Do you believe in predestination ?

[Bright Raven]

as long as you do not mess with the free will of man.

 

[Idolater]

I think you've committed the logical fallacy of begging the question. We're trying to test the idea that God has exhaustive foreknowledge, but you've made that a necessary condition of the conclusion.

OK I see.

That's fair. I was presenting hypothetical responses as if I were in the situation. I think I'd be able to choose red or blue, or take our not take the apple regardless of what anyone, including God, told me beforehand.

You seem to think otherwise.

No, I believe that our freedom is genuine. I think that this is part of why I wanted to include the condition that God tells us 'accurately' what we're going to do, because if God tells us what we're going to do inaccurately, then what makes Him God? But that aside, if we change the type of statement that God makes wrt "the apple" from a prophecy, to an imperative /command, then we probably agree 100% that we are free to disobey Him. It makes it more complicated to include the possibility of God prophesying wrongly.

It might be. You might be right.

I appreciate your candor and reasonableness.

However, I think it's more important to improve our relationships than to improve our knowledge. This is in regard to parenthood, but informs on how we might view our relationship with God.

I agree completely. The thread's about 'predestination,' so that's what we're focused on, but I do agree with you that our relationship with God (and with our kids by extension) is weightier than whatever it is that we believe regarding foreknowledge etc.

 

[Idolater]

Mat 26:33 Peter answered him, "Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away."
Mat 26:34 Jesus said to him, "Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times."
Mat 26:35 Peter said to him, "Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you!" And all the disciples said the same.

And here is a prophecy uttered by the Lord to Peter, concerning what Peter would do, and Peter did do it. Was Peter free to do otherwise? I believe that he was; and I believe that Christ therefore accurately predicted what Peter would freely and voluntarily do. And not only that, to magnify His superior knowledge over our own (Is55:8-9KJV), He even predicted that it would occur "before the rooster crows," and He meant 'immediately' before (Mt26:74KJV)!

 

[Idolater]

It's a Catholic hanging point with a long tradition.

Yes.

Its a house of cards, if one doesn't accept one tenent of the Catholic tradition, it doesn't the other either.

I presume that you mean the Catholic tenet that the bishops preserve for, and transmit to the Church, the entire Apostolic oral tradition along with the Scripture. I guess it does kind of hang on that point. Perhaps that's exactly what I believe. But I contend that believing that the bishops do this, is itself scriptural.

On this, for a Prostestant, it doesn't matter if he is a theologian (he was, though ALSO a lawyer), it rather matters if one aligns with him by their own studies

I agree. Good and faithful Protestants study Scripture and if their interpretation of Scripture aligns with what Clavinism also teaches, then those Protestants identify as Clavinists.

(not really available to the Catholic

I don't know that I agree with this, since Catholics believe the tenet I mentioned above: that the bishops preserve and transmit to the Church the entirety of the Apostolic oral tradition, along with their writings, the writings originating directly in them (those writings dictated by Apostles, but actually written down by a scribe or a secretary), and the writings approved by them as Scripture (these last three wholly contained within the Bible).

Catholicism holds all Apostolic teachings as equal in authority, whether or not they appear in the N.T. The authority to transmit these teachings was given to the bishops (to their office) by the Apostles, and the Apostles' own teaching authority was given to them by the Lord---their teaching authority is His teaching authority iow.

, but the only way an non-Catholic could become Catholic is either 1) as one naive of theology or 2) one who through their own studies, aligns theologically with Catholicism.

I am the latter.

 

[Lon]

I don't know that I agree with this, since Catholics believe the tenet I mentioned above: that the bishops preserve and transmit to the Church the entirety of the Apostolic oral tradition, along with their writings, the writings originating directly in them (those writings dictated by Apostles, but actually written down by a scribe or a secretary), and the writings approved by them as Scripture (these last three wholly contained within the Bible).

Catholicism holds all Apostolic teachings as equal in authority, whether or not they appear in the N.T. The authority to transmit these teachings was given to the bishops (to their office) by the Apostles, and the Apostles' own teaching authority was given to them by the Lord---their teaching authority is His teaching authority iow.
I am the latter.

I'm not sure of your disagreement here. Let me try a scenario: My mother was raised Catholic. She was indoctrinated by Catechism. I, on the other hand, was not. The two universes (Protestant and Catholic) collided when we talked of the scriptures and especially the difference between what the Catechism taught and the difference the scriptures teach.

In the RC, the lay people often do try to think for themselves, but ultimately, they'd be remiss if they toss off authority teaching.
There are a good number (no idea percentages) that do, but I'm saying, with your observation, that they aren't supposed to do so.

A few Catholics on TOL have told me exactly that for answers, that they let their Priest worry about deeper theology and answers.

 

[Stripe]

If God tells us what we're going to do inaccurately, then what makes Him God?

I see this as another example of a logically impossible challenge. God can't create a square circle, it would be absurd to insist that He could. Likewise, He could not predict what someone will do, tell them and be shown right every time.

Is God not God because He can't make two plus two equal 13?

 

[Idolater]

I'm not sure of your disagreement here. Let me try a scenario: My mother was raised Catholic. She was indoctrinated by Catechism.

This would have been the Baltimore Catechism, which was a catechism made by American bishops according to the Roman Catechism which was published first in the late 1500s after the council of Trent.

I, on the other hand, was not.

That's great to have a Catholic parent. Did your mom continue going to Mass? It's just good to have someone so close who's Catholic to answer any questions, that might be disrespectful, and there's nothing you can do to make it a respectful question, so instead it's an angry Protest, but that has to be OK in some realm, in order for the Bible to be true. And Catholicism in the Catechism of the Catholic Church makes that very clear, which adds clarity to what we've known only through limited scriptural reference to the status (or even existence of) authentic Christians who are nonetheless not in communion with the Body of Christ, the (Catholic /"Universal") Church; this is the Church that Jesus started, out of the lot of them all. That's just the history. Not reasonably disputed, imo. Of course I don't mean that someone who argues it is ipso facto unreasonable, but I do mean that my judgment is that the Catholic Church is Jesus's church; that Catholicism is Christian theology, period. Other theology is counterfeit. I mean that.

The two universes (Protestant and Catholic)

There's two different 'two universes' you should be aware of. One is the one you mention, which is a distinction between authentic Christians, and the other universe is the Church and the World. That one is mentioned in Scripture more frequently than the one between Christians.

collided when we talked of the scriptures and especially the difference between what the Catechism taught and the difference the scriptures teach.

And this is why I went to lengths to explain the timeline of catechisms. Because I wonder if you can provide two examples of where you perceive this occurring. You can cite a prior catechism, but especially I wonder if you've got two examples in the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' that you understand to be at odds with what the scriptures teach.

For me I take authentic Church pastors to be the bishops, and the bishops are given one test for authenticity beyond their ordination /consecration, and that is being in communion with the successor of Peter (the 'successor of Peter' here is like President Donald Trump being the 'successor of George Washington'). Part of that authenticity is agreeing and confessing with what the Pope teaches in all matters of faith and morals (and other things that only affect clergy and not the non-ordained faithful like me) concerning authentic Apostolic teaching on faith and morals. These he teaches 'ex cathedra,' so that it's clear that it's Apostolic, what he's about to say.

Bishops have to agree and confess with him that 'ex cathedra' is authentically Apostolic. Some serious disagreements with the papacy occurred at councils, including at Nicaea, where a good amount of bishops were found to be out of communion. Even today, there are those (although I don't think any bishops) who believe that while the 'seat of Peter' is real, it's currently 'vacant,' and they're known as 'sedevacantists,' they're just another variety of Protestants iow.

All the bishops who do agree and confess with Peter's pastorate are Catholic bishops, they are the magisterium. The other bishops are authentic in that their ordination is valid, but they are not in communion with the bishop of the Romans (an epistle in the N.T. was written to the Roman diocese) because they do not agree or confess all that the popes teach is authentically Apostolic, in matters of faith and morals.

My position is that the Catechism doesn't conflict with scriptural teaching. You could look at it like the Scripture is the bricks and the authentic Apostolic oral tradition is the mortar, all coming together to form the castle that is our faith.

In the RC, the lay people often do try to think for themselves, but ultimately, they'd be remiss if they toss off authority teaching.

I don't know what you mean. Do you mean that they only believe Catholicism because they'd be sad to reject it, so they just believe it in the face of all evidence to the contrary?

There are a good number (no idea percentages) that do, but I'm saying, with your observation, that they aren't supposed to do so.

I of course still don't know what you refer to here, but nonetheless what I'd say regarding what Catholics are to believe, is that the Catechism suggests that we are to believe that Jesus of Nazareth is risen from the dead. This constitutes believing in Christ, which is what an authentic Christian does. Beyond this there is a Himalayan mountain range of other doctrines that are each just as true, but are not just as important to believe, in order to be an authentic Christian.

A few Catholics on TOL have told me exactly that for answers, that they let their Priest worry about deeper theology and answers.

Catholics are like any other Christians in that way. There are all different types. There is in Catholicism however an almost two thousand year old history of theological investigation, which is far longer than any other Christian school of theology. Plus, the bishops hold as a chest holds a treasure, the deposit of faith received from the Apostles, who received it from the Lord. Most Protestant theological questions, even particularly aporetic and opaque ones, were actually directly answered by the Apostles, and in a way that extinguishes a further need to skeptically question or challenge, because all skepticism is roundly demolished by Catholicism, because Catholicism is built upon what the actual Apostles actually said, plus what they wrote (or dictated, or approved of), and not just the latter.

The most important things in Catholicism, are belief in Christ, baptism, going to weekly Mass, and then sacramental reception into the Church, and then licitly receiving Holy Communion, and then not becoming conscious of committing mortal sin, which is the same as not committing grave sin. Those are some of the peaks in the mountain range of moral doctrines, but believing in the Resurrection of Christ is like Mt. Everest wrt how important it is to believe it, and going to Mass weekly regularly is like Bunker Hill in Boston (I might exaggerate but there is a serious difference between the error of not believing in Christ's Resurrection, and the error of skipping Mass).

Mainly when we consider things, if we have a good system of priorities plainly set out before us, we can be confident. I ask, 'Am I still in full communion with the Church?' and if the answer is yes, I don't permit myself to get too excited about it. The authentic pastors have set out what to think regarding being a Christian.

Mystagogy. That's what they call it.

 

[Idolater]

I see this as another example of a logically impossible challenge. God can't create a square circle, it would be absurd to insist that He could. Likewise, He could not predict what someone will do, tell them and be shown right every time.

Why not? I don't mean about the 'square circle,' that's absurd on its face, why would anybody think God should be able to do what's absurd on its face? How would we even know if He did it successfully? What does absurdity look like, that we can inspect it, to see that it's there, to confirm that God did the absurd?

Is God not God because He can't make two plus two equal 13?

Of course not. I just don't see limitless exhaustive foreknowledge as conflicting with our full, complete, 100 percent free will. Same as with my parents when I was young, and as with me and my kids now, I know them, they knew me, we /they know our kids, and if we can control the circumstances then we can actually know what will be done. Jesus knew what Peter would do, and He even told him. Point of fact is that God actually doesn't tell us what we're individually going to do, so this is a thought experiment, and that's fine. It's a fact. Facts are always fine. If God always told us, like in our daily newsfeed, what we were always going to do today, and we always did it, whether or not we tried to avoid doing it, that would be a very different world from the one God has us living in.

So we're on the same page that God "can't" do absurd things. I just don't think that God's limitless foreknowledge conflicts with the real presence of our genuine free will in all matters---so it's not absurd.

 

[Stripe]

I just don't see limitless exhaustive foreknowledge as conflicting with our full, complete, 100 percent free will.

That's what my thought experiment was for.

 

[Lon]

Its good to pause and take stock. Most of this is unrelated to our thread so pick and choose what you want to address and ignore the rest. We need to get back to the topic. -Lon

This would have been the Baltimore Catechism, which was a catechism made by American bishops according to the Roman Catechism which was published first in the late 1500s after the council of Trent.
That's great to have a Catholic parent. Did your mom continue going to Mass? It's just good to have someone so close who's Catholic to answer any questions, that might be disrespectful, and there's nothing you can do to make it a respectful question, so instead it's an angry Protest, but that has to be OK in some realm, in order for the Bible to be true. And Catholicism in the Catechism of the Catholic Church makes that very clear, which adds clarity to what we've known only through limited scriptural reference to the status (or even existence of) authentic Christians who are nonetheless not in communion with the Body of Christ, the (Catholic /"Universal") Church; this is the Church that Jesus started, out of the lot of them all. That's just the history. Not reasonably disputed, imo. Of course I don't mean that someone who argues it is ipso facto unreasonable, but I do mean that my judgment is that the Catholic Church is Jesus's church; that Catholicism is Christian theology, period. Other theology is counterfeit. I mean that.

You wouldn't be a good Catholic if you didn't. For me: The RC, like many other 'works-oriented' denominations, has the cart before the horse. Very few Catholics agree that you must be a new creation, THEN works. They don't essentially believe in a supernatural rebirth. It is a huge difference and that wall is high. I'll be as frank as you: I could not be a Catholic where rulers instead of Savior are employed to cause church members to tote the line. The Lord Jesus Christ said new wine could not be put into old wine-skins. Essentially, we aren't going to meet in the middle on this.

A bit off the beaten path, this thread is about predestination and whether God knew us before the foundation of the world, and whether our names were previously written in the Lamb's book of Life. In some sense, the severity of our difference, may impact this discussion.

There's two different 'two universes' you should be aware of. One is the one you mention, which is a distinction between authentic Christians, and the other universe is the Church and the World. That one is mentioned in Scripture more frequently than the one between Christians.

Scripture verse(s)?

And this is why I went to lengths to explain the timeline of catechisms. Because I wonder if you can provide two examples of where you perceive this occurring. You can cite a prior catechism, but especially I wonder if you've got two examples in the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' that you understand to be at odds with what the scriptures teach.

No. Protestants would hold to about 90-95% of the RC's doctrine. Where do we differ? Mariology for one. Salvation by Grace for another.

For me I take authentic Church pastors to be the bishops, and the bishops are given one test for authenticity beyond their ordination /consecration, and that is being in communion with the successor of Peter (the 'successor of Peter' here is like President Donald Trump being the 'successor of George Washington'). Part of that authenticity is agreeing and confessing with what the Pope teaches in all matters of faith and morals (and other things that only affect clergy and not the non-ordained faithful like me) concerning authentic Apostolic teaching on faith and morals. These he teaches 'ex cathedra,' so that it's clear that it's Apostolic, what he's about to say.

I know.

Bishops have to agree and confess with him that 'ex cathedra' is authentically Apostolic. Some serious disagreements with the papacy occurred at councils, including at Nicaea, where a good amount of bishops were found to be out of communion. Even today, there are those (although I don't think any bishops) who believe that while the 'seat of Peter' is real, it's currently 'vacant,' and they're known as 'sedevacantists,' they're just another variety of Protestants iow.

Sure, but I believe the gifts and office of Apostle is over. That is why the next two will rather be 'witnesses.'
While Protestants and Catholics agree on much, these 10% or so, are significantly huge chasms. Such does affect predestination discussion to some degree...

All the bishops who do agree and confess with Peter's pastorate are Catholic bishops, they are the magisterium. The other bishops are authentic in that their ordination is valid, but they are not in communion with the bishop of the Romans (an epistle in the N.T. was written to the Roman diocese) because they do not agree or confess all that the popes teach is authentically Apostolic, in matters of faith and morals.

Yes, very aware of this fact and others.

My position is that the Catechism doesn't conflict with scriptural teaching. You could look at it like the Scripture is the bricks and the authentic Apostolic oral tradition is the mortar, all coming together to form the castle that is our faith.
I don't know what you mean. Do you mean that they only believe Catholicism because they'd be sad to reject it, so they just believe it in the face of all evidence to the contrary?
I of course still don't know what you refer to here, but nonetheless what I'd say regarding what Catholics are to believe, is that the Catechism suggests that we are to believe that Jesus of Nazareth is risen from the dead. This constitutes believing in Christ, which is what an authentic Christian does. Beyond this there is a Himalayan mountain range of other doctrines that are each just as true, but are not just as important to believe, in order to be an authentic Christian.
Catholics are like any other Christians in that way. There are all different types. There is in Catholicism however an almost two thousand year old history of theological investigation, which is far longer than any other Christian school of theology. Plus, the bishops hold as a chest holds a treasure, the deposit of faith received from the Apostles, who received it from the Lord. Most Protestant theological questions, even particularly aporetic and opaque ones, were actually directly answered by the Apostles, and in a way that extinguishes a further need to skeptically question or challenge, because all skepticism is roundly demolished by Catholicism, because Catholicism is built upon what the actual Apostles actually said, plus what they wrote (or dictated, or approved of), and not just the latter.

In addition to those already mentioned (Mariology, Seat of Peter...) I don't hold to 'church' as an organization or institution. It is simply an invisible body of all who are 'new creations' supernaturally made into new beings. These need encouragement, but their new-nature desires godliness. No nuns ruler nor priests confessional can make an unbeliever who has no spiritual generation, believe, follow, or please Christ. Because Catholics don't see man born spiritually dead, as I believe wholeheartedly the scriptures proclaim, there is a deep-seated disagreement. Though perhaps only 10%, that which is disagreed upon, is huge.

The most important things in Catholicism, are belief in Christ, baptism, going to weekly Mass, and then sacramental reception into the Church, and then licitly receiving Holy Communion, and then not becoming conscious of committing mortal sin, which is the same as not committing grave sin. Those are some of the peaks in the mountain range of moral doctrines, but believing in the Resurrection of Christ is like Mt. Everest wrt how important it is to believe it, and going to Mass weekly regularly is like Bunker Hill in Boston (I might exaggerate but there is a serious difference between the error of not believing in Christ's Resurrection, and the error of skipping Mass).

Yes, I know. Again, as far as most of us Protestants are concerned, it is all cart before the horse. Bandaids on gashes. New wine in old wineskins.

Mainly when we consider things, if we have a good system of priorities plainly set out before us, we can be confident. I ask, 'Am I still in full communion with the Church?' and if the answer is yes, I don't permit myself to get too excited about it. The authentic pastors have set out what to think regarding being a Christian.

Mystagogy. That's what they call it.

Back to Predestination discussion :e4e: -Lon

 

[Nanja]

Mans religion teaches contrary to scripture, that Gods predestination is premised on Gods foresight of mans doing something, his works or believing etc, but its not true. Gods predestination is conditioned upon the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: Eph 1:11

11 [FONT="]In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:[/FONT]

Amen Brother ! God's Eternal Will alone Eph. 1:11 is the origin or cause of His election and predestination of men to Eternal Life, or eternal destruction; not determined by His foresight of what man wills to do or not do in time, but strictly because according to His Eternal Purpose elected certain individuals to be partakers of His Grace through the Redemption that is in Christ Jesus Rom. 3:24 which were reconciled to God even while being his enemies Rom. 5:9-10.

Dan. 4:25b the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

 

[Stripe]

God's Eternal Will alone is the origin or cause of His election and predestination of men to Eternal Life, or eternal destruction.

When did He do this, in your opinion? More importantly, why didn't He do it before then?

 

[beloved57]

Amen Brother ! God's Eternal Will alone Eph. 1:11 is the origin or cause of His election and predestination of men to Eternal Life, or eternal destruction; not determined by His foresight of what man wills to do or not do in time, but strictly because according to His Eternal Purpose elected certain individuals to be partakers of His Grace through the Redemption that is in Christ Jesus Rom. 3:24 which were reconciled to God even while being his enemies Rom. 5:9-10.

Dan. 4:25b the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

Amen Sister

 

[Idolater]

That's what my thought experiment was for.

OK I'm going to review it.

Here is my now revised take on your thought experiment, correcting for a possible petitio principii in my prior:

A possesses the power to exhaustively control B's circumstances.
A reserves their power to do so.
A informs B what B will freely choose to do, within a specific circumstance that A arranges.
Does B have a choice?​

Yes.

 

[Stripe]

OK I'm going to review it.

Here is my now revised take on your thought experiment, correcting for a possible petitio principii in my prior:

A possesses the power to exhaustively control B's circumstances.
A reserves their power to do so.
A informs B what B will freely choose to do, within a specific circumstance that A arranges.
Does B have a choice?​

Yes.

Does that mean it is possible that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge?

 

[Idolater]

Its good to pause and take stock. Most of this is unrelated to our thread so pick and choose what you want to address and ignore the rest. We need to get back to the topic. -Lon

Part of my point is that we never diverged from the topic. If predestination is true, then nothing is off this topic.

You wouldn't be a good Catholic if you didn't.

That's not true. There are tons of good Catholics who wouldn't say such a thing. What makes a good Catholic, in descending order of importance, is faith in Christ, being initiated into the Catholic Church, and then being in full communion with the Church---iow being validly authorized to receive the Eucharist, and actually doing so at least once per year.

For me: The RC, like many other 'works-oriented' denominations

False that Catholicism is what you mean by 'works-oriented,' and manifestly so.

, has the cart before the horse. Very few Catholics agree that you must be a new creation, THEN works.

It isn't the conduct of Catholics but the authoritatively authentic Catholic teachings on faith and morals that you should concern yourself with when considering Catholicism, especially as a theologically minded Protestant.

They don't essentially believe in a supernatural rebirth.

Study the teachings on baptism.

It is a huge difference and that wall is high.

There is no difference. It might look different to you, but the teaching /doctrine is there.

I'll be as frank as you: I could not be a Catholic where rulers instead of Savior are employed to cause church members to tote the line.

I don't know what you mean by this. Catholicism believes what the Apostles taught in all matters of faith and morals. There isn't a more Christian way to do it. I'm not saying that Protestants don't also heed and obey what they understand the Apostles to have taught in these matters, but it remains true that Catholicism does devote itself to the Apostolic witness and all of it.

The Lord Jesus Christ said new wine could not be put into old wine-skins.

My understanding of this reference, doesn't apply to this topic, can you elaborate?

Essentially, we aren't going to meet in the middle on this.

There is no middle. There's the Lord's Church, and then there's the world. What could possibly be the middle? It's like a lightswitch, on or off. Up or down. No middle.

A bit off the beaten path, this thread is about predestination and whether God knew us before the foundation of the world, and whether our names were previously written in the Lamb's book of Life. In some sense, the severity of our difference, may impact this discussion.

The N.T. itself teaches about our difference, between Catholics in full communion, and authentic Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church. Corporeally, we are totally distinct and separate, even though eternally we are siblings. The N.T. authorizes Catholics to treat you Protestants just like everybody else in the world who isn't Catholic; like a heathen man and a publican. What this means today is that you are not authorized to validly celebrate the Eucharist, or to receive Holy Communion. Because of this, you are not in physical communion with the Lord's Church; and by physical communion I am alluding to all Catholic parishes partaking of "one" bread (1Co10:17KJV). That's the Eucharist.

Scripture verse(s)?

Be in the world but not of the world, and other verses distinguishing the Church from everybody else. This distinction is mentioned more frequently than the distinction between Christians in full communion with each other, and Christians who are outside the fold in one way or another. Although both distinctions are in the N.T.

No.

"No," what? No you don't have two examples of what you're talking about?

Protestants would hold to about 90-95% of the RC's doctrine. Where do we differ? Mariology for one.

I have to guess that you mean by 'mariology,' calling her "Mother of God," and that we believe that she (and all other saints in heaven right now) can hear our prayers? Perhaps additionally that we believe that saints in heaven right now can pray on our behalf? I can only guess, without some blank-filling-in on your part.

Salvation by Grace for another.

Catholicism believes in eternal and temporal salvation by grace alone. Catholicism does not discount the value of petitioning for grace either.

I know.


Sure, but I believe the gifts and office of Apostle is over.

As does Catholicism. The difference between Catholicism and non-Catholicism is the idea that the office of a bishop has also ceased, along with "the gifts and office of Apostle." There isn't any scriptural reason to believe in the cessation of the office of a bishop (1Ti3:1KJV).

That is why the next two will rather be 'witnesses.'

The "next two" what? And the Apostles first and foremost Were witnesses, to the Resurrection of Christ.

While Protestants and Catholics agree on much, these 10% or so, are significantly huge chasms.

The single issue is bishops. Every other difference in belief precipitates from a difference in Catholicism's and non-Catholic understanding of bishops.

Such does affect predestination discussion to some degree...

There are ways in which scriptures concerning the predestination of the Catholic Church should be understood to include also those authentic Christians who neglect to hear the Church, e.g. (Mt18:17KJV).

Yes, very aware of this fact and others.

These other bishops as a tradition broke with Rome about a thousand years ago, over whether it is Apostolic that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, or if He only proceeds from the Father. Catholics believe that the Apostolic tradition in Rome is the gold standard, and that if any other Apostolic traditions differ from the Roman one, that Rome is authentic. This comes from that both Peter and Paul, two of the biggest three Apostles (John being the third), were residents of Rome during the end of each of their lives. So the Roman pastorate receives her Apostolic tradition from Peter and Paul both, and other bishops receive their Apostolic traditions from other Apostles. All authentic Apostolic tradition is equal, but if there is a difference between one tradition and another, then Rome's tradition is taken as superior, because Rome's authentic Apostolic oral tradition originates with both Peter and with Paul.

In addition to those already mentioned (Mariology, Seat of Peter...) I don't hold to 'church' as an organization or institution. It is simply an invisible body of all who are 'new creations' supernaturally made into new beings.

But you do know that the Church was both, historically. Perhaps you find Constantine to be an inflection point in Church history like many Protestants do---before Diocletian, the Church was "an organization or institution." It was "an organization or institution" immediately following the Apostolic era, and it was "an organization or institution" during the Apostolic era as well. The Church was always "an organization or institution" at the latest, from the beginning of the office of a bishop (1Ti3:1KJV again). Bishops' existence ipso facto creates "an organization or institution," because bishops are hierarchical in one sense: bishops are authentic Church pastors. So by virtue of there being such a thing as an authentic pastorate, there also must be "an organization or institution" that corresponds to this hierarchical office.

These need encouragement, but their new-nature desires godliness.

Sheep outside their fold need to return to their fold, or, enter into it for the first time, and those sheep who do desire to enter their fold, also desire godliness.

No nuns ruler nor priests confessional can make an unbeliever who has no spiritual generation, believe, follow, or please Christ.

Right, and Catholicism also teaches this same thing.

Because Catholics don't see man born spiritually dead, as I believe wholeheartedly the scriptures proclaim, there is a deep-seated disagreement. Though perhaps only 10%, that which is disagreed upon, is huge.

Catholicism believes the whole Scripture, and one of the things that the scriptures very clearly do proclaim is that Christians should come to the Church, and be in full communion with one another, to be both spiritually and physically, invisibly and visibly, united as One Body (1Co10:17KJV again).

Yes, I know. Again, as far as most of us Protestants are concerned, it is all cart before the horse. Bandaids on gashes. New wine in old wineskins.

Being in full communion with the Lord Jesus's Church is none of those things. You non-Catholics are the only ones trying to tow a cart from behind.

Back to Predestination discussion :e4e: -Lon

We never left the topic. We are predestined to discuss this.

 

[Idolater]

Does that mean it is possible that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge?

I guess I don't know what you mean by asking if "it is possible" that He does not have it, since the fact is either that He does, or that He does not. I don't think that your thought experiment rules out that He has it.

 

[Stripe]

I guess I don't know what you mean by asking if "it is possible" that He does not have it, since the fact is either that He does, or that He does not. I don't think that your thought experiment rules out that He has it.

You say that He does have exhaustive foreknowledge. My thought experiment presents a scenario where He could be shown not to have it.

 

[Idolater]

You say that He does have exhaustive foreknowledge.

I do, for the reason I gave.

My thought experiment presents a scenario where He could be shown not to have it.

Then do it. Show it.

 

[Lon]

Part of my point is that we never diverged from the topic. If predestination is true, then nothing is off this topic.

I disagree: This discussion is Catholic/Protestant and not predestination at this venture:

That's not true. There are tons of good Catholics who wouldn't say such a thing. What makes a good Catholic, in descending order of importance, is faith in Christ, being initiated into the Catholic Church, and then being in full communion with the Church---iow being validly authorized to receive the Eucharist, and actually doing so at least once per year.
False that Catholicism is what you mean by 'works-oriented,' and manifestly so.
It isn't the conduct of Catholics but the authoritatively authentic Catholic teachings on faith and morals that you should concern yourself with when considering Catholicism, especially as a theologically minded Protestant.
Study the teachings on baptism.
There is no difference. It might look different to you, but the teaching /doctrine is there.
I don't know what you mean by this. Catholicism believes what the Apostles taught in all matters of faith and morals. There isn't a more Christian way to do it. I'm not saying that Protestants don't also heed and obey what they understand the Apostles to have taught in these matters, but it remains true that Catholicism does devote itself to the Apostolic witness and all of it.

Half my extended family is Catholic, including a great uncle who is a priest. There is no point of me saying 'yes it is' and you saying 'no it is not.' Its pointless.

My understanding of this reference, doesn't apply to this topic, can you elaborate?There is no middle. There's the Lord's Church, and then there's the world. What could possibly be the middle? It's like a lightswitch, on or off. Up or down. No middle.

You must have misread. I said there was no meeting in the middle. You are just elaborating like we don't agree on this, but I said it first. Glad we both agree there is no meeting of ways between our churches here. That's what I said. What's odd is you've tried to say no to genuine differences between Protestant and Catholic denominations as if there was a meeting in the middle I'm trying to tell you what they are.

The N.T. itself teaches about our difference, between Catholics in full communion, and authentic Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church. Corporeally, we are totally distinct and separate, even though eternally we are siblings. The N.T. authorizes Catholics to treat you Protestants just like everybody else in the world who isn't Catholic; like a heathen man and a publican. What this means today is that you are not authorized to validly celebrate the Eucharist, or to receive Holy Communion. Because of this, you are not in physical communion with the Lord's Church; and by physical communion I am alluding to all Catholic parishes partaking of "one" bread (1Co10:17KJV). That's the Eucharist.
Be in the world but not of the world, and other verses distinguishing the Church from everybody else. This distinction is mentioned more frequently than the distinction between Christians in full communion with each other, and Christians who are outside the fold in one way or another. Although both distinctions are in the N.T.

And Protestants do the same regarding Catholics. We have a good number of exCatholics on TOL (including the site owner).

"No," what? No you don't have two examples of what you're talking about?
I have to guess that you mean by 'mariology,' calling her "Mother of God," and that we believe that she (and all other saints in heaven right now) can hear our prayers? Perhaps additionally that we believe that saints in heaven right now can pray on our behalf? I can only guess, without some blank-filling-in on your part.
Catholicism believes in eternal and temporal salvation by grace alone. Catholicism does not discount the value of petitioning for grace either.
As does Catholicism. The difference between Catholicism and non-Catholicism is the idea that the office of a bishop has also ceased, along with "the gifts and office of Apostle." There isn't any scriptural reason to believe in the cessation of the office of a bishop (1Ti3:1KJV).
The "next two" what? And the Apostles first and foremost Were witnesses, to the Resurrection of Christ.
The single issue is bishops. Every other difference in belief precipitates from a difference in Catholicism's and non-Catholic understanding of bishops.

I disagree (I too am exCatholic) but it doesn't matter for this thread. We can pick it up where it isn't misplaced discussion in another thread one day, perhaps.

There are ways in which scriptures concerning the predestination of the Catholic Church should be understood to include also those authentic Christians who neglect to hear the Church, e.g. (Mt18:17KJV).
These other bishops as a tradition broke with Rome about a thousand years ago, over whether it is Apostolic that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, or if He only proceeds from the Father. Catholics believe that the Apostolic tradition in Rome is the gold standard, and that if any other Apostolic traditions differ from the Roman one, that Rome is authentic. This comes from that both Peter and Paul, two of the biggest three Apostles (John being the third), were residents of Rome during the end of each of their lives. So the Roman pastorate receives her Apostolic tradition from Peter and Paul both, and other bishops receive their Apostolic traditions from other Apostles. All authentic Apostolic tradition is equal, but if there is a difference between one tradition and another, then Rome's tradition is taken as superior, because Rome's authentic Apostolic oral tradition originates with both Peter and with Paul.

Still not really addressing the topic of predestination that the OP is concerned with....

But you do know that the Church was both, historically. Perhaps you find Constantine to be an inflection point in Church history like many Protestants do---before Diocletian, the Church was "an organization or institution." It was "an organization or institution" immediately following the Apostolic era, and it was "an organization or institution" during the Apostolic era as well. The Church was always "an organization or institution" at the latest, from the beginning of the office of a bishop (1Ti3:1KJV again). Bishops' existence ipso facto creates "an organization or institution," because bishops are hierarchical in one sense: bishops are authentic Church pastors. So by virtue of there being such a thing as an authentic pastorate, there also must be "an organization or institution" that corresponds to this hierarchical office.
Sheep outside their fold need to return to their fold, or, enter into it for the first time, and those sheep who do desire to enter their fold, also desire godliness.

Even in the two Vaticans, but there has always been coexisting churches, including Eastern Orthodox, but even prior, many Eastern churches as well, never capable of being in fellowship.

Right, and Catholicism also teaches this same thing.
Catholicism believes the whole Scripture, and one of the things that the scriptures very clearly do proclaim is that Christians should come to the Church, and be in full communion with one another, to be both spiritually and physically, invisibly and visibly, united as One Body (1Co10:17KJV again).
Being in full communion with the Lord Jesus's Church is none of those things. You non-Catholics are the only ones trying to tow a cart from behind.
We never left the topic. We are predestined to discuss this.

No, not really part of the thread's intent, we are off-topic. We can discuss these differences some other time. -Lon