please explain TULIP and then Catholic disagreements

[guanophore]

I believe when Scripture speaks of predestination, it is speaking about the elect to eternal life with God, even though double predestination is still true.

I guess that explains why you did not want to discuss this until you finished your poll on people’s beliefs about predestination. :newidea:

If calling, enabling, preserving transforming sustaining grace is required to enter Heaven, then does God provide what is needed to His elect, and simply pass over the rest of humanity leaving them to do what comes natural to them?

He “passes over” them because they choose not to enter into Life with Him.

Grace is not owed to anyone, especially to those who rebel against Him. I think this is consistent with Catholic Theology’s allowable Thomist’s view of predestination. We have to explore what is divine justice?

We are in agreement that grace is not owed to anyone. We are in agreement that all are under a death sentence when they are born.

God serves justice for sin for those who are not in Christ. They get what they deserve.

This is true, but it is true because He offered grace to them, and they chose not to accept it.

On the other hand, those who are in Christ do not get what they deserve. Instead, Christians receive mercy and saving transforming grace. The rain falls on the unrighteous and righteous alike, so there is common grace given to all mankind each and everyday.

Yes, common grace. There is also calling grace, which calls everyone everywhere to repent.

We know that the wages of sin is death, therefore it is soley by the grace of God that the unbeliever has another day to live, instead of **God withdrawing the gift of life **from those who are in rebellion against Him.

I am not sure what this means. Are you saying God withdraws the gift of life?

 

[guanophore]

---

I would just like to say what I think about the discussion of all this.

The petals of the tulip were the work of the Calvinist religion. The Church does not consider such as part of the deposit of faith, therefore I am not interested in reading the material in the links which Adam has supplied for the furthering of my education of Calvinism even tho’ it is said to be based on the Gospel. The Church does not accept it and therefore neither do I. There, uncharitable or not. Carlan

I understand what you are saying. I feel the same way about Islam and some other religions. However, I am interested in having dialogue with my Reformed brethren, and in order to do this intelligently, I need to understand where they are coming from, even if I don’t agree. Maybe BECAUSE I don’t agree. One of the things that made Paul such an excellent Apologist is that he studied Greek rhetoric and literary style. It made him able to reach the Greeks.

 

[guanophore]

There is much mystery on this biblical doctrine.

This sums up my belief about predestination very well!

But, I do embrace the 5 points of Calvinism, and have for many years because I believe it is the most God-centered and biblical view with the central theme of  to "all be the glory to God alone".

You have made several statements along the lines that you think man being given a choice detracts from the glory of God. I have trouble undersanding that. How does God creating a being that has choices take away from his glory?

If He is sovereign, and He can do whatever He wants, and He wants only those who choose to be with Him, is that not His divine perogative?

  God's ways are not our ways, therefore, I believe our thoughts, affections and beliefs have to be driven by Sacred Scripture alone. Our human reasoning cannot be trusted over and above in what is written.

It is certainly true that His ways and thoughts are high above our own. However, He revealed His ways to us (at least some of them) purposefully so that we could have fellowship with Him.

However, this notion of our “thoughts, affections and belefs have to be driven by Sacred Scripture alone” is just a fallacy. It would mean that all those who don’t have the Scriptures would be disordered!

I can certainly agree that our being can, and should (those that have bibles) be formed by the Sacred Scripture. However, man is much more than this. One day, there will be no more bibles, and our eternal souls, created in the image and likeness of God will meet their eternal destiny. What you are saying is that there is no way for one to be prepared for eternal life without a bible. This is not how Jesus set up His Church.

 

[guanophore]

But the Calvinist does not deny that God has naturally created us with an ability to make moral choices, only that man’s will is also naturally bound to what he desires, and since the Fall man’s desire is obviously incapable of perfect continual goodness in obedience to God’s requirements.

Who is the “he” referencing here? Do you mean that man’s will is bound to what God desires, or to what the man himself desires?

We are in agreemetn that the Fall left humanity in a state that he is incapable of perfect continual goodness in obedience to God’s requirements. However, I think that the desire for this remains. God created mankind for Himself, and man is restless until he rests in God. The Fall did not take away man’s desire to be with God, and have fellowship with Him.

 

[guanophore]

Only God’s grace (which the Calvinistic doctrines of grace indeed espouse) can rectify what is lacking by original sin.

And what would that be, exactly?

The sticky issue for all theologians in this, is navigating our way through God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. No one wants to present either an evil or a limp god, either a god who is unjust in condemning man or ineffective in ruling over him.

It seems to me that some things are just a mystery.

“Total Depravity”, or “inability”, as we clarify, really hinges on concepts of Original Sin and just what Catholics, Calvinists, or others think happened to mankind with the event of Adam’s sin, both regarding God’s decree that, “From that tree [of knowledge of good and bad] you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die”, man’s action of, “…and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked…”, and God’s further decree of curse that, “For you are dirt, and to dirt you shall return” (Gen 2-3, NAB).

Yes, I think you are right. That is why I wanted to begin this discussion with this topic. It seems that this is where the divergence begins.

It's been articulated various ways over the ages, and some Calvinists have developed a reluctance to certain notions of *common grace*, but essentially Calvinists adopted or adapted presentations of St. Augustine of Hippo in his battle with Pelagius, that, "man is said to have free will, not because he has a free choice of good and evil, but because he acts voluntarily, and not of compulsion... That man is not forced to be the servant of sin, while he is, however, *ethelodoulos* (a voluntary slave); his will being bound by the fetters of sin" (Calvin, *Institutes*). Augustine argued that what was once a moral possibility before the Fall became, without grace, a moral impossibility after.  So, while man has *free will* of *natural ability*, he no longer possesses *free will* of *moral ability*.  Again, man naturally yearns for God, but is incapable of honouring Him as such, apart from a further infusion of God's grace to that end.  Many Catholics would perhaps maintain that a type of *prevenient grace* comes to bear:

I am having trouble understanding how this is a departure from Catholic thought.

“The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace.” (Council of Trent)

Was this passage not composed to refute Calvaninsm? I am assuming that there is some part of Calvanism that is in direct conflict with it.

This is sure to be the most difficult and muddy of presentations, but I nowhere find in the Scriptures that God desires each soul to be saved. However, a lot depends on carefully defining things like desire, will, all… and particularly contextual studies of word meanings in the original Bible languages. As mentioned earlier, there are even quite dramatic distinctions to be made among Calvinists.

Perhaps you can help explain the difference between His “desire” for all to be saved, and His “will” that not all be?

All Calvinists would agree that God decreed the Fall of Adam and Eve, though care should be taken in clarifying such.

Catholics would say it was in His permissive will, but not perfect will.

Catholics too, though, would perhaps agree that it was no surprise to Him, and that in the Son He always has had a very purposeful rationale behind its allowance. But, for example, it could well be argued that most Calvinists (of an infralapsarian position; infra below, lapsus fall) would assert that God’s choosing of people to salvation was reactive to considerations of the Fall, while supralapsarians (supra above, lapsus fall), like myself, would argue that the Fall was planned with the eternal state of God’s chosen people in mind. The topic is worthy of deep and lovingly embracing considerations; but, as you say, such speculation is unwarranted and unnecessary to the plain text of Scripture - it is only a Western trait of logical presupposition within the context of systematic cohesion and harmonization of Scripture with Scripture, to which Calvinists have a propensity.

We do seem to have the capascity to think ourselves in to a hampster wheel. One of the things about the Eastern Rites that drew me was their willingness to enter into and tolerate mysteries, rather than overanalyzing.

If all of us spent as much time in prayer and fasting as we did trying to analyze mysteries such as the Trinity, the Church would be much holier.

 

[guanophore]

:grouphug:
Hell is indeed a saddening and disturbing concept, but the last time I checked the Catholic Church embraces the Scripture doctrine of Hell and eternal torment every bit as much as churches of the Reformation.

Actually, iti s the other way around theogrit. the NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. the Catholic doctrine is what was deposited once for all to the Church. That doctrine is reflected in the NT, but the NT is not the source of it. We embrace what was taught by Christ. The Churches of the Reformation were separated from the Apostolic succession, and had no other source but Scripture, so therefore, embrace such things they determine are doctrines that come from Scripture.

It is not lost on this poster that God is love, and that Christians are to be known by their great love, but the teachings of Jesus himself are the single greatest source for the Christian doctrine of Hell and eternal torment, and the complete holiness and goodness of God which transcends our human frailties is perhaps the most distinctive attribute raising Christianity above the other world religions where such holiness and personal salvation to fellowship with our Creator is lost.  It is why we have a crucified and risen LORD. :hug1:

Did someone here imply they don’t believe in hell? I must have missed that.

 

[guanophore]

:grouphug:

The Calvinist’s God is the same God who said, “Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.” (1 Sam. 15:3, NAB); and also says, “Come to me heedfully, listen, that you may have life. I will renew with you the everlasting covenant, the benefits assured to David.”(Isa. 55:3, NAB), and, “I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I will lay down my life for the sheep.” (John 10:14-15, NAB); and of whom it is said, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.” (John 3:16, NAB).

Was Amalek given an opportunity?

What did he choose?

You write here about the consequence of his choice, as if the consequence preceeded the choice.

So, God did not love the “world” really. Only those who were his in the world?

God did not give His son for all - only for those that would believe?

 

[2nd_Adam]

From your link:

The Thomists, appealing to the authority of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, defend a system which follows the admitted facts to their logical conclusions. The elect are saved by the grace of God, which operates on their wills efficaciously and infallibly without detriment to their liberty; and since God sincerely desires the salvation of all men, He is prepared to grant that same grace to others, if they do not, by a free act, render themselves unworthy of it

This is inconsistent with Calvinism.

Protestants consist of Arminians and Calvinists which see these issues differently.

Catholics have Thomists and Augustinians who see things very similar to Calvinists. However, the majority of modern day Catholics belief very similar to Arminian Protestants on these issues. I read that Pope Benedict is considered to be Augustinian, but I’m not sure in what sense he is Augustinian in theological emphasis.

As a Calvinist, I would say that God would not withhold grace from those who honestly seek Him from a pure heart. However, we know that in our fallen nature, that those who are in the flesh run from the light without exception. We are all descendants of Adam; we are sons of disobedience.

 

[2nd_Adam]

No, I think it falls more under the T.

Pre-venient is from the Latin which means “before coming”. It refers to 'calling" or “drawing” grace. It is the grace that is poured out upon all men, enabling them to hear the call of God to repent, and be saved.

Prevenient grace is simply ressitable grace in contrast to Irresistible grace in the “I” of the Tulip.

Prevenient grace (resistible) defined as follows by “Wesley’s Order of Salvation”:

“Human beings are totally incapable of responding to God without God first empowering them to have faith. This empowerment is known as “Prevenient Grace.” Prevenient Grace doesn’t save us but, rather, comes before anything that we do, drawing us to God, making us WANT to come to God, and enabling us to have faith in God. Prevenient Grace is Universal, in as much as all humans receive it, regardless of their having heard of Jesus. It is manifested in the deep-seated desire of most humans to know God.”

Irresistible Grace
by John Piper

The doctrine of irresistible grace does not mean that every influence of the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted. It means that the Holy Spirit can overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible…More specifically irresistible grace refers to the sovereign work of God to overcome the rebellion of our heart and bring us to faith in Christ so that we can be saved. If our doctrine of total depravity is true, there can be no salvation without the reality of irresistible grace. If we are dead in our sins, totally unable to submit to God, then we will never believe in Christ unless God overcomes our rebellion. (please click link to read more)

monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/irresistable.html

 

[guanophore]

Everybody believes in a version of limited atonement. If you don’t believe the atonement was limited in some form, then you are a Universalist.

This is a false statement.

The fact that God allows some people to reject His purpose for themselves does not nullify His purpose.

Christ died for all. Not all choose to avail themselves of the benefits of His sacrifice.

Their refusal to go with him does not negate His purchase of them by His blood. Itr is as if Jesus went to the slave owner and liberated all the slaves by paying the price for them. Some, instead of following Him off the plantation, decided to stay, and keep living as they were.

 

[guanophore]

Slow down my friend… do you believe unbelief in Christ is a sin in which Christ atoned for?

Yes. While we were yet sinners (trapped in unbelief) Christ died for us. Had He not atoned for this sin, we would not be able to repent of it, and be forgiven by His grace!

 

[2nd_Adam]

Protestants consist of Arminians and Calvinists which see these issues differently.

Catholics have Thomists and Augustinians who see things very similar to Calvinists. However, the majority of modern day Catholics believe very similar to Arminian Protestants on these issues. I read that Pope Benedict is considered to be Augustinian, but I’m not sure in what sense he is Augustinian in theological emphasis.

As a Calvinist, I would say that God would not withhold grace from those who honestly seek Him from a pure heart. However, we know that in our fallen nature, that those who are in the flesh run from the light without exception. We are all descendants of Adam; we are sons of disobedience.

 

[Thing]

Protestants consist of Arminians and Calvinists which see these issues differently.

Catholics have Thomists and Augustinians who see things very similar to Calvinists. However, the majority of modern day Catholics belief very similar to Arminian Protestants on these issues. I read that Pope Benedict is considered to be Augustinian, but I’m not sure in what sense he is Augustinian in theological emphasis.

Ignoring the content for the moment.
Should’nt this sentence *structure *read Calvinists see things very similarly to Thomists and Augustinians as St Thomas died in 1274 and St. Agustine died in 430 AD; wheras John Calvin died in 1564.

However, we know that in our fallen nature, that those who are in the flesh run from the light without exception

Man, ie. mankind, always seeks the good for himself; whether he sees cream cakes as his good or BMW’s, or wine, women and song, when he finds a better good he persues that he does’nt run away from it.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Originally Posted by 2nd Adam
This is where our theological roads appear to split. I believe God enables all His chosen ones to obey His command to believe in His Son in an effectual way.

No, we are in agreement on this point. Catholics go further to say that God enables ALL MEN to obey his command. Some choose to do so, and in their case, the grace is effectual. Some refuse God’s intention for themselves. For those that refuse, the grace poured out unto them is ineffectual. This is not a lack of sufficient power in God’s grace, but in His sovereignty, He allows men to thwart His purpose for themselves (salvation). So, though He desires that all be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth, He allows them to refuse Him.

Brother,

It’s important for our conversation to understand that you believe in resistible grace and not irressible grace. Are we in agreement?

Prevenient grace (resistible) defined as follows by “Wesley’s Order of Salvation”:

“Human beings are totally incapable of responding to God without God first empowering them to have faith. This empowerment is known as “Prevenient Grace.” Prevenient Grace doesn’t save us but, rather, comes before anything that we do, drawing us to God, making us WANT to come to God, and enabling us to have faith in God. Prevenient Grace is Universal, in as much as all humans receive it, regardless of their having heard of Jesus. It is manifested in the deep-seated desire of most humans to know God.”

Irresistible Grace
by John Piper

The doctrine of irresistible grace does not mean that every influence of the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted. It means that the Holy Spirit can overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible…More specifically irresistible grace refers to the sovereign work of God to overcome the rebellion of our heart and bring us to faith in Christ so that we can be saved. If our doctrine of total depravity is true, there can be no salvation without the reality of irresistible grace. If we are dead in our sins, totally unable to submit to God, then we will never believe in Christ unless God overcomes our rebellion. (please click link to read more)

monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/irresistable.html

 

[guanophore]

That statement is as emotionally silly and incorrect in the same way that some Protestants say that Catholics worship Mary.

Well, I disagree, but let’s go with it anyway. Catholics are able to demonstrate from the official Catholic documents/teaching that we do not worship Mary.

However, when we read Calvin, it appears to us (as evidenced in the quote in this thread) taht God creates certain people for the purpose of damnation. THey are born under sentence of death, and He does not afford them the grace to be redeemed from it.

Can you, using Calvin’s writings, show how our understanding is "silly and incorrect’?

 

[guanophore]

  Why doesn't God move all from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of His Son?  Well, that is part of our conversation.

this is what I think is meant by universalism.

God loves us, and love sets free. He only wants people to spend eternity with Him if they wish to do so.

Does God simply pass over the retrobate, allowing them to live out their lives as they freely choose? If left to our own free will, all will perish due to our fallen nature.  Catholics and Protestant understand the necessity of underserving grace to move us toward God.

Probably not, from a Catholic point of view. If you mean by “pass over” that they do not have access to sufficient grace to repent and be saved, then no, he does not.

If you mean that, once they reject the calling grace, He gives them up to themselves and their fate, then yes.

Any who wish to later save themselves may still do so, by abandoning their life of sin, and throwing themselves upon His mercy.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Yes. While we were yet sinners (trapped in unbelief) Christ died for us. Had He not atoned for this sin, we would not be able to repent of it, and be forgiven by His grace!

I guess we are jumping all over the place in the TULIP. Your comment is really about the L in TULIP as in Limited Atonement (particular atonement). The atonement is sufficient to cover the sins of all God’s creatures including the fallen angels and Satan. However, the atonement was designed for a particular group of God’s creation.

FOR WHO DID CHRIST DIE?
John Owen

The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

1. All the sins of all men.
2. All the sins of some men, or
3. Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:

1.That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
2. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
3.But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer, "Because of unbelief."

I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"

 

[2nd_Adam]

I think there’s enough posted for all to think about for awhile about the TULIP. If you want to study more about the TULIP, here you go. :flowers:

monergism.com/directory/link_category/Doctrines-of-Grace/

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[guanophore]

I’m sorry if I missed it, and I realize your question followed, but I actually thought it was one of the very first things I answered on this board, though indeed it was in response to the question of TULIP posed by the OP: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5906346&postcount=151

God particularized salvation to those whom He saves. Forgive me if I completely fail to see how in any way your default view logically proceeds from your premise. I’m admittedly struggling to find your connection. Do you mean some manner of tie-in to perhaps Judas as “the son of destruction” (John 17:12: “When I was with them I protected them in your name that you gave me, and I guarded them, and none of them was lost except the son of destruction, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled.”, NAB) or “the one doomed to perdition” (2 Thess. 2:3-4: “Let no one deceive you in any way. For unless the apostasy comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one doomed to perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god and object of worship, so as to seat himself in the temple of God, claiming that he is a god–”, NAB), or perhaps where the Scriptures speak of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (Ex. 4:21ff: "The LORD said to him, “On your return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have put in your power. I will make him obstinate, however, so that he will not let the people go.”, NAB)?

I’m perhaps not following your meaning by “created for hell”?

In all of these examples, the individuals involved were given an opporunity to “choose life” and rebelled. They inherited the consequence of their choices.

 

[guanophore]

I’m a Calvinist, and both Calvin and I fully hold to 1 Timothy 2:3-4; “This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.” (NAB). AMEN.

So then you and Calvin understand this verse differently than those of us who received our faith from the Apostles.

Perhaps you can help us understand this difference? I gather from 2nd that “all” does not really mean “all” in this verse?

Do you understand the writer here to be referring only to the Elect in using the word “all/everyone”?