Were the Early Christians Wrong about Predestination?

The Protestant Reformer John Calvin claimed that from all eternity, God has predestined some people to heaven (the elect) and others to hell (the reprobate), and there's nothing anyone can do to go from one category to the other. Is this what the earliest Christians believed? Calvin's own answer on that question might surprise you.
Chapters
00:00 - Intro
00:08 - Overview
01:12 - What is Calvinism?
12:01 - Were Early Christians Calvinists
14:15 - What Did Calvin Say About Early Christians
18:49 - Were the Early Christians "Confused"
21:53 - Early Christians and the Philosophers
30:31 - St. Justin Martyr and Free Will
39:40 - St. Augustine
50:40 - Early Christianity or Protestantism

[@mr.fordnite1909]

I’m meeting with a priest today about pursuing confirmation, please pray for me

[@Catholicmillennial]

Good luck!

[@glennlanham6309]

i will pray for you at mass at noon

[@Justin-yn5py]

Let’s go!!!

[@masterchief8179]

I will, my friend! From Latin America with love.

[@CrusaderTube]

🙏

[@catholiccom]

Just found this podcast. How have I not heard of it before??

[@princessc660]

@@terryhartung4159lol

[@wjtruax]

Please confirm that this is a rhetorical question. Otherwise, my speculations will be wild.

[@damnedmadman]

The channel is probably suppressed by KZbin, like many other valuable channels.

[@ARTCreationsOfficial]

@@damnedmadman This is a joke. Joe Heschmeyer is a regular Catholic Answers apologist.

[@damnedmadman]

@@ARTCreationsOfficial No, I'm serious. You don't realize how many more or less secret techniques KZbin implements to promote some voices and silence others. The easiest one to use and hardest to prove as biased against a particular channel is their content recommendation algorithm on which most people rely to discover new channels.

[@josh39684]

If anyone reads Against Herieses by St Irenaeus he addresses predestination and free will. It's clearly the Catholic view. Before he even spoke on the matter he spoke how nobody can understand the mind of God. I strongly recommend reading it. It's truly incredible

[@annakimborahpa]

1. From the CatholicNews Agency article Pope Francis declares St. Irenaeus ‘Doctor of Unity’ By Courtney Mares, Vatican City, Jan 21, 2022 / 04:50 am: "Pope Francis on Friday officially declared St. Irenaeus of Lyon as the 37th Doctor of the Church, with the title “Doctor Unitatis” (“Doctor of Unity”). 'May the doctrine of such a great Master encourage more and more the path of all the Lord's disciples towards full communion,' the pope wrote in a decree signed on Jan. 21." 2. From the Wikipedia article on Irenaeus: "He was buried under the Church of Saint John in Lyon, which was later renamed St Irenaeus in his honour. The tomb and his remains were utterly destroyed in 1562 by the Huguenots." Response: The Huguenots were the devoted French followers of John Calvin. Their destruction of St. Irenaeus' tomb and bodily remains occurred two years before Calvin's death in 1564, so presumably he was aware of this event.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

@@annakimborahpa Yep, Huguenot terrorists killed many priests, burned many books and destroyed other cultural artifacts under the guise of following the Christianity of the early Church despite never providing any evidence for that view.

[@josh39684]

​@@annakimborahpa St Irenaeus was truly a doctor of the church and of unity That just infuriates me that they would do that they would destroy his resting place.

[@josh39684]

​@@TheThreatenedSwanyou never hear that anywhere. If you ask John MacArthur about them he would say they were saints and martyrs

[@lucillejerome5511]

@@josh39684 I didn't know this! If we listen to some protestants and also atheists, it's the Catholics who were the only destroyers of cultures and other religions.

[@timboslice980]

I converted from Calvinism. For 10 years i struggled to understand why a potter would weep for vessels he made for the garbage. Their theology comes first, rules of interpretation 2nd, and scriptural interpretation of problem passages a distant third. The hermeneutic i learned was you interpret the difficult passages in light of the simple ones. The problem is, the theology makes simple passages INTO problem passages. Eventually when you let go of the theological lens youre reading scripture through, then scripture starts to make much much more sense.

[@hirakisk1973]

To get around a lot of clear interpretation, John Calvin just redefined words to what he wanted them to mean. "all means all", except when it doesn't. lol

[@BlessedMrs.777]

@timboslice980 You said that better than I can normally articulate. I was in those same shoes for 3 years. Pray for those still stuck in Calvinism. God bless you.

[@SamHarless-wh1ed]

Wow! I’m a disappointed Protestant seeking to understand more about historical Christianity. Thanks for your service with this channel. I really appreciate the obvious effort to avoid straw manning and ad hominem. Keep it up! You might convince me.

[@danvankouwenberg7234]

There's a great channel on the pre-nicene church fathers. It goes through their writings and the Didache. I was listening to St. Ignatius of Antioch's letters this week. His letter to Rome is wild.

[@danvankouwenberg7234]

The channel is called the post-apostolic church. I don't think the channel is run by a Catholic either. Very objective.

[@1901elina]

I pray that your disappointment turns into the gratefulness of the blessing of full communion with Christ's church. As a convert myself (although from atheism, not Protestantism) I can tell you the gift of His Church is one I'm thankful for every day. God bless you!

[@davidhoyos1498]

haven't seen the video yet, already know it's a certified banger

[@nyrukdaerog3973]

No free will is no love is a hollow existence.

[@mariatr492]

This topic fits in perfectly with the bible study we are doing at my parish "The Bible and the Early Church Fathers"!

[@GumbyJumpOff]

How do you do, fellow papists?

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

Shamelessly well, my good fellow papist

[@stananders2333]

Capitally, my good man, capitally

[@bernardauberson7218]

Je me demande à quoi vous jouez ! Papistes est une insulte des calvinistes pour désigner les catholiques au temps des guerres de religion, ( 16e siècle ) il y a du retard à l’allumage ou quoi ? J’ignorais que cette insulte avait encore cours ! Venant de cette bande d’hérétiques, je ne comprends plus.

[@LanceCaraccioli]

Each of Joe’s videos have a comment from someone coming closer to Catholicism, that’s worth noting. I also am going through RCIA and this channel has quickly become an invaluable resource.

[@mikejames303]

I don't see how someone who holds the calvanist position can claim to be Christian. If Calvinism is true then ultimately nothing we do matters, God has already decided our fate. If someone is predestined for hell, how can a calvanist say that person should become Christian? Nothing they can do can change their fate.

[@wjtruax]

Even when I was an enthusiastic Calvinist, I argued that, at the very least, God gave us the effect of free will, and we are obligated to use it according to his direction. As a Catholic, I am much more comfortable with the paradox of “both God’s divine sovereignty and human free will,” which I think is philosophically as close as I’m going to get to understanding the concept this side of eternity. Ultimately, even the most hardened Calvinist cannot be absolutely sure he won’t eventually prove himself to be one of the unelect, even though they champion “perseverance of the saints.” Our only confidence is the fidelity of Christ, not of ourselves.

[@itf2212]

God chooses the ends, and he chooses the means. Things matter precisely because they *do* relate to the ends that God has purposed them for.

[@ilonkastille2993]

I agree, it is not Christian, it is like Islam .

[@rickydettmer2003]

Studying in depth how the pre Augustine fathers understood Freewill and predestination and how they understood the scriptures only further convinced me why I could never in good conscience be a Calvinist

[@jakechilton1066]

I’ve been Catholic my entire life. My senior year of high school I was fortunate to have a Catholic apologetics class that really drew me into the faith. During this time I was dating a girl that was Calvinist. She invited me to a dinner with her elders me an 17 year old kid and little did I know when I got there they began hammering me on why I was Catholic and predestination was the topic. It felt wrong that they deceived me in thinking it was a dinner and not an attempt at conversion and thankfully because I was in my apologetics class although we hadn’t touched predestination, I was able to work my way through the conversation. Not to mention my intuition told me this idea is wrong. The idea feels ugly. It always seemed to contradict every message the Bible and our Catholic teaching had taught me. It’s an ugly story to believe Calvin’s idea of predestination. It removes accountability. Why do anything ? If you’re selected to heaven or hell why is the message over and over to chose God. If Calvin was right we would have zero participation in that. This idea of predestination is what sunk me into my Catholic faith even further and I will forever be thankful for that experience as deviant as it was. Calvinist’s idea of predestination is actually a really really dumb idea/ interpretation of scripture and this is what you get when you leave the truth. Every ounce of my being rejects Calvin’s idea of predestination and I m not sure why I get so fired up even to this day thinking about Calvin’s idea of predestination but I think it’s because I have reached such low points in my life and pain from my own self sabotage from my own free will and selfishness that I had a specific moment with God when I was honest with Him and asked him to forgive me in that exact moment my tears of sad turned to joyful laughter and felt Him physically lift my stresses of my sins out of my body and filled my heart with complete love and after that specific moment I had with Him I sat in silence with Him talking with Him in complete balanced peace, fully alive and because I submitted myself my thoughts became cleaner, my words became cleaner and I returned to an innocence in a sense that I missed about life. It changed my life that moment and I’ve had a few of them with Him which I am so thankful for. I reciceve this same joyful feeling amplified when I ask Mary to pray for me where there is this deep feminine love that makes me very emotional even typing about rn that fills my heart with love and I can never deny those moments I know our faith is the truth. I wasn’t the one that filed my heart with love. It was a reminder He is here

[@Waldemarvonanhalt]

If the Calvinists were right, it would mean God hates humans unfairly.

[@paulsmallwood1484]

No “Calvinist” believes that.

[@mikekayanderson408]

You are completely wrong! @@paulsmallwood1484

[@paulsmallwood1484]

@@mikekayanderson408 Nope!

[@mikekayanderson408]

you are completely wrong. we believe wholeheartedly that God is Sovereign. Perfectly Holy and Perfectly Righteous and Perfectly Just. He has told us in His word that He has elected some to be saved - not all. we are all sinners and in His perfect justice could send us all to hell - which is what we deserve. But in His Grace, mercy and compassion He has decided to save some for His Glory. Read your Bible - it teaches predestination. k

[@bad_covfefe]

​@paulsmallwood1484 we never said they did. It is the logical result of the calvinist worldview.

[@pezsworld2909]

At long last I found a KZbin that presents questions and answers in one gulp that I want to present to my Protestant family. Points I don’t know how to make with references because it’s hard for me to remember at the tip of my tongue when necessary. This covers complete predestination and good arguments against very well for me , Thank you. I love the last few minutes that beg to question why would someone think they could surpass beginning Christian history and the knowledge of all the forefathers and come up with THE answer of what we all should believe ! For individuals that come up with new denominations and especially to Luther and Calvin… by what authority?

[@jordanring-sakabe3773]

Man this is a amaaaaaaazing Thanks for the wonderful content!

[@S7ARK_]

So Calvinism makes God out to be a Sadist? Picking angels and others to sin just because?

[@harrygarris6921]

The Calvinist explanation is that God reveals his glory through punishing fallen angels and sinners. And since God is the only being with agency in Calvinism and angels and humans couldn’t choose to start sinning, he caused angels and humans to fall into sin so that he could deliver justice on them.

[@DrChaunceyBlevins]

Sadly, yes. It makes God a moral monster.

[@Trumblocity]

That's how I interpret it. I'm trying to learn more about Protestantism. So far, I find Calvinism shocking. 😮

[@glennlanham6309]

@@Trumblocity and stupid

[@secessionblog3189]

​@@Trumblocityindeed, there are many Protestants who find Calvinism shocking. There's a medium length quote by Methodist founder John Wesley on Calvinism (google it) that makes the Council of Trent sound downright friendly toward it 😂

[@Holytuna1982]

Great podcast! One of the great ironies is that Calvinists believe they are taking a high view of God's sovereignty, while ignoring the fact that a completely sovereign God has the ability to sovereignly choose to relinquish some sovereignty in an act of love. We see this all throughout the Bible. God gives his creatures the ability to choose (free will). God gave man dominion over the Earth as stewards. Jesus spoke in parables of stewards in charge of his master's land while the master was away. My favorite Bible verse against Calvinism, Jeremiah 18:1-10, even shows that God can change ones destined state in response to repentance or doing evil of the creature. If God is outside time, then it seems logical that God could alter what he predestined from the beginning of time in response to the choices people make. I think the limits some put on God often leads to incorrect theology.

[@alonsoACR]

To understand how this works, you ought to remember we're made in the image and likeness of God. Traditionally, this was interpreted as the Intellect and the Will. The Will is (to make it short) the power to decide. Just like how God decided to create, instead of doing nothing, so can we will our actions, independent of our anatomy's base urges. At the risk of sounding inappropriate, I may phrase it as that we're granted the power to change timelines. Ok, not quite, but you get the idea. God, as the unchanging spirit He is, being outside time, is seeing that wondrous Creation that contains us, beings with divine attributes, and paradoxically has seen its conclusion. We're all choosing our fate, but God has tweaked everything so that the end result is satisfactory, taking into account and in contribution with our Wills. Something like that. I'm no philosopher, that's the best I can do.

[@butter__boi703]

Were the early Christian Calvinists No End of video

[@glennlanham6309]

nuff said

[@catholiccom]

Joe, take notes

[@justxigoldenix9909]

Was feeling kinda based today, was looking for something based to listen to. Thanks for coming in clutch Joe, very cool.

[@EdgarRamG]

This content is great!! Start up the membership!

[@gijoe508]

Excellent breakdown of the issue

[@CoenBijpost]

Unbelievable how wrong people can be on some things, while also being incredibly smart. No, God has no foreknowledge, because God has no before and after, He created time, He’s OUTSIDE of time. He knows what you will choose, because He has already seen what you chose. That doesn’t make your will not free, you’re totally free, to God it just all already happened and will happen and is happening.

[@dynamic9016]

Really appreciate this video.

[@emperor_mozzy]

52:28 Made me think of a quote from Princess Bride: "Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?" "Yes." "Morons."

[@jdotoz]

"Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."

[@levipingleton-cv1fg]

Excellent presentation Joe!

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

This is gonna be a good one 🤙

[@user-qn2wf2hc1w]

Joe gets my day ....love CA cast. God bless all.

[@MargaretUIUC]

I found this channel a few weeks ago, and I have to say I am really enjoying it (and learning a lot of stuff along the way). I appreciate your careful reasoning. I also appreciate that you cite your sources. I adopted an "if you have no data, you have no opinion" approach to social media last year. You definitely do the work to earn your opinions. Thank you.

[@authorityfigure1630]

These videos feel like they shouldn’t be free to watch. They’re so well done and I walk away feeling actually more knowledgeable about a topic rather than just getting a quick hit of confirmation bias.

[@bridgetgress]

So glad Joe was on Counsel of Trent so I could listen to his podcast too. Really been delving into Calvinism lately because I have some close friends who are Calvinist.

[@sebastianofmilan]

2022 The divine initiative in the work of grace precedes, prepares, and elicits the free response of man. Grace responds to the deepest yearnings of human freedom, calls freedom to cooperate with it, and perfects freedom. 600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness. - Catechism of the Catholic Church

[@tinamagee5054]

Thank you, that was a great explaination!

[@RezG_777]

Subscribed.

[@jdotoz]

To sin is to act contrary to God's will. But it's impossible to act contrary to God's will. Therefore, sin doesn't exist. But somehow people still deserve Hell.

[@jdotoz]

@@CatholicDefender-bp7my You must be joking, son

[@marknovetske4738]

Good work 😃

[@mitrydatespruski]

I'm always amazed by sheer arrogance of the reformers. Luther who thought he knows better what books should and should not belong to the canon than 15 hundred years of Church tradition and Calvin who dared to think church fathers "confused" for not agreeing with his view of predestination.

[@stephensuttles6913]

What about infant baptism? Yes or no? Early fathers yes or no?

[@stephensuttles6913]

The Roman Catholic Church is not the "traditional" church. The early church had no Pope. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but we can't use tradition as a rule, but start recognizing tradition at a point that suits us. Not a single example of infant baptism in the entire bible. None. Not a single example of someone standing in for someone else's baptism in the entire bible. Luther did what he did because the Roman Catholic version was so very corrupt.

[@suzannelangdon]

Wow it is heartbreaking to think that some people believe this about Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ 😢 God Is Love, He Loved us so much that He Massacred Himself for us while we were all dead in our sin. How do people who believe this put one foot in front of the other? This is a demonic dark belief and it is so insulting to Christ. Thank you so much for your brilliant videos, you are really doing a service to God. Us who aren't blessed with such intelligence and ability to speak with so much charity can still do something, we can pray for these poor souls who have been fed a diabolical lie. God bless you and all come across this amazing channel 🙏

[@sebastianofmilan]

Thomistic predestination is true.

[@erikb3041]

Man I love when they make that argument. “The early Christians were wrong” lol the arrogance

[@richarddouglas8015]

,,,,,To avoid confusion in ones life pray truthfully and the spirit will reveal all you need to know the perfect will of god with great conviction !

[@alexanderkaufman3575]

If Calvinism is right, there is no need to preach the Gospel. Everyone that will go to Heaven will go to Heaven and everyone that will go to Hell will go to Hell. Preaching the Gospel will do nothing.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

And Double predestination renders God to be HORRIBLE. He does not love everyone.

[@jdotoz]

They say that obeying the commandments is the outward sign of being elect - so if you aren't at least pretending to be a Christian, you definitely aren't saved.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

@@jdotoz Some don't convert to being Christian until later in life. Some of those were not faithful to all the commandments prior to their conversion. They would have appeared - and were - damned to hell. Plus, God knows the heart, including some things are hidden that can be a cause of judgment. As St Paul says, the Written Word of God: 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself. 4 I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God. "so if you aren't at least pretending to be a Christian, you definitely aren't saved" Plenty of evangelicals who believing once saved, always saved, would disagree with you. They can break the commandments left and right, and they remain assured of salvation. They can even sin boldly and not repent, and they believe that they can not lose their salvation.

[@alexanderkaufman3575]

@@jdotoz But then you are not predestined because you have say in whether you are one of the "elect" or not. Either that or God gave the Church as some sort of ploy to make us follow a bunch of rules just for funsies/see if we are suckers.

[@jdotoz]

@@alexanderkaufman3575 No, you're still predestined. Even if you walk the walk, you might be damned, but if you never do, you definitely are. So you do the works in order to keep the mystery alive.

[@christopherjones6758]

Great summary @shamelesspopery !! Who else sees James White responding to this..😂

[@starlightHT]

I'm going to get into this destiny thing. I'm going to make a bold statement... We are all destined to die one day.

[@JailHousePreacher]

If anyone is willing to answer. I have been diving deep into Church history and the Scriptural basis for the Pope. Which I am leaning to be on board with. My one issue is the historical case past the 4th and 5th century. I find dozens of quotes for the Pope, but then we also get people like Cyprian and John Chrysostom who sound like they are denying Papal Infallibility. The quotes I find lean towards an Orthodox view of the Pope and not a Catholic view. Do we go as far as to the John Chrysostom and others were horribly wrong about the Pope? This is my one hangup on the Pope and Catholicism. Any feedback or help would be greatly appreciated. God Bless

[@justinmadison513]

Yeah because papal supremacy is BS. The only "foundation" for the papacy as taught by the Roman Catholic church since the late medieval period is pride of false tradition being more important than the Holy Scriptures or in competition with the Holy Scriptures as an infallible source of truth.

[@susand3668]

My friend, your question is beyond the scope of a comment section. But Michael Lofton (Reason & Theology) does have an answer to your question. He studied ther first 7 Ecumenical Councils, which Eastern Orthodox claim to adhere to. He finds papal supremacy is taught by them. Maay the Lord guide you to the Truth!

[@scholasticismreformed166]

Don’t know if @Shameless Popery actually responds to any comments, but I’d be interested in discussing this with him because there were a lot of caricatures and/or mistakes in this video that don’t do justice to either early modern Reformed *or* Catholic theology.

[@john-paulgies4313]

"And whom he predestinated, them he also called." (Rom. 8:30) "For many are called, but few are chosen." (Matthew 22:14)

[@bad_covfefe]

What do you think those verses mean?

[@grmalinda6251]

Idk about this stuff but as to letting go of the glass knowing its subjection to gravity well, I think of the eagle who drops its young hoping it to fly, which it does after it's been scooped up to try again.

[@shlamallama6433]

Is next week gonna be on Romans 9?

[@michaeljefferies2444]

Jaroslav Pelikan has an interesting 50+ page treatment of the questions surrounding Augustine on these issues in his first volume of the history of the development of Christian doctrine. Either way, whatever Augustine thought on double predestination, the position was condemned by the regional council of orange in 529 which the pope affirmed.

[@masterchief8179]

I’m among those who emphatically deny the affirmation that St Augustine taught double predestination. It’s plainly and demonstrably false. To accept it is to fall for Protestant/Calvinist historical falsifications. The very Catechism of the Catholic Church gives a quotation word by word of Augustine’s sermon in paragraph 1847: _”God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us”_ (St. Augustine, Sermo 169, 11, 13: PL 38, 923). We know no individual saint is infallible as a theologian, but still it’s more or less undisputed for historians and theologians that St Vincent of Lerins, among others, took the Augustinian theory of grace as if the movement of God being first emptied all the need for us to cooperate with the very action of grace. That was his interpretation of St Augustine, not Augustinian theology. The “heavy pen” used by the ‘Doctor Gratiae’ to condemn Pelagius (and his follower Celestius) gave St Vincent of Lerins a certain - wrong - impression that predestination would be irreconcilable with free will, but that’s obviously a bad reading of the Northern African bishop’s complex metaphysics of the intellect and will. St Vincent of Lerins was most probably sympathetic to Semipelagianism (since that theory was largely endorsed by the monks in Southern Gaul at that time), but even if he was indeed a Semipelagian of his own, still he wouldn’t be deemed a formal heretic because the faulty doctrine was only officially condemned in the Council of Orange (529). According to Catholic teaching, no theologian saint is to be blamed for anything later defined which was still disputable during his or her lifetime. Still, the view of prevenient grace in St Augustine was entirely read into Protestant premises in the 16th century, particularly into the way the Protestant Revolution articulated “sola fide”, taking out the salvific value of the works of charity and implying Pelagianism in any theory that refuses it (which they call “works-based salvation”), denying the mere existence of free will, as in Luther’s doctrine (not necessarily in Lutheranism) but specially in Calvin’s T.U.L.I.P. It’s 100% Catholic understanding that it’s nothing but a wrong reading used by Protestants to vindicate an alleged antiquity for their theories in St Augustine. But just to remember: Protestants in general falsely accuse anyone non-Protestant of Pelagianism (like Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, for instance) so the mere fact that Protestants use Augustine wrongly shouldn’t say a word on the theory of prevenient grace in that Catholic (and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, by the way) saint. The Ecumenical Council of Trent, in line with St Augustine total _bibliotheca_ and how St Thomas Aquinas explains him, explicitly affirmed God’s gratuitous work and initiative in the justification process but also asserted that we cooperate with God’s grace. To say grace is prevenient in us is to say it’s first and unmerited, NOT that we don’t have free will, that we suffer from total depravity or that grace is irresistible to the point of nullification of human responsiveness. In summary, God’s grace enables us - unmeritedly - to do good but doesn’t accomplish in and for us all that concerns to choosing whether doing or how to do, so that it doesn’t entail the absolute absence of free will and much less any spurious theory like Calvinism’s double predestination, which is undoubtedly unbiblical and incompatible with God’s all goodness. I’d respectfully say the denial of free will is one of the core theological errors of Luther (not necessarily of Lutheranism) and Calvin (in this case of Calvinism too), one that some later Protestants tried to correct but yet outside of the Catholic Church. In that, Catholics must safely confess _“That grace is preceded by no merits. A reward is due to good works, if they are performed; but grace, which is not due, precedes, that they may be done”_ (Second Council of Orange II, A.D. 529, Can. 18; v. Denzinger-Hünermann n. 388). In the Session I of the Second Council Ecumenical of Constantinople (553), it’s declared that _”We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, _*_Augustine,_*_ Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith”_ (verbatim). It’s nothing like abandoning St Augustine, but rejecting the Calvinist/ Protestant misappropriation of him. God bless!

[@TruthHasSpoken]

Why would any protestant quote St Augustine ... a Catholic Bishop who believed in all the sacraments? They have to believe he was 100% a pagan, worshiping a piece of bread

[@borealopelta7284]

Amen! I thank God that more people are speaking out against Calvinism. Justin martyr was right determinism is a most impious evil

[@Ruudes1483]

I was predestined to like this video

[@DRWH044]

5:10 I may be wrong, but when I read Romans 8:29-30 what I understand is that God foreknew that some people would choose Him, and so he predestined them to be His instruments in His revelation. I don’t think it means that they didn’t have free will.

[@southpawhammer8644]

I always thought Calvinism was cruel

[@richardjackson7887]

Romans 8:24-39 KJV For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? 25. But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. 26. Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. 28. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 29. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. 31. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? 32. He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? 33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. 34. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. 35. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36. As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. 37. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. 38. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39. Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

[@anthonynuzzo9512]

How are you my friend? GREAT SHOW as always!!!!!! What I find interesting is your reliance upon the argument from consensus. Examining the structure of your argument from consensus: 1) the reformers believed that p; 2) the fathers did not believe that p, 3) therefore p is false or otherwise novel Consider the cultural and intellectual context of the reformation occurring within the background of the Renaissance the motto of which was Ad Fontes or "to the sources". Sola Scriptura and Tota Scriptura embody Ad Fontes. So, when you make the claim that the Magisterial Reformers have simply created certain of the propositional content of their doctrinal commitments, I think this criticism is patently unfair. The Reformers were about the business of exegeting the text of scripture independent of an interpretation operating through the prism of an established tradition. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that their conclusion would differ sharply with Rome. First regarding Paul, your claim my friend concerning predestination “in one direction” to heaven is ultimately incorrect. Contrast Romans 8:29-30 with the Potters Freedom, Romans 9:19-24, “You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.” The point Paul is making is that, in light of the fact that there is none righteous no not one, Romans 3:10, and all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, Romans 3:23, that God has chosen some for mercy, others for justice. No one receives injustice. “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” Romans 9:15 citing Exodus 33:19. God is sovereign. We are not. This is the most hated doctrine of scripture, the Sovereignty of God in salvation. Now as both a Calvinist and a Thomist, which is not unusual amongst the Reformed Scholastics, Calvin and Aquinas are quite close concerning their doctrines of Predestination and, shall I say it, Reprobation. Starting with Aquinas, I’ll focus on the Summa, ST I, q. 23, a1, “Is Man Predestined”. Then I will follow with ST I, q. 23, a5, “Whether the foreknowledge of merits is the cause of predestination?” ST I, q. 23, a1, in pertinent part, “It is fitting that God should predestine men. For all things are subject to His providence… Now if a thing cannot attain to something by the power of its nature, it must be directed thereto by another; thus, an arrow is directed by the archer towards a mark. Hence, properly speaking, a rational creature, capable of eternal life, is led towards it, directed, as it were, by God…. The reason of that direction pre-exists in God…. Hence the type of the aforesaid direction of a rational creature towards the end of life eternal is called predestination. For to destine, is to direct or send. Thus it is clear that predestination, as regards its objects, is a part of providence.” ST I, q. 23, a5, in pertinent part, “……..Thus, it is impossible that the whole of the effect of predestination in general should have any cause as coming from us; because whatsoever is in man disposing him towards salvation, is all included under the effect of predestination; even the preparation for grace. For neither does this happen otherwise than by divine help, according to the prophet Jeremias (Lam 5:21): convert us, O Lord, to Thee, and we shall be converted. Yet predestination has in this way, in regard to its effect, the goodness of God for its reason; towards which the whole effect of predestination is directed as to an end; and from which it proceeds, as from its first moving principle.” Calvin and Thomas appear to be in agreement that man is divinely predestined, which for Thomas signifies the providential ordering all things to their final end. see Respondeo, ST I, q. 23, a1, and that man is not the cause of God’s predestination. Calvin holds divine providence in tension with divine predestination, explaining that Predestination pertains to our determined end whereas providence to the divine ordering of all things irrespective of whether past, present, or future. John Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God So, for Calvin, nothing occurs outside of God’s will including election and predestination. This for Calvin of course excludes foreseen faith, i.e. that God looks down the corridors of time and sees who will choose him and elects on that basis. Aquinas also rejects foreseen faith as the basis for election and predestination, see ST I, q. 23, a5, Respondeo, “Wherefore nobody has been so insane as to say that merit is the cause of divine predestination as regards the act of the predestinator…. The Apostle, however, rebuts this opinion where he says (Rom 9:11,12): For when they were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil . . . not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said of her: The elder shall serve the younger.” Regarding reprobation, Thomas in ST I, q. 23, a5, states, “….God wills to manifest His goodness in men; in respect to those whom He predestines, by means of His mercy, as sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of His justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others. To this the Apostle refers, saying (Rom 9:22, 23): What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction; that He might show the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He hath prepared unto glory and (2 Tim 2:20): But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver; but also of wood and of earth; and some, indeed, unto honor, but some unto dishonor…. Yet why He chooses some for glory, and reprobates others, has no reason, except the divine will. Whence Augustine says (Tract. xxvi. in Joan.): Why He draws one, and another He draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.” Reprobation for Thomas then is wholly of divine providence, signified wholly by God’s “…will to permit someone to fall into fault and to inflict the penalty of damnation in consequence.” Thus, “Since it has been shown that by the action of God some are guided to their last end with the aid of grace, while others, bereft of that same aid of grace, fall away from their last end; and at the same time all things that are done by God are from eternity foreseen and ordained by His wisdom, as has also been shown, it needs must be that the aforesaid distinction of men has been from eternity ordained of God… But those to whom from eternity He has arranged not to give grace, He is said to have ‘reprobated,’ or ‘hated,’ according to the text: I have loved Jacob, and hated Esau (Malach. i, 2).” SCG, ch. 3 By contrast, Calvin, in his commentary on Romans explains, “Solomon also teaches us that not only was the destruction of the ungodly foreknown, but the ungodly themselves have been created for the specific purpose of perishing (Prov. 16:4).” Romans, 207, 208 Calvin’s explanation appears to be more consonant with Paul’s narrative in Romans 9:24, “…endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction…” In my opinion, Calvin is in complete agreement with Paul on Reprobation whereas Thomas’ view approximates God’s will in Reprobation with mere permission as opposed to a deliberate act, i.e. “prepared”. I find Calvin and Thomas quite close to agreement on the question of predestination however they diverge in their respective views though not to the point of complete opposition on the question of Reprobation.

[@ChristusAeternitas]

Were Calvinism in at least some of the early Christian thinking, it would no doubt have been deemed heretical… shame, in a way, it wasn’t the case… it was way too late even for that 😜

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

The discussion is picking up way too late. Obviously there were no Calvinists before Calvin just as neither were there any Catholics before Catholicism. Talk doctrine - not labels. Was there a doctrine of Justification by Faith in the first century? Yes. Romans 4 describes it. Was there a doctrine of predestination in the first century? Yes. Romans 9 describes it. To make the statement that "no one believed these doctrines" is a bald faced lie. Where did these doctrines come from then? Catholicism wants us to think that everybody is just like she is - making up some pagan lie, slapping Jesus' name on it and calling it an article of faith. The dogma of Mary is the perfect example of this. Protestantism, although incredibly flawed, has at least the stated goal of getting back to that "faith once delivered to the saints", the doctrine of Christ as delivered by the apostles and prophets of the first century.

[@fantasia55]

​@@GizmoFromPizmoEarly Christianity was Catholic, shockingly so to Protestants who dare read about it.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

@@GizmoFromPizmo Calvinism makes Jesus out to be undependable and a liar. He utterly failed in his repeated promises - and his Church didn't even know it, never ever meeting in synods or councils to debate the supposed Calvinist points. Christ is the head of his Church (Col 1: 18) Christ''s Church is the pillar of truth (1 Tim 3: 15) Christ's Church is the bulwark of truth. (1 Tim 3: 15) Christ's Church is where the manifold wisdom of God is made known. (Eph 3: 10) *Christ PROMISED to lead it to ALL Truth.* (Jn 16: 13) Christ PROMISED that he would NEVER leave it. (Mt 28: 20) Christ PROMISED that the gates of hell would not prevail (it will not teach doctrinal error) ; (Mt 16: 18) "Was there a doctrine of Justification by Faith in the first century? " Right. But when one does this to the statement: _Was there a doctrine of Justification by Faith _*_ALONE_*_ in the first century?_ The answer is no. "Was there a doctrine of predestination in the first century?" Right. Understood that God is all knowing, but when one does this to the statement : "Was there a doctrine of *DOUBLE* predestination in the first century?" No, that he creates some for heaven and some for hell, revealing him to be an evil God, a God that does not love all of his creation. "Protestantism, although incredibly flawed" That is the fruit of Sola Scriptura, itself not found in scripture. It was, is now, and shall ever be: doctrinal chaos, confusion, and division. " has at least the stated goal of getting back to that "faith once delivered to the saints", the doctrine of Christ as delivered by the apostles and prophets of the first century. All the reason to be Catholic. St Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of St John, is a great example of - He (St Ignatius) - Who hear you (St John) - Hears me (Jesus) *_“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ,_*_ which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.”_ Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110). _“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. _*_Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it._*_ Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. _*_Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”_* Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

[@jimmydavid1993]

@@GizmoFromPizmo you wish

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

​@@GizmoFromPizmoBut if you read people like Calvin, they just make stuff up and pretend there was som evidence out there linking it to the early Church when none has ever appeared. It's quite odd that people idolize these early protestant figures because they had very different personalities to most protestants save the used caf salesman pastors

[@victormiller1334]

I found something very interesting and thought I'd share with you. You do know that Nag Hammadi Scriptures (as we call it) is what the Valentinians used (not all of the Nag Hammadi Scriptures) that Irenaeus writing his book Against Heresies about (and other heretics as well) . It's interesting that the you can find the Nag Hammadi Scriptures ( as we call it) in the Gospel of mani (Manichæans) as well. Nag Hammadi Scriptures: Triestes on the resurrection- "We are chosen for salvation and redemption. Since in the beginning it was determined that we would fall into folly and ignorance, but we entered into the world, but we would enter the understanding of those who know the truth...The truth they guard can not be lost. Not will it be...what is held fast is the All...nothing redeemeds us from the world but we are of the All. We are saved. We have been saved from start to finish. Let us think about it this way. Let us accept it in this way." The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: The Gospel of Philip -the Gospel of Philip is a Valentinian anthology "The rulers thought they did all they did by thier own power and will, but teh Holy Spirit was secretly accomplishing all through them by the Spirit's will" "Evil forces serve the saints, for they have been blinded by the Holy Spirit into thinking they are helping their own people when they really are helping the saints " "It is good to leave the world before one sins. Some have neither the will not the strength to act. Others, even if they have the will, do themselves no good, for they have not acted. And if they do not have the will...righteousness is beyond their grasp, in either way case. It always comes down to the will, not the action. " "In this world slaves serve the free. In heavens kingdom the free will serves the slaves..." "Humans have sex with humans, horses with horses, donkeys with donkeys. Members of a species have sex with members of the same species. So also spirit has intercourse with spirit, word migles with word. Light mingles with light" Sounds exactly like Augustinian-Calvinism. I can give you more quotes from the Nag Hammadi text that are exactly like Augustinian Calvinism. To Augustine from Nebridius Sends Greeting. "Your letters I have great pleasure in keeping as carefully as my own eyes. For they are great, not indeed in length, but in the greatness of the subjects discussed in them, and in the great ability with which the truth in regard to these subjects is demonstrated. They shall bring to my ear the voice of Christ, and the teaching of Plato and of Plotinus." Augustine changed the cause of total depravity to Adam's guilt but kept the Stoic, Manichaean, and Neoplatonic concepts of the human dead will requiring god's infused grace and faith to respond.

[@irishlong10]

Anytime I read or hear quotes from the reformers they sound so prideful and arrogant.

[@mikekayanderson408]

You know something? To believe in predestination is very humbling! We realize just how dependent we are on God's grace and intervention!!!! Its the ones who do not believe in predestination that are full of pride because they want to believe they make the choice to be saved not God! think that one over carefully! Jesus said "blessed are the poor in spirit for they shall inherit the kingdom of God" = we have nothing to offer to God, we are spiritually bankrupt - no righteousness of our own to make us worthy of salvation. God has to work salvation and repentance and faith in us. K

[@roddycavin4600]

​@@mikekayanderson408can you then explain conversion to me. Someone who was not Calvinist but converts to Calvinism.

[@grahamneville9002]

Revelation 17:17 KJV 17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. Here we see the clearest testimony of Almighty God that His will is done in even those actions which are contrary to His eternal law. For He puts the basest of men in positions of earthly power and controls their very hearts to bring History to its appointed end, all for the praise of His glory. The preaching of the grace of God in bringing many sons to glory, and the damnation of the wicked in hardening their hearts to the Truth, is an absolute certainty. Men who think they are doing their will ( and we definitely have a will ) are unconsciously fulfilling God's purpose in all their words, thoughts, and deeds. For the saints this is all their comfort and peace, but exposes the unconverted sinner, in all his cavil's opposing the truth of the absolute sovereignty of God.

[@anthonynuzzo9512]

One more point my friend. I think you may be confused on the point of the order of the decrees relative to Calvin. By the way Aquinas holds to the view that the number of the predestined is fixed, see ST I, q. 23, a7, "Whether the number of the predestined is certain" He explains, in the Respondeo, "The number of the predestined is certain. Some have said that it was formally, but not materially certain; as if we were to say that it was certain that a hundred or a thousand would be saved; not however these or those individuals. But this destroys the certainty of predestination; of which we spoke above (A. 6). Therefore we must say that to God the number of the predestined is certain, not only formally, but also materially.....It must, however, be observed that the number of the predestined is said to be certain to God, not by reason of His knowledge, because, that is to say, He knows how many will be saved..... but by reason of His deliberate choice and determination." The comment you made at 11:16-29 , "So you can't lose your salvation but you also can't get saved if you are not. That is the critical idea of this vision of predestination. And again actually none of this is in response to original sin." In Reformed Theology (Calvinism) we distinguish between the order of the decrees, Ordo Salutis, which is to say not a temporal order insofar as God is outside of time but instead the logical order of the decrees. What you are describing is the Supra Lapsarian view, a view that most Calvin scholars, as well as I, believe Calvin did not affirm. However, it was unmistakably held by Theodore Beza for example. Calvin is viewed as an Infra Lapsarian. Then there is the Amyraldian view which is not pertinent to the discussion. The question concerns God's decree to elect or reprobate either prior to the fall, i.e. Lapsus, which is indicative of the Supra (above) Lapsarian view, or after the fall, which is indicative of the Infra (below) Lapsarian view. Calvin and I are Infra Lapsarians. Accordingly, the decrees under the aspect of the Infra Lapsarian (after the fall) view are as follows: 1) Decree to create men in holiness. 2) Decree to permit them to Fall. 3) Decree to Elect some and Reprobate others. 4) Decree to provide Salvation through Jesus Christ for the elect, and condemn the reprobate. Predestination and Election according to the aspect of Infra Lapsarianism is of grace and ultimately mercy insofar as it occurs logically after the fall, viz. Adam's sin. The Supra Lapsarian which is held in the minority is as follows: 1) Decree purposing the revelation of God’s virtues in electing some and reprobating others. 2) Decree to create those men elect and reprobate. 3) Decree to permit them to Fall. 4) Decree to provide Salvation through Jesus Christ for the elect, and condemn the reprobate. The view you expressed is the Supra Lapsarian view wherein predestination, election and reprobation is wholly of the sovereignty of God occurring before the fall which is distinguishable from the Infra Lapsarian view wherein predestination, election are of grace and thus mercy occurring after the fall. The Infra Lapsarian view is the dominant view in Reformed Theology (Calvinism). As always............. Great show keep up the good work. I am a fan! God bless!

[@richardjackson7887]

Romans 9:11-13 KJV (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12. It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. Fear the Lord, for does he love you or hate you! Do you obey God? Do you have the faith God is looking for? Do you listen to God or man? Do You have any clue who the serpent is? Mark 10:18 KJV And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God... Not Mary, not saints, not popes, not any man!

[@TheApologeticDog]

- *triggers my inner John Calvin* - :D

[@BobBoldt-sp1gr]

The outgrowths from Calvinism over the past 400 years themselves make the case against Calvinism. Almost no denominations that trace their roots back to Calvinism believe in John Calvin’s major tenets. In fact, they have done a 180 degree reversal on double predestination: instead of a small number of elect who are predestined to be saved while all the rest are predestined to damnation (original Calvinism), most of the modern offshoots of Calvinism now believe in something close to universal salvation. Just stick with the Church Christ founded, not the one invented by Calvin.

[@jdotoz]

If you take Scripture at face value and believe that salvation is entirely up to what God wants, universalism is a logical necessity.

[@richardjackson7887]

Acts 10:44-48 KJV ¶ While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48. And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord... And when they heard the gospel they received the promised Holy Ghost (because by faith they believed) Not praying to someone else. Not glorifying someone else. And not eating Gods flesh. Acts 10:42-43 KJV And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. 43. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. By true faith! And faith brings obedience!

[@femaleKCRoyalsFan]

The early Christians had confession, they did not believe in this predestination nonsense.

[@masterchief8179]

The problem is not believing predestination. The Bible clearly speaks of the elect and of predestination. So does the Catechism and the Council of Trent. The problem is what Calvin or other fraudsters taught concerning unconditional election and double predestination, which transforms God in a metaphysical absurdity and a moral monster. You can read the Summa Theologica on predestination (Prima Pars, questions 23-24), the operations of the will (Prima Pars, question 82) and free will (Prima Pars, question 83). Many people online, mostly in the USA, seem to think that predestination or election (which are Biblical indelible conceptual realities) are Calvinist terms for Calvinist concepts, which they obviously aren’t, even though there is a perceptible “semiotic capture” of this nomenclature through Calvinist and Protestant overuse. *To say God’s grace is prevenient in us is to say it’s first and unmerited, NOT that we don’t have free will, that we suffer from total depravity, that grace is irresistible (without the possibility of cooperation or responsiveness on the part of our human intellect and will), or, even less, anything that even resembles Calvinist double predestination. That’s NOT up for debate.* Calvinism is the most insane of the fruits of the Protestant Revolution, I like to say. From Brazil with love.

[@themanufan8]

The calvanist idea seems prideful in nature to me... Basically "god has pre-ordained me to go to heaven and I know im one of god's special chosen ones, but you all who dont agree god probably just hates you and is sending you to hell"... hmmm how about a little more self-reflection and humility that you constantly should be working to be more christ like... perseverance isn't comfortable.

[@mikekayanderson408]

You are misrepresenting the teaching. Anyone who is saved is saved only because God chose them before the creation of the world ! Ever read that Scripture?…

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

@@mikekayanderson408Nope, that's not in Scripture

[@themanufan8]

@@mikekayanderson408 I'm not saying God doesn't have a plan for the world, but the presumption is that because im pre-ordained i could never throw it away myself. thats a very dangerous thought. For instance i know someone close to me is a self proclaimed christian, yet is unapologetically in a gay relationship. Not that I'm qualified to judge heaven or hell, but to say you are saved no matter what, at any point in your life seems prideful by default.

[@mikekayanderson408]

it clearly says that the elect were chosen before the creation of the world!!! read Scripture K@@michaelbeauchamp22

[@mikekayanderson408]

I did not say that. Gays cannot be christians and hold gay views. the 2 do not go together Not everyone who says they are a christian really is. k@@themanufan8

[@seanneal9406]

The protestants say all infants go to heaven. So, they are saved. But later these infants grow up and lose their salvation so that they must "accept Christ". If you cannot lose your salvation, how is it that infants lost it later in life requiring that they get "saved"?

[@carolinajackson7621]

Because they lost the age of innocence

[@motsu84]

There might be a confusion of predestination. It was meant by some to go Heaven, e.g. the human flesh of Jesus(St Augustine) and people like King David who has a role in salvation. However, most people are not. Therefore Catholicism agrees on predestination to heaven for some. Yet at the same time, we cannot discount the fact that God has his sovereign will on everything.

[@richardjackson7887]

Romans 1:17 KJV For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. Romans 3:23-25 KJV For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God... Romans 5:1-3 KJV Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2. By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3. And... Romans 11:20-21 KJV Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21. For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 2 Corinthians 5:6-10 KJV Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7. (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) 8. We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 9. Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. 10. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

[@bigsarge05]

Calvinists are big mad in these comments.

[@Ruudes1483]

They are predestined to be butthurt 😆

[@bigsarge05]

@@Ruudes1483 ha! 😂

[@justinmadison513]

There's at least a ratio of 20 papists to the one Calvinist. Sorry, but one silly KZbin video doesn't discredit the validity of the positions of the reformers to retrieve the true one, holy, apostolic church from the Roman catholics who so pridefully clutch their pearls of their sacred "tradition" in the face of anyone who dares to question their authority. It's not just Calvin who stands against the Bielian Catholics who depart from the true gospel. It's Vermigli, Melancthon, Bullinger, Lady Jane Grey, Hooper, Zwingli, Hus, Waldo, Knox.

[@bigsarge05]

@@justinmadison513 mentioning Calvin and “true gospel” together is rich. You didn’t mention Luther. That’s curious. Was he not Calvinist enough? Not enough points or TULIPS? With Calvinism, you can’t come close to apostolic succession with incomplete and false theology. Respectfully, go read the council of Trent. You mock Sacred Tradition yet write about apostolic succession… who do you think created Sacred Tradition and who do you think carried on that Sacred Tradition? What was used before the Bible was canonized? God bless you and your endeavors friend! Much love in Jesus mighty name!

[@justinmadison513]

@@bigsarge05 I've read the Council of Trent. The irony is that it's doctrine reads to be several gradations away from Thomas Aquinas himself!

[@Jarhead1076]

In what god do you put your trust? A. The God that created us in his likeness, perfect in all ways to the fulfillment of his purposes. A God that has no reason to judge or condemn, for why should he judge that which he has created and condemn it for being as he made it. Or B. The god that man has created in his own likeness; vengeful, jealous, one who settles things with war, violence and eternal punishment for imperfections that he created in us. A god that purports to give you free will but will punish you if you do not exercise it in the exact way that he wants, as if you could actually perform any action that is not God's will (i.e. God's will is that you do your will). A god that has a plan for everything but wants you to pray for him to change that plan, already knowing whether your prayer will be granted or not. This is a question that I have pondered for many years and the answer lies in letting Truth be your authority not letting the authority of a book, institution or person be your truth. As you contemplate this question, remember this quote "God can't tell you his Truth, until you stop telling him yours." -Neale Donald Walsch Conversations with God

[@tafazziReadChannelDescription]

that's kind of a weak position, philosophically. It's quite easy to show the beauty that there is in the christian conception of God, just because you're able to describe it as something bad it doesn't make it bad. The most moving pieces of literature in the world are in the context of exploring the christian God's love for us, showed through Salvation History. So since beauty can't be your tiebreaker, you'd need to grapple with the evidence. And you're not doing that. You're telling God your truth, you're telling Him he can't bring good out of war, you're telling Him he can't reward prayer, you're telling Him that judging somoeone for the evil they chose is bad. You're accusing us of doing what you're doing. Because in principle, those things could be true, but you need evidence to determine if they are, or if the opposite is true. The evidence brings you to submit to Rome. You can take my word for it or I can help you walk through that, but the position in your post is just untenable.

[@Jarhead1076]

@@tafazziReadChannelDescription First, I am not here to argue or disparage what you or anyone else believes. The gift of free will allows you to believe anything that you choose, but understand that it is possible to believe something to be true that is demonstrably false or impossible. My post was simply intended to have people examine what they believe and ask God with pure intentions to show them the way of Truth. The strength or weakness of my position philosophically is totally dependent on which philosophy you are judging it by. I do not judge the strength or weakness of an idea based on philosophy but based on logic and reason. Logic and reason are gifts that God created within us so that we can discern and know Truth. I never accused anyone or told God what he could or could not do. My statements were simply meant to point out that what some people believe is at minimum logically inconsistent and at most logically impossible. As for evidence, I have no evidence to prove that my points are absolute Truth and neither do you. Before you start down the path of pointing to a book or institution as being your evidence, remember that both the book and the institution point to one another as evidence of their truth and authority which is a circular reference and is therefore illogical and impossible. The book was created by the authority of the institution and the institution's authority is upheld by the book that it created. On my path to oneness with my creator, I will submit to no man, book, or institution. I will only seek to make God's will my will, just as God chose to make my will his will, which is the very root of our "free will".

[@vinoneil]

​@@Jarhead1076very interesting. How do you know God's will?

[@Jarhead1076]

@@vinoneil A logical deduction would be that it is God's will that, "that which is best for all be done". This is summarized by this guiding principle. I will love my creator, my neighbor and myself as one for in Truth and Fact, we are all One.

[@vinoneil]

@@Jarhead1076 where does that logical deduction follow from? What evidence are you using to make that logical deduction? And how do you know what's best for all?

[@billyhw5492]

Were the early, middle and late Calvinists Christians?

[@grahamneville9002]

Was Adam in the garden free NOT to partake of the forbidden fruit ? Were the men who crucified Christ free NOT to crucify Him ?

[@annakimborahpa]

Excellent presentation. However, I have one quibble in defense of Marcus Aurelius. 1. Although Justin Martyr was executed while Aurelius was emperor and Aurelius' Stoic teacher Junius Rusticas was the trial prefect who condemned Justin to death, it is unclear how complicit Aurelius was. 2. Rather, Justin Martyr's First Apology quotes in its entirety a letter Marcus Aurelius wrote to his countrymen in defense of Christians as follows: "The Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, Germanicus, Parthicus, Sarmaticus, to the People of Rome, and to the sacred Senate, greeting! I explained my plan to you and what advantages I had gained on the borders of Germany after much labor and suffering. Due to the circumstances of this war, I was surrounded by the enemy in Carnuntum. 74 cohorts cut us off from help, being stationed 9 miles off. Then the scouts pointed out to us that the enemy was at hand. Our general, Pompeianus showed us that a mixed multitude of 977,000 men was closing in on us, which we all could see. I was cut off by this vast host, and I had with me only a battalion composed of the first, tenth, double, and marine legions. I examined my own position and my army, considered the vast mass of the barbarian enemy, and I quickly betook myself to prayer to the gods of my country. They disregarded me. So I summoned those among us who go by the name of Christians. After some inquiry, I determined that there was a great number and vast host of them. When they appeared before me, I raged against them. This was not appropriate, for afterwards I learned their power. They began the battle not by preparing weapons or bugles. Such preparation is hateful to them because of the God they carry around in their conscience. We call them atheists, but it seems that they have a God as their ruling power in their conscience. I say this because they threw themselves on the ground and prayed not only for me, but for the whole army as it stood, so that they might be delivered from the present thirst and famine. For five days we had gotten no water because there was none. We were in the heart of Germany and in the enemy's territory. As soon as they threw themselves on the ground and began praying to God-a God of whom I am ignorant-water poured from heaven. On us it was most refreshing and cool, but upon the enemies of Rome it was a withering hail. We also immediately recognized the presence of a God after their prayer, a God unconquerable and indestructible. Because of this, then, let us pardon such as are Christians, lest they pray for and obtain such a weapon against us! And I counsel that no such person be accused by our courts only on the ground of being a Christian. If anyone is found laying to the charge of a Christian that he is a Christian, I desire that it be made clear that he who is accused is a Christian. If he acknowledges that he is one and is accused of nothing else, then whoever arraigns him should be burned alive. I also desire that whoever is entrusted with the government of the province shall not compel the Christian, who confesses and certifies such a matter, to retract." These things should be confirmed by a decree of the Senate. I command that this my edict be published in the Forum of Trajan in order that it may be read. The prefect Vitrasius Pollio will also see that it is transmitted to all the provinces round about." [A letter (supposed) of the emperor Marcus Aurelius; from the copy enjoined to Justin Martyr's First Apology, as contained in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I; Abridged and updated by Paul Pavao; Christian History Org website /marcus-aurelius-letter.html]

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

The "elevator to hell" analogy implies that we can "choose" to be lost. No. Our default condition is lost - just as a room is dark by default until somebody turns the light on. Paul deals with this issue in Romans 9. Goc hardened Pharaoh's heart in order to display His [God's] power to His people. "I will have mercy on whom i will have mercy." And on whom He will, He hardeneth. (See Rom. 9:15-19)

[@tafazziReadChannelDescription]

Denying free will and its consequences are a disaster to the coherency of one's worldview.

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

I think one of us misheard, or maybe Joe misspoke. I think he said "elevator to Heaven," implying that you start off lost and must "hop on the elevator" in order to make it to Heaven

[@vincenzorutigliano7239]

That is a protestant belief, the catechism says: “God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end” (CCC 1037).

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

Paul teaches natural theology that the nations can see some of the good of God through natural means which is the opposite of the Calvinist stance. Also did Calvinists miss out on the whole old testament which was about cooperation with God and mere works not getting things for you (contra pelagianism) rather it should also be written on your hearts but also merely believing without works also being dead

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

@@TheThreatenedSwan - I'm guessing Calvinists are Baptists, right? That OSAS junk is wack. There are repeated warnings in the new testament to hold steadfast, firm to the end but does a Baptist take that seriously? No. To a Baptist, if you've said that all important Sinner's Prayer, you're golden. They teach "the security of the believer" but it's a FLSE sense of security. Baptists don't believe bout baptism what the bible clearly teaches. They don't even start out in faith. When a Baptist is being baptized, he's showing the world - his friends and family - how much he loves God. Cite me B/C/V where that is EVER prescribed as a reason to be baptized. You can't do it. "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." The bible says that baptism is for the "remission of sins". Does a Baptist believe that? No. Baptists are baptized BECAUSE their sins are already forgiven. Classic cart before the horse theology. "Baptism doth also now save us." Do Baptists believe that? No. If you don't believe what God has said about a thing then in what sense are you acting in faith? You're not. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. If what you believe about God and the things of God are not found in the word of God then you don't have faith, in the scriptural sense. All you have is a fable.

[@tradchadpremium]

Don't like that you're a pope-splainer but on everything else you're amazing

[@anthonynuzzo9512]

I forgot to mention my friend that Aquinas did hold to the predestination of Angels, see ST I, q. 23, a1 reply to the 3rd objection, "Predestination applies to angels, just as it does to men, although they have never been unhappy. For movement does not take its species from the term wherefrom but from the term whereto. Because it matters nothing, in respect of the notion of making white, whether he who is made white was before black, yellow or red. Likewise it matters nothing in respect of the notion of predestination whether one is predestined to life eternal from the state of misery or not. Although it may be said that every conferring of good above that which is due pertains to mercy; as was shown previously (Q. 21, AA. 3, 4)." I'll stop it here but this view is certainly not alien to the church though not entirely consonant with Calvin.

[@ryandelaune139]

I hear your elevator analogy, but I don’t think it’s quite accurate to the holistic argument that Calvin puts out in the Institutes. There is only one elevator, one to heaven, that much every Christian believes in. You say that Calvin argues for a second elevator, one to hell. I would argue that the Institutes (and more importantly the Bible) argue that all men due to original sin have one starting point, spiritual death aka hell. Predestination is God saving us from that unavoidable place. Now He does leave others there, for what reason I don’t know. But to say God sends people to hell is language that doesn’t reflect the actual argument and serves only to predispose people against Calvinism as you begin your argument. God bless you for these videos Joe

[@mikekayanderson408]

No you cannot jump out of the elevator once you are truly truly in it. You wouldn’t want to anyway. The ones who SEEMINGLY jump out of the elevator are people who are just saying they are believers but are deceived. No actual regeneration has taken place in their souls/hearts - they are church goers because of habit. They were brought up that way. It’s in their culture so to speak. Like all the people who only go to church at Christmas or Easter. Some are more religious than others. But none of them are actually in that elevator going up - so when the day comes they stop going to church - they are not jumping out of the elevator because they were never really in the elevator ! I was not a true believer when I got married I the church. Neither was my husband but it was part of our western culture to get married in the church because I am Scottish I automatically thought I was a Christian because of my country of birth. I was christened in the Presbyterian church So I assumed I was a Christian. Do you get my point? So although I thought I was in that elevator going up - I really wasn’t. Then one day God broke into my life and softened my heart , regenerated my spirit, convicted me of my sin and of my lost and useless state and gave me the gift of repentance and faith! Then and only then was I put the elevator upwards. I take no personal responsibility for that - God did it all! Notice I use the word PUT! I was PLACED I the elevator by God! I did not choose to walk I- he plucked me from the firey pit I was heading to. I praise him and thank Hi for saving me. I did not deserve to be saved. Now the opposite scenario - which is a given - is that God could have bypassed me and not chosen to make me one of His elect. So I would have lived my life as a sinner under the wrath of God - in the downward elevator and into which every human being is initially born - and God could have left me there. That is the crux of the matter. No the term double presentation is not used the Bible but it is inferred! That is all Calvin was discussing! God Himself said He would have mercy on those He chose to have mercy on. But people cant abide the fact that God is in charge and not us! So argue about it for as long as God gives you breath - it won’t change what God has decreed. Call God all the awful things you all want in the comments - pile up your sin- that is your free choice which you are always on about. K

[@TheGreekCatholic]

Conversly, a semi Pelagian would say we can build an elevator and then go up

[@bigfootapologetics]

I don't believe they were. But the nice thing here is that if I'm wrong, I don't have to feel bad about it. After all, that would mean God predestined me to think this way. Oddly, He'll be wrathful over how He made me, and punish me for it, but at least I know it wouldn't be my fault.

[@maryloomis8075]

🤣

[@damnedmadman]

The funniest thing about Protestants is that both kinds try to _prove_ their salvation - Calvinists, because they don't know where they were allegedly predestined, so they try hard to prove their possession of the "irresistible grace", which they do with none other but "good works" - and other "sola fide" types by excessively demonstrating their devotion and happiness, so that their faith is beyond doubt sufficiently fervent - while both demonize Catholics and Orthodox for belief in actual, unearned graces bestowed upon them through the sacraments, which they wilfully accept and obtain, while being constantly accused by both Protestant types of Pelagianism 😅

[@krazz5437]

Double predestination is Catholic Dogma, not in the Calvinist way tho

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

Don't just stop with Romans 8:29. The discussion about predestingation doesn't kick in until Romans 9. Rom 9:10-25 - And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? That covers the whole subject. Yes, God chooses some to succeed and some to fail. So what? What are we going to do about it? We know why He's doing it so we have all the information we need. NPCs are a thing in God's universe. Ask yourself: Am I a vessel of honor or am I vessel of His wrath? If you're the right kind of person, a question like that should scare the hell out of you. It does me.

[@mikekayanderson408]

Correct!!!! And no one denies predestination when it comes to Israel being chosen in the Old Testament to be the vehicle for God's revelation of Himself and the deposit of His Word for the blessing of the world - only Israel was chosen no other nation at the time . And God told them He had not chosen them because of anything good about them - He made a Sovereign choice to actually make them into a nation. Not all Jews were saved - just because they were circumcised - Paul says so - it was God's sovereign choice who was saved...........K

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

@@mikekayanderson408 - This video is a polemic against Calvinism and nothing more. It's not how I would combat Calvinism but it's a way to do it, I suppose. As a Catholic, he leans heavily into the theories and positions of much later authorities because he cannot use the scriptures. He actually does use scripture in this video because some of his authorities cite them once in awhile. But scripture is NEVER an area where a Catholic will shine. They can't. It's impossible. When you choose every other authority as basis for your religion then the bible doesn't work all that well - because it's just one of many ideas that can be chosen as authoritative. He comes out against Calvinism because he doesn't like it. It doesn't agree with his denomination. But as far as how it lines up with "Thus Saith The Lord", he's out of his area of expertise. He makes the mistake of countering all manner of predestination and election. He's afraid of the subject because it sounds "too Calvinist". The truth is (and as my post points out) predestination is indeed taught in the New Testament. But he can't cite that authority because it disagrees with his denomination. Denominations are license for people to disagree with God and get away with it. Denominations are one of the reasons that God setup Final Judgment. Ultimately, nobody is "free" to disagree with the King.

[@mikekayanderson408]

You like to call anyone who disagrees with Joe or Catholicism a troll. Joe uses his site to try and discredit every Reformed belief and doctrine that he can - and promote the Roman Catholic point of view. So if he can criticise us why are you so upset when we respond? You can report me if you want. I am not saying anything out of place. But you just want to silence everyone who disagrees with RC teaching. Kay @@CatholicDefender-bp7my

[@sunnyjohnson992]

Did the early Christians believe in predestination? No they did not! The New Schaffer-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge says: “Previous to Augustine [of the fourth and fifth centuries C.E.] there was no serious development in Christianity of a theory of predestination.” Before Augustine, earlier so-called Church Fathers such as Justin, Origen, and Irenaeus “know nothing of unconditional predestination; they teach free will.” (Hastings’ Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics)

[@joshuacooley1417]

"Calvinism is deterministic but it's not deterministic in a pagan way, it's deterministic in a Christian way". Well not exactly... in point of fact, it is deterministic in an Islamic way.

[@TheGreekCatholic]

I don't get it. Why did Jesus preach, why do the apostles teach? If christ died for the elect, then it follows that, that is the only action needed. Everything else is useless. It renders the gospel useless for practical purposes.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

Double predestination renders God to be HORRIBLE. He does not love everyone.

[@mikekayanderson408]

It is not double predestination Everyone deserves to go to hell for offending and rebelling against a Holy God and the wages of sin is death. God must judge sin. But He has sovereignly decided to elect a people for Himself and He intervenes in their lives and regenerates them. Giving them the gift of repentance and faith in Jesus and His redemptive work on the cross , and forgiveness of sins - bypassing others who are already destined for hell because of their sin. He does not make them sin - sin is our natural choice as we are born with a fallen and sinful nature. If God did not do this everyone would go to hell. No one would be saved. Kay. @@TruthHasSpoken

[@TruthHasSpoken]

@@mikekayanderson408 If one professes that God creates some people to be with him for eternity, AND creates other people to be outside of his presence for eternity (hell), that is double predestination. It is a heretical doctrine coming from a 16th c Catholic lawyer named Calvin. Rather, God gives EVERYONE enough grace to come to faith. He LOVEs ALL of his creation. Yet not all will respond in faith and of those who respond in faith, not all will remain faithful. God KNOWS that actions of all, he sees all of human history at once.

[@TheGreekCatholic]

@mikekayanderson408 nevertheless, God choosing some rather than others not based on anything they do does equate to double predestination. Doesn't matter how you spin in. Rather, if God offers grace to all and he predestines those who freely chose grace to righteousness and glory, his sovereignty is not compromised. if he so chooses, he can incorporate free will in his plan for salvation. Grace in potency and grace actualized is the key.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

@@TheGreekCatholic "if God offers grace to all and he predestines those who freely chose grace to righteousness and glory, his sovereignty is not compromised" As long as one understands that it is man through his free will that responds in faith to God's grace. Amen! As St. Augustine said: _God created us without us, but He will not save us without us”_ "God choosing some rather than others " And as long as one does not believe that God created some to be eternally damned, and created others to be eternally saved. Believing that would make God hideous and evil.

[@chadmeidl1140]

EPHESIANS 1:1-6 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: 2Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. 3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 4According as he hath chosen us *in him before the foundation of the world,* that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: *5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children* by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. Verse 4 is a proof text of Jesus Christs' divinity in that He was before the foundation of the world, not the Christian. The Christian did not exist before the foundation of the world. The predestination is to the ADOPTION OF CHILDREN or the REDEMPTION OF THE BODY. ROMANS 8:22-25 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23And not only they, but ourselves also, *which have the firstfruits of the Spirit,* even we ourselves groan within ourselves, *waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.* *24For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?* *25But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.* A Christian is sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise after trusting the gospel. This is the earnest (down payment) until the redemption of the body which we HOPE for because we wait for it. EPHESIANS 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, *ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,* 14Which is the *earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession,* unto the praise of his glory. EPHESIANS 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, *whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.* ROMANS 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the *Spirit of adoption,* whereby we cry, Abba, Father. A Christian: 1. Believes the gospel. (1 Cor. 15:1-4, Rom. 3:20-28) He is JUSTIFIED by FAITH without the WORKS of the Law. 2. He is sealed with the Holy Spirit of PROMISE, which is the SPIRIT of adoption, or the firstfruits of the Spirit. The Christian is foreknown. (Eph. 1:13, Rom. 8:15, Rom 8:23, 29) 3. He WAITS for the adoption of which he is predestined. (Rom. 8:23,25) 4. At the rapture of the Church he is ADOPTED. (1 Cor. 15:49-53) ROMANS 8:29-30 For whom he did *foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.* *30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.* Called>Justified-PREDESTINATION-Glorified. Foreknown>known. Being conformed to the image of His Son CANNOT be your sanctification. (Galatians 3:1-4, 1 Cor. 15:49-53, Romans Ch. 7) How can a Christian who has sinful flesh and is corrupt be conformed to the image of a sinless God who was manifest in the flesh? You are conformed to the image at the rapture. Paul states that a man who God Justified, is also Glorified, because it is PREDESTINED. This glorification to a man is YET FUTURE because we wait for it. To God, it is a done deal. Paul uses this predestination in Ephesians 2:6. Obviously we are not there YET, but the Holy Spirit which indwells the believer is omniscient and omnipresent. Our flesh cannot go to heaven. (1 Cor. 15:50) EPHESIAN 2:6 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6And hath raised us up together, *and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:* 1 Cor. 15:49-53 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 50Now this I say, brethren, *that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.* 51Behold, I shew you *a mystery;* *We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,* 52In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: *for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.* 53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. This mystery is hinted at in John 11:23-26 and is explained by Paul in 1 Thess. 4:13-18. To "inherit the kingdom" or to be Adopted the Christian must be conformed to His image by the rapture. Galatians 3:1-4 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2This only would I learn of you, *Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?* *3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?* *4Have ye suffered so many things in vain?* if it be yet in vain. Romans 7:24-25 O wretched man that I am! *who shall deliver me from the body of this death?* 25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. *So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.* Foreknowledge is when God KNOWS you (not before the foundation of the world) and you know God. GALATIANS 4:8-9 Howbeit then, *when ye knew not God,* ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. 9But now, *after that ye have known God,* *or rather are known of God,* how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? God knows you (as a son) when you trust the gospel. If you are Justified you are "foreknown". Those that he foreknows He PREDESTINATES to be conformed to His image-the redemption of the body, the adoption of sons, glorification. 1 CORINTHIANS 14:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: *now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.* Paul states that he "knows in part", but at the rapture he shall KNOW even as he is "known". God will KNOW you, and you will KNOW God when you see Him face to face. A man is NOT predestined to be (Saved) Justified, a man IF he is Justified (Saved), is given the SPIRIT of ADOPTION and is PREDESTINED to be ADOPTED (to wit, Rom. 8:23) as a son. Osas is true but should be termed OJPG, (Once Justified Predestined to be Glorified.) God knows the beginning from the end, He knows every man, but "knowing" a son is contingent on trusting the gospel that was given to Paul. God may have known who would trust Him, for He is omniscient, but the knowing here pertains to God knowing a son. The predestination happens after Justification, not before the foundation of the world. The scriptures reveal both Calvinism AND Catholicism as gross HERESIES.

[@Church888]

No.

[@NTNG13]

Calvinists are woefully illiterate in James Epistle, they'd quit their nonsense if they read the passage about God not tempting anyone and being the source of all good and perfect things. To say he predestines Hell is to say He temps and chooses evil actions to be performed by men for the sake of them going to Hell.

[@mikekayanderson408]

you have the wrong view of James - not us ! everything you have said is incorrect! k

[@NTNG13]

@@mikekayanderson408 no sources and more mental gymnastics? Classic Calvinist

[@mikekayanderson408]

James is correct God does not tempt he tests . God is the source of all good things. We agree with that. But how do you get predestination to hell in James? There is nothing there in James that we disagree with. So we are not illiterate when it comes to James as you accuse us of. You are not making any sense in yo-yo last sentence. That is not what is taught about predestination All mankind is sinful and going to hell. God must judge sin and the wages of sin is death. Predestination is that out of this sinful mass of humanity God has chosen some that He will save. For His Glory. Those who have not been elected are bypassed as they are already condemned by their sin. God does not cause anyone to sin. Kay. @@NTNG13

[@donhaddix3770]

Irenaeus was not a rcc.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

"“[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while *the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.”* St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1: 10,3 (A.D. 180) He sure wasn't a protestant! (= as many faiths are there are people who interpret the bible on their own, decapitated from the faith from which it came, resulting in complete doctrinal chaos, confusion, and division)

[@donhaddix3770]

@@TruthHasSpoken the rcc did not exist in his lifetime. he was not an apostle. he was man with an opinion, liker luthor, calvin, Arminius and others,

[@TruthHasSpoken]

@@donhaddix3770 Hah! St Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of St John. A Christian. A great example of He, Who hears You, hears Me! He, nor John, never heard of the sect of protestantism, let alone the myriad and conflicting beliefs.

[@donhaddix3770]

@@TruthHasSpoken many people were disciples of John. he never heard of roman Catholicism, with its 23 denominations and conflicting beliefs either.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

@@donhaddix3770 "he never heard of roman Catholicism," Interesting that this disciple of St John, Said this: “See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. *Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.* Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, *wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”* St Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110). Worth repeating, HE (St Ignatius) WHO HEAR YOU (St John) HEARS ME (JESUS) *wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”* The best cure for protestantism, is, ...education. The Chaos, confusion, and endless doctrinal division of protestantism, wouldn't come along for another 1400 years after St Ignatius. All the while, it would read from a Catholic book, decapitating it from the faith from which it came.

[@paperjerry]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/iKrZq5WkoriGha8 For me this is the pinnacle of Joe's talk. We were made for Heaven... but we choose to take that road freely. Thank you Joe!

[@mikekayanderson408]

No. We do not make the choice freely. Every inclination of the fallen sinful man is to rebel against God not to go to Him. All mankind is sinful and nit one seeks God of his own free will. The Bible says that. God says that. So if anyone is to be saved God Himself has to intervene to save them. Jesus said “NO ONE “ comes to Me except the Father draw him. God has to do a spiritual work within the heart of every single person who is saved. It is all by the Grace of God. Please read your Bible. It is all there in very plain language. God elects and God saves. K

[@DavidCotePhotography]

You need to be more careful, please don't conflate Luther and Calvin, they end up in very different places for different reasons. Talking about both together muddies the waters.

[@tylerrossjcl]

Aquinas believed in fate. See prima pars q. 116. Also, he argued that the number of the elect is certain in prima pars q. 23 article 7, and quotes Augustine as saying that the number cannot be either increased or diminished. Aquinas also held to free will and the idea that one could lose his salvation, but also that the elect would be infallibly saved (also q. 23). It would be helpful for you to talk to a Thomist about the differences between the Calvinist system and the Thomist system, because they are actually nearly identical. Most of this video ended up being an argument against Aquinas, accidentally.

[@sebastianofmilan]

So true

[@tafazziReadChannelDescription]

God is outside of time, that means he knows the outcome of all of time and therefore the total number of the saved. That doesn't mean that number isn't determined by the free choices that happen in time. That's the difference. It's not fate, or God's decree alone, that determines that number, but also the free will.

[@sebastianofmilan]

@@tafazziReadChannelDescription I think it's a goofy idea that St. Thomas, common doctor of the Church, denied free will. He assented to both predestination and free will.

[@tafazziReadChannelDescription]

@@sebastianofmilan I'm not saying Saint Thomas denied free will. Calvin did. That's why the early church wasn't calvinist, and the church was never calvinist because free will ordinarily contributes to determine if someone is saved or not.

[@masterchief8179]

I utterly disagree. You can watch two pretty decent, didactic and enjoyable tutorials for St Thomas Aquinas’s view of predestination on The Th0mistic Institute: “Predestination” and “Freedom” out of a series named ‘Aquin@s 101’. Or you can read the Summa Theologica on predestination (Prima Pars, questions 23-24), the operations of the will (Prima Pars, question 82) and free will (Prima Pars, question 83). *If you REALLY think Calvinsim and Thomism are “nearly identical”, then you misunderstood one, the other or both.* Calvin’s “Institutas” were written as a reaction AGAINST the “Summa Theologica” and the theology of St Thomas Aquinas, so what part of Calvinism do you feel to conflate or at least approximate / reconcile with Thomism in the theological realm, considering the very anti-Thomist nature of Calvin’s work? Because there are some people online that seem to think predestination or election (which are Biblical indelible conceptual realities) are Calvinist terms for Calvinist concepts, which they obviously aren’t, even though there is a perceptible “semiotic capture” of this nomenclature through Calvinist and Protestant overuse. *To say God’s grace is prevenient in us is to say it’s first and unmerited, NOT that we don’t have free will, that we suffer from total depravity, that grace is irresistible (without the possibility of cooperation or responsiveness on the part of our human intellect and will), or, even less, anything that even resembles Calvinist double predestination. That’s NOT up for debate.* Even so, of course there are ways to read Calvin in light of St Thomas, which came up forth by Calvinists squeezing too much Calvin to sound “more Catholic”, never in proper theological concepts, but only in some hardly acceptable philosophical rhetoric. In a sense, it’s much easier for Calvinists to find common grounds with Thomism (and the Dominican School) than with Molinism (the Jesuit School) as far as the metaphysics of divine intellect and will goes, mostly in the matter of the divine prescience and of God’s decrees intelligibility. *But that does NOT make them nearly identical, which can only be said by theological/ philosophical ignorance or slander.* Your implicit accusation that the condemnation of Calvinism means an arguable condemnation of Thomism is nonsensical. Calvinist soteriology and theology of grace, for example, are rigorously anti-Catholic and anti-Thomist by definition, as the sessions of the Ecumenical Council of Trent concerning both original sin and justification proved. I suggest you to read the “Decree Concerning Original Sin & Decree Concerning Reform” (Session V of the Council of Trent) and just then the “Decree Concerning Justification & Decree Concerning Reform” (Session VI of the Council of Trent), in this order. So I’m actually very curious to understand your argument, my friend. Are you talking about the metaphysics of the divine intellect and will (how God knows and how God decrees), which is proper to the philosophical rhetoric, or are you talking about soteriology, theological anthropology, the theology of grace and original sin (and so forth)? For me it’s obvious that Calvinism is an innovation that arose during the Protestant Revolution. Brother, if you want to actually know the Thomist and the Dominican thought, I recommend anything written by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (OP), not anything said by your (former?) pastor or maybe Calvinist professor. God bless! From 🇧🇷 Brazil.

[@justinmadison513]

First of all, Calvin was not a fatalist in the way you are trying to paint him. Secondly, Aquinas and Augustine was closer to Calvin on matters of the will, predestination, and justification than the Vatican today. The Vatican has fallen into Bielian pre-modern theology that was a departure from the tradition that the church of Rome was trying to retrieve over the reformers! How ironic it is that the reformers were the ones to accurately retrieve the Fathers over and against the papists!

[@theplinkerslodge6361]

Seems Calvin was a jerk or an idiot.

[@mikekayanderson408]

1Timothy 5:21. Says there were electAngels. The Angels were created perfect but the was potential for sin. God chose some so they would not fall into sin and follow Satan who did choose to sin. The same with Adam & Eve. They were created perfectly but there was the potential for sin. They were given the option/free choice to obey God’s command not to eat from one tree or disobey. They chose to disobey hi command. God did not force them to sin. Adam and Eve were in totally different category to us. We now are born with fallen natures inherited from Adam and our natural default position is to disobey God. Nothing very to understand in all of this. Stop accusing God of being a monster! K

[@jflow5601]

Predestination is not a Christian thing. Jesus healed the ill and asked them to repent. Nothing predestined in that.

[@EmilTennis00]

How would Catholics respond to Thomism which teaches predestination to salvation according to the degree of God, not on the grounds of foreseen faith?

[@bobthebuildest6828]

thomism = catholic both catholic views, molonism and thomism have very high views of God, the key difference is that in both cases TLIP of TULIP are rejected just because we reject the heresy of calvinism and double predestination doesnt mean we are arminian with no predestination

[@EmilTennis00]

Okay, but in the video Joe argues in his St. Augustine section that the idea of predestinating some to salvation and leaving others in their sin is a confused position of Augustine that should not be taken as representative of Christianity. However, Thomism, arguably the most important school of thought in Catholicism, teaches exactly that, i.e. Unconditional Election. Isn't this criticism undermining Catholicism as well?@@bobthebuildest6828

[@tafazziReadChannelDescription]

does Thomism say *all* those that are saved are in this group? no. According to Saint Thomas, some people will enter heaven just because God says so, but not all.

[@EmilTennis00]

that not true. Thomism teaches Unconditional Election, i.e., the saved are predestined on the basis of God's degree, not the foreseen faith or any works they did.@@tafazziReadChannelDescription

[@masterchief8179]

You can watch two pretty decent, didactic and enjoyable tutorials for St Thomas Aquinas’s view of predestination on The Th0mistic Institute: “Predestination” and “Freedom” out of a series named ‘Aquin@s 101’. Or you can read the Summa Theologica on predestination (Prima Pars, questions 23-24), the operations of the will (Prima Pars, question 82) and free will (Prima Pars, question 83). Calvin’s “Institutas” were written as a reaction AGAINST the “Summa Theologica” and the theology of St Thomas Aquinas, so what part of Calvinism do you feel to conflate or at least approximate / reconcile with Thomism in the theological realm, considering the very anti-Thomist nature of Calvin’s work? Because there are some people online that seem to think predestination or election (which are Biblical indelible conceptual realities) are Calvinist terms for Calvinist concepts, which they obviously aren’t, even though there is a perceptible “semiotic capture” of this nomenclature through Calvinist and Protestant overuse. *To say God’s grace is prevenient in us is to say it’s first and unmerited, NOT that we don’t have free will, that we suffer from total depravity, that grace is irresistible (without the possibility of cooperation or responsiveness on the part of our human intellect and will), or, even less, anything that even resembles Calvinist double predestination. That’s NOT up for debate.* Even so, of course there are ways to read Calvin in light of St Thomas, which came up forth by Calvinists squeezing too much of Calvin to sound “more Catholic”, never into proper theological concepts, but only in some hardly acceptable philosophical rhetoric. In a sense, it’s indeed much easier for Calvinist to find common grounds with Thomism (and the Dominican School) than with Molinism (the Jesuit School) as far as the metaphysics of divine intellect and will goes, mostly in the matter of the divine prescience and of God’s decrees intelligibility. *But that does NOT make them even similar, which can only be said by theological/ philosophical ignorance or maybe slander.* Your implicit accusation that the condemnation of Calvinism means an arguable condemnation of Thomism is nonsensical. Calvinist soteriology and theology of grace, for example, are rigorously anti-Catholic and anti-Thomist by definition, as the sessions of the Ecumenical Council of Trent concerning both original sin and justification proved. I suggest you to read the “Decree Concerning Original Sin & Decree Concerning Reform” (Session V of the Council of Trent) and just then the “Decree Concerning Justification & Decree Concerning Reform” (Session VI of the Council of Trent), in this order. So I’m actually very curious to understand your argument, my friend. Are you talking about the metaphysics of the divine intellect and will (how God knows and how God decrees), which is proper to the philosophical rhetoric, or are you talking about soteriology, theological anthropology, the theology of grace and original sin (and so forth)? For me it’s obvious that Calvinism is an innovation that arose during the Protestant Revolution. Brother, if you want to actually know the Thomist and the Dominican thought, I recommend anything written by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (OP), not anything said by your (former?) pastor or maybe Calvinist professor. God bless! From 🇧🇷 Brazil.