Augustine Vs. Calvinism

[AmbroseSJ]

Goya:

But in doing so, and in hammering the doctrine of free will, sometimes the Church’s teachings come off sounding a hair Pelagian–or perhaps, ‘Ariminian’, if you’re Protestant, or grew up in Protestantism (Arminianism teaches ‘conditional election’–much greater emphasis on free will, with almost a denial of pre-destination).

One of the difficulties with the whole Justification doctrine, is that it becomes very complex very quickly, when free will, grace, atonement, God’s foreknowledge etc. are necessarily added to the mix.

The Church hammered out its thinking on this topic (even before the Reformation) back in the Middle Ages with St. Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus representing the two schools of thought. Basically St. Thomas addressed the very ideas Luther first put into words, answered them, then dismissed them. It has been said that if Luther had been adequately trained (as the Augustinian tradition was relatively imprecise and even murky in its training of monks,) he would have had no argument against the Church’s view of Justification. Ah well, too late now.

Regardless, the reformers, with Luther at the forefront, formulated a simplistic (although erroneous) doctrine that instantly had MASS appeal, due to its oversimplification, and comforting dismissal of the need for Sacraments, Hierarchy, good works, and even Purgatory. The later reformers tweaked and adjusted Luther’s original concepts to appeal to those who had more or less scruples about free will, grace, and predestination. But in ALL cases they minimized and over-simplified the real tension and balance required with these concepts.

 

[Goya]

One of the difficulties with the whole Justification doctrine, is that it becomes very complex very quickly, when free will, grace, atonement, God’s foreknowledge etc. are necessarily added to the mix.

The Church hammered out its thinking on this topic (even before the Reformation) back in the Middle Ages with St. Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus representing the two schools of thought. Basically St. Thomas addressed the very ideas Luther first put into words, answered them, then dismissed them. It has been said that if Luther had been adequately trained (as the Augustinian tradition was relatively imprecise and even murky in its training of monks,) he would have had no argument against the Church’s view of Justification. Ah well, too late now.

Regardless, the reformers, with Luther at the forefront, formulated a simplistic (although erroneous) doctrine that instantly had MASS appeal, due to its oversimplification, and comforting dismissal of the need for Sacraments, Hierarchy, good works, and even Purgatory. The later reformers tweaked and adjusted Luther’s original concepts to appeal to those who had more or less scruples about free will, grace, and predestination. But in ALL cases they minimized and over-simplified the real tension and balance required with these concepts.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Calvin was a lot of things (mostly not so good), but we must give the devil his due–he was also an astute and arduous student of St. Augustine’s writings. He cited St. Augustine often, and based much of his [concocted] theology on St. Augustine’s writings. This is what caused a great deal of confusion with the Catholic position on pre-destination. In order to clarify and distinguish the Catholic teaching of pre-destination from Calvin’s, much of the Church’s teachings have sounded almost Palegianesque, in order to juxtapose the Cat. position from the Calvinist position (which is why the Protestants harbor the fallacy that Catholics believe in salvation by one’s own merit). And of course Protestantism being a more recent heresy than Palegianism, the snap back has been more visible.

So there’s just a bit of background/context. Now, in order to attempt to summarize a loaded inquiry into a palatable, digestible, Message Board sized post, here is my un-expert, layman’s brief synopsis:

1. Catholicism actually teaches Predestination of ‘the Elect’. This is often the shocking thing to Catholics, since it is difficult to reconcile the notion of ‘pre-destination’ with ‘free will’;
2. St. Augustine taught Predestination of the Elect (because the Church taught it–not vice versa);
3. Where St. Augustine and Jean Calvin diverge, is wrt to ‘double predestination’–which basically holds that those who are not of the Elect, were essentially therefore predestined for hell (and the Calvinists will inevitably start spittling in your face “…for Esau I have always hated…”, as their proof positive, case closed, end of story, end all/be all blah blah blah…pardon…I digress…). St. Augustine, like the Church, believed that double pre-destination denied free will.
4. St. Augustine reconciled the apparent conflict/tension between Pre-D and Free Will, essentially by concluding that yes, our fate is ‘pre determined’…and yes, we have free will; the reconciliation occurs in that God is not bound by time, but we are. So, as we live…we have free will; we are free to sin, or not; to believe in God, or not; to dedicate ourselves to Christ, or not…to persevere in faith, or not. God, not being bound by time at all…knows how that plays out–or played out–or whatever tense you care to use, since ‘tense’ is meaningless to the Omnipotent Triune God, not only not bound by time, but creator, master and Lord over time itself.

IOW, the predetermination/Elect thing is certainly taught–but since it is only known and knowable by God alone, it is not emphasized. It’s simply not ours to know–and, it’s a dangerous thought to harbor, to essentially believe that you know what is only knowable by God.

1. The Calvinists for whatever reason, have latched on to the Pre-determination thing, and made that their niche within Protestantism. Their ‘faith’ seemingly can’t bear the responsibility of us, actually having free will–so they put everything on God. This leads to a false sense of security. Every Calvinist will quote you “…the sheep know the Sheppard’s voice”, implying of course, that they are sheep…and that they know the ‘shepherds’ voice’ (which is really just a regular guy they call ‘pastor’; but…to them, it’s the ‘shepherd’s voice’…therefore, they are sheep…Jesus won’t lose any of His sheep…and therefore, they are saved (past tense–as if they too, are not bound by time, and they too are omniscient, and they too, know their own destination, as “pre-destined”).

…that last bit–the inherent arrogance, and pretending to know what only God could possibly know–is why the Church down plays the doctrine of Pre-destination.

But in doing so, and in hammering the doctrine of free will, sometimes the Church’s teachings come off sounding a hair Pelagian–or perhaps, ‘Ariminian’, if you’re Protestant, or grew up in Protestantism (Arminianism teaches ‘conditional election’–much greater emphasis on free will, with almost a denial of pre-destination).

1. WRT–‘Total depravity’ and ‘Irresistible grace’–both are essentially fruits of double predestination, and denial of the notion of free will.
2. The bottom line however, is this–God made Man in His image. God endowed Man with Free Will. Man, through Adam, using his free will, sinned against God, and as such, earned (merited) his own eternal damnation–including all of his offspring. Our natural state–our natural destiny–the ‘default rule’ if you will–therefore, is damnation. ‘God saves whom he will’; He doesn’t ‘damn’ whom He will. Man already damned himself.

That’s not quite ‘total depravity’–rather, it’s tainted in/by sin (Original Sin)–hence the need for Baptism.

fwiw/jmho.

So if I reject predestination on the grounds that I have yet to be shown enough evidence for it, does that make me a heretic?

 

[Goya]

So if I reject predestination on the grounds that I have yet to be shown enough evidence for it, does that make me a heretic?

Not necessarily. “Heretic” entails a bit more.

But if you’re asking whether or not the Church teaches (and believes in) predestination–the answer is an unequivocal “yes”. For evidence of that, see the Catechism. For the basis of the belief, see the Bible (though the Catechism is a better place to start, since it will lead you to where in the Bible to start looking).

It is what it is. I know it’s prickly. But the NT is littered with references to ‘the Elect’; to which I ask…what does ‘the Elect’ refer to, if not predestination?

Here is a brief excerpt from Wikipedia (yeah, I know…but…), which does a fine job (in this instance, anyway) of synthesizing the Catholic position:

*Roman Catholicism teaches the doctrine of predestination, while rejecting the classical Calvinist view known as “double predestination.” This means that while it is held that those whom God has elected to eternal life will infallibly attain it, and are therefore said to be predestined to salvation by God, those who perish are not predestined to damnation. But Catholicism has been generally discouraging to human attempts to guess or predict the Divine Will.<----[my point about the Church not emphasizing the doctrine.] The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Predestination says:[33]

God, owing to His infallible prescience of the future, has appointed and ordained from eternity all events occurring in time, especially those that directly proceed from, or at least are influenced by, man’s free will.

Pope John Paul II wrote:[34]

The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all.

Grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.

The Catholic Catechism says:

God predestines no one to go to hell, for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end."[35]

Nevertheless, certain Catholics in the seventeenth and eighteenth century who followed a movement called Jansenism believed in double predestination, which was condemned by the Vatican as a heretical movement.

Catholics do not believe that any hints or evidence of the predestined status of individuals is available to humans, and predestination generally plays little or no part in Catholic teaching to the faithful, being a topic addressed in a professional theological context only[again, my point about de-emphasis, vs. Calvinist (inexplicable) emphasis on this point.[/COLOR].
…
*

 

[Darryl_B]

So if I reject predestination on the grounds that I have yet to be shown enough evidence for it, does that make me a heretic?

I believe in predestination, I start with the premise that God is not willing that any should perish. If God is not willing that any should perish then He has predestined everyone to be saved. But it doesn’t stop at that. The problem is, that while God has predestined everyone to be saved, He has done this by graces, He has done this by graces that require men to embrace those graces to receive those graces. Man has freewill to reject those graces therefore nullifying those graces but God doesn’t give up on anyone.

There is a common question, nature or nuture. I was born this way, I was made this way. Predestination introduces a third option. I was born, I was nutured, and I received God’s graces, and there are some willing to accept those graces, and there are some willing to reject those graces. All the time God is not a respecter of persons by giving those graces because they are freely given to us all, all the time God is compassionate with those graces because we are not lost until the end, and all the time man can embrace those graces and achieve his God intended predestination.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I believe in predestination, I start with the premise that God is not willing that any should perish. If God is not willing that any should perish then He has predestined everyone to be saved. But it doesn’t stop at that. The problem is, that while God has predestined everyone to be saved, He has done this by graces, He has done this by graces that require men to embrace those graces to receive those graces. Man has freewill to reject those graces therefore nullifying those graces but God doesn’t give up on anyone.

There is a common question, nature or nuture. I was born this way, I was made this way. Predestination introduces a third option. I was born, I was nutured, and I received God’s graces, and there are some willing to accept those graces, and there are some willing to reject those graces. All the time God is not a respecter of persons by giving those graces because they are freely given to us all, all the time God is compassionate with those graces because we are not lost until the end, and all the time man can embrace those graces and achieve his God intended predestination.

That actually makes perfect sense. Thanks