Is Calvinism For Christ?

[Christian_Unity]

Wrong. Christ died once, for all. While all Christians receive the grace needed, only the elect have responded to that grace. The Catholic understanding has never been that God has picked some and condemned others right out of the gate. It always takes into consideration man’s free will. We have a choice regarding our salvation. We can respond to grace or reject it. The elect have responded positively. The damned have rejected it.

I think Aquinas believed that the elect received a special grace that the non-elect did not receive. Everyone receives grace, but not everyone receives the same amount,kind, type, or amount of grace.

 

[SteveVH]

I think Aquinas believed that the elect received a special grace that the non-elect did not receive. Everyone receives grace, but not everyone receives the same amount,kind, type, or amount of grace.

CU, I receive grace that you do not receive because I belong to the Catholic Church and have access to the sacraments. They strenghten me, cleanse me and give me gifts that help me persevere to the end. But this is not because God said “I think I’ll give extra grace to Steve so he can make it, but not to CU”. The difference between us is a result of our own decisions, not an unjust God who randomly picks who will be saved and who will not. God’s own justice precludes this from happening.

 

[Christian_Unity]

CU, I receive grace that you do not receive because I belong to the Catholic Church and have access to the sacraments. They strenghten me, cleanse me and give me gifts that help me persevere to the end. But this is not because God said “I think I’ll give extra grace to Steve so he can make it, but not to CU”. The difference between us is a result of our own decisions, not an unjust God who randomly picks who will be saved and who will not. God’s own justice precludes this from happening.

Here are the two basic premises a Catholic must hold, as I understand them.

Premise one, God’s predestination of efficacious and gratuitous grace.

1. Man cannot be saved without the efficacious and gratuitous grace given by God alone. The elect that God chooses are are not chosen because God foresees how the elect will respond to His grace, but because of His grace alone. The Council of Trent tells us that the gift of final perseverance cannot be obtained or merited, but it is given by God as a gift. Complete predestination, which includes first grace, as well as a series of graces up until glorification, is gratuitous and is chosen by God previous to foreseen merits. It is not based upon God’s foreknowledge. Finally no man can boast of being better than another, because it is God’s grace only that can elevate man to being better than another, not one’s own choices or works. If we say that we choose or act better than another apart from God’s grace, and as a result we are saved because of that choice or act, then we surely will be able to boast that we are better than another.

Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote, " It is impossible that the whole of the effect of predestination in general should have any cause as coming from us; because whatsoever is in man disposing him toward salvation, is all included under the effect of predestination; even preparation for grace."

Canon 20 Council of Orange.
“That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.”

Even prayer is a gift from God.

Council of Orange Canon 3.
“If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me” (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).”

The Council of Trent tells us,

Chapter XIII
The Gift Of Perseverance

"Similarly with regard to the gift of perseverance, of which it is written:

He that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved, which cannot be obtained from anyone except from Him who is able to make him stand who stands, that he may stand perseveringly, and to raise him who falls, let no one promise himself herein something as certain with an absolute certainty, though all ought to place and repose the firmest hope in God’s help."

Canon 1.
“If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law,[110] without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.”

catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2009/08/misunderstanding-of-catholic.html

 

[SteveVH]

I agree with this.

Those in Hell reject God to be there. Those in Hell said no with their actions, with their word, with their mind and perhaps even at the gate of heaven, still turned from it.

Rejection also happened when God made Man was on the earth (described in John 6).

God does not reject people -

It is impossible for the perfect Love to reject that which he loves perfectly. Imperfection starts with humans as it did after perfect creation. The Love was so powerful and perfect, it’s natural course was to deliver Free Will to it’s creation, as the only way to love perfectly is to do so freely.

And that’s all perfect Love wants in return, is a freely chosen love.

Exactly!

 

[SteveVH]

Here are the two basic premises a Catholic must hold, as I understand them.

Premise one, God’s predestination of efficacious and gratuitous grace.

1. Man cannot be saved without the efficacious and gratuitous grace given by God alone. The elect that God chooses are are not chosen because God foresees how the elect will respond to His grace, but because of His grace alone. The Council of Trent tells us that the gift of final perseverance cannot be obtained or merited, but it is given by God as a gift. Complete predestination, which includes first grace, as well as a series of graces up until glorification, is gratuitous and is chosen by God previous to foreseen merits. It is not based upon God’s foreknowledge. Finally no man can boast of being better than another, because it is God’s grace only that can elevate man to being better than another, not one’s own choices or works. If we say that we choose or act better than another apart from God’s grace, and as a result we are saved because of that choice or act, then we surely will be able to boast that we are better than another.

Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote, " It is impossible that the whole of the effect of predestination in general should have any cause as coming from us; because whatsoever is in man disposing him toward salvation, is all included under the effect of predestination; even preparation for grace."

Canon 20 Council of Orange.
“That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.”

Even prayer is a gift from God.

Council of Orange Canon 3.
“If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me” (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).”

The Council of Trent tells us,

Chapter XIII
The Gift Of Perseverance

"Similarly with regard to the gift of perseverance, of which it is written:

He that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved, which cannot be obtained from anyone except from Him who is able to make him stand who stands, that he may stand perseveringly, and to raise him who falls, let no one promise himself herein something as certain with an absolute certainty, though all ought to place and repose the firmest hope in God’s help."

Canon 1.
“If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law,[110] without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.”

catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2009/08/misunderstanding-of-catholic.html

I have never maintained the position that we do this all on our own. Please start reading my (and everyone else’s) posts more carefully.

Yes, even when we pray, we do so because of the prompting of the Holy Spirit. But one may prompted and decide not to respond; not to pray. The other responds to the prompting of the Holy Spirit and thereby gains more of God’s grace. Without divine grace we can do nothing good. The fact that God is always invloved, always calling us, always drawing us nearer to him has nothing to do with our response to grace. Those that respond are the elect. Those that choose not to respond are condemned. Both have recieved some degree of divine grace. Some accept it, others reject it.

 

[guanophore]

I think Aquinas believed that the elect received a special grace that the non-elect did not receive. Everyone receives grace, but not everyone receives the same amount,kind, type, or amount of grace.

You are right, CU, Aquinas does seem to believe that, though all receive sufficient grace to respond to God’s call, not all do so. Those who do respond to God’s calling or prevenient grace and given more grace.

John 1:16
16 From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.

Luke 8:18
18 Then pay attention to how you listen; for to those who have, more will be given;

James 4:5-6
5 Or do you suppose that it is for nothing that the scripture says, “God yearns jealously for the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”? 6 But he gives all the more grace; therefore it says,

“God opposes the proud,
but gives grace to the humble.”

And some people, who are more steeped in sin do need more grace.

Rom 5:20
…but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more…

Rom 6:1-3
What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it?

 

[SteveVH]

Here are the two basic premises a Catholic must hold, as I understand them.

Premise one, God’s predestination of efficacious and gratuitous grace.

1. Man cannot be saved without the efficacious and gratuitous grace given by God alone. The elect that God chooses are are not chosen because God foresees how the elect will respond to His grace, but because of His grace alone. The Council of Trent tells us that the gift of final perseverance cannot be obtained or merited, but it is given by God as a gift. Complete predestination, which includes first grace, as well as a series of graces up until glorification, is gratuitous and is chosen by God previous to foreseen merits. It is not based upon God’s foreknowledge. Finally no man can boast of being better than another, because it is God’s grace only that can elevate man to being better than another, not one’s own choices or works. If we say that we choose or act better than another apart from God’s grace, and as a result we are saved because of that choice or act, then we surely will be able to boast that we are better than another.

Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote, " It is impossible that the whole of the effect of predestination in general should have any cause as coming from us; because whatsoever is in man disposing him toward salvation, is all included under the effect of predestination; even preparation for grace."

Canon 20 Council of Orange.
“That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.”

Even prayer is a gift from God.

Council of Orange Canon 3.
“If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me” (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).”

The Council of Trent tells us,

Chapter XIII
The Gift Of Perseverance

"Similarly with regard to the gift of perseverance, of which it is written:

He that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved, which cannot be obtained from anyone except from Him who is able to make him stand who stands, that he may stand perseveringly, and to raise him who falls, let no one promise himself herein something as certain with an absolute certainty, though all ought to place and repose the firmest hope in God’s help."

Canon 1.
“If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law,[110] without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.”

catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2009/08/misunderstanding-of-catholic.html

And what have I said that is any different? Have I not said that we need God’s grace just to pray? You are still missing the point. Some reject the grace that is given to all.

 

[guanophore]

Canon 1.
“If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law,[110] without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.”

catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2009/08/misunderstanding-of-catholic.html

You are such a puzzle, CU. You really seem to be sincere, searching, and researching. You put a lot of time and effort into this study, and you read and seem to understand statements like that made in Canon 1 above, but you still come up with this:

After several months exploring the idea of Christian Unity between Catholics and Protestants, I have almost concluded that we have irreconcilable differences. I will choose the sufficiency of Christ as our only means and basis for our union with Christ throughout our Christian journey. I do believe the Catholic view of justification is based on personal merit and develops a works righteousness gospel which is not compatible with biblical cross theology. Oh well, at least I tried. - Peace :knight1:

How can you reconcile your conclusion here, with the CC teaching above?

 

[Christian_Unity]

You are such a puzzle, CU. You really seem to be sincere, searching, and researching. You put a lot of time and effort into this study, and you read and seem to understand statements like that made in Canon 1 above, but you still come up with this:

How can you reconcile your conclusion here, with the CC teaching above?

What I read and study from Catholic sources can be very good. What I hear from individual Catholics seem very different than what I read and study.

 

[guanophore]

What I read and study from Catholic sources can be very good. What I hear from individual Catholics seem very different than what I read and study.

Ahhh. Well, that is good to know, actually. The vast majority of Catholics are poorly catechized, and even those that are do not always explain their faith well.

That is why it is important not to assume that individual Catholics accurately represent the Teaching of the Apostles that has been preserved infallibly in the Chruch by the Holy Spirit. A sad fact that hopefully your presence rectifies, as you keep asking the pointed questions necessary to bring about clarification.

One must not reach a conclusion about the faith based upon those who do not adhere to it. It would be like rejecting Jesus because of the aactions of Judas.

The proper course to take with the poorly instructed is exemplified in Scripture:

Acts 18:24-26
Now there came to Ephesus a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria. He was an eloquent man, well-versed in the scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the Way of the Lord; and he spoke with burning enthusiasm and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the Way of God to him more accurately.

So perhaps your explanations about the Gospel of grace will assist the ignorant and the confused?

 

[manualman]

CU, you haven’t responded to my question or to my analogy above.

You’re trying really hard to read Calvinism into catholic teachings, but they aren’t a good fit.

While you are correct that dogmatic catholic teaching rules out predestination as mere foreknowledge, that is NOT the same thing an endorsement of what I call “puppeteer calvinism.” What it looks to me like Trent and Augustine are doing is rejecting a worldview that later came to be know as ‘deism’ that saw God as removed from contact with creation. Deism is rather incompatible with the Incarnation, so it’s pretty plainly ruled out. Somehow that didn’t stop some remarkable minds in history from falling for it. But rejecting Deism does NOT require acceptance of Calvinism. There is plenty of space in between for a healthy understanding of the fact that while God intervenes constantly in the world of men in order to offer us Graces, he does not force them upon us.

Part of the reason this is such a hard concept for us is that we are creatures inside time and space and God is not. Past, present and future are all NOW to God. The tension (sometimes seeming like contradiction) between God’s will and man’s free will arises from the inadequacies of human intellect. We can identify incorrect definitions (such as deism and Calvinism), but that doesn’t mean we can fully grasp the entirety of the mystery.

I really do understand and appreciate the sincere motive many Calvinists have in wanting to totally honor God’s sovereignty and avoid even the tiniest opening for human pride to take root. But as I said above, it’s pretty ridiculous when a man boasts of clinging to the rope thrown by his Savior as he is hauled of of the pit of his own sin!

 

[Indifferently]

Calvinists do not deny the redemptive power of the Cross.

The problem arises in that the teaching of double predestination presumably makes God the author of sin and death.

 

[Christian_Unity]

CU, you haven’t responded to my question or to my analogy above.

You’re trying really hard to read Calvinism into catholic teachings, but they aren’t a good fit.

While you are correct that dogmatic catholic teaching rules out predestination as mere foreknowledge, that is NOT the same thing an endorsement of what I call “puppeteer calvinism.” What it looks to me like Trent and Augustine are doing is rejecting a worldview that later came to be know as ‘deism’ that saw God as removed from contact with creation. Deism is rather incompatible with the Incarnation, so it’s pretty plainly ruled out. Somehow that didn’t stop some remarkable minds in history from falling for it. But rejecting Deism does NOT require acceptance of Calvinism. There is plenty of space in between for a healthy understanding of the fact that while God intervenes constantly in the world of men in order to offer us Graces, he does not force them upon us.

Part of the reason this is such a hard concept for us is that we are creatures inside time and space and God is not. Past, present and future are all NOW to God. The tension (sometimes seeming like contradiction) between God’s will and man’s free will arises from the inadequacies of human intellect. We can identify incorrect definitions (such as deism and Calvinism), but that doesn’t mean we can fully grasp the entirety of the mystery.

I really do understand and appreciate the sincere motive many Calvinists have in wanting to totally honor God’s sovereignty and avoid even the tiniest opening for human pride to take root. But as I said above, it’s pretty ridiculous when a man boasts of clinging to the rope thrown by his Savior as he is hauled of of the pit of his own sin!

Here are writings of Augustine showing that he is part of a long succession of Calvinists which appeared to have started with the Apostles:

monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/augustinenewlife.html

 

[Isaiah45_9]

This same Augustine had this to say:

for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it

(That is the Gospel)

Against the Epistle of Manichæus Called Fundamental R. Stothert, Trans.). In P. Schaff (Ed.), A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, Volume IV: St. Augustin: The Writings against the Manichaeans and against the Donatists (P. Schaff, Ed.) (131). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

and

For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.

Against the Epistle of Manichæus Called Fundamental R. Stothert, Trans.). In P. Schaff (Ed.), A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, Volume IV: St. Augustin: The Writings against the Manichaeans and against the Donatists (P. Schaff, Ed.) (131). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

and

For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual, men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith,)—not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.

Against the Epistle of Manichæus Called Fundamental R. Stothert, Trans.). In P. Schaff (Ed.), A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, Volume IV: St. Augustin: The Writings against the Manichaeans and against the Donatists (P. Schaff, Ed.) (130). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

 

[manualman]

I’m not a scholar myself, but CU’s link looks suspiciously to me like cherry picking. The pro-homosexual lobby does the same thing with the Scriptures attempting to argue their case that the bible condemns homosexual rape and homosexual promiscuity, but not homosexual monogamy. Augustine’s authority does not lie principally in his age and his writing’s are certainly not Scriptural. His opinions are honored precisely because they were endorsed by the CHURCH. But that endorsement is a limited one and does not elevate Augustine’s writings to the level of Scripture. Nor does it make Augustine’s teachings self-interpreting.

Although I’m hardly a scholar I’m more literate and educated in the faith than probably 97% of the humans who have ever walked the earth. That’s not bragging, it’s a sad commentary on the extents of human ignorance. And yet I recognize how tiny my comprehension of Scripture and the Early Fathers really are. But you seem to confidently grasp Augustine and claim him for Calvinism. Are you really so confident? Have you honestly read enough unedited / unvarnished Augustine and the history and context of his era to be sure that you’ve not just been spoonfed out of context quotes in which Augustine was refuting errors of his day that SOUND Calvinist to ears of our era, but are not when understood in the larger context of ideas?

I doubt it. I admit I haven’t. And I’m pretty amazed at how little Calvinists seem to be surprised at the way in which God has set circumstances such that only a tiny fraction of people in the history of earth ever really had a shot at understanding His revelation. But maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. The other 99+% of humans who ever lived just weren’t among the elect, huh? They were made with the specific intention that they spend eternity in hell… What digusting theology!

 

[Christian_Unity]

The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox’s gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again."—C. H. Spurgeon

 

[guanophore]

Here are writings of Augustine showing that he is part of a long succession of Calvinists which appeared to have started with the Apostles:

monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/augustinenewlife.html

No, CU, you have it backwards. What came from the Apostles is found in the Apostolic faith.

Augustine was thoroughly Catholic, and you cannot just cherry pick certain parts of this writing to support an theological distinctive that did not arrive on the scene for 1500 years, any more than you can cherry pick verses of the NT to support such doctrines. This method does violence to the Scriptures, and to the writings of Augustine.

Anyone can invent and support any doctrine by this method, but it represents a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught. History is against you there.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not a scholar myself, but CU’s link looks suspiciously to me like cherry picking.

Yes, the post above yours is a good example of what gets stringently avoided. Anything in Augustine that seems to “Catholic”, just like anything in Scripture that is too “Catholic” is ignored or explained away by some innovative twisting.

 

[guanophore]

The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox’s gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again."—C. H. Spurgeon

Okey dokey then, CU, sounds like you and Spurgeon are both on the Knox wagon. Knox declared the Church to be “the synagogue of Satan,” and in the Pope he detected and denounced “the Man of Sin.”

Now that we are all clear on your sentiments, what then is your continued purpose on CAF?

 

[Porknpie]

No, CU, you have it backwards. What came from the Apostles is found in the Apostolic faith.

Augustine was thoroughly Catholic, and you cannot just cherry pick certain parts of this writing to support an theological distinctive that did not arrive on the scene for 1500 years, any more than you can cherry pick verses of the NT to support such doctrines. This method does violence to the Scriptures, and to the writings of Augustine.

Anyone can invent and support any doctrine by this method, but it represents a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught. History is against you there.

Should note that Mormon apologists are now attempting to do the same thing as Calvinists: mis-interpret the ECFs to support their man made doctrines. The Calvinist God is cruel by condemning all but a few in salvation history to hell. The Catholic God is all Love, desiring all men to be saved but giving us free will to respond to his love or not.

Suggest reading the Catechism on Grace, Justification and Merit.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a2.htm