Non Catholic view of Mariology II

[PRmerger]

Where does your view differ with Catholicism?

That there are some folks who are predestined to hell.

That is not compatible with Catholicism.

We vehemently deny double predestination, which is a Reformed tradition.

 

[GaryTaylor]

So I was thinking of starting a separate thread on the Orthodox vs Catholic views on original sin, but it seems as if we’re already talking about that somewhat here, at least as related to Mary’s conception.

When I Google the Orthodox view on original sin, every article that comes up states that what Orthodox reject is the belief that we not only inherit the consequences of the sin of Adam and Eve, but that we also inherit the guilt of the sin. They say that Catholics teach that we inherit the consequences and the guilt. I found the OrthodoxWiki to give a more moderate understanding of the Catholic view, or, it implies that the Catholic view on original sin has evolved/changed:

**-Orthodox Christians have usually understood Roman Catholicism as professing St. Augustine’s teaching that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of Adam’s sin. This teaching appears to have been confirmed by multiple councils, the first of them being the Council of Orange in 529.

-This difference between the two Churches in their understanding of the original sin was one of the doctrinal reasons underlying the Catholic Church’s declaration of its dogma of the Immaculate Conception in the 19th century, a dogma that is rejected by the Orthodox Church. However, contemporary Roman Catholic teaching is best explicated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which includes this sentence: "“original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted” (§405).

-The Roman Catholic doctrine of Ancestral or Original Sin is harder to pin down because of the development and pendulum swings of its development. It is clear from the Vatican’s own documents that Ancestral or Original Sin did include both the imputation of the guilt of Adam and Eve’s sin and a widespread and deep-seated damage to the imagio dei, at least during a good part of its history. Thus the infant is worthy of punishment in hell according to both Saint Augustine and St. Gregory the Dialogist. In the medievalists, this is ameliorated to a deprivation of the beatific vision, which is still considered a punishment, though the infant will only experience happiness. At the time of the Enlightenment, there is a return to a more Augustinian and Gregorian definition of Ancestral or Original Sin. But, by the time of Vatican Council I, the change is in full swing, and Ancestral or Original Sin begins to be seen as the deprivation of original holiness. This change in the definition of Ancestral or Original Sin is found in documents such as the aforecited Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the Hope of Salvation document. **
orthodoxwiki.org/Original_sin

Other articles seem to just make the distinction between the Catholic and Orthodox views as one accepting only the consequences of the original sin (Orthodox), while the other accepts the consequences and the guilt as being inherited (Catholic), and seem to imply (in contrast to OrthodoxWiki) that this view is still held today:

-The non-Orthodox teach that Original Sin is the Personal sin and guilt of Adam transmitted from him to all mankind.
theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/ocrc/2009/06/original-sin/

-Concerning the original—or “first”—sin, that commited by Adam and Eve, Orthodoxy believes that, while everyone bears the consequences of the first sin, the foremost of which is death, only Adam and Eve are guilty of that sin. Roman Catholicism teaches that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of that sin.
oca.org/questions/teaching/original-sin

-And here is where there is an important difference between the Romans and the Protestants, on the one hand, and the Eastern Orthodox, on the other. The latter subscribe to Original Sin but not to Original Guilt. Timothy Ware: “Men (Orthodox usually teach) automatically inherit Adam’s corruption and mortality, but not his guilt: they are only guilty in so far as by their own free choice they imitate Adam.” (229)
maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2011/08/original-sin-and-eastern-orthodoxy.html

-In the West, however, the concept of original sin is tied up with and all too often even confused with an equally Western concept of “original guilt.”
orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/golubov_rags_of_mortality.htm

Etc.

So, the question then becomes, does the Catholic Church really teach that we not only inherit the consequences of the original sin, but also the guilt? Are we guilty of someone else’s sin? If not, then what is the difference between the Catholic and Orthodox understandings?

Also, why do the Orthodox baptize infants? What is the understanding of “remission of sins” that occurs at baptism?

If this requires a separate thread, I’ll gladly start it!

No actually this is covered in the thread which led to this one. Could I link it? Anyway here’s another link to help.

orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/399/romanides-original-sin/

 

[PRmerger]

? Are we guilty of someone else’s sin? If not, then what is the difference between the Catholic and Orthodox understandings?

No, Catholicism does not proclaim that we are guilty of someone else’s sin. Only that we have lost our original inheritance through the guilt of Adam and Eve.

Also, why do the Orthodox baptize infants? What is the understanding of “remission of sins” that occurs at baptism?

A trenchant question indeed!

 

[LivingWaters7]

No actually this is covered in the thread which led to this one. Could I link it? Anyway here’s another link to help.

orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/399/romanides-original-sin/

Thanks, and yeah, a link would be great.

 

[timothycp67]

Tomi, may I recommend salvationhistory.com/audio-resources/hail_holy_queen3 as a starting point. It is a discussion between Dr. Scott Hahn & Mike Aquilina. You can stream it while you’re working. Wonderful & beautiful faith building resource.

My God Bless You,
Tim

 

[GaryTaylor]

That there are some folks who are predestined to hell.

That is not compatible with Catholicism.

We vehemently deny double predestination, which is a Reformed tradition.

So the Creator creates some here and there where as He knows their immortal soul is immortally severed from Him?

 

[LivingWaters7]

Here’s a question I was thinking of, not sure if it was already answered. Also, please correct any misunderstandings I may have:

So Mary was immaculately conceived so that Jesus wouldn’t dwell in an unclean/tainted by original sin vessel, right (someone posted earlier a picture of a dirty bottle)? If so, then how does that work with Mary’s mother? Did she have original sin? Is there a regressive problem with the belief in the Immaculate Conception?

 

[dvdjs]

…When I Google the Orthodox view on original sin, every article that comes up states that what Orthodox reject is the belief that we not only inherit the consequences of the sin of Adam and Eve, but that we also inherit the guilt of the sin…

These sources teach Catholic doctrine incorrectly. But I am surprised that these are all that you found? Not this?

…
Q. What did they suffer through the sin of disobedience?
A.
1. Their minds became darkened and they lost God.
2. Their hearts became perverted and they began to love the evil more
than the good.
3. They fell into sickness and various other evils.
4. Their bodies became mortal.
5. Their souls were condemned to moral death, which is separation
from God, i.e. eternal misfortune.

Q. Did only our First Parents suffer from their disobedience?
A. Unfortunately the whole human race born since has also suffered. They
inherited the same evils, just as they would have inherited immortality
and happiness, if our First Parents had obeyed; because just as impure
water proceeds from an impure fountain so also sinful men are born of
sinful ancestors.

Q. Did the rest of creation suffer anything from the disobedience of our
First Parents?
A. Assuredly; and because of this, since then, “the whole creation groaneth
and travaileth in pain together until now.”, as the Apostle Paul writes in
the Book of Romans, Chapter 8, Verse 22.

Q. What is that sin of disobedience, with all the evils which it brought,
called?
A. The original sin.

Q. Are we responsible for the original sin?
A. Personally none; because we did not personally commit the sin of our First
Parents; but we are charged with it by inheritance because we were in Adam
and Eve when they sinned, and for this reason the Apostle Paul writes:
“…all have sinned.” …Book of Romans, Chapter 5, Verse 12.

Q. Has anyone been exempted from the original sin?
A. Only Jesus Christ, because He was incarnate of the Holy Spirit, which,
being God, is without sin, and of the Virgin Mary after her cleansing of
original sin by the Holy Spirit when the Angel announced to her the
conception and birth of Christ.
…
DIFFERENCES ON THE FALL

Q. How do the Churches differ respecting the Dogma of the fall of man?
A.
a) The Orthodox, Anglican, and Papal Churches accept that the nature
of man has suffered from sin, i.e. the image of God in him has been
corrupted and the “in His likeness” has not been attained, and all men are
responsible before God for the original sin.

  ...

                    THE TRUTH AS TO THE FALL

Q. Which Church is right in its teaching on the Dogma of the fall?
A. The Orthodox, the Anglican, and Papal Churches, whereas others are in error
because:
…
C A T E C H I S M OF THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH
Rev. Constas H. Demetry, D. D.

 

[dvdjs]

Or this?

Original Sin And Its Consequences

The disobedience and transgression of Adam and Eve is called Original Sin. What happened? … That is original sin. And its consequences? A.) Spiritual death. That is, the separation of man from God, the source of all goodness. B.) Bodily death. That is, the separation of the body from the soul, the return of the body to the earth. C.) The shattering and distortion of the “image.” That is, darkness of mind, depravity and corruption of the heart, loss of independence, loss of free will, and tendency towards evil. Since then "the imagination of man’s heart is evil "(Genesis 8:21). Man constantly thinks of evil. D.) Guilt. That is, a bad conscience, the shame that made him want to hide from God. E.) Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve’s. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam. This creates a problem for many people. They ask, Why should we be responsible for the actions of Adam and Eve? Why should we have to pay for the sins of our parents? they say. Unfortunately, this is so, because the consequence of original sin is the distortion of the nature of man. Of course, this is unexplainable and belongs to the realm of mystery, but we can give one example to make it somewhat better understood. Let us say that you have a wild orange tree, from which you make a graft. You will get domesticated oranges, but the root will still be that of the wild orange tree. To have wild oranges again, you must regraft the tree. This is what Christ came for and achieved for fallen man, as we shall see in the following sections.
…
biserica.org/Publicatii/Catechism/catorsin.htm .

 

[dvdjs]

Or this?

CONSEQUENCES OF ADAM’S SIN

After Adam and Eve sin spread rapidly throughout the human race. …

The consequences of the Fall spread to the whole of the human race. This is elucidated by St Paul: ‘Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned’ (Rom.5:12). This text, which formed the Church’s basis of her teaching on ‘original sin’, may be understood in a number of ways: the Greek words ef’ ho pantes hemarton may be translated not only as ‘because all men sinned’ but also ‘in whom [that is, in Adam] all men sinned’. Different readings of the text may produce different understandings of what ‘original sin’ means.

If we accept the first translation, this means that each person is responsible for his own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. Here, Adam is merely the prototype of all future sinners, each of whom, in repeating Adam’s sin, bears responsibility only for his own sins. Adam’s sin is not the cause of our sinfulness; we do not participate in his sin and his guilt cannot be passed onto us.

However, if we read the text to mean ‘in whom all have sinned’, this can be understood as the passing on of Adam’s sin to all future generations of people, since human nature has been infected by sin in general. The disposition toward sin became hereditary and responsibility for turning away from God sin universal. As St Cyril of Alexandria states, human nature itself has ‘fallen ill with sin’; thus we all share Adam’s sin as we all share his nature. St Macarius of Egypt speaks of ‘a leaven of evil passions’ and of ‘secret impurity and the abiding darkness of passions’, which have entered into our nature in spite of our original purity. Sin has become so deeply rooted in human nature that not a single descendant of Adam has been spared from a hereditary predisposition toward sin.

The Old Testament writers had a vivid sense of their inherited sinfulness: ‘Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me’ (Ps.51:7). They believed that God ‘visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation’ (Ex.20:5). In the latter words reference is not made to innocent children but to those whose own sinfulness is rooted in the sins of their forefathers.

From a rational point of view, to punish the entire human race for Adam’s sin is an injustice. But not a single Christian dogma has ever been fully comprehended by reason. Religion within the bounds of reason is not religion but naked rationalism, for religion is supra-rational, supra-logical. The doctrine of original sin is disclosed in the light of divine revelation and acquires meaning with reference to the dogma of the atonement of humanity through the New Adam, Christ: ‘…As one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous… so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord’ (Rom.5:18-21).

 

[dvdjs]

Or this?

1. How does the death of Jesus Christ upon the cross deliver us from sin, the curse, and death?

That we may the more readily believe this mystery, the Word of God teaches us of it, so much as we may be able to receive, by the comparison of Jesus Christ with Adam. Adam is by nature the head of all mankind, which is one with him by natural descent from him. Jesus Christ, in whom the Godhead is united with manhood, graciously made himself the new almighty Head of men, whom he unites to himself through faith. Therefore as in Adam we had fallen under sin, the curse, and death, so we are delivered from sin, the curse, and death in Jesus Christ. His voluntary suffering and death on the cross for us, being of infinite value and merit, as the death of one sinless, God and man in one person, is both a perfect satisfaction to the justice of God, which had condemned us for sin to death, and a fund of infinite merit, which has obtained him the right, without prejudice to justice, to give us sinners pardon of our sins, and grace to have victory over sin and death.

…For if by one man’s offense death reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Rom. v. 17.
pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm#ii.xv.iii.i.p41

 

[SteveVH]

Here’s a question I was thinking of, not sure if it was already answered. Also, please correct any misunderstandings I may have:

So Mary was immaculately conceived so that Jesus wouldn’t dwell in an unclean/tainted by original sin vessel, right (someone posted earlier a picture of a dirty bottle)? If so, then how does that work with Mary’s mother? Did she have original sin? Is there a regressive problem with the belief in the Immaculate Conception?

No. That would assume that Mary “inherited” original holiness from her mother, St. Anne. Instead we believe that this was a singular grace granted to the mother of the Son of God and to no other person.

 

[Tomyris]

That there are some folks who are predestined to hell.

That is not compatible with Catholicism.

We vehemently deny double predestination, which is a Reformed tradition.

I think I see your logic: I am Reformed, therefore I believe in double predestination, so it really does not matter whether I clearly posted that I do not believe it, because I must, because I am Reformed. “Let me be clear:” I DON’T BELIEVE GOD CREATES PEOPLE FOR THE SHEER PLEASURE OF SENDING THEM TO HELL. I don’t even know anyone who affirms the idea that God predestines anyone to hell. I’ve had pastors who have rejected it. I don’t know if I have had a pastor who has affirmed it, never having heard a sermon or teaching on the subject in church. I urge you to become better informed on this by reading something such as Chapter 32 “Election and Reprobation” in Grudem’s “Systematic Theology”. You leave me with the feeling here that you have learned about Reformed theology from your fellow Catholics, and anti-Reformed ones at that, rather than from Reformed sources. If you are to combat the theology, please get it right first. You are damaging your considerable credibility here with some of the statements you have made.

I don’t even believe there is a doctrine called “double predestination”. What you are referring to are two separate doctrines, predestination and reprobation.

 

[dvdjs]

Again, the “guilt” issues is a red herring that reflects a lack of understanding of Catholic teaching. Nevertheless, the contrast between the links that I provided and the other perspectives given in this thread show a strong divergence. (more here: razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/03/original-sin-in-eastern-orthodox.html )This article gives an interesting perspective on this divergence.

METROPOLITAN EPHRAIM AND ORIGINAL SIN
by Vladimir Moss

 Metropolitan Ephraim of Boston has joined the long list of modernist theologians who deny, or claim to deny, the existence of original sin.[1]This now-fashionable denial was at first confined to one or two liberal Russian theologians such as Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky[2]and some Greek new calendarists such as Fr. John Romanides[3]. When the Russian version appeared, early in the twentieth century, it met with strong opposition from such distinguished theologians as Archbishop Theophan of Poltava, Archbishop Seraphim of Lubny, Fr. Georges Florovsky, Hieromartyr Victor of Glazov and (somewhat later) Fr. Seraphim Rose; and its influence has been correspondingly muted in the Russian Church. However, the resistance to the more recent, Romanidean version has been altogether weaker, and now not only the Greek new calendarist churches, but also many Greek Old Calendarists, such as Alexander Kalomiros and Metropolitan Ephraim himself, have been infected with this false teaching. Let us examine the latest version to be offered by the leader of HOCNA.

 Metropolitan Ephraim begins by asserting that the term “original sin” is a purely Augustinian, “and thereafter, exclusively Papal and Protestant concept”. The Augustinian concept of original sin – that we all inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin – is nowhere to be found in the Holy Fathers. The Greek Fathers prefer the term propatorikon amartima, which, he claims, means something different.[4]

 Now it would appear to be true that the Latin phrase peccatum originale first appears in the works of St. Augustine, in his treatise entitled De Peccato Originale, andin other places, as in: "The deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin"[5]. But its use was not confined to him and to Papal or Protestant heretics. For we find it frequently in Western Orthodox writings, including those of St. Leo the Great, St. Gregory the Great and the Venerable Bede – and the metropolitan would not, I hope, be denying their Orthodoxy…

 “Before Augustine,” he continue, “this teaching was unknown to the Church of Christ. In contrast, the Fathers taught that we inherit the seed of sin, a proclivity for sin because of the corruption into which we are born. This weakness (like a tendency for diabetes that we might inherit from our parents) rules like ‘another law’ in our members and ‘wars against the law’ of our minds, bringing us ‘into captivity to the law of sin’ which is in our members, as the blessed Paul writes to the Romans. Nowhere in the Scriptures or in the Fathers does it say that we inherit the guilt of Adam’s transgression. I am responsible for and guilty of my own sins, not Adam’s. Indeed, the Fathers say that we ‘inherit sin’, by which however, they mean a weakness for sin, or, we are born into a sinful environment which encourages us to sin.”

 Now on the face of it there does not seem to be a deep disagreement between Metropolitan Ephraim and the traditional teaching. That we are responsible for and guilty of only our own sins, and not Adam’s, is something that we can all readily agree with – including, I believe, St. Augustine. The essential point that Augustine and other Fathers insisted on was that in some sense we inherit sin from Adam, even if we are not guilty precisely of his sin since (of course) we were not in existence at that time. And here Metropolitan Ephraim appears to agree. “We inherit the seed of sin”, he writes. Later he appears to qualify this by saying that inheriting sin means having a weakness for sin or being born into a sinful environment. But is not the seed of sin in itself sinful, even if less sinful than the full-grown fruit? And is not a weakness or proclivity for sin already the beginning of sin itself? But then what is this if not the traditional doctrine of original sin, even if the doctrine is expressed in a non-Augustinian terminology?

 In order to avoid confusion, it is essential to distinguish between two meanings of the word “sin”.We have to distinguish between personal sin and the law of sin, between sin as the act of a human person, and sin as the state or condition or law of human nature. This distinction is in fact made by St. Paul in Romans, as Archbishop Theophan of Poltava points out: “The holy apostle clearly distinguishes in his teaching on original sin between two points: paraptoma or transgression, and amartia or sin. By the first he understood the personal transgression by our forefathers of the will of God that they should not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, by the second – the law of sinful disorder that entered human nature as the consequence of this transgression. “I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at work with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members” (Romans 7.22-23).] When he is talking about the inheritance of the original sin, he has in mind not paraptoma or transgression, for which only they are responsible, but amartia, that is, the law of sinful disorder which afflicted human nature as a consequence of the fall into sin of our forefathers.[6]

 

[dvdjs]

 The deniers of the doctrine of original sin either claim that our sinful nature is not the direct result of Adam’s sin (as Metropolitan Anthony puts it: “Adam was not so much the cause of our sinfulness as the first sinner in time”, and God gave us a sinful nature in anticipation that we would sin as Adam did) or that there is a direct causal link from Adam, but that what we inherit from him is not sin, but disease or death (Romanides and his followers). However, it is clear from the Apostle Paul’s teaching in Romans that it is precisely sin that we inherit – but sin in the sense of a sinful disorder of human nature (amartia) rather than guilt for a particular transgression (paraptoma). This distinction between two meanings of “sin” is confirmed bySt. Maximus the Confessor, who writes: “There then arose sin, the first and worthy of reproach, that is, the falling away of the will from good to evil. Through the first there arose the second – the change in nature from incorruption to corruption, which cannot elicit reproach. For two sins arise in [our] forefather as a consequence of the transgression of the Divine commandment: one worthy of reproach, and the second having as its cause the first and unable to elicit reproach.”[7]

 In order to establish the vital point that nothing less than sin - and not only disease or death, as the Romanideans affirm - is transmitted to us from Adam, let us look exclusively at the writings of some of the Eastern Fathers who can by no stretch of the imagination be called Augustinians:-

(i) St. Athanasius the Great: “When Adam had transgressed, his sin reached unto all men.”[8]

(ii) St. Ephraim the Syrian: “Adam sowed sinful impurity into pure bodies and the yeast of evil was laid into the whole of our mass.”[9]

(iii) St. Gregory of Nyssa: “Evil was mixed with our nature from the beginning… through those who by their disobedience introduced the disease. Just as in the natural propagation of the species each animal engenders its like, so man is born from man, a being subject to passions from a being subject to passions, a sinner from a sinner. Thus sin takes its rise in us as we are born; it grows with us and keeps us company till life’s term.”[10]

(iv) St. Anastasius of Sinai: “In Adam we became co-inheritors of the curse, not as if we disobeyed that divine commandment with him but because he became mortal and transmitted sin through his seed. l…”

(v) St. Symeon the New Theologian:“That saying that calls no one sinless except God, even though he has lived only one day on earth [Job 14.14], does not refer to those who sin personally. For how can a one-day child sin? But in this is expressed that mystery of our Faith, that human nature is sinful from its very conception. God did not create man sinful, but pure and holy. But since the first-created Adam lost this garment of sanctity, not from any other sin than pride alone, and became corruptible and mortal, all people also who came from the seed of Adam are participants of the ancestral sin from their very conception and birth. He who has been born in this way, even though he has not yet performed any sin, is already sinful through this ancestral sin.”[11]

(vi) St. Gregory Palamas: “Before Christ we all shared the same ancestral curse and condemnation poured out on all of us from our single Forefather, as if it had sprung from the root of the human race and was the common lot of our nature. Each person’s individual action attracted either reproof or praise from God, but no one could do anything about the shared curse and condemnation, or the evil inheritance that had been passed down to him and through him would pass to his descendants.”[12]

(vii) Nicholas Cabasilas: “Because our nature was extended and our race increased as it proceeded from the first body, so wickedness too, like any other natural characteristic, was transmitted to the bodies which proceeded from that body. The body, then, not merely shares in the experiences of the soul but also imparts its own experiences to the soul. The soul is subject to joy or vexation, is restrained or unrestrained, depending on the disposition of the body. It therefore followed that each man’s soul inherited the wickedness of the first Adam. It spread from his soul to his body, and from his body to the bodies which derived from his, and from those bodies to the souls.”[13]…

[1]“The Shackles of the Latin Captivity” or “Your Sin is Not So Original”, OrthodoxInfo@yahoo.groups.com, August 5, 2009.
[2]The Dogma of Redemption, Wildwood: Monastery Press, 1972.
[3]The Ancestral Sin, Ridgewood, N.J.: Zephyr Publishing, 2002.
[4]We could add that they also use the terms propatoriki amartia, progoniki amartia and prototypon amartima (St. Basil the Great, Homily 8).
[5]St. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, II, xxvi, 43.
[6]Archbishop Theophan, The Patristic Teaching on Original Sin, p. 22.
[7]St. Maximus the Confessor, Quaestiones ad Thalassium, 42.
[8]St. Athanasius the Great, Four Discourses against the Arians, I, 51.
[9] St. Ephraim, quoted in Archbishop Theophan, op. cit.
[10]St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Beatitudes, 6, PG. 44, 1273.
[11]St. Symeon, Homily 37, 3.
[12]St. Gregory Palamas, Homily 5: On the Meeting of our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ .
[13]Nicholas Cabasilas, The Life in Christ, II, 7; Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974, p. 77.

 

[PRmerger]

So the Creator creates some here and there where as He knows their immortal soul is immortally severed from Him?

Essentially, the Reformed position maintains that God creates a soul and leaves this soul for Satan.

No matter how repentant an “un-elect” person is, God will never forgive him/her.

That is absolutely and inarguably a position most contrary to the Word of God.

 

[Tomyris]

PR,

This thread is moving way too fast, and actually is about five or so in one thread. So I cannot find the post I wished to reply to, in which you were saying something along the lines of Islam being the source of Reformation doctrine?

This is either highly risible, insulting or both. I am not sure which. If you are going to blame Calvin, you should realize he quotes extensively from the Church fathers whenever he makes any point on anything. I do not always agree with what he does, when I have looked at his work, but I would say the sources lie in passages such as Romans 9. Certainly not Islam.

I seem to recall an Orthodox theologian blaming Muslims for scholasticism, as Aristotle et al were in Muslim hands until their rediscovery by the Church - there are more grounds for considering Averroes as Aquinas’ intellectual forbear than there is for laying predestination and reprobation at Muslim hands.

What you posted is such a gross misrepresentation of Reformed theology that I really wonder who you have been listening to on this. Whoever taught you your Reformed theology is badly informed, and smacks of sort of a Catholic Jack Chick. Usually you post much better than this.

 

[PRmerger]

I think I see your logic: I am Reformed, therefore I believe in double predestination, so it really does not matter whether I clearly posted that I do not believe it, because I must, because I am Reformed. “Let me be clear:” I DON’T BELIEVE GOD CREATES PEOPLE FOR THE SHEER PLEASURE OF SENDING THEM TO HELL.

I stand corrected, then, Tomi.

I did not see that you reject double predestination. It sounded to me as if you were obfuscating and trying to make double predestination sound more palatable (by using the passive voice).

You leave me with the feeling here that you have learned about Reformed theology from your fellow Catholics

True.

I will research and see what I can find from Reformed sources, not Catholics professing what is a Reformed doctrine.

 

[Tomyris]

Essentially, the Reformed position maintains that God creates a soul and leaves this soul for Satan.

No matter how repentant an “un-elect” person is, God will never forgive him/her.

That is absolutely and inarguably a position most contrary to the Word of God.

On a first read-through I count three extremely obvious misunderstandings of Reformed theology.

I am not going to discuss it with you again for now. Please stop posting about it until you understand it, something about bearing false witness against your neighbor.

 

[PRmerger]

You leave me with the feeling here that you have learned about Reformed theology from your fellow Catholics, and anti-Reformed ones at that, rather than from Reformed sources. If you are to combat the theology, please get it right first.

Coincidentally (or not), I had a conversation with Monergistic (in one of his previous personas) regarding Jimmy Akin, who is a former Reformed Christian. Monergistic was adamantine that Jimmy would never describe the Reformed position as a god who is monstrous.

Monergistic posited:
What if I demonstrate that there are no well-respected Catholic apologists of the formerly Calvinist variety who give an ounce of credence to the “monstrous Calvinist god” argument? You’d have to wait a few days, but I can do it with one phone call. You up for it? I can do this on January 6th.

In fact, Jimmy Akin does give at least some, if not quite a bit of, credence to “the Calvinistic God is a monstrous god.”

Akin does say that there seems to be a “lack of utility” in arguing this point of a monstrous god; HOWEVER, he does propose that this “monstrous god” is a logical conclusion and it is a “profound insight”. This portrays an immoral god that is incongruous with a God who is love.

In the end, Akin was sympathetic to the “valid insight” that if God behaves this way, “it certainly looks like there’s something monstrous going on” while also acknowledging that this tension between a monstrous god and a God who is so far above us may not ever be resolved.