Catholic doctrine on Predestination

[Uncle Tommy]

I realize that this has died down some but have the rules changed? Are Catholics permitted to argue or teach here?

 

[DeaconDean]

I realize that this has died down some but have the rules changed? Are Catholics permitted to argue or teach here?

Not entirely.

They are not arguing or teaching against Baptist beliefs.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Where would the Church get such a crazy idea?

Shall I supply it again?

From your own churches dogmas:

Lets examine what the Council of Trent said:

In its official writings, the Catholic Church teaches that faith is important; but it also insists on the necessity of good works to merit eternal life. Please read carefully the following quotations from the Council of Trent on Justification:

"Canon 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, excluding grace and charity which is poured into their hearts by the Holy Spirit and inheres in them, or also that the grace which justifies us is only the favour of God, let him be anathema.

Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.

Canon 24. If anyone says that the justice (righteousness) received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema.

Canon 30. If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.

Canon 32. If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ (of whom one is a living member), the justified does not truly merit an increase of grace, and eternal life, provided that one dies in the state of grace, the attainment of this eternal life, as well as an increase in glory, let him be anathema."

Official Catholic teaching would not allow the sinner to rely by faith on the mercy of God or to believe that his sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake only. Something more is required. You must keep yourself justified by your own good works. You must merit grace and eternal life by your works.

But what about Canon 1?

"If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema."

This canon gives an initial impression that Rome denies justification by works just as the Bible (and evangelicals) also do. In fact it does not! The canon simply says that a man cannot be justified by performing the works of the Law by his own natural powers. However, the same canon indicates that a man can 'receive divine grace through Jesus Christ' to perform the works necessary for justification. In other words, Rome teaches that God helps man to do good works and hence to fully satisfy the Law. Only then is a person qualified to enter heaven. The Council of Trent elaborates this idea in chapter 16:

"For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified, - as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches, - and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God, - we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace..."

To be fair, I would acknowledge that a great emphasis is placed on Jesus Christ and the grace of God. Good works do not originate in man's natural ability but can only be performed through Jesus Christ. Yet, it is also true that these works do not cease to be the good works of the Christian; personal works give him the right to heaven.

So then, what is required for a person to be justified at the end, that is, to be accounted to have fully satisfied divine law, and therefore to merit eternal life? Trent answers: THEIR GOOD WORKS! Their good works fully satisfy the divine law. Their works merit eternal life.

Catholic theology insists that the Christian's good works are truly his good merits, and by these works, he preserves and increases the initial righteousness received in baptism to finally attain eternal life (canons 24 and 32).

I have read, and I have studied.

Whether you like it or not.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I realize that this has died down some but have the rules changed? Are Catholics permitted to argue or teach here?

I've wondered that myself because it bothers me when somebody goes to OBOB and attempts to show where the Church is wrong.

That said, Catholic doctrine is under indictment here. So I don't see the harm in clarifying what the Church actually teaches. If someone was trash talking the Baptists on a non-Baptist section, I wouldn't expect a Baptist who read that to stay silent. I guess the mods can figure it out though and warn us if we're breaking the rules (although that certainly isn't my intent).

Until they do though, I'd like to point out that many non-Catholics (particularly Protestants) have a flawed idea of the Catholic understanding of salvation. I find this holds especially true of avowed Calvinists.

But the Catholic Church views salvation as a participatory endeavor. Through grace alone, God freely offers salvation to men.

As an act of human will, man chooses either to accept that offer of salvation or to reject it. But what man chooses is something freely offered by God the Father in His own grace. He offers (which is his role) and the faithful accept (which is our role). It's not a one-sided thing.

The Council of Trent On Justification, Canon I says "If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema." I suspect a lot of non-Catholics would readily agree with at least that much.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

But the Catholic Church views salvation as a participatory endeavor. Through grace alone, God freely offers salvation to men.

Ah, but that's one of many answers I've gotten from Catholics. I wish your church was clearer on its beliefs, or that Catholics took greater pains to understand it, because I've tried to pinpoint the matter by talking to Catholics, and it would appear that there are many different answers to the same question. I've been told that Catholics are saved by:

• Faith
• The Eucharist
• Baptism
• Confession (and the Rosary, etc.)
• Purgatory
• Good deeds

One Catholic I talked to said she counted about eight different answers to that question from within her church, and when she asked her priest on different occasions she got three different answers.

So, pardon me if I do accept your answer only partially. Your answer may be true, but more Catholics need to hear, understand and accept that one truth. Either that, or you're mincing words. Over-all, Catholicism looks very works-based to me.

If someone was trash talking the Baptists on a non-Baptist section, I wouldn't expect a Baptist who read that to stay silent.

Well, I wouldn't expect Baptists to be reading it, generally. I've read such things, occasionally, in other groups' forums, but I did not respond, because I understand that those forums are meant for comfort and commiseration, not more of the same heated debate we get in the general forum. If someone wants an answer from me about my beliefs, then they'll ask it where I can answer. Otherwise, I try to be polite and let them say what they want, without me butting in (Sometimes I accidentally participate in the wrong forum, not noticing where I am).

I find this holds especially true of avowed Calvinists.

Perhaps we understand you better than you realize. Sometimes a person has to stand back to get a better view.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Ah, but that's one of many answers I've gotten from Catholics. I wish your church was clearer on its beliefs, or that Catholics took greater pains to understand it, because I've tried to pinpoint the matter by talking to Catholics, and it would appear that there are many different answers to the same question.

It should be said that many Catholics are not very scholarly in their understanding of their faith. And to be fair to them, a scholarly understanding of it won't affect their salvation (or the lack of the same).

I've been told that Catholics are saved by:
Faith

Which is true. But we need to define what faith is. For purposes of discussion, we could define it as "to believe in" something.

As sacred scripture attaches conditions to salvation (which we'll circle back to shortly) apart from a simple intellectual assent of Our Lord's lordship, it stands to reason that "faith alone" (as many Protestants tend to reckon it) isn't sufficient by itself for salvation as per the Catholic view of the matter.

To once again refer back to the Council of Trent, the Church believes that Our Lord is a redeemer in whom to trust, yes, but also a legislator whom we are to obey.

The Eucharist

I'm sure it will come as no surprise to you that we take St. John 6 literally.

Baptism

We similar take St. John 3:5 literally. Certainly the necessity of baptism as the ordinary means of salvation was the assumption of the Church Fathers.

Confession

As with the others above, we take St. John 20:19-23 literally.

(and the Rosary, etc.)

This one intrigues me since the Rosary is a devotional exercise. I regard it as spiritually beneficial but I've never met or heard of anyone who regards the recitation of the Rosary as a prerequisite of salvation.

I am not accusing you of dishonesty. On the contrary, I'm merely using this as an opportunity to illustrate my earlier statement regarding the lack of qualified scholarship among Catholic laymen... a situation I remember existing in fairly similar numbers from my days as an evangelical.

All of this is to say... nobody's perfect.

Purgatory

Mmm, that one's a bit sticky. The Church teaches that it's possible for someone to go straight to Heaven after death. But for others, a stopover in Purgatory is what they need.

Understand, many non-Catholics seem to view Purgatory in terms of justification. This view is false. Purgatory isn't about justification; it's about sanctification.

1 Corinthians 3:5 shows the purpose of Purgatory. It's the testing and purification of someone which the passage itself acknowledges is going to Heaven no matter the outcome. Salvation is assured. But their attachment to sin must be done away with. Purgatory is the process whereby this mortal puts on immortality. Their sin nature must be purged, hence Purgatory.

As I've said to others, I often think that if the Church had called it "Purgation" rather than Purgatory, some confusion on this might have been avoided.

Good deeds

This is stickier yet. In St. Matthew 6:12, an implicit connection between forgiving others is made between receiving God's forgiveness ourselves.

Separately, it's not uncommon in Protestant Christianity to find believers of good faith who regard good deeds to be evidence of their faith. There's even a tacit acknowledgement of that in sacred scripture. By their fruits, you shall know them. A good true does not produce bad fruit. If someone truly belongs to the Lord, sooner or later their actions will show that.

One Catholic I talked to said she counted about eight different answers to that question from within her church, and when she asked her priest on different occasions she got three different answers.

As you can see, the answer is rather complex.

So, pardon me if I do accept your answer only partially.

You are pardoned.

Your answer may be true, but more Catholics need to hear, understand and accept that one truth.

I'm not sure I agree with that at all. Not everybody is cut out to be an apologist for the faith. I shall be blunt while trying to be as polite as possible.

Put simply, some people just don't have the brains to be an apologist for whatever religion they follow. And at least in the Catholic Church, that isn't a problem. These folks attend the same Mass as me, they hear the same scripture readings, they sing the same hymns and they receive the same sacraments.

But my aptitudes are different from theirs. Loads of people out there have a huge aptitude for things I'm no good at. Their charism is different from mine. But that doesn't invalidate my charism or theirs. It simply means I'm good at some things which others aren't and they're good at things I'm not.

Further elaboration on this might require bending this sub-forum's rules against teaching against the Baptist tradition.

So I'll close this part by saying that you're right to suggest that a lot of Catholics don't know their faith very well. Or at least they're not very good at articulating it. But I humbly disagree that all Catholics are called to lay-apologists, that's all.

Either that, or you're mincing words.

Does it look to you like I've minced words in this discussion? Hopefully I've been polite but I've tried my best not to obfuscate anything.

Over-all, Catholicism looks very works-based to me.

I think a more nuanced view of Catholicism would be that it's very obedience-based. Being a Catholic requires submission. It's a constant reminder of how small I am. I am to submit to the authorities (including the spiritual ones) which God has placed in my life. If I can't submit to and obey them, how can I possibly submit to and obey God?

Well, I wouldn't expect Baptists to be reading it, generally.

You'd be quite surprised then.

I've read such things, occasionally, in other groups' forums, but I did not respond,

That's quite mature of you, actually.

(Sometimes I accidentally participate in the wrong forum, not noticing where I am).

Oy, tell me about it.

Perhaps we understand you better than you realize. Sometimes a person has to stand back to get a better view.

Amusing. But no, I'm a convert. I've examined the Catholic Church from the outside and from the inside. It's legit. I was amazed to discover that every Catholic doctrine with which I disagreed had a considerable ring of logic behind it.

 

[DeaconDean]

I've wondered that myself because it bothers me when somebody goes to OBOB and attempts to show where the Church is wrong.

That said, Catholic doctrine is under indictment here. So I don't see the harm in clarifying what the Church actually teaches. If someone was trash talking the Baptists on a non-Baptist section, I wouldn't expect a Baptist who read that to stay silent. I guess the mods can figure it out though and warn us if we're breaking the rules (although that certainly isn't my intent).

Until they do though, I'd like to point out that many non-Catholics (particularly Protestants) have a flawed idea of the Catholic understanding of salvation. I find this holds especially true of avowed Calvinists.

But the Catholic Church views salvation as a participatory endeavor. Through grace alone, God freely offers salvation to men.

As an act of human will, man chooses either to accept that offer of salvation or to reject it. But what man chooses is something freely offered by God the Father in His own grace. He offers (which is his role) and the faithful accept (which is our role). It's not a one-sided thing.

The Council of Trent On Justification, Canon I says "If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema." I suspect a lot of non-Catholics would readily agree with at least that much.

AS the OP, I have not stifled any argument from well intending Catholics.

I have been frustrated when certain persons keep referring me to the same thing time and time again, in spite of me telling them I have read it!

I have read the Council of Trent. I studied it in seminary.

And, I have posted several answers to what they (CoT) have said.

But it boils down to this, I cannot be "ex-communicated" or declared "anthemia" from something I am not a part of.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

I've wondered that myself because it bothers me when somebody goes to OBOB and attempts to show where the Church is wrong.

That said, Catholic doctrine is under indictment here. So I don't see the harm in clarifying what the Church actually teaches. If someone was trash talking the Baptists on a non-Baptist section, I wouldn't expect a Baptist who read that to stay silent. I guess the mods can figure it out though and warn us if we're breaking the rules (although that certainly isn't my intent).

Until they do though, I'd like to point out that many non-Catholics (particularly Protestants) have a flawed idea of the Catholic understanding of salvation. I find this holds especially true of avowed Calvinists.

But the Catholic Church views salvation as a participatory endeavor. Through grace alone, God freely offers salvation to men.

As an act of human will, man chooses either to accept that offer of salvation or to reject it. But what man chooses is something freely offered by God the Father in His own grace. He offers (which is his role) and the faithful accept (which is our role). It's not a one-sided thing.

The Council of Trent On Justification, Canon I says "If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema." I suspect a lot of non-Catholics would readily agree with at least that much.

Like I said, I have already studied that, and provided an answer:

"In its official writings, the Catholic Church teaches that faith is important; but it also insists on the necessity of good works to merit eternal life. Please read carefully the following quotations from the Council of Trent on Justification:

"Canon 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, excluding grace and charity which is poured into their hearts by the Holy Spirit and inheres in them, or also that the grace which justifies us is only the favour of God, let him be anathema.

Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.

Canon 24. If anyone says that the justice (righteousness) received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema.

Canon 30. If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.

Canon 32. If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ (of whom one is a living member), the justified does not truly merit an increase of grace, and eternal life, provided that one dies in the state of grace, the attainment of this eternal life, as well as an increase in glory, let him be anathema."

Official Catholic teaching would not allow the sinner to rely by faith on the mercy of God or to believe that his sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake only. Something more is required. You must keep yourself justified by your own good works. You must merit grace and eternal life by your works.

But what about Canon 1?

"If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema."

This canon gives an initial impression that Rome denies justification by works just as the Bible (and evangelicals) also do. In fact it does not! The canon simply says that a man cannot be justified by performing the works of the Law by his own natural powers. However, the same canon indicates that a man can 'receive divine grace through Jesus Christ' to perform the works necessary for justification. In other words, Rome teaches that God helps man to do good works and hence to fully satisfy the Law. Only then is a person qualified to enter heaven. The Council of Trent elaborates this idea in chapter 16:

"For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified, - as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches, - and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God, - we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace..."

To be fair, I would acknowledge that a great emphasis is placed on Jesus Christ and the grace of God. Good works do not originate in man's natural ability but can only be performed through Jesus Christ. Yet, it is also true that these works do not cease to be the good works of the Christian; personal works give him the right to heaven.

So then, what is required for a person to be justified at the end, that is, to be accounted to have fully satisfied divine law, and therefore to merit eternal life? Trent answers: THEIR GOOD WORKS! Their good works fully satisfy the divine law. Their works merit eternal life.

Catholic theology insists that the Christian's good works are truly his good merits, and by these works, he preserves and increases the initial righteousness received in baptism to finally attain eternal life (canons 24 and 32)."

Catholic doctrine on Predestination

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Read my opening statement:

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.

The most debated verse in the entire bible (cf. Rom.8:29) about "predestination" has absolutely nothing to do with "election".

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I think I've said what I need to say in this thread. My concern is that I might have already broken the rules around here and I don't think I want to tempt fate (or the mods) any further.

Still, @DeaconDean and @nonaeroterraqueous, thanks for letting me into your "house" as it were to talk about this. Both of you are pretty cool.

 

[DeaconDean]

I think I've said what I need to say in this thread. My concern is that I might have already broken the rules around here and I don't think I want to tempt fate (or the mods) any further.

Still, @DeaconDean and @nonaeroterraqueous, thanks for letting me into your "house" as it were to talk about this. Both of you are pretty cool.

Really, I don't mind.

I opened this thread, several Catholic's have offered their opinion, and I don't mind except that I had to keep telling one member over and over that I had read and studied what they mentioned.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

Why are Catholics allowed to post in a Baptist forum?

 

[DeaconDean]

Why are Catholics allowed to post in a Baptist forum?

Well, for one thing, they are not teaching against Baptist doctrines.

And two, I was questioning one of their doctrines.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[BBAS 64]

Now my beloved Deacon dean you would never do such a thing like that would you...?

I was questioning one of their doctrines

 

[BBAS 64]

Good day,


I have not read though the whole thread and see that a member of the Roman church has provided some information that others may have found useful, the historical accuracy of the information proved is some what suspect with is normal when dealing with someone who in error has aligned them self with Rome post Trent. As to the question of predestination and the church of Rome's teaching:


“To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.”

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a4p2.htm

Such a view (held by the church of Rome) as already alluded to is far different of the historical realties of the Church seen in Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. This type of statement presupposes that God is confined by the "free -will choices of men" I am not sure that the church of Rome has defined for them self what that means to them, so I can not assume their usage of that type of phase is valid for this type of discussion.

I see it has been asserted that Augustine confessed and repented, but I see no basis for that notion in history...

From a noted member of the Roman church:

Ludwig Ott


"The Thomists, the Augustinians, the majority of the Scotists and also individual older Molinists (Suarez, St. Bellarmine) teach an absolute Predestination (ad gloriam tantum), therefore ante praevisa merita. According to them, God freely resolves from all Eternity, without consideration of the merits of man's grace, to call certain men to beatification and therefore to bestow on them graces which will infallibly secure the execution of the Divine Decree (ordo intentionis). In time God first gives to the predestined effective graces and then eternal bliss as a reward for the merits which flow from their free cooperation with grace (ordo executionis). The ordo intentionis and the ordo executionis are in inverse relation to each other (glory-grace; grace-glory).

This is historically correct.. IMHO

Blessings

Bill

 

[DeaconDean]

Now my beloved Deacon dean you would never do such a thing like that would you...?

Not me.

Good to hear from you, thought you had disappeared.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

I see it has been asserted that Augustine confessed and repented, but I see no basis for that notion in history...

Sir, I submit:

"On the Predestination of the Saints, Book I (Augustine), Book I, Chapter 7"

And:

"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)"

Post #78, this thread.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[BBAS 64]

Sir, I submit:

"On the Predestination of the Saints, Book I (Augustine), Book I, Chapter 7"

And:

"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)"

Post #78, this thread.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Thanks for that.... I totally did not give the thread the read I should have.

 

[DeaconDean]

Thanks for that.... I totally did not give the thread the read I should have.

My biggest objection is not only is the Catholic position wrong on "predestination", but also that you can "merit" entrance to heaven:

"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"

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[narnia59]

Ah, but that's one of many answers I've gotten from Catholics. I wish your church was clearer on its beliefs, or that Catholics took greater pains to understand it, because I've tried to pinpoint the matter by talking to Catholics, and it would appear that there are many different answers to the same question. I've been told that Catholics are saved by:

• Faith
• The Eucharist
• Baptism
• Confession (and the Rosary, etc.)
• Purgatory
• Good deeds

One Catholic I talked to said she counted about eight different answers to that question from within her church, and when she asked her priest on different occasions she got three different answers.

So, pardon me if I do accept your answer only partially. Your answer may be true, but more Catholics need to hear, understand and accept that one truth. Either that, or you're mincing words. Over-all, Catholicism looks very works-based to me.



Well, I wouldn't expect Baptists to be reading it, generally. I've read such things, occasionally, in other groups' forums, but I did not respond, because I understand that those forums are meant for comfort and commiseration, not more of the same heated debate we get in the general forum. If someone wants an answer from me about my beliefs, then they'll ask it where I can answer. Otherwise, I try to be polite and let them say what they want, without me butting in (Sometimes I accidentally participate in the wrong forum, not noticing where I am).



Perhaps we understand you better than you realize. Sometimes a person has to stand back to get a better view.

One thing that may (or may not) help with understanding is that often when we speak of salvation, we aren't necessarily speaking of the same thing.

For example, the Southern Baptist SOF says that "“In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification.”

Yet most Southern Baptists I've talked to consider themselves to be 'saved' once they are regenerated and justified.

In the Catholic world, salvation is truly what the SB SOF refers to as the 'broadest sense' -- regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification.

So I believe we find very common ground with most Baptists in that we believe that there is nothiing that can merit the initial grace of justification. But our focus is very strongly placed on step 3 -- sanctification. We take very literally Scriptures like 2 Peter 3:18 that instructs us to grow in grace, St. Paul's assertion in Philippians 3:12 that he is not yet perfected but he strives for this, and Hebrews 12:14 to pursue the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

Generally when I ask my Baptist friends if they believe there are things we can do to grow in holiness they respond yes, and give examples of prayer and reading Scripture. As Catholics we would include with that reception of the Sacraments and performing works of charity -- all ways that we grow in holiness.

Perhaps Francis Beckwith says it best -- "A Christian’s good works are performed in order that the grace that God has given us may be lived out so that we may become more like Christ. As I have said, the purpose of “good works” for the Catholic is not to get you into heaven, but to get heaven into you. The Catholic already believes that he or she is an adopted child of God, wholly by God’s grace. For the practicing Catholic, good works, including participating in the sacraments, works of charity, and prayer, are not for the purpose of earning heaven. For good works are not meant to pay off a debt in the Catholic scheme of things. Rather, good works prepare us for heaven by shaping our character and keeping us in communion with God so that we may be “holy and blameless and irreproachable before him” (Col. 1:22).

As for the Catholic church being clear on her teachings, stick to the Catechism. Sometimes in our best intentions to explain things, we can muddy the waters, tis true.