Babies are not sinners. Sin is an act of VOLITION. To state that God would send "non elect babies" to hell makes Him a monster and injust. Babies cannot sin because babies have no volition.
Babies have no volition, eh? Hm. That's an interesting one. So, pray tell, at what point do we humans obtain a will? Because it seems pretty clear to me that babies are quite capable of acting willfully. Now, granted, they don't fully comprehend the actions they take, and they may be too weak to follow through, but they do act willfully. And since every one of them is born post-Fall, every one of them is born with an evil will. Augustine in his Confessions actually has quite an interesting description of the sinfulness even of babies, who are singularly selfish and jealous creatures.
Quote
No. Only those who CHOOSE TO SIN deserve to be in hell. Choosing sin (i.e. "covenant breaking") separates us from the love of God and casts us out of His presence eternally.
Who does not choose to sin?
Quote
Scripture says that God is not willing that ANY should perish. It also says that Jesus the Christ died FOR THE WORLD.
Care to show the biblical verses in context, with a thorough and careful exegesis?
Quote
Your terminology is imprecise. No man can choose salvation. That is all of grace. But eternal life, which is the inheritance of salvation, is entirely left to us and to whether or not we will A) enter into the covenant of God B) keep that covenant relationship faithfully.
So, I can be saved and still perish in hell. O what a salvation thy god hath provided! A salvation worth nothing.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Babies have no volition, eh? Hm. That's an interesting one. So, pray tell, at what point do we humans obtain a will?
There are some adults who have no volition either. This is why the Catholic Church defines mortal sin in such a precise manner, i.e., that one must KNOW that what one is doing is wrong (sin), one must choose to do that despite this knowledge, and one must not be under coercion. Babies may be willful in their natural state (old nature) but they are not willingly choosing sin because they have no knowledge that what they are doing is wrong.
Because it seems pretty clear to me that babies are quite capable of acting willfully. Now, granted, they don't fully comprehend the actions they take, and they may be too weak to follow through, but they do act willfully.
That's the whole point, sir. They DON'T KNOW. And this is the difference between Calvinist theology, which places a great premium upon intellectual knowledge, and Catholic theology, which places a great premium upon God's overriding and awesome mercy to all mankind, not just some group of "elect sinners". God is not willing that ANY should perish. I enjoy how my Calvinist friends take that word and make it "any of the elect". My my!
And since every one of them is born post-Fall, every one of them is born with an evil will.
Nope. Everyone is born with a DAMAGED WILL that cannot do what God requires except that He give us His grace.
Augustine in his Confessions actually has quite an interesting description of the sinfulness even of babies, who are singularly selfish and jealous creatures.
An interesting side note. The Eastern Orthodox consider Augustine's writings to be heretical in many points.[/b]
Who does not choose to sin?
Matthew 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
I find this verse very interesting. Jesus refers to a group of people called "the righteous" Who were they?
How is THIS possible.
Luke 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
Holy Scripture calls this couple "righteous". Very interesting. Of course, Luther would have called them "dung" but Luther had, IMHO, some serious anthropological problems.
So, I can be saved and still perish in hell. O what a salvation thy god hath provided! A salvation worth nothing.
Agrue it with God. Covenants are conditional. They can be broken. St. Paul has warnings against falling away in every one of his epistles except Philemon. I think what you should be asking yourself is this: if the Calvinist soteriological paradigm is true, how come no one "discovered" it for 1500 years? Are you insinuating that every believer, even the apostles who were taught of Jesus, were either dummies or deliberately left the Faith as soon as Jesus left the earth?
I'm a tad short on time today or I would answer your other question. Perhaps another day and another thread. [/b]
Your statement is not an answer and certainly is not in line with what our Lord promised to the Church. By implication, what I see you saying is that it was the predestined will of God that less than 100 years after Jesus left the earth, having PROMISED that the Church would never be overcome by the gates of hell, the second generation of apostles all went into apostasy and the world was cast into darkness and damnation until Luther and Calvin came along.
Remember, the Early Church was distinctly and ONLY Catholic, both Eastern and Western in variation, but nonetheless, Catholic. None of the doctrines of the Reformation were ever known prior to 1517. Therefore, if you, as a good Calvinist, believe that all those who reject Calvinism are damned and non elect out of hand, then the whole world prior to 1517 and for 1500 years went directly to hell.
And Jesus and the Holy Spirit failed to keep the promise of Matthew 16.
Sinners BECOME sons of God when they are reconciled to God by grace through faith in Christ alone. Otherwise, all are born "children of wrath".
Let me take just this statement alone. I agree that in order to enter the kingdom, one must become a child of the Father, and that is through the adoption of grace. Our natural state is indeed separation from God, which is called "death" in the scriptures.
But is this limited to just the "elect", or do all get a chance to apply for sonship? I would favor the latter because of the express nature of God as shown in the scriptures -- i.e., that He is love, that He has abundant mercy for sinners, that He desires none to be lost, etc. The Calvinist paradigm seems to hold out that God is just the opposite of this, that rather than having mercy upon the whole world, that He has mercy upon a select few and damns, without reason, all the rest. That does not strike me as particularly just nor loving.
In closing, let me ask you this: is it possible that someone in China, 500 years before Christ was even born, could be saved by God's grace without even knowing of Who Jesus is or how the plan of salvation works? (I have a spedific person in mind and a specific verse of scripture to discuss regarding this question).
But is this limited to just the "elect", or do all get a chance to apply for sonship?
I've never seen it described as an application process. Sinners, by their very nature, choose other than God, and that willfully.
Quote
I would favor the latter because of the express nature of God as shown in the scriptures -- i.e., that He is love, that He has abundant mercy for sinners, that He desires none to be lost, etc.
Because God has abundant mercy for sinners does not necessitate His mercy must be the same for all. What is wondrous and awe inspiring is that He chose anybody at all. If He had chosen but one, He would have been infinitely merciful.
Quote
The Calvinist paradigm seems to hold out that God is just the opposite of this, that rather than having mercy upon the whole world, that He has mercy upon a select few and damns, without reason, all the rest.
I am going to answer this assertion again and ask you to remember it, as you are repeatedly misrepresenting calvinism. God damns people because they are sinners.
Quote
That does not strike me as particularly just nor loving.
A God that damns those that willfully oppose Him isn't just? This is exactly the attribute of Gods nature you toss out with your one-sided view of Gods nature. Yes, God is loving, but He is also just.
Your assertion has two problems. First, it is non-sequitor. Because the Church did not deal with soteriology in depth prior to any date does not mean all that was wrote prior to then was correct.
Second, it was spoke of prior to your asserted date, and that is in my signature. I'll post a couple more as well to show you how wrong your base assertion is.
Quote
"We confess the election to life and the predestination of the wicked to damnation." Council of Valence, Mansi, 15:4
"He fulfills what he wills, properly using even evil things as if the very best to the damnation of those whom he has justly predestined to punishment." Augustine, Enchridion 26 {100} (FC 3:454; PL 40.279)
"Predestination is twofold: either of the elect to rest or of the reprobate to death" Isidore of Seville, Sententiarium Libri tres 2.6 (PL 83.606)
"It belongs to God's justice that he divides, and to his power that he divides according to his will" Ambrose, Letter 20 (FC 26:108)
OC claimed nobody prior to Calvin believed in the same soteriology. I offered my signature as evidence otherwise. I also offered some other quotes in my answer to him.
OrthodoxCatholic said: The Calvinist paradigm seems to hold out that God is just the opposite of this, that rather than having mercy upon the whole world, that He has mercy upon a select few and damns, without reason, all the rest. That does not strike me as particularly just nor loving.
I would agree with you on this much, that God doesn't damn the non-elect "without reason". For indeed He has a very legitimate reason for damning mankind to eternal punishment, i.e., the fact that they are sinners. It is the sinners deepest desire that God be gone and that even hell is more desirable than the prospect of spending eternity with Him Who is thrice holy. If this were not the case, then they would all repent of their sins and embrace Christ.
Quote
You then ask: In closing, let me ask you this: is it possible that someone in China, 500 years before Christ was even born, could be saved by God's grace without even knowing of Who Jesus is or how the plan of salvation works? (I have a spedific person in mind and a specific verse of scripture to discuss regarding this question).
The answer is an unreserved, "No!" It is impossible than any can be saved without "knowing" the Lord Christ and embracing Him with a living faith, created within them by the Holy Spirit. (Jh 14:6; Rom 1:16; 10:14-17; Eph 2:8, 9; et al)
I always find it interesting when Reformed people selectively choose the quotes from Catholics which seem to support their position and then ignore the larger body of their works. I just went over to read about St. Isadore. Quite a man ... and quite a saint.
Thoroughly Catholic, of course, which means that despite your appeal to predestinatino on his part, he would live a Faith which you in toto reject.
Of course, you realize that unless what he said was approved by the eclessiastical hierarchy, then it was mainly just his outlook on the matter. When I state that Calvinism was not taught prior to 1517, I stand there. There has always been reference to predestination in the Church, but as OFFICIAL TEACHING, it simply was not a part of the canons of the Faith.
Of course, I welcome you to prove me wrong. I am always seeking to learn. Please quote the source and the OFFICIAL CONCICULAR DECREE which made the teaching of a Calvinist view of soteriology the official teaching of the Church.
OrthodoxCatholic said: Of course, I welcome you to prove me wrong. I am always seeking to learn. Please quote the source and the OFFICIAL CONCICULAR DECREE which made the teaching of a Calvinist view of soteriology the official teaching of the Church.
It would be utter silliness for anyone to fall into this trite challenge, for your "concicular decrees" are no more binding upon us as the Westminster Confession of Faith is binding upon you. What matters is what the inspired, infallible, inerrant written Word of God teaches, to which many will distort, deny and depart. I don't find it surprising that the majority of alleged Christian men would hold to Pelagianism/semi-Pelagianism, for it is the "natural theology" of a sinful mind and heart whose primary lust is to free themselves from their Creator as He has revealed Himself in His Word and make themselves "co-regents".
"The Sovereignty of God is the stumbling block on which thousands fall and perish; and if we go contending with God about His sovereignty it will be our eternal ruin. It is absolutely necessary that we should submit to God as an absolute sovereign, and the sovereign of our souls; as one who may have mercy on whom He will have mercy and harden whom He will!" - Jonathan Edwards
Thoroughly Catholic, of course, which means that despite your appeal to predestinatino on his part, he would live a Faith which you in toto reject.
I am catholic. I am not Roman Catholic.
Quote
Of course, you realize that unless what he said was approved by the eclessiastical hierarchy, then it was mainly just his outlook on the matter.
Of course. Now could you tell me which hierarchy and give scriptural reference for this procedure? I believe that as long as his beliefs lined up with Gods Word it was truth despite any hierarchy. Gods Word is final and it speaks clearly on the matter.
Quote
When I state that Calvinism was not taught prior to 1517, I stand there. There has always been reference to predestination in the Church, but as OFFICIAL TEACHING, it simply was not a part of the canons of the Faith.
Because it had never been dealt with in depth does not necessitate Calvin being incorrect. Illogical conclusions. Because Rome disagrees has no bearing on calvinisms truthfulness, either. You will have better luck interacting with what we believe.