I'm Debating A Calvinist

[porthos11]

Port, well put. And this is why I came back to the CC… I realized that what I had always held as Calvinism/Reformed theology in this area was in fact Thomism – and since the CC likes Thomas, the only thing I needed to wrap my head around again was the priesthood, communion of the saints (including understanding the CC view of Mary)… and after that, I figured, what should keep me away.

You are right that some Calvinists hold to double active predestination. I never did. And honestly (and full disclaimer), I never read much of Calvin himself. Maybe Calvin held to double predestination-- I wouldn’t be surprised. I was Reformed-- I never was a follower of “John Calvin” per se.

But I do know that the majority view in modern Reformed theology is more Thomist in this sense. See RC Sproul and the like. RC Sproul vehemently denies double active election.

If there’s a lesson to be learned from the recent threads on predestination, it’s as what one poster said earlier: know thyself and know thy enemy (figuratively speaking). In a now-closed thread, the original poster there tried to “challenge” Catholics to read Romans 9 without inferring predestination and reprobation, which was pointless because we do. The unspoken implication was that he believed Catholics did not accept predestination and reprobation. And in this thread, I could only gather from the OP’s own queries that he was sorely unprepared to face his online opponent because he was working on the assumption that Catholics did not accept predestination and reprobation and when faced with Church teaching, he panicked. Predestination is not debated without much preparation and heavy reading on both the affirmative and negative points of the debate.

One would find, as you did, that once we discover how much we have in common, we can then stop fighting over that and address the things we do differ over as you did. And now look, you returned to the Church.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

If most Calvinists teach Thomist predestination, then what, exactly, are the differences between Calvinist and Catholic positions on the matter? Is it the irresistible grace concept? I’m a little lost now, especially since all the Calvinists I have ever spoken to seem to hold to unmerited reprobation and deny the existence of free will, and limited atonement (Christ died for the elect only). Are these merely modern hyper Calvinists?

 

[Theojunkie]

Peace,

I too am only speaking from my experience. Don’t take my statistics as gospel

Technically speaking if John Calvin taught unmerited reprobation (again, I don’t know), then any who also taught that would not be “hyper” Calvinists.

I guess I mean that I think most Reformed – not necessarily most “Calvinists” – do not affirm double active predestination. “Calvinist” is a quick and inaccurate label frequently used to mean “Reformed”. I think very few Reformed would agree with every single thing that Calvin taught.

But I guess that’s my point… what are we arguing about? We are arguing about misconceptions of the other party’s point of view (i.e., we tilt at their windmills, which only exist in our own heads).

I think that if both sides sat down and looked at the other view for what it was-- and this includes expanding one’s vocabulary (e.g., “merit” has a different meaning in CC theology than it does in the Boy Scout quest for badges)… then there might be no further reason to remain separate.

Even RC Sproul, a famous Reformed theologian of today, who first taught me about the true meaning of Grace, misunderstands the Catholic view in his arguments… though he is very fair, he still doesn’t get it. As such, his arguments (some of them) are unnecessary.

 

[Theojunkie]

… all that said… just as Molinus and Thomas would disagree… Molinists in the CC would still have problems with Reformed soteriology.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Theo, I agree that various Protestant denominations misunderstand many points of Catholic theology and dogma. It does indeed happen the other way, too. However, with all the various denominations now in existence, which tend to take various theological positions in no particular order, and also with the tendency of Protestants to have various definitions on theological terms, it becomes quite difficult to classify a Reformed Christian, whatever their chosen affiliation.

The majority of Christians I have spoken to who hold to unmerited reprobation and lack of free will, seem to all have in common as a source Calvin’s teachings, preached usually by a modern preacher, along with select amounts of Augustine. This is why I classify them as Calvinists; they themselves claim him as the primary source of their grim theology. It is true, though, that they often don’t hold to all his teachings. Given the difficulty of classifying Protestants, however, it seems to me that to classify some based on their primary theology is not such an egregious error.

 

[cap76]

…it seems to me that to classify some based on their primary theology is not such an egregious error.

You are so right. Arguments can be much more effective if one can demonstrate a better understanding of an opponents position than they.

 

[bogeydogg]

Theo, I agree that various Protestant denominations misunderstand many points of Catholic theology and dogma. It does indeed happen the other way, too. However, with all the various denominations now in existence, which tend to take various theological positions in no particular order, and also with the tendency of Protestants to have various definitions on theological terms, it becomes quite difficult to classify a Reformed Christian, whatever their chosen affiliation.

The majority of Christians I have spoken to who hold to unmerited reprobation and lack of free will, seem to all have in common as a source Calvin’s teachings, preached usually by a modern preacher, along with select amounts of Augustine. This is why I classify them as Calvinists; they themselves claim him as the primary source of their grim theology. It is true, though, that they often don’t hold to all his teachings. Given the difficulty of classifying Protestants, however, it seems to me that to classify some based on their primary theology is not such an egregious error.

I think the easiest way to classify the protestants is to do so by the standard they set up for themselves from the very beginning.

Luther did have (well documented) issues with Church but never sought to break from the Sacramental understanding of salvation nor from priestly absolution, confession, etc. Zwingli disagreed with him on this from the very beginning claiming the Sacraments to be signs and faith itself to be the sign of salvation. IOW faith in faith is the measure of faith according to Zwingli which Luther soundly rejected.

Calvin picked up this line of thought from Zwingli and declared Luther’s adherence to the Sacraments to be “superstitious popery” and that all who clung to the sacraments for their salvation would be damned.

Following on Calvin the state churches (and the Presbyterians fall in this group) held to Calvin’s views on the Sacraments as did the Anabaptists and the Arminians and Wesleyans. The Presbyterians will try and say they are not with the Baptists, Methodists, etc because of Arminius and Wesley and their views on baptism but those groups hold to Calvin’s fundamental teaching on the Sacraments and so the differences really are skin-deep. The same is true for the mainline Pentecostal, and other so-called free Bible Churches (which really are Baptist Churches). They all hold to Calvin’s core teaching on the Sacraments and so, really, are children of Calvin to one degree or another.

The reason why most don’t see it this way is that most think Calvin’s watershed teaching was on Predestination, but every Orthodox Church has a Doctrine of Predestination because it is taught in the Bible. The rejection of Predestination as a Christian Doctrine speaks to the messy malaise that Christendom has become in that “Christianity” thinks it is “Christian” to reject what is clearly taught in the Bible. Because of this malaise Calvinists will try to separate themselves from these other groups based on Predestination and cling to Luther because Luther taught Predestination, but Luther wanted nothing to do with these groups because he understood the rejection of the Sacraments was a rejection of Christ long before any talk concerning predestination had surfaced.

Therefore I think the best way to think of the groups that call themselves Christian is Catholic/Orthodox, Lutheran, Calvin et al, and the non-Christian groups that claim Christ anyway.

God Bless

 

[Theojunkie]

That being the case wouldn’t it be possible for God to BOTH predestine and FOREKNOW at exactly the same time?

What if they are one and the same?

Meditate on the meaning of the Eternal Now. The timelessness transcendent existence that God enjoys and has enjoyed (was…is…was…will be… is…) in the Eternity that was (is, will be, is, was…) ever in existence outside of the Creation.

Disclaimer: The above is conjecture. But it makes one think…

 

[Theojunkie]

Peace,

Having been there/done that… I wouldn’t call it “grim” theology. Properly understood, there is no pride, no sadness (even for or by the reprobate), no “easy believeism”… only thankful humble awestruck joy for those who find themselves in God’s friendship.

But I would agree that it is deficient. And I would agree that it reads into the scripture (though they strive and claim not to). The reality is that the scripture speaks both of God’s total sovereignty and the reality of human freedom. It speaks both of salvation by grace alone, and the necessity of works. Of irresistible grace and of grieving the Holy Spirit. Of assurance of salvation and of warnings not to stray. Of unmerited favor and of crowns of reward.

And I agree that they have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. We are human, we need to worship with all 6 senses… and this is found in the Catholic church.

 

[bogeydogg]

Peace,

Having been there/done that… I wouldn’t call it “grim” theology. Properly understood, there is no pride, no sadness (even for or by the reprobate), no “easy believeism”… only thankful humble awestruck joy for those who find themselves in God’s friendship.

But I would agree that it is deficient. And I would agree that it reads into the scripture (though they strive and claim not to). The reality is that the scripture speaks both of God’s total sovereignty and the reality of human freedom. It speaks both of salvation by grace alone, and the necessity of works. Of irresistible grace and of grieving the Holy Spirit. Of assurance of salvation and of warnings not to stray. Of unmerited favor and of crowns of reward.

And I agree that they have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. We are human, we need to worship with all 6 senses… and this is found in the Catholic church.

Exactly. Having discarded the Sacraments as adiaphora at best and pagan at worst, they have thrown out the physical assurance of Faith by disallowing the believer to say, “This is what I believe in.”

Wretched sinner that I am when we pray nunc dimittis I look to where we have received the elements and there see the Crucifix and am reminded that we too have seen with eyes, tasted on our tongues and feel in our bodies the communion we have with Christ and each other. We actually have seen and partaken of His salvation prepared for all people.

When I kneel and confess and my priest makes the sign of the cross and forgives me my sin I am both horrified by my own sinfulness and mercifully relieved by having received from one in the succession of Christ’s own Apostles forgiveness and so I recall when I have received this, I receive Christ.

It is assurance upon assurance.

The Calvinist who insists we place our faith on predestination and on God’s will not knowing but believing that maybe could be possibly I am of the elect always left me feeling unforgiven at the end of Church. However when I received real forgiveness from a real priest, and ate Christ’s Body and drank His Blood I no longer had wonder if it was real because it had really been given to me.

And I will never return to the tyranny of not knowing.

God Bless

 

[JillianRose]

And again, I’m totally at a lost and come to you for help

debate.org/debates/The-Bible-Teaches-Predestination-And-Salvation-By-Faith-Alone

Well, it sure looks like the Bible says we don’t have free will and good people are made to go to heaven and bad people are made to go to hell…

Good Luck friend. My best friends a Calvinist. Its coming to the point where she might not be my friend anymore. Last summer her kid said to me “Catholics don’t love Jesus like they should.”

Anyway lets say Catholics are wrong. Is the differences going to change our salvation?

I don’t think so.

I think God is bigger then all of us. If I love him and worship him, I don’t think it matters if we believe he chose us to be with him or we chose him.

I think you need to fully understand what they mean by choice. God Chooses them. How do they know they are chosen? BECAUSE THEY LOVE THE LORD. Someone who is not Chosen will be evil and NOT accept the Lord as their savior.

Here is another thought: DO YOU REALLY THINK GOD ALLOWED THE CHURCH TO BE LEAD WRONG FOR 1500 YEARS AND THEN A MERE MAN FIXED HIS CHURCH?
That is arrogant from a Calvinist point. Also, Calvinist and Islam/Jews are the only faiths that believe we have a God of Good and Evil.

I hope things work out for you.

Jillian

 

[PeaceInChrist]

You are so right. Arguments can be much more effective if one can demonstrate a better understanding of an opponents position than they.

I’m just working with what y’all give me. Most non denominational Christians I speak to are just as confused about their theology as I am. And then there are entire break-off heterodox churches that came from a specific denomination but change the theology around based on the opinions of the pastor/founder. It’s not my fault you are all confused. Every man his own authority…

Bogeydogg and theojunkie, thanks for the insights!

 

[bogeydogg]

I’m just working with what y’all give me. Most non denominational Christians I speak to are just as confused about their theology as I am. And then there are entire break-off heterodox churches that came from a specific denomination but change the theology around based on the opinions of the pastor/founder. It’s not my fault you are all confused. Every man his own authority…

Bogeydogg and theojunkie, thanks for the insights!

The thing to remember is that they claim that Catholics (Roman and Eastern) as well as Lutherans for that matter, all depend on works for salvation because we believe that the Sacraments save. However they, not having the assurances of the Sacraments, all confess that God wants them to work out their sanctification to show they are saved. Therefore they have no assurance and nothing to cling to except their personal holiness by which they try to prove they are saved.

That is why they tend to be so bombastic when called on this. it is because they know that they have no assurance because they have rejected the very means Christ commanded them to do so that they will know they are saved.

The thing I stress to my Calvinist friends is that Christ gave us a few “Do this” commandments.

He commanded us to “Do this” (the Table) when we gather in His name.

He commanded the Priests to forgive sin in His Name.

He commanded us to be baptized.

And He commanded us to love and to be merciful and to forbear the sins of those who sin against us that men will know we are His disciples.

But their churches reject all of these commandments as “wrks” and so they have nothing to know they are saved except that day to day they are not doing the “big sins” while their preacher teaches them week after week that man is irretrievably lost and most men are going to Hell no matter what because of God’s reprobation against them

Break into this uncertainty and it will shine light on them.

I have a Presbyterian friend who I argued this track against time and again until he finally stopped talking to me altogether, but I see him and family in Church occasionally, and when I asked him why he said, “Because I need to know the Gospel is still being preached.”

So speak truth in love because men do want to be free of their sins, even if their orthodoxy works against them. Trust the Spirit to do His work in them and don’t give up because it is Christ you are giving to your friend and not merely another way to think about Him.

God Bless

 

[ephesians2]

The thing to remember is that they claim that Catholics (Roman and Eastern) as well as Lutherans for that matter, all depend on works for salvation because we believe that the Sacraments save. However they, not having the assurances of the Sacraments, all confess that God wants them to work out their sanctification to show they are saved. Therefore they have no assurance and nothing to cling to except their personal holiness by which they try to prove they are saved.

I understand what you are saying, but a Calvinist would disagree. They believe they have the assurances of the Sacraments, which to them are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. I think it would be disputed that they work out their salvation to “show they are saved”. They do not do it to show others they are saved in the sense that this is the ultimate reason- to show they are righteous- their doctrine would suggest otherwise. Of course there are some that do try to act righteous like the Pharisees, but some don’t. I would tend to believe it’s the same in any church, whether you are Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Baptists, in the sense that we all seem to cling to our own righteousness/good works at some point. If you deny this, you are a liar. Everyone does this. From what I understand, a humble Calvinist would say that their good works aren’t really that great in God’s eyes, but they do them because they are lead to do them by the Holy Spirit. A humble Calvinist recognizes in their own heart that they are saved specifically because of their personal relationship with God. It’s not something that can be fully explained other than they have what Philippians 4:7 says, “And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” As for the Sacraments, they do partake in the Lord’s Supper because they have the assurance that after examining themselves and their conscience that their sins are forgiven in Jesus name because of His work for them on the cross, bearing their sins. They can have assurance of their own salvation, but not without the common doubts of a Christian. I think most Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Calvinist, Lutheran) would agree when I say there are certainly moments of uncertainness. “Why do you love me, God?” I don’t think you are correct when you say, “Therefore they have no assurance and nothing to cling to except their personal holiness by which they try to prove they are saved.” In a sense, this is what non-Catholics think about Catholics. It’s hurling stones. You shouldn’t cast a blanket statement over Calvinists or non-Catholics in general, when you suggest they don’t have assurance. Or that they are trying to prove they are saved. There are self-righteous Pharisees, constant doubters, compulsive liars, and backstabbers in every church. Jesus chose those types of men out of the world to be His disciples and apostles. By their words and actions we realize their declaration of faith and by faith given to us from God, we believe them(Hebrews 11).

 

[mackbrislawn]

Peace,

Having been there/done that… I wouldn’t call it “grim” theology. Properly understood, there is no pride, no sadness (even for or by the reprobate), no “easy believeism”… only thankful humble awestruck joy for those who find themselves in God’s friendship.

Do the reprobate know they are of the reprobate?

I can understand the joy for those who find themselves in God’s friendship, but what about those who do not find themselves in God’s friendship?

 

[bogeydogg]

I understand what you are saying, but a Calvinist would disagree. They believe they have the assurances of the Sacraments, which to them are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. I think it would be disputed that they work out their salvation to “show they are saved”. They do not do it to show others they are saved in the sense that this is the ultimate reason- to show they are righteous- their doctrine would suggest otherwise. Of course there are some that do try to act righteous like the Pharisees, but some don’t. I would tend to believe it’s the same in any church, whether you are Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Baptists, in the sense that we all seem to cling to our own righteousness/good works at some point. If you deny this, you are a liar. Everyone does this. From what I understand, a humble Calvinist would say that their good works aren’t really that great in God’s eyes, but they do them because they are lead to do them by the Holy Spirit. A humble Calvinist recognizes in their own heart that they are saved specifically because of their personal relationship with God. It’s not something that can be fully explained other than they have what Philippians 4:7 says, “And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” As for the Sacraments, they do partake in the Lord’s Supper because they have the assurance that after examining themselves and their conscience that their sins are forgiven in Jesus name because of His work for them on the cross, bearing their sins. They can have assurance of their own salvation, but not without the common doubts of a Christian. I think most Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Calvinist, Lutheran) would agree when I say there are certainly moments of uncertainness. “Why do you love me, God?” I don’t think you are correct when you say, “Therefore they have no assurance and nothing to cling to except their personal holiness by which they try to prove they are saved.” In a sense, this is what non-Catholics think about Catholics. It’s hurling stones. You shouldn’t cast a blanket statement over Calvinists or non-Catholics in general, when you suggest they don’t have assurance. Or that they are trying to prove they are saved. There are self-righteous Pharisees, constant doubters, compulsive liars, and backstabbers in every church. Jesus chose those types of men out of the world to be His disciples and apostles. By their words and actions we realize their declaration of faith and by faith given to us from God, we believe them(Hebrews 11).

As a former Calvinist I feel pretty safe in this. Yes the Calvinist churches do teach about the Sacraments (well some do) but they reject their efficacy saying they are signs given only for those who are already of the faith. By saying that they do remove the power of the Sacraments and declare them to be of no grace at all except for those who already have grace and so their is no added grace in Sacraments.

As such even though they claim to practice the Sacraments tehy reject them. And why not? Calvin himself said those who believe the Sacraments save were pagans victims of the superstitions of the Papists.

As far as sanctification this one is ticklish and I have never met a Calvinist who will own it. However if you show your salvation by your sanctification then you are proving it by your works. You just are.

If you say not then explain how my logic is wrong.

Once you begin your faith by accepting/ inviting/ making Jesus the Lord of your life (which is all about you and what you do) you then show (prove) this profession by living a sanctified life (which is all about you and what you do).

However those who believe in efficacy of the Sacraments believe that through them God works in us and we are passive to receive the grace God pours out on us. We do not “do” the Sacraments.

That is why I said Calvinists work for their Salvation and have to prove it to know they have it. They fall back on “election” but since even Calvin said no one can know that is credulity and special pleading.

God Bless

 

[mackbrislawn]

" God predestines some to glory, and some to damnation"

Unless I don’t know what predestine means in this context, this implies that free will is irrelevant to whether or not you get to heaven… since some already ‘doomed’ or ‘predestined’ to hell.

In which case I will drop the Catholic religion.

Augustine and Aquinas have a lot of influence in the west, less so in the east. I wonder what the Eastern Orthodox take is on all of this?

Another question for anybody, is it possible to know in this life if you are of the elect or of the reprobate?

 

[bogeydogg]

Augustine and Aquinas have a lot of influence in the west, less so in the east. I wonder what the Eastern Orthodox take is on all of this?

Another question for anybody, is it possible to know in this life if you are of the elect or of the reprobate?

No. And that very uncertainty drove me insane. Because no matter how hard I prayed or gave or whatnot I was always asking the question, “Does any of this matter; what if I am reprobate?”

After all I am elect then why bother trying? And if I am reprobate then why bother trying?

Then I walked into a Church and a strange man forgave my sins by the power and command of Christ, and I said to myself, “OH!!! So this is what the big deal is.”

So my Calvinist friends call me a sacredotalist but whatever. There is no label they can hang on me that will make me forget the grace of the actual forgiveness of sins.

God Bless

 

[Theojunkie]

Do the reprobate know they are of the reprobate?

I can understand the joy for those who find themselves in God’s friendship, but what about those who do not find themselves in God’s friendship?

The short answer is no.

From the Reformed perspective:

The only thing you can know is that you are saved– if you recognize in yourself that you love God, trust him and what Christ did for you, and agree that it is good.

If you are reprobate, you do not care for God, so you won’t be asking yourself this question. Put another way, if you are concerned about your salvation, then you probably have nothing to worry about.

Also remember, that everyone starts out life dead in their sins… Everyone, even the elect. This is the meaning of “total depravity”. It is only when God gives you a new heart that you begin to care for him. This is the meaning of regeneration.

Therefore, there literally is no difference between an elect person who has not yet come to faith, and a reprobate person. They look identical to an observer, and they feel the same about themselves inside. The only difference is something only God knows-- can that is that the elect person will one day believe.

 

[Theojunkie]

Bogey,

I’d like to tweak some of what you are saying.

You said:

As far as sanctification this one is ticklish and I have never met a Calvinist who will own it. However if you show your salvation by your sanctification then you are proving it by your works. You just are.

If you say not then explain how my logic is wrong.

Once you begin your faith by accepting/ inviting/ making Jesus the Lord of your life (which is all about you and what you do) you then show (prove) this profession by living a sanctified life (which is all about you and what you do).

However those who believe in efficacy of the Sacraments believe that through them God works in us and we are passive to receive the grace God pours out on us. We do not “do” the Sacraments.

That is why I said Calvinists work for their Salvation and have to prove it to know they have it. They fall back on “election” but since even Calvin said no one can know that is credulity and special pleading.

About works: Correct, the Calvinist – like everyone else-- does prove their salvation by their works. However, the difference here is that Reformed are not proving their salvation to God in the slightest… but instead only to their fellow man. Their works are not something they “also do”… but they are a natural consequence of their living faith. There is no practical use for works with respect to one’s relationship with God. The usefulness of works is only in that I can look at you and have some reasonable assurance – e.g. before I sign you on as the youth minister-- that your claim to faith is true.

Reformed (and I’m not talking about the man John Calvin and his personal teachings, but today’s Reformed theology) teach that it is possible to know if you are elect– as I mentioned in my previous post. It is also possible to deceive yourself into thinking that you have living/saving faith when you do not (and from there decide that you are elect)… but careful and honest self-examination would reveal that if one was inclined to do that (but if one does not really care about God, one is not going to care that much to examine themselves honestly). This is not the same as not being able to know. And again, it is not possible to know one is reprobate-- just because I don’t have living saving faith today, does not mean that I will ever stay that way. Tomorrow I may truly believe-- only God knows.