5 Points of Calvinism

[Reformed]

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.

Do you understand that your post is your typical contemporary Arminian Protestant response and answer? Have you tried to reconcile your view with Romans chapter 9, and Ephesians chapters 1 and 2?

 

[Reformed]

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.

If we reject sovereign grace (special grace for the elect), then all Christians who are united to Christ have something to boast about before God and man. Please consider 1 Corinthians chapter 1 and the ultimate reason why God elects some sinners. Why are you able to believe in our Triunie God and most do not?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Do you understand that your post is your typical contemporary Arminian Protestant response and answer? Have you tried to reconcile your view with Romans chapter 9, and Ephesians chapters 1 and 2?

Reformed,

I have to say, you cannot presuppose to know someone’s full thinking on subjects to tell them their theology is something it is not. When you do this, it appears more an ad hominem attack than a valid point being presented. That is, you are saying things like that just to get a rise out of the recipient. I’m just trying to give you food for thought from an objective perspective, you know “flies and honey versus flies and vinegar”.

I’ve pointed out and clearly questioned sandusky on where the teaching of sola scriptura comes from, in hopes a sola scripturist Protestant can explain since it’s not in scriptures. I asked this because of the many interpretations of scriptures being used to validate points.

One might could accept the Bible as an authoritative source if it could be explained where this teaching comes from. It appears with many different interpretations, authoritative source has to be questioned in respect of who’s interpretation is truly from the authoritative source.

Sola scriptura teaching had to be originated somewhere, since it was not evident for 1500 years and it’s not in the Bible.

 

[Reformed]

I realize that the 5 Points of Calvinism can be a tough subject. Here is a paper from Catholic Answers on Calvinism that should help educate Catholics on Calvinism. I did not read it completely to verify the contents. But since it came from Catholic Answers, it should be used in our discussion and debate.

cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm

One interesting note: Scott Hahn, James Atkins, and Steve Wood are only four point Calvinists. Maybe that’s the real reason they chose the Roman Road…just a joke. What do Calvinists call a four point Calvinists? The answer: an Arminian.

Therefore, the Catholic Apologists from Protestantism were never Calvinists in the first place.

There are some Calvinists, known as Amyraldians or “four-point Calvinists,” who hold all of TULIP except for “L.”

1. Including Scott Hahn, Steve Wood, myself, and numerous others.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If we reject sovereign grace (special grace for the elect), then all Christians who are united to Christ have something to boast about before God and man. Please consider 1 Corinthians chapter 1 and the ultimate reason why God elects some sinners. Why are you able to believe in our Triunie God and most do not?

I’d like to answer this in light of my previous post.

Since Christ taught through oral tradition, as did the Apostles did, there are many beliefs we share, but there are many we do not share. Oral tradition was used for years and years until the Bible became one complete book. There were many things taught through oral tradition that was not written in the individual letters and epistles.

**Joh 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. **

Now John clearly tells us there are things which Jesus did that were not written down. To me this means Jesus had many teachings that were passed through the oral tradition.

That’s why it’s important to learn about the traditions to apply them along with the scriptures. Without the traditions, you do not know the fullness of what Christ taught through his spoken word, as it was written down.

Many of the Apostles took for granted those things the Lord had taught would be accepted through the traditions and never questioned. They wrote the scriptures as best as they thought necessary, in letters of correction on specific issues in the Church they themselves had established.

I’ve brought up the writings of St. Ignatius before. He was a disciple of John and was appointed by Peter. His writings clearly show what the Church taught and how it was practiced in the first century. Why is it the things St. Ignatius wrote can be discarded so easily?

Please do not take my question to mean the writings of St. Ignatius are “sacred” or inspired, but they are very important as he wrote things in his letters of correction that answer many of the questions or misconceptions that are present today.

Hopefully, this post will show you that throwing scriptures out there won’t mean as much as they do to you, since it’s your sole authority. Catholics believe all Jesus’ authority was not written about and we believe there’s more to it than what was written.

 

[MarcoPolo]

ave you tried to reconcile your view with Romans chapter 9, and Ephesians chapters 1 and 2?

Yup. My view has no problems with Romans, Ephesians, or Corinthians, or Hebrews or whatever!

 

[SyCarl]

I’d like to answer this in light of my previous post.

Since Christ taught through oral tradition, as did the Apostles did, there are many beliefs we share, but there are many we do not share. Oral tradition was used for years and years until the Bible became one complete book. There were many things taught through oral tradition that was not written in the individual letters and epistles.

**Joh 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. **

Now John clearly tells us there are things which Jesus did that were not written down. To me this means Jesus had many teachings that were passed through the oral tradition.

What John tells us in the passage above, as well as in John 20:30 is that Jesus did many things that were not written down. John does not say that Jesus taught many things that were not written down. It should be noted that John wrote after virtually all of the rest of the Old Testament was written. Does Tradition tell us what other things Jesus did? I don’t see how it can be used to say He taught other things when it specifically refers to actions.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What John tells us in the passage above, as well as in John 20:30 is that Jesus did many things that were not written down. John does not say that Jesus taught many things that were not written down. It should be noted that John wrote after virtually all of the rest of the Old Testament was written. Does Tradition tell us what other things Jesus did? I don’t see how it can be used to say He taught other things when it specifically refers to actions.

The Apostles lived with our Lord. They learned from the many things He did. They taught the things they learned.

At what time John wrote his part of the New Testament is not important unless you think he traveled all of Asia and read ALL the individual letters and epistles prior to his own death. The Bible was not put together as one complete book until the 4th century. Evidently by what John wrote about the things that were not written down represented too much for him to write as well.

Specifics of baptism, the Real Presence, about the Holy Spirit, the Mass itself and other things that separate sola scripturists, not only from Catholics but from other Protestants, are the things that differ from scripturist and scripturists plus traditions.

I listened to a seminar CD set last night on John Calvin and the end was about sola scriptura. It was to try and give Catholics some understanding of the Bible alone teaching, the reformation, the history and politics that were involved. All of these things played a major part of reformers decisions to reform outside the Church.

Sola scriptura approach is cautious because it will only go by what was written. It ignores any traditions that are not explained in easy to read detail.

As I mentioned in my previous post, St. Ignatius wrote about the Church and how Christianity was practiced during the life of the Apostles who taught him, from the oral tradition and scriptures. How is it those writings can be so easily discarded?

 

[raumzeitmc2]

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.

Well, O K. However, we really need to level the playing field a bit first. After all, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation were it not for the fact that Calvin was influenced in his thinking, not only by the Bible, but by many, many sources and events, including his anger (and hatred?) at the Church for excommunicating his father.

He certainly didn’t just start cold with no information, no preconceived thoughts or opinions, and then, solely by reading the Bible, devise his particular system.

So here are some preliminary questions that need first to be addressed.

1. Which version of the “Holy Bible” shall be used, the Catholic or Protestant?
2. Where exactly in the Bible does it say the Bible itself is the “final” authority?
3. Can a shred of proof be produced to show that anyone, anyone, by merely reading the Bible alone, would ever arrive at Calvin’s system of “five points” or “Tulip?” This includes Calvin himself, since, as I mentioned above, long before he came up with his system he was already familiar with Luther’s works and the reformation in general, and furthermore, we know that he appealed (selectively) to the Fathers (i.e. tradition) in support of his uninspired opinions.
4. Even if an interpretation could be found in the Bible reasonable consistent with Calvin’s system, on the basis of what should it be accepted, since at best, it would only be one person’s theological opinion?
5. Is there one passage in Scripture, just one, where anyone is found teaching himself the faith, or discovering through his own efforts some point of doctrine?
6. And where in Scripture does one find an ordinary believer (such as were Luther, Calvin et al) correcting another believer? (And no, you can’t use St. Timothy, for he was not just an ordinary believer. Indeed, he was the companion of St. Paul, had been personally instructed by him, had received authority to teach by him etc).

I might add here also that, true to his dictatorial nature, Calvin instituted a number of rules that were to be obeyed by those unfortunate enough to be living under his dominion. These rule were, in there own way, as much a part of his theological system as were his “five points.”

And they were to be strictly enforced. To give but one example:

Ordinances for the Supervision of Churches in the Country, February 3, 1547

Sermons:

1. Everyone in each house is to come on Sundays, unless it be necessary to leave someone behind to take care of children and animals, under penalty of 3 sous.

1. If there be preaching any weekday, arranged with due notice, those that are able to go and have no legitimate excuse are to attend, under penalty as above.

1. Those who have man or maid servants, are to bring them or have them conveyed when possible, so that they do not live like cattle without instruction.

1. Everyone is to be present at the sermon when the prayer is begun, under penalty as above, unless he absent himself for legitimate reason.

1. Everyone is to pay attention during the sermon, and there is to be no disorder or scandal.

1. No one is to leave or go out from the church until prayer be made at the end of the sermon, under penalty as above, unless he have legitimate cause.

*Calvin: Theological Treatises *(Library of Christian Classics), J. K. Reid, Westminster John Knox Press, 2000, ISBN 0664223672, 9780664223670, p. 77.

You can read more of these rules and their penalties here:

books.google.com/books?id=bJEYXOnn6OgC&pg=PA77&dq=%22Everyone+in+each+house+is+to+come+on+Sundays%22&lr=&ei=NuK-SLW6MaHOjgH0ysTtDQ&sig=ACfU3U2b2kAd7-6L2CZQDIgTi6MPgRqUgg

amazon.com/Calvin-Theological-Treatises-Christian-Westminster/dp/0664223672/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1220469344&sr=11-1

Hmmm…. Funny though, I don’t see any of these rules in Scripture (but anyone modestly versed in the history of the reformation knows full well that the reformers never went for any of that “Bible alone” stuff to begin! Rather, their wills and their opinions were the "ultimate and “final” authority!).

Perhaps Christ’s words might have an application here:

“Yea, [the Pharisees] bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. But all their works they do to be seen of men.” Matt 23:4-5

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.” Matt 23:27

Well, anyway, gotta go now. Might be able to respond tonight or tomorrow.

To all my non-Catholic (and Catholic) friends peace and God’s blessing.

---

In these words of the Apostolic See the Catholic faith stands out as so ancient and so firmly established, so certain and so clear, that it would be wrong for a Christian to doubt it.

St. Augustine, Epistle 190 to Bishop Optatus, referring to the words of Pope Zozimus.

*The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation *(1955), Ludwig Schopp and Roy Joseph Deferrari, eds., Catholic University of America, (Letters, 165-203), Vol. 30, p. 286,

archive.org/details/fathersofthechur027567mbp

 

[Contarini]

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.

Do you understand the term “God’s wrath” literally? In other words, are you rejecting the historic, orthodox Christian position that God is a “spirit without body, parts, or passions”? (You have Lactantius on your side, and maybe Tertullian, but pretty much the rest of the early Church against you.) If God does not in fact have passions, then God’s “wrath” cannot be a psychological state that needs to be relieved through being “poured out.” I recognize that this may not be what you mean, but your language seems to imply that “wrath” is a thing that has to be gotten rid of through being “poured out,” and I think that’s unfortunate and misleading language.

From the theology of Old Testament books such as Genesis, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, we know that God pours out His wrath on sin.

Indeed. The consensus of Christian tradition is that this language cannot be taken literally, as if God had passions. But certainly God’s holiness reacts to sin in a manner that can appropriately be described (in metaphorical language drawn from human emotion) as “wrath.” It is also clear from the Old Testament that God’s wrath is often administered by “evil spirits,” and that God’s wrath can be described as “handing people over” rather than dealing with them directly. (Paul of course also uses this language, as in Romans 1.)

God does not forgive sins without also punishing them in some way, shape, or form.

Sin has consequences, certainly.

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.

In the United States the authority to pardon rests with the executive, not the judicial branch of government. However, the President has the power to pardon, and it is not unjust for him to use it. A fortiori this is true of God. Your analogy fails completely. Humans forgive one another from time to time, and we are told to forgive that we may be merciful as God is merciful. It cannot possibly be true that God is less merciful than we are.

The weird thing about this argument is that it makes Christianity a more legalistic and merit-oriented religion than either Judaism or Islam, both of which believe that God can simply forgive the sins of those who repent. Something must be wrong with this way of thinking–it falsifies the most basic claim of evangelical Christianity, namely to be a gospel of mercy and forgiveness.

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.

This is mere assertion, resting on premises which, again, you have merely asserted.

For if He did not atone for our transgressions by becoming a curse for us (as Paul says in Galatians),

And which I am not denying.

being punished by the Judge for our transgressions in our place

There is no justice whatever in punishing one person for the transgressions of another. That is not what Scripture teaches. Scripture and Christian tradition teach that the Incarnation is central to the Atonement. (Anselm agrees–that’s why his treatise on the Atonement is framed as a rationale for the Incarnation.) Jesus atones for our sins because He is truly human and thus can offer the perfect sacrifice on our behalf, as one of us, bearing the consequences of our sins although He is Himself sinless.

Like Reformed, you quote Scripture but do not show that it teaches what you claim.

God imputed our transgressions to the person of Christ, and God poured out His wrath against sin on that person to death

Scripture never says that God “imputed our transgressions to the person of Christ.” It says that God made Him to be sin.
Being fully human, Christ took upon Himself our sins, because sin is not merely individual but a property belonging to the human race. Thus, although Christ was not personally sinful, He became one with sinful humanity. This is more than a legal imputation.

…remember, the wages of sin is death.

No agreement there.

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

This was not merely some sort of legal or account-book transaction. It was a genuine identification with sinful humanity. Jesus is ontologically consubstantial with us according to His humanity, not simply “reckoned” to be one of us. Your Atonement theology rests on a Docetic Christology according to which Christ’s identification with us is a matter of legal fiction rather than reality.

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.

No disagreement there.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Reformed]

Yup. My view has no problems with Romans, Ephesians, or Corinthians, or Hebrews or whatever!

Because your views and beliefs are not driven by the Scriptures alone.

 

[Reformed]

The Apostles lived with our Lord. They learned from the many things He did. They taught the things they learned.

At what time John wrote his part of the New Testament is not important unless you think he traveled all of Asia and read ALL the individual letters and epistles prior to his own death. The Bible was not put together as one complete book until the 4th century. Evidently by what John wrote about the things that were not written down represented too much for him to write as well.

Specifics of baptism, the Real Presence, about the Holy Spirit, the Mass itself and other things that separate sola scripturists, not only from Catholics but from other Protestants, are the things that differ from scripturist and scripturists plus traditions.

I listened to a seminar CD set last night on John Calvin and the end was about sola scriptura. It was to try and give Catholics some understanding of the Bible alone teaching, the reformation, the history and politics that were involved. All of these things played a major part of reformers decisions to reform outside the Church.

Sola scriptura approach is cautious because it will only go by what was written. It ignores any traditions that are not explained in easy to read detail.

As I mentioned in my previous post, St. Ignatius wrote about the Church and how Christianity was practiced during the life of the Apostles who taught him, from the oral tradition and scriptures. How is it those writings can be so easily discarded?

I think the difficulties of Sacred Tradition as being revelation from God is trying to determine what is Sacred Oral and Written Tradition from God, and what is traditions of men. If you use the blanket view of apostolic sucession, whatever the Catholic Church tells you what is Sacred Tradition, then your faith is built upon the hope of Apostolic Sucession, and not the Word of God. Our foundations are very different. That is the reason of the Protestant Reformation. I rather have an extremely high view of the Scriptures, because we both agree the Scriptures is revelation from God.

 

[Reformed]

Well, O K. However, we really need to level the playing field a bit first. After all, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation were it not for the fact that Calvin was influenced in his thinking, not only by the Bible, but by many, many sources and events, including his anger (and hatred?) at the Church for excommunicating his father.

He certainly didn’t just start cold with no information, no preconceived thoughts or opinions, and then, solely by reading the Bible, devise his particular system.

So here are some preliminary questions that need first to be addressed.

1. Which version of the “Holy Bible” shall be used, the Catholic or Protestant?..

Nice post. We can use both Protestant and Catholic Bibles. We all know that the 5 Points of Calvinism is not the Scriptures. However, the 5 Points are more scriptural than the opposing views. John Calvin as you know, did not come up with the 5 points of Calvnism. The word Calvinism is but a nickname for biblical Christianity according to Charles Spurgeon. Calvinism is biblical Christianity. I just finished reading a book by John Calvin on the atonement. After reading it, as well as stated by scholars on John Calvin, we don’t even know if John Calvin actually believed in limited atonement. Since Calvin is not the standard of truth, I woud have to go by the Scriptures over John Calvin. Actually, you can make a case that John Calvin believed in both limited atonement and universal atonement. I think that can be said in regards to Augustine and other great theologians throughout the church on many of the difficult issues. After-all, God is infinite and beyond all of us. The purpose of discussing Calvinism is to look and appreciate the person and work of Christ on our behalf, hopefully causing us to love God and others more.

Here are some tough questions related to the issues:

1. Why do you believe in Christ and most do not?
2. If you do not believe in sovereign grace (special grace to the elect), then do you really have something to boast about before God and man?
3. What was the mission of Christ, to save the entire world or those whom the Father gave Christ to save?
4. If Christ came to save the entire world, why has he failed?
5. Does Rome actually teach free will according to your undestanding? I know Rome understands original sin and our fallen nature. Free will is a loaded word and needs to be qualified when referenced in the discusssion.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Because your views and beliefs are not driven by the Scriptures alone.

It is more accurate to characterize “my views” as conflicting with certain people’s interpretations of Scripture (which is a de facto flaw of “Scripture alone.”)

 

[sandusky]

MarcoPolo:

I believe the Molinists interpret Romans 8:29-30 as support for their teaching.

I’ll take you word for that; I don’t know; however, it would seem, then, their interpretation hinges upon the meaning of “foreknow.”

MarcoPolo:

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.

I understand; however, I don’t agree. Scripture clearly teaches that there are two groups of people in the world only: those God saves, and those He doesn’t.

I find no support for a third group left own its on with “sufficient grace.”

MarcoPolo:

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.

Which, IMO, comes back to “foreseen merit,” by which the catechism states, no one is converted/justified.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Like Reformed, you quote Scripture but do not show that it teaches what you claim.

I think it would serve well to point out that it does not serve one’s neighbor well to just toss out a chapter of the Bible and say it proves someone wrong. The person will likely read it, shrug, and not know what in the chapter damns his position.

Those of you who are doing this Scripture tossing, please make a note that it is not effective in teaching what you believe.

 

[Reformed]

It is more accurate to characterize “my views” as conflicting with certain people’s interpretations of Scripture (which is a de facto flaw of “Scripture alone.”)

If I understand Roman Catholicism, there only a small handful of Scriptures that are interperted for you by the Magestrium. The rest of Scripture allows for conflicting interpertation within a range allowed by the Magestrium. Therefore, even within Roman Catholic theologians, bishop, priests, and laity, there are private conflicting interpertations of biblical passages all the time. Is my understand correct?

 

[Reformed]

I think it would serve well to point out that it does not serve one’s neighbor well to just toss out a chapter of the Bible and say it proves someone wrong. The person will likely read it, shrug, and not know what in the chapter damns his position.

Those of you who are doing this Scripture tossing, please make a note that it is not effective in teaching what you believe.

Do you understand that God intentionally conceals spiritual truths to many, and reveals spiritual truths to others. Actually, Jesus rejoices in the Father’s will of concealment. Why do you think Jesus spoke in parables? Before you answer, you might want to search the Scriptures for the biblical answer .

Matthew 11:25

At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;

Luke 10:21

Jesus Rejoices in the Father’s Will

In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I find no support for a third group left own its on with “sufficient grace.”

There are only two destinations, saved or damned. I am only saying that at a minimum, everyone will receive sufficient grace to accept and attain eternal life. And I think this jibes with the Scriptures I cited and anything you have cited. Good dialogue.

 

[MarcoPolo]

If I understand Roman Catholicism, there only a small handful of Scriptures that are interperted for you by the Magestrium.

That is not correct. There are only a handful of Scriptures that have been infallibly defined as having at least a particular meaning by means of a formal declaration. Then there are the plethora of other Scriptures which can be seen cross-referenced throughout Tradition and in the Catechism and through the Councils, which attain a sound interpretative status by means of the Ordinary Magisterium alone.