toldailytopic: Are some people born predestined to go to hell?

[Traditio]

You missed the point. I said they're not comparatively more or less for the difference in time's affect.

In that the passage of time is the same? 1 hour is 1 hour? That much seems to be true, notwithstanding Einstein.

But then, I don't think I disagreed here. My only point is that everything in time is an admixture of act and potency. And this is pretty trivially contained in the notion of time: "Now and then." Again, "before and after." Time moves from the actually now to the potentially then, making the potentially then actually now.

But God is actus purus.

It's lovely, poetic and interesting.

Pretty much everything in Plato is. Even when he happens to be wrong.

I think you're ducking me twice Trad. There's nothing complicated in my question.

Alright, then let me read carefully:

You said God permits some, that is he doesn't interfere. Can those he permits still move to him, make any choice that doesn't lead to ruin. Because if they cannot then God might as well toss them actively into hell for all he difference.

I'll deal with the bolded first: The question comes to this: can we do anything good, anything which leads to our salvation, apart from the grace of God? I'm inclined to say "no."*

For remember: "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy" (Romans 9:16).

Again:

"No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day" (John 6:44).

If we were to say "yes," then we would be forced to admit that there could be some good apart from the causal power of God. Again, we would have to say that it indeed is of him that willeth and him that runneth, and not of God that showeth mercy.

But for all that, the non-bolded does not follow. It is one thing to permit. It is another thing to will directly. Yes, apart from the grace of God, a soul almost assuredly is going to be damned. But this is not the say that God, by withholding these graces, is the cause of that soul's damnation. It is the soul himself who is responsible for his own sins.

To which you may be inclined to ask why should God show mercy to one, but not the other? Grant graces to one, but not the other? Leave one to his own sins, but amend the life of the other? To which St. Paul answers:

"Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? [Romans 9:21] [Latin] [22] What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction, [23] That he might shew the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he hath prepared unto glory" (Romans 9:21-23).


*But if I am in error, I do hope that my fellow Catholics with correct me with the authority of the Holy Church.

I don't know why it isn't simply a matter of God giving men both the ability to choose and an understanding of the good.

Because the actual choice itself is a good. The ability to choose is good. The understanding of the good itself is good. But something more is required: the actual willing to choose it. And that itself is a good which must come from God.

If that helps you I count it a good. Else, no but God bless you.

"Heretics, all of whom are children of the devil and who clearly bear the sign of God's reprobation, have a horror of the Hail Mary. They still say the Our Father, but never the Hail Mary; they would rather carry a poisonous snake about them than a rosary.

Among Catholics, those who bear the mark of God's reprobation think but little of the Rosary. They either neglect to say it or only say it quickly and in a lukewarm manner.

Even if I did not believe what was revealed to Blessed Alan de la Roche, even then my own experience would be enough to convince me of this terrible but consoling truth. I do not know, nor do I see clearly, how it can be that a devotion which seems to be so small can be the infallible sign of eternal salvation, and how its absence can be the sign of God's eternal displeasure; nevertheless, nothing could be more true" (St. Louis Marie de Montfort, Secret of the Rosary, 17th rose).

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

This is a good point, we should be charitable in our disagreement with others but, have you forgotten your early posts on this forum - just sayin!

I admit I've succumbed to name calling out of frustration but this is the first site I was ever called names on, you were one of the first to do it, you weren't averaging 600 posts a day for nothing, sorry for the slight exaggeration - 599

GM is glad to see that he has a fan who keeps track of his postings!!

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Limbo- For those who die in original sin, but have no mortal sin on their slate. This place if for the humanitarian non-Christian and the like.

Purgatory- You happen to be Catholic, and you happen to have a load of venial sins which you never made mention of to your priest. This is where you pay for them, and is temporary.

Hell- Place of permanent damnation.

These places are an exaction of sin. What do you make of them- five star resorts?

Sin is sin! There's no stopping off place. One is either saved or not.
No one will end up in the "Lake of fire" because of their sin! If one chooses not to place his faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior, they will be thrown into the lake of fire because their name was not written in the "Lambs book of life."

 

[Town Heretic]

In that the passage of time is the same? 1 hour is 1 hour? That much seems to be true, notwithstanding Einstein.

A bit like the old joke, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

But then, I don't think I disagreed here. My only point is that everything in time is an admixture of act and potency. And this is pretty trivially contained in the notion of time: "Now and then." Again, "before and after." Time moves from the actually now to the potentially then, making the potentially then actually now.

But God is actus purus.

You know, back when I was an atheist considering religious ideas it occurred to me that if God were omnipresent and omniscient He would only be discernible from the nothing I presumed, observing, when He acted.

As for time, I suspect we will some day in the not too distant find the not too distant is an illusion and the arrow our grasping the tail of an elephant.

Pretty much everything in Plato is. Even when he happens to be wrong.

Now you're reading my mind. :chuckle:

I wrote: You said God permits some, that is he doesn't interfere. Can those he permits still move to him, make any choice that doesn't lead to ruin. Because if they cannot then God might as well toss them actively into hell for all he difference.

I'll deal with the bolded first: The question comes to this: can we do anything good, anything which leads to our salvation, apart from the grace of God? I'm inclined to say "no."*

Then: ...God might as well toss them actively into hell for all he difference. We differ.

For remember: "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy" (Romans 9:16).

I think you're reading something more into that. It is God's pardon that affects salvation, certainly.

"No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day" (John 6:44).

I agree, of course, but not with your narrowing of that call or the impossibility of resistance.

If we were to say "yes," then we would be forced to admit that there could be some good apart from the causal power of God.

I think we must distinguish between the good and choice to do that which is good. I can name atheists who went to their graves having accomplished discernible good. Unless by good we mean the expressed will of God or, more to the point, act to affect a thing in order to do our Father's will and accomplish His purpose. So I might feed the poor from my own motivation and man will call it good, but if I do not feed the poor to fulfill the will of my Father, to serve His good then it is a vanity, whatever it affects.

That's my reading at any rate.

But for all that, the non-bolded does not follow.

It absolutely does. If you can do nothing to approach the good save God act upon you and God does not act then He has determined your fate as thoroughly as had He acted to damn you. Of course I don't hold to the premise that allows it, but if you do...there it is.

Yes, apart from the grace of God, a soul almost assuredly is going to be damned.

You're still hedging. "...almost assuredly" is not assuredly. Answer the question. Find the context. I think I have. If you differ you're going to have to do it directly and on the point.

...It is the soul himself who is responsible for his own sins.

Only if he's free to make another choice.

To which you may be inclined to ask why should God show mercy to one, but not the other?

No, because I don't really believe that He does.

I wrote: I don't know why it isn't simply a matter of God giving men both the ability to choose and an understanding of the good.

Because the actual choice itself is a good.

I disagree. It is a desire for and an invitation to the good. It is a declaration of transfer of ownership. There is no merit in it, only faith, hope and submission.

The ability to choose is good.

Hitler had the ability to choose. Ted Bundy, whoever wrote the last episode of Seinfeld. But just look what they did with it. Now the good will no more bring forth evil than ASCon will bring forth reason.

On the necessity of the Rosary, I wrote: If that helps you I count it a good. Else, no but God bless you.

"Heretics, all of whom are children of the devil and who clearly bear the sign of God's reprobation, have a horror of the Hail Mary.

Seriously, you might as well stop that sort of thing with me. I'm not interested in someone who agrees with you attempting to name call under the flag of God's authority. When you do this you resemble the very people who will tell you that as a Catholic you are not of the Body. At any rate, I haven't evidenced nor held an attitude remotely like the one described in your quote or I'd hardly call it a good for you.

:e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I agree after a fashion, in that I don't see hell so much as punishment as I do an inevitable perfection of a will set contrary to the good. That is, I believe hell is a separation from both the good and the influence of the good. And a being so cut off wouldn't suffer, it would be suffering, void of the desire to be otherwise, just as I believe those who desire to be filled with the good will find their will perfected in that service.

Except most people I would wager are a mixture of the two. As humans we're flawed, a mixture of virtue and vice, weakness and strength, some more to one end of the spectrum than the other perhaps but most I would venture value the attributes of love and that which comes attached. Life is not some black and white playing field where all believers desire the good and all else desire the opposite or some other spin on the same. Your argument would make more sense if applied to those who consciously desire nothing associated with morality, love, virtue. Lacking belief isn't equitable to that.

 

[Town Heretic]

Except most people I would wager are a mixture of the two.

A man can serve one master. I think there's the desire of our service and our failures in particular, which require grace.

Life is not some black and white playing field where all believers desire the good and all else desire the opposite or some other spin on the same.

If you love God you desire His pleasure and take pleasure in that which pleases Him. I'm not suggesting we don't fail and fail willfully. When I swear or lose my temper, infrequent as that might be, it isn't an accident, but it also isn't a declaration of a change in my intent, only an illustration of why I require that grace and a reminder to be grateful for the unmerited wonder of it.

Your argument would make more sense if applied to those who consciously desire nothing associated with morality, love, virtue. Lacking belief isn't equitable to that.

Well, this is where a longer argument on whether or not God draws all men to Him, gives them the time and place to meet Him and choose their part. I hold that as God is good He does. It's also the point where we should distinguish between the good, which is that which pleases and serves God, and the things we do in the name of a good that, absent His foundation, is not.

 

[Arthur Brain]

A man can serve one master. I think there's the desire of our service and our failures in particular, which require grace.

So it's not so much our failures or virtues but simply a matter of belief? People who don't believe aren't necessarily willingly rejecting the good.

If you love God you desire His pleasure and take pleasure in that which pleases Him. I'm not suggesting we don't fail and fail willfully. When I swear or lose my temper, infrequent as that might be, it isn't an accident, but it also isn't a declaration of a change in my intent, only an illustration of why I require that grace and a reminder to be grateful for the unmerited wonder of it.

What of those who simply find difficulty believing or struggle with doubt but hold to moral values? I'm not arguing that people of any stripe fail or act wilfully in regards to the contrary but why would that equate to a 'perfection' of their will to be stripped of everything good, if that's what you're saying?

Well, this is where a longer argument on whether or not God draws all men to Him, gives them the time and place to meet Him and choose their part. I hold that as God is good He does.

Well if people are given a blatant choice in the matter at some point with no room for doubt then fair enough.

 

[Town Heretic]

So it's not so much our failures or virtues but simply a matter of belief?

No, it's mostly a matter of ownership.

People who don't believe aren't necessarily willingly rejecting the good.

Depends, again, on what you call the good. And God isn't hidden from any who seek Him. It wasn't God's fault that I lived as an atheist for nearly thirty years. But, again, I don't presume that any man meets God in ignorance of the question or in want of the opportunity. It begs a laxity of purpose on the part of the faithful who can then say, "Oh, well, there's always invincible ignorance."

What of those who simply find difficulty believing or struggle with doubt but hold to moral values?

I don't understand the "difficulty" of faith. Life is a struggle. Trust isn't. It's a decision. And, apart from God, what do you mean by moral values? What can you mean?

I'm not arguing that people of any stripe fail or act wilfully in regards to the contrary but why would that equate to a 'perfection' of their will to be stripped of everything good, if that's what you're saying?

If you choose other than the good then your will is aimed at that end. A perfection of that end is hell, just as a perfection of the desire to serve God is heaven and I believe both to refer as much to our natures and understanding as to any locality.

Well if people are given a blatant choice in the matter at some point with no room for doubt then fair enough.

But we are given a choice. Blatant sounds like beauty. Either God is just or He isn't (either).

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, it's mostly a matter of ownership.

Plenty people in my experience find it easier to give themselves harder times for their mistakes than acknowledging their good points. 'Ownership' is a two way street.

Depends, again, on what you call the good. And God isn't hidden from any who seek Him. It wasn't God's fault that I lived as an atheist for nearly thirty years. But, again, I don't presume that any man meets God in ignorance of the question or in want of the opportunity. It begs a laxity of purpose on the part of the faithful who can then say, "Oh, well, there's always invincible ignorance."

Well, anything born from love and the selfless would be good wouldn't you say? While an atheist, were you wilfully contemptuous of virtue or altruism? Something tells me you weren't. So would your will have been 'perfected' as one to become the condition you espouse for others had you died with unbelief? You had a powerful conversion experience as you've testified to. It doesn't seem as though everyone else is 'knocked off their horse' so to speak.

I don't understand the "difficulty" of faith. Life is a struggle. Trust isn't. It's a decision. And, apart from God, what do you mean by moral values? What can you mean?

Ok, so you don't understand the difficulty of faith. Ironically it can be a difficulty for others I would venture because life can be such a struggle. Where it comes to moral values then did you not hold to such while an atheist? Or were the only conscious acts you did through will were those that were immoral? If so then any 'good' you did might as well have come from a robot if it wasn't through your own volition.

If you choose other than the good then your will is aimed at that end. A perfection of that end is hell, just as a perfection of the desire to serve God is heaven and I believe both to refer as much to our natures and understanding as to any locality.

Well you, along with everyone else, believer or otherwise, choose other than the good on a daily basis at some point(s). So if your fate rests upon that you describe then everyone is "aimed" at the "perfection" of that end, including yourself at that point.. Does the atheist who lays his/her life down for his/her friends have their will perfected to 'become suffering' TH?

But we are given a choice. Blatant sounds like beauty. Either God is just or He isn't (either).

Well how much of a 'choice' did you have after your experience? How much did Saul have after not only being blinded but given instructions as to where to go next and to physically have the scales removed from his eyes? Not much room for a hallucination or aneurysm argument there so pretty blatant I would say. If everyone were afforded the same or similar than 'choosing' a fate would make sense yet folk still have insecurities, doubts and not everyone undergoes that or even similar to that which you experienced I would venture.

 

[Traditio]

Then: ...God might as well toss them actively into hell for all he difference. We differ.

It's the difference between God being the cause of moral evil and God not being the cause of moral evil. Strictly speaking, we must say that He wills every good act, every good movement of the will towards Him. He is the cause of all finite goods. If we observe anything good in us, even in our acts of the will, we rightly must ascribe it to the Creator (and praise Him), not to ourselves alone.

But whenever we observe moral evil, we must ascribe it to ourselves, not to God, who is the Supreme Good and cannot possibly be the cause of moral evil.

I think you're reading something more into that. It is God's pardon that affects salvation, certainly.

The passage says much, much more than that:

"For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand,) [12] Not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said to her: The elder shall serve the younger" (Romans 9:11-12).

I agree, of course, but not with your narrowing of that call or the impossibility of resistance.

In the same work I cited from St. Augustine earlier, as I recall, he says that God extends the call to everyone. But the call "goes out" only in such a way that some will answer it. Consider Matthew 20:16.

In any case, it occurs to me that this dichotomy of "resistable" or "forced" might be a bad dichotomy when we're talking about a God who is an agent in the mode of being a giver of esse (the act of being or existing).

I think we must distinguish between the good and choice to do that which is good.

The choice itself is praiseworthy; therefore, good.

I can name atheists who went to their graves having accomplished discernible good. Unless by good we mean the expressed will of God or, more to the point, act to affect a thing in order to do our Father's will and accomplish His purpose. So I might feed the poor from my own motivation and man will call it good, but if I do not feed the poor to fulfill the will of my Father, to serve His good then it is a vanity, whatever it affects.

That's my reading at any rate.

All good things, insofar as they are good, come from God. Of course, there is a defect in the atheist, and this does not come from God. But whatever good they do it is assuredly from God.

It absolutely does. If you can do nothing to approach the good save God act upon you and God does not act then He has determined your fate as thoroughly as had He acted to damn you. Of course I don't hold to the premise that allows it, but if you do...there it is.

Again, it's the difference between permitting and willing. Between being the cause of moral evil and not being the cause of moral evil. Between God making someone worse and God failing to make someone better.

When we're talking about the very Analogon of Goodness Itself, we have to be clear on our terms.

You're still hedging. "...almost assuredly" is not assuredly. Answer the question. Find the context. I think I have. If you differ you're going to have to do it directly and on the point.

I was hesitant. That said, I've had a couple of other Catholics review my post, and I am quite comfortable in saying this: except for the grace and mercy of God, it is impossible to saved. Unless God extend special graces to save a sinner, that sinner cannot be saved.

Only if he's free to make another choice.

And he was. He committed adultery. But he just as easily might not have!

Seriously, you might as well stop that sort of thing with me. I'm not interested in someone who agrees with you attempting to name call under the flag of God's authority. When you do this you resemble the very people who will tell you that as a Catholic you are not of the Body. At any rate, I haven't evidenced nor held an attitude remotely like the one described in your quote or I'd hardly call it a good for you.

In St. Montfort's book, he often brings up the point that preaching [and, presumably, we may infer, argument], even when this preaching was the preaching of a great saint like St. Dominic, is often bound to fail.

In order to come to a sure knowledge of the truth, book learning is not enough. Debates are not enough. What is necessary is prayer, and above all, the Most Holy Rosary.

You may not want to pray it. But I feel something of an obligation, for the sake of any others who might be reading, to point this out: if the debate is on reprobation vs. election, then what is the practical side of it? Presumably, you don't want to be one of the reprobate. You want to be one of the elect.

But devotion to the Rosary is a very great sign of predestination. Failure to be devoted to it is a very great sign of reprobation.

Of course, this may fail to convince you. You may not be interested. But I really do urge everyone who may be reading to take up the devotion. Where human reason, debates and arguments fail, the Most Holy Rosary will supply for all of these defects. If you perservere in asking God, through the intercession of His Most Holy Mother, for a share in the Divine Wisdom, sooner or later, He most certainly will grant it.

Again: suppose that I could convince you that I am right about what I am saying? Who cares? That won't help you, will it? But if I can convince even one person to start praying the Rosary, that...that, I say, would make all the difference in the world for that soul. It would be a wellspring of life which would far exceed any influence my feeble arguments might have.

 

[kmoney]

Trad, I'm not sure I see much of a difference between what you are saying here and Calvinism. What distinction would you say there is?

 

[Traditio]

Trad, I'm not sure I see much of a difference between what you are saying here and Calvinism. What distinction would you say there is?

Calvinists: God wills that some people go to Hell.

My position: It is not the case that God wills for anyone to go to Hell.

 

[kmoney]

Calvinists: God wills that some people go to Hell.

My position: It is not the case that God wills for anyone to go to Hell.

Are you describing Calvinism as double-predestination? If so, there are many Catholics that don't believe that. As AMR pointed out in this thread. And it isn't that belief that I thought you were putting forth in this thread. It is single predestination Calvinism that I think is indistinguishable from what you are proposing here.

You say it isn't God's will that anyone go to hell, and yet you seem to be saying that God doesn't grant the grace to all people to actually be saved.

 

[kmoney]

Yes, I would agree that Calvinism tends to place sovereignty above love. However, I don't think we can avoid the idea of predestination in scripture, and you seem to agree with this. So, how do we understand it? Perhaps, if we are honest, we must accept a bit of mystery and paradox.

No, I also don't think one can avoid any concept of predestination. And I don't mean to reject it completely. What I am rejecting is the idea that God elects some to salvation while leaving the rest locked in depravity with no hope. That is not a god of love.

What is the nature of the predestination? :idunno: As you say, there will be an element of mystery.

 

[Traditio]

Are you describing Calvinism as double-predestination?

Yes. As a matter of fact, single predestination (that God predestines the elect) has been approved and infallibly taught as true by at least one of the councils of the Church. Double-predestination (that God predestines the reprobate) has been condemned.

If so, there are many Catholics that don't believe that. As AMR pointed out in this thread. And it isn't that belief that I thought you were putting forth in this thread. It is single predestination Calvinism that I think is indistinguishable from what you are proposing here.

Single Predestination What?

You say it isn't God's will that anyone go to hell, and yet you seem to be saying that God doesn't grant the grace to all people to actually be saved.

If God granted the grace to all people actually to be saved, then all people would be saved.

 

[kmoney]

This is very important. If God is a Father who loves and protects His children, then the enemies of His children will necessarily suffer His wrath.

That's fine. I'm not arguing for universalism. Only that all have a shot at it.

I think that this is an aspect of Romans 9, for example:
"What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?"

Yes, that's a tough part of Romans 9. God showing his power through, or by using, people is one thing. God forming people into objects of wrath is the hard part to consider.

You maybe assuming that we can love God on our own, or would chose Him if left to our own devices--I don't think that is true. Arminianism holds that God calls everyone, and that only some respond (and He knows who will)--thus they are the elect. Yet, we forced to contend with the idea that God has not called some. However, I would think that those whom He has hardened were few and for a specific purpose. Not all those who reject God do so outside of His mercy--but by their own freewill.

And if there was only a single person that God hardened and they had no shot at redemption or escaping hell, do you think that does anything to God's justice? Love? :idunno:

 

[kmoney]

Yes. As a matter of fact, single predestination (that God predestines the elect) has been approved and infallibly taught as true by at least one of the councils of the Church. Double-predestination (that God predestines the reprobate) has been condemned.

That's well and good. But Calvinism isn't necessarily double-predestination.

Single Predestination What?

The first paragraph in that article basically says what you've been saying here.

If God granted the grace to all people actually to be saved, then all people would be saved.

Not if people can reject God's call. If you reject that then that's another point on which you are in agreement with Calvinists. Irresistible grace.

Soon you'll be a full TULIP. lain:

 

[Traditio]

Here's a link to the Catholic encylopedia. If anyone finds anything in it which runs contrary to my own stated position(s), please let me know. I would be thankful.

 

[Zeke]

Amen!

Of coarse there are many scriptures that show it's God who puts the will into the man to come. John 1:12-13 for one tells us it not the will of any man but Gods will that one is able to recieve the words of the spirit, the literal letter kills (the christian religion takes it literaly and kills the spirit of the letter) Galatians 4:23-24, the spirit gives life 2 Cor3:6, Romans 7:6, no man comes John 14:6 to the Father which is Spirit John4:24 on his own will, mans will will must be crucified with Christ Matthew 26:42 before he can be inlightened to the inner science of the scripture! Mark 4:11, Luke 17:20, Colossians 1:26-27, Luke 17:21, Matthew 13:34, etc.....

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Here's a link to the Catholic encylopedia. If anyone finds anything in it which runs contrary to my own stated position(s), please let me know. I would be thankful.

Protestants would do well to just simply study that encyclopedia. It is extremely thorough on everything Catholic. 95% of their complaints and convictions can be reconciled by that alone, really. I never realized until I became Catholic just how much all that fringe is due to basic ignorance.