No, I did not say “Doubting Calvinism.” Although I am a master of typos, this blog is about something different. First, every reader needs to know that I am a Calvinist. And while the “doctrines of grace” are not the most important issues in theology, I believe in them very deeply and find that they constitute a significant portion of my hope and comfort.
Why all this snuggling up to Calvinism? Because I don’t want to look like one of those disgruntled emerging types, continually complaining about his own family. Having said that, I am going to discuss a “problem” I often (certainly not always) see among my Calvinist brothers and sisters. I am going to state the issue and then attempt to provide a timid yet substantial interpretation of the problem.
Okay, enough of the prologue. Let me get to it.
I grew up a Baptist. As such, I was quite aware of the “Baptist way” of evangelism. First, you get the person saved. Next, you make sure they know that they can never lose their salvation. Assurance of salvation was not some tertiary or auxiliary doctrine. It was something the new believer in Christ must have, now. To be fair, this is not simply a Baptist thing. It is something that can be found in the DNA of pop Evangelicalism as well. And it makes some sense. If a new believer knows that he is secure in Christ, his works and service to the Lord will come because he is saved, not so that he can be saved. This secures his belief and understanding in justification by faith alone.
Assurance of salvation. I suppose this is the subject of this post. The question is Can one be absolutely sure that they are a believer and how important is this assurance in their walk with the Lord? Many Christians don’t believe an individual can be assured of their ultimate salvation. Many believe one can lose their salvation. Catholics believe that “mortal sins” (really nasty sins such as adultery, rejection of the perpetual virginity of Mary, or missing Mass without a valid excuse) can cause a Cathlic to lose their salvation. Arminians and Wesleyans believe one can cease to believe, thereby forfeiting their seat in heaven. Therefore, from the perspective of those who don’t believe salvation can be lost, these belief systems cannot offer any assurance. The criticism would be that no one could ever be sure, until death, whether or not they are saved. After all, what if I decided to sleep in on Sunday and then immediately died of a heart attack without repenting? How do I know for sure if my faith is going to last until the end? For Catholics, the fact that one cannot be assured of their salvation is dogmatized.
If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Canon XV of the Decree on Justification
If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end, unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Canon XVI of the Decree on Justification
Ironically, for the Catholic, to believe that one can be assured of their salvation would be the means by which they lose their salvation!
You: I thought this was about Calvinists!
Me: Patience, my son. Patience
Calvinists believe in a doctrine called “perseverance of the saints.” Normally, we don’t like the phrase “Once saved, always saved” (even though, technically, we believe this). A little better is the designation “eternal security.” But our favorite is “perseverance of the saints.” We believe that the elect will persevere in their faith until the end. Therefore, if one is among the elect, she cannot lose her seat in heaven.
One would think this would bring a great deal of assurance among Calvinists concerning their security. Their faith is a gift of God and he will never take it back. The elect are secure.
Now, as many of you know, I have quite a significant ministry dealing with Christians who are doubting their faith for one reason or another. Jude 22 says “have mercy on those who doubt.” I don’t think we do this enough. We avoid doubters like the plague, not knowing how to minister to them. Unfortunately, many of my fellow Calvinists deal with doubters according to one of two theological clichés. If they leave the faith, they were never saved to begin with. If they are elect, they will not leave faith. End of story.
There are three primary reasons Christians doubt. The first has to do with objective intellectual issues. These doubt the Bible’s truthfulness, Christ’s resurrection, and even God’s existence (among other things). Another group doubts God’s love and presence in their lives. The last group doubts their salvation and the reality of their faith. These are always wondering if they have true saving faith or a false faith. This last group lacks assurance.
It may surprise you to know that just about every contact I have had with people who are doubting their salvation are Calvinistic in their theology. In other words, they believe in unconditional election. These are the ones who believe in perseverance of the saints. These are the ones that believe that we cannot lose our salvation! Yet these are the ones who are doubting their faith the most.
Their issue has to do with their election. Are they truly among the elect? If they are, they believe their faith will persevere until the end. But if they are not, there is no hope. But how are they to know for sure whether they are elect? Maybe their faith is a stated faith? Maybe it is false. The gentleman I talked to today was so riddled with doubt, he was having thoughts of suicide. “How do I know my faith is an elect faith?” He wanted assurance so badly, but felt that his Calvinistic theology prevented him from ever having such assurance.
Isn’t this ironic? I have never had a call from an Arminian (or any other believer in conditional election) about this. In my experience, it is only Calvinists who doubt their faith in this way, with such traumatic devastation. Why?
I have my theories. Let me share them, but I am interested in your thoughts.
Here we go (close your ears Baptists): I think we make too much of the doctrine of assurance. I don’t know if it is paramount for a believer to always be absolutely assured that he is a believer. John Hannah, one of my favorite profs at Dallas Seminary, said one time in class, “I am ninety percent sure I am saved . . . but I am only ten percent sure of that.” He would say things like this, knowing it would disturb most of his Evangelical students’ foundations, causing them to think more deeply. I thought if John Hannah is not one hundred percent sure he is saved, how can anyone be? I did not know whether to rethink my Baptist upbringing or take John Hannah out into the hall and share the Gospel with him. Eventually, it caused me to rethink my understanding of assurance. I don’t think there is any reason why we have to be absolutely certain we are saved at every moment. When we present the Gospel to someone and they say they have trusted in Christ, we do them a disservice to force assurance upon them. After all, how do we know that their faith is real? We don’t. Instead of assurance, maybe we should give them some of the Hebrews warning passages. Maybe we should speak to them as Christ spoke to the seven churches in Revelation: “to him who overcomes . . .” Maybe we should encourage them to “test their faith” (2 Cor. 13:5). Maybe we should warn them that there is a possible disqualification. (1 Cor. 9:27). This may not fit into your thinking, but we all know there is a faith that does not save (James 2:19). Why not bring this up?
You see, people in our tradition often believe it is anathema to test your faith. To even bring up the possibility of our faith not being real scares us. Why? Because if it is not real, in our sometimes distorted thinking, it is God’s fault and there is nothing we can do about it. We are either elect or not and all that can happen if we examine our faith is bring about the terrifying possibility of reprobation.
I think, for so many of us, the issues are as black and white as they can be. We are caught up in this modernistic ideal of absolutes. Either you know with one hundred percent infallible certainty that we are saved – or we have no certainty at all. But I think our certainty is relative to our situation. The question is never Are you elect? That is a question only for God. The question is Do you believe right now? If you do, you can know you have eternal life. Could you be wrong? Could your faith be false? Could your trust in the Lord be like that of the second and third soils of Christ’s parable? Those that sprung up quickly but faded away? Sure. But the solution is not to divine the mind of God to see if you are elect. It is to persevere in your faith. Arminians know this. They live with this every day. Therefore, they don’t call me falling apart about their assurance. They know how to test their faith and they do all they can to keep it. Calvinists often just get paralyzed in fear thinking they are not among the elect and have their hands tied. When, truth be told, we should respond very much like Arminians with regard to the stability of our faith. We do everything to persevere (which I would love to expand on, but I don’t have the space). Our theology demands that when we do persevere, we know that it was God who would not ever let us go, not us who would never let him go. Therefore, we understand our faith was not of ourselves. But this fact does not help much in situations when our faith needs to be tested. We simply do not have a magic decoder ring to determine if we are truly elect.
You ask me: Michael, do you know you are saved? My answer: yes. You ask me: Michael, do you have assurance? My answer: yes. You ask me: Michael, why do you believe you are saved? My answer: because today I am still believing. But I have to test this all the time, as I am not infallible. I could have a false faith, but I don’t believe I do. This ninety percent assurance will have to do. The witness of the Spirit I have today is enough for today. Tomorrow I will examine myself again. But my assurance does not have to be absolute and comprehensive. While the Catholics went way overboard on their “anathemas” (I mean, come on, guys . . .), I do think they are right to warn against any necessity of infallible assurance. Once we learn to test ourselves, the times of doubt will lead to productive action, not paralyzing fear.
867 replies to "Doubting Calvinists"
Fr. Robert writes,
Btw, indeed the “corporate” aspect is common in the Arminian idea of Election, but it is also part of the Reformed too. But there is always the particular first and foremost, as we can see in St. Paul, who also calls himself “a pattern”.. ‘to them which should hereafter believe on Him to life everlasting.’ (1 Tim. 1: 16) And see too, 2 Timothy 2: 10, “Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” Such a grand verse, profound!
Actually, election is primarily corporate and only secondarily individual. You are right that in Calvinism it is primarily individual and secondarily corporate, but that is not the Biblical perspective on election. I recommend you read the article I referred to above as well.
TUAD writes,
Thanks. Sounds like a Classical Calvinist.
Only if you ignore the rest of what I said that shows that the Arminian view is nothing like Calvinism. Not sure why you would do that.
Fr. Robert writes,
Funny @Arminian! But it is YOU who are on-board, and not to Arminian doctrine either, but to the full sovereign grace of God in Salvation – of course if you are elect? And not a real mystery biblically, if you have “regenerate” (real living) faith in Christ! (Eph. 2: 8-9-10)…And btw, Eph. 2: 10 is a real hammer blow here… “created in Christ Jesus”!
Yeah, that is a real hammer blow to the Calvinist doctrine that regeneration precedes faith! If regeneration is consequent to union with Christ (“in Christ Jesus”), and surely it is, then it is clear that faith precedes regeneration since faith is what joins us to Christ, the source of spiritual life (Eph. 1:13). Excellent point!
TUAD (comment 225) you seem to be misconstruing what is being said and not getting the point of what is being said. You seem to be extracting words that haven been used and ignoring the explanation of those words given by their authors. For example, I pointed out that God cannot use his foreknowledge of a certain thing to change that same thing. And then you seem conclude from that almost the opposite of what was said. You turn it to:
“So God decided to create someone even though He knows that Reprobate will reject Him.”
But the sense of what I said is actually that God’s decision to create the person or not cannot be based on his foreknowledge of what the person will do. While it is true that he knows what they will do when he creates them, his foreknowledge assumes the decision to create them. It is logically “too late” for his foreknowledge of what the person will do to inform his decision concerning their creation.
On the other hand, it is not true that the person is created without any hope or possibility for salvation, since they are able to accept salvation or not. That they will do one or the other does not mean that someone else will determine which one they do or that one option is the one they have to do and can’t do the the other.
I see others are observing that you are really missing what some are saying.
@Don: I guess yours was a sort of short-shift answer? As you forgot verse 12! (Tough verse for your Arminianism, and btw, YOU ARE presenting an Arminian form here!) And btw, I read my Greek NT every morning for my A.M. devotion! And perhaps CMP could teach us all, with his mate Mr. or Dr. Wallace about the Greek! Both have theological degrees on the Greek itself! (I also had it fully in seminary, moons ago now, but as an old Anglican rector, I read my Greek NT daily, as noted… at ordination Anglican presbyters are asked to faithfully read their Greek NT’s in their ministry and work!)
And, Predestination always includes “choice”!
I just want to highlight that while this discussion has gotten off topic, it seems that no Calvinist here can offer any real assurance of salvation when their own doctrines of unconditional election and inevitable perseverance are taken into account. Like someone wisely said earlier, the basic answer seems to be, “Try not to think about it and live like an Arminian.”
Fr. Robert writes,
@Don: I guess yours was a sort of short-shift answer? As you forgot verse 12!(Tough verse for your Arminianism, and btw, YOU ARE presenting an Arminian form here!)
How about verse 21? (tough verse for Calvinists though)
Reprobate has a thought in her brain. She decides whether to write that thought down or not. She ultimately decides to write that thought down.
Question: When Reprobate decided to write down that thought, did she decree that her thought be written down?
Good reminder AP (comment 233). As I pointed out earlier concerning the point that — if you believe that perseverance in faith is guaranteed for believers, and argue that the many who forsake their faith that is indistinguishable to themselves or others from true saving faith never really believed, then there is no way you could know your own faith is real and that you won’t fall away — I have never heard a Calvinist answer this point without basically having to admit that they cannot have substantial assurance. But usually they just ignore the point. I have also never heard anyone who believes that apostasy is impossible for genuine believers answer this. That’s because it is unanswerable for any who see apostasy from saving faith as impossible and think that perseverance in faith is guaranteed by God or necessary for final salvation.
Fr. Robert writes,
And, Predestination always includes “choice”!
In Calvinism it only includes God’s choice.
TUAD,
Why don’t you cut to the chase? I am sure we can handle it.
Arminianperspectives (with Classical Calvinism overlap), answering #236 will help you see what you’re chasing.
Arminianperspectives (with Classical Calvinism overlap)
What is this supposed to mean?
answering #236 will help you see what you’re chasing.
I’m not chasing anything.
Greg @ # 234,
I really don’t know how long I will hang in there with this conversation. God only knows, and I mean that literally, how many hours I have spent in similar discussions over the past 5-6 or so years. Some on this site and some elsewhere. After a while it all starts feeling sort of circular. Been there, done that, I said that, he/she replied, I answered…….
Unless something changes my mind, I think my “time quota” this time around is pretty well up.
Btw, both the Greek verb “Proginosko” and the noun “Prognosis” are used in the foreknowledge of God’s basis of His foreordaining counsels, and “Prognosis” is used directly for God’s electing grace, as in 1 Peter 1: 2. And HIS Divine counsels will be ever “unthwartable”, i.e. in both His foreordaination and determination and will!
See btw, the great fullness of this in the death and resurrection of Christ Himself! (Acts 2: 23-24) And also in the life and call of Saul/Paul, (Gal. 1: 15-16). And then to even us ‘In Christ’, (Eph. 5 ; 11).
@Arminianperspectives: Not true, first and yes foremost “God’s choice, but then HE works ours too”! This is the essence of true Calvinism, certainly John Calvin’s! Note btw, I am or consider myself a “Calvin” Calvinist! And Calvin taught both the sufficiency (sufficient for all), but the efficacy or efficaciousness of the Atonement: alone for the Elect!
*On my #243, that is Eph. 1: 5 & 11 (verses)
…first and yes foremost “God’s choice, but then HE works ours too”! This is the essence of true Calvinism…..”
And there is exactly the sticking point..He works our choice for us. Since He has already worked the choice for us, we will “choose” exactly what He has already decided and decreed. How then it is really “our choice” since He has arranged it there exactly as He wishes it and there is no way we can then “choose” otherwise?
This is the point that many non Calvinists have tried to make down through the years. And you have finally said it for all of us perfectly!
And then to top it all off, He then holds us morally accountable for the choice that He worked within us. And billions then end up in hell because of the “choices” they have made that He worked in them.
I have often heard it said that Calvinism is a very logical theological system. For myself, I find it to be the most illogical system I have ever heard of.
I’m still having posting problems. Was hoping it was all fixed, but I guess not.
cherylu,
Exactly right. It is nonsense to say that one chooses, when that supposed “choice” was irresistibly made by someone else (God) so that only one course of action was ever possible. It empties choice of any normal meaning. So contrary to Fr. Robert’s assertion, it “is true” that the only real choice involved in Calvinism is God’s choice.
For myself, I find it to be the most illogical system I have ever heard of.
That’s why some Calvinists, like Patton (by his own admission), seem to like it.
cherylu,
I’m still having posting problems. Was hoping it was all fixed, but I guess not.
My posts come up, but it takes a long time (several minutes). I will say that if you include more than one link, that post will probably be considered spam until it gets moderated (a lot of blogs choose that setting). Not sure if that has been the problem with some of your posts. Other than that, maybe it is solar flares?
@cherylu: I am with CMP some, I am an “eclectic” Calvinist! 😉 After all we are dealing with the doctrine of God!
Btw, I would surely suggest (if you can do it?) to read John Calvin’s Institutes carefully at least once! Calvin is the reason somewhat I am a “Calvinist”! 🙂 (Note I say somewhat, i.e. he is part of the theological instrument!)
Don: the whole of John chapter 17 focuses around verses 1, 2 & 3…”even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him (the Son of verse 1), He may give eternal life. This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”
@Don: the whole of John chapter 17 focuses around verses 1, 2 & 3…”even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him (the Son of verse 1), He may give eternal life. This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”
Fr. Robert,
Did you see my comment about verse 21 in John 17? (I’m not Don, just commenting on your interaction).
Jesus also says Judas was one of those “given” to Him (vs. 12). Are you saying that Judas possessed eternal life? If so, that kills your doctrine of perseverance. So verse 12 and 21 are a major problem for the way you seem to want to use John 17. John 17 really is no difficulty at all for Arminians, but it creates some pretty serious problems for Calvinists.
Wow AP, your not thinking correctly! John 17: 12 teaches that… “I guarded them and not one of them perished (but Judas) “the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.” And oh that last clause…”that the Scripture would be fulfilled.” That’s another tough one for Arminian’s!
Btw AP, as I wrote on this blog already, Judas was never saved! (John 6: 70-71)
Re # 254,
Fr Robert, some manuscripts and translations do say in that verse that the ones He guarded are the ones “given to Him.” And that included Judas.
Arminian was quoting from one of those versions.
I think AP is right on concerning John 17:12. It is very problematic for the Calvinist position. Notice that Judas was part of “them” protected by the Son. “I have guarded them [which includes Judas], and not one of them [which includes Judas] has been lost except [the “except” here shows that those protected by the Son, “them”, included Judas; not one of them was lost except Judas] . . .” So Judas was protected by Jesus, but still fell because while Jesus will protect us from anything overpowering us and taking us away from him, he does not make us stay with him and will allow us to walk away. This is why Scripture assures us the power of God will protect us by faith but wanrs us not to forsake faith.
“that the Scripture would be fulfilled” can also be translated “with the result that the Scripture was fulfilled.” Judas did not fall away for the purpose of fulfilling Scripture, but his fall fulfilled Scripture, it brought to pass what Scripture said would happen.
But that can’t be the essence of the Text, as noted with John 6: 70-71! So that manuscript cannot be authentic! Clutching at straws I am afraid! And Arminianism is a “straw” theology, sorry but we simply MUST get down to it!
Fr Robert,
No follow up comments on the business of God choosing our “choices” for us?
John 6:70-71 does not say that Judas was never saved. At most it indicates that he was not saved when Jesus spoke that word. However, it might not even indicate that much. it could be a proleptic statement, identifying Judas by what he would later become. The text draws attention to thew fact that Judas would later betray Jesus. I am open to the suggestion that Judas was never saved. He might not have been. But John 6:70-71 is not conclusive. And John 17:12 indicates that Judas was in Jesus’ name (as part of “them”) and that Jesus did protect him. So the evidence is stronger that Judas was in fact saved at some point. In any case, John 17:12 is problematic for the Calvinist position.
Btw, looking at the other authority or manuscript, does not change the proper and really only correct interpretation of Judas as lost at all! He was/is the “son of destruction”, as he aligned with Satan himself!
Re 261:
No, of course not…..:) If he was indeed one of those “given to Him,” that of course doesn’t mean that He was saved! (At least obviously not with Judas. It just means that in John 6 with all of the rest of us right??) 🙂 You know the “all that the Father has given me shall come to me…” verses that are such favorites of you Calvinists?
If those manuscripts are the correct ones, I think you are missing something here, Fr. Robert
Sorry AP, but to my mind you are making very sloppy exegesis! But hey, you trying to defend Arminianism, rather than honor the Word of God! Sorry mate, but that’s just the way I see it! 🙂
Fr. Robert,
I would still really like to know how you understand the choices that God has “worked,” can truly be said to be our choices.
Or does your silence on the subject mean you are conceding our point?
Well, Fr. Robert, I have given actual evidence from the text and grammar for my position, but you simply assert your view. It’s easy to claim something is sloppy exegesis and another to demonstrate that or defend your own position exegetically. I think it quite evident that I have interacted with the text and given reasonable explanation of it while you have not really dealt with the specific points that have been made.
And it is not helpful to charge others with trying to defend their system rather than honor the word of God. Perhaps that actually applies to what you are doing. I actually think we are both trying to honor the word of God by trying to ascertain and set forth its actual meaning. It seems to me that it is best to give one another the benefit of the doubt on that as brothers in the Lord.
I think we are coming full circle people! CMP has been gracious to allow us all to go off blog subject here. But we are not going to solve this great issue here!
@cherylu: I never really chose to be a Christian (in the strict sense), I was raised Irish Roman Catholic, and actually brought my Catholic Augustinian doctrine with me somewhat when I became an Anglican. But then later there I came overwhelmingly to the Reformed Faith & Divinity!
Fr Robert,
That was truly a great non answer, answer! I know no more now then I did before you said that! Except that it would appear you are trying to evade a direct answer (although I may certainly be wrong about that.)
Well “A”, I never saw any real evidence, grammar, text or otherwise, sorry! And I must confess I see you just seeking to find anything to grasp here, to try to make your point. But “exegesis” no! And this is my honest mind!
lol Sorry, but I really feel my “choices” we made by the grace of God within my heart & mind! Remember, I am an old combat vet, so God’s grace and providence have been seen by me in life and death! And that’s not evading anything, dear-heart! 🙂
Fr. Robert,
Ok, but it is easy to say such things about what you disagree with without giving any support for your stance against what you are disparaging, while I gave specific textual claims that interacted with the text in detail and can be assessed and interacted with.
Cherylu,
You have really pegged a major problem with Calvinism in the concept of choice. Here is a great article on the topic that lays out the issue quite compellingly: http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-reality-of-choice-and-the-testimony-of-scripture/.
Calvinism really is incoherent, providing no valid basis for assurance or genuine free will or human responsibility despite its claims to do so.
@”A”, I gave support, both biblical and somewhat theological, you just rejected it! This is always the MO of must Arminian’s sadly! Calvinism verses Arminianism is like oil and water! YOU really have no Sovereign God! And this will always be the issue! Note as I said, before I was really a Calvinist, I was a Catholic Augustinian… and from here, or that, the theological move was not that far! Of course this was many years ago now. Note I am over 60!
BTW, perhaps I should mention that by God’s providence we just happen to be highlighting a 5 part series critiquing another post by CMP that argues for Calvinism on the basis that it is less rational than Arminianism. The decision to publish the series this week was made independent of knowledge of this post by Michael. So come on over to the Society of Evangelical Arminians and check it out. You can just click on my screen name to get there.
UGH! Use your real name mate! We should have known you we baiting Calvinism, and tolling for people! I really dislike this! I am a hospital chaplain, and I am writing from here today, up and down, etc.
Fr. Robert (comment 271),
You claim to have given biblical support, but that seems to have been just citing verses. When I challenged your interpretation with specific details of the text, you merely claim that I am grasping or stretching without any substantive points or details offered by you.
Now I have seen you complaining that I mentioned the 5 part series critiquing a post in favor of Calvinism by CMP and inviting people to come see it. You are becoming increasingly discourteous, calling my motives into question, charging that I’m not seeking to honor the word of God and that I am disingenuous in my motives. Now that is typical internet Calvinist MO. I have not been trolling for people. We have been in this discussion and I thought it worth mentioning that we happen to have that series going this very week. A bit of a “coincidence” there?
I have not called your motives into question or accused you disingenuousness. I would encourage you to take a more charitable tone and posture toward your fellow believers here who disagree with your Calvinist theology. We are brothers in Christ after all.
I think we should stop this discussion.
May the Lord bless you brother.
First, I am at my work as a hospital chaplain, so I am up and down, and can’t always check everything, at least the past few days. (I wrote more at my home later, yesterday) I would have liked to have said more to cherylu. But you are tolling, just as simple as that! And as I said, when we press it down.. the issue is God’s Sovereign Grace! And in reality, the Arminian just does not have a Sovereign God! YES, biblical theology is really about eternal issues!
Sorry, but again you were the one masking behind the title “Arminian”, why not just be up front and say, who and really what you are? This is the thing that most angered me! But yes, lets both move on!
Yours In Christ,
Fr. Robert K. Darby (Anglican)
D. Phil, Th.D.
PS..I am for the most part retired now, save some guest preaching, and of course my daily chaplain work. I will be 64 this fall.
FR Robert. Thought you might like to knowthat the Dominicans in the Catholic Church are close to the Calvinist position.They believe everyone has sufficient grace to get to heaven but that God does Unconditionally Elect a segment of humanity to eternal life, Father Lagrange has a book on this.I think they are sort of the leftovers of the Augustanian Jansenists eliminated by the Jesuits.
Hey Fr Robert or Jay,
Maybe one of you can tell me more about something I read somewhere, can’t remember where anymore, it’s been so long ago now. Can’t even remember if it was a reliable source or not. Anyway, back when the Thomists and Molinists (i think it was those two? although Jensenists is what reminded me?) were in heated debates about the nuts and bolts of predestination, and a pope, after a certain synod or something or other, was preparing to promulgate an official doctrine on the subject (can’t even remember which side he was going to support), only the day before the official declaration he died. So you can imagine how popes since then have not dogmatically declared a complete system of predestination. (There are some truths we Catholics must not contradict, such as God willing the salvation of each soul and the giving of grace to each soul, but are free to hold various theories about the specifics. Different schools of thought remain today. But debates within the Church not as heated as they apparently were at one time in history.)
Anyway, can either one of you fill in the blanks about that story of the pope dying.? Is it “urban legend”? Or history? I haven’t had luck with quick googling, but maybe you know? Or Fr Robert, maybe you know just the book to read about it.