How was Adam able to be "tempted"?

[Baraq]

Originally Posted by Calvinator
No, man can not choose God without God’s grace.

yes he can

When you were born, was that your choice? Did your parents consult you? Could you wilfully accept being born or reject being born?

Calvinator is correct, Scripture bears his record true. Even the metaphor that is proven in Nature bears the truth. This Metaphor was used by our Lord.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

 

[Teflon93]

Originally Posted by Calvinator
No, man can not choose God without God’s grace.

When you were born, was that your choice? Did your parents consult you? Could you wilfully accept being born or reject being born?

Calvinator is correct, Scripture bears his record true. Even the metaphor that is proven in Nature bears the truth. This Metaphor was used by our Lord.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Which is why Jesus told the parable of the Good Protestant as an example of how to get eternal life.

Oh, wait, it was the good SAMARITAN.

Oh, wait, how could that be?

The Samaritans were neither baptized, nor considered to be compliant with Mosaic Law. How then was the Good Samaritan justified? He certainly was not confirmed through adult baptism.

And yet his works found favor with the Lord.

Perhaps our Calvinist friends might explain this, Mark 19, and the numerous other places where Christ urges us to do something rather than believe something for eternal life.

“Keep the Commandments”, he said.

Or did Luther strike that from the Bible?

 

[Calvinator]

yes he can

I am assuming you are catholic.

If so, what do you make of the paragraphs I posted from your church’s council of trent?

 

[Calvinator]

Calvinator, I think the problem is that there are two arguments from two different points.

Someone can choose to be a good person simply because they see the good in people. Look at some of the Pagan Greeks who tried to live a good and wholesome life, for example.

You seem to be arguing that only God can give us the Grace that leads us to Justification. No one is arguing that point.

Notworthy,

See LumenGentium’s earlier post where he states that unregenerate man, unaided by God’s grace, can choose God. This seems to go against what the RCC teaches.

In the natural order of things, man can do good. An atheist can shelter the homeless, feed the hungry, etc.

 

[Calvinator]

Which is why Jesus told the parable of the Good Protestant as an example of how to get eternal life.

Oh, wait, it was the good SAMARITAN.

Oh, wait, how could that be?

The Samaritans were neither baptized, nor considered to be compliant with Mosaic Law. How then was the Good Samaritan justified? He certainly was not confirmed through adult baptism.

And yet his works found favor with the Lord.

Perhaps our Calvinist friends might explain this, Mark 19, and the numerous other places where Christ urges us to do something rather than believe something for eternal life.

“Keep the Commandments”, he said.

Or did Luther strike that from the Bible?

The more you post the more you reveal how little of reformed theology you actually understand. In a few short posts you demonstrate a thorough misunderstanding of a major system of theology that it will take a good deal of time to straighten out.

I will do my best to get you back on track as time allows me.

 

[NotWorthy]

Notworthy,

See LumenGentium’s earlier post where he states that unregenerate man, unaided by God’s grace, can choose God. This seems to go against what the RCC teaches.

In the natural order of things, man can do good. An atheist can shelter the homeless, feed the hungry, etc.

OK, so here’s where I get confused.

A man becomes a loyal Jew, obeying all the Laws and glorifying God to all he knows. Christian doctrine says this man will not be justified (at least through ordinary means). Yet, this man obviously chose God in his life. Did God give this man the Grace to be this kind of person, even if it falls short of justification.

 

[Teflon93]

The more you post the more you reveal how little of reformed theology you actually understand. In a few short posts you demonstrate a thorough misunderstanding of a major system of theology that it will take a good deal of time to straighten out.

I will do my best to get you back on track as time allows me.

Given that you have been completely unable to respond to my or any other argument, I won’t leave the car running while waiting for that.

I have read sufficiently of Calvin to see his warped view of human nature.

And any student of American history can quite see the warped view of human nature his Puritan followers possessed. The Salem witch hunt was not the work of Catholics.

I can well understand the difficulty of trying to rationalize the unholy mess that is Reformed theology though, and the reluctance to do so using the words of the man who invented it.

After all, the Reformed today have less and less in common with Calvin and Luther, do they not?

 

[Teflon93]

OK, so here’s where I get confused.

A man becomes a loyal Jew, obeying all the Laws and glorifying God to all he knows. Christian doctrine says this man will not be justified (at least through ordinary means). Yet, this man obviously chose God in his life. Did God give this man the Grace to be this kind of person, even if it falls short of justification.

The Good Samaritan was no Christian. And yet he was held up as an example by the Lord.

And in Matthew 19, Christ urges the young man to keep the Commandments. Not to believe in him, or call him “Lord, Lord”, but to keep the Commandments.

Throughout the New Testament, Christ urges those who would have eternal life to DO something, not to believe something.

There is also the matter of Christ’d descent to the dead. One wonders why he did so as there was not a Christian among them but himself and the fellow on the cross next to him.

The Catholic Church teaches that man may still be saved if he does not heed the gospel through no fault of his own — “invincible ignorance”. This concept undergirds a lot of the Church’s ecumenism as we try to pierce the veil of that ignorance and give as many people as possible the opportunity to come to Christ.

God’s mercy and justice are beyond our ken; I certainly hope that righteous men will find favor in Heaven even if they are not Catholics.

 

[Ghosty]

Reading this thread I can’t help but think that part of the problem is a vastly different understanding of what Grace is. I’m not overly familiar with Calvinist ideas of Grace, but from reading this it seems to be a bit of a different emphasis and understanding than the Apostolic (Catholic and Orthodox) view.

In the Apostolic view, Grace is literally the Life of God in us, or the internal movement of God in us to help us reach Him. Since we exist on the level of Creatures we can not perfectly reach up to God so as to “see Him face to face”, so we require Grace, Divine Movement in us, to be elevated to that level. Just like a rock can’t lift itself up to our eye-level, we can’t lift ourselves up to God’s eye-level; not because we’re broken, but because that’s a range of motion that creatures don’t operate on, namely the Divine range of motion.

By embracing this Divine motion we can literally be filled with the Divine Life, becoming partakers of the Divine Nature. The Trinity dwells in us by the Holy Spirit, and in the next life we are Resurrected in Glory and see God directly and forever (the Beatific Vision).

Now as to free will, we have it but it doesn’t suffice for us to embrace God as we are called to because we are creatures. Even Adam required Grace for this, so it’s not a matter of sin or no sin, but a matter of creatures not having the ability to move on a Divine level on their own. We, unlike the rock, can jump out of the hand that lifts us, so we must freely will to cooperate with the movement of Grace (this is why an infant who has not yet used their free will can truly be elevated by Grace; they’re not jumping out of God’s hands yet). Without Grace we can love God in the manner of Creatures, and we do so naturally, but due to Original Sin we often fall short even of that. Regardless, loving God in the manner of Creatures is not what we are called to, and does not lead to Salvation; only loving God with a supernatural, Divine level of Love merits Heaven, and Heaven is simply the culmination of that Love for all time.

The Calvinist view doesn’t seem to take into account these different levels of operating, and in doing so seems to reduce the scope of both Grace and free-will. I could definitely be wrong here, though. Anyone care to help me understand the Calvinist meaning of Grace?

Peace and God bless!

 

[NotWorthy]

Ghosty!!! I’m impressed!

Thanks!

 

[Ghosty]

Ghosty!!! I’m impressed!

Thanks!

I’m not even sure what I did, but you’re welcome!

I’m just trying to understand the Calvinist notion of Grace in a nutshell. I figured presenting the Catholic understanding first might open us up for a clearer definition of what we’re talking about and how we differ.

Peace and God bless!

 

[NotWorthy]

I’m not even sure what I did, but you’re welcome!

I’m just trying to understand the Calvinist notion of Grace in a nutshell. I figured presenting the Catholic understanding first might open us up for a clearer definition of what we’re talking about and how we differ.

Peace and God bless!

You simply explained it in a way that this poor soul from Southeast Texas could understand!!!

If I can understand it, then others certainly can.

 

[Teflon93]

The Calvinist view doesn’t seem to take into account these different levels of operating, and in doing so seems to reduce the scope of both Grace and free-will. I could definitely be wrong here, though. Anyone care to help me understand the Calvinist meaning of Grace?

Peace and God bless!

From Catholic Church History:

**Inadmissibility of grace. ***For Calvin, as for Luther, grace is something external gained by faith and not by the sacraments, which are merely external signs. Grace once conferred, he maintained, could not be lost, since the Holy Spirit, once received by faith, is received once and for all. The authority for this and many other assertions is ultimately nothing else than the infallibility of John Calvin, for “God has condescended to reveal to me what is good and what is evil.” *Yet Calvin did invoke Scripture in support for his argument. According to him, the text, “Anyone who comes to Me I will not cast out,” means that anyone who arrives at justification by the imputed merits of Christ remains justified forever. He contended, moreover, that since “every tree not planted by My Father shall be rooted out,” then every soul planted by the Father in justice must remain fixed always.

and

**Individualism. **“But these theocratic claims were not hierarchic and impersonal as in the medieval Church; they were based on an intense individualism deriving from the certainty of election and the duty of the individual Christian to co-operate in realizing the divine purpose against a sinful and hostile world. Thus Calvinism is at once aristocratic and democratic; aristocratic inasmuch as the ‘saints’ were an elect minority chosen from the mass of fallen humanity and infinitely superior to the children of this world; but democratic in that each was directly responsible to God who is no respecter of persons.”

Calvin’s view of humanity may therefore be held to be virtually the direct opposite of the Catholic Church’s view. This may also be why the Catholic Church continues to strive to bring as many of our fellow men into the fold as possible, whether through missionary work or through ecumenical outreach, not to mention why the Catholic Church is a billion strong today.

No doubt Calvin would say the billion consists entirely of the non-Elect, but charity is not the virtue of the heresiarch.

 

[Ghosty]

From Catholic Church History:

and

Calvin’s view of humanity may therefore be held to be virtually the direct opposite of the Catholic Church’s view. This may also be why the Catholic Church continues to strive to bring as many of our fellow men into the fold as possible, whether through missionary work or through ecumenical outreach, not to mention why the Catholic Church is a billion strong today.

No doubt Calvin would say the billion consists entirely of the non-Elect, but charity is not the virtue of the heresiarch.

I’m not so much confused about the difference in the difference view of who receives Grace, but rather what Grace is. I can’t shake the feeling that Calvinists are operating on a different understanding of the nature of Grace, not just in who it operates in.

Peace and God bless!

 

[LumenGentium]

I am assuming you are catholic.

If so, what do you make of the paragraphs I posted from your church’s council of trent?

i use for my reference: faith, reason, life experience, scripture, the catholic catechism, and the documents of vatican 2. i am also an american. i live in a free country.

i am not a follower of the council of trent but i did look over the portion you provided. the language, although in english, is not current usage, so i cannot have a dialogue with you about that.

here is a portion from a vatican 2 document called dignitatis humanae…latin for the dignity of mankind. the document is about religious freedom as it pertains to human rights:

2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

**It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. **They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth **However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. **Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

%between%

the document is only about 3-4 pages long plus an additional long list of references at the end of it for its footnoted sources.

here is reference 2 as noted above:

1. Cf. John XXIII, encycL “Pacem in Terris,” April 11, 1963: AAS 55 (1963), pp. 260-261; Pius XII, radio message, Dec. 24, 1942: AAS 35 (1943), p. 19; Pius XI, encycl. “Mit Brennender Sorge,” March 14, 1937: AAS 29 (1937), p. 160; Leo XIII, encycl. “Libertas Praestantissimum,” June 20, 1888: Acts of Leo XIII 8 (1888), p. 237-238.

 

[LumenGentium]

Here’s more:

1. It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man’s response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will.(8) This doctrine is contained in the word of God and it was constantly proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church.(7) The act of faith is of its very nature a free act. Man, redeemed by Christ the Savior and through Christ Jesus called to be God’s adopted son,(9) cannot give his adherence to God revealing Himself unless, under the drawing of the Father,(10) he offers to God the reasonable and free submission of faith. It is therefore completely in accord with the nature of faith that in matters religious every manner of coercion on the part of men should be excluded. In consequence, the principle of religious freedom makes no small contribution to the creation of an environment in which men can without hindrance be invited to the Christian faith, embrace it of their own free will, and profess it effectively in their whole manner of life.

1. God calls men to serve Him in spirit and in truth, hence they are bound in conscience but they stand under no compulsion. God has regard for the dignity of the human person whom He Himself created and man is to be guided by his own judgment and he is to enjoy freedom. This truth appears at its height in Christ Jesus, in whom God manifested Himself and His ways with men. Christ is at once our Master and our Lord(11) and also meek and humble of heart.(12) In attracting and inviting His disciples He used patience.(13) He wrought miracles to illuminate His teaching and to establish its truth, but His intention was to rouse faith in His hearers and to confirm them in faith, not to exert coercion upon them.(14) He did indeed denounce the unbelief of some who listened to Him, but He left vengeance to God in expectation of the day of judgment.(15) When He sent His Apostles into the world, He said to them: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved. He who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). But He Himself, noting that the cockle had been sown amid the wheat, gave orders that both should be allowed to grow until the harvest time, which will come at the end of the world.(16) He refused to be a political messiah, ruling by force17) He preferred to call Himself the Son of Man, who came “to serve and to give his life as a ransom for the many” (Mark 10:45). He showed Himself the perfect servant of God,(18) who “does not break the bruised reed nor extinguish the smoking flax” (Matt. 12:20).

footnotes:
7. Cf. Lactantius “Divinarum Institutionum,” Book V, 19: CSEL 19, pp. 463-464, 465: PL 6, 614 and 616 (ch. 20); St. Ambrose, “Epistola ad Valentianum Imp.,” Letter 21: PL 16, 1005; St. Augustine, “Contra Litteras Petiliani,” Book II, ch. 83: CSEL 52 p. 112: PL 43, 315; cf. C. 23, q. 5, c. 33, (ed. Friedberg, col. 939); idem, Letter 23: PL 33, 98, idem, Letter 34: PL 33, 132; idem, Letter 35: PL 33, 135; St. Gregory the Great, "Epistola ad Virgilium et Theodorum Episcopos Massiliae Galliarum, Register of Letters I, 45: MGH Ep. 1, p. 72: PL 77, 510-511 (Book I, ep. 47); idem, “Epistola ad Johannem Episcopum Constantinopolitanum,” Register of Letters, III, 52: MGH Letter 1, p. 210: PL 77, 649 (Book III, Letter 53); cf. D. 45, c. 1 (ed. Friedberg, col 160); Council of Toledo IV, c. 57: Mansi 10, 633; cf. D. 45, c. 5 (ed. Friedberg, col. 161-162); Clement III: X., V, 6, 9: ed. Friedberg, col. 774; Innocent III, “Epistola ad Arelatensem Archiepiscopum,” X., III, 42, 3: Friedberg, col. 646.

1. Cf. CIC, c. 1351; Pius XII, allocution to prelate auditors and other officials and administrators of the tribune of the Holy Roman Rota, Oct. 6, 1946: AAS 38 (1946), p. 394; idem. Encycl Mystici Corporis," June 29, 1943: AAS (1943) p. 243.
2. Cf. Eph. 1:5.
3. Cf. John 6:44.
4. Cf. John 13:13.
5. Cf. Matt. 11:29.
6. Cf Matt. 11:28-30; John 6:67-68.
7. Cf Matt. 9:28-29; Mark 9:23-24; 6:5-6; Paul VI, encycl. “Ecclesiam Suam,” Aug. 6, 1964: AAS 56 (1964), pp. 642-643.
8. Cf. Matt. 11:20-24; Rom. 12:19-20; 2 Thess. 1:8.
9. Cf. Matt. 13:30 and 40-42.
10. Cf. Matt. 4:8-10; John 6:15.
11. Cf. Is. 42:1-4.

 

[LumenGentium]

free will is an inalienable right. it has been endowed by the creator.

is it self evident that man has free will. ask any parent with a 2 year old, it is termed the age of autonomy in the stages of human development.

 

[NotWorthy]

i use for my reference: faith, reason, life experience, scripture, the catholic catechism, and the documents of vatican 2. i am also an american. i live in a free country.

i am not a follower of the council of trent but i did look over the portion you provided. the language, although in english, is not current usage, so i cannot have a dialogue with you about that.

here is a portion from a vatican 2 document called dignitatis humanae…latin for the dignity of mankind. the document is about religious freedom as it pertains to human rights:

I hope by saying “I am not a follower”, you mean you ‘have never studied Trent’ and not you ‘don’t hold to Trent’s teachings’. As Catholic we are just as bound to the words of Trent as we are to the more current words of Vatican II. Since they were written in Latin (one of the smartest things Mother Church has ever done, for a dead language never changes it’s meaning), we should be able to get a translation today that is just as accurate as a translation in the 1400’s.

Just thought I might clarify that.

 

[mikeledes]

Could it be that Adam had a will that was more free than ours but still not entirely free?

So did God cause Adam to sin? When Calvinists say that God allowed Adam to sin, that means that at that time God allowed him to chose his own destiny. He could either obey God’s command or obey Satan. Do you believe Adam had free will before the fall?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Teflon93]

So did God cause Adam to sin? When Calvinists say that God allowed Adam to sin, that means that at that time God allowed him to chose his own destiny. He could either obey God’s command or obey Satan. Do you believe Adam had free will before the fall?

God Bless,
Michael

Calvinists typically do not distinguish between what God wills and what He “allows”. The predestination lockbox will allow for no such distinctions and is hostile to the concept of true free will.