CALLING THE ATTENTION OF Mr. JIMMY AKIN

  • Thread starter Thread starter Procorus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi there. I read the site. They completely slander and assume the worst of Akin. They do not back up what they say with any official Church quotes or substantial argument. I’ve read Akin’s post and it is much more thoughtful and is very insightful. Akin NEVER accepts TULIP. Rather, he discusses in what ways TULIP is similar to Catholicism and in what ways TULIP is completely wrong. Akin’s ideas can be found in the Summa Theologica or some of the writings of other Scholastic theologians. The fact is that Thomism IS similar to Calvinism in some points. There are various ways a Catholic can understand predestination, free will, grace, etc. One can be an Augustinian, a Thomist, a Molinist, etc. It has NOT been officially defined. All that has been said is what we CAN’T believe about Calvinism, and a few things that we must believe. Akin agrees with all of this completely. These people should not be spreading falsehoods or questioning Akin’s orthodoxy.
 
This blogger misses the very Catholicity he accuses Jimmy Akin of missing. Namely, it is totally acceptable to disagree with Jimmy Akin but it is equally permissible to disagree with him. When we consider that the very name Catholic means universal, we must accept those that we do not agree with, yet are without heresy. There is a wide range of acceptable belief in this area with this Molinist on one end and Aquinas on the other. Jimmy Akin does not hold to double predestination and is not a Calvinist. He is more of a Thomist. Perhaps instead of the article, the blogger should have spent the money on The Salvation Controversy.

shop.catholic.com/product.php?productid=198&cat=0&page=1

It is a good book, btw, and treats the issue with more clarity and catholicism than the blog. Namely, it does not take a side but rather presents the acceptable Catholic range of ideas.

I was not please to find this little ad hominem in the article:
Why is Akin’s theology on other topics generally reliable, but on this topic so thoroughly erroneous? Jimmy Akin is a convert to Catholicism from Calvinism. All converts to Catholicism from Protestantism, or from other religions, must struggle with the differences between their former beliefs and their new beliefs.
Click to expand...
 
Isn’t there something in Canon Law that states disagreement with Akin is an excommunicatable offense now? 😛 I’ve never seen it done! 😃
 
pnewton said:
This blogger misses the very Catholicity he accuses Jimmy Akin of missing. Namely, it is totally acceptable to disagree with Jimmy Akin but it is equally permissible to disagree with him. When we consider that the very name Catholic means universal, we must accept those that we do not agree with, yet are without heresy. There is a wide range of acceptable belief in this area with this Molinist on one end and Aquinas on the other. Jimmy Akin does not hold to double predestination and is not a Calvinist. He is more of a Thomist. Perhaps instead of the article, the blogger should have spent the money on The Salvation Controversy.
Click to expand...
Here is Akin’s article A Tiptoe through TULIP, copyright Catholic Answers & found in the EWTN library. True these connexions don’t constitute an imprimatur nor nihil obstat but I doubt either one would publish anything heterodox.
 
didymus said:
Here is Akin’s article A Tiptoe through TULIP, copyright Catholic Answers & found in the EWTN library. True these connexions don’t constitute an imprimatur nor nihil obstat but I doubt either one would publish anything heterodox.
Click to expand...
In 1594 the dispute between the Thomists and the Molinists reached a fever heat. Pope Clement VIII in order to settle the dispute convened in Rome a Congregatio de Auxiliis (1598-1607), and to this the Dominicans and the Jesuits sent, at the pope’s invitation, their ablest theologians. After the congregation had been in session for nine years without reaching a conclusion, Paul V, at the advice of St. Francis de Sales, permitted both systems, strongly forbidding the Jesuits to call the Dominicans Calvinists, or the Dominicans to call the Jesuits Pelagians. The deliberations of the congregation are fully set out in the article CONGREGATIO DE AUXILIIS[Catholic Encyclopaedia]

In view of the above, providing the link Tulip, was in my opinion inopportune; and the reading of such may cause the unwary unnecessary anxiety.
 
paduard said:
In 1594 the dispute between the Thomists and the Molinists reached a fever heat. Pope Clement VIII in order to settle the dispute convened in Rome a Congregatio de Auxiliis (1598-1607), and to this the Dominicans and the Jesuits sent, at the pope’s invitation, their ablest theologians. After the congregation had been in session for nine years without reaching a conclusion, Paul V, at the advice of St. Francis de Sales, permitted both systems, strongly forbidding the Jesuits to call the Dominicans Calvinists, or the Dominicans to call the Jesuits Pelagians. The deliberations of the congregation are fully set out in the article CONGREGATIO DE AUXILIIS[Catholic Encyclopaedia]

In view of the above, providing the link Tulip, was in my opinion inopportune; and the reading of such may cause the unwary unnecessary anxiety.
Click to expand...
The dispute was “settled” by providing for either view?
 
paduard said:
In crude terms the dispute was settled by telling both sides to ‘shut up’.
Click to expand...
No. Re-read what was asked. Only the uncharitable characterization of each other was prohibited. Discussion is still allowed on the subject to this day. However, it is very un-catholic to be uncharitable, and illogical to engage in ad hominem, like calling Jimmy Akin a Calvinist.
 
pnewton said:
No. Re-read what was asked. Only the uncharitable characterization of each other was prohibited. Discussion is still allowed on the subject to this day. However, it is very un-catholic to be uncharitable, and illogical to engage in ad hominem, like calling Jimmy Akin a Calvinist.
Click to expand...
I agree entirely with what you are saying about being uncharitable and that JA should not be called a Calvinist.

I do not necessarily agree with 'Only the uncharitable characterization of each other was prohibited. Discussion is still allowed on the subject to this day. And still think that providing the link was imprudent; but that’s just my opinion.

This is not just a theological matter; in reality it should come under the science of mystical theology; not philosophy.

Regards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top