please explain TULIP and then Catholic disagreements

[guanophore]

For those who are united to Christ, there is no real Catholic nor Protestant distinction.

In that case, when will you be joining your local Catholic parish?

 

[2nd_Adam]

In that case, when will you be joining your local Catholic parish?

LOL… I already attend a local catholic gathering of believers! We have bishops (elders) too.

"For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
The historic biblical Jesus Christ

 

[2nd_Adam]

I just want to say, since it is my article being referenced here, that I do not disagree with what Jimmy Akin says, I oppose the concept of “using” Calvinist terminology to “tip-toe” to a Catholic Truth. Here is the last paragraph from my article:

That is well and good, but the criticism of using their terminology
still exists (as with my initial article which did much the same as
Akin’s here does). If one is to convert to the True Church, then
why hang on to errors of the past at all? When one converts, they
need to RENOUNCE their past - and EMBRACE that which they
now KNOW to be the Truth. Let’s not “tiptoe through TULIP,” let’s
just crush the TULIP so they can move on and know the Truth.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<
cathapol.blogspot.com

I thought you guys wanted to crush the TULIP?

 

[tweetymom]

I thought you guys wanted to crush the TULIP?

You know I have read almost every post and maybe I am dumb, but I still don’t get it. Maybe I am simple minded

 

[Carlan]

You know I have read almost every post and maybe I am dumb, but I still don’t get it. Maybe I am simple minded

I think some Calvinists in our midst are trying to justify a heresy.Carlan

 

[2nd_Adam]

I think some Calvinists in our midst are trying to justify a heresy.Carlan

On these issues, you are either a TULIP or a Daisy. There is no other flower that you can be.

solochristo.net/daisy_vs_tulip.php

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

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.

Was the sin of Adam a surprise to God, or was it part of his plan?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

LOL… I already attend a local catholic gathering of believers! We have bishops (elders) too.

"For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
The historic biblical Jesus Christ

But what if they can’t agree with eachother?

Go to the Big Dog!!

The body of Christ:

on this rock I will build my church…If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Was the sin of Adam a surprise to God, or was it part of his plan?

God knows all things, so it is impossible for God to learn new things. There are no surprises with God. The origin of evil goes back before the fall of Adam and Eve. I would start with the creation of Lucifer. As I wrote before, the origin of evil is a paradox which both Catholic theology and Protestant theology can only leave as a mystery. We know God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. Whatever God does is infinitely wise, perfect, and glorious. The more we are able to see God and what He does, the greater our affection will grow for Him.

 

[theogrit]

If a man was born with no chance of salvation,then he was created for hell.

Right?

I have affirmed earlier that Calvin and Calvinism does not teach that God created some men for Hell, nor do I hold to such a notion. It has been proposed that such a god would be a devilish one. For the sake of such imaginings I would challenge any who hold such a view of Calvinism to clarify how any less evil would be a god of opposite considerations, who having created every soul for Heaven is nonetheless ineffectual in certainly securing all souls to be there despite his desire and creating of them for Heaven, even bemoaning the utter loss of those souls he would otherwise have to be there, since he also declares that some will not be there. For if some of whom such a god created for Heaven are ripped by evil from what he designed, how can it at all be claimed that any soul will certainly be in Heaven or that there will even securely be a Heaven at all, since at best it will fall far short of his plans of what Heaven ought to be and be contingent upon whatever the power of evil in opposition allows, which, being evil, would have none of it? Indeed, if such a god created every soul for Heaven of whom some nonetheless burn eternally in Hell, how could there logically be any creation to begin with, since death and evil would in fashion triumph over life from last to first? Such a god in such imaginings would by virtue of our presupposed notions of ‘good’ be far more evil than one thought to have created some souls for Hell; though in such a universe ruled by chaos it could hardly be said there were any god or notion of good and evil at all. I lovingly realize that such imaginings are not theologically set forth in any post of this thread, and the absurdity of such lies quite beyond what the OP would have here distinguished between Catholic and Reformed doctrine, since indeed such theologies are abhorrent to both Catholicism and Calvinism alike, and only serve to foster the notion equally foreign to both Christian Scripture and the Church of universalism. Neither the God of Catholicism nor the God of Calvinism is in any way evil, as He is One and the same and the very definition of holiness and righteousness.
:grouphug:

 

[2nd_Adam]

But what if they can’t agree with each other?

Go to the Big Dog!!

The body of Christ:

on this rock I will build my church…If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

The true everlasting church is catholic (universal). Big is not necessarily better according to Jesus.

“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

 

[theogrit]

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?

The “he” in reference is “man”.

We are in agreement 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.

Exactly, I think we are in agreement on this as well, but in Christianity there’s the Christ quotient - the magintude of the quality of desire and fellowship resulting in perfect harmony of holiness and peace, only accomplished through sacrifice and propitiation. That is, as fallen creatures our desire for God is insufficently a holy desire for God. We are “restless”, but not toward what God requires, only toward what we’ve lost and need. We see we are naked, but don’t know how to properly clothe ourselves, which only God’s grace and Christ’s propitiation accomplishes.

 

[guanophore]

Part 2

. For Augustine the initial work of divine grace by which the soul is liberated from the bondage of sin is sovereign and operative. To be sure we cooperate with this grace, but only after the initial divine work of liberation.

Do you know of any place in Sproul’s writings where he can show that Augustine believed one is regenerated apart from their own will?

Augustine did not deny that fallen man still has a will and that the will is capable of making choices. He argued that fallen man still has a free will (liberium arbitrium) but has lost his moral liberty (libertas). The state of original sin leaves us in the wretched condition of being unable to refrain from sinning. We still are able to choose what we desire, but our desires remain chained by our evil impulses. He argued that the freedom that remains in the will always leads to sin. Thus in the flesh we are free only to sin, a hollow freedom indeed. It is freedom without liberty, a real moral bondage. True liberty can only come from without, from the work of God on the soul. Therefore we are not only partly dependent upon grace for our conversion but totally dependent upon grace.

I think this constitutes a misrepresentation of what Augustine believed. I think it is a sincered one, but it does not accurately represent what Augustine thought. It takes a part of his writings, and continues to develop them, ending up some distance from what the Apostles also believed and taught.

Modern Evangelicalism sprung from the Reformation whose roots were planted by Augustine. But today the Reformational and Augustinian view of grace is all but eclipsed in Evangelicalism. Where Luther triumphed in the sixteenth century, subsequent generations gave the nod to Erasmus.

That calling to return to the Apostolic faith just does not seem to be able to be shaken off!

Modern evangelicals repudiate unvarnished Pelagianism and frequently Semi-Pelagianism as well. It is insisted that grace is necessary for salvation and that man is fallen. The will is acknowledged to be severely weakened even to the point of being “99 percent” dependent upon grace for its liberation. But that one percent of unaffected moral ability or spiritual power which becomes the decisive difference between salvation and perdition is the link that preserves the chain to Pelagius. We have not broken free from the Pelagian captivity of the church.

This I think is the main error of Total Depravity. There seems to be a misunderstanding among the Reformed of what the Apostles taught. The fac that the will has been wounded, and that we are unable, of ourselves to approach the throne of grace, does not mean that the image of God in us was “unmade.” He created us for Himself, so we are restless until we rest in Him. This is because He built into our being the desire to seek after Him, and to find Him. This desire is not “unmade” because of the fall.

That one percent is the "little something" Luther sought to demolish because it removes the sola from sola gratia and ultimately the sola from sola fide. The irony may be that though modern Evangelicalism loudly and repeatedly denounces Humanism as the mortal enemy of Christianity, it entertains a Humanistic view of man and of the will at its deepest core.

We need an Augustine or a Luther to speak to us anew lest the light of God’s grace be not only over-shadowed but be obliterated in our time.

R. C. Sproul is now the distinguished visiting professor of systematic theology and apologetics at Knox Theological Seminary.

The desire to seek Him does not come from the “flesh” but of the Spirit. God has blown into us the 'breath of life". It comes from Him, seeks after Him, and finds it’s rest in Him. This is not a 1% “that has been unaffected” by the fall, as we still cannot, though we long for Him, find Him or come to Him apart from grace. I think that is the main error, thinking that, because we are made to seek and desire good, that this is somehow coming from our flesh, and that means it is untainted. Such is not the case.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Do you know of any place in Sproul’s writings where he can show that Augustine believed one is regenerated apart from their own will?

I’m not sure. Maybe you might want to read this paper by Spoul?

Regeneration Precedes Faith
By R. C. Sproul

One of the most dramatic moments in my life for the shaping of my theology took place in a seminary classroom. One of my professors went to the blackboard and wrote these words in bold letters: “Regeneration Precedes Faith.”

These words were a shock to my system. I had entered seminary believing that the key work of man to effect rebirth was faith. I thought that we first had to believe in Christ in order to be born again. I use the words in order here for a reason. I was thinking in terms of steps that must be taken in a certain sequence. I had put faith at the beginning. The order looked something like this:

“Faith - rebirth -justification.”… click below to read the rest of the work by Spoul

monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul01.html

 

[guanophore]

Can’t you simply just gleam the Augustine portion of it?

No, actually. Sproul has misrepresented Augustine. I believe he does so sincerely, but he is picking and choosing the parts that support his beliefs, just as people do with the SS doctrine.

 

[theogrit]

I completely agree that a thorough discussion of Original Sin (and perhaps also where each human soul comes from) and how Catholics and Reformers view this doctrine differently would be most helpful to a framework of better understanding the where and why of Catholic disagreements with TULIP. Most Calvinists, including myself, also hold to what is described as covenant theology or federalism, which view the first Adam as the federal head of the human race (Romans 5:12-21), “Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned” (v.12, NAB)
“Roman Catholic teaching regards original sin as the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which humans are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. It explicitly states that original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.” (Wikipedia quote from Original Sin, taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church)
Calvinists disagree, and find that man himself is radically corrupt.
“The notion of original sin as interpreted by Augustine of Hippo was affirmed by the Protestant Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin. Both Luther and Calvin agreed that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception.” (also from Wikipedia, Original Sin)

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

guanophore: And what would that be, exactly?

theogrit: “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).

guanophore: 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.

 

[guanophore]

Do you believe these verses?

Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.
John 12:31-32

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 2:1-2

Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. Rom. 5:18

I must confess I am mystified how someone can dispense with these to result in limited atonement.

 

[guanophore]

In context brother! When you post a single verse out of its proper context, who knows what you will get. For example, Romans 5:18 without the surrounding text is teaching Universalism.

Ok, please provide us with some context.

How does “all” not mean “all” in these verses?

 

[guanophore]

I think Thomism is part of Catholic Theology which does not seem to fit with your explanation of the Catholic position above.

newadvent.org/cathen/14698b.htm

This is a very good point, 2nd. There are many theological speculations of Catholics that do not become part of Catholic doctrine. The doctrine comes to us from Christ, through the Apostles, and is part of the once for all deposit of faith committed to the church. Theologians may speculate upon it, but their speculations do not equate to the doctrine in all cases.

Catholics, having been charged with the duty of preserving that which has been committed to the Church, do not have the liberty to abandon the Apostolic doctrine in order to build theologies upon speculations, as our separated brethren do.

 

[guanophore]

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.

God does not withold His grace even from those who seek him without a pure heart. While we were yet sinners, He died for us.

As a result of the Fall, we are not able to seek Him with a "pure "heart, but we seek Him nonetheless with our impure heart. As He promised, to the one that has (response to grace) more is given.

Those who are in the flesh do not “run from the light without exception”. Though our fallen condition prevents us from coming to the light, we still desire it. This is the element of of Total Depravity that misses the mark.