u/Pizza527

I am having a crisis of faith. I am very drawn to the OPC. I cannot stop thinking about predestination, and how it makes the most sense. I have looked into Augustine and Banez's theology, even the Jansenists, but Calvin's seems much simpler. I am drawn to serious scripture analysis, and an overall more simple and straightforward faith.

I never was drawn to any protestant denomination before, I could certainly never be a baotist evangelical with all the yelling and it seems to be more about them than God.

But, double predestination seems to make the most sense if God is all-powerful and all-knowing.

What made you leave?

Hello,

I am interested to see if there are any former Presbyterians or Calvinists in general who have converted to Catholicism. If you are willing, would you say why, and what about Calvanism, Presbyterianism, double or single predestination you could not handle anymore?

I have been researching Calvin's double predestination, and frankly it makes sense. How could we as humans have actual free will and it not weaken or contradict an all-knowing, all-powerful God who is the author of everything? People say well God knows all and controls all but still gives us free will, but that seems like an easy "out" just to say we have free will and not contradict Christian teaching on God.

God knew Adam would disobey Him and turn away, and that it would curse humanity, yet He let it happen anyway. So either He was taken aback by the situation or allowed it to happen. If it caught God off-guard then it weakens Him. The Catholic Church teaches that we cannot initiate grace and it is a free gift from God, but then we have to cooperate with it, yet many say God is what directs us towards cooperation.

I do not agree with the mentality that the elect can take no credit for their salvation because it was all God's doing, but the reprobates are fully culpable and deserve perdition because of their doing. You can't burn it from both ends, I can, however, agree that God chooses some to extend His grace to and bypasses others, thus leaving them to the ends for which He is fully aware they will meet. People who ascribe to single predestination tout this as good because God isn't forcing someone to sin, but in reality, He created them, knows their shortcomings, knows they need grace to accept Him, so there is no real difference between single and double predestination. Thus, I cannot blame the human who has no control and is left to their own devices.

I have also been researching Augustine, Aquinas, Domingo Banez, and the Janists. Frankly Banez and the Janists make the most sense, they teach a calvinistic predestination, but hiold that the Catholic Church and her sacraments are how God infuses grace to us. Rome shut down the Janists and required Banez to walk back/soften some of his positions in order to end the fights between he and the Jesuits who held an Arminian theology.

This isn't about veneration of Mary or the saints, purgatory, the Pope as infallible successor of Peter. This is a cut and dry 1 + 1 = 2, if God is all-knowing and all-controlling, how can we have true free will that does not weaken Him and cause something to be out of His control?

Thank you for your help.

If Christians believe God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and controls everything, wouldn't Calvin's double predestination be the most logical and universal theology. Free will seems to make it seem as though God is not in full control. It would only make sense that God created some to be the elect and others for perdition.

The thorn in this is of course Adam and Eve's free will that caused us all to have original sin, but even then, didn't God know they'd do that? Adam and Eve aside, if we just look at our own existence and our "free" will, how can we rectify this will an all knowing all powerful being? This can really be extrapolated out to any Protestant, Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox.

Yes there is the complicated middle-way speak about God knows all the different ways someone could act but he doesn't force them, but I mean come on, He is the one who created the game, He knows the outcome.

The baptist-evangelicals put a heavy emphasis on Jesus paid it all, and a vehement non-works theology, but in reality they require alter calls, accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior, they know the date when this happened, all of this is very much a "doing" things salvation, whether its a once saved or not. Furthermore, when they backslide, they get re-baptized, re-alter call, so whether they like it or not, there is a lot of effort being put forth by the human. This is contrary to the Calvinistic theology that humans can't do anything to gain salvation or lose it. It is interesting that baptists-evangelicals seem to try and tie the two ideas together, the idea that they can't earn salvation, but they must actively accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, and some even look down upon those that don't do this. Then when they baptize a 7 year old and the child sins, they are not worried because Jesus paid it all. (This is not meant to bash Baptists, but simply showing the major dichotomy of the two).

How do non-Calvinism Protestants defend the idea of free will, but also defend the idea of a God who knows and controls everything?

And for the Reformed, how can you defend a loving God who creates some people to be damned? I could certainly see if one reads scripture as God loves all (but what scripture meant was all the ELECT).

If Christians believe God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and controls everything, wouldn't Calvin's double predestination be the most logical and universal theology. Free will seems to make it seem as though God is not in full control. It would only make sense that God created some to be the elect and others for perdition.

The thorn in this is of course Adam and Eve's free will that caused us all to have original sin, but even then, didn't God know they'd do that? Adam and Eve aside, if we just look at our own existence and our "free" will, how can we rectify this will an all knowing all powerful being? This can really be extrapolated out to any Protestant, Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox.

Yes there is the complicated middle-way speak about God knows all the different ways someone could act but he doesn't force them, but I mean come on, He is the one who created the game, He knows the outcome.

The baptist-evangelicals put a heavy emphasis on Jesus paid it all, and a vehement non-works theology, but in reality they require alter calls, accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior, they know the date when this happened, all of this is very much a "doing" things salvation, whether its a once saved or not. Furthermore, when they backslide, they get re-baptized, re-alter call, so whether they like it or not, there is a lot of effort being put forth by the human. This is contrary to the Calvinistic theology that humans can't do anything to gain salvation or lose it. It is interesting that baptists-evangelicals seem to try and tie the two ideas together, the idea that they can't earn salvation, but they must actively accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, and some even look down upon those that don't do this. Then when they baptize a 7 year old and the child sins, they are not worried because Jesus paid it all. (This is not meant to bash Baptists, but simply showing the major dichotomy of the two).

How do non-Calvinism Protestants defend the idea of free will, but also defend the idea of a God who knows and controls everything?

And for the Reformed, how can you defend a loving God who creates some people to be damned? I could certainly see if one reads scripture as God loves all (but what scripture meant was all the ELECT).

I am interested in the Moravian Church. From what I read it seems to be the Church that actually pre-dated the reformation by 70 years, and where Wesley got a lot of his theology for Methodistism. It seems fairly loose doctrinally, however. I am drawn to the tradition of the worship and lifestyle, but I was curious if anyone could speak to beliefs on scripture, salvation, female pastors, LQBTQ.

I was also looking at an Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and while I struggle with Calvin's double-predestination and an all-loving God, which without trying to wriggle one's way out of it contradicts an all-loving God, because He created some to be the elect and some for perdition. However, if we believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful God, wouldn't that mean He knows who is saved and who isn't and He is the one who decided this, and He dictates everything that happens in the universe.

Thus, sometimes the only Christian concept that makes sense is double-predestination. However, fire and brimstone sermons like Johnathan Edwards don't make sense because why are you trying to scare people into a decision they have no choice in anyway?

To digress, are there any Moravians or Moravian-adjacents on this sub that could give some insight, and possibly any Orthodox or more doctrinally and worshiping presbyterians that are more traditional that could weigh-in. Thank you for your help.

To be clear I am not a Protestant troll trying to attack Marian devotion in sheep’s clothing. However, as Catholics do we give too much attention to the Blessed Mother? Why not just pray directly to Jesus? Yes I understand she is the new ark, I know the wedding of Canna, I know the Queen mother of OT times being the way in which subjects would be able to approach the king. I also understand veneration vs worship. So, none of that needs to be repeated to me, furthermore when we are asked this question, that’s immediately what we go to, it’s insider baseball jargon about dulia and hyperdulia terminology. I even have seen someone today say there is no issue because we could never love Mary as much as Jesus loves her, but that’s missing the point because it isn’t about how much He loves her, it’s how much we focus on her in relation to Him.

Catholics say Hail Mary’s in times of crisis, we say our fathers but also throw on Hail Marys for good measure. Basically we would need to be comfortable saying I’ll never say another Hail Mary in my life and be fine going directly to Jesus, otherwise we are saying one thing, but doing another, in that we feel we need to devote time and attention to her in order for our prayers to be heard.

In the Blessed Be God book there are a litany of prayers to Mary, and the front has a prayer saying Mary decides who gets out of purgatory. I’ve seen it phrased as a man works but allows his wife to handle the finances he earns, they aren’t hers but he trusts her with them, this seems odd as if God needs Mary to carry some of the load.

The rosary focuses on Christ’s life but has 10 Hail Mary’s for every Our Father. Also the Bible doesn’t say anything about her assumption to Heaven, yes there is biblical precedent with other people, but it doesn’t say anything about her.

Then look at many Catholics who crawl on their knees and pray to statues of Mary. I say all this while still having an immense devotion to Mary that I have been criticized by Protestants for having. I’m just saying do we say one thing but yet do another (no we don’t worship her as God, but we give her a lot of attention), and we do seem to put a person between Jesus and ourselves, because she is just a holy friend praying for us, but we also act as though we need to be praying to her to have our prayers answered, or if we are in crisis we say a Hail Mary, or if our prayers aren’t answered by God, we say a Hail Mary.

I don’t know what the correct answer is….before you attack me and say the same things about veneration, she leads us to her son, think deeply on how all this looks to Protestants and why it seems we are just saying one thing but doing another.

Edit: No one had addressed the question about prayers acknowledging Mary decides who is let out of purgatory. I read this many times in Blessed Be God.

Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and the Orthodox all believe in true presence and they all (including Methodists and Moravians) believe in infant baptism.

The Lutherans, Episcopalians, Anglicans, and The Orthodox all believe in the truth presence of the Eucharist, and all of them, including Methodists and Moravians believe in infant baptism.

Protestants, especially online, tell Catholics to abandon their false church and false gospel and join the “true” church. However, what denomination is the “true” one? It cannot be all are fine, because many teach completely opposite teachings on major biblical topics: Lord’s Supper, infant baptism, divorce, gay marriage, female pastors, gay pastors, church attendance, predestination, works necessary along with faith (Methodists), adherence to the apostle’s creed and some the Nicene creed, losing one’s salvation.These are MAJOR theological differences, surely the answer can’t be, “as long as you’re not Catholic, Jesus will be happy and let you into heaven”.