R
Reformed
Guest
Does the Roman Catholic Magestrium deny that the wrath of God for sin was poured out on Christ on our behalf?
- Status
R
Reformed
Guest
I think the book of Romans and the gospel of John will challenge your ideas on the issues related to the 5 points of Calvinisim.
R
Reformed
Guest
Aah… a great contrast with mercy and grace. Do Roman Catholics have a different understanding of mercy and grace than historic biblical Christians? I don’t mean to be offensive, but is modern day Roman Catholicism similar to semi-pelagianism and Arminianism in regards to being synergistic? I’m trying to understand where Roman Catholic Christians are coming from to communicate better with them.
R
Reformed
Guest
Monergism: In regeneration, the Holy Spirit unites us to Christ independent of any cooperation from our unregenerated human nature. He quickens us through the outward call cast forth by the preaching of His Word, disarms our innate hostility, removes our blindness, illumines our mind, creates understanding, turns our heart of stone to a heart of flesh – giving rise to a delight in His Word – all that we might, with our renewed affections, willingly & gladly embrace Christ. The Prophet Ezekiel inspired by the Holy Spirit asserted “I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh. Then they will follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. They will be my people, and I will be their God.” (Eze 11:19, also 36:26) The Apostle Paul said, “For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.” (1 Thess 1, 4, 5). I.e. In regeneration the word does not work alone but must be accompanied by the “germination” of the Holy Spirit. And again “…you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God.” (1 Pet 1:23)
The Century Dictionary defines it as follows:
“In theology, the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration - that the human will possesses no inclination to holiness until regenerated, and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration.”
It means that the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly comes to us through regeneration – and if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, he/she ignores the teaching of the Apostles, for Paul says, “…Even when we were dead in sins, [God] hath quickened us together with Christ, by grace ye are saved.” and “…he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.” (Titus 3:5) And again, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).
It is in contrast to synergism which the Century Dictionary defines as
“…the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate. This theory accordingly holds that the soul has not lost in the fall all inclination toward holiness, nor all power to seek for it under the influence of ordinary motives.”
monergism.com/what_is_monergism.php
Calvinism is a theology grounded in monergism.
Roman Catholicism, Arminian Protestantism, and Mormonism are grounded in synergism.
The Century Dictionary defines it as follows:
“In theology, the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration - that the human will possesses no inclination to holiness until regenerated, and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration.”
It means that the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly comes to us through regeneration – and if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, he/she ignores the teaching of the Apostles, for Paul says, “…Even when we were dead in sins, [God] hath quickened us together with Christ, by grace ye are saved.” and “…he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.” (Titus 3:5) And again, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).
It is in contrast to synergism which the Century Dictionary defines as
“…the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate. This theory accordingly holds that the soul has not lost in the fall all inclination toward holiness, nor all power to seek for it under the influence of ordinary motives.”
monergism.com/what_is_monergism.php
Calvinism is a theology grounded in monergism.
Roman Catholicism, Arminian Protestantism, and Mormonism are grounded in synergism.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I am familiar with the Ott link and have read it over before. When he mentions “foreseen sins” it lends me to understand the Molinist position. Focusing on that, here is what he says in that same page on Molinists:
*Most of the Molinists, and also St. Francis de Sales (+1622), teach a conditioned Predestination (ad gloriam tantum), that is, postand propter praevisa merita. According to them, God by His scientia media, sees beforehand how men would freely react to various orders of grace. In the light of this knowledge He chooses, according to His free pleasure a fixed and definite order of grace. Now by His scientia visionis, **He knows infallibly in advance what use the individual man will make of the grace bestowed on him. He elects for eternal bliss those who by virtue of their foreseen merits perseveringly cooperate **with grace, while He determines for eternal punishment of hell, those who, on account of their foreseen demerits, deny their cooperation. *This position considers predestination from God’s position outside of time and certainly reconciles both the Scriptures you provided, as well as the Scriptures I provided.
Consider Vatican II:
“
Or the Council of Trent:
If anyone shall say that the grace of justification is attained by those only who are predestined unto life, but that all others, who are called, are called indeed, but do not receive grace, as if they are by divine power predestined to evil, let him be anathema. (Decree on Justification, canons 6 and 17)Jimmy Akin notes that this same point is taught at the Second Council of Orange (531), the Council of Quiersy (853), and the third Council of Valencia (855).
If God gives irresistible grace to some, He still gives sufficient grace to the rest. I don’t think I disagreed anywhere that the grace of perseverance is for some and not all. I disagreed with the notion that those who don’t get “irresistible grace” or “perseverance” can still be saved by the graces they are given. So I do not think I am going against any de fide belief.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I recommend you read the first part of post 124 where I address seemingly conflicting Scriptures. The question now is, can you reconcile the ones I put forth.
C
Contarini
Guest
Not that I know of. Anselm and Abelard rejected it, and unfortunately they were very influential in this respect. (For my money Anselm and Abelard are two sides of the same coin–they were both looking for a more rational alternative to what they found the unsuitably mythological atonement theology of the early Church. I don’t reject either of them entirely, but I think their break with Christian tradition was a big mistake. Abelard was certainly more radical in that regard.)
I’m tolerably familiar with it. It’s always been a bit controversial (I believe St. Gregory Nazianzen criticized it) because it seems to give Satan too much power. (However, it’s interesting that only after the ransom theory was largely rejected did Western Christians become paranoid about the idea that Satan had myriads of underground followers throughout Christendom.) I think it is strongly supported by a study of the OT passages relating to Satan, which seem to describe him as a sort of “prosecuting attorney” in the divine court (and Rev. 12:10 agrees with this). The idea that Satan has a kind of “rights” may not be as far-fetched as the 12th-century scholastics believed. Certainly the ransom theory, like any one theory of the atonement, is inadequate on its own. It has historically gone along with the (more popular today) “Christus Victor theory”–indeed, for many of the Fathers the two seem pretty much indistinguishable. And this has gone along with the language about a propitiatory sacrifice offered to the Father on which you base your entire atonement theology–and Abelard’s notion that Jesus’ death demonstrates God’s love has an important place there as well. But the missing element for most modern Western Christians is the concept of Satan having a role in the “legal” side of the Atonement. It is Satan, not God, who wants to destroy us. It is Satan, not God, who holds us hostage and from whom we must therefore be ransomed. Language of the “wrath of God” must always be connected to Satan (hence the longstanding ambiguity as to whether the demons are punished in hell or administer the punishments of hell–it’s both).
Not necessarily, but I treat them with respect and agree with the positive language of Article 31 (the rather cartoonish attack on the Catholic theology of the Mass is another story). I don’t have a problem with the language of propitiation. I have a problem with the precise way the Reformed tradition uses that language.
Since I am already somewhat familiar with the book of Romans, simply quoting large bits of it will not advance this discussion. I am quite aware that Romans says that we are saved from God’s wrath. What I am still missing is a statement that God poured out His wrath on Christ.
Edwin
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
If God did not pour out His wrath on Christ then either one of two things is true; either God is unjust, or His wrath remains to be poured out. From the theology of Old Testament books such as Genesis, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, we know that God pours out His wrath on sin. God does not forgive sins without also punishing them in some way, shape, or form. If you were a rapist, brought before a judge, and you had been convicted by a jury for your crime, and the judge simply said “you are free to go.” What would you call that judge? Unjust, or at the very least insane. If God brings convicted sinners before His bar and simply lets them go out of mercy without thought to the crime committed, how much more would an infinite being be unjust toward infinite crimes? Yet we know God is perfectly just.
If God didn’t pour out His wrath on sin at the cross, then God simply forgives sin without meting out punishment, therefore, He is unjust.
If God didn’t pour out His wrath on sin at the cross, then we remain the objects of God’s wrath, because we are sinners. In which case, God is just but Christ is not a Savior. For if He did not atone for our transgressions by becoming a curse for us (as Paul says in Galatians), being punished by the Judge for our transgressions in our place, then at best, Jesus is a role model to follow to avoid having the wrath of God poured out on us. A role model did not have to suffer and die.
Yet, what does Paul says in the third chapter of Romans?
“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the*** justifier*** of the one who has faith in Jesus.”
God imputed our transgressions to the person of Christ, and God poured out His wrath against sin on that person to death…remember, the wages of sin is death. If Christ was without original sin, and without actual sin, he could not have died! It was because of God considering Christ to be reckoned a sinner that he was put to death…again, referencing Galatians “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written ‘cursed is everyone who is hanged from a tree’.” Paul says the record of our sins have been cancelled…how? By being nailed to the cross.
R
Reformed
Guest
I did read post 124 and it seems to be a similar Arminian Protestant argument. I will read and consider extra-biblical work, but as you know, God has to reveal it to me in Scripture. When we are discussing the wisdom of God and predestination of indivudals, there is much mystery… but also all of Scripture should be considered. Election and chosen are major themes in the Bible including Abraham on… I don’t think self-election can stand all of Scripture because mankind cannot be sovereign over God in salvation (Rom 9). I think the key to be open to opposing positions is seeing things through a God-centered perspective…knowing that God will do all things for His own glory and name sake. To grow in Faith in the promises of God, we have to understand God is completely sovereign and is always in control. Nothing comes to pass apart from His will. God is much much bigger than all of Roman Catholic and Protestant theologies.
R
Reformed
Guest
Thanks, that was a helpful and very interesting read. Satan is a mystery just like the begining of evil. I know God had the power to prevent Lucifer and the fallen angels from rebelling. I know God can destroy Satan at any moment in history. Therefore, my conclusion is that God has allowed Satan to exist ultimately for His own glory and name sake. I know others will react, but didn’t God raise Pharaoh up for His own name sake? I also believe God could have created Adam and Eve without disobeying too.
Romans 9:17
For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”
R
Reformed
Guest
That was great! Are you sure you are not a student at a Reformed seminary? This is what I consider to be the gospel in a nutshell.
2 Corinthians 5:21
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
R
raumzeitmc2
Guest
I posted Thomas Jefferson’s comments about the “blasphemy and absurdity of the five points of Calvin” thinking they provided an interesting historical aside to a thread whose topic was the “5 Points of Calvinism.” That’s all. I never for a moment believed one would be much influenced away from his convictions based on Jefferson’s opinions, particularly when one considers Jefferson’s own rather unorthodox opinions of both Scripture and the Church Fathers.
Well, I would never ask anyone to substitute their beliefs for mine. I do however try to defend what I believe (as well as my limited abilities permit). In any event, I was simply pointing out the obvious errors, chaos, and divisions that had resulted from private interpretation of the Bible. The the reformers themselves acknowledged as much!
And no, there’s no confusion as to what is the Church teaches; there is only confusion among those who dissent from that teaching. Among the few who think the Pope is not a valid Pope, there is nevertheless agreement as to the office of the Papacy itself!
Well, first things first. What is the “Gospel of Jesus Christ” in your opinion?
But regarding the Papacy, surely you must know that God established a structure, a government, for the ruling of his Church so that men could avoid error and come to knowledge of the truth? But what does Scripture say?
“And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.” 1 Corinthians 12:28
Note that in this passage, God has established a structure (“governments”) for his Church.
The Greek word for “governments” here is Kubernesis (Strong’s Number:2941).
From Kubernesis we get:
Govern - m-w.com/dictionary/governs
Gubernatorial - merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Gubernatorial
Cybernetics bartleby.com/61/36/C0833600.html
Also note that it is God himself who has set “in the Church” various roles for certain individuals, among these are “teachers” (not self-proclaimed teachers!). To the greatest teachers the Church assigns the title of “Doctor.”
And these Doctors of the Church had been fighting heresy and proclaiming truth long before the “reformers” ever came on the scene. It is these same Doctors whom I follow, not Luther and Calvin. But hear Erasmus who, in his Hyperaspistes (Warrior Shielding), tries to reason with Luther:
Hyperaspistes, Book I, Works, p. 203.
And again (still addressing Luther):
Ibid. p. 205.
Finally:
Ibid. p. 224.
Editors Notes (bottom of p. 224):
699. A reference to the debate over the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed – whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only (the Greek position) or from both the Father and the Son (the Latin, filioque, position). The dispute was settled briefly in favor of the Latin side at the Council of Florence in 1439.
700. The word is, of course, ironical as applied to Wittenberg, which was never a bishopric.
Controversies: De Libero Arbitrio (On the Freedom of the Will) / Hyperaspistes 1 (Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 76) Charles Trinkaus, Ed. University of Toronto Press, 1993, ISBN 9780802043177
amazon.com/Controversies-…/dp/0802043178
S
sandusky
Guest
I am familiar with the Ott link and have read it over before. When he mentions “foreseen sins” it lends me to understand the Molinist position. Focusing on that, here is what he says in that same page on Molinists:
Most of the Molinists, and also St. Francis de Sales (+1622), teach a conditioned Predestination (ad gloriam tantum), that is, postand propter praevisa merita. According to them, God by His scientia media, sees beforehand how men would freely react to various orders of grace.]/b] In the light of this knowledge He chooses, according to His free pleasure a fixed and definite order of grace. Now by His scientia visionis, He knows infallibly in advance what use the individual man will make of the grace bestowed on him. He elects for eternal bliss those who by virtue of their foreseen merits perseveringly cooperate with grace, while He determines for eternal punishment of hell, those who, on account of their foreseen demerits, deny their cooperation.****
This position considers predestination from God’s position outside of time and certainly reconciles both the Scriptures you provided, as well as the Scriptures I provided.That’s all very interesting, and, for the most part, far beyond my meager intellectual abilities to completely comprehend.
In contrast, Paul sets aside superior speech and wisdom, proclaiming instead, the testimonies of God, in which he clearly states that men are not saved on the basis of works. To my mind, the philosophical argument cited above by the Molinists makes salvation contingent upon foreseen action.
Relying on the testimony of God in His word, IMO, had God looked forward in time, what He would have observed is that the power required for one to believe to salvation would have been a power akin to that required for raising Lazarus from the dead.
After that, God would have seen that a continued outpouring of grace was also necessary to carry into glory those He willed to save:Romans 8:29-30
29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.God didn’t do those things because He’s really cool, He did them because He’s intrinsically necessary, to salvation.
MarcoPolo:
as if they are by divine power predestined to evil, let him be anathema. (Decree on Justification, canons 6 and 17)I’ve read the 6th Session of Trent, and their anathemas many times—a cheeky group that lot.
MarcoPolo:
I’ve read that piece as well, and, IMO, once he’s redefined TULIP, it no longer is—but Catholics can agree with it.
MarcoPolo:
What’s the need for both?
That sufficient grace isn’t sufficient is seen in the necessity for the grace of perseverance.
Moreover, the number of those Ott describes as “predestined to eternal blessedness,” and thus gifted with the "grace of perseverance" is eternally fixed; therefore the “sufficient grace” you speak of is sufficient for only one thing—damnation.
S
sandusky
Guest
My mistake; forgive me.
R
raumzeitmc2
Guest
S
sandusky
Guest
Thank you. :tiphat:Can’t even seem to remember the offense!
Peace.
R
raumzeitmc2
Guest
Your welcome!
R
Reformed
Guest
Thanks for sharing that history on Jefferson and his view on Scripture and the 5 Points of Calvinism. Of course Jefferson will hate Calvinism due to his extremely low view of the Scriptures and rejection of biblical Christianity. I don’t think deists will be in Heaven. I think all biblical Christians should at least lean towards Calvinism because it is the most biblical theology when you consider all of Scripture. Many contemporary Protestants will be surprised to find that the great Protestant Confessions of Faith such as the Westminster Confession and London Baptist Confession are Reformed (Calvinism). Even within the Church of England and the 39 Articles of Faith, I was pleasantly surprised that that document is very Reformed (Calvinistic), I think only the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church can refute the 5 Points of Calvinism by using Sacred Tradition (extra-biblical) as being authoritative over Scripture alone. However, I believe it is futile to refute the 5 Points with only Scripture revelation. The strength of Calvinism is the Scriptures. Therefore, the real battle is still our source of final authority. But let’s see if Catholics and others can refute the 5 Points of Calvinism using only the Holy Bible.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I see no threat to God’s sovereignty if, by His will, He elects those who by their will respond to His grace. If it is God’s will that this be His method, then His sovereignty is by no means compromised. It is God’s will that we have free will. This is not a threat to His sovereignty.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I believe the Molinists interpret Romans 8:29-30 as support for their teaching.
As to sufficient grace isn’t sufficient, I don’t follow. Sufficient grace is not a guarantee, but it is enough for a man to accept and attain heaven based on his free response. The grace of perseverance would be one that is a guarantee of the man accepting and going to heaven.
And as to the 3rd paragraph, I agree that the number of elect is “fixed”, but that doesn’t threaten the Molinist either, because God foreknew who would respond in advance so the number is unchangeable to Him.
- Status