Help me answer an important Calvinist question

Catholic_Heart · Jul 30, 2005

I agree…Your friend is not taking the free will of man in consideration…It is not God who sends a person to hell, it is that person’s willingly turning away from God that does it.

God does desire that all be saved, but has graciously allowed us to decide that matter for ourselves…We can choose to follow Him, or to go another way…It’s totally up to us…We can accept the gift graciously given, or not.

Pax · Jul 30, 2005

Lazerlike42:

Total Depravity - More or less correct, no need to refute

Unconditional Election - Doesn’t matter so much, either
agreement or disagreement is
acceptable for Catholics.

Limited Atonement - 1Jo 2:2 He Himself is the propitiation for our
sins, and not only for ours, but also
for those of the whole world."

Code:

                       - Heb 2:9  But we see Jesus, who was made a 
                                      little lower than the angels for the  
                                      suffering of death, crowned with 
                                      glory and honor; **that he by the 
                                      grace of God should taste death for 
                                      every man.**

Irresistable Grace - Acts 7:51 “You stiff-necked people with
uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are
always resisting the Holy Spirit; as your
forefathers did, so do you.”

Code:

                      - Joh 5:39  Search the Scriptures; for in them 
                                      ye think ye have eternal life: and 
                                      they are they which testify of me. 
                        Joh 5:40 **And ye will not come to me, that ye  
                                     might have life.**

Perserverence of the Saints -

Code:

                             Phi 2:11 - And that **every tongue** should 
                                           confess that Jesus Christ is 
                                           Lord, to the glory of God the 
                                           Father. 
                             Phi 2:12  Wherefore, my beloved, as ye  
                                           have always obeyed, not as in 
                                           my presence only, but now 
                                           much more in my absence, work 
                                           out your own salvation with fear 
                                           and trembling.

Double Predestination - Eze 33:11 Tell them: As I live"–the
declaration of the Lord GOD–
"I take no pleasure in the
death of the wicked, but
rather that the wicked
person should turn from his
way and live. Repent, repent
of your evil ways! Why will
you die, house of Israel?

Code:

                              2Pe 3:9  The Lord is not slack concerning 
                                           his promise, as some men count 
                                           slackness; but is longsuffering to 
                                           us-ward, **not willing that any 
                                           should perish, but that all should 
                                           come to repentance.**

This is a good post and it gets to the heart of the difficulties within Calvinism. Calvinism isn’t completely flawed but it definitely has problems. This becomes readily apparent when the 5 pts of TULIP are put under the lens of scripture. I would not only attack the points you have criticized but there is also plenty of room for attacking Total Depravity. This plank of Calvinism is a bit extreme and is foundational to Calvinistic doctrine. Some adjustment is necessary to appreciate the basic goodness of man that is compromised by his fallen nature. Man, after the fall, is seriously bent but scripture tells us that everything created by God is good. This is seen in Genesis and elsewhere and is reiterated by the apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 4:4 where he says, “For everything created by God is good.” Man is not totally depraved as taught by Calvin. If you want to successfully attack Calvinism you have to show the flaws in TULIP.

Gottle_of_Geer · Jul 30, 2005

atheos_sum:

A logical extension means that it isn’t the main crux, but that it nevertheless necessarily follows.

What is the basic idea of a square?

You could say that it is a polygon with four equal angles.

A logical extension of that would be that it is an equilateral rectangle.

If you know what a square is, and you know something about the realm in which squares are called into question (i.e. geometry) you can then draw out all the axioms and assumptions and come to further conclusions about the nature of a square.

Yes those are attributes. But this is my standard list.

-Creator of all

-Omniscient

-Omnipotent

<Unbound by the limitations of his creation

<time

-Omni-benevolent

-Eternal

I recognize that Calvinism is a logical extension of nearly all the monotheistic religions. Calvinism, though doctrinally consistent, nonetheless exposes a gaping error in the monotheistic tradition. I wish to expose this gaping error.

And that error is…?

Really, nobody denies predestination? What kind of predestination do you accept?

It was a good thread and well worth reading. I think most people on this site think Calvinism is silly and easily refuted.

If it is so silly, and, in particular, easily refuted: how come it has survived ? It should have been extremely easy to demolish, if it so intellectually worthless. Far from being demolished, it is still making converts, not least in Italy.

In one respect the controversialists of 400 years ago were ahead of the moderns: they did not underestimate their opponents.

Cardinal Bellarmine did not agree with William Whittingham - far from it: but, it is said he respected him - unlike those Catholics who think that whatever is not Catholic is nonsense which could be refuted by a child. The trouble with underestimating doctrines with which one disagrees, is that their power will be gravely underestimated - & who bothers to be prepared against, or to study in detail, ideas which are intellectually worthless ?

Catholics who know only Catholicism, may reasonably be said not to know Catholicism - because they have nothing with which to compare it, so they cannot see where, or how, if at all, Catholicism is less adequate than other religions. If Calvinism, for example, were intellectually worthless, it would not make any appeal to anyone intelligent - so if Catholics are to avoid judging that all Calvinist thinkers are mentally retarded, they will have to ask why thinking beings find it attractive. Putting its attraction down to pride or concupiscence is no answer, since exactly the same might be said of Catholicism’s attraction - and has been. The result: deadlock. ##

But I have shown in that thread that it is very defensible. But my opponents just left me hanging, which isn’t very credible on their part. Sadly, people would rather post on less substantive threads where they can simply say how silly Calvinism seems to them, without actually finding stasis and battling for their ideas.

Gottle_of_Geer · Jul 30, 2005

Pax:

This is a good post and it gets to the heart of the difficulties within Calvinism. Calvinism isn’t completely flawed but it definitely has problems. This becomes readily apparent when the 5 pts of TULIP are put under the lens of scripture. I would not only attack the points you have criticized but there is also plenty of room for attacking Total Depravity. This plank of Calvinism is a bit extreme and is foundational to Calvinistic doctrine. Some adjustment is necessary to appreciate the basic goodness of man that is compromised by his fallen nature. Man, after the fall, is seriously bent but scripture tells us that everything created by God is good. This is seen in Genesis and elsewhere and is reiterated by the apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 4:4 where he says, “For everything created by God is good.” Man is not totally depraved as taught by Calvin. If you want to successfully attack Calvinism you have to show the flaws in TULIP.

A lot depends on whether by “total” one means:

Man is depraved in all his faculties, person, nature

or

Man is completely and totally depraved in those things

1 is “extensive” depravity - he is wounded in the whole number of his constitutive elements and parts, though not so completely as to become wholly incapable of all good

2 is “intensive” depravity - he is wounded in all of these parts, in their whole extent.

Or is it the other way about ?

St. Paul does speak somewhere of being “dead in sins” - and he was talking of the state preceding justification.

As to the quotation - I don’t think it can be pressed, not beyond a certain point: because otherwise, one is going to deny the badness of the devil. Just a thought.

The locus classicus for TULIP is the Synod of Dort - try this:

go-newfocus.co.uk/articles/thesynodofdort.htm
[the history]

reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html [the canons]

reformed.org/calvinism/index.html - TULIP

reformed.org/documents/ - documents

IMHO, Calvinism is too logical - that is where the real problem lies; there, and (so far as I understand it), in the function of law in Calvinism. It is not clear at all how a body of ideas excogitated by sinful human beings can escape being marked in some way by the spiritual and ontological weakness of those beings - so if it makes sense, then something is wrong with it. And in any case, God is greater than we are, and cannot be trapped by any system of ideas about Him - no mesh we can invent can catch this Fish

Besides, reason is not what saves us, but grace - grace and the Cross always leave “the subtle debater of this world” looking silly

So if a body of ideas fits too tidily, something is not right. IMHO ##

Writer · Jul 30, 2005

Catholic Dude:

I have been talking to a calvinist and I think I finally go what he was saying, the problem is I dont think its a correct conclusion on his/calvins part.

Here is the situation at hand as proposed by him to me:You [Catholic Dude] didn’t say the words “all people will be saved” but you did say that God desires the salvation of all people and has the power, authority, and inclination to achieve His will. Such a claim is synonymous with saying that all people will be saved.

and later he also says to meAnd herein lies the incongruity in your position. You acknowledge that God is capable of saving as He will, that He has the power and authority and inclination to do as He desires. Despite such claims, which can only find their logical end in a profession of universalism, you claim that some still go to hell. That doesn’t send off any alarms in your brain?Do you see what he is saying? I think he is jumping to a wrong conclusion or else Im wrong. This is an important question which I need help in understanding. Im sure that this question has been answered before by the great minds of the Church.

Predestination is a confusing topic. The Bible does use the word predestination, so it is important that we understand it. To me personally, the key is that God knows the future, future including who will be saved and who will not be saved, but that this knowledge does not affect or influence the free will of the specific believer. Just because God knows Jane Smith is going to heaven, this doesn’t mean that Jane Smith has no choice in the matter; God just knows how the “story” will end. The greatest weakness to the Calvinist is “once saved, always saved”, because it implies that, at the heart of it, man doesn’t really have free will, but is more like a pawn in a supernatural game of chess.

As we are created in the image of God, I can’t see myself as merely a pawn in a game between supernatural powers. I also think that this idea is incongruent with our concept of a loving God, who died for our sins. Having said this, though, there are Calvinists who can bring to bear some powerful arguements–including twisting passages from Scripture and taking the words of saints out of context. (It seems that there is something fascinating by Saint Augustine on predestination, but I no longer remember the piece’s name.)

If we believe in a loving and omniscient God and we accept that man is given free will, we are led to the conclusion that when “predestination” is used in the Bible that it is referring to the absolute knowledge of God, but not in such a way that it detracts from man’s free will, his ability to make the ultimate choice to follow or ignore God. But, yes, it is certainly God’s wish or hope that all men might accept Him, but He knows only too well that they will not. Perhaps the reason predestination has hung around for so long is that it offers its adherants a sense of peace, an absolute assurance of salvation. The Catholic knows only to well that he can fall at any time, but, even so, our prayer should also be for a degree of peace and calm in regards to our salvation.

John_Colean · Jul 30, 2005

There have been many references to the term “free will” in this discussion. Although I absolutely believe in the concept of free will I was wondering if anyone can point to a Scripture reference that confirms this belief.

The first one responding gets an extra measure of grace.

Blessings to all,

John

Catholic_Dude · Jul 30, 2005

Gottle of Geer:

The locus classicus for TULIP is the Synod of Dort - try this:

go-newfocus.co.uk/articles/thesynodofdort.htm
[the history]

reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html [the canons]

reformed.org/calvinism/index.html - TULIP

reformed.org/documents/ - documents

I looked through these links and I was amazed how much they rely on Romans for about 75% of their ideas. Where are the words of Jesus in all these teachings? Also another thing I noticed is how little Scripture passages they use. On the second link the canons when there came the Articles of Human Depravity there was not one Scripture passage teaching what it was. That is a serious problem in my eyes.
From what I have seen and what people have told me it seems Calvinism is very Logical, but not as Scriptural as it sounds.

Catholic_Dude · Jul 30, 2005

John Colean:

There have been many references to the term “free will” in this discussion. Although I absolutely believe in the concept of free will I was wondering if anyone can point to a Scripture reference that confirms this belief.

Well I like the Sermon on the Mount in Matt5-7, here is the ending of that sermon:
24 “Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; 25 and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; 27 and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it.” 28 And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, 29 for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes. -Matt7
If you havent read Matt5-7 you should.

Borncath · Jul 30, 2005

Hi folks I have not posted in a while,

In response to your question on Free Will and as I have breezed only some of the posts, I would like to make a couple of points through questioning.

Why did Adam and Eve have more freedom than man does today? Has that freedom left us?
When the Jews chose the idol over God, they were destroyed after being delivered. Is it possible that we can take a more than literal approach to that text?
If God “passes over” man and allows them to be predestined to hell, has God held back his promise to judge man fairly? If there is judgment in the beginning why is there judgment in the end?
Why do the parables clearly teach that man can lose salvation? (Parable of the seeds)
How does the verse in Hebrews 6:4-6 (those tht have tasted the heavenly gift, but fall away) support predestination?
Why do we need hope if are predestined to salvation?

I think this might excite some better discussion on the topic…

I believe Hebrews 6 to be the best verse for supporting free will, since a person can be a believer and fall away.

What is so tough about this issue is that Thomas Aquinas set up so much of what Calvinists believe. Where Calvin crossed the line is in leaving out this “free will” thing. Unfortunately, I believe that Calvin wavered on this topic and in some of his other writings was more orthodox to Catholic teaching on the subject. Freedom of the Will vs. God’s Omnipotence is a tough subject.

But with that said I say that the greatest love given to God is by one who chooses to do so over one who is forced. In that regard the choice of God is the greater glory.

Hope that helped a little.

Peace,

Vincent

Pax · Jul 31, 2005

Gottle of Geer said:
## A lot depends on whether by “total” one means:

Man is depraved in all his faculties, person, nature

or

Man is completely and totally depraved in those things

1 is “extensive” depravity - he is wounded in the whole number of his constitutive elements and parts, though not so completely as to become wholly incapable of all good

2 is “intensive” depravity - he is wounded in all of these parts, in their whole extent.

Or is it the other way about ?

St. Paul does speak somewhere of being “dead in sins” - and he was talking of the state preceding justification.

As to the quotation - I don’t think it can be pressed, not beyond a certain point: because otherwise, one is going to deny the badness of the devil. Just a thought.

IMHO ##

I have run a simple test among my Calvinist believing friends and so far it has turned out the same way in every case. I simply ask them if they believe that “man is basically good” or that “man is basically evil.” So far every one that I have asked has indicated that man is “basically evil.” The teaching of total depravity inevitably leads these people to this conclusion. While man is severely wounded by “the fall” he is still basically good, and scripture says so. Here are some verses to illustrate the point.

IS MAN BASICALLY EVIL?

WHERE THE BIBLE SAYS NO:

Gen 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

Gen 1:31
And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.

Gen 6:9
These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.

Gen 18:25
Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked!

Job 1:8
And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?”

Jer 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Psalm 139:13-15
For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

Proverbs 11:4-5
Riches do not profit in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death.
The righteousness of the blameless keeps his way straight, but the wicked falls by his own wickedness.

Proverbs 12:2
A good man obtains favor from the Lord, but a man of evil devices he condemns.

Proverbs 12:5
The thoughts of the righteous are just; the counsels of the wicked are treacherous.

Matt 12:35
The good man out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. (Also see Luke 6:45)

Luke 1:6 (ref. to Zacahariah & Elizabeth)
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Luke 23:50
Now there was a man named Joseph from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man,

Mark 6:20
for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man,

Acts 7:20
At this time Moses was born, and was beautiful before God.

Acts 11:24 (ref. to Barnabas)
for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith.

1 Tim 4:4
For everything created by God is good,

Pax · Jul 31, 2005

The reason the issue of total depravity is important is because it is foundational to the errors of irresistable grace and double pre-destination. If man is totally depraved than it becomes logically necessary for grace to be irresistable in order for man to be saved. Likewise, it then follows that those that are not saved are damned because God deliberately left them in a state of reprobation.

All of this compromises the truth. God knew from all eternity that Adam and Eve would fall. Nevertheless, God created man knowing that what He created was not only good, but that it was very good[Gen 1:31]. The corruption of man through Adam’s sin should be seen as a total inability of man to lift himself out of sin and to please God, but it should not be seen as total depravity.

Zooey · Jul 31, 2005

Lazerlike42:

Calvanists are hopelessly circular in their reasoning which makes it very difficult to argue.

Exactly what I was going to say here…They begin by making an assumption, build an argument on it, & when you try to talk to them, they circle right back around.
I have read one of Sproul’s books on the subject. He sounds very convincing…until you call time, & check with the world outside the Calvinist box.
Lots of luck to anyone who takes them on…

petra · Jul 31, 2005

Catholic Dude:

Here is the situation at hand as proposed by him to me: You [Catholic Dude] didn’t say the words “all people will be saved” but you did say that God desires the salvation of all people and has the power, authority, and inclination to achieve His will. Such a claim is synonymous with saying that all people will be saved.
and later he also says to me And herein lies the incongruity in your position. You acknowledge that God is capable of saving as He will, that He has the power and authority and inclination to do as He desires. Despite such claims, which can only find their logical end in a profession of universalism, you claim that some still go to hell. That doesn’t send off any alarms in your brain? Do you see what he is saying? I think he is jumping to a wrong conclusion or else Im wrong. This is an important question which I need help in understanding. Im sure that this question has been answered before by the great minds of the Church.

I’m pressed for time and can’t read the whole thread, so I apologize if this has been repeated.

I would say the following to your friend:

If God has predestined some to heaven, He has also predestined some to hell, thereby reflecting His desire. If, from the beginning of creation, He desired that certain individuals would go to hell, He would have necessarily desired that Adam and Eve sinned in order to accommodate the desired outcome. If He desired that they sin, and if His desire can never be confounded, then He caused their sin. But this is impossible because God does not tempt us or cause us to sin. Therefore, there must be another explanation to the seeming incongruity of God’s desire and a different outcome.

Did God have the power, authority, and inclination to prevent Adam and Eve from sinning? If so, why did they sin? Did God fail?

No, there is a higher purpose at work here. What glory is there to God if He programmed people to love Him? There is far greater glory to Him if we choose to love Him.

Syzygus · Jul 31, 2005

Well, as a former Calvinist, I would echo some of what the others have already said. I would also utilize your Calvinist friend’s logic against him:

1)Jesus, when in the Garden of Gethsemane, prayed that God would take the cup (of His impending Passion and Crucifixion) away. This in no way undermines God the Father’s salvific will, but rather reflects Christ’s apprehension at being separated from the Father.

2)Calvinists assert two wills in the Godhead (at least): the decretal will (that will which concerns what God “decrees” to happen) and the permissive will (that which addresses what God does not prevent, or that which God “permits” to happen). This, in and of itself, is an admission on the part of Calvinists that the explicitly stated doctrine of “double predestination” needs an “out” for God, or else He is thereby made the author of sin, a point which the defenders of the Westminster Confession of Faith Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Canons of Dordt, etc., take great pains to deny.

3)As a result, your Calvinist friend has probably not thoroughly considered that God may “permissively” will that all be saved, and yet not “decretally” will that all actually end up saved.

The fact is, Calvinists often fail to recognize, unless they are some sort of Hypercalvinist who denies that it is heretical that God causes sin, that their position is better expressed by way of St. Thomas Aquinas than many of the later Calvinists. Calvin himself wrote far less explicitly than, say, Jonathan Edwards or John Owen.

I thank God that He showed me that this is true. I commend you for taking the time to speak to your friend about these things.

Jimmy Akin’s article referenced earlier about how Catholics can hold a modified “Calvinist” position, if you will, was one thing I read years ago which got me seriously reconsidering my condemnation of Catholic teaching in this regard. It then led me to explore other areas of doctrinal difference and honestly and prayerfully consider what was actually taught by the Church vs. where I was beating up straw men.

Pray that St. Francis de Sales will intercede for you and for your friend.

For some interesting reading, you might try St. Francis de Sales’ tracts (which have been published several times in a one-book format). St. Francis’ life story is one I highly commend to you. God worked through him to bring back approximately 72,000 souls from their Heugenot churches in Calvinist France and Switzerland to Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, almost entirely because of his refutation of Calvinism and presentation of the truths of the Church in his tracts, which he often had to leave under doors at night for fear of being assaulted, turned away, or otherwise persecuted.

Writer · Jul 31, 2005

Pax:

I have run a simple test among my Calvinist believing friends and so far it has turned out the same way in every case. I simply ask them if they believe that “man is basically good” or that “man is basically evil.” So far every one that I have asked has indicated that man is “basically evil.” The teaching of total depravity inevitably leads these people to this conclusion. While man is severely wounded by “the fall” he is still basically good, and scripture says so. Here are some verses to illustrate the point.

IS MAN BASICALLY EVIL?

WHERE THE BIBLE SAYS NO:

Gen 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

Gen 1:31
And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.

Gen 6:9
These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.

Gen 18:25
Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked!

Job 1:8
And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?”

Jer 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Psalm 139:13-15
For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

Proverbs 11:4-5
Riches do not profit in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death.
The righteousness of the blameless keeps his way straight, but the wicked falls by his own wickedness.

Proverbs 12:2
A good man obtains favor from the Lord, but a man of evil devices he condemns.

Proverbs 12:5
The thoughts of the righteous are just; the counsels of the wicked are treacherous.

Matt 12:35
The good man out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. (Also see Luke 6:45)

Luke 1:6 (ref. to Zacahariah & Elizabeth)
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Luke 23:50
Now there was a man named Joseph from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man,

Mark 6:20
for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man,

Acts 7:20
At this time Moses was born, and was beautiful before God.

Acts 11:24 (ref. to Barnabas)
for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith.

1 Tim 4:4
For everything created by God is good,

I have to admit I was believing in the total depravity, more or less, before becoming Catholic: man’s heart of darkness. It wasn’t until I became Catholic that I really thought about the implications of being made in “His image”.

I’d add one more quick observation to the thread. God can’t be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt man to do evil. It seems that this presents another problem for Calvinsts, if we are to understand God as one who predestines the unsaved to go to hell. He would be, in effect, compelling them to a state of sin. That may not be put quite right (I’m tired), but I think there is a bit of value here…

Gottle_of_Geer · Jul 31, 2005

Pax:

I have run a simple test among my Calvinist believing friends and so far it has turned out the same way in every case. I simply ask them if they believe that “man is basically good” or that “man is basically evil.” So far every one that I have asked has indicated that man is “basically evil.”

It’s a very vague choice of words - no wonder you got that answer.

I wonder what the answer would be if one asked Catholics whethe they believed in the “Real Presence” ?

It’s a trick question, because the phrase is Lutheran and not Catholic: so people probably intend a Catholic answer, though they use a Lutheran phrase, when they use it.

Another point: what is the true index of belief:

What the credal formularies of a religion say

or

What the dogmaticians say

or

What the believer in the street says ?

Calvinism has one 1 & 2, as do some other Christianities: Catholicism has both also, but in a different setting, because it has bishops as well - who have more responsibility for what is believed than Calvinist presbyteries do (I think the sociology of religion is immensely important, and much neglected)

I would be more inclined to listen to the Calvinist theologians than to the Calvinist in the street, if only because most people don’t have time to read and study the Synod of Dort, just as most Catholics are not going to read the five volumes of debates among the Fathers of Trent which preceded the documents; or even tbe monographs by people like Congar (to name only one) on special topics like Tradition.

For Calvinist theological understanding, I would go (& I do) to Louis Berkhof: or to the Hodges, or to Bavinck or Dabney, or to older systematic theologians - the advantage of a comparative modern such as Berkhof, is that being only fifty years old gives a book such as his the opportunity to summarise older discussions. I wouldn’t expect a Calvinist in the street to have Berkhof’s grasp of the detail about these controversies - and the detail is what is so important, so very often.

What lets him down a bit is the lack of context to the discussion of the verses he refers to - but that is hardly a fault of method in him alone. Proof-texting is a vile habit; fortunately, he does not stop there, but discusses the reasons for the various understandings of (say) the Atonement. ##

The teaching of total depravity inevitably leads these people to this conclusion. While man is severely wounded by “the fall” he is still basically good, and scripture says so. Here are some verses to illustrate the point.

IS MAN BASICALLY EVIL?

WHERE THE BIBLE SAYS NO:

Gen 1:26

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

Gen 1:31

And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.

You know, and I know, that those are both pre-lapsarian, and so, deal neither with man fallen, nor with man regenerate They are good for some purposes - but not for telling us of man’s state now; whether before justification of the elected believer, or following it.

I see you have not included Genesis 6.5… ##

Gen 6:9

These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.

Gen 18:25

Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked!

Job 1:8

And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?”

Jer 1:5

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Gottle_of_Geer · Jul 31, 2005

[continued & ended]

God elects people for particular vocations - but that is irrelevant to whether the elect person is, like the heavens, “not pure in His sight”: or is “otherwise”. Man is “unclean”, “sinful”, “God-hating”, “dead in sins”, “under condemnation” - he is not good; “God is good”, as Jesus points out: not man. He is unclean, and dust and ashes. Sinners - i.e us - do not need to be told how wonderful they are: they need salvation, not praise, and glory, and honour. And they need salvation, because they are otherwise “under the Wrath of God”. Because any goodness there is in them, is not the righteousness of Christ, but muck, dust, and ashes by comparison.

Man’s righteousness cannot save - it is wholly, utterly, and completely worthless for that; that of One Who is Righteouness, is needed - and is given; not the trash that passes for righteousness among men. That is useless, worthless; and is, by comparison, sin itself.

Human righteousness is fine - until it is compared with the perfect Righteousness of God: then, it is nothing but filth by comparison with that. As Father Newman, St, John of the Cross, and St. Augustine all point out. The author of Job knew this too.

If the righteousness that was available through the Law could have sufficed, Christ would not have been our Saviour.

:bigyikes: How can we possibly appreciate the greatness of the Good News, if we do not hear the greatness of the Bad News beforehand ? It’s in Romans 7. So much for human “goodness” & “righteousness” - it is not good enough: we cannot treat the righteousness which is by grace & Christ, as though it were described in the OT or before the death of Christ which has brought it to us. That would be to say that Christ made no difference to our relation to God. ##

Psalm 139:13-15

For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.

I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

Proverbs 11:4-5

Riches do not profit in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death.

The righteousness of the blameless keeps his way straight, but the wicked falls by his own wickedness.

Proverbs 12:2

A good man obtains favor from the Lord, but a man of evil devices he condemns.

Proverbs 12:5

The thoughts of the righteous are just; the counsels of the wicked are treacherous.

Matt 12:35

The good man out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. (Also see Luke 6:45)

Luke 1:6 (ref. to Zacahariah & Elizabeth)

And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Luke 23:50

Now there was a man named Joseph from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man,

Legal righteousness, is not the righteousness of Christ, but far inferior to it - which is meant here ? I don’t know

Mark 6:20

for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man,

Acts 7:20

At this time Moses was born, and was beautiful before God.

As are many unbaptised babies: yet they still need to be brought within the community of the redeemed - as did Moses

Acts 11:24 (ref. to Barnabas)

for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith.

1 Tim 4:4

For everything created by God is good,

This has nothing to do with the state of man before God since the Fall

Donna_P · Aug 1, 2005

God can save anyone.

God gave us FREE WILL

If we knowingly CHOOSE to do evil - whether God would prefer us in Heaven - it ain’t gonna happen. we would go to Hell. God will be very sad.

Gene_C · Aug 1, 2005

Hi all,

From Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott:

God, by his eternal resolve of Will, has predetermined certain men to eternal blessedness.

God, by an eternal resolve of his Will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection.

The human will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irresistible.
I believe these truths are a paradox and we will never be able to reconcile them in this life, but they are true.

What do you think?

Gene

atheos_sum · Aug 2, 2005

I have not visited this thread in a while, so i apologize if someone responded to my comments and I did not respond back.

At any rate, if anyone is truly interested in what the Calvinists themselves say, there is a good Calvinist website devoted to apologetics. I have a very knowledgeable Dutch-Reformed friend who told me about it.

www.monergism.com

Help me answer an important Calvinist question

Catholic_Heart

Guest

Pax

Guest

Gottle_of_Geer

Guest

And that error is…?​

If it is so silly, and, in particular, easily refuted: how come it has survived ? It should have been extremely easy to demolish, if it so intellectually worthless. Far from being demolished, it is still making converts, not least in Italy.​

Gottle_of_Geer

Guest

A lot depends on whether by “total” one means:​

Writer

Guest

John_Colean

Guest

Catholic_Dude

Guest

Catholic_Dude

Guest

Borncath

Guest

Pax

Guest

Pax

Guest

Zooey

Guest

petra

Guest

Syzygus

Guest

Writer

Guest

Gottle_of_Geer

Guest

It’s a very vague choice of words - no wonder you got that answer.​

You know, and I know, that those are both pre-lapsarian, and so, deal neither with man fallen, nor with man regenerate They are good for some purposes - but not for telling us of man’s state now; whether before justification of the elected believer, or following it.​

Gottle_of_Geer

Guest

Legal righteousness, is not the righteousness of Christ, but far inferior to it - which is meant here ? I don’t know​

As are many unbaptised babies: yet they still need to be brought within the community of the redeemed - as did Moses​

This has nothing to do with the state of man before God since the Fall​

Donna_P

Guest

Gene_C

Guest

atheos_sum

Guest

And that error is…?

If it is so silly, and, in particular, easily refuted: how come it has survived ? It should have been extremely easy to demolish, if it so intellectually worthless. Far from being demolished, it is still making converts, not least in Italy.

A lot depends on whether by “total” one means:

It’s a very vague choice of words - no wonder you got that answer.

You know, and I know, that those are both pre-lapsarian, and so, deal neither with man fallen, nor with man regenerate They are good for some purposes - but not for telling us of man’s state now; whether before justification of the elected believer, or following it.

Legal righteousness, is not the righteousness of Christ, but far inferior to it - which is meant here ? I don’t know

As are many unbaptised babies: yet they still need to be brought within the community of the redeemed - as did Moses

This has nothing to do with the state of man before God since the Fall