5 Points of Calvinism

[Catholic_Dude]

Thank you for the quotes.

However, I fail to see how Faith Alone requires a divine exchange of righteousness and punishment.

It is because Luther thought that for salvation to be 100% the work of God the whole thing had to be done outside ourself, with faith being the tool that acknowledges that fact. Justification for Luther was a legal event where God as judge demands righteousness from us and punishment of sin. Us being condemned sinners in the courtroom means someone had to merit that status of righteousness for us, as well as exhaust the punishment our sins deserved, otherwise we could not be declared righteous in God’s sight.
Faith is the tool that the guilty sinner uses to say, “I could never meet these requirements, I believe Jesus ALL of did this for me.”

That is the essence of “Justification by Faith Alone.” That phrase carries a specific definition which is not up for individual debate.

Why Luther taught this was due to various factors, one main one being his uneasy conscience. Sola Fide to him provided an answer for how he could claim assurance of salvation in light of the fact he was a sinner and sinned daily.

In whatever way He did it, Christ atoned for our sins.

And this can be interpreted various ways, some orthodox, others heretical. The “whatever way” needs to be defined, it is not enough to say “whatever way” because that would leave Sola Fide undefined.

Faith alone requires only that we receive the benefit of that atonement through faith alone. It does not even require that justification be by imputation of righeousness.

Yes and No. The term “Faith Alone” carries a specific definition which is defined in the classical Protestant Confessions, and they explicitly teach imputation, to deny this is to reject the Reformer’s definition of Faith Alone. Without obeying the Reformers, you can make Faith Alone mean whatever you want, and that can include rejecting imputed righteousness.

To reject imputed righteousness is the most important point of Sola Fide, it is probably the main division between Catholics and Protestants. To reject it means you are a heretic by Protestant standards.

If justification, rather than regeneration, was by means of infused righteousness it still would not mean that infusion could not be received through faith alone.

If regeneration is by infused righteousness it makes imputed righteousness superfluous, it would be like putting cleaner on a stain, removing the stain in the carpet, and then covering the stain with a clean carpet.

Infusion received through faith alone is totally against orthodox classical Protestantism, you have redefined the definition of Sola Fide.

However, I believe that what God requires of us is that we believe that Jesus did atone for our sins and not that we understand exactly how He did it.

Yes and No. We are not required to be theologians or even capable of full comprehension, but it is unacceptable to ascribe certain means (especially if they are blasphemous or heretical).

Firstly I do not think that we are capable of understanding exactly how any of God’s plans are carried out.

You have to be careful there because you could be eliminating the need for theology all together with that. If the Reformers went so far and called Catholics heretics in the process, then the “how” does become important.

Secondly, what would happen to those Fathers, cited by J.N.D Kelly, who believed that the atonement involved an actual ransom being paid to Satan.

They would be said to have either been speculating or misunderstanding.

When we dispute things like faith versus works, infused rigteousness versus imputed righteousness, predestination versus freewill and many similar things, I think we often fall into what the situation that Paul warned Timothy about.

That is why Church authority is so critically important, the way the Church authoritatively interprets Scripture and defines teachings are for the benefit of keeping Christians safe. When someone proposes doctrines attacking Christology and such that puts Christians in danger.

You do realize that Paul was granting authority to his successor, St Timothy to teach, govern, rebuke, etc. That authority is not given to all Christians. 2 Tim 4:3 describes Luther and Protestantism perfectly. Whenever you disagree you simply appoint or find teachers that will say what you want to hear and that is your church.

In our efforts to define and understand the undefinable God and His plans, haven’t we all built a new Law for ourselves?

No. Acts 15, 16:4, nor the Ecumenical Councils have built a “new law.” Rather they have, with their God granted authority, defined and clarified issues which otherwise could lead souls into danger. (eg if someone taught salvation could not be lost, then many souls will let their guard down.)

I am not a Calvinist because God truly wants all men to be saved. Since He could do this and Jesus’ sacrifice is sufficient for all, there must be some reason that all are not saved. That reason is that God wants us to choose Him and has given us the ability to do so. That doesn’t affect His sovereignty because it was His decision to give us that choice. While I can see passages that would indicate unconditional election, I believe that God can elect us and give us a real choice, even if we can’t understand how, because all things are possible with Him.

Amen, for the most part what you say here is perfectly within the parameters of Catholic Dogma.

Paul spends much of the first few chapters of 1 Corinthians telling us that our reasoning powers can’t understand God’s wisdom but I think that is what all, including the Catholic Church, are trying to do.

St Paul is contrasting pagan philosophy with the scandalous notion that God became man and died. Paul is not talking about Theological truths here.

 

[SyCarl]

Bumped for SyCarl

Actually Jesus did dictate letters to the seven churches in Revelation. He also told John to write his vision in a book.

I for one do not claim that the reformers got everything right. However men like Calvin quoted extensively from the early church fathers.

I think that there have been too many definitions made over the centuries, most of which served to fracture the church in some way. All because men believe they have the right and the ability to know and understand everything. This is combined with a natural inclination to suppress anyone who disagrees with your view.

I believe that error crept in, at least in the definition of dogmas that had to be believed or rules to be obeyed, particularly after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. With the rise of Christendom, at least in Europe, Christianity ceased to be a persecuted religion, and in many cases became a persecutor. Previously people became Christians at great risk and because they really believed; afterwards many were Christian because the state required it. With that, and the growth in the church’s temporal power, church office became a source of power, especially in the vacuum left in the west with the fall of imperial Rome. It was in the self-interest of those who had the power to define things in such a way as to ensure that their was a continuing need for the established religion and those who held the power.

I believe that one of the main problems with the Catholic Church, and with most others, is over dogmatisation. This is especially problematic with the Catholic Church because one of those dogmas is that it cannot err.

My struggle is to understand and obey God to the best of my ability in the simplicity of the Gospel. I post here in an effort to learn and show that other view points can be valid.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I believe that one of the main problems with the Catholic Church, and with most others, is over dogmatisation. This is especially problematic with the Catholic Church because one of those dogmas is that it cannot err.

It is not a problem for us Catholics. I do not know why you bother about what we Catholics believe. Should you not be more concern about your own faith than ours?

It cannot err because God cannot change his mind on moral and faith. This all fall into the passage in Scripture Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 18:18, the Church ability to bind and loose.

What God has revealed has been revealed. He will back back away from it especially when the Church declares it to be so. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity cannot change, the doctrine of the Theotokos, etc.

My struggle is to understand and obey God to the best of my ability in the simplicity of the Gospel. I post here in an effort to learn and show that other view points can be valid.

Catholic understanding of salvation is that the source of it all is Jesus Christ. Dei Verbum, one of the Sixteen Document of the Second Vatican Council mentions. In fact, Fr. Corapi say that the document Dei Verbum is the document on Sacred Scripture.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Actually Jesus did dictate letters to the seven churches in Revelation. He also told John to write his vision in a book.

I for one do not claim that the reformers got everything right. However men like Calvin quoted extensively from the early church fathers.

I think that there have been too many definitions made over the centuries, most of which served to fracture the church in some way. All because men believe they have the right and the ability to know and understand everything. This is combined with a natural inclination to suppress anyone who disagrees with your view.

I believe that error crept in, at least in the definition of dogmas that had to be believed or rules to be obeyed, particularly after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. With the rise of Christendom, at least in Europe, Christianity ceased to be a persecuted religion, and in many cases became a persecutor. Previously people became Christians at great risk and because they really believed; afterwards many were Christian because the state required it. With that, and the growth in the church’s temporal power, church office became a source of power, especially in the vacuum left in the west with the fall of imperial Rome. It was in the self-interest of those who had the power to define things in such a way as to ensure that their was a continuing need for the established religion and those who held the power.

I believe that one of the main problems with the Catholic Church, and with most others, is over dogmatisation. This is especially problematic with the Catholic Church because one of those dogmas is that it cannot err.

My struggle is to understand and obey God to the best of my ability in the simplicity of the Gospel. I post here in an effort to learn and show that other view points can be valid.

You run the risk of exchanging the Truth of theology for unity via simplicity. Is Christology important and necessary or is it something that divides the Church? If it is not important, then the Trinity, Deity of Christ, Hypostatic Unition, etc are secondary to just getting along.

 

[SyCarl]

It is because Luther thought that for salvation to be 100% the work of God the whole thing had to be done outside ourself, with faith being the tool that acknowledges that fact. Justification for Luther was a legal event where God as judge demands righteousness from us and punishment of sin. Us being condemned sinners in the courtroom means someone had to merit that status of righteousness for us, as well as exhaust the punishment our sins deserved, otherwise we could not be declared righteous in God’s sight.

I would never say that Luther, Calvin or the other reformers got everything right. That does not prevent them from leading in the right general direction.

Faith is the tool that the guilty sinner uses to say, “I could never meet these requirements, I believe Jesus ALL of did this for me.”

And Paul stresses that Jesus obediance in the face of man’s disobediance is a critical factor.

That is the essence of “Justification by Faith Alone.” That phrase carries a specific definition which is not up for individual debate.

Of course it is up for debate unless you hold the Catholic view that once something is defined it is unalterable.

Why Luther taught this was due to various factors, one main one being his uneasy conscience. Sola Fide to him provided an answer for how he could claim assurance of salvation in light of the fact he was a sinner and sinned daily.

Luther’s motives are not really relevant if what he taught contained truth.

And this can be interpreted various ways, some orthodox, others heretical. The “whatever way” needs to be defined, it is not enough to say “whatever way” because that would leave Sola Fide undefined.

As you can see from my subsequent posts I believe we have a compulsion to overdefine things.

Yes and No. The term “Faith Alone” carries a specific definition which is defined in the classical Protestant Confessions, and they explicitly teach imputation, to deny this is to reject the Reformer’s definition of Faith Alone. Without obeying the Reformers, you can make Faith Alone mean whatever you want, and that can include rejecting imputed righteousness.

And what is the matter with that if it helps you understand what is really not completey understandable. My objection to Catholicism is that it overdefines what it is necessary to believe.

To reject imputed righteousness is the most important point of Sola Fide, it is probably the main division between Catholics and Protestants. To reject it means you are a heretic by Protestant standards.

Some Protestant denominations may be overly rigid in their tolerance for different interpretations. Even though I am not strictly a Calvinist, I belong to the Presbyterian Church in Canada because it does not require me to be one. The required beliefs are those set out in the Apostles’ Creed.

If regeneration is by infused righteousness it makes imputed righteousness superfluous, it would be like putting cleaner on a stain, removing the stain in the carpet, and then covering the stain with a clean carpet.

Infusion received through faith alone is totally against orthodox classical Protestantism, you have redefined the definition of Sola Fide.

Not at all. It depends on how you understand rigteousness. If you believe that God’s standard is perfection then whether righteousness is infused in regeneration or justification, doesn’t matter because we can still sin and are not truly righteous. However righteousness in the form of a new nature can be infused without making you perfectly righteous while making you desirous and capable of trying to be perfect. God wants to save us and I don’t think He is going to exclude anyone over this.

As for redefining faith alone, I see no problem even if this is the case since learning to increase your understanding cannot be done if once someone defines something it becomes frozen in place for everybody.

Yes and No. We are not required to be theologians or even capable of full comprehension, but it is unacceptable to ascribe certain means (especially if they are blasphemous or heretical).

You have to be careful there because you could be eliminating the need for theology all together with that. If the Reformers went so far and called Catholics heretics in the process, then the “how” does become important.

As you have probably gathered my view is that theology has overdefined things to start with. I would not agree with calling a Catholic a heretic anymore than I would agree in calling a Protestant a heretic.

to be continued (dang length limitations)

 

[SyCarl]

continued

They would be said to have either been speculating or misunderstanding.

That is why Church authority is so critically important, the way the Church authoritatively interprets Scripture and defines teachings are for the benefit of keeping Christians safe. When someone proposes doctrines attacking Christology and such that puts Christians in danger.

You do realize that Paul was granting authority to his successor, St Timothy to teach, govern, rebuke, etc. That authority is not given to all Christians. 2 Tim 4:3 describes Luther and Protestantism perfectly. Whenever you disagree you simply appoint or find teachers that will say what you want to hear and that is your church.

No. Acts 15, 16:4, nor the Ecumenical Councils have built a “new law.” Rather they have, with their God granted authority, defined and clarified issues which otherwise could lead souls into danger. (eg if someone taught salvation could not be lost, then many souls will let their guard down.)

God did not provide an infallible interpretter for the Old Testament saints. Why would He grant one under the New Testament? With respect to 1 Timothy 2:3-4 Protestants could say that it applies to Catholocism as well. As they overdefined or developed doctrine, They turned away from truth necessitating the Reformation. Introducing too much doctrine is wrong if the true doctrine is meant to be simple.

Amen, for the most part what you say here is perfectly within the parameters of Catholic Dogma.

St Paul is contrasting pagan philosophy with the scandalous notion that God became man and died. Paul is not talking about Theological truths here.

In his comments Paul is dealing with both Jews and Gentiles. The Jews wouldn’t accept without signs, the Gentiles without reason. An extreme in either direction is wrong.

 

[SyCarl]

It is not a problem for us Catholics. I do not know why you bother about what we Catholics believe. Should you not be more concern about your own faith than ours?

It cannot err because God cannot change his mind on moral and faith. This all fall into the passage in Scripture Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 18:18, the Church ability to bind and loose.

What God has revealed has been revealed. He will back back away from it especially when the Church declares it to be so. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity cannot change, the doctrine of the Theotokos, etc.

Catholic understanding of salvation is that the source of it all is Jesus Christ. Dei Verbum, one of the Sixteen Document of the Second Vatican Council mentions. In fact, Fr. Corapi say that the document Dei Verbum is the document on Sacred Scripture.

It is nice to see that you returned safely from Iraq.

You misunderstand me. What Catholics believe doesn’t bother me and my comments apply to others besides Catholics. What bothers me is anyone overdefining what must be believed as this only results in division.

If Catholicism brings you close to God that is fine with me. What I object to is anyone, Protestant, Catholic or otherwise, who says that what brings others, including Catholics, closer to God is wrong.

 

[Mannyfit75]

It is nice to see that you returned safely from Iraq.

You misunderstand me. What Catholics believe doesn’t bother me and my comments apply to others besides Catholics. What bothers me is anyone overdefining what must be believed as this only results in division.

If Catholicism brings you close to God that is fine with me. What I object to is anyone, Protestant, Catholic or otherwise, who says that what brings others, including Catholics, closer to God is wrong.

Divisions with Christianity have always been around even Apostolic Times. I could even say during the time of Christ. When Jesus told the disciples, that they have to eat his flesh and drink his blood, they refuse to believe and the 70 disciples left. All that remain was the 12 Apostles, and the women who loved Jesus.

dogmatic proclamations have often lead to division. The heresy of Arianism and Nestorianism shows that. The Church has the right to condemned those who have heretical views contrary to correct or orthodox Christian beliefs.

Though, those outside the Church who are not Catholic are NOT subject to it anymore since their are from those communities form out of the Reformation.

Any division at any rate, the Church must settle through a Synod or Church Council. That is part of our tradition which has its model from the Council of Jerusalem.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I would never say that Luther, Calvin or the other reformers got everything right. That does not prevent them from leading in the right general direction.

They at least had to have gotten Sola Fide right, if that wasn’t right then they got nothing right.

And Paul stresses that Jesus obediance in the face of man’s disobediance is a critical factor.

I don’t see the connection between what I said and these comments.

Of course it is up for debate unless you hold the Catholic view that once something is defined it is unalterable.

If it is up for debate then you are saying the Gospel can be literally changed in its substance according to the times. This is Postmodernist thinking where truth takes a backseat to “practicality” and personal feelings. If you redefine Sola Fide you are no different than Mormons who steal the term Trinity and apply a different definition to it.

Luther’s motives are not really relevant if what he taught contained truth.

True, but he was wrong. The fact you question, don’t adhere to, and are willing to redefine his definition of Sola Fide says you believe he was wrong as well.

As you can see from my subsequent posts I believe we have a compulsion to overdefine things.

It comes down to this:
1)Are authoritative definitions ever necessary, even if they cause divisions?
2)Who decides when or how many definitions are too much?

A Catholic would say yes to the first and say the Church determines the second. Thus far you seem to lean towards no to the first question, and your personal self for the second. In the end you have become a magisterium unto yourself (the very thing you don’t like about Catholics), and you have operated in the opposite direction: saying authoritatively that definitions are not important.

And what is the matter with that if it helps you understand what is really not completey understandable. My objection to Catholicism is that it overdefines what it is necessary to believe.

The matter is that you are rejecting the main teaching of the Reformers, the very people you rallied around in the first place as an excuse to not follow Rome. And again, “not completely understandable” does not mean nothing can be known and especially does not mean all understandings are equally valid.

Some Protestant denominations may be overly rigid in their tolerance for different interpretations. Even though I am not strictly a Calvinist, I belong to the Presbyterian Church in Canada because it does not require me to be one. The required beliefs are those set out in the Apostles’ Creed.

Then that church is infected with Postmodern thought, the watering down of Gospel Truth for the sake of unity, and being perfectly satisfied with that exchange.

Not at all. It depends on how you understand rigteousness. If you believe that God’s standard is perfection then whether righteousness is infused in regeneration or justification, doesn’t matter because we can still sin and are not truly righteous. However righteousness in the form of a new nature can be infused without making you perfectly righteous while making you desirous and capable of trying to be perfect. God wants to save us and I don’t think He is going to exclude anyone over this.

You are going for a hybrid between Catholicism and classical Protestantism. If God is not going to exclude over this then you must condemn the Reformers for tearing apart the body of Christ in what is in fact a minor issue.

As for redefining faith alone, I see no problem even if this is the case since learning to increase your understanding cannot be done if once someone defines something it becomes frozen in place for everybody.

This is extremely dangerous and Postmodern at its very core. Truth is relative to the times, not eternal.

As you have probably gathered my view is that theology has overdefined things to start with. I would not agree with calling a Catholic a heretic anymore than I would agree in calling a Protestant a heretic.

At this point you have become a magisterium unto yourself though, personally deciding the parameters of orthodoxy.

God did not provide an infallible interpretter for the Old Testament saints. Why would He grant one under the New Testament? With respect to 1 Timothy 2:3-4 Protestants could say that it applies to Catholocism as well. As they overdefined or developed doctrine, They turned away from truth necessitating the Reformation. Introducing too much doctrine is wrong if the true doctrine is meant to be simple.

God provided authoritative leadership in the OT, the Law included various degrees of authority, even including the High Priest directly asking God questions (eg Urim and Thumimim). Further, there were plenty of prophets sent to try and keep people on track. But even if you don’t believe this occurred in the OT, that is no reason to reject it for the NT. The NT is full of evidence that God would be with the Church in an extra special way.

As for “true doctrine” meant to be simple, that is a purely relative term and blows the doors wide open for rejecting ‘not-so-simple’ doctrines like the Trinity and Christology. In fact heresy is most often nothing more than oversimplifying something that is in fact complex, all for the sake of comprehensibility.

In his comments Paul is dealing with both Jews and Gentiles. The Jews wouldn’t accept without signs, the Gentiles without reason. An extreme in either direction is wrong.

True.