Hi, it's me again

The wokest thread still has to be made by him: he gets interested in Calvinism but there are a few points where he interprets Romans 9 in a Calvinistic way making them incompatible.
Sage for shitpost

If you compare this thread to my last one you'll see that I have changed my views from what I've heard people tell me. Would a dishonest person admit when he's wrong?

I'm not gonna argue with you if you can't even understand basic concepts. You literally chose one part of my post to refute and ignored the rest of it. In fact the very thing you said is refuted in what I wrote.

Because the rest of your post was redundant, and no it wasn't.

Attached: its all so tiresome.png (500x455, 94.41K)

Actually, I was speaking with a Catholic and he said similar things to myself. I couldn't get in contact with him again so I just made a thread hoping it would summon him. I understand that there are some parts that you would think are incompatible with the Catholic faith but I would like to know your interpretation. How do you harmonise the scriptures with your belief?

Also, I should add. How do Catholics interpret the rhetorical questions raised by Paul in both verse 14 and 19 of Romans 9? What did they believe and how was Paul responding to it?

biscuit come back we all miss you :(

Attached: planned parenthood.png (676x960, 1023.81K)

Attached: goku_flying_away_by_eggmanrules.jpg (600x402, 65.4K)

This is a good topic because I'm wondering too how can you resolve St. Augustine's view of Esau and Jacob with what other Catholics seem to say about predestination? As far as I can tell, St. Augustine says that because of original sin, we are all fit to go to Hell. God out of his mercy chooses some people to not go to Heaven, and it is just, because God has the right to choose whoever He wants, but also that it is not because of some works that they would have done in the future. I guess it's still not double predestination, as in that God is not actively forcing someone to go to Hell, but it's just that because of original sin, we are all justly hell bound.

Hi, thanks for responding to me thread. So I recently spoke to a individual on discord and he really helped me understand the Catholic position. This was shortly after I made this thread and the only part I had issue with the Catholic position was that God was not active in both imparting Grace on believers as well as damning. He explained that God is active not in the sense that He causes us to sin and go hell, since that would make Him the author of sin, but rather that He let's us fall into sin; not giving sufficient grace to fight temptation or not sin, while giving the elect the necessary amount of grace needed to not only come to Him but actually come to repentance. He referenced Aquinas and how he believed in a distinction between efficient grace and affective grace if I recall correctly. All have the possibility to come to God but God only intends some to come to Him.
Shortly after this I told him that his answer helped me and I said I am not a Calvinist anymore.

So looking into it more, I think basically St. Augustine is wrong, at least based on what he said in the Enchiridion. I have to double check if he actually said that God reprobates regardless of future works, but I'm pretty sure that was what he was saying. It seems that St. Thomas Aquinas disagrees with it, and that's probably the consensus of the Scholastics, that God reprobates but only because He knows that the person would resist grace anyways. It's a bit of strange thing but it's important to keep God as the ultimate author of everything. If God so wills anything, He can do it, Men can't stop Him.

So in the case of the reprobate, God already knows that they would resist grace strongly, so He doesn't give it to them in the first place. He however does not actively condemn anyone. It's sort of in reverse though - if the person would have co-operated with grace, then could would have provided them with grace and they would be part of the elect.

Despite formerly being a Calvinist, I have never actually read Augustine's, Aquinas or even John Calvin's work on free will on grace (but I will hop on it).
But I do have some issues with simply saying that God actively reprobates only those He knows will not accept His free gift of grace, His calling. This is mainly due to what we see in Romans 9:11 which states:

Yes, this is exactly what I was talking about, and what Aquinas says as well. By reprobating, it doesn't mean that God causes anyone else to sin, but rather he allows them to sin. The error which the Pelagians held, which had to be refuted, is that somehow God is not the ultimate author of everything. If God truly wanted no one to sin, He could make it so. Pelagianism makes it seem that God is almost powerless to prevent people from sinning it seems. Rather it is God who permits it, and people who are 'reprobated' do so because they would reject grace anyways. I think the whole thing about preemptively not providing grace is because of the issue of saying that if God truly wills something, it will happen regardless.

Here is Aquinas on Predestination: newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm

I'm still I guess a bit unclear as to why God reprobates preemptively rather than just providing grace and allowing people to reject it. It seems like God already sees beforehand if they want to co-operate, and if they don't want to, He withholds. I think this is because God has to be the first cause of everything, it's not like it's contingent on something. I guess since God can see the future and all possible futures, there is no point providing grace to someone who will reject it anyways - that's just a waste of time. Like if I know my dog doesn't like broccoli, why am I gonna by her some, just for her to turn her nose at it and go away. I'm sure there is more significance or implications of why God does it this way, rather than just looking stupid like I would if I keep buying my dog broccoli despite my knowing she won't eat it.

I see it more as God giving people a real chance at repentance and coming to the knowledge of Him instead of seeing it like you giving a dog broccoli who doesn't like broccoli, see it more like a mother who has a drug addicted son and so desperately wants him to come back and tries her best but the child is just so deep in sin that he can't possibly accept her. The same goes for man. All day long God holds out His hand to an unrepentant people.

Also, thanks for the link of Aquinas.

No problem! And okay Article 5, response to Objection 3 makes it clear Aquinas does *not* contradict St. Augustine. They both say the same thing (which seems pretty logical based on what St. Paul says in Romans).

I think the only difference between this and Calvinism is the notion that somehow God forces people to sin, but rather that God just lets people do what they do, which is damn themselves.

This seems a bit concerning though to me, I know I've read we should act like we have no idea about who is predestined or not, but it just seems weird. Like God is withholding his grace from some people? It could be you or I even :(

Despite what James, stop it Joe stop, white says, synergism is biblical. God gives people varying degrees of grace but who are you owe man to answer back to God. All people are given sufficient grace to come to Him and James even states that we must work together with the grace God has given us to then recieving more:

That's not what Augustine or Aquinas says though. This seems to be some modern invention.

It's summarized again here (number 5)

Are you referring to the section of the link you sent me here: Are merits the cause or reason of predestination, or reprobation, or election?

Also, did Jesus take on the sins of the whole world? Or only the elect? Because it doesn't make sense to take on the sins of the reprobated, since they will not repent in the end anyways, and He knows exactly who they are. I have a feeling God took on only the sins inasmuch as whoever would repent (since some reprobates may have asked forgiveness for some sins).

Sorry haha I forgot to paste: readingthesumma.blogspot.com/2010/08/question-23-predestination.html

You have believe in hypothetical universalism. Perhaps Christ sacrifice was more of a open invitation and anyone who came to it would have all their sins taken away. But since they reprobate never seek the cross they never have their sins taken a way.

"Cyprian (A.D. 250)
“All the sheep which Christ hath sought up by His blood and sufferings are saved…Whosoever shall be found in the blood, and with the mark of Christ shall only escape…He redeemed the believers with the price of His own blood…Let him be afraid to die who is not reckoned to have any part in the cross and sufferings of Christ.”"

1 John 2:2

Also, are you Catholic or eastern orthodox. Actually, I probably shouldn't assume that. What is your denomination?

Catholic and I 100% don't believe in hypothetical universalism. I don't really see so much of a problem with what St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas says, it's just something interesting to really think about.

Yeah, understandible. One thing I found interesting is that second link you sent. It quotes Ambrose interpretation of Romans 9 where Paul says God will have mercy on whome He will have mercy and harden whome He will. According to Ambrose this was talking about how God already knows what humans will do and so hardens and has mercy on the believer accordingly, it was just funny to see this. Really makes you wonder how one even comes to this biblical interpretation. And Augustine being not as well versed in biblical reading was able to understand it better.

Uh… what?

I guess I have to read more about this stuff and meditate on it, but it sort of goes into what I've been thinking about for quite a while about how Hell is beautiful, that much I really feel. Everyone seems to think oh no like Hell is some sort of undesired thing, but no, it's beautiful. I guess another side effect of this is knowing that God chooses to reprobate people. All these (most likely) unrepentant LGBTs and the like, God wills it such, so that they'll be in burning in Hell, for his glory and justice and to the delight of the saints well. Quite interesting.

The fact that God reprobates and elects people doesn't really change what we do, since we can never know whether we will make it until we die anyways, so we can only just hope that we are part of the elect, that's all. Doesn't mean that you have to go for universal salvation. If we aren't we aren't.

However it does sort of make you feel like evangelizing less almost though.

Checks out. No European wants to be Catholic.

As for Augustine, yeah, he wasn't as scripturally trained as his contemporary church fathers. In fact I read somewhere that he was working on writing a commentary on the whole Bible but stopped because he didn't feel as thorough he had the necessary knowledge to go about doing it. And when it comes to evangelising, I think it's important because all people have a possibility to he saved. Because of this we can truly hope for the salvation of the whole world, despite how unlikely it may be. Even the phraoah could have been saved but due to his hardened heart was unable to come to God. Don't lose hope, we all can be saved.

Is this a good or bad thing, what point are you trying to make?

The elect is neither nations nor individuals. It is the church.

I can accept this. There is no salvation outside the church and those who are in it are offsprings of the spirit.

You probably would be interested in some of the books of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, if you haven't already read an of that. Also, regarding Romans, Thomas Aquinas's full commentary on Romans is available in English here.

sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/romans/st-thomas-aquinas-on-romans

Oh, wow. Great. I skipped to Romans 9 and I'm currently reading his exegesis and it's amazing. He deals with it appropriately. He doesn't fall into the odd mistake of thinking Romans 9 is talking about nations or Israel. I have a new found respect for Aquinas. He's not only a great philosopher but also a great theologian!!!!

So reading the Old Catholic Encyclopedia cleared this up for me. Majority of the Latin Fathers and Greek Fathers agree that God reprobates pre-emptively on account of deeds, only Augustine and subsequently Aquinas didn't hold this (since Aquinas' idol is basically Augustine and would rarely dare to contradict him). I find this explanation easier to understand rather than saying God arbitrarily reprobates. This was the understanding that I had in general before anyways. I remember reading Augustine's reprobation theory before and was confused and uneasy by it, but I believe it may have been from a Protestant of secular source, so I just left it at that. I have to go with the majority of the Fathers saying that God reprobates pre emptively on account of deeds. Like my example previously of if you know your dog hates carrots, you aren't gonna put it out on a plate for him just for it to be wasted, cause doggo is gonna eat it. The cause of you not putting out the carrots is still you, the dog's owner, but it is because of your foreknowledge that Mr Doggo will not eat the carrots.

I'll sadly have to disagree with you here. I take the Augustinian and thomistic view since scripture clearly states that grace is unmerrited. Your answer seems to imply that grace is merited based off of what God sees in a man.
The first mistake you made was stating that God reprobates preemptively. In that He forknowns who will accept His call and only calls them. But this is at odds with the clear scriptural teaching of total depravity.

Also, I had a quick look at Ambrose interpretation of Romans 9 and I have to say that it's just awful. He even has to paraphrase the verse to say what He wants it to say and the paraphrasing goes against Paul's own point. This is why I prefer Aquinas ' interpretation here: sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/romans/st-thomas-aquinas-on-romans
It just runs so smoothly and tries to actually understand what the text is trying to say.

Im a Calvinist again. Mainly because of Romans 11:29 and other verses that utilise similar language: