God is. What we know of Him is what He has chosen to tell us.
Without seeing God as a Being of absolutes, thesis and antithesis quickly turn into synthesis (relativism). Theological disaster follows, as we see in our modern world.
But we can reject His Grace as Jesus kept telling us, and the Epistles keep telling us.
How does one reject His grace under Catholicism? Or, what is the nature of that grace? I thought that God "gives" the grace to all, and the method of purchase of that grace (acceptance) is the doing of enough good deeds to merit salvation. I thought this was the nature of the conditional gift that you believe is all God gives. Is the method of rejection simply a failure to perform well enough?
Rejection of the philosophy of free will reduces Creation to a mechanical program in which God is enslaved to His own predestination.
If you call our view of God's predestination enslavement (presumably pejorative) then you disallow God HIS FREE WILL to choose whom He wants to be with Him in Heaven. You insist that it is man's choice, NOT God's choice. We think the Creator deserves the ultimate choice, not the creation.
There is a huge difference between enabling and frogmarching. The Gospels keep referring to behaviour of humans in a free will sense.
Correct, and that is why it is error to characterize the Reformed view as frogmarching. The word "frogmarching" connotes "against one's will". The fact is that no one is dragged kicking and screaming to true Christian faith. I've never seen it and I've never heard of it. Frogmarching would be like Fox News correspondent Steve Centanni's "conversion" to Islam. That is not Reformed theology.
Instead, I see before us a choice - eternal bliss and love in the presence of God versus eternal torment and damnation. As believers, to you and me this choice is a no-brainer. We UNDERSTAND the choice. However, to all men in their Fallen state when born, they will ALL choose damnation over God. It is as if they do not understand what seems easy to us now. The part you call frogmarching is when God chooses to change the hearts of some SO THAT they can understand what is so simple to us. With that new heart they are enabled to freely choose Christ, and they DO, every time. So instead of "frogmarching", it would be more accurate to say that God does a really, really, really good job of changing hearts. In fact, God is good enough to do such a good job that He doesn't need to force anyone. Everyone coming to Christ does so freely and willingly.
Double predestination means that God chose some for Heaven and that He chose the rest for hell. So therefore nobody has any responsibility, authority, or the means to do anything other than mechanically go through a mechanical life in mechanical fashion just because.
We disagree on the extent of God's own free will. We see it as absolute, and you all see it as limited by man's (presumably superior) free will. I maintain that the freedom that your side so vigorously defends is freedom FROM and AGAINST God. For some unfathomable reason, this is prized and treasured by your side. However, in a sense it is fathomable since men are born with the natural desire to be autonomous and in full control. Certainly, many faiths have been designed AROUND that.
If God predestines someone to hell, He authors evil. Why? Evildoers go to hell. But if men who do evil only do so because they HAVE to do evil, then the responsibility for that evil falls upon their Reformed Creator.
No. You place a duty upon God to create all such that they have a "chance" to go to Heaven. Please tell me the origin of that duty that you assign. The Reformed Creator created Adam and he sinned. We blame Adam and you blame the Reformed God. After Adam, all were born with original sin. Whose fault was that? I mean, could God have just looked the other way if He wanted? We blame Adam and you blame the Reformed God. Your side puts God in a box and says that if He acts outside of the rules you have set for Him that He is the author of sin. In contrast, we believe that God makes all the rules.
If I program my desktop computer to pop up a banner glorifying myself, is the computer worshiping me? No. It has no volition because it is made to do it. If I then program my laptop to pop up a banner that indicates that it hates me, does the computer hate me? No. It has no volition. The Reformed viewpoint would then indicate that the laptop is evil and needs to be thrown into the trash while the desktop is good and needs to be kept near to my heart.
Not even close. Your position appears to be that either man has freedom on the same level as God, or he has no freedom at all. It doesn't work like that. Man was not created as machine, and man does have volition. However, it is limited and operates within the parameters that God sets. Only God has absolute freedom, as hard as that is for some to accept.
It would seem that Christ’s message, the Grace of God, and the preference of His will to save all does not resonate with the Reformed doctrine of predestination to hell.
What you're saying does not appear in scripture, so we do not accept it as Christ's message. You quoted John 3:14-17. Your interpretation of verse 17, that Jesus came to save the world, meaning to you all people, has Jesus being one of the greatest failures of any leader in history. We do not see Jesus as the failure that your side does, so we do not interpret those verses as you do. We believe Jesus accomplished exactly everything He came here to accomplish. When Jesus said "It is finished" that actually meant something.
You also quote 1 John 2:1-11. This also mentions the concept of "the world". It is the same. Either Jesus was a colossal failure or He wasn't. You are forced to admit God's failure for the sake of man's ultimate sovereignty. The rest of the passage talks about obedience, which we agree God called all of His children to perform.
Finally, you quote 1 Tim. 2:1-6, which says that God "wills everyone to be saved" in your version. Again, for the sake of man's autonomy you are forced to admit that God's will is pathetically weak and ineffectual. We don't agree with that interpretation. It appears that in Catholicism there are way too many cooks in the kitchen. This town we call the universe is simply not big enough for one omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God and the Apostolic idea of man's sovereignty. Every single theoretical elevation of man, and there are many in Apostolic theology, corresponds necessarily to a diminution of the God revealed to us in the scriptures. God knew this mindset was coming so He reminded us of how to think:
John 3:30 : He must increase, but I must decrease. KJV
In my opinion, Apostolics have this reversed.
***How does one reject His grace under Catholicism? Or, what is the nature of that grace? I thought that God “gives” the grace to all, and the method of purchase of that grace (acceptance) is the doing of enough good deeds to merit salvation. ***
How can one purchase a gift freely given? You can’t. Grace is the Way; we must still walk it.
***I thought this was the nature of the conditional gift that you believe is all God gives. ***
The gift is not conditional.
***Is the method of rejection simply a failure to perform well enough?***
To reject God’s Grace is to wallow in sin. Unlike Martin Luther’s idea of going and sinning boldly, we believe that sin itself is the rejection.
***If you call our view of God’s predestination enslavement (presumably pejorative) then you disallow God HIS FREE WILL to choose whom He wants to be with Him in Heaven.***
I disallow God nothing. I merely quote Scripture in which He has said what He wants us to know. God can do whatever He wants - He is, was and will be all at the same time.
***You insist that it is man’s choice, NOT God’s choice. We think the Creator deserves the ultimate choice, not the creation.***
It is not a matter of God deserving anything; you may think He deserves this or not that, but we have to go with His revealed Word and His Church.
***Correct, and that is why it is error to characterize the Reformed view as frogmarching. The word “frogmarching” connotes “against one’s will”. The fact is that no one is dragged kicking and screaming to true Christian faith.***
Predestination under Reformed theology means that one is forced - there is no free will. The Reformed Holy Spirit comes upon the elect and there is a change in the individual so that the means are established for that individual for him to go to Heaven. Therefore terms like frogmarching and brainwashing, although somewhat perjorative, seem adequate.
***Instead, I see before us a choice - eternal bliss and love in the presence of God versus eternal torment and damnation. As believers, to you and me this choice is a no-brainer. We UNDERSTAND the choice.***
A choice in which there is no choice, in other words?
***The part you call frogmarching is when God chooses to change the hearts of some SO THAT they can understand what is so simple to us. With that new heart they are enabled to freely choose Christ, and they DO, every time. So instead of “frogmarching”, it would be more accurate to say that God does a really, really, really good job of changing hearts. In fact, God is good enough to do such a good job that He doesn’t need to force anyone. Everyone coming to Christ does so freely and willingly.***
If you program a robot to turn to the left and you then change the programming to turn to the right, it is still a forced conversion.
***Your position appears to be that either man has freedom on the same level as God, or he has no freedom at all. It doesn’t work like that. Man was not created as machine, and man does have volition.***
Of course man does not have the same level of freedom as God; he does work within Creation and God is beyond Creation. The Reformed, though, take the position that man is not responsible for anything whatsoever - the perfect teenage fantasy. :)
***You place a duty upon God to create all such that they have a “chance” to go to Heaven. Please tell me the origin of that duty that you assign. ***
I place no duty. All I know of God is what He has revealed to us.
***We see it as absolute, and you all see it as limited by man’s (presumably superior) free will. I maintain that the freedom that your side so vigorously defends is freedom FROM and AGAINST God. For some unfathomable reason, this is prized and treasured by your side. ***
God has created us with the ability to reject Him, as is more than adequately demonstrated by much of humanity.
***You quoted John 3:14-17. Your interpretation of verse 17, that Jesus came to save the world, meaning to you all people, has Jesus being one of the greatest failures of any leader in history. We do not see Jesus as the failure that your side does, so we do not interpret those verses as you do. ***
If ‘the world’ does not mean ‘the world’, and it simply means whatever one wants it to mean, then no wonder our faiths are so different.
***You also quote 1 John 2:1-11. This also mentions the concept of “the world”. It is the same.
.....
Finally, you quote 1 Tim. 2:1-6, which says that God “wills everyone to be saved” in your version. Again, for the sake of man’s autonomy you are forced to admit that God’s will is pathetically weak and ineffectual. We don’t agree with that interpretation. ***
When these verses are open to misterpretation, then no wonder that some of the more difficult verses wind up with different meanings.
*** It appears that in Catholicism there are way too many cooks in the kitchen. This town we call the universe is simply not big enough for one omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God and the Apostolic idea of man’s sovereignty. Every single theoretical elevation of man, and there are many in Apostolic theology, corresponds necessarily to a diminution of the God revealed to us in the scriptures.***
You have just demonstrated that the Reformed view of Creation does not allow for all Scripture; indeed, right from the beginning of the Reformation, Martin Luther axed the Deuterocanicals and was preparing to remove James, Revelation and most of the Epistles except for some of Paul.
***Every single theoretical elevation of man, and there are many in Apostolic theology, corresponds necessarily to a diminution of the God revealed to us in the scriptures. God knew this mindset was coming so He reminded us of how to think:
John 3:30 : He must increase, but I must decrease. KJV
In my opinion, Apostolics have this reversed.***
Jesus spent most of the Gospels instructing us on what to do. If nothing that we do matters, then why did He instruct us over and over, both plainly and in parable?