it that God chose us because in His "foreknowledge" he saw who would or would not accept and believe. Which, if scripture is correct, makes God a respecter of persons. God saw man "x" would accept and believe therefore God chose him. On the other hand, God did not chose man "y" because he would not accept and believe.

That is the Catholic position.

If it is true, then this piece of scripture lies:

"For there is no respect of persons with God." -Rom. 2:11 (KJV) (cf. Acts 10:34)

God has respect for man "x" because of foreseen faith, while on the other hand, God has no respect for man "y" because there is no foreseen faith.

The Calvinist position has always been that God chose the "elect" for whatever reason He deemed. According to His own purpose.

And that, friend, is according to scripture.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
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
That is inconsistent with scripture which lays out multiple conditions for salvation.

As far as I know, the Apostle Paul said all one had to do is confess with their mouth, believe in their heart, and they would be saved.

And he said in another place:

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." -Rom. 10:13 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
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
A human being is not a slug of metal, but is a thinking being made in the image of God, capable of accepting or rejecting God's will.

Bad analogy.

That's debatable.

Maybe according to Catholicism.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
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
Catholicism holds to predestination, they just don't like that the Reformers, namely Calvin, minimized free will to emphasize Sovereign Election.

Most of all, it was also a slap to the Pope because Sovereign election rendered the Church's authority altogether moot.

Yea, and many place so much emphasis on "free-will" they almost idolize it.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

Thursday

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
6,034
1,562
59
Texas
✟49,429.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Yes and no.

The Calvinist position is that God chose the "elect" for whatever poupose He deemed fit. The "elect" were chosen out of His Sovereign will.

Catholics make it that God chose us because in His "foreknowledge" he saw who would or would not accept and believe. Which, if scripture is correct, makes God a respecter of persons. God saw man "x" would accept and believe therefore God chose him. On the other hand, God did not chose man "y" because he would not accept and believe.

That is the Catholic position.

If it is true, then this piece of scripture lies:

"For there is no respect of persons with God." -Rom. 2:11 (KJV) (cf. Acts 10:34)

God has respect for man "x" because of foreseen faith, while on the other hand, God has no respect for man "y" because there is no foreseen faith.

The Calvinist position has always been that God chose the "elect" for whatever reason He deemed. According to His own purpose.

And that, friend, is according to scripture.

God Bless

Till all are one.

The Calvinist position is the one that makes God a respecter of persons. The Catholic position is consistent with scripture:

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.


What did God foreknow?
 
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

Thursday

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
6,034
1,562
59
Texas
✟49,429.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
As far as I know, the Apostle Paul said all one had to do is confess with their mouth, believe in their heart, and they would be saved.

.

You are mistaken. Saved is a present tense condition. That is no guarantee of future salvation.

Romans 2
6God will repay each person according to what they have done. 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.

Romans 11
22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.

Gal 6
7Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. 9Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Thursday

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
6,034
1,562
59
Texas
✟49,429.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
That's debatable.

Maybe according to Catholicism.

God Bless

Till all are one.


Matt 23:37
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
 
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
You are mistaken. Saved is a present tense condition. That is no guarantee of future salvation.

Romans 2
6God will repay each person according to what they have done. 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.

Romans 11
22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.

Gal 6
7Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. 9Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.

Wrong again, the greek word for "saved" is always rendered three ways, as in "we were saved" (past tense), we are currently being saved (present tense), and we will be saved (future tense).

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
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 Calvinist position is the one that makes God a respecter of persons. The Catholic position is consistent with scripture:

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.


What did God foreknow?


I love it when people don't know things.

In the Greek, what is the word here rendered "for"?

"eis". It is a conjunction which links the current passage with the previous one.

Why did God "foreknow" these people? Because he "called" them first!

"to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow,"

Sorry, try again.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
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 Calvinist position is the one that makes God a respecter of persons.

I really wish people would think before they post.

"Calvin’s view will draw on excerpts from Book III, chapters 21-23, of his Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559) in Hans J. Hillerbrand’s collection The Protestant Reformation (ordinary page references are to this work), and sections 3.24.4 and 3.24.5 of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion translated by Henry Beveridge.

Predestination According to Calvin
According to John Calvin, predestination is God’s unchangeable decree from before the creation of the world that he would freely save some people (the elect), foreordaining them to eternal life, while the others (the reprobate) would be “barred from access to” salvation and sentenced to “eternal death (180, 184).” Calvin was careful to distinguish the predestination of individuals from the corporate election of nations such as Israel (185). He argued that an explanation of predestination is only complete when it includes the election of individuals (187).

Calvin described the basis of predestination in several ways. In general he affirmed that there is no basis for election outside of God. Referring to Eph. 1.9, Calvin noted that God purposed election “in Himself,” basing his decree of predestination on “nothing outside Himself (192).” Calvin attributed the salvation of the elect to God’s free decision to favor them (188). He variously described this as God’s “mere generosity (180, 187),” his “freely given mercy (189, 195, 211),” and the “good pleasure of His will (191; cf. Eph. 1.5).” Moreover, Calvin based the damnation of the reprobate solely in God’s decision (189, 200).

Since God’s reasons for predestination are wholly internal to his being (190), they are opaque to humanity. Ultimately, then, the basis of God’s predestination is mysterious and “utterly incomprehensible” to people (209). This mystery points to one of God’s purposes in predestination, to inspire wonder and reverence in believers (181). The things hidden in God are not to be understood by people, but rather revered in their “wonderful depth (179).” Indeed, for John Calvin the overarching purpose of predestination is for God to be glorified, both in the praise of the elect for his grace (192), and in the terrible yet glorious judgment of the reprobate (199).

Despite the mysterious basis of predestination, it is possible for the elect to be certain of their status as children of God (187). The first and seemingly most important indicator of election is what Calvin referred to as “the calling of God (3.24.4, 189).” His use of this term seems to refer to a subjective inward certainty that God has chosen a person for salvation. Elsewhere, Calvin suggested that having “knowledge of [God’s] name” and reflecting the process of sanctification are both indicators of election (189). Moreover, Calvin claimed that “communion with Christ” is sufficient proof of election (3.24.5): since we are elected in Jesus Christ (Eph. 1.4), we cannot seek the certainty of election “apart from the Son (3.24.5).” Calvin also seemed to obscurely suggest that the daily blessings received from the hand of God might rightly be perceived as an indication of election, “that secret adoption (3.24.4).” Together, these signs—the foremost being “the calling of God,”—yield certainty of salvation and tranquil peace with God (3.24.4).

From Ephesians 1.4 he argued that one purpose of God’s election was to make his children holy. Since holiness is to be produced by election, it made no sense to Calvin to assert the reverse (191-2). Moreover, the whole point of teaching that election took place before creation (Eph. 1.4) is to demonstrate that election had nothing to do with meritorious works (191). Indeed, for Calvin another important purpose of predestination was to communicate that salvation is not based on individual merit but solely on God’s grace (191).

Calvin took up the view that God elects some but condemns none (200). Calvin saw this view as “highly absurd” since it seemed to imply that the salvation received by the elect could also be attained by the non-elect as a result of “chance” or “their own effort (200).” Rejecting this inconsistent implication, Calvin asserted that the reprobate are those God intentionally neglects to choose (200). From Rom. 9.14ff, Calvin argued that the hardening of non-elect hearts is as much attributable to God as is mercy. Moreover, he noted that Paul did not shy away from this dreadful conclusion, but rather questioned the right of the clay to protest the Potter’s work (Rom. 9.20), and linked condemnation of the reprobate to God’s glory (Rom. 9.22-23). For John Calvin, election could not but stand “over against reprobation (200).”

John Calvin on Predestination.

Sorry, but I don't see it your way.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
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
The Calvinist position is the one that makes God a respecter of persons.

For your benefit, I will include just what John Calvin's doctrine on election was.

"2.The Definition of Calvin's Predestination

Since we cannot deny the necessity of confabulating with the doctrine of election, the fundamental task remaining is the coherent and veracious articulation of this doctrine. Calvin defines predestination as,

God's eternal decree, by which He compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others(Inst. III, 21, 5).

This definition requires some qualification because many of Calvin's opponents, including Arminius, would not have a problem with this definition. Arminius did not deny predestination, in fact, he believed in it, "I do not present as a matter of doubt the fact that God has elected some to salvation, and not elected or passed by others"(Bangs 201). The difference is he did not base it on a "divine arbitrary decree", but upon God's foreknowledge of man's merit(Bettenson 268).

Calvin seemed to foresee that there would be people that would argue that God "distinguishes among men according as he foresees what the merits of each will be"(Inst. III, 22, 1). Calvin, accordingly, writes against this notion, "by thus covering election with a veil of foreknowledge, they not only obscure it but feign that it has its origin elsewhere"(Inst. III, 22, 1). Calvin contests that this view of foreknowledge makes man God's co-worker in salvation, and implies that election is ratified only by man's consent. This is to make the gravest of errors because it suggests that man's will is superior to God's plan, or at the very least, implies God's plan is partially dependent on man(Inst. III, 24, 3). In refutation of this view, Calvin asserts that "this plan was founded upon his freely given mercy, without regard to human worth"(Inst. III, 21, 7 emphasis added).

Calvin wisely proceeds to draw exhaustively from Scripture to buttress his argument citing that God chose us "before the foundations of the world were laid"(Eph.1:4a), "according to the good pleasure of his will"(Eph.1:5), in order "that we should be holy and spotless and irreproachable in his sight"(Eph.1:4b). Calvin observes that Paul sets "God's good pleasure" over against any merit of ours, declaring all virtue in man to be the result of his election(Inst. III, 22, 2). Calvin continues by arguing that if God chose us to be holy, it naturally follows that he would not have chosen us because he foresaw that we would be so(Inst. III, 22, 3). The fact that God chose the elect to be holy also refutes the accusation and misrepresentation that predestination overthrows all exhortations to godly living(Inst. III, 23, 13). Calvin reminds his opponents that election has as its goal, holiness of life, "therefore, it ought to arouse us to eagerly set our mind upon it than to serve as a pretext for doing nothing"(Inst. III, 23, 12). Calvin remarks that Paul afterward confirms what he had earlier said about the origin of our election when he states: "According to the purpose of his will"(Eph.1:5), "which he had purposed in himself"(Eph.1:9). This is to say that God considered nothing outside himself with which to be concerned in making his decree(Inst. III, 22, 2).

To more meticulously deal with the objection by some that God would be contrary to himself if he should universally invite all men to him but choose only a few as elect(Inst. III, 22, 10), Calvin draws heavily from the ninth chapter in Paul's letter to the Romans. Paul writes that before Jacob and Esau were born, or had done anything good or bad "in order that God's purpose of election might continue . . . the elder will serve the younger"(Rom.9:11,12). Calvin therefore argues that, "rejection does not occur on the basis of works"(Inst. III, 23, 11). He argues that Paul specifically emphasizes that point by showing that before Jacob and Esau had done anything good or evil, one was chosen, the other rejected(Rom.9:13). This is in order to prove that the foundation of divine predestination is not in works(Inst. III, 23, 11). Calvin also reminds us that the apostle Paul writes that God "has mercy upon whomever He wills, and He hardens the heart of whomever He wills"(Rom.9:18). "Has not the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for dishonour?"(Rom.9:21). God is free to determine a purpose for election, but that purpose has nothing to do with man's desire or effort. Nothing is more clear in Romans nine, "it does not therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy"(Rom.9:16).

To comprehend that God chooses us not because of what he finds in us, but according to his own good pleasure, gives rise to the charge that God is arbitrary(Sproul 156). Arminius, when citing the difference between his predestination and that of Calvin, declares that he did not base predestination on a "divine arbitrary decree"(Bettenson 268). This is an erroneous evaluation of Calvin's doctrine because it suggests that God makes his selection in a whimsical or capricious manner. Calvin's argument is only that there is no reason found in us, but that is not to say that God has no reason in Himself. This is precisely what Calvin is trying to communicate when he reasons that we are saved by "God's eternal decree, by which He compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man"(Inst. III, 21, 5).

It should now be apparent that while most bible-believing Christians do in fact acquiesce to some form of predestination they depart on the issue of the basis of this election. Arminians will contend that we are chosen according to foreknowledge of merit(Bettenson 268), [and some Catholics, emphasis mine] while a Calvinist theology maintains that we are chosen "because He has willed it"(Inst. III, 23, 2). Calvin believes that if you proceed further to ask why he so willed, "you are seeking something greater and higher than God's will, which cannot be found"(Inst. III, 23, 2).

From the preceding paragraphs we have learned that Calvin affirms that "eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others"(Inst. III, 21, 5). The reason for this ordination is rooted in "God's good pleasure" as opposed to foreknowledge of merit, and in fact, we are incapable of merit since Adam's fall, and only through Christ's redemption is the salvation of the elect even possible."

John Calvin's Doctrine of Election, By Rev. Bryn MacPhail

Sorry to burst your bubble, but your assertions on John Calvin making God a respecter of persons is completely false.

Any theology that teaches election and predestination based upon foreseen faith, or works is the one that makes God a respecter of persons.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
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 Calvinist position is the one that makes God a respecter of persons.

Again, I will answer that in this manner:

"For there is no respect of persons with God.

It will not come into consideration, at the day of judgment, of what nation men are; or from what parents they are descended; nor of what age and sex persons be; nor in what state and condition they have lived in this world; nor will it be asked to what sect they have belonged, and by what denomination they have been called; or whether they have conformed to such and such externals and rituals in religion; but only whether they are righteous men or sinners; and accordingly as they appear under these characters, judgment will proceed. Some object from hence, though without any reason, to the doctrine of particular election of certain persons to everlasting salvation. This passage respects matters of strict justice, and is a forensic expression relating to courts of judicature, where persons presiding are to have no regard to the faces of men, but do that which is strictly just between man and man; and does not respect matters of grace and free favour, such as giving alms, forgiving debts A judge, as such, is to regard no man's person, but to proceed in matters before him, according to the rules of law and justice; should he do otherwise, he would be chargeable with being a respecter of persons; but then he may bestow alms on what objects he pleases; and forgive one man who is personally indebted to him, and not another, without any such imputation. This, applied to the case in hand, abundantly clears it; for though God, as a Judge, respects no man's person; yet in matters of grace he distinguishes one person from another, as it is plain he does by the bounties of his Providence. Besides, God is not bound to any person by any laws, but acts as a Sovereign; he is not moved by anything in the creature; as his choice is not confined to persons of any particular nation, family, sex, or condition, so neither does it proceed upon anything, or a foresight of anything in them, or done by them; and as there is no worthiness in them that are chosen, and saved above others, so no injury is done to the rest: add to all this, that those that are saved by virtue of electing grace, are saved in a way of righteousness agreeably to the holy law, and strict justice of God; so that no complaint can be made against the distinguishing methods of grace, upon the foot of strict justice."

Romans 2:11, Commentary by John Gill

So again, I repeat:

"Any theology that teaches election and predestination based upon foreseen faith, or works is the one that makes God a respecter of persons."

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

Thursday

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
6,034
1,562
59
Texas
✟49,429.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Wrong again, the greek word for "saved" is always rendered three ways, as in "we were saved" (past tense), we are currently being saved (present tense), and we will be saved (future tense).

God Bless

Till all are one.


You are mistaken. Paul makes this very clear here:

2 Tim 2:12
if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us;
 
Upvote 0

Thursday

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
6,034
1,562
59
Texas
✟49,429.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I love it when people don't know things.

In the Greek, what is the word here rendered "for"?

"eis". It is a conjunction which links the current passage with the previous one.

Why did God "foreknow" these people? Because he "called" them first!

"to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow,"

Sorry, try again.

God Bless

Till all are one.


Wrong. He foreknew EVERYTHING about them, including their faith, works, prayers, and endurance.
 
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

Thursday

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
6,034
1,562
59
Texas
✟49,429.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I really wish people would think before they post.

"Calvin’s view will draw on excerpts from Book III, chapters 21-23, of his Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559) in Hans J. Hillerbrand’s collection The Protestant Reformation (ordinary page references are to this work), and sections 3.24.4 and 3.24.5 of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion translated by Henry Beveridge.

Predestination According to Calvin
According to John Calvin, predestination is God’s unchangeable decree from before the creation of the world that he would freely save some people (the elect), foreordaining them to eternal life, while the others (the reprobate) would be “barred from access to” salvation and sentenced to “eternal death (180, 184).” Calvin was careful to distinguish the predestination of individuals from the corporate election of nations such as Israel (185). He argued that an explanation of predestination is only complete when it includes the election of individuals (187).

Calvin described the basis of predestination in several ways. In general he affirmed that there is no basis for election outside of God. Referring to Eph. 1.9, Calvin noted that God purposed election “in Himself,” basing his decree of predestination on “nothing outside Himself (192).” Calvin attributed the salvation of the elect to God’s free decision to favor them (188). He variously described this as God’s “mere generosity (180, 187),” his “freely given mercy (189, 195, 211),” and the “good pleasure of His will (191; cf. Eph. 1.5).” Moreover, Calvin based the damnation of the reprobate solely in God’s decision (189, 200).

Since God’s reasons for predestination are wholly internal to his being (190), they are opaque to humanity. Ultimately, then, the basis of God’s predestination is mysterious and “utterly incomprehensible” to people (209). This mystery points to one of God’s purposes in predestination, to inspire wonder and reverence in believers (181). The things hidden in God are not to be understood by people, but rather revered in their “wonderful depth (179).” Indeed, for John Calvin the overarching purpose of predestination is for God to be glorified, both in the praise of the elect for his grace (192), and in the terrible yet glorious judgment of the reprobate (199).

Despite the mysterious basis of predestination, it is possible for the elect to be certain of their status as children of God (187). The first and seemingly most important indicator of election is what Calvin referred to as “the calling of God (3.24.4, 189).” His use of this term seems to refer to a subjective inward certainty that God has chosen a person for salvation. Elsewhere, Calvin suggested that having “knowledge of [God’s] name” and reflecting the process of sanctification are both indicators of election (189). Moreover, Calvin claimed that “communion with Christ” is sufficient proof of election (3.24.5): since we are elected in Jesus Christ (Eph. 1.4), we cannot seek the certainty of election “apart from the Son (3.24.5).” Calvin also seemed to obscurely suggest that the daily blessings received from the hand of God might rightly be perceived as an indication of election, “that secret adoption (3.24.4).” Together, these signs—the foremost being “the calling of God,”—yield certainty of salvation and tranquil peace with God (3.24.4).

From Ephesians 1.4 he argued that one purpose of God’s election was to make his children holy. Since holiness is to be produced by election, it made no sense to Calvin to assert the reverse (191-2). Moreover, the whole point of teaching that election took place before creation (Eph. 1.4) is to demonstrate that election had nothing to do with meritorious works (191). Indeed, for Calvin another important purpose of predestination was to communicate that salvation is not based on individual merit but solely on God’s grace (191).

Calvin took up the view that God elects some but condemns none (200). Calvin saw this view as “highly absurd” since it seemed to imply that the salvation received by the elect could also be attained by the non-elect as a result of “chance” or “their own effort (200).” Rejecting this inconsistent implication, Calvin asserted that the reprobate are those God intentionally neglects to choose (200). From Rom. 9.14ff, Calvin argued that the hardening of non-elect hearts is as much attributable to God as is mercy. Moreover, he noted that Paul did not shy away from this dreadful conclusion, but rather questioned the right of the clay to protest the Potter’s work (Rom. 9.20), and linked condemnation of the reprobate to God’s glory (Rom. 9.22-23). For John Calvin, election could not but stand “over against reprobation (200).”

John Calvin on Predestination.

Sorry, but I don't see it your way.

God Bless

Till all are one.


You don't see the truth because you are mired in a man made dogma.

The bible is clear, and it contradicts your dogma:

1 Peter 117
Since you call on a Father who judges each person's work impartially, live out your time as foreigners here in reverent fear.

Matthew 16:27
For the Son of Man will come in His Father's glory with His angels, and then He will repay each one according to what he has done.


Acts 10:34
34Then Peter began to speak: “I now truly understand that God does not show favoritism, 35but welcomes those from every nation who fear Him and do what is right.

Matt 7
True and False Disciples

21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

The Wise and Foolish Builders

24“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”
 
Upvote 0