In need of a good book against Calvinism

  • Thread starter Thread starter J.R
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J.R.:
Friends, I have a copy of Calvin’s, “Institutes” and before I start reading it I would like some recomendations of a book that would be a good companion to read and point out the flaws of his book. God bless all here and thank you.
Click to expand...
Hi,

Now, I have a problem with your approach. I suggest simply reading Calvin and trying to understand what he’s trying to say, and then contrasting it with something like the Catholic Catechism, or Augustine, or one of the other books mentioned.

Suppose I came on this forum and said,

“I have a copy of the Catholic Catechism. before I start reading it I would like some recomendations of a book that would be a good companion to read and point out the flaws of the book.”

Wouldn’t many of the Catholics here exhort me to first read the Catechism and try to understand what its saying?

Someone here suggested you pick up Geisler’s Chosen But Free. Now, one thing Geisler doesn’t understand is John Calvin. One could even argue he doesn’t understand Calvinsm. But his treatment of John Calvin in Chosen But Free is terrible, and he should have been fined for misusing his doctorate degree to put forth such poor scholarship. He can’t even quote him accurately as i’ve demonstrated here:

aomin.org/TertiumQuid.html

I suggest this. Pick up a copy this book:

amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0875521827/qid=1119924433/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-6281457-0297726?v=glance&s=books

It’s a overview of Calvin’s Institutes. Then read Augustine, Aquinas, or some other source you trust.

Regards,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
As for book length treatments of Calvin’s Institutes, don’t know of any. It’s a rather large book covering many topics.Phil P
Click to expand...
There are indeed full length treatments of the Institutes, and also overviews of Calvin’s theology in general. Here are a few that I find helpful:

amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0875521827/ref=pd_sim_b_1/102-6281457-0297726?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance

amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0664256023/qid=1119925224/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/102-6281457-0297726?v=glance&s=books

amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0664223036/qid=1119925398/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-6281457-0297726?v=glance&s=books

The Institutes are easily readable. This isn’t like reading Aquinas. It’s easily understood stuff. Stick to the John T. McNeill translation for best results:

amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0664220282/ref=pd_sr_ec_cs_b-koth-pa1/102-6281457-0297726?v=glance&s=books&st=*

Regards,
James Swan
 
Rand Al'Thor:
Peace be with you!

Actually Luther was the first to preach that, but Calvin agreed with him. Calvin also thought that everyone is predestined either to heaven or hell before we are born and there is absolutely nothing any of us can do to change it. There’s a Calvinist telling me about this and trying to say how God predestines everything…but he doesn’t make us sin. Oh, and evil doesn’t come from Him. But he predestines everything. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

In Christ,
Rand
Click to expand...
Hi Rand,

I am a Calvinist. The reason why I am a Calvinst is because I couldn’t make the Bible say what I wanted it to say. Knock yourself out trying to apply human reason to Romans 8-9, Ephesians 1-2, John 6, and a whole bunch of Scripture. I simply accept what these texts say.

Read Augustine lately?

Regards,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm
 
40.png
jusher7281:
Luther wrote that without works, faith was “false, and not true” and he taught that justification is a process, and not just a one time event. This sounds precariously close to the Catholic position, wouldn’t you agree?
Click to expand...
Hi,

I would be interested in seeing any information regarding Luther holding that “that justification is a process, and not just a one time event.”

Thanks,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm
 
JMJ + OBT​
Dear J.R.,

Here are links to three articles from the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia which might be useful to you in your studies and investigation:

Calvinism

John Calvin

Predestination

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA
 
40.png
TertiumQuid:
I would be interested in seeing any information regarding Luther holding that “that justification is a process, and not just a one time event.”
Click to expand...
I don’t really know who the Lutherans are to determine what the founder of their denomination taught, but here’s a link:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/pccujnt4.htm

May God bless you and keep you,

RyanL
(presently accursed on the www.aomin.org site you linked)
 
40.png
TertiumQuid:
I hope you’re kidding here Rand. See:
covenanter.org/Luther/Bondage/bow_toc.htm

Regards,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm
Click to expand...
Peace be with you!

I meant he believed in free will to a certain extent. But I may be wrong…but what I posted was what a group of Lutheran friends told me and they take theology classes at a Lutheran university. But, from that link you showed me, it looks like they are being taught the wrong thing.

In Christ,
Rand
 
JamesSwan << There are indeed full length treatments of the Institutes, and also overviews of Calvin’s theology in general. Here are a few that I find helpful >>

Of course, I meant full-length refutations of Calvin’s Institutes by a Catholic author. That’s what I assume the topic starter wanted. Are you aware of any books like that?

I agree there are probably thousands of books on Calvinism itself, by Protestants or Calvinists, or summaries of the Institutes. Can’t say I’ve read a lot of the Institutes, but yes they are readily available in any college or university library. I’ve seen and perused them often.

Phil P
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
Of course, I meant full-length refutations of Calvin’s Institutes by a Catholic author. That’s what I assume the topic starter wanted. Are you aware of any books like that?

I agree there are probably thousands of books on Calvinism itself, by Protestants or Calvinists, or summaries of the Institutes. Can’t say I’ve read a lot of the Institutes, but yes they are readily available in any college or university library. I’ve seen and perused them often.Phil P
Click to expand...
Hi Phil,

I think this is a mistaken approach.I think the guy who started this thread should first try to read and understand Calvin in his context before launching into polemical material.

In regard to contemporary-in-print-english-Roman Catholic works giving full length treatments of John calvin’s Institutes, I have not seen any. There are of course, Catholic books that address Calvinism in general, but this is really a different subject. Calvin’s Institutes cover much more than Predestination. In fact Predestination is not addressed in full till rather late in the Institutes.

Here’s one to get your take on Phil. Very recently, Catholic apologist Art Sippo stated:
One of the problems we have in catholic apologetics is indeed that there are a variety of positions taken within the Catholic fold on certian key questions. Similarly, there are a variety of positions taken by our prot opponents as well.
Click to expand...
In some correspondence I had with a “prot controverisalist of my acquiantence” (Pcoma), he complained to me that Gerry Matatics took a different view than I did on predestination. He demanded that I tell him what THE Catholic position was. I tried to explain to him that there was a range of views permissible within the limits of Catholic orthodoxy. Pcoma then complained that it seems our infallible Pope was not able to read the Scriptures and see that it clearly taught Calvinism. I retorted that this particular truth could not currently be reduced to a simplistic formula and quoted some biblical verses that make Calvinism impossible.
Click to expand...
.

What is that “range” in Roman Catholicism on Predestination/election?

Regards,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm
 
40.png
RyanL:
I don’t really know who the Lutherans are to determine what the founder of their denomination taught, but here’s a link:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/pccujnt4.htm

May God bless you and keep you,

RyanL
(presently accursed on the www.aomin.org site you linked)
Click to expand...
Hi Ryan,

I didn’t find any direct citations from Luther in the above link that prove Luther held that “justification is a process, and not just a one time event.” Due to time restraints, I only skimmed the link. Perhaps you can direct me to where this is discussed.

I must say though, the wording, “justification is a process, and not just a one time event” is somewhat ambiguous. Stated though simply like this, it is pure Roman Catholicism and not something I can see Luther saying.

Regards,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm
 
40.png
TertiumQuid:
Hi,

Now, I have a problem with your approach. I suggest simply reading Calvin and trying to understand what he’s trying to say, and then contrasting it with something like the Catholic Catechism, or Augustine, or one of the other books mentioned.

Suppose I came on this forum and said,

“I have a copy of the Catholic Catechism. before I start reading it I would like some recomendations of a book that would be a good companion to read and point out the flaws of the book.”

Wouldn’t many of the Catholics here exhort me to first read the Catechism and try to understand what its saying?

Someone here suggested you pick up Geisler’s Chosen But Free. Now, one thing Geisler doesn’t understand is John Calvin. One could even argue he doesn’t understand Calvinsm. But his treatment of John Calvin in Chosen But Free is terrible, and he should have been fined for misusing his doctorate degree to put forth such poor scholarship. He can’t even quote him accurately as i’ve demonstrated here:

aomin.org/TertiumQuid.html

I suggest this. Pick up a copy this book:

amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0875521827/qid=1119924433/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-6281457-0297726?v=glance&s=books

It’s a overview of Calvin’s Institutes. Then read Augustine, Aquinas, or some other source you trust.

Regards,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm
Click to expand...
First, I’m sorry if you don’t like my approach, but remember this is a Catholic forum (that welcomes all) so we might be alittle biased. As far as you reading the Catechism (which I think you should) and I reading the Calvin’s Institutes there is a very big difference between the two. The Catechism doesn’t devote an entire section to telling the reader all that is wrong with other faiths unlike Calvin’s “Institutes” which I have read very little. Oh by the way I have read Augustine and Aquinas.
 
Rand Al'Thor:
Peace be with you!
I meant he believed in free will to a certain extent. But I may be wrong…but what I posted was what a group of Lutheran friends told me and they take theology classes at a Lutheran university. But, from that link you showed me, it looks like they are being taught the wrong thing.In Christ,Rand
Click to expand...
Hi Rand,

One of the first big debates during the Reformation was between Martin Luther and Desederius Erasmus on the topic of the free/enslaved will.

Luther taught that Erasmus’ view of the free will is that it is “ineffective” without God’s grace, but, Luther said, if the *free will * needs a little of God’s grace, then it must be a permanent prisoner to evil since it cannot turn itself to the good.

Luther’s doctrine of the will at times seems deterministic. He sees neither puppet or automaton. He does not try to figure out how it all works (the relationship between creature and creator). He says *we are free * in horizontal relationships, to choose things (like food or spouses), but *we are bound * though in the vertical relationship away from choosing God. We are all born with defiance in the heart.

Regards,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm
 
40.png
TertiumQuid:
What is that “range” in Roman Catholicism on Predestination/election?
Click to expand...
JMJ + OBT​

The following article from the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia is not a bad place to start to investigate the “range” in Catholic theology and thinking regarding predestination. Try Fr. Most’s book as well (see my posts earlier in this thread).

Predestination.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA
 
whosebob said:

JMJ + OBT​

Just in case you didn’t catch my earlier reply to the original poster’s request – I think you might enjoy the following biblical and theological investigation of the concept of predestination:

Grace, Predestination and the Salvific Will of God: New Answers to Old Questions
by the late Fr. William Most

Fr. Most definitely gives St. Paul in Romans 9 and others a thorough treatment.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA
Click to expand...

I’ll take a look at at least the Rom 9 section. May I recommend John Piper’s The Justification of God
This is perhaps the most solid exegetical treatment of Rom 9:1-23 available. It would help if you can read Greek and Hebrew, but you could probably make use of it anyway.
 
40.png
TertiumQuid:
Knock yourself out trying to apply human reason to Romans 8-9, Ephesians 1-2, John 6, and a whole bunch of Scripture. I simply accept what these texts say.
Click to expand...
If you truly and simply accepted what John 6 says, then you would believe in the Real Presence, and you would be either Catholic or Orthodox. 😃
 
JamesSwan << What is that “range” in Roman Catholicism on Predestination/election? >>

Ah ha, just your luck, I answered this for Eric Svendsen 6 years ago for his $100,000 Roman Catholic Challenge. I could really use that $100,000 and wondering when he is going to send that money. 😃

My answer below, a copy/paste, still a good answer I think:

Svendsen: Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on Predestination–is it the position of Augustine? Scotus? Molina? Aquinas?

PhilVaz: This is a more complex issue and indeed some of the minute details have not been defined simply because Predestination itself will always remain a mystery. We cannot know the mind of God completely on this just as we cannot comprehend the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. While we can “explain” the issue to some extent, and the Church can and has excluded heretical notions and errors on these beliefs, we cannot fathom the depths of such beliefs since these are only known fully by God Himself (Rom 11:33f).

Given that distinction however, there have been “limits” on what Predestination is and is not as defined by the Catholic Church, and these are found in such works as Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott (which refers to the relevant theologians, Councils and Popes, and the heresies that were opposed) as well as some helpful articles in the NCE – I would recommend the ones on Predestination in Catholic theology (vol 11, page 714ff), Predestination in non-Catholic theology (vol 11, page 719ff), Free Will and Grace (vol 6, page 93f), Free Will and Providence (vol 6, page 94f), Luis de Molina (vol 9, page 1010f), Molinism (vol 9, page 1011ff), and Banez and Banezianism (vol 2, page 48ff).

The main “controversy” over the minute details of Predestination between Catholics occurred in the later sixteenth century with the Molinists (after the Spanish Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina) and the Banezians (after the Spanish Dominican theologian Domingo Banez) who emphasized different aspects of the issue. Much farther apart in their beliefs, the debate in non-Catholic or Protestant theology is between the Calvinists (after the Protestant Reformer John Calvin, whose theology affected later Reformed and Presbyterians, some Baptists) and the later Arminians (after Jacobus Arminius whose theology affected the Methodists, Pentecostals, some Baptists, and others).

Rather than give a whole history of the doctrine of Predestination I will state what the Catholic Church has officially defined on grace, free will and Predestination (see Ludwig Ott, page 219-249):

There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will. (De fide)

There is a supernatural influence of God in the faculties of the soul which coincides in time with man’s free act of will. (De fide)

For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary. (De fide)

Internal supernatural grace is absolutely necessary for the beginning of faith and of salvation. (De fide)

Without the special help of God the justified cannot persevere to the end in justification. (De fide)

Grace cannot be merited by natural works either de condigno or de congruo. (De fide)

God, by His Eternal Resolve of Will, has predetermined certain men to eternal blessedness. (De fide)

God, by His Eternal Resolve of Will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection. (De fide)

The human will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irresistible. (De fide)

There is a grace which is truly sufficient and yet remains inefficacious (gratia vere et mere sufficiens). (De fide)

This defines the “basic” position of the Catholic Church on grace and Predestination. The NCE in the article on Predestination defines the teaching of the Church giving references to Denzinger (which is a standard source for Catholic dogma) as the following:

God predestines no one to evil. (Denz 1567)

He wills, on the contrary, the salvation of all men. (Denz 623)

Christ did not die solely for the predestined or the faithful. (Denz 2005, 2304, 2430)

There is a grace that is truly sufficient and that is a true gift of God. (Denz 2306)

The grace of conversion is offered to sinners. (Denz 1542)

They only are deprived of it who, failing in their duty, refuse it; this is something which God permits but of which He is by no means the cause. (Denz 1556, 1567, 2866)

Against the various forms of predestinationism offered by Protestants in the sixteenth century, the Church teaches (taken from the NCE):

(1) God sincerely wills the salvation of all men and thus makes the fulfillment of His precepts possible for all; (2) There is neither predestination to evil as a final end nor predestination to any evil deed in particular; (3) Christ died for all men without exception; (4) Nevertheless, God has decreed from all eternity to inflict eternal punishment for the sin of final impenitence, which He has foreseen for all eternity – He is by no means the cause of the impenitence, but merely permits it.

More here $100,000 Answer to Svendsen

See also the Jim Burnham article on Calvinism and Catholicism Contrasted mentioned in previous post

Phil P
 
40.png
whosebob:
Grace, Predestination and the Salvific Will of God: New Answers to Old Questions
by the late Fr. William Most

Fr. Most definitely gives St. Paul in Romans 9 and others a thorough treatment.
Click to expand...
I didn’t find his treatment especially thorough. He failed to show how Paul’s statements in vv.11ff relate to the purpose of that chapter as expressed in vv. 1-6. He further, did not deal with the grammar of the passage or its place in the epistle as a whole. These considerations are vital to understanding this passage. It seems that all he did was posit an “internal order” versus “external order” distinction, claim that this passage deals with the external order, and then conclude that it does not teach unconditional election and preterition.
I really do recommend Piper on this issue.
 
40.png
SEMPEREFORMANDA:
I’ll take a look at at least the Rom 9 section. May I recommend John Piper’s The Justification of God
This is perhaps the most solid exegetical treatment of Rom 9:1-23 available. It would help if you can read Greek and Hebrew, but you could probably make use of it anyway.
Click to expand...
Your command of the English language and your understanding of Greek and Hebrew seems to indicate that you may be a bit older than 22. You didn’t lie to us, did you? 😃
 
40.png
SEMPEREFORMANDA:
I didn’t find his treatment especially thorough . . .
Click to expand...
JMJ + OBT​

Sure – I guess I should have been more careful to note that Fr. Most’s book “Grace, Predestination . . .” is not an exegesis of Romans 9 or any other passage per se. His purpose is to propose and argue a theology of predestination, grace, etc. grounded in Scripture and the teachings of the Magisterium, and that at the same time builds on the work of the Thomists and Molinists (the two principal Catholic schools in this matter) while providing a number of new solutions, or “answers,” to some of the more difficult philosophical and theological problems involved in those subjects.

What I find is that Fr. Most’s systematic treatment is preferable to Calvin’s “system” in painting a “big picture” that does full justice to God’s Revelation in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as a whole, as well as the thought of the Church Fathers and Doctors that have weighed in on these issues over the centuries.

With regards to Calvin’s sytematic theology, in the end I think you have to take it or leave it as a whole (Jimmy Akin’s helpful insights regarding a “Thomisitic TULIP” notwithstanding).

Fr. Most does a fair job, I think, of presenting the Catholic views of this subject matter, and providing a systematic approach that is a great alternative to Calvin’s (though Most did not write it as any sort of rebuttal of Calvinism).

Really, you should read the whole thing. 👍

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top