Questions for the Catholics

[GillDouglas]

It is true that ultimately that everyone is put into one of the two categories, but there are also gradations within those categories (just as every real number is either positive or non-positive (to include 0), but within those sets some are further away from 0 and some are closer).

I am trying to express two things (and probably doing it poorly):

1.) Having salvation (as an either-or proposition) tied to some action (either internal or external) does not detract from the glory of God, and is necessary unless one holds to universalism or predestination. Therefore having the sacraments tied to salvation (at least in the ordinary case) does not detract from the glory of God.

2.) Even given that one is saved, it is possible to improve one's holiness and relationship to God. Therefore even when one is in a state of grace the sacraments are productive and desirable.

I realize in retrospect that speaking of salvation in two ways in the same post led to more obfuscation than clarity.

For almost all us, we believe that at our death, "we will either be saved or damned with no gradation" Obviously, I am not including the saints of the Church. So, at any point in our life, salvation (or justification) is indeed an either-or proposition (with jesus making the real choice). I believe that the vast majority of us believe that we are made more and more conformed to Jesus as we act to do his will, sac day of our life. Different traditions have different names for this process. You call it being more holy. Some call it sanctification. Some call it divination. Some call it theosis. Some call the process spiritual growth. And yes, some call the process justification (using the term differently than others).

We believe that the process in which an individual changes from his natural 'dead in sin' state to his spiritually capable state is brought about entirely by the Holy Spirit and absolutely nothing the man has done or will do has contributed or has any bearing on His will to bring about the change in that individual. Why He would choose one over another has not been revealed other than He set aside some for His mercy and others for His wrath. God has lifted the veil and softened the individual's heart to reveal the Truth. From that point forward that individual is aware of his old self, repents to no longer live as a slave to sin and to live for God, realizing the need for Christ. He continues to grow spiritually through the reading of the Bible, being baptized, fellowship, eating the bread and drinking the wine and out of that individual good works will occur through the Holy Spirit, setting them apart. This is a lifelong process we call sanctification and it is a growth to becoming more like Christ, and until we die we are unable to completely rid ourselves of the remnants of our old self within the flesh.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

GillDouglas,

I recommend watching EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network) for learning more about Catholicism. Do you ever watch it?
.

 

[Tallguy88]

GillDouglas,

I recommend watching EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network) for learning more about Catholicism. Do you ever watch it?
.

I watched it a lot before I converted. I don't get that channel anymore

 

[mark46]

We believe that the process in which an individual changes from his natural 'dead in sin' state to his spiritually capable state is brought about entirely by the Holy Spirit and absolutely nothing the man has done or will do has contributed or has any bearing on His will to bring about the change in that individual. Why He would choose one over another has not been revealed other than He set aside some for His mercy and others for His wrath. God has lifted the veil and softened the individual's heart to reveal the Truth. From that point forward that individual is aware of his old self, repents to no longer live as a slave to sin and to live for God, realizing the need for Christ. He continues to grow spiritually through the reading of the Bible, being baptized, fellowship, eating the bread and drinking the wine and out of that individual good works will occur through the Holy Spirit, setting them apart. This is a lifelong process we call sanctification and it is a growth to becoming more like Christ, and until we die we are unable to completely rid ourselves of the remnants of our old self within the flesh.

Do you believe that some are born to hell, and others are born to heaven. As I understand, PCA changed its understanding of this doctrine about 100 years ago.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I watched it a lot before I converted. I don't get that channel anymore

We can watch it through their website (here), and people can also get it for free if they have high speed internet and a Roku box.

See:
EWTN on Roku

 

[GillDouglas]

GillDouglas,

I recommend watching EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network) for learning more about Catholicism. Do you ever watch it?
.

I have not. I don't have regular TV, just internet. We tend to watch Netflix, Hulu, etc.

 

[GillDouglas]

Do you believe that some are born to hell, and others are born to heaven. As I understand, PCA changed its understanding of this doctrine about 100 years ago.

This is one of the most difficult things to discuss. Your forum would definitely not be the place to do so. I will say that if one has a firm understanding of the nature of man, and the nature of God it's hard not to see the truth found in Scriptures regarding salvation. Not that anyone can know all things about Him, but just being able to grasp His limitless power and His authority as the Author and Ruler of this world. If God has sovereignty over all things in eternity, would that also include salvation?

 

[mark46]

This is one of the most difficult things to discuss. Your forum would definitely not be the place to do so. I will say that if one has a firm understanding of the nature of man, and the nature of God it's hard not to see the truth found in Scriptures regarding salvation. Not that anyone can know all things about Him, but just being able to grasp His limitless power and His authority as the Author and Ruler of this world. If God has sovereignty over all things in eternity, would that also include salvation?

Double predestination has been discussed at length over in the "Traditional Theology" sub-board. I agree that it is difficult to discuss here. I asked whether PCUSA (Presbyterian Church of America) still believed in this doctrine as they have done for centuries. As I have indicated, there was a change about 100 years ago, as described below. As I read your comments, you seem to hold to the doctrine of double predestination before you catechism was changed in 1903.

See the response below from hedrick when I asked about this doctrine. While the Catholic Church, the World Lutheran Federation have different views, the differences are not that great, as noted in the Joint Declaration On Justification in 1986. As seen below, the Presbyterian (Reformed) position is also not all that different. However, the doctrine of being born to damnation (double predestination), which was changed in 1903, is considered heretical by Orthodox and Catholics alike.

======================
Historically that was the case. It doesn't seem to be that PCUSA and ELCA think there's a big difference today. In the case of communion I don't think either of us have changed, but we now think that as long as we say that we really partake of Christ's body and blood that's good enough.

In the case of predestination I think the PCUSA has actually changed. This started in the late 19th Cent. In 1903 the Presbyterian church modified the Westminster Confession to disavow limited atonement. Whether the statement disavowed predestination to damnation is a bit unclear, but some might read it that way. One contemporary evaluation said that the revisions showed "God's sovereignty in the bestowal of his grace, and his infinite love for all men." Conservatives have said that they represented a move to Arminianism. The truth is probably that it was a compromise, and that from that time we have tolerated both views on double predestination.

You won't find any confessional statement since 1903 that says God predestines people to damnation. The most complete official doctrinal statement is currently the catechism. Predestination doesn't appear except in a couple of Scriptural quotes, nor election. The closest it comes is this:

"Question 49. Will all human beings be saved?
No one will be lost who can be saved. The limits to salvation, whatever they may be, are known only to God. Three truths above all are certain. God is a holy God who is not to be trifled with. No one will be saved except by grace alone. And no judge could possibly be more gracious than our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ."

I think the current position is that we can be saved only because of God's electing grace, but that we make no statement about how those who reject God fit into God's plan.

I think this is consistent with the current Lutheran position, and with the current understanding of Paul.

 

[GillDouglas]

Double predestination has been discussed at length over in the "Traditional Theology" sub-board. I agree that it is difficult to discuss here. I asked whether PCUSA (Presbyterian Church of America) still believed in this doctrine as they have done for centuries. As I have indicated, there was a change about 100 years ago, as described below. As I read your comments, you seem to hold to the doctrine of double predestination before you catechism was changed in 1903.

See the response below from hedrick when I asked about this doctrine. While the Catholic Church, the World Lutheran Federation have different views, the differences are not that great, as noted in the Joint Declaration On Justification in 1986. As seen below, the Presbyterian (Reformed) position is also not all that different. However, the doctrine of being born to damnation (double predestination), which was changed in 1903, is considered heretical by Orthodox and Catholics alike.

======================
Historically that was the case. It doesn't seem to be that PCUSA and ELCA think there's a big difference today. In the case of communion I don't think either of us have changed, but we now think that as long as we say that we really partake of Christ's body and blood that's good enough.

In the case of predestination I think the PCUSA has actually changed. This started in the late 19th Cent. In 1903 the Presbyterian church modified the Westminster Confession to disavow limited atonement. Whether the statement disavowed predestination to damnation is a bit unclear, but some might read it that way. One contemporary evaluation said that the revisions showed "God's sovereignty in the bestowal of his grace, and his infinite love for all men." Conservatives have said that they represented a move to Arminianism. The truth is probably that it was a compromise, and that from that time we have tolerated both views on double predestination.

You won't find any confessional statement since 1903 that says God predestines people to damnation. The most complete official doctrinal statement is currently the catechism. Predestination doesn't appear except in a couple of Scriptural quotes, nor election. The closest it comes is this:

"Question 49. Will all human beings be saved?
No one will be lost who can be saved. The limits to salvation, whatever they may be, are known only to God. Three truths above all are certain. God is a holy God who is not to be trifled with. No one will be saved except by grace alone. And no judge could possibly be more gracious than our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ."

I think the current position is that we can be saved only because of God's electing grace, but that we make no statement about how those who reject God fit into God's plan.

I think this is consistent with the current Lutheran position, and with the current understanding of Paul.

I can understand your confusion here. I do not and have not attended any PCUSA (Presbyterian Church of the United States of America) churches, so I cannot speak for them. My family and I are currently attending an OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) but we've been attending PCA (Presbyterian Church of America) before this one.

The PCUSA , in my opinion, is an eye-sore for the rest of the Presbyterian denominations. They're extremely liberal and are proud to call themselves progressive. And it is surprising to hear any reformed believer who would stand by limited atonement and not suggest that what's left is the non-elect.

What is the Catholic view, in your opinion, on Limited Atonement? If you believe that some, not all, will be saved what does that mean for the rest?

 

[mark46]

I can understand your confusion here. I do not and have not attended any PCUSA (Presbyterian Church of the United States of America) churches, so I cannot speak for them. My family and I are currently attending an OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) but we've been attending PCA (Presbyterian Church of America) before this one.

The PCUSA , in my opinion, is an eye-sore for the rest of the Presbyterian denominations. They're extremely liberal and are proud to call themselves progressive. And it is surprising to hear any reformed believer who would stand by limited atonement and not suggest that what's left is the non-elect.

What is the Catholic view, in your opinion, on Limited Atonement? If you believe that some, not all, will be saved what does that mean for the rest?

We believe that we have the "ability" to reject God's free gift of faith.

See attached for more regarding the teachings of the Church on the TULIP doctrines of the Reformed churches. This issue is one that separates us more than any other. I believe that this also is true of Lutherans. I know that it is true of Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and Methodists.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TULIP.htm

 

[mark46]

I can understand your confusion here. I do not and have not attended any PCUSA (Presbyterian Church of the United States of America) churches, so I cannot speak for them. My family and I are currently attending an OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) but we've been attending PCA (Presbyterian Church of America) before this one.

The PCUSA , in my opinion, is an eye-sore for the rest of the Presbyterian denominations. They're extremely liberal and are proud to call themselves progressive. And it is surprising to hear any reformed believer who would stand by limited atonement and not suggest that what's left is the non-elect.

What is the Catholic view, in your opinion, on Limited Atonement? If you believe that some, not all, will be saved what does that mean for the rest?

Thank you for clarifying. There are about 15 Presbyterian groups in the US. You can understand why we might think that you were part of the one with 1.8 million members instead of the one with 30,000. I understand that numbers aren't everything. Almost every denomination has its "main" faith community, along with those that have split over various issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Reformed_denominations_in_North_America

And yes, I understand that those who attend churches that have split off have very strong views with regard to the primary church group.

I suspect that many here share your view of PCUSA. Of course, that doesn't mean that we have a favorable view of TULIP, especially regarding Limited Atonement.

 

[GillDouglas]

We believe that we have the "ability" to reject God's free gift of faith.

See attached for more regarding the teachings of the Church on the TULIP doctrines of the Reformed churches. This issue is one that separates us more than any other. I believe that this also is true of Lutherans. I know that it is true of Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and Methodists.

I appreciate the insight and cluing me in on the other denominations who view it similar. It seems that we have a different view of God's sovereignty if a man can resist His grace. Where was the attachment, or link you meant to include? I am hoping to dig more into Catholic's on TULIP doctrines.

 

[mark46]

I appreciate the insight and cluing me in on the other denominations who view it similar. It seems that we have a different view of God's sovereignty if a man can resist His grace. Where was the attachment, or link you meant to include? I am hoping to dig more into Catholic's on TULIP doctrines.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TULIP.htm

BTW, there are many good articles regarding the subject on the internet available through Google. Wiki tends to give good comparisons of several denominations. Of course, Catholic sources are better with nuances of Catholic doctrine.

 

[Erose]

We have and always will be servants/slaves. "For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:20-23

Gal 4: [21] Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, have you not read the law? [22] For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, and the other by a free woman. [23] But he who was of the bondwoman, was born according to the flesh: but he of the free woman, was by promise. [24] Which things are said by an allegory. For these are the two testaments. The one from mount Sina, engendering unto bondage; which is Agar: [25] For Sina is a mountain in Arabia, which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. [26] But that Jerusalem, which is above, is free: which is our mother. [27] For it is written: Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not: break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for many are the children of the desolate, more than of her that hath a husband. [28] Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. [29] But as then he, that was born according to the flesh, persecuted him that was after the spirit; so also it is now. [30] But what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. [31] So then, brethren, we are not the children of the bondwoman, but of the free: by the freedom wherewith Christ has made us free.

Rom 8: [14] For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. [15]For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba (Father).

Gal 4: [1] Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; [2] But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed by the father: [3] So we also, when we were children, were serving under the elements of the world. [4] But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law: [5] That he might redeem them who were under the law: that we might receive the adoption of sons.
[6] And because you are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father. [7] Therefore now he is not a servant, but a son. And if a son, an heir also through God.

 

[GillDouglas]

Double predestination has been discussed at length over in the "Traditional Theology" sub-board. I agree that it is difficult to discuss here. I asked whether PCUSA (Presbyterian Church of America) still believed in this doctrine as they have done for centuries. As I have indicated, there was a change about 100 years ago, as described below. As I read your comments, you seem to hold to the doctrine of double predestination before you catechism was changed in 1903.

See the response below from hedrick when I asked about this doctrine. While the Catholic Church, the World Lutheran Federation have different views, the differences are not that great, as noted in the Joint Declaration On Justification in 1986. As seen below, the Presbyterian (Reformed) position is also not all that different. However, the doctrine of being born to damnation (double predestination), which was changed in 1903, is considered heretical by Orthodox and Catholics alike.

======================
Historically that was the case. It doesn't seem to be that PCUSA and ELCA think there's a big difference today. In the case of communion I don't think either of us have changed, but we now think that as long as we say that we really partake of Christ's body and blood that's good enough.

In the case of predestination I think the PCUSA has actually changed. This started in the late 19th Cent. In 1903 the Presbyterian church modified the Westminster Confession to disavow limited atonement. Whether the statement disavowed predestination to damnation is a bit unclear, but some might read it that way. One contemporary evaluation said that the revisions showed "God's sovereignty in the bestowal of his grace, and his infinite love for all men." Conservatives have said that they represented a move to Arminianism. The truth is probably that it was a compromise, and that from that time we have tolerated both views on double predestination.

You won't find any confessional statement since 1903 that says God predestines people to damnation. The most complete official doctrinal statement is currently the catechism. Predestination doesn't appear except in a couple of Scriptural quotes, nor election. The closest it comes is this:

"Question 49. Will all human beings be saved?
No one will be lost who can be saved. The limits to salvation, whatever they may be, are known only to God. Three truths above all are certain. God is a holy God who is not to be trifled with. No one will be saved except by grace alone. And no judge could possibly be more gracious than our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ."

I think the current position is that we can be saved only because of God's electing grace, but that we make no statement about how those who reject God fit into God's plan.

I think this is consistent with the current Lutheran position, and with the current understanding of Paul.

Ok, having read what James Akin wrote on Unconditional Election, I now clearly understand the meaning behind double predestination. I would agree more with the Catholic view that in electing some to salvation, God simply passes over the others leaving them in their inherited state. I can see why some would say, as I did previously, that if He elects some to salvation by default the remainder would be non-elect and that it could be inferred that God also chose them for that purpose. However, the condition of the non-elect is already condemned and does not require anything additional on God's part.

According to the Westminster confession: "The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His will, whereby He extend or withhold mercy as He please, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to praise of His glorious justice"

 

[GillDouglas]

Gal 4: [21] Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, have you not read the law? [22] For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, and the other by a free woman. [23] But he who was of the bondwoman, was born according to the flesh: but he of the free woman, was by promise. [24] Which things are said by an allegory. For these are the two testaments. The one from mount Sina, engendering unto bondage; which is Agar: [25] For Sina is a mountain in Arabia, which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. [26] But that Jerusalem, which is above, is free: which is our mother. [27] For it is written: Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not: break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for many are the children of the desolate, more than of her that hath a husband. [28] Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. [29] But as then he, that was born according to the flesh, persecuted him that was after the spirit; so also it is now. [30] But what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. [31] So then, brethren, we are not the children of the bondwoman, but of the free: by the freedom wherewith Christ has made us free.

Rom 8: [14] For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. [15]For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba (Father).

Gal 4: [1] Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; [2] But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed by the father: [3] So we also, when we were children, were serving under the elements of the world. [4] But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law: [5] That he might redeem them who were under the law: that we might receive the adoption of sons.
[6] And because you are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father. [7] Therefore now he is not a servant, but a son. And if a son, an heir also through God.

I understand what you're saying, by not saying anything. My point is, for me at least, I was a servant to sin for the first 30 years of my life. I am now a servant of God.

 

[Erose]

I appreciate the insight and cluing me in on the other denominations who view it similar. It seems that we have a different view of God's sovereignty if a man can resist His grace. Where was the attachment, or link you meant to include? I am hoping to dig more into Catholic's on TULIP doctrines.

I would like make a comment about this sentence here. This fallacy by Protestants to believe that God giving us free will is somehow an affront to God's sovereignty, is quite frankly baffling. Let me ask you this question here, how would it be? God has almighty power, and there is nothing that we as creatures can do, to even threaten God. It seems that if what some Protestants say about God's sovereignty is true, then God really isn't very sovereign is He? If I by my free will can threaten God's majesty, how majestic is that majesty for real?

God is sovereign beyond measure, and Him giving us free will to choose to be His child or not, has no bearing on God's majesty. If the whole human race rejects God tomorrow, God is still God and will always be God. The only difference from today and tomorrow is that the whole human race would be condemned, unless they repented.

God does not want automatons or slaves. For what purpose would automatons or slaves have in all reality? God is omniscient. There is nothing that He needs outside Himself for the sake of His Being. If this is true, what function would slaves provide? Do you really think that God is truly arrogant that all He wants is nothing but slaves? No the NT is very explicit in pointing out that God wants children, not slaves. He wants to expand His family, not His slaveforce. We are not called to be slaves, but children.

 

[mark46]

OK, so that we're clear, I'll state the double predestination view is stark terms.

Some are born and will be saved.
Some are born and will be damned.

Nothing, no action, no acceptance, no agreement, nothing can change the fate of those that are born to be saved or born to be damned.

 

[Erose]

I understand what you're saying, by not saying anything. My point is, for me at least, I was a servant to sin for the first 30 years of my life. I am now a servant of God.

Here is a good phrase to put it in perspective: We should strive constantly to be a servant of God, while He strives constantly to make us His child.