Quickly...
Thus one can read Trent as saying simply that God does not predestine anyone to damnation in the same sense as he predestines people to salvation. Such an interpretation is consistent with Aquinas/Calvin.
Augustine taught reprobation:
[God] used the very will of the creature which was working in opposition to the Creator’s will as an instrument for carrying out His will, the supremely Good thus turning to good account even what is evil,
to the condemnation of those whom in His justice he has predestined to punishment.
[The human] race we have distributed into two parts, the one consisting of those who live according to man, the other of those who live according to God. And these we also mystically call the two cities, or the two communities of men, of which the
one is predestined to reign eternally with God, and the other to suffer eternal punishment with the devil.
Martin Luther taught reprobation:
"All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned."
John Calvin taught reprobation:
As Scripture, then, clearly shows, we say that God once established by his eternal and unchangeable counsel . . . those whom he had determined once for all to receive into salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, he would devote to destruction. We assert that, with respect to the elect, this counsel was founded upon his freely given mercy, without regard to human worth; but by his just and irreprehensible but incomprhensible judgement [sic] he has barred the door of life to those whom he has given over to damnation. Now among the elect we regard the call as a testimony of election. Then we hold justification another sign of its manifestation, until they come into the glory in which the fulfillment of election lies. But as the Lord seals his elect by call and justification, so, by shutting off the reprobate from knowledge of his name or from the sanctification of his Spirit, he, as it were, reveals by these marks what sort of judgment awaits them. (Richard A. Muller, “Christ And The Decree: Christology And Predestination In Reformed Theology From Calvin To Perkins,†22 quoting John Calvin, Institutio christianae religionis II (Geneva, 1559).
_______________________________________________________
I spent some time mulling over this site.
http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/christianity/predest.html
I'd like to shahe from the site some things that intriuged me.
Lutherans bring some good points to the discussion:
Quote:
"The starting perspective is similar to Calvinism. Due to the fall, we are powerless to do anything related to salvation. It's not enough for God to offer us salvation. He has to work in us even to get to the point where we can listen to the offer."
At this point, I see either acceptance or rejection. If accepted:
Ok, I’ll bit. Rom 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?
Are you suggesting that God gives men faith to call on Him and believe in Him, then they are given the chance to reject Him? What about eternal security? It’s like peeling an onion Vic, one you start messing with the sovereignty of God, it affects all other doctrines. If you idea is true, then everyone that has existed has heard the Gospel of Christ [how shall they hear without a preacher?] and were given the chance to accept or reject the Gospel offer.
Quote:
"He doesn't just forsee their decision, but does what is needed to bring about their salvation. This is done primarily through preaching the Gospel and the sacraments."
If rejected:
If this is one “primarily through the preaching of the Gospel and the sacraments†what is the secondary means?
Quote:
"God only foresees the fate of the rest. There is no negative election. Those who reject the Gospel are responsible for their own fate." "God wants all to be saved. The offer of the Gospel is seriously made to all."
I sincerely believe this.
Logical mistake. If God works activily to bring about the regeneration of some, then logically [and Biblically I contend], He leaves others in there sin. This is the definition of reprobation.
Quote:
"Before justification, we do not have the ability to do anything towards our salvation. Justification is done entirely by God, through his election of us in Christ. However justification renews our will. At this point the possibility exists either to continue in faith or to reject it. That is, it is possible to be justified and then fall away."
I'm not so sure about this, but it is worth examining."
How is one justified without believing? How is one believing without faith?
Quote:
"God does foreknow who of those called will believe, who will persevere, and of those who fall away, who will return. In sum, God knows who will be saved and who will not. However he has not revealed this to us, and we are not free to speculate on it."
Overall it sounds good, but can one return IF they fall away? Can one fall away once sealed in their faith?
Those who are saved will preserve in the faith.
Quote:
"The statement that God wants everyone to be saved seems harder to deal with though. In an Arminian this makes sense. But for Lutherans, people are saved only when God elects them and sets up the means to bring them to faith. So what can it mean to say that God actually wants everyone to be saved? If he wants everyone to be saved, and salvation is entirely up to his election, why isn't everyone saved? The Lutheran answer is clearly: this is part of the God's hidden counsel, so we can have nothing to say."
Aah, the problem with limited atonement. If they accepted that all have the opertunity, but some will refuse, this is rectified. This is where I find the teachings of Wesley and Clarke most enlightening.
Ahhh, the beauty of the atonement! I’ve asked RJS to give an answer to this one via pm. He seems to handle this topic better then I and I don’t want to confuse any issues. As for Wesley, he was semi-Pelagian and almost joined the Eastern Orthodox Church! I’m still learning about Clarke.
With that said, I was a bit surprised to find out some my beliefs about predestination are rooted in what some RCs believe:
It’s possible that Aquinas held to the same position as Calvin, but so far the author has failed to represent John Calvin’s view correctly, so I can’t be sure. Calvin taught he reprobation. The RC’s at the council of Trent declared, “If anyone says that after the sin of Adam man’s free will was lost and destroyed…let him be anathema [accursed].†5th Cannon, 6th session. [That’s a cool fact I found during my Tuesday morning study session that just happen to come in handy.]
As the author of the link I provided said, Calvinisn can be misconstrued for fatalism. I add, if one goes too far with their Calvinistic doctrines, Fatalism is the result and I dispise fatilism. It seems to me that to ovecome fatalism without going backwards, would be to accept a doctrine I despise even more.
Vic, do you know what fatalism is? It’s not your fault, you’re just repeating the same objections others have repeated, so I’m not [yet] offened. [lol] To clear the air, “Predestination teaches that from eternity God has had one unified plan or purpose which He is bringing to perfection through this world order of events. It holds that all of His decrees are rational determinations founded on sufficient reason, and that He has fixed one great goal “toward which the whole creation moves.†Predestination holds that the ends designed in this plan are first, the glory of God; and second, the good of His people. On the other hand Fatalism excludes the idea of final causes. It snatches the reins of universal empire from the hands of infinite wisdom and love, and gives them into the hands of a blind necessity. It attributes the course of nature and the experiences of man-kind to an unknown, irresistible force, against which it is vain to struggle and childish to repine.†Chapter XV - That It Is Fatalism, Reformed Doctrine of Predestination
Ed, I find it interesting that you would embrace this doctrine, considering you accept annihilation; the two beliefs are not quite compatable.
I would say it works either way.
I just want to add one more thing; my faith is based in part on the notion of a personal relationship between myself and my Creator. Relationships require at least two people. HE loves me and loved me first; I love HIS back.
No one has ever been brought into the Kingdom kicking and screaming Vic and no Calvinist would claim otherwise. When we are in our natural state we hate God. We are regenerated and see the beauty of God, the offer of the Gospel, the need for Christ, the sinfulness of the soul, etc., etc. I think you’d make a similar argument to support eternal security. We are saved and continue to be saved because of the reasons I’ve already listed.
The article is well written Vic, but it's not theological but anthropological...and I think it makes reference to this by stating it's trying to view things from man's point of view instead of God's. Theology is God centered, not man centered, the starting points are different. With anthropology you end up with a man centered view of the Bible.
Like J.C. Philpot, "My desire is to exalt the grace of God; to proclaim salvation alone through Jesus Christ; to declare the sinfulness, helplessness and hopelessness of man in a state of nature; to describe the living experience of the children of God in their trials, temptations, sorrows, consolations and blessings." That’s why I post, that’s why I continue to fight the good fight of Faith. I love God as well Vic, because He first loved me…just like He first loved Jacob.
~JM~
I didn't suggest that. did I? Remember, I was one of the ones agruing against the conventional (and faulty, imo) interpretation of Ephesians 2:8. You have the Greek books. Maybe one day we can "sit" down and dissect the grammer and come to it's proper conclusion.
j/k
: