Is Calvinism a heresy?

[Xeno.of.athens]

Full disclosure: I am a Calvinist (in the Dutch Reformed tradition).

Are you prepared or willing to defend the Roman Catholic position on this matter?

I may be willing to discuss this

The Catholic Church does not consider Calvinism, a theology developed by John Calvin in the 16th century, to be heretical. However, it does disagree with certain aspects of Calvinist theology, particularly the belief in double predestination, the doctrine that God predestines some individuals to eternal salvation and others to eternal damnation. The Catholic Church teaches that God desires the salvation of all humanity, and that every person has the free will to accept or reject God's grace.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

The Discussion​

If you want to have that discussion, I am open to it, ...

Thank you, sir. I accept your invitation.

But let's keep the thread topic in mind as we proceed. Neither one of us think Calvinism is heretical, so let's instead discuss whether it is in error (vis-à-vis predestination). And, of course, we'll have to begin with an agreement on what this doctrine is (and possibly what it is not), so as to avoid torching straw men.

As I said earlier, I think the technical solution to the Calvinist-non Calvinist impasse is recognition that God being omniscient does know who will repent and accept salvation and who will refuse it, but we still have effective free will, because the deterministic nature of reality is only deterministic from the perspective of God. Thus we must have faith that Christ will save us.

One of the things I recommended was a "focused" dialogue, primarily because in these kinds of discussion a lot of red herrings can be strewn about, derailing the effort at a helpful exchange. So, let's begin by narrowing our focus.

First, regarding omniscience, let the proposition be, "God knows who will and will not be saved." To that end, let it be understood that "from the perspective of God" is implied in the very term "God knows." Our perspective is not relevant anyway, for God was already omniscient long before we existed.

Second, we need to have some agreement on what "predestine" means. Judging by your remarks here, I suspect it has something to do with determinism. In other words, predestination is God determining in advance the salvation of some and damnation of others. Have I understood you rightly? If so, I can accept this term for the sake of argument (i.e., it is sufficiently Calvinistic). If I have misunderstood something, however, please take this opportunity to clarify.

Third, human free-will should not be part of this discussion, I think, because it seems irrelevant to the subject of predestination. I mean, would you say that humans having a free will renders predestination false? I doubt it, but I'll let you tell me.

It's very easy to bite off more than we can chew, so let's limit ourselves to the Calvinist doctrine of predestination and the question of whether it's erroneous, leaving aside the issues of omniscience (for we agree on it) and human free-will (for it's not relevant).

So, "God determines in advance the salvation of some and damnation of others." Is that an erroneous doctrine?

Miscellany​

... for I have been a Calvinist and now consider myself a Patristic-Orthodox non-Calvinist, ...

Wow, that was a mouthful.

I want to say before disagreeing with any Calvinist doctrine my love for various Calvinist churches. ... [snip various examples]

Duly noted and genuinely appreciated.

— DialecticSkeptic

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I may be willing to discuss this

So, for you the problem with Calvinist predestination—or the idea that God determines in advance the damnation of anyone—is that "God desires the salvation of all humanity."

This, then, is my follow-up question: Does God know who will be damned?

— DialecticSkeptic

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So, for you the problem with Calvinist predestination—or the idea that God determines in advance the damnation of anyone—is that "God desires the salvation of all humanity."

But that is not a problem.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

But that is not a problem.

Sorry, I thought you said you might be willing to discuss this. Carry on as you were. Cheers.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Sorry, I thought you said you might be willing to discuss this. Carry on as you were. Cheers.

I said I might be willing to discuss the content of the first paragraph of my post. I did not intend to mean I might be willing to discuss some fragment of it divorced from its context. It is a short paragraph. Not an essay length one. So including its context is not a hardship.

 

[JSRG]

The Catholic Church does not consider Calvinism, a theology developed by John Calvin in the 16th century, to be heretical. However, it does disagree with certain aspects of Calvinist theology,

And those aspects are considered heretical. Anything that goes against a Catholic dogma is heresy by according to the Catholic Church; so if it "disagrees" with it, it means it's heretical.

Now, the term "heresy" and "heretical" tend to be used a lot less nowadays, and more applied to what would be regarded as the major heresies to emphasize their, well, majorness. Certainly, Calvinism (according to Catholicism) would be considered more correct than something like Unitarianism. Thus in the interest of terminology, actually using the term heresy may be improper due to its connotations. Still, I feel you're attempting to make an artificial distinction here between "disagrees with" and "heresy."

particularly the belief in double predestination, the doctrine that God predestines some individuals to eternal salvation and others to eternal damnation. The Catholic Church teaches that God desires the salvation of all humanity, and that every person has the free will to accept or reject God's grace.

It is true that double predestination is condemned by the Catholic Church, as seen in the sixth session of the Council of Trent:

Canon VI. If any one shall say, that it is not in the power of man to make his ways evil, but that God worketh the works that are evil as well as those that are good, not by permission only, but properly, and of Himself in such wise that the treason of Judas be no less His own proper work than the calling of Paul; let him be anathema.

However, I should note that not all Calvinists accept double predestination. Actually, I'm not even sure if most of them do.

The Catholic Church also disagree with the beliefs of the "Limited atonement" which is the belief that Jesus died only for the elect. The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus died for all humanity, and that his sacrifice on the cross is sufficient for the salvation of all people.

This is another case of something that some Calvinists believe in but some don't. Or more specifically, the interpretation of what "Limited Atonement" is. Here is an analysis of the Five Points of Calvinism (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints) by a Calvinist-turned-Catholic:

Catholicism and TULIP

As a Catholic who is a former Calvinist, I am very interested in the relationship between various Calvinist doctrines and the Catholic faith...

freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com

They assert that, except for Perseverance of the Saints, a sound Calvinist interpretation of those points (they repeatedly differentiate between "sound" Calvinist interpretations and "unsound" Calvinist interpretations) is completely in line with Catholicism. This includes Limited Atonement. I won't quote the entire thing they wrote on this, but the quick summary quote is:

In the words of the Council of Trent (Sixth Session, Chapter III--page number removed), "though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated." This is all that Calvinists typically mean by "limited atonement." Christ died for all men, in that his atonement is sufficient to save all men, in that it provides sufficient opportunity and grace to enable all men to be saved if they will choose to avail themselves of their opportunity, and in that God intended it to provide such objective opportunity to all men and to make possible the free and sincere offer of the gospel to all men; though, in his eternal plan, he predestined that the atonement would only actually end up bringing about the eternal salvation of the elect through the application of divine grace. All this both Catholics and the sounder Calvinists grant, so there is no substantial difference in doctrine upon this point.

In summary, while the Catholic Church does not consider Calvinism to be heretical, it disagrees with certain aspects of Calvinist theology, particularly the belief in double predestination and limited atonement.

The Catholic Church absolutely rejects double predestination (which not all Calvinists hold), but seems to only reject limited atonement in certain interpretations. So while this is a rejection of beliefs of some Calvinists, it wouldn't hit all of Calvinist theology.

However, the big distinctive heresy--or, if you'd prefer, error--of Calvinism according to the Catholic Church is not either of those two things. As noted, double predestination isn't believed by all Calvinists, and some Calvinists have an interpretation of Limited Atonement that is in line with Catholic belief. The thing about Calvinism that the Catholic Church (and, as far as I can tell, non-Calvinists in general) reject is eternal security. Eternal security, which is a portion of the Perseverance of the Saints in the five points of Calvinism, asserts that upon becoming a Christian, no one can lose their salvation, and should anyone deconvert or fall away, it only shows they were never a true Christian to begin with. Therefore, in eternal security anyone who is a true Christian--at least a Christian as defined by those who espouse eternal security--can be assured of their salvation. This idea was rejected by the Catholic Church (Council of Trent, Session 6):

No one, moreover, so long as he exists in this mortal state, ought so far to presume concerning the secret mystery of divine predestination, as to determine for certain that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinated; as if it were true, that he who is justified, either cannot sin any more, or if he do sin, that he ought to promise himself a certain repentance; for except by a special revelation, it cannot be known whom God hath chosen unto Himself.

Indeed, for as much as predestination is viewed as the distinctive Calvinist belief in popular culture, it seems to me that eternal security is the distinctive belief that sets Calvinists apart from others; I've never seen a Calvinist reject it, and there are very few non-Calvinists that accept it.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

And those aspects are considered heretical. Anything that goes against a Catholic dogma is heresy by according to the Catholic Church; so if it "disagrees" with it, it means it's heretical.

Now, the term "heresy" and "heretical" tend to be used a lot less nowadays, and more applied to what would be regarded as the major heresies to emphasize their, well, majorness. Certainly, Calvinism (according to Catholicism) would be considered more correct than something like Unitarianism. Thus in the interest of terminology, actually using the term heresy may be improper due to its connotations. Still, I feel you're attempting to make an artificial distinction here between "disagrees with" and "heresy."



It is true that double predestination is condemned by the Catholic Church, as seen in the sixth session of the Council of Trent:

Canon VI. If any one shall say, that it is not in the power of man to make his ways evil, but that God worketh the works that are evil as well as those that are good, not by permission only, but properly, and of Himself in such wise that the treason of Judas be no less His own proper work than the calling of Paul; let him be anathema.

However, I should note that not all Calvinists accept double predestination. Actually, I'm not even sure if most of them do.



This is another case of something that some Calvinists believe in but some don't. Or more specifically, the interpretation of what "Limited Atonement" is. Here is an analysis of the Five Points of Calvinism (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints) by a Calvinist-turned-Catholic:

Catholicism and TULIP

As a Catholic who is a former Calvinist, I am very interested in the relationship between various Calvinist doctrines and the Catholic faith...

freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com

They assert that, except for Perseverance of the Saints, a sound Calvinist interpretation of those points (they repeatedly differentiate between "sound" Calvinist interpretations and "unsound" Calvinist interpretations) is completely in line with Catholicism. This includes Limited Atonement. I won't quote the entire thing they wrote on this, but the quick summary quote is:

In the words of the Council of Trent (Sixth Session, Chapter III--page number removed), "though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated." This is all that Calvinists typically mean by "limited atonement." Christ died for all men, in that his atonement is sufficient to save all men, in that it provides sufficient opportunity and grace to enable all men to be saved if they will choose to avail themselves of their opportunity, and in that God intended it to provide such objective opportunity to all men and to make possible the free and sincere offer of the gospel to all men; though, in his eternal plan, he predestined that the atonement would only actually end up bringing about the eternal salvation of the elect through the application of divine grace. All this both Catholics and the sounder Calvinists grant, so there is no substantial difference in doctrine upon this point.


The Catholic Church absolutely rejects double predestination (which not all Calvinists hold), but seems to only reject limited atonement in certain interpretations. So while this is a rejection of beliefs of some Calvinists, it wouldn't hit all of Calvinist theology.

However, the big distinctive heresy--or, if you'd prefer, error--of Calvinism according to the Catholic Church is not either of those two things. As noted, double predestination isn't believed by all Calvinists, and some Calvinists have an interpretation of Limited Atonement that is in line with Catholic belief. The thing about Calvinism that the Catholic Church (and, as far as I can tell, non-Calvinists in general) reject is eternal security. Eternal security, which is a portion of the Perseverance of the Saints in the five points of Calvinism, asserts that upon becoming a Christian, no one can lose their salvation, and should anyone deconvert or fall away, it only shows they were never a true Christian to begin with. Therefore, in eternal security anyone who is a true Christian--at least a Christian as defined by those who espouse eternal security--can be assured of their salvation. This idea was rejected by the Catholic Church (Council of Trent, Session 6):

No one, moreover, so long as he exists in this mortal state, ought so far to presume concerning the secret mystery of divine predestination, as to determine for certain that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinated; as if it were true, that he who is justified, either cannot sin any more, or if he do sin, that he ought to promise himself a certain repentance; for except by a special revelation, it cannot be known whom God hath chosen unto Himself.

Indeed, for as much as predestination is viewed as the distinctive Calvinist belief in popular culture, it seems to me that eternal security is the distinctive belief that sets Calvinists apart from others; I've never seen a Calvinist reject it, and there are very few non-Calvinists that accept it.

Limited atonement, also known as particular redemption or definite atonement, is the belief that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was a specific and intentional act of redemption for the sins of a particular group of people, rather than for all humanity. The Catholic Church does not officially hold this belief.

According to Catholic teaching, the atonement of Jesus Christ is unlimited, meaning that it is offered to all people, and that it is sufficient to redeem all people. The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus died for all humanity, and that his death made it possible for all people to be saved through faith in him.

This teaching is based on the Bible passages such as:

• John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
• 1 John 2:2 "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."
• Isaiah 53:6 "We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all."
• 2 Corinthians 5:19 "that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people's sins against them."

The Catholic Church holds that the death of Jesus Christ is a free gift of grace that is offered to all people, and that it is received through faith. It is the belief that Jesus died for the sins of the world, and that his death made it possible for all people to be saved.

 

[JSRG]

Limited atonement, also known as particular redemption or definite atonement, is the belief that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was a specific and intentional act of redemption for the sins of a particular group of people, rather than for all humanity. The Catholic Church does not officially hold this belief.

According to Catholic teaching, the atonement of Jesus Christ is unlimited, meaning that it is offered to all people, and that it is sufficient to redeem all people. The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus died for all humanity, and that his death made it possible for all people to be saved through faith in him.

Okay, I'll post the full excerpt from the link (Catholicism and TULIP) on the subject then, rather than just a portion so you have full context of their argument:

L - Limited Atonement

Unsound interpretation: Christ died only for the elect. Therefore, his atonement does not have sufficient merit or power to save the non-elect (the reprobate). Even if the reprobate should come to Christ, they would have to be rejected, because no atonement was made for them. Salvation is offered only to the elect, the others not being invited.

Sound interpretation: Christ died only for the elect, in the sense that in God's eternal plan the atonement was only intended to actually fully accomplish the eternal salvation of the elect and in fact it only accomplishes their eternal salvation. However, the atonement, being of infinite value, is sufficient to save all men, elect and reprobate, and it is sincerely offered to all men, so that any who come to Christ have plentiful grace available to them to accomplish fully their eternal salvation.

Most Calvinists I have known and read have embraced the latter rather than the former interpretation. Well-respected Calvinist theologian Loraine Boettner, in his book The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Eerdmans, 1932 - footnote references added to text), explains:

This doctrine does not mean that any limit can be set to the value or power of the atonement which Christ made. The value of the atonement depends upon, and is measured by, the dignity of the person making it; and since Christ suffered as a Divine-human person the value of His suffering was infinite. . . .​

​

While the value of the atonement was sufficient to save all mankind, it was efficient to save only the elect. It is indifferently well adapted to the salvation of one man to that of another, thus making the salvation of every man objectively possible; yet because of subjective difficulties, arising on account of the sinners own inability either to see or appreciate the things of God, only those are saved who are regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Spirit. The reason why God does not apply this grace to all men has not been fully revealed. (Chapter XII, 2, 3) ​

​

Will any one contend that God cannot sincerely offer salvation to a free moral agent unless in addition to the invitation He exerts a special influence which will induce the person to accept it? After a civil war in a country it often happens that the victorious general offers free pardon to all those In the opposing army, provided they will lay down their arms, go home, and live peaceable lives, although he knows that through pride or malice many will refuse. He makes the offer in good faith even though for wise reasons he determines not to constrain their assent, supposing him possessed of such power. . . .​

​

When the Gospel is presented to mankind in general nothing but a sinful unwillingness on the part of some prevents their accepting and enjoying it. No stumbling block is put in their way. All that the call contains is true; it is adapted to the conditions of all men and freely offered if they will repent and believe. No outside influence constrains them to reject it. The elect accept; the non-elect may accept if they will, and nothing but their own nature determines them to do otherwise. "According to the Calvinistic scheme," says Dr. Hodge, "the non-elect have all the advantages and opportunities of securing their salvation, that, according to any other scheme, are granted to mankind indiscriminately. Calvinism teaches that a plan of salvation adapted to all men and adequate for the salvation of all, is freely offered to the acceptance of all, although in the secret purpose of God He intended that it should have precisely the effect which in experience it is found to have. He designed in its adoption to save His own people, but consistently offers its benefits to all who are willing to receive them. More than this no anti-Calvinist can demand." [137--Systematic Theology, II., p. 644.] (Chapter XXI, 2)​

In other words, in the Calvinist scheme, the atonement is infinite in value and sufficient for the sins of all men. It is freely offered to all men. It makes the salvation of all men objectively possible, removing all barriers to their salvation apart from their own unwillingness to receive it. It gives to all men the ability to be saved if they will choose to avail themselves of the opportunity. But only the elect will do so, because only to the elect does God give the gift of a good will. The reprobate are not caused, not coerced, but permitted to reject the real opportunity they have been given and so fail to attain eternal salvation.

The Catholic view is no different, although the Church has taught Catholics to be averse to the language of "limited atonement" because of its natural false connotations (as expressed in the "unsound interpretation" above). So Catholics ought to avoid some of the Calvinist terminology here. Calvinists themselves sometimes complain of the connotations of their own terminology, thus agreeing to some extent with the Catholic Church's concern on this point. Loraine Boettner, for example, in the same book quoted from just above, complains a little about the term "limited atonement":

The meaning might be brought out more clearly if we used the phrase "Limited Redemption" rather than "Limited Atonement." The Atonement is, of course, strictly an infinite transaction; the limitation comes in, theologically, in the application of the benefits of the atonement, that is in redemption. But since the phrase "Limited Atonement" has become well established in theological usage and its meaning is well known we shall continue to use it. (Chapter XII, 1)​

But, apart from questions of terminology and connotations, in my experience what most Calvinists mean by "limited atonement" is consistent with Catholic doctrine on this point. We saw above that God has elected some to eternal salvation and passed by others in his eternal plan. Since he ordains freely all that comes to pass and is not forced or locked into doing anything by anything coming ultimately from outside himself, since he is the First Cause, we must say that he chooses those he will save in a free and unconstrained way. The plan of history flows from him rather than being something forced upon him or something he discovers as involving factors originating ultimately from outside himself, outside his free acts of causing and permitting. Therefore, we must say that if some men are not ultimately saved, it was not God's eternal intention to bring about their salvation. Therefore, Christ's atonement was not intended by God to bring about their eternal salvation, and it does not in fact bring about their eternal salvation. In the words of the Council of Trent (Sixth Session, Chapter III--page number removed), "though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated." This is all that Calvinists typically mean by "limited atonement." Christ died for all men, in that his atonement is sufficient to save all men, in that it provides sufficient opportunity and grace to enable all men to be saved if they will choose to avail themselves of their opportunity, and in that God intended it to provide such objective opportunity to all men and to make possible the free and sincere offer of the gospel to all men; though, in his eternal plan, he predestined that the atonement would only actually end up bringing about the eternal salvation of the elect through the application of divine grace. All this both Catholics and the sounder Calvinists grant, so there is no substantial difference in doctrine upon this point (except in relation to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints--the P in TULIP--which we will discuss further below).

If you have any disagreement with the above, could you clarify what you find wrong?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Okay, I'll post the full excerpt from the link (Catholicism and TULIP) on the subject then, rather than just a portion so you have full context of their argument:

Individuals have their opinions and theories. But such may not be what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[Mark Quayle]

However, I should note that not all Calvinists accept double predestination. Actually, I'm not even sure if most of them do.

In part, the question depends on what one means by 'double predestination'. If one means to imply, by the term alone, that God intended the damnation of some for reason of that damnation alone, or even primarily for that reason, then I would disagree with the term. Usually, I think, those who think that 'double predestination' means that God intended the damnation primarily for that reason alone, also think he chose the damned capriciously. That also I completely disagree with. I don't like the term because of the inferences people make of it. The damnation of the reprobate was not his primary reason for creating them.

One of the philosophical axioms I consider inherent in Calvinism is not so much the negative: That God does nothing capriciously, (or "for no reason", as some haters of Calvinism say it claims), though it is true that God does nothing capriciously; but to the positive: That having caused all things, logically, then, God intended all things.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

In part, the question depends on what one means by 'double predestination'. If one means to imply, by the term alone, that God intended the damnation of some for reason of that damnation alone, or even primarily for that reason, then I would disagree with the term. Usually, I think, those who think that 'double predestination' means that God intended the damnation primarily for that reason alone, also think he chose the damned capriciously. That also I completely disagree with. I don't like the term because of the inferences people make of it. The damnation of the reprobate was not his primary reason for creating them.

One of the philosophical axioms I consider inherent in Calvinism is not so much the negative: That God does nothing capriciously, (or "for no reason", as some haters of Calvinism say it claims), though it is true that God does nothing capriciously; but to the positive: That having caused all things, logically, then, God intended all things.

Double predestination is the belief that God has predestined some individuals to eternal salvation and others to eternal damnation before the foundation of the world.

Scripture passages that some argue contradict this belief include:

• John 3:16, which states that "God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." This passage implies that salvation is available to all who believe in Jesus.
• 2 Peter 3:9, which states that "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." This passage implies that God desires for all people to be saved.
• Romans 2:4, which states that "Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?" This passage implies that God's kindness is extended to all people, not just a select few.

Additionally, passages such as Matthew 22:14, where Jesus says "For many are called, but few are chosen." This is interpreted to mean that God calls all people to salvation, but not all accept it.

It's worth noting that the Bible doesn't give a clear cut answer about predestination and it's open for interpretation. Also, the Bible does not provide a complete systematic theology on the subject of predestination. However, the passages above are some that are often cited as evidence that double predestination is not taught in the Bible.

 

[Clare73]

Double predestination is the belief that God has predestined some individuals to eternal salvation and others to eternal damnation before the foundation of the world.

But since there are only two destinies, is not predestining some, and not all, to salvation (Ro 8:29-30) not thereby also predestining all others to damnation?
How do you avoid it?

Scripture passages that some argue contradict this belief include:

• John 3:16, which states that "God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." This passage implies that salvation is available to all who believe in Jesus.
• 2 Peter 3:9, which states that "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." This passage implies that God desires for all people to be saved.
• Romans 2:4, which states that "Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?" This passage implies that God's kindness is extended to all people, not just a select few.

Additionally, passages such as Matthew 22:14, where Jesus says "For many are called, but few are chosen." This is interpreted to mean that God calls all people to salvation, but not all accept it.

It's worth noting that the Bible doesn't give a clear cut answer about predestination and it's open for interpretation. Also, the Bible does not provide a complete systematic theology on the subject of predestination. However, the passages above are some that are often cited as evidence that double predestination is not taught in the Bible.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

this post got confused so I've emptied it except for this marker comment.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

But is not predestining some, and not all, to salvation not thereby also predestining all others to damnation, since there are only two possible destines?

The Catholic Church teaches that God predestines some individuals to eternal salvation, but not in a way that predestines others to eternal damnation. The Church teaches that God desires all people to be saved and that salvation is available to all through faith in Jesus Christ.

Scripture passages that support this belief include:

• 2 Peter 3:9, which states that "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." This passage implies that God desires for all people to be saved.
• 1 Timothy 2:4, which states that "God our Saviour, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." This passage confirms that God desires all people to be saved.
• Matthew 22:14, which states that "For many are called, but few are chosen." This passage implies that God calls all people to salvation, but not all accept it.
• Romans 8:29-30 which states: "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. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified." This passage implies that God predestines some to salvation, but those predestined are also called, justified and glorified through faith in Jesus Christ.

It's also important to note that predestination is not the only factor in salvation, Free will also plays a role, as stated in Deuteronomy 30:19 "I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live."

In summary, the Catholic Church teaches that God predestines some individuals to eternal salvation, but not in a way that predestines others to eternal damnation. Rather, salvation is available to all through faith in Jesus Christ, and God desires all people to be saved.

 

[jameslouise]

since you're not john calvin his situation is irrelevant to the discussion.

I think Calvinism is very easy to refute, by discovering who 'whom he did foreknow' of Romans 8:29 are?
But I start with one question of Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring .
In whom? when? and how did men exist then and there? I am informed by scholars that the 'poets' were before Jesus' time

 

[Clare73]

The Catholic Church teaches that God predestines some individuals to eternal salvation, but not in a way that predestines others to eternal damnation. The Church teaches that God desires all people to be saved and that salvation is available to all through faith in Jesus Christ.

But that does not address the conundrum it presents.

Scripture passages that support this belief include:

• 2 Peter 3:9, which states that "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." This passage implies that God desires for all people to be saved.
• 1 Timothy 2:4, which states that "God our Saviour, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." This passage confirms that God desires all people to be saved.
• Matthew 22:14, which states that "For many are called, but few are chosen." This passage implies that God calls all people to salvation, but not all accept it.
• Romans 8:29-30 which states: "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. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified." This passage implies that God predestines some to salvation, but those predestined are also called, justified and glorified through faith in Jesus Christ.

It's also important to note that predestination is not the only factor in salvation, Free will also plays a role, as stated in Deuteronomy 30:19 "I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live."

In summary, the Catholic Church teaches that God predestines some individuals to eternal salvation, but not in a way that predestines others to eternal damnation. Rather, salvation is available to all through faith in Jesus Christ, and God desires all people to be saved.

 

[Clare73]

I think Calvinism is very easy to refute, by discovering who 'whom he did foreknow' of Romans 8:29 are?

They are those whom, before the foundations of the world, God (fore)knew (in the sense of intimacy) before he created them, and decreed them to salvation.

But I start with one question of Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring .
In whom? when? and how did men exist then and there? I am informed by scholars that the 'poets' were before Jesus' time

 

[jameslouise]

The Catholic Church teaches that God predestines some individuals to eternal salvation, but not in a way that predestines others to eternal damnation. The Church teaches that God desires all people to be saved and that salvation is available to all through faith in Jesus Christ.

Scripture passages that support this belief include:

• 2 Peter 3:9, which states that "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." This passage implies that God desires for all people to be saved.
• 1 Timothy 2:4, which states that "God our Saviour, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." This passage confirms that God desires all people to be saved.
• Matthew 22:14, which states that "For many are called, but few are chosen." This passage implies that God calls all people to salvation, but not all accept it.
• Romans 8:29-30 which states: "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. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified." This passage implies that God predestines some to salvation, but those predestined are also called, justified and glorified through faith in Jesus Christ.

It's also important to note that predestination is not the only factor in salvation, Free will also plays a role, as stated in Deuteronomy 30:19 "I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live."

In summary, the Catholic Church teaches that God predestines some individuals to eternal salvation, but not in a way that predestines others to eternal damnation. Rather, salvation is available to all through faith in Jesus Christ, and God desires all people to be saved.

I think God pre-destinates everyone to be saved, the default is saved, man has to reject Christ not to be. I like your use of the 1 Tim 2:4 but think that the 'many' of Matt 22:14 does not necessarily mean all or He would have said all?

 

[jameslouise]

They are those whom, before the foundations of the world, God (fore)knew (in the sense of intimacy) before he created them, and decreed them to salvation.

My reading of the text is it specifically says 'have our being' and this does not sound like a prophetic projection to me but more an actual existence?