Please note that I have also supplemented this with an article where I go into alot more detail on some issues, especially how sufficient grace and the universal call relate to reprobation: shorturl.at/1a9je
This is good work! Hopefully, eventually the conversation will shift to what really matters: the considerations of nature and grace, the accounts of the Fall etc.
Rule 1. Please don't be cringe in the comments, I'm pleading with you. Rule 2. Don't make any argument against the phrase "double predestination" that wouldn't also implicate the term "predestination" Rule 3. Before your big critique of me and claims of heresy, please watch the original video: ruclips.net/video/85H4Wcev03E/видео.html
@Christ_is_King- In his first video he points out that there is tension where both predestination before merits and free will exist. However, how is a mystery that we are not yet able to resolve. Predestination to damnation is before the consideration of merits. Both were addressed in the first video.
Note that the entire Question that the articles are contained in is “On Predestination”…Reprobation as antecedent is a certain privation of the efficacious grace that flows from the consequent will of God, and thus reduces to the same genus as predestination. When he speaks about the predestination of the elect, he simply uses the term “predestination” since it is the positive in the genus (as is ordinary). Also, it is important to note that he does view Reprobation in some sense positive when speaking of the decree to damn on the basis of the sin that they fall into, as is evident from the end of the article.
I re-read the section, but to me he is talking about consequent negative roprobation (or positive with a bunch of asterisks) and distinct from predestination. "Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin."
@@Coteincdrare you saying that “permit to sin” is on the basis of sin rather than antecedent to it? Further, are you saying that the decree to impose damnation “on the basis of sin” is somehow negative?!?!?
I think I'm mixing up terminology. But it seems that positive and negative are not being used as mirror images. So if we are talking about just decree, then yes it would be positive. But when we use the term negative is about God's relation to their sin, and that seems to always be negative, meaning He always permit but never causes the sin.
"Of their own will they went out; of their own will they fell, and because their fall was foreknown, they were not predestined; they would however be predestined if they were going to return and persevere in holiness; hence, God's predestination is for many the cause of perseverance, for none the cause of falling away." (St Prosper of Aquitaine raising the the Augustinian objection against Vincent of Lerin)
@MilitantThomist, it never crossed my mind to question if you would agree. The quote was not intended to be an attack but a defence of the Augustinian model.
Is there a place I can go that has all magisterial or patristic or doctoral (i.e. doctors of the church) teachings on this? I have Denzinger but that doesn't include the Fathers or Doctors
I think most people’s reactions to double predestination has been largely emotional, fearful of the idea that even if we live a good and virtuous life, we will go to Hell due to some arbitrary decision made before the foundation of the world.
Dear Sir-Thank you once again for yet a further fascinating study of the legacy of the Doctor of Grace. If I may ask, are you perhaps aware of the Jansenist Augustinian perspective ? If so, would they be found to stand within an orthodox perspective, or is heir view truly irredeemably wrong ?
Salve! I'd like to read your thoughts on the following, if you may. Firstly, let me make it clear that I hold true exactly what St. Thomas Aquinas argues in De Deo Uno. It seems to me that everyone in this "polemic" (at least everyone worth talking with) basically only disagrees with the usage of the term "predestination" to describe both God's ordinance of the wicked. It seems like we should not use the word "predestination" to describe God's ordinance of the wicked. Firstly, it is unfit to use the same word to refer to two different things. Now, the word "predestination" is thus used to refer to two different things: God's positive volition of the salvation of some, and God's allowance of the condemnation of many. Secondly, the word "predestine" means to "destine beforehand". Now, it is true that God destines beforehand that "whomsoever" is wicked to Hell. However, He does not destine beforehand any particular person to become wicked. Therefore, God does not destine anyone to Hell. Thirdly, the CCE 1037 says «God predestines no one to go to hell». -------------------- I get that the term was used before. But St. Thomas Aquinas himself makes the general case that sometimes we can't speak as the fathers have spoken, because the theological discussion has gone further on. Wouldn't you grant that we are at that point? Thank you for your time.
Hey SA, I wanted you or anyone in the comments to see if I understood this well. So double predestination consists of God having already prepared the “gifts” of His creation wether they are eternal life or punishment but He doesn’t actively will that anyone would go to one or the other, in other words, He doesn’t choose what we will choose but He simply knows it. If this is incorrect I would appreciate anyone who could correct me. Thank you and God bless.
To your last point on evangelization: I often talk to Calvinists in my evangelistic endeavors, pastors chaplains etc… and when discussing “double predestination” from a Catholic view point we often agree and it creates no unnecessary barriers, and they it even opens their heart to look more into Catholicism. Great work Christian
Its the opposite for me, once they realize that they are supposedly "congruent" with this view, they then use catholics themselves as a shield against polemics from other denominations, allowing them to fester under the conflict. Double Predestination is a heresy, simple, Saint Thomas Aquinas and his school isn't the church, and Wagner is close to making an idol out of them.
@@crusaderACR When did I say Saint Thomas Aquinas is a heretic? or do you think Saint Thomas Aquinas is the Church? if so, you are engaged in creating an idol out of Saint Thomas Aquinas.
@@johnisaacfelipe6357 I didn't make the Doctor an idol. He is, however, held in high esteem in the Church. You did make him out to be a heretic by saying predestination is heresy.
Wagner, I would like to ask a question. Does transubstantiation fall into the heresy of Eutychianism? When we attribute a divine characteristic, such as omnipresence, to the human nature of Christ, aren't we committing Eutychianism? Could this happen? Because the human nature of Christ should not adhere to human conditions, being finite, unlike the divine nature, which is infinite? It's a sincere question.
Hello, Thomas Aquinas answers this exact question. And can explain it far better than I can but I’ll try. Regarding objects or things, you have the accident of something and a substance of something. Accident is the trait of something while the substances is the isness of something. For example if a person goes from skinny to fat their accidents change but there substance does not. If I move to another place in space time, my accidents change while my substance does not. So Physical Presence is an accident of the human nature of Jesus but not necessarily the substance of his human nature. So the physical presence of Jesus body is at the right hand of the father, but that doesn’t necessarily mean his substance cannot also be on millions of altars around the world. I hope that helps! I had the same question.
Perhaps, Mr. Wagner, you could clarify a question or misunderstanding i have from this and the previous video: In the quotation from the Council of Valence, it says God forknew the works of the reprobate and did not positively will that - however it seems to me cruel and unjust for God to create a man foreknowing that he is predestined for reprobation via sins. Is there no hope for the salvation of the person born into predestined passive congruent reprobation? I am certainly misunderstanding something key here, but i would like to believe that God truly wills all men be saved and that even those who are reprobate are continually given the graces they need for conversion. Otherwise God is in contradiction with His will. Perhaps a simpler question is, when does predestination occur? If it is before the soul is created, then it seems the creation of said soul who is predestined to reprobation, God foreknowing their sins, is cruel and unjust (i.e. equal ultimacy). Or is it better to say all men are predestined for the Beatific Vision, but through the free will of man he causes himself to be predestined for reprobation? No rush on answering, you're busy and I absolutely love your work and apostolate.
This is an interesting debate but, if you will pardon me for asking, how does that make us holy? I'm sorry If I sound a bit crass, but this seems unnecessarily divisive to me...
@@anomos1611 Perhaps... but not knowing will not affect your ultimate Salvation - whereas not knowing about efficacious Grace, for example, WILL! I'm sorry, there just seems to be much more pressing problems in the Church in my opinion...
@Christ_is_King- Yes, I think I know what a dogma is, thank you very much, but what dogma are you referring to? Predestination? When was it defined as such?
For those of us dummies struggling to grasp these concepts, can you do a side by side comparison of the Reformed position vs the Thomist position of predestination?
Important to remember that later reformed authors often consciously conformed themselves to Catholic authors on these questions…so, in most cases, they basically say the same thing **on this issue**. The only issues that there is, perhaps, disagreement would be issues connected to predestination and the carrying out of the decree.
@@MilitantThomist Interesting. Thanks, because I used to be Reformed and so was having trouble distinguishing the two positions. That makes a lot of sense now.
For all the hate John Calvin gets, he was making a simple observation: 1) No one can save themselves. 2) The elect are predestined to salvation by the gift of grace. It is impossible for them to be lost. 3) If one is not of the elect and cannot save themselves, then they will perish in hell. 4) Since God knows if he does not save them that they will certainly perish and He lets them perish, He must have chosen not to show mercy on them. 5) If God makes a choice to do something in advanced, that event was predestined. Conclusion: the reprobate must also have been predestined.
Calvin jumped the shark when he claimed the regenerate and justified could not be finally damned. He untethered the Spirit from Baptism sufficiently whereby the non-elect (infant or otherwise) do not necessarily become born again.
Can the people that were not elected to ensure their salvation still believe and be save through their own will? Might be a stupid question. I'm way out of my depth here, honestly.
I feel like an idiot. I find theology interesting and I'm always reading and learning, very slowly, because I am interested, especially since accepting Catholicism as the true faith just a couple years ago after coming from a protestant Church of Christ. Catholic Answers gets a lot of hate but if it weren't for them I wouldn't be here. I just found this channel and I watched the first video on predestination and this one and I still don't get it. Once I think I do he says something that makes me realize I still don't get it and I'm having a hard time understanding how we still have choice, whether or not we are able to reject God's grace, and whether the damned COULD have chose God and been saved if given enough grace. It still sounds like God is throwing people in heaven or hell willy nilly like toys and I'm trying to understand.
"By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or to death." John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion ""Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children." - John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion This sounds like equal ultimacy to me.
The former is in reference to the predestination of all acts in history, not in reference to God infusing guilt/sin. The latter quote does not differ from what Wagner presented in this video. We must be careful when reading ancient figures, especially those we disagree with. It's far too easy to charge your enemy with extra issues - if Papalism is correct, Calvin has enough errors that adding to them does little.
Please note that I have also supplemented this with an article where I go into alot more detail on some issues, especially how sufficient grace and the universal call relate to reprobation: shorturl.at/1a9je
Pop apologetics and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
Thank you, brother this is very good and helpful.
This is good work!
Hopefully, eventually the conversation will shift to what really matters: the considerations of nature and grace, the accounts of the Fall etc.
Rule 1. Please don't be cringe in the comments, I'm pleading with you.
Rule 2. Don't make any argument against the phrase "double predestination" that wouldn't also implicate the term "predestination"
Rule 3. Before your big critique of me and claims of heresy, please watch the original video:
ruclips.net/video/85H4Wcev03E/видео.html
@Christ_is_King-
In his first video he points out that there is tension where both predestination before merits and free will exist. However, how is a mystery that we are not yet able to resolve.
Predestination to damnation is before the consideration of merits.
Both were addressed in the first video.
@Christ_is_King-Thomists are basically infralapsarianists
And this is the biggest and most consistent catholic school.
@@DieAbsoluteWahrheit No, because it goes directly against the universal salvific will of God.
Billions of Calvinists must be Catholic!
The vast majority of Protestants are not Calvinists they are Arminians
according to a new pole 50% are arian
@Christ_is_King-Even Pelagius wasnt a Pelagius.
Its all a big scam
@@sleepystar1638 that was a survey of evangelical non-denominationals, not protestants as a whole
@Christ_is_King-Arminianism isn’t Pelagian. Sorry to ruin your day
St. Prudentius is that you?
Different one
I think that st Alphonse of ligori explain it well in his guide about prayer ( don’t know the title in English)
Any way to find it? I’d love to read
Great stuff. Make Catholic terms great again!
This comment was fact-checked by real catholic patriots
It seems to me that Thomas Aquinas in the summa Q23 A.3 thinks that reprobation is distinct from predestination and always negative.
Predestination for Thomas is an act whereby God orders rational creatures to an end above their natures.
Note that the entire Question that the articles are contained in is “On Predestination”…Reprobation as antecedent is a certain privation of the efficacious grace that flows from the consequent will of God, and thus reduces to the same genus as predestination. When he speaks about the predestination of the elect, he simply uses the term “predestination” since it is the positive in the genus (as is ordinary).
Also, it is important to note that he does view Reprobation in some sense positive when speaking of the decree to damn on the basis of the sin that they fall into, as is evident from the end of the article.
I re-read the section, but to me he is talking about consequent negative roprobation (or positive with a bunch of asterisks) and distinct from predestination. "Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin."
@@Coteincdrare you saying that “permit to sin” is on the basis of sin rather than antecedent to it? Further, are you saying that the decree to impose damnation “on the basis of sin” is somehow negative?!?!?
I think I'm mixing up terminology. But it seems that positive and negative are not being used as mirror images. So if we are talking about just decree, then yes it would be positive. But when we use the term negative is about God's relation to their sin, and that seems to always be negative, meaning He always permit but never causes the sin.
"Of their own will they went out; of their own will they fell, and because their fall was foreknown, they were not predestined; they would however be predestined if they were going to return and persevere in holiness; hence, God's predestination is for many the cause of perseverance, for none the cause of falling away."
(St Prosper of Aquitaine raising the the Augustinian objection against Vincent of Lerin)
Why would you think that I disagree with that?
@MilitantThomist, it never crossed my mind to question if you would agree. The quote was not intended to be an attack but a defence of the Augustinian model.
Is there a place I can go that has all magisterial or patristic or doctoral (i.e. doctors of the church) teachings on this? I have Denzinger but that doesn't include the Fathers or Doctors
Hey, what was the name of that council you mentioned? I'd like to do more research in this area
Good stuff man
I think most people’s reactions to double predestination has been largely emotional, fearful of the idea that even if we live a good and virtuous life, we will go to Hell due to some arbitrary decision made before the foundation of the world.
Dear Sir-Thank you once again for yet a further fascinating study of the legacy of the Doctor of Grace. If I may ask, are you perhaps aware of the Jansenist Augustinian perspective ? If so, would they be found to stand within an orthodox perspective, or is heir view truly irredeemably wrong ?
Do you have a link to the lecture that you clipped?
Salve!
I'd like to read your thoughts on the following, if you may.
Firstly, let me make it clear that I hold true exactly what St. Thomas Aquinas argues in De Deo Uno. It seems to me that everyone in this "polemic" (at least everyone worth talking with) basically only disagrees with the usage of the term "predestination" to describe both God's ordinance of the wicked.
It seems like we should not use the word "predestination" to describe God's ordinance of the wicked.
Firstly, it is unfit to use the same word to refer to two different things. Now, the word "predestination" is thus used to refer to two different things: God's positive volition of the salvation of some, and God's allowance of the condemnation of many.
Secondly, the word "predestine" means to "destine beforehand". Now, it is true that God destines beforehand that "whomsoever" is wicked to Hell. However, He does not destine beforehand any particular person to become wicked. Therefore, God does not destine anyone to Hell.
Thirdly, the CCE 1037 says «God predestines no one to go to hell».
--------------------
I get that the term was used before. But St. Thomas Aquinas himself makes the general case that sometimes we can't speak as the fathers have spoken, because the theological discussion has gone further on.
Wouldn't you grant that we are at that point?
Thank you for your time.
So real for this.
I wonder what the Byzantine view is on this matter.
Hey SA, I wanted you or anyone in the comments to see if I understood this well. So double predestination consists of God having already prepared the “gifts” of His creation wether they are eternal life or punishment but He doesn’t actively will that anyone would go to one or the other, in other words, He doesn’t choose what we will choose but He simply knows it. If this is incorrect I would appreciate anyone who could correct me. Thank you and God bless.
My question how is the reformed Baptist position on baptism not pelagian?
To your last point on evangelization: I often talk to Calvinists in my evangelistic endeavors, pastors chaplains etc… and when discussing “double predestination” from a Catholic view point we often agree and it creates no unnecessary barriers, and they it even opens their heart to look more into Catholicism. Great work Christian
Its the opposite for me, once they realize that they are supposedly "congruent" with this view, they then use catholics themselves as a shield against polemics from other denominations, allowing them to fester under the conflict.
Double Predestination is a heresy, simple, Saint Thomas Aquinas and his school isn't the church, and Wagner is close to making an idol out of them.
@@johnisaacfelipe6357 The gall to call the Angelic Doctor a heretic
@@crusaderACR When did I say Saint Thomas Aquinas is a heretic? or do you think Saint Thomas Aquinas is the Church? if so, you are engaged in creating an idol out of Saint Thomas Aquinas.
@@johnisaacfelipe6357 I didn't make the Doctor an idol. He is, however, held in high esteem in the Church. You did make him out to be a heretic by saying predestination is heresy.
@@crusaderACR Show me where I said predestination is a heresy?
Wagner,
I would like to ask a question. Does transubstantiation fall into the heresy of Eutychianism? When we attribute a divine characteristic, such as omnipresence, to the human nature of Christ, aren't we committing Eutychianism? Could this happen? Because the human nature of Christ should not adhere to human conditions, being finite, unlike the divine nature, which is infinite?
It's a sincere question.
Hello, Thomas Aquinas answers this exact question. And can explain it far better than I can but I’ll try.
Regarding objects or things, you have the accident of something and a substance of something. Accident is the trait of something while the substances is the isness of something. For example if a person goes from skinny to fat their accidents change but there substance does not. If I move to another place in space time, my accidents change while my substance does not. So Physical Presence is an accident of the human nature of Jesus but not necessarily the substance of his human nature. So the physical presence of Jesus body is at the right hand of the father, but that doesn’t necessarily mean his substance cannot also be on millions of altars around the world.
I hope that helps! I had the same question.
As I see it the Real Presence isn't Omnipresence, just multilocation, something that we already ascribe to the Saints without much problem
Perhaps, Mr. Wagner, you could clarify a question or misunderstanding i have from this and the previous video:
In the quotation from the Council of Valence, it says God forknew the works of the reprobate and did not positively will that - however it seems to me cruel and unjust for God to create a man foreknowing that he is predestined for reprobation via sins. Is there no hope for the salvation of the person born into predestined passive congruent reprobation? I am certainly misunderstanding something key here, but i would like to believe that God truly wills all men be saved and that even those who are reprobate are continually given the graces they need for conversion. Otherwise God is in contradiction with His will.
Perhaps a simpler question is, when does predestination occur? If it is before the soul is created, then it seems the creation of said soul who is predestined to reprobation, God foreknowing their sins, is cruel and unjust (i.e. equal ultimacy). Or is it better to say all men are predestined for the Beatific Vision, but through the free will of man he causes himself to be predestined for reprobation?
No rush on answering, you're busy and I absolutely love your work and apostolate.
Will be explaining later this morning in more detail in my live stream.
@@MilitantThomistwhere can I find this livestream?
Based wagner
This is an interesting debate but, if you will pardon me for asking, how does that make us holy?
I'm sorry If I sound a bit crass, but this seems unnecessarily divisive to me...
because it is true
@@anomos1611 Perhaps... but not knowing will not affect your ultimate Salvation - whereas not knowing about efficacious Grace, for example, WILL!
I'm sorry, there just seems to be much more pressing problems in the Church in my opinion...
@Christ_is_King- I'm sorry, what is a dogma?
@Christ_is_King- Yes, I think I know what a dogma is, thank you very much, but what dogma are you referring to?
Predestination?
When was it defined as such?
This is essential to evangelizing Reformed people to Catholicism…why would you think this doesn’t matter?!?
For those of us dummies struggling to grasp these concepts, can you do a side by side comparison of the Reformed position vs the Thomist position of predestination?
Important to remember that later reformed authors often consciously conformed themselves to Catholic authors on these questions…so, in most cases, they basically say the same thing **on this issue**.
The only issues that there is, perhaps, disagreement would be issues connected to predestination and the carrying out of the decree.
@@MilitantThomist Interesting. Thanks, because I used to be Reformed and so was having trouble distinguishing the two positions. That makes a lot of sense now.
For all the hate John Calvin gets, he was making a simple observation:
1) No one can save themselves.
2) The elect are predestined to salvation by the gift of grace. It is impossible for them to be lost.
3) If one is not of the elect and cannot save themselves, then they will perish in hell.
4) Since God knows if he does not save them that they will certainly perish and He lets them perish, He must have chosen not to show mercy on them.
5) If God makes a choice to do something in advanced, that event was predestined.
Conclusion: the reprobate must also have been predestined.
Calvin jumped the shark when he claimed the regenerate and justified could not be finally damned. He untethered the Spirit from Baptism sufficiently whereby the non-elect (infant or otherwise) do not necessarily become born again.
Based Wagner
Can the people that were not elected to ensure their salvation still believe and be save through their own will? Might be a stupid question. I'm way out of my depth here, honestly.
Hey man how do I stop being too stupid to understand theology
@Christ_is_King-what’s wrong with their videos on evolution
@@ronanjm Evolution is false and condemned as part of the Albigensian Heresy
Do not Read the Summa to understand theology! Thomas uses too many big words💀
Another way which I do is to consume the same content repeatedly. Every time you give it a rewatch it makes more and more sense.
I feel like an idiot. I find theology interesting and I'm always reading and learning, very slowly, because I am interested, especially since accepting Catholicism as the true faith just a couple years ago after coming from a protestant Church of Christ. Catholic Answers gets a lot of hate but if it weren't for them I wouldn't be here. I just found this channel and I watched the first video on predestination and this one and I still don't get it. Once I think I do he says something that makes me realize I still don't get it and I'm having a hard time understanding how we still have choice, whether or not we are able to reject God's grace, and whether the damned COULD have chose God and been saved if given enough grace. It still sounds like God is throwing people in heaven or hell willy nilly like toys and I'm trying to understand.
Refreshing
"By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or to death." John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion
""Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children." - John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion
This sounds like equal ultimacy to me.
I don’t disagree, as I said in other comments.
The former is in reference to the predestination of all acts in history, not in reference to God infusing guilt/sin. The latter quote does not differ from what Wagner presented in this video.
We must be careful when reading ancient figures, especially those we disagree with. It's far too easy to charge your enemy with extra issues - if Papalism is correct, Calvin has enough errors that adding to them does little.
Based
W