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

[ThePresbyteers]

... Double-predestination (that God predestines the reprobate) has been condemned....

Depends what you mean by "double predestination".

If by it is meant that God reprobates people the same way He saves them:

Then, no, we do NOT believe in "Double Predestination".

Calvin, and Calvinism, teaches preterit reprobation. We deny that the damned are actively predestinated in the same manner as the Elect are saved !

Preterit reprobation has the Lord leave the "many" in their sin.

"All those whom God hath
predestinated unto life, and
those only, He is pleased,
in His appointed time,
effectually to call, by His
Word and Spirit"
(WCF; Ch. 10, Sec. 1)

"the others ...do not receive
this grace"
(CoD; HoD 3-4, A-7)

So, the Elect are regenerated then effectually brought to saving knowledge of Christ. While "leaving the others in their ruin and fall into which they plunged themselves" (BC; A-16).

There's no equivalency between the predestination of Elect and the reprobate !
And no Calvinist doctrine of "Double Predestination" in that sense.

 

[Lighthouse]

Revelation 14:10 and Revelation 20:10 uses tormented from basanizó which means to torture.​

What is the point of torture?

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?

:doh:

Not only are you espousing contra-Biblical paganism, you're dumb enough to think that I meant Hell and the Lake of Fire were happy places simply because I said there was no torture?Can you say "non sequitur"?

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.

Calvinists can claim it isn't double predestination all they want, if someone isn't predestined to Heaven then how are they not predestined to Hell [in the event predestination, according to Calvin, is true]?

 

[Town Heretic]

It's the difference between God being the cause of moral evil and God not being the cause of moral evil.

It's the difference between God actively doing a thing and God withholding the only means by which a thing might be done, if I accept what you appear to believe on the point without your peculiar equivocation.

Strictly speaking, we must say that He wills every good act,

No, we mustn't. It's the worst sort of logic that suggests when I sin it is my own and when I am virtuous it is His. Either I act or I don't. In both cases I do. That I can understand the actual good, its aim and point is owed entirely to God, but that's not the same thing.

...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.

Rather, we apprehend the good and evil through God, but our choices remain our own.

The passage says much, much more than that:

You could add several passages and say still more, but my point remains as does our difference.

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.

Then it's an illusion. Then I respectfully reject Augustine's notion for the same essential reason as it reflects on the perfect an imperfect methodology.

The choice itself is praiseworthy; therefore, good.

I differ and find the choice essential, but as it accomplishes no good, but rather allows a good to be acted upon the adherent there is no virtue in it and no merit. It is only the acceptance of pardon.

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

Well, we have to be clear on our meanings. I don't need or mean to adopt a philosophers or theologians lexicon to state my case. It isn't necessary and can only limit the understanding of the audience. If I wanted to do that I'd suggest we restrict our debate to Latin. Pig Latin to start. lain:

..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.

Then if you hold that God does not extend that to every man we are at an impasse. And so my rather pointed inquiry.

...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.

I agree with you on prayer, having come to the point where I weave it throughout my waking day. We differ on the Rosary, not that I'm in any way attempting to disabuse you of the practice. As I said, if it serves you and your walk then I'm happy for you. Some find ritual an essential part of their approach to the Holy. My father found that true. I have not.

You may not want to pray it.

I don't care for the inference of active resistance instead of a lack of desire born of an understanding of what does and doesn't facilitate my own walk.

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

Let me guess who that's according to. :chuckle: Why you can't give me the same respect I offer your faith speaks to the very reason I will likely never find myself among your number.

That said, God keep you. :e4e:

 

[Cracked]

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:

What if God, in His wisdom, knew that in order to establish redemption of the world, some must be cast away? I mean, this is not just an issue of predestination. Look, wouldn't a loving and just God, buy human standards, eventually save everyone? Is not the consequence far more dire than the offense ever was or could be? Should some pay for their crimes? Absolutely. But forever? And, how can we say those who have done horrible things, when the repent and cling to the gospel trusting humbly in Christ that they should be spared the retribution that is their due? Is that justice as we understand it?

I am not arguing that God has elected some and earmarked the rest for hell in the manner that you'll see from many Calvinists. I am saying that Scripture indicates that, for purposes creation cannot fully understand, God has allowed for and perhaps expressly ordained some to suffer His wrath. This idea is difficult, but is it that much more difficult that all the other hard truths of the Bible?

We often say that love cannot be coerced. I firmly believe that. However, why should we say that God cannot/does not desire to coerce our love, but in the same breath demand that He love everyone? If love is free, by definition, than how can we force God's expression of it? God loves whom He loves, and unlike us, I can't think for a second that His favor is arbitrary.

When God calls we may answer, or we may not. However, when He does not, what do you or I have to do with that?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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.

Calvinism denies equal ultimacy. <--please review the linked item carefully

On the matter of predestination, the Reformed view is Augustine's view, whether you know this or not.

AMR

 

[tudorturtl]

I think you answer yourself at the beginning. You have a parable. You don't have a historical narrative.


Also not in conflict unless you read it literally, which would be problematic for the good.

blessed are the merciful, for they shall recieve mercy.
he never said that all would recieve mercy!


Joh_3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Not only are you espousing contra-Biblical paganism, you're dumb enough to think that I meant Hell and the Lake of Fire were happy places simply because I said there was no torture?Can you say "non sequitur"?

Limbo is debatable and not held by the Church as certain. It is merely something of theologians. In fact, I don't believe it is all that popular anymore. The reason it was brought as an idea was to try and understand a few 'kinks' in the aspects of justification.
Purgatory and Hell, however, is certain and indoctrinated.


And what were you implying if you did not mean it was a 'happy place'? There is a pagan and then there is an orthodox version of Hades. In myth, it is simply the world of the dead. In Christianity, it is a place of damnation.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Again! Calvinism is only a set of "interpretations" of Scripture. If you will; a, "pseudo-hypothesis!" There are those that, by into it and those who do not!! We'll have to agree to disagree won't we??

*
By all means let's both disagree with Calvin on the matter of double predestination, we may possibly disagree upon what Paul means in his doctrine of predestiny but we may not disagree that scripture does teach predestiny.

The great folly is that people get mad at Calvin and so throw out Paul as well. When they do so they PROVE that THEY TOO believe that Paul taught double predestiny.

Paul's predestiny and election [that is to say we were chosen of God and that before all worlds began] are GLORIOUS and very precious truths which the church jettisons to her own sorrow and hurt.

The doctrines of freewill only came into the Protestant church as an angry reaction to Calvin's faux pas with regard to double predestiny.

If Calvin had not preached that Arminius could never have gained ground. You see then how that false doctrine becomes a foothold for the devil to gain a beach head in the church from whence he can move and operate and carry on his warfare.

devil exploits and enlarges his beach head. The freewill doctrine is the poisoned lake from whence ALL dirty waters flow in the church.

Conditional salvation was the next step, open theism the next and the next generation will produce yet further diabolical advancements and expansions.

Many good and honourable brethren are sucked into these dirty waters.

 

[Totton Linnet]

The Body of Christ was predetermined... corporately. Not individually.

If people were either predetermined to go to heaven or go to hell prior to their birth there would be no point in the gospel, no point in God's word at all. Those that would be saved... would be saved. Those that are destined to hell would be destined to hell. No sense in preaching the gospel or being compelled to follow God based on His deeds, word, and love.

The Bible paints a much different picture. A picture about men having the ability to choose to be with Him or not.

Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!

Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

John 5:40 “But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

2Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

*
Who He foreknew He also predestined

You are saying that who He predestined He did not foreknow.

Also if He had predestined the church corporately it follows that we all would be called corporately, but we are not...you were called many [many, many :chuckle:] years before me and in completely different circumstances but by the same gospel We are called individually we are saved individually and each one hold a salvation personal to themselves.

If our election and calling and justification and glorification are all personal and individual then so must the predestination of these things be. The thing hangs together or falls together.

MY ARUMENT is bold.

I am the only person in the whole world [as far as I know] who holds my view. I am saying that the church from the times of the Fathers [so called] and Jerome in particular have MISunderstood the whole matter of eternal destinies.

And I can show it in scripture, if once Jerome-Augustine-Calvin are abandoned as credble doctrines [I mean in the matter of double predestiny] suddenly the scales fall out of our eyes, the blinkers fall off and we SEE in scripture all the truths taught which our eyes have always skated over as not making sense to our understanding [either of double predestiny or freewillery].

Just to give you a tiny glimmer.

IF as Jerome-Augustine-Calvin taught we are saved by free, unearned and unmerited grace as free gift....how then are the righteous sheep in Matt. 25 rewarded? and the goats punished? so with the great white throne judgement salvation is rewarded for deeds done. So in many of the parables such as the parable of talents.

You cain't have it all ways dear brothers, if it is free as a gift of grace it cannot be a reward for works of righteousness.

I believe in salvation by grace alone.

THERFORE

The accepted interpretation of Matt. 25 and the great white throne etc MUST be wrong viz a viz the righteous sheep can by no manner of means represent the church. I know the MADianites will have their interpretation of who the sheep are and I respectfully disagree.

How has the interpretation always been that the sheep are the church and the goats everyone else?

The problem is the Jreome-Augustine-Calvin double predestiny blinkers are on when Jerome sat down to translate Matt.25 he knew he must have only 2 options. The church vs the world, the saved vs the lost, the saints vs the damned. But he is in a pickle for he espies the church in the righteous sheep so when he translates "the King will come with all His holy ones he has to decide who these holy ones can be he skates over Paul's teaching [among others] that when Christ comes to judge the world in equity WE the church come with Him....he has his double predestiny blinkers on. So he translate the sentece "the King will come with all His holy angels" that solves all his problem....maybe

But now the whole passage becomes like a very fat lady trying to squeeze into a very small swimsuit, he has pushed one lump in here but OOPS a even more unsightly lump gets pushed out elsewhere.

The passage now is thrown out of all kilter for if you picture the scene as Jerome translate it there is the Lord surrounded by His holy angels addressing the sheep "Come blessed of My Father [strange He does not say your Father or the Father] for you done good"

They say "Lord when did we do good?" to which Jesus replies "inasmuch as ye did it to one of the least of these My brethren [not your brethren or the brethren] ye did it to Me" They have not a clue as to the doctrine of the indwelling Christ. Who is Jesus pointing at when He says this? it is IMpossible that He would be pointing to the sheep themselves they are not "one of the least of these My brethren" they are being judged by how they ministered to the Lord's brethren.

See how insensible it is? It is only one example of scriptures that are entirely thrown out of all kilter by the idea that people are either predestined to heaven or hell...God has not disclosed all His plans.

But our eyes have skated over scriptures too long on this doctrine, we have the Beatitudes
"Blessed our the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.....blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth" Even after the Millenium God is going to create a new heaven and a new earth.

If you do not consider that I have sufficient scripture weight you might consider that at the coming of the Lord we are caught up to meet the Lord in the clouds "so shall we ever be with the Lord" The great white throne judgement [which must correspond with Matt. 25] comes long, long after this advent....there is no way that this judgement involves the church in any way, and yet we see some [why not MANY] are rewarded not by grace alone but because of deeds.

The WHOLE doctrine of eternal destiny needs to thoroughly thought and prayed through again. If it were it would pull the curtain down on the hell-fire and damnation brigadiers.

 

[Breathe]

Someone has probably brought this up, but - if God is omniscient, and knows everything, He knows whether or not someone is going to accept Christ. So those whom He allows to be born, while knowing they will not be saved, well....wouldn't they be born predestined for hell?

 

[bybee]

Someone has probably brought this up, but - if God is omniscient, and knows everything, He knows whether or not someone is going to accept Christ. So those whom He allows to be born, while knowing they will not be saved, well....wouldn't they be born predestined for hell?

Why would He allow them to be born?
Would a "Loving" God knowingly allow such a distinction to occur?

 

[Traditio]

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


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

I don't understand Calvinism well enough to comment. :idunno:

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:

I feel the necessity of pointing out: these arguments are in no way inspired by Calvin or the Calvinists. I used to hold a different view, but I was heavily influenced by Jean-Paul Sartre. What you guys have gotten in this thread (on the necessity of divine grace to be saved) is pretty much straight from my understanding of St. Augustine. In particular, from the 2nd question of "On Diverse Questions - to Simplician."*

Furthermore, if I am in error, and I don't think that I am, the authority of the Catholic Faith is greater than the authority of whatever conclusions human reason may seem to bring about. The link I gave earlier wasn't just for show. If anyone can show from the Catechism or from the Catholic Encyclopedia (or some other source) that my position(s) are at variance with the teachings of the Holy Church, then I would change my position straightaway.

Here's a shorter, more straightforward link (though; I'm not sure about the credibility of the author...in any cases, he gives links to councils). From the link:

"Here are the two basic premises a Catholic must hold, as I understand them.

Premise one, God's predestination of efficacious and gratuitous grace.

1. Man cannot be saved without the efficacious and gratuitous grace given by God alone. The elect that God chooses are are not chosen because God foresees how the elect will respond to His grace, but because of His grace alone. The Council of Trent tells us that the gift of final perseverance cannot be obtained or merited, but it is given by God as a gift. Complete predestination, which includes first grace, as well as a series of graces up until glorification, is gratuitous and is chosen by God previous to foreseen merits. It is not based upon God's foreknowledge. Finally no man can boast of being better than another, because it is God's grace only that can elevate man to being better than another, not one's own choices or works. If we say that we choose or act better than another apart from God's grace, and as a result we are saved because of that choice or act, then we surely will be able to boast that we are better than another.

Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote, 'It is impossible that the whole of the effect of predestination in general should have any cause as coming from us; because whatsoever is in man disposing him toward salvation, is all included under the effect of predestination; even preparation for grace.'

Canon 20 Council of Orange.
'That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.'"

Further down in the link, the author also points out: 1. the necessity of the cooperation of man's free-will with grace and 2. the condemnation of the idea that God predestines anyone to Hell.

That said, it should be noted that 1. still involves grace. This cooperation of the free will with grace is itself is a grace.

It's interesting to note that this idea pops up even in the course of reading the "Secret of the Rosary," which I've often been quoting: there, we find an amazing quote. In the 3rd method of praying the rosary at the end of the book, St. Louis Marie de Montfort's meditation for the 5th hail mary of the 2nd decade of the joyful mysteries runs as follows: "The agreement between Jesus and Mary in her womb on the choice of the elect."

Look, let's not even talk about Calvinism. We don't have to talk about Protestant heresies when the Church has already ruled on the heresies that preceded them. St. Augustine wrote vigorously against the Pelagians, and Pelagianism subsequently was condemned. Semi-Pelagianism, I think, also has been condemned by the Church.

This isn't a movement towards Calvinism. This is a simple admission of the truth of the Catholic Faith.

And when you really think about it, this is an amazing and wonderful truth which should cause us great joy: if all graces necessary to our salvation come directly from God, if it is God who works every good in us, then we should never despair of gaining those graces. All we have to do is keep asking God for them in our prayers.


*I think that's the right title.

 

[Traditio]

It's the difference between God actively doing a thing and God withholding the only means by which a thing might be done, if I accept what you appear to believe on the point without your peculiar equivocation.

It's a massive difference. Suppose that there's a man who has chosen to commit suicide by drinking poison. It's one thing to give him an antidote. It's another thing to do nothing (and so let him die). It's another thing to get a shotgun and shoot him in the face.

No, we mustn't. It's the worst sort of logic that suggests when I sin it is my own and when I am virtuous it is His.

As a matter of fact, St. Augustine defines virtue in the following way:

"Virtue is a good quality of the mind, by which we live righteously, of which no one can make bad use, which God works in us, without us."

I am quoting St. Augustine indirectly from ST I-II, q. 55, a. 4.

In any case, as I mentioned earlier (from the previously cited link in my post to Kmo), so stands the authority of the Church:

'That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it'" (Canon 20 of the Council of Orange).

Either I act or I don't. In both cases I do.

Yes, grace requires the cooperation of the free will. But even this cooperation involves the aid of divine grace. In both cases you indeed act. But when you act by sinning, God permits the sin. When you act meritoriously, you indeed act, but it is God who gives you the grace to do so, and but for His grace, you could not have done it.

Rather, we apprehend the good and evil through God, but our choices remain our own.

Seriously consider the consequences of this proposition (taken to the extreme). If it is the case that our good works are ours alone and not from God:

1. It would never do any good to pray to God for virtue. It would never do any good to ask God to make you chaste, wise, gentle, etc. After all, if it's you and you only who are acting...

2. You would be forced to admit that these things either 1. are not good or 2. are good, but that God, who is the Supreme Good, is not the cause of these goods.

2a. More to the point, you'd be forced to admit that these things are outside of God's causal power.

I differ and find the choice essential

Is it good to choose to pray or not?

Then if you hold that God does not extend that to every man we are at an impasse. And so my rather pointed inquiry.

He extends grace to every man. I flatly deny the Calvinist notion of total depravity. That said, He only efficaciously extends His grace (extends his grace in such a way as to ensure their salvation) to the elect.

In any case, suppose for a moment that I were in error. If God were not able efficaciously to extend grace to the elect, would it make any sense whatsoever to ask God to convert and save sinner A?

 

[zippy2006]

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

TH actually addresses this at the end of post 76 where he errantly infers a doctrine of "Total Depravity" in Catholicism. There he fails to distinguish sufficient from efficacious grace on a Catholic view, and yet his point does hold against Calvinists.

That is, it is my opinion (according to the argument TH gave) that double predestination logically follows Calvinism itself. Saying you are a Calvinist who does not believe in double predestination results in a logical contradiction (i.e. God willing someone into Hell and God neglecting a totally depraved person result in the same deficiencies of such a concept of God).

 

[zippy2006]

I'd like to read the exchange more thoroughly once I get home and have a larger screen to work with, but a few points:

Regarding time: it is odd that this sidebar went so far since you both (TH and Trad) agree here, TH just said Open Theism is arguable. In any case, I think Trad is right in saying that the ancients held the correct view and for the correct reason since the relevant notion of time here is metaphysical, not scientific. Science is now beginning to confirm that metaphysical view of the ancients.

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.

Scripture is the varible you are underestimating. If we were to analyze this in a purely logical sense, your view would be sufficient. But it doesn't properly incorporate Scriptural evidence, especially concerning depravity and Original Sin. Such revelatory information merely change the emhpasis, mind you, but it is part of the Church's duty to uphold such a truth, which is no doubt important.

Trad notes the logical conundrum here:

But I think what you are getting at is this: does the grace of God "overwhelm" the will? Isn't free cooperation required? And for me, this is a really vexed question:

On the one hand, it must be admitted that we must freely cooperate with the grace of God, or else, we must freely reject it.

On the other hand, I see that the free act whereby we cooperate with grace is itself a good, and all good comes from God. Therefore, even this free act whereby I cooperate and assent to grace: that free act itself is from God.

Instead of getting into details, I'll just note the underlying notions here: all men are depraved and cannot save themselves. God freely offers all men sufficient grace that they may be saved and come to know and love Him. It is man's free choice that is the difference.

But also, as Trad said, in no way can it be asserted that man's free choice to choose God is his own, apart from God's will and grace. The potential for that choice as well as the actuality of that choice when it is made, are both enabled by God's grace, which in no way undermines the free will of man. This mystery of grace and free will lies at the heart of all of the famous debates in this area. Perhaps the riddle is solved, as the Thomists assert, with a correct understanding of Thomistic metaphysics and God's relation to creatures, or maybe not, as the Molinists claim.

In any case it is held that, in some mysterious way, God moves man to freely accept Him. Man does not accept God on his own, and yet his freedom plays an integral and necessary part in his justification.


A good way to grasp this mystery may be the practical reality of sin and grace:

1. I sin. I blame myself, not God, for what I have done.
2. I avoid sin. I thank God for giving me the grace to avoid sin, for aiding me.

In case 2 we are not calling ourselves automata, we are merely recognizing the truth that, although our action was meritorious insofar as our free will and personal autonomy played a part, everything good that we have (including our free will) is from God, and that is where the emphasis ought to lie.

-zip :e4e:

 

[bybee]

I'd like to read the exchange more thoroughly once I get home and have a larger screen to work with, but a few points:

Regarding time: it is odd that this sidebar went so far since you both (TH and Trad) agree here, TH just said Open Theism is arguable. In any case, I think Trad is right in saying that the ancients held the correct view and for the correct reason since the relevant notion of time here is metaphysical, not scientific. Science is now beginning to confirm that metaphysical view of the ancients.

Of interest to me: Once grace is accepted, one wonder's how could one not accept it? And once aware that one is the recipient of grace, one again wonders, have I always had grace and only just became aware of it?

Scripture is the varible you are underestimating. If we were to analyze this in a purely logical sense, your view would be sufficient. But it doesn't properly incorporate Scriptural evidence, especially concerning depravity and Original Sin. Such revelatory information merely change the emhpasis, mind you, but it is part of the Church's duty to uphold such a truth, which is no doubt important.

Trad notes the logical conundrum here:



Instead of getting into details, I'll just note the underlying notions here: all men are depraved and cannot save themselves. God freely offers all men sufficient grace that they may be saved and come to know and love Him. It is man's free choice that is the difference.

But also, as Trad said, in no way can it be asserted that man's free choice to choose God is his own, apart from God's will and grace. The potential for that choice as well as the actuality of that choice when it is made, are both enabled by God's grace, which in no way undermines the free will of man. This mystery of grace and free will lies at the heart of all of the famous debates in this area. Perhaps the riddle is solved, as the Thomists assert, with a correct understanding of Thomistic metaphysics and God's relation to creatures, or maybe not, as the Molinists claim.

In any case it is held that, in some mysterious way, God moves man to freely accept Him. Man does not accept God on his own, and yet his freedom plays an integral and necessary part in his justification.

-zip :e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

Why you can't give me the same respect I offer your faith speaks to the very reason I will likely never find myself among your number.

It is not respect you require but equality, but the truth of the matter is that it doesn't exist. It would be analogous for the Muslim to say to the Christian, "Why you can't give me the same respect I offer your faith speaks to the very reason I will likely never find myself among your number." In fact the statement is simply false. The Muslim would not convert if the Christian said, "Okay, your beliefs are as good as mine!" The Protestant's beliefs are not "as good" as the Catholic's, though they do contain much truth and goodness.

Asking Trad to pretend that his Catholicism is accidental or that the Rosary is not efficacious in any objective sense is an odd request. Simply disagreeing with him rather than counter-asserting your own distinct viewpoint of Christian relativism would be much more respectful. And yet Trad could also no doubt do more in the way of convincing or persuading Protestants that the Rosary is something they ought to look into.

:e4e:

 

[Breathe]

Why would He allow them to be born?
Would a "Loving" God knowingly allow such a distinction to occur?

Well, we are taught that He knows everything that has, does or will happen. So He knows the fate of all of us, including whether or not we will choose salvation over death. If He knows it, yet still allows such a one to be born, then He allows some to be born who are destined not to be saved, right?

Unless you don't believe He knows everything. But I do, so it's not a huge leap for me to make.

I don't know why, but apparently there are people born who will not be saved.

 

[bybee]

Well, we are taught that He knows everything that has, does or will happen. So He knows the fate of all of us, including whether or not we will choose salvation over death. If He knows it, yet still allows such a one to be born, then He allows some to be born who are destined not to be saved, right?

Unless you don't believe He knows everything. But I do, so it's not a huge leap for me to make.

I don't know why, but apparently there are people born who will not be saved.

This is not congruent with a God of Love, so I don't believe it, I don't have a problem with not believing it because I believe that God is love.

 

[bybee]

It is not respect you require but equality, but the truth of the matter is that it doesn't exist. It would be analogous for the Muslim to say to the Christian, "Why you can't give me the same respect I offer your faith speaks to the very reason I will likely never find myself among your number." In fact the statement is simply false. The Muslim would not convert if the Christian said, "Okay, your beliefs are as good as mine!" The Protestant's beliefs are not "as good" as the Catholic's, though they do contain much truth and goodness.

Asking Trad to pretend that his Catholicism is accidental or that the Rosary is not efficacious in any objective sense is an odd request. Simply disagreeing with him rather than counter-asserting your own distinct viewpoint of Christian relativism would be much more respectful. And yet Trad could also no doubt do more in the way of convincing or persuading Protestants that the Rosary is something they ought to look into.

:e4e:

As a Protestant, I do say "Hail Mary, full of grace, blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus."
This is a small prayer of thanksgiving which Protestant men took away from women.
How can we not honor the wondrous maiden chosen by God to bear His Son?