Replies

“Predestination is to salvation, because God foreknows the good works on the elect, which they do freely.”

This is the position I expected you to have (though I suppose that means you stopped reading the text, so you’ve returned back to your old verbiage!), though, of course, it is the Pelagian view which is ruled out by the text instantaneously when it says: “(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;)”(Rom 9:11). If it is on the call, and not on works that God’s election is determined, then it cannot be said that God predestinated them based on their works or foreseen future works. The call then is what distinguishes the elect from the reprobate, which is not that outward call which some receive and others reject, but that calling which is effectual in the elect, as “those who were ordained to eternal life, believed” (Acts 13:48). Or as Augustine explains it,

“Did he say, “Not of works, but of him that believes?” Rather, he actually took this away from man, that he might give the whole to God. Therefore he said, “But of Him that calls,”— not with any sort of calling whatever, but with that calling wherewith a man is made a believer.” (Augustine, Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints, Ch. 32)

And again, on whether God foreknew our good works:

“Now, if the apostle had wished us to understand that there were future good works of the one, and evil works of the other, which of course God foreknew, he would never have said, “not of works,” but, of “future works,” and in that way would have solved the difficulty, or rather there would then have been no difficulty to solve. As it is, however, after answering, “God forbid;” that is, “God forbid that there should be unrighteousness with God;” he goes on to prove that there is no unrighteousness in God’s doing this, and says: ‘For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.’” (Augustine, The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Chapter 98. Predestination to Eternal Life is Wholly of God’s Free Grace.

Augustine makes an important point here, in saying, if there was no difficulty in this text, since God only saved them according to their merits (which is fair to all Pelagian-minded people), it does not follow that Paul should imagine any objection by a person claiming unrighteousness with God, which is then answered not with a denial, but with the phrase “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” thus asserting God’s sovereign right to save whom He will.

“That is, with all respect, incorrect. God promised Abraham great things because Abraham was willing to cross the desert, sacrifice his son, etc. — all difficult even heroic works.”

In effect, you assert that it is not God who would fulfill His promise, but Abraham who would force God’s hand, as a payment for work that has been done, and it is in this way that the righteous differ from the reprobate. But the scripture denies this when it says, “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt” (Rom 4:4). Therefore grace cannot be earned by Abraham’s work, no matter how heroic it may seem. Grace can make the man, but it cannot be received by the man as a merit for works. Or, as Augustine puts it, “For who makes thee to differ, and what has thou that thou hast not received?” (1 Cor. iv. 7). Our merits therefore do not cause us to differ, but grace. For if it be merit, it is a debt; and if it be a debt, it is not gratuitous; and if it be not gratuitous, it is not grace.” (Augustine, Sermon 293)

“The invitation in the text is to works of charity and purity; the promise is that then God will work in you.”

Yet this is quite contradictory, since what is left for God to work in us if we have already worked charity and purity by our own power? Furthermore, the verse doesn’t have a “if you do this, then I will do that” anywhere in it. It simply declares, “For it is God who works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure,” which is an explanation for our works and not a promise to do something if we obey of ourselves. I will also add in the verse from Romans 9 which declares, “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy” (9:16). Now if it is not based on our Willing to believe, or our Running for works, but God’s mercy only, it does not follow that our works and faith are a requirement to receive the mercy of God, since it is neither. Or, as Augustine puts it, in his commentary on both these verses:

“And further, should any one be inclined to boast, not indeed of his works, but of the freedom of his will, as if the first merit belonged to him, this very liberty of good action being given to him as a reward he had earned, let him listen to this same preacher of grace, when he says: “For it is God which works in you, both to will and to do of His own good pleasure;” (Php 2:13) and in another place: “So, then, it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy.” (Rom 9:16) Now as, undoubtedly, if a man is of the age to use his reason, he cannot believe, hope, love, unless he will to do so, nor obtain the prize of the high calling of God unless he voluntarily run for it; in what sense is it not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, except that, as it is written, “the preparation of the heart is from the Lord?” Otherwise, if it is said, “It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, because it is of both,” that is, both of the will of man and of the mercy of God, so that we are to understand the saying, “It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy,” as if it meant the will of man alone is not sufficient, if the mercy of God go not with it—then it will follow that the mercy of God alone is not sufficient, if the will of man go not with it; and therefore, if we may rightly say, it is not of man that wills, but of God that shows mercy, because the will of man by itself is not enough, why may we not also rightly put it in the converse way: “It is not of God that shows mercy, but of man that wills,” because the mercy of God by itself does not suffice? Surely, if no Christian will dare to say this, “It is not of God that shows mercy, but of man that wills,” lest he should openly contradict the apostle, it follows that the true interpretation of the saying, “It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy,” is that the whole work belongs to God, who both makes the will of man righteous, and thus prepares it for assistance, and assists it when it is prepared.” (Augustine, The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Ch. 32)

” but calvinism holds the predestination of the reprobates to damnation and that is a false doctrine.”

At this point you don’t seem to be even listening to what I have said, as the Reformed faith speaks in the same terms as Augustine, and Augustine only means what I’ve already said, in my own explanation of God’s damning of the reprobate, while yet not being the author of their sins. You cannot hold to predestination of the Saints, by the way, without also holding to the fact that others are not predestinated to salvation. If they are not predestinated to salvation, what is left except damnation? But as to why God does not save all, but leaves other to their destruction, who are you to reply to God about it? As Augustine says,

“’Murmur not among yourselves: no man can come unto me, except the Father that sent me draw him.’ Noble excellence of grace! No man comes unless drawn. There is whom He draws, and there is whom He draws not; why He draws one and draws not another, do not desire to judge, if you desire not to err.” (Augustine, Tractate 26)

“False premise. The Bible does not say they are set “to” anything.”

This is the same as saying that the word “set” has no business being in the sentence, since they were not “set” to the disobedience and condemnation that the sentence is immediately linked to.

it is the Pelagian view

No, the Church condemned Pelagianism in AD 418 at the Council of Carthage. This is what Pelagianism is:

Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.
Adam's sin harmed only himself, not the human race.
Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.
The whole human race neither dies through Adam's sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection of Christ.
The (Mosaic Law) is as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel.
Even before the advent of Christ there were men who were without sin.

This is what the Church instead teaches:

Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin.
New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin.
Justifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins.
The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God's commandments, but also imparts strength to will and execute them.
Without God's grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely impossible to perform good works.
Not out of humility, but in truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners.
The saints refer the petition of the Our Father, "Forgive us our trespasses", not only to others, but also to themselves.
The saints pronounce the same supplication not from mere humility, but from truthfulness.

(Pelagius and Pelagianism)

Please point out where in my posts you find the Pelagian views rather than orthodox Catholic views.

...(Rom 9:11). If it is on the call, and not on works that God’s election is determined, then it cannot be said that God predestinated them based on their works or foreseen future works

when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand,) not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said to her: The elder shall serve the younger. (Romans 9:11-12)

First, the example of Jacob and Esau is here not to teach predestination apart from works, but to teach that predestination is apart from ethnicity or primogeniture. Second, the "works" that St. Paul is referring to are not future works that Jacob, later known as Israel, will have, but rather his non-existent works as a baby. So your syllogism falls apart.

Acts 13:48

[46] Then Paul and Barnabas said boldly: To you it behoved us first to speak the word of God: but because you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold we turn to the Gentiles. [47] For so the Lord hath commanded us: I have set thee to be the light of the Gentiles; that thou mayest be for salvation unto the utmost part of the earth. [48] And the Gentiles hearing it, were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to life everlasting, believed. (Acts 13)

As you can see by reading the Holy Bible yourself, the episode confirms the Catholic teaching, that some reject the word and others receive it gladly. The Protestant stubborn rejection of the words of the Gospel that they don't like: rejection of Christ's teaching on the Eucharist, on the blessings of voluntary poverty and celibacy, on the decisive role of good works for salvation or reprobation, -- come to mind immediately. Obviously, one has to be predestined to receive the Word and join the elect; verse 48 says it plainly, -- but the passage say nothing about predestination of these Gentile being independent of their works prior or in the future of their conversion.

Rom 4:4

[3]...Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice. [4] Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt. [5] But to him that worketh not, yet believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reputed to justice, according to the purpose of the grace of God. [...] [9] This blessedness then, doth it remain in the circumcision only, or in the uncircumcision also? For we say that unto Abraham faith was reputed to justice. [10] How then was it reputed? When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. (Romans 4)

Read: the point St. Paul is making is not about salvation being apart from works but that circumcision is not salvific. In another place St. Paul clearly shown that it is the heroic works of Abraham and other Hebrew saints that mattered in their justification:

[8] By faith he that is called Abraham, obeyed to go out into a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. [9] By faith he abode in the land, dwelling in cottages, with Isaac and Jacob, the co-heirs of the same promise. [10] For he looked for a city that hath foundations; whose builder and maker is God (Hebrews 11)

Compare also:

[21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? (James 2)

Somehow it did not occur to either St. Paul nor to St. James that by obeying God Abraham "would force God’s hand, as a payment for work that has been done". But it is occurring to you. Shouldn't you check your views with the Holy Scripture every once in a while? By the way, it is exactly right that work done for a payment is not salvific; it is precisely good works done out of love for God and fellow man that save:

[6] Who will render to every man according to his works. [7] To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: [8] But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. [9] Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. [10] But glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Romans 2)

what is left for God to work in us if we have already worked charity and purity by our own power?

Why, the works that we do are works God is working in us. Yet it is us who has to do these works, in fear and trembling. When we, Catholics choose a difficult task we first pray, and then we set out to work, and in so doing we see God's hand giving us strength:

"[11] And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father. [12] Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation. [13] For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will. [14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Philippians 2)

Note that work here is that "good works" of the Gospel, not works of the law that does nothing to save us (Romans 3:28) and not works done for reward that does nothing to save us (Matthew 6:2, Romans 4:4).

If they are not predestinated to salvation, what is left except damnation?

The error of Calvinism is not in observing this simple syllogism, but in creating a caricature of a god who hates the reprobate or even hastens his damnation, sort of like Gamecock imagined Jesus setting traps to the unfaithful so that they stumble. Understand that predestination is more than foreknowledge, as God surely foreknows the reprobation also; predestination means "working in you" so that the elect obtain their justification by works.

This is the same as saying that the word “set” has no business being in the sentence [1 Peter 2:8]

"Set" means what it says: that Christ is the cornerstone on which everyone is set, irrespective of what they do with that fact.