Augustine's view on Predestination and Free will

[humble_in_doubt]

‘’’

Augustine on Free Will:

Chapter 2 [II.]—
Now He has revealed to us, through His Holy Scriptures, that there is in a man a free choice of will. But how He has revealed this I do not recount in human language, but in divine. There is, to begin with, the fact that God’s precepts themselves would be of no use to a man unless he had free choice of will, so that by performing them he might obtain the promised rewards. For they are given that no one might be able to plead the excuse of ignorance, as the Lord says concerning the Jews in the gospel: If I had not come and spoken unto them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.

Written by St. Augustine of Hippo in A.D. 426 or 427

Quoting Augustine, Calvin affirms, “Through freedom man came to be in sin, but the corruption which followed as punishment turned freedom into necessity.” Here then, Calvin posits that human nature necessarily sins, yet does so not by compulsion in accord with the individual’s will. This view could be considered plausible and consistent if indeed the Fall precipitated the natural change in human nature which both Calvin and Augustine claim.

 

[Camron]

One more key point from Augustine:

We can’t follow God’s will without his help, but we can choose to ask for his help.

But if we choose to ask for His help, and this can be done without God’s help, then we are following God’s will without His help.

ie., It is God’s will that we ask for His help.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

you seem to be doing the same thing most Christians do when acting as an apologist for their church or favorite theologian … at a minimum you’re ignoring large parts of Calvin’s work (and I would also say Augustine).

I’m very familiar with Luther and Calvin, and even more so with Augustine. And so I’m not ignoring what they taught. But the fact still remains: what Luther taught and what Calvin taught, is nothing like what Augustine taught and believed.

To give an example:

Augustine taught that grace was for the purpose of avoiding sin, and doing good. And avoiding sin was necessary in order to merit eternal life.

Now where does Calvin teach such a thing? Or what Calvinist ever held to such a teaching? Or is there a Calvinist who believes that “saved by grace” means we are saved by that grace which is given to us that we may avoid sinning, at least mortally, and thus eventually gain salvation? Is it not the case rather, with the Calvinist, that his salvation is a fait accompli, that there is nothing to be “hoped” for because it’s already a “done deal?”

Here’s a pretty good depiction of Augustine’s view on predestination and grace:

[T]he grace of perseverance is not given according to the merits of the receivers, but to some it is given by God’s mercy; to others it is not given, by His righteous judgment. … (link here).

There is nothing here that Calvin disagreed with.

Well, we have to be careful about quoting Augustine in the areas of perseverance, predestination, grace etc. Augustine is very careful to connect grace etc with human cooperation and effort, something abominable to Calvinists. And he very clearly teaches that we must continually pray to be saved; there’s definitely no room for any kind of “guaranteed salvation” in his theology! Listen to what he says here.

But what is more ungrateful than to deny the very grace of God by saying that is is given according to our merits? The Catholic faith stands in horror of this position which it hurled against Pelagius himself as a capital charge and which he condemned, not out of love of truth, but out of fear of his own condemnation.

But let whoever, as a Catholic believer, stands in horror at saying that the grace of God is given according to our merits, not subtract from the grace of God faith itself by which he has obtained mercy in order to become a believer. And for this reason let him also attribute perseverance up to the end to the grace of God by which he obtains the mercy he daily asks for so that his not brought into temptation.

The Gift of Perseverance, section 55: Augustine’s Recent Teaching Contains Nothing New.
Answer to the Pelagians, IV, ISBN 1565481364, vol. 26, p. 230.
books.google.com/books?id=YtEJ0nOL_IUC&pg=PA230&dq=%22But+let+whoever,+as+a+Catholic+believer,+stands+in+horror%22&lr=

Here, the believer is exhorted to pray that he may ***continue in his salvation ***until the end by avoiding sin! Not very Calvin-like.

I strongly doubt either Calvin or Luther were ignorant of this man’s writings

What does this tell you?

google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=Prosper+of+Aquitaine&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ccel.org%2Fccel%2Fcalvin%2Finstitutes&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

… but I won’t quibble with your over your religion.
It’s all ancient mythology with no basis in fact as far as I’m concerned. However, I was an astute Christian for long enough to know Calvin was right on point regarding biblical interpretation and theology; and he was almost consistently in line with Augustine.

Well, with all due respect, are you alone to decide who is and is not “right on point regarding biblical interpretation and theology?”

Suppose someone says you’re wrong? Why should your opinion be preferred to theirs?

---

The agency of the Holy See in maintaining the integrity of revelation through a long lapse of ages was acknowledged by the learned Protestant Casaubon:

“No one who is versed in ecclesiastical history can doubt that God made use of the Roman Pontiffs, during many ages, to preserve the doctrines of the true faith.”

“Nemo autem peritus rerum Ecclesiae ignorant, opera Romanorum Pontificum per multa secula Deum esse usum, in conservanda sarta tecta rectae fidei doctrina.”

Isaac Casaubon (1559-1614), Exercitationes XV, Londini, p. 312. “opera Rom. Pontificum” (p. 312, not p. 434 as Allnatt gives below).

The Exercitationes were written in reply to the Annales Ecclesiasticiof Cardinal Caesar Baronius (1538-1607).

In, Cathedra Petri; or, The Titles and Prerogatives of St. Peter and of His See and Successors , Charles F. B. Allnatt, London, Burns and Oats, 1883, p. 67.

worldcat.org/search?q=ti%3AIsaaci+Casauboni+De+rebus+sacris+et+ecclesiasticis+exercitationes&qt=advanced

 

[Camron]

I strongly doubt either Calvin or Luther were ignorant of this man’s writings … but I won’t quibble with your over your religion. It’s all ancient mythology with no basis in fact as far as I’m concerned. However, I was an astute Christian for long enough to know Calvin was right on point regarding biblical interpretation and theology; and he was almost consistently in line with Augustine.

I suspect that your loss of faith may stem from your inability to distinguish between Augustine’s thoughts and Calvin’s thoughts. The two men’s views are not nearly in line with each other as you’re making them out to be.

Calvin’s God was a hideous monster. Augustine’s God was a God of love.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I’m very familiar with Luther and Calvin, and even more so with Augustine. And so I’m not ignoring what they taught. But the fact still remains: what Luther taught and what Calvin taught, is nothing like what Augustine taught and believed.

To give an example:

Augustine taught that grace was for the purpose of avoiding sin, and doing good. And avoiding sin was necessary in order to merit eternal life.

This is not exactly an accurate presentation of what Augustine (much less Calvin) taught. Both men believed that one purpose of grace was to instill obedience into the elect. To say Calvin never taught such a thing couldn’t be more wrong (he focused on holiness more than most other theologians in history). Europeans used to refer to Geneva (under Calvin) as the “City of God” (after Augustine’s book).

Moreover, both Augustine and Calvin held virtually the same view regarding predestination (although arguably Augustine’s brand of double predestintion was a bit softer than Calvin’s, or at least this is what contemporary Catholic apologists would say). They would both say god’s choices of who to save & who not to save are made indepedent of man. In other words we cannot merit salvation. The grace of god then moves the elect not only to an enduring faith, but also to obedience (avoidance of sin, charity, and so on).

It would be safe to summarize both the view of Calvin and Augustine using the maxim obedience is “witness” of election (it is not the “cause” of election).

Now where does Calvin teach such a thing? Or what Calvinist ever held to such a teaching? Or is there a Calvinist who believes that “saved by grace” means we are saved by that grace which is given to us that we may avoid sinning, at least mortally, and thus eventually gain salvation? Is it not the case rather, with the Calvinist, that his salvation is a fait accompli, that there is nothing to be “hoped” for because it’s already a “done deal?”

Augustine also taught what is in substance the same thing as “irresistable grace” (just read his work & this is very clear).

The hope argument is one commonly used by Catholics (and I might add Arminians) against the Calvinst / Augustinian view. Yet both Catholics and Arminians (like Methodists) agree that god did predestine people. However, they will say he did so based on foreseen merit (or foreseen faith). In other words it’s just as easy to argue your system is fatalistic, as it is to argue Calvinism is. Both require a compatiblist framework to work out the inconsistencies between divine sovereignty and human free will.

That being said, when I was Christian, the reason I viewed Calvinism as a superior interpretation of scripture is because scripture clearly states predestination of the Christian is not based on personal merit of any kind. This makes the idea of foreseen merit impossible from a scriptural perspective.

Catholics & other Arminian groups have resolved this paradox by creating a doctrine that is clearly inconsistent with scripture (foreseen faith / merit), others have engaged in all sorts of sophistic speculation to explain away this tension, Calvin simply conceded that there is conflict (within the human mind) between divine sovereignty and free will. Both exist in tandem; even though they seem incompatible.

Well, we have to be careful about quoting Augustine in the areas of perseverance, predestination, grace etc. Augustine is very careful to connect grace etc with human cooperation and effort, something abominable to Calvinists. And he very clearly teaches that we must continually pray to be saved; there’s definitely no room for any kind of “guaranteed salvation” in his theology! Listen to what he says here.

I guess (unfortunately for Calvinists) the extreme elements within their movement (commonly referred to as hyper-Calvinists) really do misrepresent John Calvin, and in an aweful way.

Calvin would have been comfortable with the idea of cooperating with grace. He wouldn’t deny that our free will and assent was involved in moving toward god. He would simply say that ultimately god is behind the wheel.

Here, the believer is exhorted to pray that he may ***continue in his salvation ***until the end by avoiding sin! Not very Calvin-like.

That is exactly Calvin like … you just have bad information pertaining to Calvin.

Well, with all due respect, are you alone to decide who is and is not “right on point regarding biblical interpretation and theology?”

I’ve decided that it’s all untrue & merely ancient superstition, and that god doesn’t exist (at least in the form you guys say he does). I did this all by myself. So for me I alone decide what to believe.

You will naturally say it’s arrogant of me to decide for myself whether or not to believe in an invisible god (who I might add has never manifested himself in any tangible way to modern man). I will say it’s absurd for anyone to believe in such nonsense (and there we stand right)?

Suppose someone says you’re wrong? Why should your opinion be preferred to theirs?

My opinion is preferred to me … it shouldn’t be preferred by anyone else. The value of listening to me (or anyone for that matter) is if you find what I have to say enlightening, do the research and see whether I’m right or not. That’s the reason I post of this forum (besides being bored right now). I like getting other viewpoints about stuff & learning.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

This is not exactly an accurate presentation of what Augustine (much less Calvin) taught. Both men believed that one purpose of grace was to instill obedience into the elect.

For Augustine, the purpose of grace was to assist us in the performance of those good works which lead to salvation. In other words, we are saved by that grace by which we avoid sin and practice charity. Grace is given that we may both believe and act.

But there is no “guaranteed salvation” in Augustine’s teaching. The closest he comes to even hinting at such a notion is perhaps the passage below. But even there, such a “guarantee” if you will, comes at life’s end, and is the result of one having lived a life of grace i.e., of “good works” in union with the one Church.

Please listen carefully, very carefully, to what Augustine says in this passage:

We, of course, say that someone is chaste whom we know is chaste, whether or not he is going to remain in that chastity. And if he has some other gift of God which can be kept or lost, we say that he has it as long as he has it, and if he has lost it, we say that he had it.

But since no one has perseverance up to the end unless he perseveres up to the end, many can have it, but no one can lose it. For there is no reason to fear that, when someone has persevered up to the end, an evil will might perhaps arise in him so that he does not persevere up to the end.

This gift of God, then, can be merited by prayer, but once it has been given, it cannot be lost by rebellion. For, when someone has persevered up to the end, he cannot lose either this gift or any others which he could have lost before the end. How, then, can one lose that which prevents one from losing even what one could lose?

The Gift of Perseverance, 6, 10.
Answer to the Pelagians, ISBN 1565481364, pt. 1, v. 26, p. 197.
books.google.com/books?id=c0AwAAAAYAAJ&q=%22This+gift+of+God,+then,+can+be+merited+by+prayer%22&dq=%22This+gift+of+God,+then,+can+be+merited+by+prayer%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&ei=FazmSZ6SGYHKM7nUlLAB&pgis=1

Regarding merit, I would just add this:

It is worth noting that Augustine’s doctrine of grace does not exclude the possibility of merit, of in some sense earning a reward, as I rather think Luther and Calvin supposed. There is a place for the concept of merit - but it is firmly within a total context of grace. God’s gift, his grace, comes first, and last; human merit only comes in the middle, as an effect of grace, entirely dependent on it.

Note 20 to sermon 131:

books.google.com/books?id=4zswAAAAYAAJ&q=%22Augustine%27s+doctrine+of+grace+does+not+exclude+the+possibility+of+merit%22&dq=%22Augustine%27s+doctrine+of+grace+does+not+exclude+the+possibility+of+merit%22&lr=&client=firefox&pgis=1

Now, or course, when Augustine speaks of the gift of final perseverance not being lost by rebellion, he means, simply, that one will no longer be in danger of rebelling after he has attained a certain point in his spiritual journey. Augustine certainly does not mean to imply that one could conceivably, even at the end, rebel, and still retain the gift. Such would would be a complete absurdity.

To say Calvin never taught such a thing couldn’t be more wrong (he focused on holiness more than most other theologians in history). Europeans used to refer to Geneva (under Calvin) as the “City of God” (after Augustine’s book).

Wow, I must say, that’s quite an astonishing remark, to say the least!

You would connect Calvin with “holiness”?! What, pray tell, is there holy, either about the man or his mad ravings? Or what kind of “holiness” attends a vicious persecutor and shedder of innocent blood??

And are you unaware that, whenever and wherever the reformers preached their “gospel,” immorality, generally speaking, grew worse?

As for the absurdity of comparing Calvin’s Geneva, that “gutter of Europe,” that virtual police state, with the holy “City of God” … why, it just beggars the imagination that anyone could even suggest the remotest resemblance between the two!

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not the least interested in beating up on Calvin, or offending you in any way; but I just can’t see how a reasonable person (such as you seem to be), having even a smattering of historical knowledge (which I’m sure you, at the very least, do have), could possibly consider making such a bizarre comparison!

To be continued…

 

[humble_in_doubt]

For Augustine, the purpose of grace was to assist us in the performance of those good works which lead to salvation. In other words, we are saved by that grace by which we avoid sin and practice charity. Grace is given that we may both believe and act.

But there is no “guaranteed salvation” in Augustine’s teaching. The closest he comes to even hinting at such a notion is perhaps the passage below. But even there, such a “guarantee” if you will, comes at life’s end, and is the result of one having lived a life of grace i.e., of “good works” in union with the one Church.

Yes I generally agree with your assessment, but Calvin also said the same thing. Perseverance of the Saints (within Calvinism) never makes any definitive assertions regarding the identity of the elect (nor does it assert the type of assurance promulgated by modern evangelicals i.e. the once saved always saved doctrine, which is has little in common with Calvinism).

In fact I remember studying this issue years back & Calvinists treat the idea of once saved always saved quite harshly. They believe a life of enduring faith, in tandem with a life of obedience to the word of God, provides a witness to election. In other words it’s retrospective rather than forward looking.

Still the same they do preach a type of assurance, but it’s not anything like once saved always saved. Their idea of assurance is a personal assurance, which is more for pragmatic purposes (as opposed to theological). If within yourself you’re sure that you will endure, then it’s more likely you will. If you entertain doubt then it’s more likely doubt will seep in (which of course makes sense from a psychological perspective). However, theologically they teach the same as Augustine. The idea of irresistible grace or perseverance of the saints never imagines that we can know our status with absolute certainty. It does say, as Augustine did, god has already made his choices (and those choices are not dependent on our will, effort, merit, or any other personal characteristic).

Those who god chose will be identified through enduring faith and obedience as a witness to the world. However, god didn’t choose them because they were good or bad, rather they are only good because god chose them, showered them with grace, and molded them for glory (as the bible would say). In other words the elect become good Christians because god chose them, god didn’t choose them because they were good Christians.

You would connect Calvin with “holiness”?! What, pray tell, is there holy, either about the man or his mad ravings? Or what kind of “holiness” attends a vicious persecutor and shedder of innocent blood??

that’s such a uninformed statement. The event you’re referring to was the Servetus affair. Not that I apologize for Calvin’s behavior (because I think he was a typical Christian in those days, dogmatic and tyrannical … just as the CC was), but Servetus (who was executed in Geneva for heresy) was already wanted by the Catholic Inquisition for the same thing (so he was toast either way). In reality Calvin didn’t even preside over Servetus’ trail (and he attempted to convince the city council to execute Servetus in a less harsh way, but was unsuccessful).

And are you unaware that, whenever and wherever the reformers preached their “gospel,” immorality, generally speaking, grew worse?

As for the absurdity of comparing Calvin’s Geneva, that “gutter of Europe,” that virtual police state, with the holy “City of God” … why, it just beggars the imagination that anyone could even suggest the remotest resemblance between the two!

my god man … where do you get this stuff from? Religion, it just breeds tunnel vision.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not the least interested in beating up on Calvin, or offending you in any way; but I just can’t see how a reasonable person (such as you seem to be), having even a smattering of historical knowledge (which I’m sure you, at the very least, do have), could possibly consider making such a bizarre comparison!

To be continued…

It’s interesting. I’m a atheist … yet your bigger concern is with my former preference for Calvin’s theological work (though I was raised Catholic)?

Also, Christians always give me the “I’m not the least bit interested in . . . offending you in any way.” Well, obviously if I were a Calvinist Christian what you said would have been very offensive; but why apologize? It is what you mean isn’t it (so isn’t your apology shallow).

What I say is: if you’re going to offend, then offend boldly (I’m sorry to paraphrase Luther … but I just couldn’t resist ).

 

[Camron]

That is exactly Calvin like … you just have bad information pertaining to Calvin.

I don’t really care about your atheism. You are already fully aware of our belief that – if indeed the Catholic Church is correct – all atheists are unfortunately most likely damned to hell.

Thankfully, only God can fully judge our souls and there may be hope for all of us yet.

But I do think that you need to rethink your position on how similar Calvin’s and Augustine’s thought supposedly are. :yup:

A Tiptoe Through TULIP

There are some similarities. But there are some very important differences too.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Yes I generally agree with your assessment, but Calvin also said the same thing.

I disagree. But let’s simplify.

Tell me, can you name a single Calvinist who believes in mortal sin, or who believes he can lose his salvation? For on these points, you see, the reformers drastically parted company with the historic Church. Some evidence:

“John Calvin declared that all sin against God is mortal sin in that it deserves death, but no sin is mortal in the sense that it destroys our justification.”

Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, R. C. Sproul, p. 144
books.google.com/books?id=DC-TRU4tEvsC&pg=PT164&dq=calvin+%22mortal+sin%22&lr=

On Mortal Sin:

“This is a point at which Luther and Calvin broke decisively with Catholic thought. They understood sin as basically unbelief and pride, that is, sin is the state in which a person lives separated from God. The problem of sin is the problem of the total orientation of one’s life; a person either lives ‘in sin’ or lives ‘in Christ’. Where sin is so seen, the distinction between greater and lesser sins becomes irrelevant. The cure for such sin can never be found in the sinner’s penance but only through God’s forgiving love welcoming the prodigals home.”

The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, edited by Alan Richardson, John Bowden, p. 386.
books.google.com/books?id=PN7UMUTBBPAC&pg=PA386&lpg=PA386&dq=%22a+point+at+which+Luther+and+Calvin+broke+decisively+with%22&source=bl&ots=E8nV-0aKX0&sig=oISRrhQgLSCBZGwUc-Eu1MXIQ9E&hl=en&ei=LkLoSaXiH5rsnQff-5T_Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

"The cause of this error is no doubt that doctrine concerning faith which the first Reformers, as Luther and Calvin, were led to adopt from their opposition to the hateful and tyrannical teachings of Rome . These noble Reformers . . . asserted that the assurance of hope is of the essence of saving faith. Thus says Calvin in his Commentary on Romans, ‘My faith is a divine and scriptural belief that God has pardoned me and accepted me.’

“Calvin requires everyone to say, in substance, I believe fully that Christ has saved me. Amidst all Calvin’s verbal variations, this is always his meaning; for he is consistent in his error. . . for as sure as truth is in history, Luther and Calvin did fall into this error, which the Reformed churches, led by the Westminster Confession of Faith, have since corrected.”

(Discussions of Robert L. Dabney, Vol. I, pp. 215-16)
4himnet.com/bnyberg/assurance.html

that’s such a uninformed statement. The event you’re referring to was the Servetus affair. Not that I apologize for Calvin’s behavior (because I think he was a typical Christian in those days, dogmatic and tyrannical … just as the CC was), but Servetus (who was executed in Geneva for heresy) was already wanted by the Catholic Inquisition for the same thing (so he was toast either way).

Actually, the burning of Michael Servetus was but one of many tyrannies I was referring to. But let’s hear what Calvin had to say regarding Servetus, who would make the unfortunate mistake of visiting that frightful police state, Geneva:

“He takes it upon him to come hither, if it be agreeable to me. But I am unwilling to pledge my word for his safety, for if he shall come, I shall never permit him to depart alive, provided my authority be of any avail.”

Letter to William Farel, Geneva, February 13, 1546.

Letters of John Calvin, 1857, Jean Calvin, Jules Bonnet, David Constable, Calvin Translation Society, vol. 2, p. 19.
books.google.com/books?id=m22h412TAaIC&pg=PA19&dq=%22for+if+he+shall+come,+I+shall+never+permit+him+to+depart+alive%22&lr=
books.google.com/books?id=tlUYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA16&dq=calvin+servetus++%22depart+alive%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&client=firefox

Moreover, that spirit of persecution which always manifested itself wherever Protestantism - and particularly Calvinism - gained a foothold, was so unrelenting, so intense, that the span of three centuries would scarcely diminish it! I call no less a personage than Thomas Jefferson himself as my first witness:

“The Presbyterian clergy are loudest; the most intolerant of all sects, the most tyrannical and ambitious; ready at the world of the lawgiver, if such a word could be now obtained, to put the torch to the pile, and to rekindle in this virgin hemisphere the flames in which their oracle Calvin consumed the poor Servetus… they pant to reestablish, by law, that holy inquisition, which they can now only infuse into public opinion.”

Jefferson to William Short, April 13, 1820
books.google.com/books?id=SiUWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA322&dq=%22+loudest,+the+most+intolerant+of+all+sects%22&lr=&ei=3VLmScDtCI-aMp_q8bYB#PPA322,M1

my god man … where do you get this stuff from? Religion, it just breeds tunnel vision.

If you like, I’ll provide overwhelming evidence to prove their was indeed a decline in morality everywhere the reformers preached their “gospel”.

It’s interesting. I’m a atheist … yet your bigger concern is with my former preference for Calvin’s theological work (though I was raised Catholic)?

But maybe said preference is what led to your atheism!

And speaking of Calvin and atheism, check out this comment, again from Jefferson:

“I can never join Calvin in addressing his God. He was indeed an atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was daemonism. If ever a man worshiped a false God, he did. The being described in his five points, is not the God whom you and I acknowledge and adore, the creator and benevolent governor of the world, but a daemon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no God at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin.”

Jefferson’s letter to John Adams, from Monticello, April 11, 1823.

books.google.com/books?id=imUjCfbzgkMC&pg=PA363&dq=%22I+can+never+join+Calvin+in+addressing+his+God.%22&lr=&ei=SVLmSaSGC5qwMpmg5bIB

Also, Christians always give me the “I’m not the least bit interested in . . . offending you in any way.” Well, obviously if I were a Calvinist Christian what you said would have been very offensive; but why apologize? It is what you mean isn’t it (so isn’t your apology shallow).

What I say is: if you’re going to offend, then offend boldly (I’m sorry to paraphrase Luther … but I just couldn’t resist ).

I honestly don’t want to offend; but clearly, there are certain facts which are unpleasant to hear.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I disagree. But let’s simplify.

Tell me, can you name a single Calvinist who believes in mortal sin, or who believes he can lose his salvation? For on these points, you see, the reformers drastically parted company with the historic Church. Some evidence:

“John Calvin declared that all sin against God is mortal sin in that it deserves death, but no sin is mortal in the sense that it destroys our justification.”

On Mortal Sin:

“This is a point at which Luther and Calvin broke decisively with Catholic thought. They understood sin as basically unbelief and pride, that is, sin is the state in which a person lives separated from God. The problem of sin is the problem of the total orientation of one’s life; a person either lives ‘in sin’ or lives ‘in Christ’. Where sin is so seen, the distinction between greater and lesser sins becomes irrelevant. The cure for such sin can never be found in the sinner’s penance but only through God’s forgiving love welcoming the prodigals home.”

yes … I understand this area of disagreement. I would only say this is essentially what the bible teaches. However, Calvinists (and I imagine Lutheran’s) also teach the importance of confession (albeit not using a Catholic format). You’re right to say penance is not a concept you will find in Protestantism (this goes to the meaning of atonement itself).

If Christ paid the price for your sins, they why would you have to pay further? The concept behind Christ’s sacrifice was that man lacked the capacity to atone for our sins. This can get deep, because then you have look to Old Testament typology. For instance, the Levitical atonement ritual where the priests would go in, first make a sacrifice for themselves, and then for their congregation, had to be done each year. However, because Christ was the perfect sacrifice (because he was sinless) he was able to make one sacrifice for all sins (and for all time). Moreover, Christ never had to make a sacrifice for himself since he was without sin.

This is all quite an elaborate puzzle. The problem is with the Catholic view of penance is it really shakes up the house of cards & it is quite inconsistent with scripture. It’s not that you will find a passage refuting the idea of penance (that is directly on point). However, what you will find (if you really study theology) is that it goes against the tenor and logic of scripture (tearing away at the meaning of Christ’s sacrifice).

It’s not to say that Calvin never made distinctions between different levels of sin (as John does in his epistles). He just never bought into the idea of penance (as Christ paid the one and only price for the sins of man).

Actually, the burning of Michael Servetus was but one of many tyrannies I was referring to. But let’s hear what Calvin had to say regarding Servetus, who would make the unfortunate mistake of visiting that frightful police state, Geneva:

I studied this history pretty well and I don’t recall any other acts that can be fairly described as tyrannical, so what other tyrannies are you referring to (I suppose if you’re going to besmirch a man you ought to at least explain why)?

“He takes it upon him to come hither, if it be agreeable to me. But I am unwilling to pledge my word for his safety, for if he shall come, I shall never permit him to depart alive, provided my authority be of any avail.”

yeah … that’s a very popular quote by Calvin. Remember I’m not apologizing for his treatment of Servetus. I think both he (along with the Geneva Counsel) and the Catholic Inquisition (who also had an arrest warrant out on Servetus’ head) were all tyrants. They were all willing to murder another human being because he disagreed with their version of ancient mythology. Tyrants all.

Moreover, that spirit of persecution which always manifested itself wherever Protestantism - and particularly Calvinism - gained a foothold, was so unrelenting, so intense, that the span of three centuries would scarcely diminish it! I call no less a personage than Thomas Jefferson himself as my first witness:

“The Presbyterian clergy are loudest; the most intolerant of all sects, the most tyrannical and ambitious; ready at the world of the lawgiver, if such a word could be now obtained, to put the torch to the pile, and to rekindle in this virgin hemisphere the flames in which their oracle Calvin consumed the poor Servetus… they pant to reestablish, by law, that holy inquisition, which they can now only infuse into public opinion.”

Jefferson didn’t have kind words for the Roman church either (who were historically far more tyrannical than any church).

If you like, I’ll provide overwhelming evidence to prove their was indeed a decline in morality everywhere the reformers preached their “gospel”.

that’s absurd. The Puritans were Calvinists

But maybe said preference is what led to your atheism!

I was raised Catholic & they run a close second to fundamental protestants for my “worse of the bunch” prize. So no my view of scripture had nothing to do with my unbelief. I just don’t believe in any god because of logic. If there is a god, then where is he? He eludes our telescopes, doesn’t manifest himself to modern man (he coincidentally fell silent at the same time mankind began quantifying the physical world with science, and not mythology), and all I get is a demand that I believe in the words of ancient men (written on manuscripts by unidentified authors).

I’m just not that gullible, simple as that.

“I can never join Calvin in addressing his God. He was indeed an atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was daemonism. If ever a man worshiped a false God, he did. The being described in his five points, is not the God whom you and I acknowledge and adore, the creator and benevolent governor of the world, but a daemon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no God at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin.”

of course Jefferson did rip the pages out of the bible which referred to miracles (he didn’t believe any of the miracles described in the bible happened). It’s funny how you chose to pursue this debate, using the words of a man that the CC would no doubt consider a heretic.

I honestly don’t want to offend; but clearly, there are certain facts which are unpleasant to hear.

they’re not unpleasant for me, because I don’t care. I can drum up a few dozen unpleasant facts about Catholic tyranny. You didn’t need to tell Christianity is a tyrannical religion (like all religion) … I already knew (that’s one reason I’m not Christian, beyond the fact that it’s all nonsense).

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Chesterton:

I apologize in advance if some of my comments seemed harsh or uncharitable (I don’t mean to be unkind or uncharitable). I just know there is objective truth that cannot be anything other than what it is; and I do find it unproductive when people dig themselves into really untenable positions.
").

Then why do you do it?

You repeat tired assertions of the secular left that carry no weight.

Why bother?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

You repeat tired assertions of the secular left that carry no weight.

you’re referring to LOGIC? Yes I know logic rarely carries any weight with religious zealots … but hey I can only try right?

As far as the secular “left” … I’m hardly a member of the left. I believe in near zero government, a far lower tax rate, state rights, absolute firearm ownership rights, an end to burdensome government regulation on business, and free trade. I’m thinking not too many of Obama’s buddies would find my views very appealing.

What I do not believe in is religion, because it’s untrue.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

You’re right to say penance is not a concept you will find in Protestantism (this goes to the meaning of atonement itself).

…which, of course, again goes to the heart of this whole notion of “guaranteed salvation!”

If Christ paid the price for your sins, they why would you have to pay further?

Ah yes, great question! And the answer to which can only be found in the Incarnation, and in how one defines Christ!

But the subject of the Mystical Body of Christ or the “whole Christ” (to use Augustine’s phrase), is * deep* indeed, and therefore best left for another thread. However, I will say that an understanding of the Mystical Body is absolutely essential to a full and proper understanding of the meaning of the Incarnation - an understanding which, sadly, the Protestant mind is utterly devoid of. Indeed, all heresies have at their root this thorough lack of understanding, this thorough blindness regarding this most fundamental idea, which lies at the very heart of the Christian faith.

The concept behind Christ’s sacrifice was that man lacked the capacity to atone for our sins. This can get deep, because then you have look to Old Testament typology. For instance, the Levitical atonement ritual where the priests would go in, first make a sacrifice for themselves, and then for their congregation, had to be done each year. However, because Christ was the perfect sacrifice (because he was sinless) he was able to make one sacrifice for all sins (and for all time). Moreover, Christ never had to make a sacrifice for himself since he was without sin.

Again, we must understand the Incarnation, we must understand the “whole Christ.”

But now what does St. Paul say?

“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church.” Colossians, 1:24.

The problem is with the Catholic view of penance is it really shakes up the house of cards & it is quite inconsistent with scripture.

Quite the contrary; it is wholly inconsistent with Luther’s teaching!

“I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture.”

Luther to Chancellor Gregory Brück (An Den Kanzler Brück), January 13, 1524.

Little wonder therefore that Luther would later admit:

“I am compelled to confess it; my doctrine has produced many scandals.”

In, Charles of Europe, Dominic Bevan Wyndham Lewis, New York, Coward-McCann, 1931, p. 213.
books.google.com/books?lr=&ei=jafXSb-IDoW0NJ_dlMoB&q=%22I+am+compelled+to+confess+it%2C+my+doctrine+has+produced+many+scandals%22&btnG=Search+Books

Citing the Wittenberg edition of Luther’s Latin Works (Opera Lutheri., edit. Wittenberg), II, 281.

But let us arise from the Gadarene depths, and instead, hear the holy words of Christ!

"Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes". 10:13

And of the celibate Paul:

“But I chastise my body and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.” 1 Cor. 9:27

And it is interesting to note that, in the book of Revelation, the “two witnesses” are depicted as wearing sackcloth, the very symbol of the deepest penance!

“And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.” Rev. 11:3

It’s not that you will find a passage refuting the idea of penance (that is directly on point). However, what you will find (if you really study theology) is that it goes against the tenor and logic of scripture (tearing away at the meaning of Christ’s sacrifice).

As I have just shown above, doing penance goes against, not Scripture, but Protestantism, not to mention the Fathers!
google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=doing+penance&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=newadvent.org%2Ffathers&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

As for the meaning of Christ’s sacrifice, again, this can only be properly understood with regard to the doctrine of the Incarnation and the Mystical Body - a notion that, even if not utterly lost on the reformers and their benighted followers, was nevertheless so mutilated and twisted by them as to reduce it to little more than the most wicked form of idolatry!

It’s not to say that Calvin never made distinctions between different levels of sin (as John does in his epistles). He just never bought into the idea of penance (as Christ paid the one and only price for the sins of man).

But who was Calvin, but a mere man with no authority whatsoever, and who showed himself to have a most untenable view of human nature when he wrote:

“Let it stand therefore as an indubitable truth, which no engines can shake, that the mind of man is so entirely alienated from the righteousness of God that he cannot conceive, desire, or design anything but what is wicked, distorted, foul, impure, and iniquitous; that his heart is so thoroughly envenomed by sin, that it can breathe out nothing but corruption and rottenness; that if some men occasionally make a show of goodness, their mind is ever interwoven with hypocrisy and deceit, their soul inwardly bound with the fetters of wickedness.”

Institutes, book II, ch. 5, sec. 19.

books.google.com/books?id=r4sEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA291&dq=institutes+%22mind+of+man+is+so+entirely+alienated+from+the+righteousness+of+God+that+he+cannot+conceive%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES

In any event, I must reemphasize that Christ’s redemptive actions simply cannot be rightly understood apart from the Church’s teaching on the “whole Christ.”

As soon as I can gather some preliminary material, I’ll introduce this very important topic in another thread.

I studied this history pretty well and I don’t recall any other acts that can be fairly described as tyrannical, so what other tyrannies are you referring to (I suppose if you’re going to besmirch a man you ought to at least explain why)?

Fair enough. Let’s begin with what I posted here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4150128&postcount=32

I should be able to finish replying to the rest of your post a little later.

Peace.

 

[SyCarl]

But who was Calvin, but a mere man with no authority whatsoever, and who showed himself to have a most untenable view of human nature when he wrote:

“Let it stand therefore as an indubitable truth, which no engines can shake, that the mind of man is so entirely alienated from the righteousness of God that he cannot conceive, desire, or design anything but what is wicked, distorted, foul, impure, and iniquitous; that his heart is so thoroughly envenomed by sin, that it can breathe out nothing but corruption and rottenness; that if some men occasionally make a show of goodness, their mind is ever interwoven with hypocrisy and deceit, their soul inwardly bound with the fetters of wickedness.”

Institutes, book II, ch. 5, sec. 19.

Then there is:

It is not, therefore, true, as some affirm that we say, and as that correspondent of yours ventures moreover to write, that “all are forced into sin,” as if they were unwilling, “by the necessity of their flesh;” but if they are already of the age to use the choice of their own mind, they are both retained in sin by their own will, and by their own will are hurried along from sin to sin. For even he who persuades and deceives does not act in them, except that they may commit sin by their will, either by ignorance of the truth or by delight in iniquity, or by both evils,—as well of blindness as of weakness. But this will, which is free in evil things because it takes pleasure in evil, is not free in good things, for the reason that it has not been made free. Nor can a man will any good thing unless he is aided by Him who cannot will evil,—that is, by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. For “everything which is not of faith is sin.”

Augustine (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Chapter 7)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xviii.iii.vii.html?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1&scrV=17#xviii.iii.vii-p5.1

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Dear friends, no one is trying to argue that human nature hasn’t been injured by original sin. But I must say that it is really a stretch to compare the celibate Augustine with the “Pope of Geneva” (or the “Pope of Wittenberg”) regarding the degree to which this damage has affected our natures. And this difference between Augustine and the reformers will, I believe, become vastly more apparent if and when I begin posting citations from Augustine, as well as numerous other holy Fathers, from the important work by the French Jesuit, Emil Mersch, entitled, The Whole Christ.

For the moment, I would simply offer the following for your consideration. This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia - Teaching of St. Augustine of Hippo (my formatting, of course! )

We must note here that even Protestant critics … have in these latter times vindicated Augustine from the false interpretations of Calvin.

Dorner, in his “Gesch. der prot. Théologie,” had already shown the instinctive repugnance of Anglican theologians to the horrible theories of Calvin. W. Cunningham (Saint Austin, p. 82 sqq.) has very frankly called attention to the complete doctrinal opposition on fundamental points which exists between the Doctor of Hippo and the French Reformers. …

For the Reformers, original sin is not a sin, it is the sin, and the permanent sin, living in us and causing a continual stream of new sins to spring from our nature, which is radically corrupt and evil. For, as our being is evil, every act of ours is equally evil.

Thus, the Protestant theologians do not ordinarily speak of the sins of mankind, but only of the sin, which makes us what we are and defiles everything. Hence arose the paradox of Luther: that even in an act of perfect charity a man sins mortally, because he acts with a vitiated nature. Hence that other paradox: that this sin can never be effaced, but remains entire,*** even after justification***, although it will not be any longer imputed; to efface it, it would be necessary to modify physically this human being which is sin.

Calvin, without going so far as Luther, has nevertheless insisted on this total corruption.

“Let it stand, therefore, as an indubitable truth which no engines can shake,” says he (Institution II, v, § 19), “that the mind of man is so entirely alienated from the righteousness of God that he cannot conceive, desire, or design anything but what is weak, distorted, foul, impure or iniquitous, that his heart is so thoroughly environed by sin that it can breathe out nothing but corruption and rottenness; that if some men occasionally make a show of goodness their mind is ever interwoven with hypocrisy and deceit, their soul inwardly bound with the fetters of wickedness.”

“Now,” says Cunningham, “this doctrine, whatever there may be to be said for it, is not the doctrine of Saint Austin. He held that sin is the *defect of a good nature *which retains elements of goodness, even in its most diseased and corrupted state, and he gives no countenance, whatever to this modern opinion of total depravity.”

It is the same with Calvin’s affirmation of the irresistible action of God on the will. Cunningham shows that these doctrines are irreconcilable with liberty and responsibility, whereas, on the contrary, “St. Austin is careful to attempt to harmonize the belief in God’s omnipotence with human responsibility” (St. Austin, p. 86).

The Council of Trent was therefore faithful to the true spirit of the African Doctor, and maintained pure Augustinism in the bosom of the Church, by Its definitions against the two opposite excesses. Against Pelagianism it reaffirmed original sin and the absolute necessity of grace (Sess. VI, can. 2); against Protestant predestinationism it proclaimed the freedom of man, with his double power of resisting grace (posse dissentire si velit – Sess. VI, can. 4) and of doing good or evil, even before embracing the Faith (can. 6 and 7).

newadvent.org/cathen/02091a.htm

And again:

All advocates of heretical predestinarianism, from Lucidus and Gottschalk to Calvin, have appealed to Augustine as their crown-witness, while Catholic theologians see in Augustine’s teaching at most only a predestination to glory, with which the later “negative reprobation” to hell is parallel. Augustine is entirely free from Calvin’s idea that God positively predestined the damned to hell or to sin.

Semipelagianism – Catholic Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/13703a.htm

For reference, see also these words of Luther:

After sin free will exists in name only and when it does what in it lies it sins mortally.

Unhappy free will! When a just man does a good deed, he sins mortally, as we have seen, and free will boasts that before justification it is something and can do something. Oh, wretched are they who condemn my article, which rests on the first sentence of chapter 4 in Augustine’s Concerning the Spirit and the Letter: “Free will without grace can do nothing but sin.”

I ask you, what sort of freedom is it that can choose only one alternative, and that the worse one? Does freedom mean to be able to do nothing but sin? But let us say I don’t believe Augustine. Let us listen to Scripture. In John 15:5] Christ says: “Without me you can do nothing.” What is this “nothing” which free will does without Christ? It prepares itself for grace, they say, by morally good works. But here Christ calls these nothing; therefore it prepares itself by nothing. A marvelous preparation that is accomplished by nothing!

*An Assertion of all the Articules of Martin Luther Which Were Quite Recently Condemned by a Bull of Leo X, Article 36.

Assertio omnium articulorum Martinin Lutheri per bullam Leonix x, novissimam damnatorum, articulus 36.*

Controversies: De Libero Arbitrio & Hyperaspistes, in The Collected Works of Erasmus, Charles Edward Trinkaus, Peter Macardle, Clarence Harvey Miller, University of Toronto Press, 1999, ISBN 0802043178, 9780802043177, vol. 76, p. 301.

---

*Were all those living under the Papacy kneaded together, not one would be found who had remained chaste up to his fortieth year. Yet they talk much of virginity and find fault with all the world while they themselves are up to their ears in filth.

It pleases me to see the Saints sticking in the mud just like us. But it is true that God allows nature to remain, together with the spirit and with grace. *

• Luther

In Luther, Hartmann Grisar, 1913, vol. 3, p. 251.
archive.org/details/luthergris03grisuoft

 

[WarriorAngel]

I have a question in regards to Augustine’s view of free will and Predestination.

From what I understand, Augustine supported Free will because he talked about how one will be accountable of his owns actions and how without free will would limit God’s grace. But his views on Predestination is where I become confused. I can agree with predestination as far as believing that everyone is under God’s control, but the idea of God creating some people just for the purpose of condemning them and creating others just for he purpose of saving them without their cooperation is something I am having issues with. I always thought that the root of Predestination comes from misunderstanding’s Augustine’s teaching on free will and predestination But with all of this, where does Augustine stand on predestination or “double predestination”. Why and How does the Calvinist view they’re idea of predestination and Augustine’s to be similar?

Did Augustine support predestination and abandon his support of free will later of his life?

Where does the Church agree wit Augustine’s view and where does the Church disagree?

Thank you.

Some time ago - i did a reading of St Augustine. He can be confusing - but he wasn’t saying we as individuals were predestined to have a certain course that God prepared for us…
But humanity was predestined to be saved from the start of sin.

And because God is outside of time - He already knows our choices - but He doesnt interfer with them.

He knows our free will and He knows us…

Basically i have seen it said that God looks at the world as though looking at a ruler from one end to the other. He sees the beginning to the end. He knows it - He doesn’t choose it.
We do.

Maybe that will help you understand.

 

[SyCarl]

Some time ago - i did a reading of St Augustine. He can be confusing - but he wasn’t saying we as individuals were predestined to have a certain course that God prepared for us…
But humanity was predestined to be saved from the start of sin.

And because God is outside of time - He already knows our choices - but He doesnt interfer with them.

He knows our free will and He knows us…

Basically i have seen it said that God looks at the world as though looking at a ruler from one end to the other. He sees the beginning to the end. He knows it - He doesn’t choose it.
We do.

Maybe that will help you understand.

In On the Predestination of the Saints, Augustine clarified his earlier writings and wrote that God did not base predestination on His foreknowledge of what we would do but of what He would do.

‘For it is ours to believe and to will, but it is His to give to those who believe and will, the power of doing good works through the Holy Spirit, by whom love is shed abroad in our hearts,’—is true indeed; but by the same rule both are also God’s, because God prepares the will; and both are ours too, because they are only brought about with our good wills. And thus what I subsequently said also: ‘Because we are not able to will unless we are called; and when, after our calling, we would will, our willing is not sufficiently nor our running, unless God gives strength to us that run, and leads us whither He calls us;’ and thereupon added: ‘It is plain, therefore, that it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy, that we do good works’—this is absolutely most true. But I discovered little concerning the calling itself, which is according to God’s purpose; for not such is the calling of all that are called, but only of the elect. Therefore what I said a little afterwards: ‘For as in those whom God elects it is not works but faith that begins the merit so as to do good works by the gift of God, so in those whom He condemns, unbelief and impiety begin the merit of punishment, so that even by way of punishment itself they do evil works’—I spoke most truly. But that even the merit itself of faith was God’s gift, I neither thought of inquiring into, nor did I say. And in another place I say: ‘For whom He has mercy upon, He makes to do good works, and whom He hardeneth He leaves to do evil works; but that mercy is bestowed upon the preceding merit of faith, and that hardening is applied to preceding iniquity.’ And this indeed is true; but it should further have been asked, whether even the merit of faith does not come from God’s mercy,—that is, whether that mercy is manifested in man only because he is a believer, or whether it is also manifested that he may be a believer? For we read in the apostle’s words: ‘I obtained mercy to be a believer.’. He does not say, ‘Because I was a believer.’ Therefore although it is given to the believer, yet it has been given also that he may be a believer.

Chapter 7

Why, then, does He not teach all that they may come to Christ, except because all whom He teaches, He teaches in mercy, while those whom He teaches not, in judgment He teaches not? Since, “On whom He will He has mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.”. But He has mercy when He gives good things. He hardens when He recompenses what is deserved. Or if, as some would prefer to distinguish them, those words also are his to whom the apostle says, “Thou sayest then unto me,” so that he may be regarded as having said, “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will, and whom He will He hardeneth,” as well as those which follow,—to wit, “What is it that is still complained of? for who resists His will?” does the apostle answer, “O man, what thou hast said is false?” No; but he says, “O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Doth the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump?" and what follows, which you very well know.

Chapter 14

For what is it that the apostle says, “As He hath chosen us in Himself before the foundation of the world”? And assuredly, if this were said because God foreknew that they would believe, not because He Himself would make them believers, the Son is speaking against such a foreknowledge as that when He says, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you;” when God should rather have foreknown this very thing, that they themselves would have chosen Him, so that they might deserve to be chosen by Him. Therefore they were elected before the foundation of the world with that predestination in which God foreknew what He Himself would do; but they were elected out of the world with that calling whereby God fulfilled that which He predestinated. For whom He predestinated, them He also called, with that calling, to wit, which is according to the purpose.

Chapter 34
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xxi.ii.html

Elsewhere he says much more briefly:

These are the great works of the Lord, sought out according to all His pleasure, and so wisely sought out, that when the intelligent creation, both angelic and human, sinned, doing not His will but their own, He used the very will of the creature which was working in opposition to the Creator’s will as an instrument for carrying out His will, the supremely Good thus turning to good account even what is evil, to the condemnation of those whom in His justice He has predestined to punishment, and to the salvation of those whom in His mercy He has predestined to grace.

The Enchiridion, Chapter 100
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.iv.ii.cii.html

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

In On the Predestination of the Saints, Augustine clarified his earlier writings and wrote that God did not base predestination on His foreknowledge of what we would do but of what He would do.

Chapter 7

Chapter 14

Chapter 34
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xxi.ii.html

Elsewhere he says much more briefly:

The Enchiridion, Chapter 100
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.iv.ii.cii.html

We can’t follow God’s will without his help, but we can choose to ask for his help.

Written after all of the above quotes:

This is the purport of what the Scripture says: If you will, you shall keep the commandments; Sirach 15:15 so that the man who wills but is not able knows that he does not yet fully will, and prays that he may have so great a will that it may suffice for keeping the commandments. And thus, indeed, he receives assistance to perform what he is commanded.

newadvent.org/fathers/1510.htm

---

 

[humble_in_doubt]

…which, of course, again goes to the heart of this whole notion of “guaranteed salvation!”

the bible does not preach guaranteed salvation & neither did Calvin. You can misrepresent his doctrines all you want … from reading your posts you don’t even seem very familiar with Catholic doctrine (so I suppose I shouldn’t expect you to understand Calvin, who wrote thousands of pages on this topic).

At any rate … I’m not going to step in the shoes of a protestant and argue with you about who was more right in interpreting a fairy tale. My feeling is … who cares?

Ah yes, great question! And the answer to which can only be found in the Incarnation, and in how one defines Christ!

But the subject of the Mystical Body of Christ or the “whole Christ” (to use Augustine’s phrase), is * deep* indeed, and therefore best left for another thread.

you mean because you don’t know the answer? The irony of an atheist who knows more about Christian theology than a hard core Catholic is quite amusing.

However, I will say that an understanding of the Mystical Body is absolutely essential to a full and proper understanding of the meaning of the Incarnation - an understanding which, sadly, the Protestant mind is utterly devoid of.

and apparently your mind seems devoid of it as well? I guess you better get to reading huh

Indeed, all heresies have at their root this thorough lack of understanding, this thorough blindness regarding this most fundamental idea, which lies at the very heart of the Christian faith.

gotta love religion. You preach peace and love out of one side of your mouth & call other Christians heretics out of the other.

Quite the contrary; it is wholly inconsistent with Luther’s teaching!

“I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture.”

and in fact it is not barred by scripture (only pastors were limited to one wife). However, the idea of one wife long predated Christianity.

Little wonder therefore that Luther would later admit:

“I am compelled to confess it; my doctrine has produced many scandals.”

You obviously know little of the history of the reformation, beyond the propaganda you’re fed by your church. It’s pretty easy to dig up short quotes made by Luther & use it against him. However, I can do the same with almost every Catholic saint. However, when you read the paragraph, and entire essay or book, then the context becomes clear.

The hypocrisy of you people is just over the top. You want to be forgiven for slipping up, you want to find people who are the most likely to remain loyal to their spouses, go find a group of atheists (because you won’t find any of that among Christians, well except maybe Mormons).

But let us arise from the Gadarene depths, and instead, hear the holy words of Christ!

"Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes". 10:13

and how exactly does repentance equate with penance?

And of the celibate Paul:

“But I chastise my body and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.” 1 Cor. 9:27

Paul was discussing his personal experiences, he wasn’t enumerating a doctrine that required some sort of penance for sins. Penance is punishment; and the idea has always been that man is incapable of atoning for our own sins. Anyway …

And it is interesting to note that, in the book of Revelation, the “two witnesses” are depicted as wearing sackcloth, the very symbol of the deepest penance!

it’s no wonder you didn’t actually pull the verse, since the word it uses translates to prophesy. Man … you’re embarrassing yourself.

“And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.” Rev. 11:3

yeah and? Where’s the word or even inference to penance in this verse?

As I have just shown above, doing penance goes against, not Scripture, but Protestantism, not to mention the Fathers!

all you’ve shown is that you’re far from a theologian …

As for the meaning of Christ’s sacrifice, again, this can only be properly understood with regard to the doctrine of the Incarnation and the Mystical Body - a notion that, even if not utterly lost on the reformers and their benighted followers, was nevertheless so mutilated and twisted by them as to reduce it to little more than the most wicked form of idolatry!

more of that peace and love huh? Kill the heretics … burn them alive … urrrr. Insanity!

But who was Calvin, but a mere man with no authority whatsoever, and who showed himself to have a most untenable view of human nature when he wrote:

“Let it stand therefore as an indubitable truth, which no engines can shake, that the mind of man is so entirely alienated from the righteousness of God that he cannot conceive, desire, or design anything but what is wicked, distorted, foul, impure, and iniquitous; that his heart is so thoroughly envenomed by sin, that it can breathe out nothing but corruption and rottenness; that if some men occasionally make a show of goodness, their mind is ever interwoven with hypocrisy and deceit, their soul inwardly bound with the fetters of wickedness.”

unfortunately that’s exactly what the bible states … you should try reading it sometime.

In any event, I must reemphasize that Christ’s redemptive actions simply cannot be rightly understood apart from the Church’s teaching on the “whole Christ.”

yeah yeah … your church is right and everyone else is wrong. Gee I never heard that one before?

As soon as I can gather some preliminary material, I’ll introduce this very important topic in another thread.

sounds like you gotta lot of work to do

I have to admit … bigotry really upsets me (when I hear such hatred I can’t help but to challenge it, even if in defense of a religion [or denomination] I think is utterly false). When the good people remain silent, the ignorant and unstable take over.

 

[SyCarl]

We can’t follow God’s will without his help, but we can choose to ask for his help.

Written after all of the above quotes:

This is the purport of what the Scripture says: If you will, you shall keep the commandments; Sirach 15:15 so that the man who wills but is not able knows that he does not yet fully will, and prays that he may have so great a will that it may suffice for keeping the commandments. And thus, indeed, he receives assistance to perform what he is commanded.

newadvent.org/fathers/1510.htm

---

In the same work Augustine goes on to say:

I think I have now discussed the point fully enough in opposition to those who vehemently oppose the grace of God, by which, however, the human will is not taken away, but changed from bad to good, and assisted when it is good. I think, too, that I have so discussed the subject, that it is not so much I myself as the inspired Scripture which has spoken to you, in the clearest testimonies of truth; and if this divine record be looked into carefully, it shows us that not only men’s good wills, which God Himself converts from bad ones, and, when converted by Him, directs to good actions and to eternal life, but also those which follow the world are so entirely at the disposal of God, that He turns them whithersoever He wills, and whensoever He wills,— to bestow kindness on some, and to heap punishment on others, as He Himself judges right by a counsel most secret to Himself, indeed, but beyond all doubt most righteous.

Augustine says that God changes man’s will from bad to good. He turns man’s will whatever way He wishes, some to bestow kindness and others to heap punishment.