E
estesbob
Guest
Sounds a lot like those who adhere to OSAS although they get to write their name in the book with indelible ink.
- Status
T
Truthstalker
Guest
You can only follow if God has already given you the grace to do so. In no way do you power your own salvation. You sound like a Pelagian, being responsible for your own salvation.
IF eating turnips were a requirement for the elect to get into heaven, God would make sure the elect ate their turnips. IF free choice is required to choose God, then God will work under the surface to see that the elect choose rightly. We cannot choose rightly without the help of God.
God will, in your scenario, cause the elect to pick up their crosses and follow. Yet they will do it by their own free will, as His sovereignty trumps their free will. Everything is subject to God, even the free will of man. God works all things for good to those who love Him, who are called according to His purposes. You seem to think the universe is out of His control.
Catholics refer to the “gift of final perseverance.” It is a gift, not a choice. In my explorations of Catholic theology I have not yet determined if it makes Catholics Calvinists, as only the elect get the gift, and God chooses who gets the gift.
You can do absolutely nothing to assure your salvation. You can only trust God. Paradoxically, the latter will help the former. But you cannot trust God without His help. Realizing you have a problem here is an indication that He is working in you, because the damned simply do not care about such things. I know many of people who are simply spiritually asleep and refuse to wake up.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
My Calvinist-pastor-turned-atheist friend also said “I trust Christ.” But then he later denied the existence of God. Was his earlier affirmation that he trusted Christ enough for Him?
Does “belief on Christ” translate to mean only a one-time expression of “trust?” Or does it mean something more? Surely God asks us to trust Him. But doesn’t He ask much more? Problem with the “Is that enough” question is that it tries to take Christianity and fit it all into one word…trust, which might imply a one-time, past tense response to Christ. If Christianity could be translated into the word trust, we wouldn’t need all those other words in the Bible, no?
Scripture elsewhere teaches us…
Jn 6:37 states, “All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out.”
If you come to Jesus, he won’t cast you out. However, this word “come” is not a past tense word according to the ancient Greek.
A Calvinist author explains this passage:
, 10-11]
Anyone who continuously [that is, **perseveringly] comes to Jesus will not be cast out by Jesus. That’s absolutely true. That’s Augustinian teaching. The elect are those who, having been given the gift of perseverance by God Himself, will never be cast out by Jesus.
However, does anybody know with absolute certainty that they are among those who not only have been given the gift of faith by God, but also have been given the gift of final perseverance?
According to St. Augustine, as consistently held by Catholic teaching to this day, unless given a special revelation by God himself, the faithful cannot know with absolute certainty that they’ve been given the gift of final perseverance as long as they still live in a wayfairing state here on earth. One can have hopeful confidence, but to claim absolute certainty is the sin of presumption.
Christians should understand that, according to Scripture, it is possible to “fall from grace” and become “severed from Christ” (Gal 5:4), even if they were, as St. Paul affirmed, "all sons of God* through faith in Christ Jesus**…you are all one in Christ Jesus.* " (Gal 3:26-28)
So, St. Paul warns the “sons of God” they may be “severed from Christ.” Consequently, St. Paul and St. Augustine were preaching the same Christian doctrine.
According to St. Augustine:
, ch. 1]
In the final analysis, only “he who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt 24:13)
T
Truthstalker
Guest
Here’s part of the Westminster Confession of Faith, accused by many of being Calvinistic:
T
Truthstalker
Guest
You seem to have written him off. That does not mean God has. He may yet repent (which should be our prayer).
Trust is an ongoing process, not a temporal singularity. Calvinists separate justification and sanctification notionally but regard them as one thing. What Catholics mean by justification is what Calvinists mean by sanctification.
I agree that the Christian life is, well, a life in Christ (sounds insipid, but that is who I am). A one minute altar call response followed by forty years of sin doesn’t cut it. But then again, it is up to God. If He has decided to save someone, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
You can look as the section of the WCF(XIII 1) I posted and notice something. Although the elect have the full confidence in their salvation, the non-elect can feel like they have that confidence. And the elect can feel like they don’t have that confidence. So the question naturally arises as to whether the confidence that I have is a false confidence or a true confidence. That inspires an examination of the soul that can be, by its object and vigor and intensity, far beyond any esamination I have seen Catholics make regarding confession, as every sin is a mortal sin, and every imperfection or blemish is a sin. Scrupulosity in spades. So you ask yourself, am I deluded, deceived, damned? You can only trust Christ to rescue you.
Since He came to destroy the works of the devil and to save sinners, it is presumption to assume He will not save you, and He is a liar in regard to His promises. So you can be guilty of presumption in claiming security, and guilty of presumption in denying it. In any case you are guilty, and there is only one way out. Christ.
In the final analysis, God makes sure the elect make it to heaven. Otherwise they would not be the elect. So a Calvinist would say the elect are given the gift of final perseverance, and no others are.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
You assume too much.
The WCF includes the Calvinist implication that God only gives his sanctifying grace to the elect only. This is contrary to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and is a novelty of Calvinist theology, which is rejected as heretical by even non-Calvinist Protestants. The overwhelming majority of Christians reject this heresy.
Which means the so-called “eternal security” is an absurd claim.
That you presume to think a Catholic examination of soul is something examinable by yourself or any other is absurd. It’s private examination, which nobody but God can judge.
Hope is the virtue which is between the sinful extremes of despair and presumption. That’s why authentic Christian doctrine is that which emphasized “hope” not the Calvinist novelty of “eternal security,” nor the poverty of hope called “despair.” Hope is taught in Sacred Scripture, not the Calvinist claim of “eternal security.”
Agreed. But contrary to Calvinist claims, God predestines some to receive justifying faith through sanctifying grace, who may not be among the elect. This is the constant teaching of Scripture, early fathers such as St. Augustine, later doctors such as St. Thomas Aquinas, and century upon century of countless other Christians up to the novel claims of Calvinisim.
Calvinist preaching pretends these who were truly baptized in Christ weren’t “really” Christian at all. That’s an absurd conclusion which has no basis in Sacred Scripture. The Christian of Galatia were called by Paul “sons of God.” They were really Christians, yet Paul warned them that they may be “severed from Christ.” He warned these Christians which he testified were “sons of God” to not “gratify the desires of the flesh” (Gal 5:16), affirming that “those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”
So do Catholics. However, Calvinists go well beyond that. Since we are justified by faith that worketh charity, then those who are justified by faith are really Christian. Those justified by faith DO receive sanctifying grace from God. Yet, they do not all necessarily receive the gift of perseverance.
Calvinist heresy is to claim that grace is “irresistible” so they therefore conclude that only the elect (limited atonement) receive grace from God. That’s contrary to Scripture, as Paul’s letter to the “Sons of God” at Galatia make clear.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
Usually. The way I read what you wrote, you regard him as done for, and proof that a fallen-away Calvinist is that way forever.
This is indeed a problem. You might be interested in reading A. McGrath’s Iustitia Dei which details the history of the doctrine of justification. He traces the reformation theology from its roots in the via moderna of the late 15th century. As for me, I am trying hard to figure out what is going on. The Calvinist “novelties” are generally extensions of Augustine’s thought, though Augustine was not willing to go as far as Calvin did, and are not exclusive to Calvinism, but generally were ideas being batted about in the Church in the centuries before the reformation. Calvin did not wake up one morning and say, “hey, I think I’ll be a heretic.”
Not if it’s true.
I am often absurd. I got a little hyperbolic there. You are right. The point is that Calvinists take sin very, very serious and in no way can be called antinomialist. That would sort of be like calling Catholics pro-abortion.
Actually they find eternal security in the Scriptures. Would you like the standard barrage of textual citations? Or do you have better things to do with your time than to try to take it apart, and then me take apart your taking apart, and then you taking apart my taking apart, until, exhausted, we get frustrated and nasty with each other and put each other on our Ignore lists? That is the usual pattern.
I tend to agree with this, which is why I hesitate to call myself a Calvinist. If one, then lightly fried rather than hard-boiled. But the situation is more complicated than that, as I believe you know. The elect cannot lose their salvation. I am not sure that Calvin maintained that grace was excluded from the unsaved: I think that was later than Calvin, but I don’t remember right off. I think in Calvinistic thought God may give someone a measure of grace for His own glory, and then go ahead and damn him anyway. That sounds bad, but it also the Catholic position.
One interesting thing about Calvinism that makes it complicated is it is possible to argue that Calvin was not a Calvinist. His theology, as I read it, is much closer to Rome’s than modern Calvinism. There are also many strands and schools of thought within Calvinism, much like Catholicism. And the Catholicism of Calvin’s time was much closer to Calvinism than today’s Catholicism is, also. Good old doctrinal development.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
In my discussions with him, and in hearing the criticism he received from other Calvinists, the Calvinists unanimously claimed he was never “born again” to begin with. Yet, I found their stance rather silly, as he was a seminarian trained Calvinist pastor, and preached the same thing these other Calvinists did but even more confidently. How did these other Calvinists know that their so-called “confidence” today about their own “born again” condition is not also “bogus” as they claimed that his was? It seems to me a bunch of double-speak.
As for me, I don’t think God is done with him yet. But the entire episode pointed to the aburdity of Calvinist claims of “eternal security.”
True “extensions” cannot be contradictory to what they claim to be extensions of. Yet, Calvin contradicted Augustine. They aren’t therefore “extenstions” but distortions, contradictions, oppositions, rejections, etc.
Calvinists scholars often (and its seems desperately) try to show how Calvin wasn’t so novel after all, claiming that his doctrines were nothing more than Augustine’s teachings. Yet, its unconvincing to anyone remotely familiar with Augustine’s teaching.
With regard to Augustine’s doctine on grace, Calvinist preacher C.H. Spurgeon wrote: "Augustine obtained his views, without doubt, through the Spirit of God, from the diligent study of the writings of Paul, and Paul received them of the Holy Ghost, from Jesus Christ the great founder of the Christian dispensation. " (CH Spurgeon, Exposition of the Doctrines of Grace, Sermon no. 385, April 11th, 1861).
I agree.
John Calvin is quoted as saying, " “Augustine is so completely of our persuasion, that if I should have to make written profession, it would be quite enough to present a composition made up entirely of excerpts from his writings.”
I wish Calvin would have stuck strictly to excerpts of Augustine.
Augustine and Calvin disagreed with regard to the doctrine on grace. To claim that Calvinism derived from Augustine’s doctrine on grace is as absurd as insisting that Arminianism derived from Calvinism. If they are in opposition to each other, then one cannot be rightly said to derive from the other.
Augustine believed the baptized are truly justified, regenerated in Christ even as infants, and thereby given the sanctifying grace of Christ. Yet, Augustine knew and taught that those baptized, and therefore sanctified by Christ do not necessarily persevere to the end to attain eternal life. Calvin’s claims are in opposition to Augustine’s teaching.
I agree. However, ironically I had to make this very point to a self-proclaimed Calvinist at my office the other day, who insisted that even if he committed the grave sin of contraception it didn’t matter, because he was already “saved” by Christ.
After which, I quoted Calvin’s teaching that such a sin was “monstrous,” likened to extinguishing "the hope of the [human] race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring.” (John Calvin, repudiating the sin of contraception). After additionally explaining what Calvin and others such as CH Spurgeon taught regarding one’s obligation toward the “obedience of faith” he was less certain of his professed antinomianist position.
So it seems that while Calvin was not antinomianist, many less informed Calvnists tend to be.
Agreed. Catholics can certainly affirm, “once elect, always elect.” However, we don’t agree with the Calvinists that “saved” is the same thing as “elect.” So we disagree with “once saved, always saved.”
Calvin couldn’t seem to admit, as did Augustine and St. Paul, that someone could receive the real grace of Christ, have real faith, be called real “sons of God,” but then perhaps through sins of the flesh, NOT inherit the kingdom of God. Instead John Calvin taught," there is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent” (3.2.11, Institutes). In other words, he could never admit that the real grace of Christ could be “evanescent” but only admitted that which only appeared to be grace, what he called “a present sense of grace” was evanescent.
continued…
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
continued…
For instance, Augustine taught that those given real grace, could also attain the gift of perseverence, if only they will it. That they failed to received the gift of perseverance was due to their poor use of free will.
According to St. Augustine:
Since Calvinist hold to “irresistible grace,” I don’t think this is correct.
Not quite. I recommend reading Augustine. Perhaps you will be a better student of him than Calvin.
For instance, Augustine taught that those given real grace, could also attain the gift of perseverence, if only they will it. That they failed to received the gift of perseverance was due to their poor use of free will.
According to St. Augustine:
Augustine seems to insist that all the just (those given the saving grace of regeneration) are able to persevere if they will it:
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
T
Truthstalker
Guest
I appreciate the long reply.
The elect are eternally secure. They always have been, always will be. That’s not absurd. Those in heaven will look around at each other and say that those in heaven are there.
Re “evanescent grace”: I have not explored this enough to comment.
I think the gift of final perseverance is exactly that, a gift, and is not merited, but is given only to the elect. Consider the following:
One problem I have with this argument is its anecdotal nature. One fallen preacher does not disprove the efficacy of the salvation of all the others. Theologically, we cannot know what his fate will be. Will he repent? Only God knows for sure. If he repents, will they reverse themselves and say he had been saved all along? I don’t know.
The elect are eternally secure. They always have been, always will be. That’s not absurd. Those in heaven will look around at each other and say that those in heaven are there.
I am reading through Augustine. My earlier comparison of Calvin with his cited sources in the CI was less than satisfactory, and was a driving factor in my near-conversion to Catholicism.True …I wish Calvin would have stuck strictly to excerpts of Augustine.
While Calvin leaned hevily on Augustine, Augustine was not his sole source. The Catholic Church does not agree with everything Augustine wrote, either.
Theological study seems to be out of fashion, among both Catholics and Protestants. Many CAF threads drive me nuts between ignorant Catholics and ignorant Protestants, when neither side knows their own theology, let alone anything about the other’s.
For me this is a serious issue. I know absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, from the core of my being, that Jesus has saved me, is saving me, will save me; that I am of the elect and that this is nothing of my work, choice, will or anything in me, of me or from me. I find the same thing in David in the Psalms and in Paul. If I am deluded in this I am deluded in having two hands or having two feet. It is a knowledge, and there is no presumption, just faith, trust and humility. It bothers me that Catholicism excludes this. Seemingly you do not trust Him to bring you home. So if Catholicism is correct, my subjective self-understanding is all wet.
Re “evanescent grace”: I have not explored this enough to comment.
I think the gift of final perseverance is exactly that, a gift, and is not merited, but is given only to the elect. Consider the following:
I just threw that together as I wrote this post. Tomorrow, probably, I will roll my eyes at it. But I would be interested in your response.
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
You can’t read Aquinas like reading the catechism. He is perhaps the most important doctor of the Church, but his words are not necessarily doctrine.
Here’s what the catechism says that directly contradicts Calvinism:
2002 God’s free initiative demands man’s free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man. He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
There are a number of statements here. Which statement, specifically, directly contradicts Calvinism? And what in Calvinism? And I see nothing in here about assurance of election, which is what the thread is supposed to be about.
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
2002 God’s free initiative demands man’s free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man. He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy.
- demands Man’s free response. This contradicts unconditional election and irresistible grace. This means our response is a necessary component of election.
- conferring on him freedom. This contradicts the Calvinist notion that only the elect can be saved.
- The Soul only enters freely into the communion of love. This directly contradicts irresistible grace.
- He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness This means all men, not the elect only. Calvinists believe that the “non elect” do not long for God.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
How do the first statements contradict the second? You haven’t shown the incompatibility. You have merely asserted there is a contradiction, without defining what you mean by the Calvinist concepts you refer to. I am not sure how you are defining them.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
Bear in mind you must distinguish the subtle difference between Thomist and Calvinist thought.
You might want to read
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp
You might want to read
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp
S
severntofall
Guest
I know. I’m not a Christian, but I respect them greatly; however Calvanism is bizarre on top of bizarre.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
Ahhhh…:knight2: Defend your position…
Reality is bizarre. Any accurate representation of it must reflect that.
S
severntofall
Guest
The beliefs of Calvin are in contradiction of numerous scriptural passages indicating that salvation must be achieved by good acts. Obviously this was advice designed to be taken into consideration for this life rather than some previous existence. What’s the point of our current existence, all our pain and suffering if our fate has already been decided? None of this makes any sense if Calvin is correct.
- Status