How can catholics answer this

Also, it's not fair to call me vague since we only just started and I was never asked why I believe what I do. I was just stating what I believe. If you asked then I would have told you.

No it doesn't. Predestination is an absolutely retarded theology because it means there is no point evangelizing. It means there is no point praying. Calvin also adhered to "Once saved, always saved", which has been thoroughly debunked is patently unscriptural and a satanic doctrine.

people.cs.ksu.edu/~bbp9857/calvinism.html

Also, here's a more clear verse about predestination:
Acts 4:27-28

That doesn't support the idea that some people are predestined to be saved. He's saying that God used his knowledge of what Herod and Pilate would do for his own ends. God knowing what someone will do doesn't remove their free will.

Oof, it's not even talking about Him passively making something come to pass that he knew would happen. What do you think "to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." means? And if God predestined that then most likely He also predestined the damnation of those people. For salvation specifically, read romans 9:19-23:

Absolutely heretical interpretation fam

Have you read romans 9? You're only hurting yourself buddy

Nope, first of all your response wasn't even a real response. You just called me a heretic without giving me a reason to interpret it any differently. Secondly, there is a difference between God's will and His decree. He can decree things to come to pass that are against His will. What is His will you ask? It's the desire that all come to salvation. And what is His decree you ask? It's that His elect come to Him that He has predestined since the start of time.

Actually according to calvinism it's God hurting me since he's making me point out your heretical and satanic interpretation of scripture. Sorry, not my fault! Blame God!

people.cs.ksu.edu/~bbp9857/calvinism.html

Calvinism is debunked there.

auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/calvinism.html

israeliteindeed.wordpress.com/calvinism/understanding-romans-9-without-the-calvinist-spin/

Nope, God's plan involves the evil of man to bring about His will:
Genesis 50:20

Also, since you have an issue with God's sovereign decree, how do you deal with these verses?

2 Chronicles 18:20-22

So you're not willing to give up TULIP, but you are willing to give up sola scriptura and sola fide? Does that make sense to you?

I've heard every argument against Calvinism and they're all a joke. This better be something new

I did say there are a "couple" doctrinal issues. I'm using Zig Forums to get these questions answered one by one.

had a quick read through, seems like the typical Zig Forums poster made that. Not even worth my time to go through each point one by one. But I'll still refute them if you aim them at me one by one.

Boy, what a thread.

Wouldn't romans 9:20 and foward be the exact opposite of what you claim?
It says man is not to try to understand God's reasoning as to why we fail.

What? No, it's supports my claim that God is active in fashioning some people specifically for the intent of sending them to hell while others to heaven for His glory. The questioning see in Romans 9:19 is a common response that Paul has heard in his ministry and a common one you are from day to day and Paul's response isn't one where he tries to reconcile God's sovereignty with man's free will. Rather he doubles down and says you cannot talk back to God.

Was hoping somebody would help me out here but nothing. 😔

I'm a noob and not Catholic (actually have Calvinist leanings myself but not well read enough to be able to confidently commit myself either way yet) but I've never come across this and, given Aquinas came hundreds of years before Calvin are you sure you're not thinking of Aquinas' 5 Ways, which are logical proofs for the existence of God, and nothing to do with Calvinism or TULIP? Sage for off topic

The hell does it matter whether you become Catholic or not then? You're either already saved or not saved. It's this bogus, illogical system that God programmed certain people into loving Him, while he programmed others to hate Him.

You expect us to paste whole walls of text to you? Do you own research.
Go read st. Francis de Sales' Catholic Controversy, part 1, chapter 7. He converted almost 100 000 calvinists just by shoving leaflets under people's doors. If you're lazy I'll screenshot the pages for you.

It doesn't support your claim that God does these things from birth, only that some people are reprobate. So this post here is assuming too much and contradicting other scripture, such as 1 Timothy 2:4 and John 5:40. Yes some people are saved and others are reprobate, but for many, the possibility still depends on them and they haven't reached either point yet.

It's barely been an hour since you posted this thread.

Calvin was wrong but OSAS is true. You haven't debunked the eternal security of the believer just because you have disproved some of Calvin's points— I'm neither Calvinist nor Arminian, and you're equally as wrong as them. And it's a wicked thing you're trying to do.

Also, if you're going to talk about being unscriptural why don't you start actually citing scripture instead of websites. So far your posts have been pretty devoid of any reference to scripture, so that's pretty hypocritical.

Think about this for a second

to reason, I protest that there is no reason in the world.

Sure makes sense.

Attached: 31165907_1722349711179671_5668208609868120064_n.jpg (490x466, 35.66K)

OSAS is just about the most unbiblical doctrine you can find. Jesus says many many times that people can lose salvation

Also, how do you deal with James 1?

Or Ezekiel 18?

These pretty clearly imply we have an active role in our salvation. In Romans 9, claiming that God intentionally creates evil people is a misunderstanding. He raised up the Pharaoh, because in His foreknowledge He knew he will use his free will to sin, so that he may be an example to everyone.

Came late for the party but how can you be sure that private "revelation" of yours isn't the Devil?

Thank you for posting this.

No it isn't.
No, he didn't.

Could you explain this one to me?

t. theological neophyte

Nah, I was referring to this: jimmyakin.com/a-tiptoe-through-tulip

God's plan involves people to act in specific way. Also, I've heard about that francis guy. Please paste it for a lazy calvinist.

1 Corinthians 9:27
But I chastise my body and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.

2 Peter 2:20-22
For if, flying from the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they be again entangled in them and overcome: their latter state is become unto them worse than the former. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice than, after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them. For, that of the true proverb has happened to them: The dog is returned to his vomit; and: The sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

How can you guys call yourself prots if you don't even follow sola scriptura?
Truth be told if you read the bible you'd be Catholic either way.

I'll post it again for you:

>678732

You're ignoring John 6:44

2 Corinthians 13:5-6
Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.

Now 2 Peter chapter 2 is talking about the wolves among the sheep, false prophets, who were never saved but who were crept in unawares. Same people that Jude is talking about. They were never saved, like Judas Iscariot, who was never saved, see John 17:12.

Seems pretty unequivocal to me. Why would Jesus be talking about the need to avoid sin in terms of literally mutilating yourself to avoid it if it's no biggie and you can get into heaven anyway? Mortal sin cuts you off from Gods grace.

Walking this back to Aquinas himself would be like arguing that Aristotle was literally a Christian philosopher while he was alive. Also, there are better apologists than Akin. Try this article which refutes him from an orthodox Catholic perspective.

catechism.cc/articles/catholic-soteriology-versus.htm

lol, this is exactly the question raised in Romans 9:14 and Romans 9:19. The answers lie in the following verses. Also, regarding the law being impossible, I don't think it's so much that the law is impossible but rather than we are so depraved that we can't do something as simple as to love our neighbour. And it's important to understand the purpose of the law, it wasn't so that we should do it since even the prophets of the OT failed in that regard and Peter even says that the law was a strain on the believer. T he purpose of the law was to show us our sin. See Romans 3:20

Dude that's nonsense. And it's funny because weren't you just a minute ago saying God's will prevails over all things? So now it doesn't when we're looking at 1 Timothy 2:4?

And you're ignoring John 12:32-33

What kind of retarded interpretation is that? It's completely out of context.
In Corinthians Paul is asking them if they believe what Paul teaches is the Truth. If they feel the truth is in them.
And Peter is clearly talking about people who are Christian and then become apostates.
Read them fully instead of isolated verses.

Lad predestination =/= predestinarisnism
Read Saint Augustine pls

Whoa there. That's not the protestant way. We've got to read Bible verses completely out of context and interpret them in the most bizarre ways possible, that's how we protestants determine biblical doctrine!

Read what I wrote here:>>678732

Laughable. If you even read exodus 4 you'll see that even before Moses went to go speak with the pharaoh, God told Moses He would harden His heart.

Because it's scriptural. It's like coming to me and asking me if Jesus wept in John 11:35 and then after I say yes you say "how can you be sure that private "revelation" of yours isn't the Devil? "

I have, and that is Not an argument.

Every time you want to bring up the point of something being out of context, you must provide that context in order to make coherent sense of it. Otherwise, you just sound like someone who doesn't like the truth so he screeches "out of context."

Where? Timothy is God's desire whereas Romans 9 is God's decree.

Talking about the resurrection of the dead. Many other interpretation would lead you to becoming a Universalist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_conditional
(I know it's wikipedia but) it's summed up here pretty nice

I'm aware. What I'm saying is that God is active in His predestining of the fate of all things.

There's a simple answer to heresy.

Attached: burned_stake1.jpg (376x294, 47.54K)

Well, you have posted an image, meaning that you contradicted Calvinism already. Yes, its a funpost

I've explained. Not my fault you don't want to hear.
Not wasting my time with you.

But Saint John says Jesus wept. I don't get your point. What are you trying to imply? That your "revelation" is at the same level of the inspired writers? Lol

Not sure if I get what you mean. Let's start with the basics.
So God knew what you would freely decide to do since all eternity and don't forget that God is outside time. For Him there's only Present. No past nor future.
It's not hard to understand. Now what Calvin says is that some people are going to hell and some to heaven since they are destined to that. Nothing that they do will change that. Which means everything Jesus and his apostles said doesn't matter since those who were saved are going to heaven and the ones who were chosen to go to hell will end up there no matter what they do.
So why did Jesus came to earth in the first place if there's nothing we can do to escape our destiny? Why shouldn't I sin if I am saved already or doomed?

When you can't beat them, burn them

No only according to your false doctrine, because like John 5:40 says, they WILL not come to him, that they might have life. Therefore, John 12:32-33 makes sense. And only if you are a Calvinist do you have to ignore John 12:32-33 or else it implies universalism.

Also John 12:33 literally says this is talking about his death that he should die, so you can't get out of it. All this shows is that Calvinism implies universalism, so this can be used to show that it must be false. Not that the Bible is false, but that Calvinism is.

God's knowledge of counterfactuals (middle knowledge) precedes the creation, and it is possible for our choices to be freely made while still not contradicting predestination. So individuals are still accountable for their actions.

My point is that the reason why I believe in this doctrine is because it's scriptural. That's it, I've asked people everywhere for years and have never had a good answer. EVER! To read it any other way would be anti biblical at this point.

I disagree with the following statements. It isn't simple God being passive and allowing the things He has forknew happen. He is actively decreeing them

Acts 4:27-28

Oof, first of all if you have John 5:40 in mind you will know that these people were trying to come to God by their own power. They were not drawn by God and so could not be saved as John 6:44 states. The drawing being talked about in John 12:32-33 is talking about the resurrection that will happen on the day of judgement where God's people will go to heaven. If you think it's literally talking about all people then you'll have to accept that every person in the world will go heaven.

Why do you keep on making this point. I've thoroughly told you that God's decree are not Him passively letting things come to pass that His foreknowledge had already seen. They're active. See

Source? Calvin a dude that even other reformers disagreed with him.
I already explained you the difference about predestination and predestinarisnism. If you want to still believe in your heresy I wash my hands.
If you think my arguments are not sound a simple search on Google and you will find arguments from catholics and protestants that smash Calvin to the ground.

Since acts wasn't enough then look at chronicles:

2 Chronicles 18:20-22

And exodus
Exodus 4:21

And the best, romans :

Romans 9:19-23

Do you want more examples of God actively acting in the world?

Ps: forgot to mention common sense
If Calvin was right why would christ and Saint Paul would tell us to do or not to certain things otherwise we wouldn't be saved?
If we were all predestined to go up there or down what good is faith in christ and works? It's even more retarded than the Lutheran faith not works.
I ask again why are you a Christian if your nothing else but a machine 100% controlled by God? And why would he want His children to be like toys?

No because some people will not come to him, they resist it. Only if you were a Calvinist would you have to accept universalism from this verse. This is what I keep on telling you. But since I believe John 5:40 that some men resisted his grace, therefore John 12:32-33 does not imply universalism.

Just because God does some things actively does not mean that's how all things are. That is a false assumption. God doesn't make people sin. For example:

Jeremiah 19:5
They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

Also, about the difference about predestination and predestinarisnism in acts. That's just ludicrous. Just read it for yourself, it says "to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." Is God's hand passive?

Top kek

Genesis 50:20 answers this. Also, we are the tools and vessels used for God to bring about His will.

Not a Calvinist but the answer usually given as to the intentions of God is to refer to Isaiah 55:8-11 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it."

Wrong, it also says that He will raise them up on the last day. If you are not raised to eternal life on the last day then you were never drawn by God to begin with. Also, in John 5:40 they weren't even gifted by the grace of God. It was a bunch of people who thought they could get to heaven by themselves like a bunch of pelagians or semipelagians.

When God did control the acts of some, did He go against His law? Anyway, ALL things work out to the council of His will:

Ephesians 1:11

Lol man. It is sayin that Joseph brother have premeditated something against him. Not God. Are you those kind of people that crlt-f on the Bible and look for the word they want in this case predestination or premeditation?
And what kind of plan? Who would enjoy it and live in happiness with him if we would be mere tools?
I must ask why are you a Christian in the first place if you are already saved or doomed? Why don't you live your life as you please? Why listening to Paul that tell us not to fornicate or to the commandments that tell me not to kill? Why should I try to be a good person if my future is sealed already?

Thanks for the help. Felt like the world is against me in this server.

He is not helping you. He is just saying no one can know God's ways. And he is right about that.

I love the way you pick parts of my argument you feel.as though would be easiest to attack. But anyway

The same word used for Joseph's brothers is also used for God. What Joseph's brothers intended for evil, God intended, same word here, for God.

Because God has predestined me to be so, that's why. A part of His sovereign decree involved my conversion. I mean, God had an infinite and 1 ways of having His will completed. He could have created the world in 1 day instead of 6. He could have not put the tree in the garden and He could have just sent everyone to heaven in the first place. But he decreed things differently. Ultimately, the answer lies in what this non Calvinist user said:

He did help, that's the only real answer when trying to reconcile God's sovereignty with man's free will.

John 5:46
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

No, you're not understanding John 6:44, look it carefully.

So then nobody can COME TO HIM except the Father draw him. And those that come to him are raised up at the last day. John 6:44 never said that all that are drawn will come to him, it said that in order to come to him they must first be drawn, as a prerequisite. It never once said that all drawn would actually do so, that's the assumption of irresistable grace, and in John 12:32-33 that would imply universalism because verse 33 says it was speaking of the death that he would die. But John 5:40 says they some WILL not come to him, therefore John 12:32-33 makes sense because it's resistable and John 6:44 says being drawn is a prerequisite, not a causation.

That still doesn't mean some people don't freely choose to disbelieve even to the point of becoming reprobate and will be held accountable for that willful disbelief. If they freely chose it, that's how it is.

...

Ok user lmao. I don't even know why you started this thread then if you wanted to hear the Catholic opinion on the matter. I sorry that I didn't defend your heresy.
But hey maybe God predestined you to make this thread.

God exists outside of space-time, mortal.

Only proves further that they did not truly believe.

Ok, let's take a look shall we.

John 6:44

So, we have 2 clauses here. The first clause states that no one can come Christ. The greek here (dynamai) means not able to. Think about it like this, remember in school when you.asked your teacher "can I go to the toilet" then she replied, "I don't know, can you?" Well, what is being said here is that you cannot, you are not able to come to Christ unless the Father draws him. Then we move onto the second clause which states that "and I *WILL* raise him up on the last day." If that person isn't raised up to eternal life on the last day then Christ never raised him up.

Then if God's decree can be frustrated by the unwillingfulness of man then He can only do things to the council of His will as far as man let's Him.

I was trying to see if I can keep a hold of my Calvinist beliefs.

And I've just showed you they are completely retarded but you're blind by your pride.
Prots and their private interpretations once again. When will it ever end.
Have a good night user.

Steven Anderson believes that gays should themselves because they can't do anything to help but be gay and that it's an unpardonable sin. Seems pretty fatalistic to me.

Where did you show me? Might have missed it. These threads tend to go on for a while and I end up missing things.

Either your mouse wheel is broken or its just not this thread you've missed.

Oh, you're responses were nothing knew and come more from ignorance and contempt for God's sovereignty than for actual scriptural reasons.

Contemptuous thread made under bad faith/false pretenses.
Please delete it.

I and other anons used scripture against you but you reject our arguments because it doesn't agree with your opinion.
Maybe you are predestined to be dumb.
Not wasting my time with you.

Contemptuous comment made under bad faith/false pretenses.
Please delete.

No, more like God's decree regarding predestination is congruent with his middle knowledge about what people will choose. That doesn't mean he can't harden someone's heart after they've disbelieved; it means nobody is forced into disbelief initially, but rather they do it via their resistance of the grace they were given.

Yeah, but it also doesn't mean you are forced to. It means God's predestination is congruent with what people freely choose. And this is possible due to His middle knowledge.

You stated in the OP that you are interested in EO/RCC but want to understand their reasons for rejecting TULIP. When it's explained to you, you disregard it then give us this ridiculous "w/e i just wanted to test my beliefs lel". At least be honest with us upfront and say "I'm a Calvinist - convince me I'm wrong".
Since you have learned nothing and done nothing with the information ITT, just delete it. You're not interested.

God bless you.

Travel back in time and help the Jansenists win & not be declared heretics.
Alternatively, start a Neo-Jansenist movement and hope it goes better than the first time. Francis might just be tolerant enough to make a compromise, but you might have to find some priest or cardinal to support your position.

As for Orthodox, I feel like I remember there being a Patriarch of Constantinople that supported Calvinism but who was later denounced by the Eastern churches. So maybe there is some hope there too?

Is it you again? I've already told you God isn't passive.

Remember when I posted exodus 4? That was before Moses even spoke to the pharoah. Also, when the pharaoh finally let the Egyptians go. God hardened the pharoahs heart one more time so that He could then sweep them by the waves after the Israelites walked across the red sea.

The issue with choice is that man will always choose evil when given a decision to choose between good and evil. See Romans 3:10-12

Sorry you feel that way. If we can talk about something else I would like to know about the Eucharist. How do you reconcile that with the fact that Christ was the one and for all sacrifice? Honestly, if I could get that and Calvinism sorted I'd become a Catholic or eastern orthodox.

Wasn't there a council which literally condemned Calvinism? A few eastern orthodox were actually becoming Calvinist and there had to be a council to combat it.

When it comes to sin, God has no part in it.

But was it before his birth? No, and it first says pharoah hardened his own heart, and later God hardened it.

Hence John 6:44

Sure, but look at this:

2 Chronicles 18:20-22and

If you're looking for something before birth then how about this:

Romans 9:11-13

The people in John 6:44 will be saved. So, if you truly believe it the also must believe in the eternal security of the saints. If someone isn't raised up to eternal life then they were never drawn to begin with. And if it's simply a drawing then everyone would deny the drawing due to our natures as described in Romans 3:10-12

So, coherent & consistent exegesis of the bible is considered to be "private revelation"?

Also, this is one of the worst distortions of Calvinism I ever had to read.
The idea is that no man would ever willingly chose to actually believe in Christ. Man is totally depraved and can only turn towards God by being changed inwardly through a miracle of God.
Why did Jesus come to earth? To serve justice. A perfectly good and just God cannot pardon sinners and have fellowship with them and still be considered just. Imagine if a judge just let murderers & rapists go and then invite them to dinner. You would call him a worse criminal than the man he let go. By Christ dying for us, the price has been paid, justice has been served. A propitiatory sacrifice to atone for our sins.
It's quite simple really: Either Christ for all sins of all men (universalism), Christ died for some sins of all men (all are condemned) or Christ died for all sins of some men.

Just. Never read the parable of the prodigal son my man? Man can always regret. God is a loving Father and he desires everyone to be saved because is mercy is infinite.
And we do have a choice. Either believe that Christ died for us and follow His path, or disbelieving or not follow the Path and go to hell. One soul for God is more important than the entire universe. There is no souls that he loves more and souls he doesn't care about. And why would He create souls that he didn't love as his own children? Are we back to the good old meme that God makes people sin? Lmao