Predestination v Free Will

[zippy2006]

Zippy, direct me to your translation of Trent. I'd swear King James had a hand in all the ones I've found-if I didn't know better.

Ha, I could see that. I was just using Session VI from EWTN's website.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

No, not at all. Note that nothing in your quote from Trent says or implies that works are sufficient to obtain eternal life.

Now look at the first canon regarding justification:

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.​

Yes, and we both know that our definitions of key words is the issue. Your "grace" is no grace at all. Paul covers that well in the book of Galatians.

 

[zippy2006]

Yes, and we both know that our definitions of key words is the issue. Your "grace" is no grace at all. Paul covers that well in the book of Galatians.

I have no idea what you are talking about. The basic definition of grace is not an issue in the Reformation. In the future, I suggest gaining some modicum of information about a religion before opining on it.

 

[Albion]

And where does it say, "Works are sufficient to obtain eternal life"? It doesn't say that anywhere.

There are quite a few Christians who think that way, though.

As was mentioned a little while ago (on whatever thread it was I can't remember), a recent survey showed that only 9% of American Catholics believe that a person who lives right but never had a chance to hear the Gospel would be denied salvation. Several of the most recent Popes have said that a pagan who never heard of Jesus would be saved if he conscientiously followed the dictates of whatever his religion might happen to be. That's on the assumption that the sacrifice of Christ covers such people even if they don't know it.

 

[zippy2006]

There are quite a few Christians who think that way, though.

As was mentioned a little while ago (on whatever thread it was I can't remember), a recent survey showed that only 9% of American Catholics believe that a person who lives right but never had a chance to hear the Gospel would be denied salvation. Several of the most recent Popes have said that a pagan who never heard of Jesus would be saved if he conscientiously followed the dictates of whatever his religion might happen to be.

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. (Lumen Gentium 16)
​

To deny this is to affirm the Reformed principle that God metes out eternal punishment for failure to do the impossible.

...would be saved if he conscientiously followed the dictates of whatever his religion might happen to be.

Conscience, not religion.

That's on the assumption that the sacrifice of Christ covers such people even if they don't know it.

True enough. It is a special case.

 

[Albion]

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. (Lumen Gentium 16)
​

To deny this is to affirm the Reformed principle that God metes out eternal punishment for failure to do the impossible.

Swell, but it remains true that many Christians DO believe that living a "good life" will be rewarded by God with salvation, all the rest of the doctrinal fine points aside.

 

[zippy2006]

Swell, but it remains true that many Christians DO believe that living a "good life" will be rewarded by God with salvation, all the rest of the doctrinal fine points aside.

Suppose some Catholics are subject to the anathema of the canon referenced here (which your survey incidentally does not demonstrate). There probably are some. But all creeds, times, and places have heretics. That is why the distinction between material and formal heresy is important. It remains a false misrepresentation to claim that Catholicism holds that works are sufficient to obtain eternal life.

 

[Albion]

Suppose some Catholics are subject to the anathema of the canon referenced here (which your survey incidentally does not demonstrate). There probably are some. But all creeds, times, and places have heretics. That is why the distinction between material and formal heresy is important. It remains a false misrepresentation to claim that Catholicism holds that works are sufficient to obtain eternal life.

All I said is that it IS a commonly-held belief among Christians and cited several pieces of evidence relating to it.

 

[John3and30]

SIAP:

I always love a good Calvinism/Arminianism discussion.

To me, it always comes back to the fact that we don't really have autonomous free will when it comes to salvation.

What I mean is, we don't choose where we are born, who are parents are, what scripture we hear preached to us, etc etc. Furthermore, we don't really choose how our thoughts function (in an ultimate sense, certainly we control some).

So, it always comes back to, from my perspective, it MUST be God's choosing in the ultimate sense.

That is NOT at all to deny any notion of free will...I'm choosing to write this message...but I just don't see how it's possible soteriologically.

In addition (and most importantly), I believe scripture is relatively clear.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Then do not dishonestly deny the necessity that Calvin so plainly affirms.

God causes everything and of necessity, that is, in accordance with his providence. (John Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, 1996, pg. 253)

Everything that happens, happens of necessity, as God has ordained. (ibid. 258)​

There is no need to deny what Calvin said just to affirm free will.

So called Calvinism affirms very clearly that predestination in no way denies free will.

God uses the will of the creature to bring to past what He has predestined to occur.

 

[bling]

SIAP:

I always love a good Calvinism/Arminianism discussion.

To me, it always comes back to the fact that we don't really have autonomous free will when it comes to salvation.

What I mean is, we don't choose where we are born, who are parents are, what scripture we hear preached to us, etc etc. Furthermore, we don't really choose how our thoughts function (in an ultimate sense, certainly we control some).

So, it always comes back to, from my perspective, it MUST be God's choosing in the ultimate sense.

That is NOT at all to deny any notion of free will...I'm choosing to write this message...but I just don't see how it's possible soteriologically.

In addition (and most importantly), I believe scripture is relatively clear.

God’s Love would compel God to predestine/foreordain most everything in each mature adult’s life, so that individual would have a fair/just autonomous free will choice to accept or reject God’s invitation to the banquet (God’s pure charity). Just because some are born, rich, poor, slaves, man, woman, Jew, gentile and so on: really makes no difference when it come to the only autonomous free will choice each mature adult must make: Accepting or Rejecting God’s charity (help/grace/mercy/Love/forgiveness).

The poor hurting mature adult in the jungle can see a benevolent Creator in nature and humbly turn to God to relieve the burden on his conscience for his personal past actions that have hurt others, so would God be willing and wanting to help him or wish him to go to hell?

The choices it not some noble decision to follow or not follow God or heaven or hell, but the choice to wimp out, give up and surrender to your enemy (God) or hang in there, be macho, take the punishment you fully deserve, pay the piper, pursue the perceived pleasures of sin and continue to be a good soldier of satan.

 

[Marvin Knox]

If God is responsible for the way every human being acts and man has no free will whatsoever as Calvinism dictates, then yes, God is responsible for evil. For it is his will that man act in such a way

Calvinism does not teach that man has no free will. Where on earth did you get such an idea?

 

[zippy2006]

There is no need to deny what Calvin said just to affirm free will.

But there is a need to deny what Calvin said to deny determinism. And if you read my post you will see that.

So called Calvinism affirms very clearly that predestination in no way denies free will.

As I already pointed out, Calvinism clearly violates the colloquial definition of free will. Of course you can redefine free will so that it is compatible with necessity, but to do so is just a specious use of language.

 

[Marvin Knox]

But there is a need to deny what Calvin said to deny determinism. And if you read my post you will see that.
As I already pointed out, Calvinism clearly violates the colloquial definition of free will. Of course you can redefine free will so that it is compatible with necessity, but to do so is just a specious use of language.

Not "specious" at all.

Calvinism clearly affirms that God uses means to bring about what He has predestined to occur. In the case we are discussing - those means include the free choices of men.

 

[zippy2006]

Not "specious" at all.

Calvinism clearly affirms that God uses means to bring about what He has predestined to occur. In the case we are discussing - those means include the free choices of men.

Necessity determined by nature + inclinations is not freedom. Sorry.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Necessity determined by nature + inclinations is not freedom. Sorry.

Of course it is.

All of creation has nature and inclinations. If that means to you that the creation does not have freedom - then you are the one denying free will not the Calvinists.

Calvinists (in the Westminster Confession of Faith for instance) affirm the will of the creature most emphatically in several places.

 

[zippy2006]

Of course it is.

All of creation has nature and inclinations. If that means to you that the creation does not have freedom - then you are the one denying free will not the Calvinists.

Inclinations don't void free will, necessity does. For the Calvinist, each human act is necessitated by one's nature and inclinations.

Calvinists (in the Westminster Confession of Faith for instance) affirm the will of the creature most emphatically in several places.

What is the point of my post here? The point is that the Calvinist believes in necessity, they believe that no human could have acted differently than they did in fact act. And if we couldn't have acted differently, we didn't have free will.

Futher, take the definition of free will:

Free Will: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention.​

The Calvinist is explicit that choices are determined by prior causes, namely one's nature and inclinations. Ergo there is no free will.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Inclinations don't void free will, necessity does. For the Calvinist, each human act is necessitated by one's nature and inclinations.

The nature of the creature (and the inclinations which necessarily accompany a particular nature) necessitates inclinations. Those inclinations play out in choices made out of the will of the creature.

That is true for God just as it for the creature.

What is the point of my post here? The point is that the Calvinist believes in necessity, they believe that no human could have acted differently than they did in fact act. And if we couldn't have acted differently, we didn't have free will.

Calvinists do not believe that we couldn't act differently in every particular instance.

They simply believe what the scriptures teach. The scriptures teach that every natural man's inclination is against seeking and understanding God.

What is necessary is an intervention (by grace) which will change that nature and the inclinations which accompany that nature.

Futher, take the definition of free will: Free Will: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention.

Assuming that that definition of free will matches that of God - prior causes which incline one toward wrong choices are the fault of the creature. Whereas divine intervention is the grace of God which incline one toward coming to Christ.

The Calvinist is explicit that choices are determined by prior causes, namely one's nature and inclinations. Ergo there is no free will.

Calvinism is indeed explicit in saying that one's inclinations are due to a prior cause. That cause in sin. The result of that sin is being justly cursed by God.

Within the frame work of our cursed and fallen nature we have the choice to do good or bad. Some choices made by fallen man are good and some are bad.

Regarding seeking after God - the scriptures are clear that no natural man does that of his own accord and apart from the grace of God.

By grace we have been saved through faith - and that not of ourselves, lest any man should boast. It is the gift of God.

 

[sdowney717]

God’s Love would compel God to predestine/foreordain most everything in each mature adult’s life, so that individual would have a fair/just autonomous free will choice to accept or reject God’s invitation to the banquet (God’s pure charity). Just because some are born, rich, poor, slaves, man, woman, Jew, gentile and so on: really makes no difference when it come to the only autonomous free will choice each mature adult must make: Accepting or Rejecting God’s charity (help/grace/mercy/Love/forgiveness).

The poor hurting mature adult in the jungle can see a benevolent Creator in nature and humbly turn to God to relieve the burden on his conscience for his personal past actions that have hurt others, so would God be willing and wanting to help him or wish him to go to hell?

The choices it not some noble decision to follow or not follow God or heaven or hell, but the choice to wimp out, give up and surrender to your enemy (God) or hang in there, be macho, take the punishment you fully deserve, pay the piper, pursue the perceived pleasures of sin and continue to be a good soldier of satan.

Turn to God in the jungle when they are not going to be hearing anything about Christ?
Again Bling, your in opposition to God's words.
The natural observable revelation of God's power in creation in Romans 1, God says is a judgement against the natural mind of man, who refuse to acknowledge Him in creation. Fact is if you do not know Christ or rather Christ does not know you, you do not know God. The noble jungle guy will have no faith in Christ whom God sent. The gospel actually demonstrates predestination in its effectual working, because God arranges some to hear, and others do not hear anything..because they were not sent there.

Romans 10
14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:

“How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!”

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

 

[sdowney717]

Acts 16:6
[ The Macedonian Call ] Now when they had gone through Phrygia and the region of Galatia, they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia.

Acts 16:7
After they had come to Mysia, they tried to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit did not permit them.
8 So passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas.
Acts 16:9
And a vision appeared to Paul in the night. A man of Macedonia stood and pleaded with him, saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.”

Acts 16:10
Now after he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go to Macedonia, concluding that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel to them.