www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Rom. 9: 11-21

Does anybody know of a resource where I could read what the Fathers thought in regards to this section of Scripture? This is one of the main Scripture "weapons" that Calvinists use to support their "theology." Looking at it, one can understand where they get their ideas of Election.

Thank you,

Columcille

"To obey or not is in our own power, provided we do not have the excuse of ignorance." Clement of Alexandria

"To such an interpretation, all the Scriptures are opposed. They emphasize the freedom of the will. They condemn those who sin, and they approve those who do right...We are responsible for our being good and worthy of being called (honorable) vessels, Likewise, we are responsible for being bad and worthy of being cast outside. For it is not the nature in us that is the cause of evil; rather, it is the voluntary choice that works evil. Likewise, our nature is not the cause of righteousness, as though it were incapable of admitting unrightteousness." Origen

:rolleyes:

Dear Columcille,

Yes, I've had run-ins on that scripture as well.

I don't think invoking the Fathers will do much good.

What I've found to be successful is to dig up stuff by the Wesleys and the Methodist tradition and other Arminian Protestants who detested the Calvinist perspective on this matter.

Alex

The arguement for predestion, after some serous thought, is a logical argument if we didn�t have the Early Church to look to. It makes the most sense IMO if you were to pick up the Bible and start reading without the guidance of the Holy Church.

Here�s how it go�s:

Christ died on the cross to atone for the sin of many (notice the term �many� is used not �all�). In His dying his sacriface was perfect and total, lacking nothing. We can not accecpt his gift of salvation to be saved for the simple reason that when we acept salvation we are �saving� ourselves, that God is limited to man�s acceptance of his offer. Common quotes,

"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began; But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel." �2 TIMOTHY 1:9, 10.

"You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?'" Romans 9:19

"God crowns not our merits but his own gifts; and the name of reward is given not to what is due to our merits, but to the recompense of grace previously bestowed?"
Augustine

(I do not agree with any of this just trying to help all come to an understanding of limited atonement, juistifcation and election...in a nutshell of corse)

It is the habit of all cults to take a verse or sometimes a small section of Scripture and wrench it out of context of the whole of Scripture to prove their position.

The key to understanding what St. Paul is discussing comes from vs 12:

Ro 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

This has to do with the turning upside down of the normal covenantal hierarchial relationship. In the covenant, it was normal for the elder son to take upon himself the headship of the clan upon the death of the father. God has, for His own purposes, turned this upside down. Later on in Genesis, we find the reason for this: Esau cared not a whit for the blessing of being the next in line in the covenantal structure. He sold his birthright -- headship over the family --for a mere bowl of lentil soup. Therefore, this is really not the mystery of "God's providences" that the Calvinists would make it to seem.

Catholic theology teaches predestination, but it is not the demonic doctrine that the Calvinists have. God does not "reprobate" someone for no other reason than some sort of "divine mystery". That makes him sound like the pagan "gods" of antiquity who tormented mortals for the sport of it. The predestination of God is based on His ability in timeless eternity to see the beginning from the end and to know what could be as if I actually happened. Thus, God sees what each one of us will do with the gift of faith -- turn it down or accept it -- if we are given the ability to believe. Those whom God sees as having open and ready hearts are given the ability to believe and receive Him.

See: [b]CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA - PREDESTINATION[/b] [newadvent.org]

Now at this point, the strident Calvinist will point to vs 18 and say "Wait a minute!! This says that God HARDENS whom He will."

Yes, indeed, but Scripture also says that God desires that all come to salvation. Do we have a case of schizophrenia here? Is there a conflict in the Scriptures? Hardly. How God's hardening works is shown in the preceeding verses regarding His dealings with Pharoah, which again, Calvinists, in their zeal to prove their devilish doctrines, do not take the time to THINK about.

God hardened whom He would in Pharoah, didn't He? But He also called to Pharoah numerous times before He hardened him. He didn't just harden Pharoah from the git go without any input from Pharoah whatsoever, damning him forever for absolutely no reason (as Calvinism teaches). Calvinists don't like to consider that part, but that is the exact same thing as what I spoke of above from the Catholic Encyclopedia -- God's hardening was in response to Pharoah's rejection of Him.

And ultimately, I would insist that this hardening only comes when a person has so hardened themselves against Him that they have passed the point of no return (or the point of no repentance). As we know and teach, God loveth all mankind, and as such, will continue to seek and call the lost sheep until there is no possibility of their return to Him.

Calvinists have really, really messed up the whole book of Romans. They do not understand it because they do not understand the time it was written, the purpose for which it was written, or the person who wrote it. Lacking these understandings, and being completely influenced by John Calvin's heresies, they are blinded to the truth regarding what God is teaching here through St. Paul.

Brother Ed -- X Calvinist -- See? There is a cure for it!!

Excellent points Alter boy, but I tend to give the Calvinist :rolleyes: a little more credit. Calvin was well educated and did study the Fathers, unfortunately he misunderstood them as well. The following are just a few more examples that Calvinist may use or take out of context from both Scriptures and the Fathers.

�The gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.� Acts 4:27,28

�For whom he foreknew, He also predestined....� Rom. 8:29

�He chose us in Him before the foundations of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself.� Eph. 1:4, 5

�He, then, who faultlessly acts the drama of life that God has given him to play, knows both what is to be done and what is to be endured.� Clement of Alexandria

�Twice dead� he says...according to the predestined judgements of God. Clement of Alexandria

�We have been predestined by God, before the world was, to [appear] in th extreme end of times. And so we were trained by God for the purpose of chastising the world.� Tertullian

�Neither let anyone take comfort from - or apologize for what happens from - fate... For what else is fate than what God has spoken of each one of us? Since He can forsee our constitution, He determines also the fates of individuals. Thus, in our case, it is not the star under which we are born that is punished. Rather, the particular nature of our disposition is blamed.� Mark Minucius Felix

Also, Calvinist thinking tends to walk this path. Man is sinful. He does not become a sinner by sinning. He sins because he is a sinner.

"...and [we] were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest" (Eph. 2:3)

Because of man's sinfulness, he is unable to understand God, seek God, or do any thing good:

"...both Jews and Greeks are all under sin as it is written, 'There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one'" (Rom. 3:9-12).

Because of his sinfulness, he loves darkness rather than light; he loves evil rather than good:

"And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil" (John 3:19).

Man is evil a sinner etc., who is incapable of understanding and coming to God and has a sinful free will capable only of rejecting God. Therefore, in order for salvation to occur, God must predestine. It can be no other way. If this is so, then there should be verses supporting it.

There are:

Acts 13:48: And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; AND AS MANY AS HAD BEEN APPOINTED TO ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVED.

John 1:12-13: But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, WHO WERE BORN NOT OF BLOOD, NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD.

Philippians 1:29: FOR TO YOU IT HAS BEEN GRANTED FOR CHRIST'S SAKE, NOT ONLY TO BELIEVE IN HIM, but also to suffer for his sake.

Romans 8:29-30: FOR WHOM HE FOREKNEW, HE ALSO PREDESTINED to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Ephesians 1:5: HE PREDESTINED US to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will.

Ephesians 1:11 Also WE HAVE OBTAINED AN INHERITANCE, HAVING BEEN PREDESTINED ACCORDING TO HIS PURPOSE who works all things after the counsel of His will.

The following Scriptures allude to predestination as Calvinist see it.

(God who draws people to Himself [John 6:44,65]).

1. - creates a clean heart (Psalm 51:10).
2. - appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48).
3. - works faith in the believer (John 6:28-29).
4. - chooses who is to be holy and blameless (Eph. 1:4).
5. - chooses us for salvation (2 Thess. 2:13-14).
6. - grants the act of believing (Phil. 1:29).
7. - grants repentance (2 Tim. 2:24-26).
8. - calls according to His purpose (2 Tim. 1:9).
9. - causes us to be born again (1 Pet. 1:3).
10. - predestines us to salvation (Rom. 8:29-30).
11. - predestines us to adoption (Eph. 1:5).
12. - predestines us according to His purpose (Eph. 1:11).
13. - makes us born again not by our will but by
His will (John 1:12-13).

It is man who:
1. - is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9).
2. - is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23).
3. - loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19).
4. - is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12).
5. - is helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6).
6. - is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1).
7. - is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3).
8. - cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14).
9. - is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).

So you see it�s not just one verse out of place, it�s a whole system of thought. It�s a cut and past of many verses and clearly shows just how one can come to a logical system for understanding Scripture outside of Holy Tradition. Of course history deny�s Calvinist claims as I do, but it can not be simply be a verse taken out of context.

I would love to here your thoughts on Sola Scriptura, so please if you like start another thread and we can discuss them. I�m Orthodox from a prot background so I do understand a little of the thought and whole heartly disagreed with Sola Scriptura as prots see it. But it is always good to talk about such things in light of Tradition and the Truth that is the Faith.

God bless,

Odo

Not only are you from a Prot background, you were either a Calvinist yourself or you have really studied and know the places in the Scriptures that they love to turn to.

Also, Calvinist thinking tends to walk this path. Man is sinful. He does not become a sinner by sinning. He sins because he is a sinner.

And this is where I would go for the heavy artillery with these guys. What is man ontologically? Did the ontology of man change when Adam sinned? Prove it from Scripture, because I find no such direct statement.

Then there would be the epistomology of man's condition.

Oh, believe me, this would be FUN!!

Because of man's sinfulness, he is unable to understand God, seek God, or do any thing good:

"...both Jews and Greeks are all under sin as it is written, 'There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one'" (Rom. 3:9-12).

This is a complete MISQUOTE of Psalms 14 which creates a handy strawman that they knock down. The reason they are allowed to do this is because they seldomly run into people who understand what St. Paul was discussing in Romans. St. Paul was the apostle to the Jews. He was the STAR PUPIL of Gamilael (sp?) and as such, was the perfect person, choosen of God, to teach them of the Messiaship of Christ Jesus. There was NO WAY that the Jews were going to tell him "Well, you don't understand the Torah"

I can just hear St. Paul, with a bemused expression, saying "Oh reeeaaaaly? "I" don't understand the Torah? Well, let me tell you about Torah."

Romans is St. Paul's monumental effort to convince the Jews that they too, would stand before Christ in that Great Day of Judgment. NO ONE would be excused. Romans 2: 5 - 10 makes this crystal clear. ALL mankind will be under the same judgement, Jews and Gentiles alike.

You see, the Jews thought that they had their ticket through the pearly gates stamped because of their Jewish identity. St. Paul's work is to prove that they, too, will be in that Judgement, and he shows them that the righteousness that they must have must be that of faith in Christ.

Because of his sinfulness, he loves darkness rather than light; he loves evil rather than good:

"And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil" (John 3:19)

More Calvinist bologna. Goes back to the ontology issue. Is man ontologically EVIL, or is he, as we in Orthodoxy insist, very sick and in need of being healed? Is he in darkness and in need of light? Is he confused and in need of truth?

Man is evil a sinner etc., who is incapable of understanding and coming to God and has a sinful free will capable only of rejecting God.

Man is indeed in dire straights because he has been separated from light, therefore, he cannot see truth. He is unable to understand therefore unless God comes to Him. This is where predestination comes in, but the idea of a God Who reprobates His children to eternal torment for no reason other than divine and inscrutiable fiat is a God Who is not a Father in the best sense of that word.

Therefore, in order for salvation to occur, God must predestine.

Yes, but He predestines according to His ability in omniscience to see what each man or woman will do with faith if they are made able to accept or reject it. Therefore, those whom God sees will receive Him are given the ability to believe. It is based not on arbitrariness at all, but upon our response to Him when He offers salvation to us. Great mystery, but one that leaves man ontologically intact as the image bearer of God (meaning the ability to choose between right and wrong).

It can be no other way. If this is so, then there should be verses supporting it.

Weeeeeel, there SEEMS to be, as with most mistranslations and private interpretations of the Bible.

Acts 13:48: And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; AND AS MANY AS HAD BEEN APPOINTED TO ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVED.

Appointed to believe specifically because God knew that if offered this marvellous gift, they would receive it.

John 1:12-13: But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, WHO WERE BORN NOT OF BLOOD, NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD.

Bad verse to try to prove predestination. Very shaky, but I don't have time to deconstruct it. It's getting late and I have to be up early.

Philippians 1:29: FOR TO YOU IT HAS BEEN GRANTED FOR CHRIST'S SAKE, NOT ONLY TO BELIEVE IN HIM, but also to suffer for his sake.

Again, I do not see the predestination in this.

Romans 8:29-30: FOR WHOM HE FOREKNEW, HE ALSO PREDESTINED to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

He foreKNEW what about them? That they would respond positively to the Gospel if they were given power to believe and then presented with the Gospel.

Ephesians 1:5: HE PREDESTINED US to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will.

Calvinists (as well as all Evangelicals) have this nasty habit of seeing everything as being applied to individuals. This can just as easily be a statement of corporate predestination of the Church as His people.

Ephesians 1:11 Also WE HAVE OBTAINED AN INHERITANCE, HAVING BEEN PREDESTINED ACCORDING TO HIS PURPOSE who works all things after the counsel of His will.

Again, WHY? Because God simply willed it with no reason at all, or because He chooses based on the foreknowledge of how we will treat this gift of faith?

(God who draws people to Himself [John 6:44,65]).

Yup. That is the Catholic view of it also as expressed by the Council of Trent. The caveat there is that unlike the God Who draws people for no reason we can understand, our Father draws men to Him whom He knows will respond.

1. - creates a clean heart (Psalm 51:10).
2. - appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48).
3. - works faith in the believer (John 6:28-29).
4. - chooses who is to be holy and blameless (Eph. 1:4).
5. - chooses us for salvation (2 Thess. 2:13-14).
6. - grants the act of believing (Phil. 1:29).
7. - grants repentance (2 Tim. 2:24-26).
8. - calls according to His purpose (2 Tim. 1:9).
9. - causes us to be born again (1 Pet. 1:3).
10. - predestines us to salvation (Rom. 8:29-30).
11. - predestines us to adoption (Eph. 1:5).
12. - predestines us according to His purpose (Eph. 1:11).
13. - makes us born again not by our will but by
His will (John 1:12-13).

Have answered this. All comes down to what God sees a man will do with the gift of faith if given to him.

It is man who:

1. - is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9).

No argument. We also believe that man is sick and needs the Divine Physician.

2. - is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23).

Out of context entirely. This merely says that men can and do have this within them, and if we do, it comes out from within. What the Calvinist doesn't care to remember is the fact that the OT speaks of men and women who were "righteous". Now how can this be if all mankind is nothing but evil?

3. - loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19).

No argument. That is our natural state.

< is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12).

The most widely quoted verses in the Bible in an attempt to prove something which is not there. Calvinists take this out of context and make a mess of it. This is not what St. Paul is teaching.

is helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6).

Yes. Catholic Catechism says the same thing, and it does prove that we need God to be the "first mover" in our coming to salvation.

- is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1).

NOT AT ALL!! At least, NOT in the way that Calvinists misinterpret it. For a people who pride themselves on being "sola scriptura", they sure miss a lot in the Scriptures!!!

Death is not what they claim it is. I remember a dour old Dutch Calvinist who was fond of saying that man spiritually is a "stinkin' rotten four day old corpse" in God's sight.

Rubbish!!

That is his presupposition and violates what the Scriptures teach about death.

The parable of the Prodigal gives us the BIBLICAL definition of what death is. The father of the Prodigal said: "...for this my son, who was DEAD..." Well, the boy was actually quite alive. But he was dead because he was SEPARATED from the father. This is the same death which was the curse upon Adam. Adam was driven from the Garden and separated from God. But he retained his ability to choose, although that ability was severely damaged by sin, so damaged in fact that it is God Who must move first, for if He did not, man would never seek Him.

But a "stinkin" spiritual corpse..."? Nope. Sorry, not in the Bible.

7 - is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3).

8. - cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14).

9. - is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).

So you see it's not just one verse out of place, it's a whole system of thought. It's a cut and past of many verses and clearly shows just how one can come to a logical system for understanding Scripture outside of Holy Tradition. Of course history deny's Calvinist claims as I do, but it can not be simply be a verse taken out of context.

Basically I would agree with you. ALL the verses they use are taken out of context of the WHOLE BIBLE. There is a complete story in the Scriptures of the Father's love for mankind. To not see that story as the great overview by which all other verses must agree results in the confusion we see as Protestantism.

I would love to here your thoughts on Sola Scriptura, so please if you like start another thread and we can discuss them. I'm Orthodox from a prot background so I do understand a little of the thought and whole heartly disagreed with Sola Scriptura as prots see it. But it is always good to talk about such things in light of Tradition and the Truth that is the Faith

Actually, this is one area in which I simply have not done much study.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

I have a site for you.... www.aomin.org/ [aomin.org] This guy is unstoppable when it comes to debating catholic�s. He�s debated and won debates against the leading catholic apologetics. His site has in real audio debates with many such as Tim Staples, Robert Sungenis, Gerry Matatics, Fr. Mitchell Pacwa, Art Sippo, etc. I only know Calvinist Scriptural misquotes by trying to defend the Catholic position from James White. Matatics in one debate even started off by giving an apology for Mr. White's debate prowess and gives the impression that he's weak and up against a Goliath. Laterally. He�s a power lifter so I would have a hard time facing him as well. Anyways take a look and let me know what you think of his site, you would have a better understanding of his arguements then I would with your Calvinist background. (My background is Anglican [broad church which means prayer book Liturgy and to a certain extent reformed preaching])

Dear Odo,

This fellow has "won" debates against Catholics?

Who decided when he "won" the debate? How was "winning" decided?

Did the debate stop when the other side couldn't come up with further quotes from the Scriptures?

I'm just intrigued by these people who are enclosed within their own logic and simply deny the validity of anything that challenges it.

But then that doesn't make for a valid debate based on open exchange of views.

That's just someone who is very good at insisting that he and his system of thought is right and everyone else is wrong.

Like you with respect to that image of the Pope receiving a blessing from the Catholic woman in India.

Alex

Ortho Cath, the winning is chosen by judges obviously??? Just like in college. I cut and pasted from sites on the net so you may come to a better understanding of just how the �winner� is decided upon. And I�m sure the judges were honorable men and women. Take a listen yourself the site is listed, and please notice the only name missing from the list....Dr. Scott Hahn. Unfortunately the only man that I know would not be intimidated by Dr. White�s aggressive style. Of course it�s my opinion and you have already label me anti-catholic for disagreeing on some points of the Latin doctrine, but remember it�s just my opinion....

God bless,

Odo

Evaluation and scoring is based on content...

"If an argument is plainly weak, the adjudicator will evaluate it as such. Such an argument will not do much good to the team who presented it. On the other hand opposing team which does not point out plainly week argument and will not explain why it is considered to be a poor argument is commiting a greater sin.

Irrelevant statement: a/ says nothing - has no statement value b/ does not support the validity of the line/resolution c/ is not a tool of refutation. Such a statement is simply irrelevant to the debate.

The judges must not be influenced by their own beliefs and prejudices, nor by their own specialized knowledge. The judges must be independent while evaluating the debate.

The judge shall, according to his own conscience, acquaint her/himself with the issues related to the resolution in the best possible way."

Marking

"The purpose of marking supplementary is apart of a feedback tool to serve as an additional supplementary criterion of the evaluation of the debate. Points are not a factor in deciding who won the debate though. In case of two or more teams having same results in a tournament, it will nevertheless be taken into account as one of criteria which team did better. But the most important function of the marking is feedback to individuals.

Points are subjective and their worth differ from each individual judge. In each category it is possible to receive the following points:

a) content 40 - 10

b) strategy 30 - 10

c) style 30 - 10

d) cross questions and answers 10 - 0"

Dear Odo,

I have never labelled you as "anti-CAtholic" Big Guy!

Too Catholic, yes . . .

But "anti?"

Never!

Don't put words in my mouth - the traffic there can be horrendous already

Alex

Your right I apologize.

we are all IHS,

Odo

May St Odo of Canterbury bless and protect you always!

Alex

Gentlemen:
On another thread -- the one with the Pope and the
"Hindu" lady in India -- there was a web site
called 'cephas..'. I went there and was amazed at the total lack of understanding of everything Catholic and the apparent hatred, also. I tried to read a couple of the topics regarding the Eucharist. I could not comprehend their explanation of the "word" as understood by them.
It is as if we Catholics speak another language.
I also remember reading somewhere that Catholics
(and Orthodox) imagine differently than non-Catholics. We see the church as a whole family.
We see the whole picture, which includes Tradition. They see a tiny sliver of the Truth and want us to deny the rest.

Last school year my daughter starting going with a couple of friends on Wednesday nights to their Youth Group. Bowling and such. They also invited her many times to Sunday services, but we always insisted she HAD to attend Catholic Liturgy. We had a few semi-heated discussions about the differences between the Catholic church and this "community" church -- I don't know if they were fundamentalist, evangelical, or just
non-denominational. She thought we thought the people there were "evil". We insisted, that, no they are not evil, they just see things differently. They do not have the seven sacraments, they do not believe in the Real Presence, etc. I looked to my parish priest for advice. He recommended we not totally forbid her from going on Wednesday evenings, he felt at her age she could become rebellious if we said totally NO.

I was relieved, last week, when she told me she did not want to go this year on Wednesday evenings (the youth group follws the school year). She felt she was being pulled by them away from the Catholic church. If you missed a week they would say "Oh, we missed you last week" -- the guilt thing. This year, instead of fun stuff like bowling, they are doing more bible study. Not that there is anything wrong with bible study, but she saw that they see things differently than Catholics.

A bit of patience on our part and I guess alot of discernment on her part.

I post this here because it is an example of Catholics seeing scripture differently than non-Catholics.

I don't recall if it was in one of the above posts or on the web-site listed above about the
'debater', but, why do they feel so strongly against having a corpus on a cross??? Why do they think God would forbid us reverencing his Son as He gave up His life for us? Again, an example of a different imagination.
denise