Crush the TULIP & Defense of Calvinism - a theological exercise to draw us closer to Christ

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2nd_Adam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
2nd_Adam said:
Catholics and Protestants both believe that we don’t come to Christ apart from the draw of God the Holy Spirit. We both reject pelagism in which we come to Christ apart from the work of the Spirit. You see this draw of the Spirit to be resistible. I see this draw which is received by the elect only as being irresistible. What do you think Jesus meant by many are called but few are chosen?
Click to expand...
If the Grace is irresistible, why does God not give it to everyone?
 
2nd_Adam said:
Okay, so what was the big purpose that God did what He did?
Click to expand...
To set His people free and a lesson for us that there will come a time when God will give up on us. He already knew Pharroh wouldn’t change his mind and let the people go lust like H already knows who will choose to accept Him today and those that won’t. But (i believe) that God gives everyone a chance even those He knows won’t accept Him.
 
2nd_Adam said:
In what way did God harden Pharaoh’s heart, actively or passively? If you understand this point, you are on your road of embracing double predestination. Of course Catholics reject double-predestination… but the Catholic Thomist view of predestination is really double predestination in which God withholds a certain kind of grace from the retrobrate.
Click to expand...
Not true at all.

Catholics of course believe in a predestination, but not double.

That would mean something like Judas as predestined to hell as someone else might be predestined to heaven. Bull. Do not think that free will can be removed (replaced by God with no free will). That is just one of the many corners into which Calvin boxed himself.

His particular theology is held mainly by those who add the term “reformed” to their beliefs. Like a reformed Baptist etc.

The confusion with someone like Judas is this:

If God makes all things good (and He does), then it is man who disobeys and sins and jeopardizes his eternal life in heaven. God fore knows who will and who will not, but it is man’s choice to do God’s will or not.

Judas, under a Calvin theory, was created to be traitor to the Jesus and be condemned. But if he did what he was created to do, he was obedient. And he could stand before the Lord and say “Let me into Heaven, for I have done as you created me to do and I am obedient to you.”

God is just. He would not… NOT… create a being intentionally destining that being to hell.

Calvin was confused and heretical on this, among other, teaching.

.
 
tweetymom said:
To set His people free and a lesson for us that there will come a time when God will give up on us. He already knew Pharroh wouldn’t change his mind and let the people go lust like H already knows who will choose to accept Him today and those that won’t. But (i believe) that God gives everyone a chance even those He knows won’t accept Him.
Click to expand...
I hope you don’t teach that in RCIA. As long as we have a free will in this life, God will NEVER give up on us.

We have the individual judgment after death, not before. Even with a dying breath we can turn to God for forgiveness.

Yes God, Who is outside the limits of time and space, does know how we will accept or reject Him, and where we will end up. In the meantime He gives us the grace each of us need to love Him… some more, some less, but each according to our needs.

.
 
MrS said:
Not true at all.

Catholics of course believe in a predestination, but not double.

That would mean something like Judas as predestined to hell as someone else might be predestined to heaven. Bull. Do not think that free will can be removed (replaced by God with no free will). That is just one of the many corners into which Calvin boxed himself.

His particular theology is held mainly by those who add the term “reformed” to their beliefs. Like a reformed Baptist etc.

The confusion with someone like Judas is this:

If God makes all things good (and He does), then it is man who disobeys and sins and jeopardizes his eternal life in heaven. God fore knows who will and who will not, but it is man’s choice to do God’s will or not.

Judas, under a Calvin theory, was created to be traitor to the Jesus and be condemned. But if he did what he was created to do, he was obedient. And he could stand before the Lord and say “Let me into Heaven, for I have done as you created me to do and I am obedient to you.”

God is just. He would not… NOT… create a being intentionally destining that being to hell.

Calvin was confused and heretical on this, among other, teaching.

.
Click to expand...
Let’s please start with Catholic predestination because I truly understand the Thomist view to be a form of double-predestinaton in which God passes over the non-elect.

Predestination and the Catholic Church

by Adam C. Kolasinski

The Catholic Church, following St. Augustine (e.g., Grace and Free Will, 1,1; Sermon 169, 11,13), accepts predestination of the elect to heaven, but also affirms the freedom of the human will, thus staking out a position distinct from Calvinism. Predestination to hell, in Catholicism, always involves man’s free will, and foreseen sins, so that man is ultimately responsible for his own damnation, not God (double predestination is rejected).

The Catholic Church affirms predestination as a de fide dogma (the highest level of binding theological certainty), while at the same time affirming free will and the possibility of falling away from the faith.

But, there is no official teaching on how exactly this comes into play. There are numerous theological schools of thought on the matter, the two major ones being the Thomists and the Molinists. I tend to subscribe to the former. The latter is closer to the Arminian position.

Any theological position on election, however, must conform with the Church’s soteriological teachings. Molinism, Thomism, and Arminianism all conform, Calvinism does not. To conform, your theology must accept the following:
  1. Free will; that is, God allows people to choose him, and allows them to reject them. People always have the option. Thus election, if you believe it, must be an act of persuasion and not compulsion.
  2. Co-operation; it is necessary for salvation for a man to cooperate with God’s grace. Man must continuously allow God’s grace to work in him. If at any point a man prevents this, he falls from grace.
  3. Jesus died for all men, and his sacrifice has the potential of saving all, but his act did not automatically save anyone, only those who choose to accept him.
  4. Man is born in a state of sin, and must be called by God in order to accept Him and thus receive the merits of Christ’s sacrifice.
  5. God predestines no one to Hell. i.e. you can only believe in negative reprobation, not positive.
There are, of course, many other teachings on salvation, but these are the main ones. Thomism, unlike Calvinism, accepts all of them. The main difference between the various schools of thought is how the calling grace of point 4 get dispensed, and its effects. Thomists maintain that God does not bestow it on everyone, while Molinists maintain that he does.

For more on the Catholic Church and Predestination, this essay by Ludwig Ott has more: Catholic Predestination

catholicsource.net/Predestination.html
 
MrS said:
I hope you don’t teach that in RCIA. As long as we have a free will in this life, God will NEVER give up on us.

We have the individual judgment after death, not before. Even with a dying breath we can turn to God for forgiveness.

Yes God, Who is outside the limits of time and space, does know how we will accept or reject Him, and where we will end up. In the meantime He gives us the grace each of us need to love Him… some more, some less, but each according to our needs.

.
Click to expand...
Romans 1: 18-36. Especially28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do things which are not convient
 
tweetymom said:
Romans 1: 18-36. Especially28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do things which are not convient
Click to expand...
Romans 1 is great. Those retrobates knew God!
 
“Draw closer to Christ”—even the Calvinism is in the title! 😃 At least, you’re being honest about your attempt to evangelize Catholics with the “nickname” of the gospel.

Here are the unanswered questions from your other threads:
  1. How can Christ be called the New Adam if he only died for the elect while the first Adam’s original sin affected all of humanity?
  2. You’ve said that humanity is made in fallen Adam’s image, although originally, God created Adam and Eve in the image of Himself with a free will and intellect yet His Sovereignty wasn’t impugned. How can fallen Adam “unmake” God’s own creation by removing his free will?
  3. Adam and Eve have free will and God’s sovereignty isn’t impugned. Clearly, free will and God’s will can be mixed. Furthermore, the elect post regeneration can participate syngestically with God but only in sanctification; another example of how free will and God’s will can be mixed without one polluting the other. Why can’t this be the case now and all the time?
 
tweetymom said:
Romans 1: 18-36. Especially28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do things which are not convient
Click to expand...
Each of the three times St Paul teaches this, he is showing us that God does NOT predestine one to sin, but He acknowledges their free will choice to be turned over to sin. This is not the individual judgment of God, but it is God punishing sinners by handing them over to their sin. The sinner has rejected God’s Grace which was first offered. And of course God in not neutral to sin… He punishes sin.

Double P would support the idea that God would not offer the grace, because He has already determined their fate. Again, that is bull.

By the way, St Paul is dealing with sexual sin in v 24-27, and goes on latter to discuss other types of sins in 28-32

Also, God punished David for the sins of murder and adultry but He never gave up on him.
 
MrS said:
Each of the three times St Paul teaches this, he is showing us that God does NOT predestine one to sin, but He acknowledges their free will choice to be turned over to sin. This is not the individual judgment of God, but it is God punishing sinners by handing them over to their sin. The sinner has rejected God’s Grace which was first offered. And of course God in not neutral to sin… He punishes sin.

Double P would support the idea that God would not offer the grace, because He has already determined their fate. Again, that is bull.

By the way, St Paul is dealing with sexual sin in v 24-27, and goes on latter to discuss other types of sins in 28-32
Click to expand...
By the way I knew what Paul was refering to. No God does not make us sin, but He knows who will accept Him or not.
 
Dancelittleewok said:
“Draw closer to Christ”—even the Calvinism is in the title! 😃 At least, you’re being honest about your attempt to evangelize Catholics with the “nickname” of the gospel.

Here are the unanswered questions from your other threads:
  1. How can Christ be called the New Adam if he only died for the elect while the first Adam’s original sin affected all of humanity?
Click to expand...
I think my translation calls the new Adam as the 2nd Adam. Again, the key biblical revelation to your wonderful question is found in Romans 5, and 1 Cor 15. And yes the first Adam represented all of humanity including Mary (but not Jesus). The New Adam or the 2nd Adam is only applied to the elect, because the non-elect never makes that transition from the 1st Adam to the 2nd Adam. It is only those who are united to Christ are called the new creation; those who remain in the 1st Adam are still part of the old creation.
 
If God wills the salvation of all men, and then actively prevents some from making it, God is a lier and a harsh, evil God.

If Grace is Irresistible, and God does not allow all men access to it, God is a cruel God.

If God gives all men grace sufficient for their salvation, but allows men to choose heaven or hell, He is doing what he can while respecting their free-will. That is a fair God.
 
MrS said:
Not true at all.

Catholics of course believe in a predestination, but not double.

That would mean something like Judas as predestined to hell as someone else might be predestined to heaven. Bull. Do not think that free will can be removed (replaced by God with no free will). That is just one of the many corners into which Calvin boxed himself.

His particular theology is held mainly by those who add the term “reformed” to their beliefs. Like a reformed Baptist etc.

The confusion with someone like Judas is this:

If God makes all things good (and He does), then it is man who disobeys and sins and jeopardizes his eternal life in heaven. God fore knows who will and who will not, but it is man’s choice to do God’s will or not.

Judas, under a Calvin theory, was created to be traitor to the Jesus and be condemned. But if he did what he was created to do, he was obedient. And he could stand before the Lord and say “Let me into Heaven, for I have done as you created me to do and I am obedient to you.”

God is just. He would not… NOT… create a being intentionally destining that being to hell.

Calvin was confused and heretical on this, among other, teaching.

.
Click to expand...
There are quite a few protestant denominations that would share your view of Calvin. 👍
 
ralphinal said:
If God wills the salvation of all men, and then actively prevents some from making it, God is a lier and a harsh, evil God.

If Grace is Irresistible, and God does not allow all men access to it, God is a cruel God.

If God gives all men grace sufficient for their salvation, but allows men to choose heaven or hell, He is doing what he can while respecting their free-will. That is a fair God.
Click to expand...
God doesn’t prevent anyone from accepting Him or grace. But God knows those who are going to accept Him and those that won’t, But I believe He still gives them the chance too.
 
2nd_Adam said:
I think my translation calls the new Adam as the 2nd Adam. Again, the key biblical revelation to your wonderful question is found in Romans 5, and 1 Cor 15. And yes the first Adam represented all of humanity including Mary (but not Jesus). The New Adam or the 2nd Adam is only applied to the elect, because the non-elect never makes that transition from the 1st Adam to the 2nd Adam. It is only those who are united to Christ are called the new creation; those who remain in the 1st Adam are still part of the old creation.
Click to expand...
What a terrible way to minimize the death of Christ. It seems like the Calvinist view is that Christ atonement was not sufficient for all mankind, only for the elect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top