Do we have free will or are we predestined?

[Titus]

No, but he's the exception to the rule. A special case.

Sir, if Judas didn't have a choice then God is guilty for Judas being lost.
Don't put the blame on the Lord.
Every lost soul deserves hell. God is just not unjust.
1Timothy 2:3-4,
- for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
who will have ALL men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth

 

[Titus]

If the priests bought the field then Acts is wrong in saying that Judas bought the field. It can only be one or the other

Judas bought the field and the priests executed the transaction.
No contradictions in the Bible.

 

[Armour of God]

I was addressing your claim that Maria Valtorta's writings are rejected by the Catholic Church. That's a lie and I showed why. You don't like that? Am I supposed to just sit back and watch you spread false information?

Your the one who is lying. The RCC clearly said that her visions are not supernatural and her writings are not divinely inspired

 

[Armour of God]

Judas bought the field and the priests executed the transaction.
No contradictions in the Bible.

Matthew clearly says the priests bought the field with the money Judas returned.
Acts clearly says that Judas bought the field.
Two different accounts

 

[Titus]

Matthew clearly says the priests bought the field with the money Judas returned.
Acts clearly says that Judas bought the field.
Two different accounts

So Judas thought to himself, "I'll take this money and go buy a field" ?

You think the Bible is teaching Judas reasoned to himself about purchasing a field.
That's the way you are interpreting Acts.

 

[Armour of God]

The Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith's statement that Valtorta’s writings “cannot be regarded as having supernatural origin” is being misrepresented. That phrasing does not mean “the Church condemns them” or “the Church forbids Catholics from believing them.” It means exactly what it says: the Church has not made a declaration of supernatural origin — which is the case for the vast majority of private revelations, including many widely read and respected ones.

If you want to avoid misinformation, the most recent clarifications about the DDF's statement are worth reading. They directly address the myths that keep circulating: Maria Valtorta and the 2025 Vatican Statement: Clarifying Myths, Facts & Supernatural Status. And, if you're interested, a substantial body of evidence supporting a supernatural origin of her writings can be found here: A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta’s Extraordinary Work.

it is reiterated that alleged “visions”, “revelations” and “communications” contained in the writings of Mary Valtorta, or in any case attributed to them, cannot be considered of supernatural origin, but must be considered simply literary forms used by the Author to narrate, in her own way, the life of Jesus Christ.

In its long tradition, the Church does not accept as normative the apocryphal Gospels and other similar texts, as it does not recognize their divine inspiration, referring to the sure reading of the inspired Gospels.

You call me a liar but your the one who is a liar.
The RCC clearly rejects her texts as being divinely inspired or of a supernatural origin

 

[LoveYeshua]

The Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith's statement that Valtorta’s writings “cannot be regarded as having supernatural origin” is being misrepresented. That phrasing does not mean “the Church condemns them” or “the Church forbids Catholics from believing them.” It means exactly what it says: the Church has not made a declaration of supernatural origin — which is the case for the vast majority of private revelations, including many widely read and respected ones.

The DDF has repeatedly clarified that:

• Valtorta’s writings are permitted to be read
• Catholics are free to form their own judgment about them

If you want to avoid misinformation, the most recent clarifications about the DDF's statement are worth reading. They directly address the myths that keep circulating: Maria Valtorta and the 2025 Vatican Statement: Clarifying Myths, Facts & Supernatural Status. And, if you're interested, a substantial body of evidence supporting a supernatural origin of her writings can be found here: A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta’s Extraordinary Work.

When people approach Maria Valtorta with a conclusion already in place, they end up searching only for material that confirms what they’ve already decided. But that isn’t objective investigation, especially when the claim concerns something that might be from God.

A Christian, of all people, should understand that discernment requires openness, not prejudice. Scripture itself warns that the enemy works precisely by detouring souls away from anything that could draw them closer to Christ.

That doesn’t mean one must accept Valtorta — private revelation is never binding. But it does mean we should evaluate the evidence fairly, not through the filter of assumptions or fears.

My only point is this: if we’re going to judge whether God used her as an instrument, then we should do so with the same honesty and openness we’d want others to use when evaluating our own beliefs.

Honestly it is best to stick to Scripture, Matthew, John, like and Mark, I have read some of Maria valtora's texts and quickly realized there no basis for us to believe any of this. if the Vatican officially don't believe in it why should you? I am certain they investigated all of this already.

From the Vatican web site where I took this link it says clearly:"

{In its long tradition, the Church does not accept as normative the apocryphal Gospels and other similar texts, as it does not recognize their divine inspiration, referring to the sure reading of the inspired Gospels."}

Sorry but this is the official position of the Vatican => NOT DIVINELY INSPIRED!

 

[Armour of God]

So Judas thought to himself, "I'll take this money and go buy a field" ?

You think the Bible is teaching Judas reasoned to himself about purchasing a field.
That's the way you are interpreting Acts.

Matthew 27:6-7
6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners.

Acts 1:18
With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field

Either Judas bought the field or the priests did. One must be wrong

Humans make mistakes

 

[Titus]

Matthew clearly says the priests bought the field with the money Judas returned.
Acts clearly says that Judas bought the field.
Two different accounts

These are the same ignorant arguments atheist's make when trying to discredit the divine inspiration of the Bible.

 

[Titus]

Matthew 27:6-7
6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners.

Acts 1:18
With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field

Either Judas bought the field or the priests did. One must be wrong

If you would read your Bible you will learn that Judas didn't keep the silver.
Matthew 27:3-5

Do you really think Judas purchased a field with money he no longer had?

 

[Armour of God]

These are the same ignorant arguments atheist's make when trying to discredit the divine inspiration of the Bible.

Resorting to personal attacks because you cannot explain the contradiction. Either Judas bought the field or the priests did

Here are 50 other contradictions for you to get angry about

50 Contradictions in the Bible: The Biggest, Most Shocking Differences

 

[LoveYeshua]

Some people believe there is a contradiction between the accounts in Gospel of Matthew and Acts of the Apostles concerning the field connected to Judas, but when the passages are read carefully, they complete each other rather than oppose one another.

Matthew explains that Judas, filled with remorse, returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders. After Judas left, the priests decided not to place the money into the treasury because it was “the price of blood.” They then used that silver to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers:

“And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.”
— Matthew 27:7–8 (ASV)

So Matthew clearly tells us who physically completed the purchase: the chief priests.

But Acts looks at the matter from another angle. The field was obtained because of Judas’ betrayal money, and therefore it became tied to him and his guilt:

“Now this man obtained a field with the reward of his iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch that in their language that field was called Akeldama, that is, The field of blood.”
— Acts 1:18–19 (ASV)

So there is no real contradiction. The priests bought the field directly, but it was bought with Judas’ silver, the reward of his betrayal. In this sense the field could also be spoken of as belonging to Judas or being obtained by him, because his actions and money caused the purchase.

The two passages simply focus on different parts of the same event. Matthew explains the transaction itself. Acts explains the responsibility and tragic end connected to Judas. Together they give the full picture of why the place became known as “the field of blood.”

 

[Titus]

Resorting to personal attacks because you cannot explain the contradiction. Either Judas bought the field or the priests did

Here are 50 other contradictions for you to get angry about

50 Contradictions in the Bible: The Biggest, Most Shocking Differences

I'm not angry and I already explained.
Yes you are helping the skeptic's cause.

 

[Wick Stick]

Sir, if Judas didn't have a choice then God is guilty for Judas being lost.
Don't put the blame on the Lord.
Every lost soul deserves hell. God is just not unjust.
1Timothy 2:3-4,
- for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
who will have ALL men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth

As I see it, I'm just repeating what the Bible says:

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Perhaps you interpret differently than I. To my eyes, it looks like one son of perdition was destined to be lost. A goat for Azazel.

 

[Titus]

As I see it, I'm just repeating what the Bible says:

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Perhaps you interpret differently than I. To my eyes, it looks like one son of perdition was destined to be lost. A goat for Azazel.

Not predestined.
Was Judas the first man to ever live that could not choose right from wrong by his own will?

When I choose to do evil and have no intention of repentance I too am destined to hell.
God knows the future so He knew Judas' fate. Judas chose it God had foreknowledge of it.

 

[Titus]

If the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) intended to declare Valtorta’s writings not supernatural, why did they not use in their 2025 statement the explicit formula constat de non supernaturalitate—the very formula that means exactly that, and the same one they used in other cases in 2024? This is precisely one of the reasons why I recommended that you both read this: Maria Valtorta and the 2025 Vatican Statement: Clarifying Myths, Facts & Supernatural Status. If you’re committed to examining the evidence rather than defending a conclusion you’ve already settled on, then you’ll read it.

The catholic church is full of hypocrisy. So you probably can find both positions from the churches records.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Do we have free will or are we predestined?

Does God choose us or do we choose God?

Is salvation predestined or is it free will?

Are we predestined to sin or is it free will?

Are our jobs predestined or was it free will?

Is what we eat predestined or is it free will?

I think there are bible verses that support both free will and predestination but I'll let you guys give your opinions and present the bible verses that support it

free will vs. predestination is not about choices we make concernignhow we live on this earth as to eating, working, wearing et. al.

What it does concern is how one gets saved. The unsaved have no free will for all are slaves to sin as Paul wrote in Romans 6.

The bible is clear that the saved were chosen by God before the foundation of the World.

Once a person is saved, their free will is resotred to them. Only the saved can choose to sin or not sin. as is written for the unsaved? Even their good works are filthy rags tot eh Lord. And in Matt. 7 they were never known of Jesus, even if they did lots of religious works.

 

[Wick Stick]

Not predestined.

That wasn't where I was going. The prophecy requires one son of perdition to be lost. It doesn't require it to be Judas. But if it hadn't been Judas, it would have been someone else. (Probably Peter, that guy was a hothead)

Was Judas the first man to ever live that could not choose right from wrong by his own will?

It does say that the devil entered him, so I'm not sure Judas was necessarily in the driver's seat the whole time. There's a history of choices that led him to a place where the devil could enter like that. I'm not exonerating Judas.

 

[St. SteVen]

It is through His Spirit in us that Christ speaks to His people, spiritually causing them to hear and see that they might know/believe the spiritual Kingdom of God.

I believe God providentially works in the life of His people through His Spirit in us. I believe the Spirit will, through our conscience/mind lead us both to will and to do whatever He brings to our heart/mind. This for edification and building up of the body of Christ (church).

We are in agreement. This is what I am saying.
Jesus, or the Spirit, or the Father speaks to us individually.

 

[St. SteVen]

Please start another thread about it instead of hijacking this one.

She's not hijacking the thread. Just keeping up with the debate.
You don't need to have the last word. Let it go.