R
Rand_Al_Thor
Guest
Peace be with you!
Thanks for the answer…that’s more clear now. What are the scripture passages to support Luther’s thinking on this?
In Christ,
Rand
- Status
Thanks for the answer…that’s more clear now. What are the scripture passages to support Luther’s thinking on this?
In Christ,
Rand
S
SEMPEREFORMANDA
Guest
No, I’m 22. I’ve just been blessed by being able to take a good deal of Greek as an undergrad and the opportunity to learn Hebrew in Seminary.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?
S
SEMPEREFORMANDA
Guest
Maybe later if time allows.Really, you should read the whole thing.
M
Mickey
Guest
Good for you!
B
bhlincoln
Guest
You may also want to take a look at my site which I have dedicated to refuting Calvin, Luther and the Protestant Reformation:
www.protestanterrors.com
Thanks,
BH
www.protestanterrors.com
Thanks,
BH
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
J.R.:
You’ve either missed or ignored my point, which was:
One should first try and understand what an author is saying in his own context before launching into reading contra-material against said author.
If this method were followed, probably half the posts dedicated to exposing the errors of either Catholicism or Protestantism would be eliminated. How often do we actually read what the other side said in their own context, but rather rely on what someone else has extracted?
It’s a simple point, and a principle I try to follow.
Regards,
James Swan
Hi J.R.
You’ve either missed or ignored my point, which was:
One should first try and understand what an author is saying in his own context before launching into reading contra-material against said author.
If this method were followed, probably half the posts dedicated to exposing the errors of either Catholicism or Protestantism would be eliminated. How often do we actually read what the other side said in their own context, but rather rely on what someone else has extracted?
It’s a simple point, and a principle I try to follow.
Regards,
James Swan
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Hi Phil,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:
Thanks for this post- a lot to chew on. Will get back to you in more detail, time allowing.
Just some quick followups, do the points you made also come with Scriptural substantiation?
It would be helpful to know how each conclusion was arrived at, if the Bible was the field from which the statements were extracted from.
I would also be interested in discussing each point in more depth.
Regards,
James Swan
P
PhilVaz
Guest
JamesSwan << Thanks for this post- a lot to chew on. Will get back to you in more detail, time allowing. Just one quick followup, do the points you made also come with Scriptural substantiation? >>
Well most theology is an elaboration on the Scripture texts, and yes there are a few in Ludwig Ott. I’m not theologically trained nor a biblical scholar, exegesis is not my “bag.” I am an amateur, like most of us. But the main ones as I understand against Calvinism are these (from the Jim Burnham article):
From Akin’s footnote: The fact Calvinists are not aware of this shows a lack of scholarship. Presbyterian theologian R. C. Sproul attempts to redefine Calvinism as the “Augustinian” view. While Calvin’s view of predestination might be a variation of Augustine’s view, the two are not the same. Augustine did not believe in Calvin’s understanding of the “perseverance of the saints,” and neither did the broadly Augustinian tradition. That understanding was new with Calvin. For an accurate historical discussion of perseverance of the saints, see J. J. Davis’s article “Perseverance of the Saints: A History of the Doctrine,” in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 34/2 (June 1991), 213-228. Davis is himself a Calvinist, and it is fitting a Calvinist help correct the errors of other Calvinists on the history of their doctrine.
Phil P
Well most theology is an elaboration on the Scripture texts, and yes there are a few in Ludwig Ott. I’m not theologically trained nor a biblical scholar, exegesis is not my “bag.” I am an amateur, like most of us.
But the main ones as I understand against Calvinism are these (from the Jim Burnham article):- No truly free will (denied by experience, and by the Gospel commands to repent, reform, obey the commandments, perform works of charity, and persevere to the end).
- Thus no merit or demerit (denied by the whole Bible which testifies to the rewards and punishments God will apportion to all men according to their deeds, e.g. Matt 16:27; Rom 2:5-10; 2 Cor 5:10; Rev 22:11-12; etc).
- God desires salvation only for the elect. (Denied by 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; Matt 23:37; Ezek 18:23-32; 33:11; etc).
- Christ died only for the elect. (Denied by John 3:16-17; 4:42; 1 John 2:2; 4:9-14; Rom 5:6,18; 2 Cor 5:14-15; 1 Tim 2:6; 4:10; etc).
- God provides grace only to the elect. (Denied by Titus 2:11; John 1:9,16; Rom 2:4; etc).
- God directly predetermines the salvation of the elect, including their good works. (This ignores any cooperation of the will with grace).
- God directly predetermines the damnation of the reprobate, including their sins. (This is denied by James 1:13-14; Sirach 15:11-20; 1 Cor 10:13; and ignores any true resistance and rejection by the will).
- The elect will be saved with no merit of their own. (This denies heavenly reward).
- The reprobate will be damned for no fault of their own. (This denies true guilt and deserved punishment).
From Akin’s footnote: The fact Calvinists are not aware of this shows a lack of scholarship. Presbyterian theologian R. C. Sproul attempts to redefine Calvinism as the “Augustinian” view. While Calvin’s view of predestination might be a variation of Augustine’s view, the two are not the same. Augustine did not believe in Calvin’s understanding of the “perseverance of the saints,” and neither did the broadly Augustinian tradition. That understanding was new with Calvin. For an accurate historical discussion of perseverance of the saints, see J. J. Davis’s article “Perseverance of the Saints: A History of the Doctrine,” in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 34/2 (June 1991), 213-228. Davis is himself a Calvinist, and it is fitting a Calvinist help correct the errors of other Calvinists on the history of their doctrine.
Phil P
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Rand Al'Thor:
The thrust of Luther’s Bondage of the Will is man’s will in relation to God. Luther says to Erasmus:
“For we have shown above that free choice properly belongs to no one but God alone. You might perhaps rightly attribute some measure of choice to man, but to attribute free choice to him **in relation to divine things ** is too much; for the term “free choice,” in the judgment of everyone’s ears, means (strictly speaking) that which can do and does, in relation to God, whatever it pleases, uninhibited by any law or any sovereign authority.”
For one example (that you have asked for), Luther appeals to the Scripture that man’s will is not free, but enslaved to sin, and he cites Romans 1:18-
“This is how Paul, writing to the Romans, enters into an argument against free choice and for the grace of God: “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who in wickedness hold back the truth of God” [Rom. 1:18]. Do you hear in this the general verdict on all men, that they are under the wrath of God? What else does this mean but that they are deserving of wrath and punishment? He gives as the reason for the wrath, the fact that they do nothing but what deserves wrath and punishment, because they are all ungodly and wicked, and in wickedness hold back the truth. Where now is the power of free choice to attempt anything good? Paul represents it as deserving the wrath of God, and pronounces it ungodly and wicked. And that which deserves wrath and is ungodly, strives and prevails against grace, not for grace.”
It’s tempting to quote Luther at length, since this is only one scriptural text among many that Luther appeals to. But, you would do best to simply read Luther for yourself:
covenanter.org/Luther/Bondage/bow_toc.htm
Take Care,
James Swan
Hi Rand,
The thrust of Luther’s Bondage of the Will is man’s will in relation to God. Luther says to Erasmus:
“For we have shown above that free choice properly belongs to no one but God alone. You might perhaps rightly attribute some measure of choice to man, but to attribute free choice to him **in relation to divine things ** is too much; for the term “free choice,” in the judgment of everyone’s ears, means (strictly speaking) that which can do and does, in relation to God, whatever it pleases, uninhibited by any law or any sovereign authority.”
For one example (that you have asked for), Luther appeals to the Scripture that man’s will is not free, but enslaved to sin, and he cites Romans 1:18-
“This is how Paul, writing to the Romans, enters into an argument against free choice and for the grace of God: “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who in wickedness hold back the truth of God” [Rom. 1:18]. Do you hear in this the general verdict on all men, that they are under the wrath of God? What else does this mean but that they are deserving of wrath and punishment? He gives as the reason for the wrath, the fact that they do nothing but what deserves wrath and punishment, because they are all ungodly and wicked, and in wickedness hold back the truth. Where now is the power of free choice to attempt anything good? Paul represents it as deserving the wrath of God, and pronounces it ungodly and wicked. And that which deserves wrath and is ungodly, strives and prevails against grace, not for grace.”
It’s tempting to quote Luther at length, since this is only one scriptural text among many that Luther appeals to. But, you would do best to simply read Luther for yourself:
covenanter.org/Luther/Bondage/bow_toc.htm
Take Care,
James Swan
E
Eden
Guest
James
I’m sure you are aware that St. Augustine is a Doctor of the Church. In fact, in 1295 Pope Boniface VIII declared St. Augustine to be one of the “outstanding teachers (doctors) of the Church”. Protestant efforts to conform St. Augustine to their own theology is not convincing to a Catholic.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
JamesSwan << Thanks for this post- a lot to chew on. Will get back to you in more detail, time allowing. Just one quick followup, do the points you made also come with Scriptural substantiation? >>
Well most theology is an elaboration on the Scripture texts, and yes there are a few in Ludwig Ott. I’m not theologically trained nor a biblical scholar, exegesis is not my “bag.” I am an amateur, like most of us.
- No truly free will (denied by experience, and by the Gospel commands to repent, reform, obey the commandments, perform works of charity, and persevere to the end).
Do Catholics & Calvinists mean the same thing by “free will” ?
Can one apply a passage from the OT speaking of temporal salvation to eternal salvation ? IMO, no
Calvinism teaches common grace - the elect are not alone in receiving grace.
Then why do the Puritans spend so much time exhorting to good works ? (Catholics might lose a lot of illusions about Calvinism, if they would read them.) The same reasoning is as much or as little destructive of intercessory prayer - unless one believes that God can be changed by prayer. A bit of lateral thinking might resolve many of these points
Does their damnation occur outside God’s Providence, then ? (Sirach would not count for much, BTW.) As for:
Jam 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one; but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire- this does not deny that, any more than a passage about the birth of Christ denies His eternal generation. Temptation is as much a reality for Calvinists as anyone else
- Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.
- No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.##
Are we born with a right to Heaven ?
St.Thomas differs from St. Augustine too - as does & did the CC. There is nothing unusual or wrong in reinterpreting St. Augustine. He is not Scripture - that, alone, is the supreme rule of faith for Calvinists.
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Hello again Eden,
Thank you for the historical reminder and your opinion on Protestant efforts.
Have a nice day.
Regards,
James Swan
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Faith without works can be taken as opposed
either to faith fruitful in good works -or to faith without fruit in good works: a mere professing of faith, which does not bear fruit in godly living to the Glory of Christ. And this second faith is vain and worthless at worst, or it is disobedient at best: and Christian disobedience is no more praiseworthy than the disobedience of one who is not a Christian. It is arguably a good deal worse, to judge by Hebrews 10: for Christians have more light to sin against, so will be judged with a heavier judgement. The privileges of the believer always go in hand in hand with his responsibilities to his Father in Heaven - it was so under the Old covenant, and remains so under the New: to be within the covenant of grace which is sealed in the Blood of Christ, is to be under obedience to do the works of Christ - not to do nothing. What son does not obey his father ? The Son obeyed His - those who are “sons in the Son” will do likewise, the more fully they are conformed to Him.
A faith which bears no fruit in good works - which is what James condemns - is not the faith which St.Paul insists on: for Paul insists on justification by grace alone by grace alone, through faith, and not by works; a faith which if it is real will be fruitful in good works.
A faith not fruitful in good, is a faith which is not yielding the harvest it should yield; it is not promoting the interests of Christ the King; it is not bringing honour and glory and blessing and power to His Name.
Obedience runs the risk of being a mere legalistic obedience, rather than the loving obedience of sons - that is why our adoption as sons is important. The Christian is not simply a forgiven rebel, not even a forgiven servant in God’s household - he is adopted into the immediate “family circle” of God. IOW - God’s forgiveness goes beyond law and justice and logic, and recreates sons from rebels, living saints from unclean corpses. Adoption from our old state gives us a wholly new principle of life - God’s own Spirit. So obedience is made safe from legalism, is fruitful in good, is the fruit of adoption, & comes from life in the Spirit ##
W
whosebob
Guest
Gottle of Geer:
For those who are interested in the faith-works controversy and how it relates to the subject of predestination, I would also suggest the following chapters from Fr. William Most’s book Catholic Apologetics Today: Answers to Modern Critics:
Chapter 18: Faith Alone: Luther’s Discovery?
Chapter 19: Help for Ecumenism: On Predestination
Chapter 20: Do We Contribute to Our Salvation?
His presentation is no more than an introduction to some complicated matters, but provides a helpful compass for approaching it all in a Catholic framework.
In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
IC XC NIKA
JMJ + OBT
Good stuff. Thanks, Gottle of Geer!For those who are interested in the faith-works controversy and how it relates to the subject of predestination, I would also suggest the following chapters from Fr. William Most’s book Catholic Apologetics Today: Answers to Modern Critics:
Chapter 18: Faith Alone: Luther’s Discovery?
Chapter 19: Help for Ecumenism: On Predestination
Chapter 20: Do We Contribute to Our Salvation?
His presentation is no more than an introduction to some complicated matters, but provides a helpful compass for approaching it all in a Catholic framework.
In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
IC XC NIKA
- Status