please explain TULIP and then Catholic disagreements

[E.E.N.S]

You agree with the centrality and driven force of Calvinism.

And you agree with the “centrality and driven force” (to use your own words) of pretty much the rest of Christendom. This is not a Calvin idea, it is a Christian one.

 

[Love_is_Patient]

I am very curious about TULIP (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints) and where and why this conflicts with Catholic doctrine.

Total depravity: “In his total rebellion everything man does is sin.” source

2nd Adam, please correct the following if I am incorrect.

If I understand Calvinism correctly, when Adam and Eve fell, they and their descendants lost any shred of goodness and dignity. They were no longer created in God’s image, since they were so depraved. (T)

Then, God brought his plan of redemption about, to save those blessed souls he had chosen. (U)

And when Christ died, he died only for those few people. (L)

Those few people, because they were so far fallen, had no will of their own. So they do not choose to say yes to God. They are unable to say no. God doesn’t give them that option.

The other people are never given the opportunity to say yes to God. God doesn’t want them to be saved. He has destined them for hell. (I)

The lucky, blessed souls cannot possibly act like the prodigal son and throw away their inheritance. God won’t let them and they have no will of their own to try. (P)

Again, 2nd, please correct me if I have misinterpreted Calvin’s beliefs in any way.

If I understand correctly, this is probably a very comforting Gospel for Calvinists to believe.

But this bears little resemblance to the God I read about in the Bible, the God I see acting in the Church.

And I can’t begin to imagine trying to evangelize with this message.

Thank God, I don’t have to.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Total depravity: “In his total rebellion everything man does is sin.” source

2nd Adam, please correct the following if I am incorrect.

If I understand Calvinism correctly, when Adam and Eve fell, they and their descendants lost any shred of goodness and dignity. They were no longer created in God’s image, since they were so depraved. (T)

Then, God brought his plan of redemption about, to save those blessed souls he had chosen. (U)

And when Christ died, he died only for those few people. (L)

Those few people, because they were so far fallen, had no will of their own. So they do not choose to say yes to God. They are unable to say no. God doesn’t give them that option.

The other people are never given the opportunity to say yes to God. God doesn’t want them to be saved. He has destined them for hell. (I)

The lucky, blessed souls cannot possibly act like the prodigal son and throw away their inheritance. God won’t let them and they have no will of their own to try. (P)

Again, 2nd, please correct me if I have misinterpreted Calvin’s beliefs in any way.

If I understand correctly, this is probably a very comforting Gospel for Calvinists to believe.

But this bears little resemblance to the God I read about in the Bible, the God I see acting in the Church.

And I can’t begin to imagine trying to evangelize with this message.

Thank God, I don’t have to.

You are not even close sister…

Let’s start here:

1. Preface

We love God. He is our great Treasure, and nothing can compare with him. One of the great old catechisms says, “God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.” That is the One we love. We love the whole panorama of his perfections. To know him and to be loved by him is the end of our soul’s quest for eternal satisfaction. He is infinite; and that answers to our longing for completeness. He is eternal; and that answers to our longing for permanence He is unchangeable; and that answers to our longing for stability and security. There is none like God. Nothing can compare with him. Money, sex, power, popularity, conquest - nothing can compare with God.

The more you know him, the more you want to know him. The more you feast on his fellowship, the hungrier you are for deeper, richer communion. Satisfaction at the deepest levels breeds a holy longing for the time when we will have the very power of God to love God. That’s the way Jesus prays for us to his Father, " . . . that the love with which You loved Me may be in them." That is what we long for: the very love the Father has for the Son filling us, enabling us to love the Son with the very love of the Father. Then the frustrations of inadequate love will be over.

Yes, the more you know him and love him and trust him, the more you long to know him. That is why we have written this booklet. We long to know God and enjoy God. Another great old catechism says, “What is the chief end of man?” And answers: “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him for ever.” We believe that enjoying God is the way to glorify God, because God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him. But to enjoy him we must know him. Seeing is savoring. If he remains a blurry, vague fog, we may be intrigued for a season. But we will not be stunned with joy, as when the fog clears and you find yourself on the brink of some vast precipice…

desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1985/1487_What_We_Believe_About_the_Five_Points_of_Calvinism/

Click the link above to read the entire work…

 

[Drawmack]

For the 3rd time, yes.

(I love being forced to answer the same question multiple times by a person who dodges questions themselves. Ironically hypocritical, IMO.)

E.E.N.S. – Do you like answering the same question multiple times?

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

 

[Drawmack]

Of course I count, as I answered for the Church, not myself alone. This is Catholic teaching, not my opinion, and it is the teaching of EVERY Christian denomination worth a lick.

---

Edit: I wasn’t raised Calvinist, I merely was Calvinist directly before becoming Catholic. Before that I was just your typical wishy-washy, everyday Christian.

I think that maybe 2nd Adam doesn’t realize that a Catholic can answer authoritatively for all Catholics so long as they do so by quoting official Catholic teachings. For 2nd Adam’s edification, the reason for this is that a Catholic must ascent to these teachings. So, for 2nd Adam to stop this non-sense could you please just quote something official which supports you and then we can all stop reading this back and forth.

 

[Ignatius]

While I appreciate the time and thought you’ve put into this post I would also like to comment that a catholic speaking authoritatively (i.e. without references) on Protestant doctrine is no less unacceptable than a Protestant speaking this way on Catholic doctrine.

Good point. Will the OP please give us his definitions of these terms so that we can address his individual interpretation of them? BTW, is there actually any official, authoritative definitions of these terms and each of the five Solas?

 

[guanophore]

My apologies if this has been posted, I have not read all yet. I found it an interesting assertion:

You’ve already started discussing TULIP. You might as well continue on the Apologetics section. Augustine was a TULIP.

I would like to invite Catholics to post some Augustinian quotes that refute this statement.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Good point. Will the OP please give us his definitions of these terms so that we can address his individual interpretation of them? BTW, is there actually any official, authoritative definitions of these terms and each of the five Solas?

I think Christians who consider themselves to be Reformed would approve of these two links for a proper understanding of Calvinism. These are not simplistic issues, and require much reflection and thinking. Therefore, these two sites are quite extensive.

monergism.com/

reformed.org/

:knight1::hey_bud:

 

[2nd_Adam]

When you post things like this, you are saying that a “consensus” from any number of people could have any bearing on the clear, true teaching of the Church. There is no need to know what “most Catholcis would say”, but only what The Church itself would say. I understand that you believe that there is an elect within the Church, but the Church itself does not believe that. You don’t have to accept the belief of the Church, but in order to have a productive discussion you do have to accept the reality that the Church officially has a teaching different than yours, and that this teaching is clear, concise, and out there for all to see. It’s almost as if you’re having a discussion with yourself and we’re just all standing here watching it.

Be careful on speaking for the Catholic Church on her official position of the doctrine of election. It is a major Bible theme. I had a great conversation with a very grounded Catholic months ago who shared some very Calvinistic kind of doctrine within official Catholic theology which applied to the elect of God. You will find that the Catholic Church is actually very broard on the doctrine of predestination. Can someone please educate your fellow Catholics by postings the various views of Catholic predestination, including a form of double predestination?

 

[2nd_Adam]

My apologies if this has been posted, I have not read all yet. I found it an interesting assertion:

I would like to invite Catholics to post some Augustinian quotes that refute this statement.

I agree that his writings could support both Catholic and Reformed doctrine. I think the same thing could be said for early church fathers too. Before we continue, can you please help your fellow Catholics and post the various allowable Catholic views on predestination within the Catholic Faith?

 

[2nd_Adam]

I say yes! and I think LOVE is a huge part of glorifying God… I mean after all, loving God is the first and greatest commandment. =]

Loving the Lord our God with all of our heart, soul, strenght and mind, and loving our neighbors as ourselves are the two greatest commandments.

Actually, the first part is a summary of the first four commandments, and the second part of loving our neighbors is a summary of the next six commandments.

 

[2nd_Adam]

And you agree with the “centrality and driven force” (to use your own words) of pretty much the rest of Christendom. This is not a Calvin idea, it is a Christian one.

Are you starting to see my view that in Christ, there is neither male nor female, no Jew or Gentile, and no Catholic nor Protestant, for we are one in Christ? All Christians were saved to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

 

[2nd_Adam]

I think that maybe 2nd Adam doesn’t realize that a Catholic can answer authoritatively for all Catholics so long as they do so by quoting official Catholic teachings. For 2nd Adam’s edification, the reason for this is that a Catholic must ascent to these teachings. So, for 2nd Adam to stop this non-sense could you please just quote something official which supports you and then we can all stop reading this back and forth.

It’s pretty tough because there are many many Cafeteria Catholics on this site. Many Catholics have no idea what is allowable in regards to the doctrine of predestination. I will wait until an informed Catholic posts all of the allowable views within the Catholic Faith in regards to predestination.

 

[guanophore]

If anyone **makes the assistance of grace depend **on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).

I think this may be one of the foundational misunderstandings. The Apostles did not teach that grace “required” or “depended” upon the humility and obedience of man. However, they did teach that those who don’t respond to God’s grace with humility and obedience will not be benefitted by it. Thisi s the “obedience of faith”.

 If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, or that we can be saved by assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the effectual work of the Holy Spirit,

this is also Catholic. The Apostles taught that we cannot come to God unless He draws us in grace. The fact that we must respond to the grace in order to be saved does not mean that we have done so "through our natural powers wtihotu the effectual work of the HS. It is when we choose to place our faith in God that the grace poured out can actualy be poured in.

who makes all whom He calls gladly and willingly assent to and believe in the truth,

This statement is not consistent with what the Apostles taught. On the contrary, God willingly assents to people rejecting his call and grace.

he is led astray from the plain teaching of Scripture by exalting the natural ability of man, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, “For apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, “Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5).

These statements are made to persons who are already saved. They do not apply to persons who have not yet chosen God.

God gave man the 'natural ability" to have life and death set before him, and to choose one or the other. The ability to choose this is what being made in the image and likeness of God really means.

Adapted from The Council of Orange (529 AD)

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

Let’s go through the issues slowly and gracefully. Calvinism is not about TULIP (5 points). TULIP is part of a systematic theology which is about glorifying God and enjoying Him forever, and about His sovereignity. Like all systematic theologies, Calvinism falls short of understanding an Infinite God. However, it is my opnion… Calvinism is the most biblical view in which God’s glory is first and foremost. It is a theology that is God-centered and the strenght of Calvinism is the Scriptures (all of Scripture).

Well, this should certainly be interesting. There are several verses of Scripture that I have never been able to reconcile with the TULIP.

The Catholic Church has a systematic theology too which is not based on Sacred Scripture alone. Can we agree that all Christians are saved to glorify God and enjoy Him forever?

Yes, but Catholics emphasize the relationship and the Love of God. God is not so self centered and self aggrandizing that He only wants to exalt Himself. This seems to be an unconscious projection of Calvin. God created man so that He could have relationship with Him. The whole of salvation history has been about relationship with a loving God.

 

[2nd_Adam]

I will wait until an informed Catholic posts all of the allowable views within the Catholic Faith in regards to predestination since this doctrine is the most offensive to the flesh that remains in all of us.

“The [Roman Catholic] Council of Trent anathematizes anyone who says you can be saved without the grace of God. The Reformers, however, never claimed Rome believed you can be saved apart from grace. That wasn’t the debate. The debate of the Reformation was never, ever about the necessity of grace, it was always about the sufficiency of grace. That remains the issue today in so many contexts.” - James White

Grace is not like a box of candy that you can send back if you don’t want it. Grace is divine favor, an attitude of God’s own heart. We cannot stop him from loving us, if he chooses to do so. Nor can we stop him from giving us blessings of salvation: regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification. His purpose in us will certainly be fulfilled, Phil. 1:6, Eph. 1:11. - John Frame

:knight1::knight2::compcoff:

 

[guanophore]

I answered your question, now be Christ-like and answer my question. Here’s my question again.

Do you agree with the Westminster Catechism of:

WESTMINSTER LARGER CATECHISM

Q. 1. What is the chief and highest end of man?

A. Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever.

To answer your [off topic] question, a Catholic’s “chief aim” in life would be to know, love and serve God and to be happy with him in the world to come.

I am not so sure this is off topic. I think one of the main errors of TULIP lies in an improper view of mankind.

Yes, mankind was created to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever. However, Calvanism does not emphasize the Love and relationship as primary. God intends to be glorified through us, as we were created to live, move, and have our being in Him. the doctrine of total depravity denounces the basic nature of man made in the image and likeness of God as “good”.

I answered your question the first time, there was no real substantial difference when you asked the second time.

It was a different question. He asked you the second time if you agreed with the Westminster.

Side note: Who was it that was quoting people, only to change what was in their actual post and answer a completely different question? (You have done this AT LEAST twice in the last 24 hours.) Who was it who ignores an entire post but gives a misdirecting comment about that person’s signature? You. I have observed you dodging/obfuscating what is being asked of you in about half of your posts to some degree or another, so let’s not get hypocritical here. Sound good?

While your points are valid, this is 2nd’s first visit to Apologetics, and he has had some very bad experiences, so let’s try not to drag the failures of other threads into this one. I am sure this one will contain sufficient for the task.

 

[guanophore]

Total depravity: “In his total rebellion everything man does is sin.” source

2nd Adam, please correct the following if I am incorrect.

If I understand Calvinism correctly, when Adam and Eve fell, they and their descendants lost any shred of goodness and dignity. They were no longer created in God’s image, since they were so depraved. (T)

Then, God brought his plan of redemption about, to save those blessed souls he had chosen. (U)

And when Christ died, he died only for those few people. (L)

Those few people, because they were so far fallen, had no will of their own. So they do not choose to say yes to God. They are unable to say no. God doesn’t give them that option.

The other people are never given the opportunity to say yes to God. God doesn’t want them to be saved. He has destined them for hell. (I)

The lucky, blessed souls cannot possibly act like the prodigal son and throw away their inheritance. God won’t let them and they have no will of their own to try. (P)

Again, 2nd, please correct me if I have misinterpreted Calvin’s beliefs in any way.

If I understand correctly, this is probably a very comforting Gospel for Calvinists to believe.

But this bears little resemblance to the God I read about in the Bible, the God I see acting in the Church.

You are not even close sister…

Let’s start here:

desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1985/1487_What_We_Believe_About_the_Five_Points_of_Calvinism/

Click the link above to read the entire work…

No, 2nd, this will not work. Love is Patient is accurately describing the unregenerate state of man according to Calvin. You are responding with a document that references the regenerate man. This is apples and oranges - no, worse! Oranges and turnips!

 

[guanophore]

Okay, I found your answer… and thank you. Therefore, Protestants and Catholics have the same primary purpose to glorify god and enjoy Him forever. Let’s wait to see if other Catholics disagree with this conclusion.

I don’t think this is a good idea. if you are really interested in a CAtholic response to TULIP, then it should come from official Catholic Teaching, which is what was posted. If Catholics “disagree” with the Catechism, then they are not really Catholic. We have been over this before in the case of another forum member who claims to be Catholic, yet rejects the Catholic teaching.

While we wait, would you agree that God saves sinners for His good pleasure and His own glory… to the praise of His glorious grace (Ephesians 1 and 2)?

He does, but that is not all. He saves us because He created us for relationship, and without His grace we would be separated from Him for eternity.

For the 3rd time, yes.

(I love being forced to answer the same question multiple times by a person who dodges questions themselves. Ironically hypocritical, IMO.)

Go easy, EENS. I think he is just a bundle of nerves and missed it. He has post traumatic stress disorder from Catholic Apologists.

Is that a yes for you too?  I want to get a majority response from Catholic Christians.

No, 2nd, this is not an effective method. There are as many opinions as there are belly buttons. the faith of the Apostles is not a matter of “majority opinions”. It is eternal Truth that was committed to the Church once for all. Those who reject the faith are not Catholic, period.

I think EENS came from a Calvinstic background; therefore, I want to know what most Catholics believe in regards to man’s chief aim in life. Let’s remember to be patient with each other since there is a delay between our posted answers.

Well, what “most Catholics believe” would probably not be accurate, since they are poorly catechized. As you have testified yourself, most of them really have no idea even how to be saved! Let’s move on, and leave the majority to soak it up as we go.

You agree with the centrality and driven force of Calvinism.

It would be more accurate to say that this particular point of Calvin is not a departure from the Apostolic faith, as were some of his others.

When you post things like this, you are saying that a “consensus” from any number of people could have any bearing on the clear, true teaching of the Church. There is no need to know what “most Catholcis would say”, but only what The Church itself would say. I understand that you believe that there is an elect within the Church, but the Church itself does not believe that. You don’t have to accept the belief of the Church, but in order to have a productive discussion you do have to accept the reality that the Church officially has a teaching different than yours, and that this teaching is clear, concise, and out there for all to see. It’s almost as if you’re having a discussion with yourself and we’re just all standing here watching it.

This is an accurate observation about the consensus. However, in 2nd’s defense, I don’t think he realized what he got was from the catechism. He followed it by making a very discounting statement, claiming that EENS’ opinion did not “count” since he was raised a Calvanist.

I think that maybe 2nd Adam doesn’t realize that a Catholic can answer authoritatively for all Catholics so long as they do so by quoting official Catholic teachings. For 2nd Adam’s edification, the reason for this is that a Catholic must ascent to these teachings. So, for 2nd Adam to stop this non-sense could you please just quote something official which supports you and then we can all stop reading this back and forth.

I thing his answer came right out of the Baltimore Catechism!

 

[bookgirl32]

Be careful on speaking for the Catholic Church on her official position of the doctrine of election. It is a major Bible theme. I had a great conversation with a very grounded Catholic months ago who shared some very Calvinistic kind of doctrine within official Catholic theology which applied to the elect of God. You will find that the Catholic Church is actually very broard on the doctrine of predestination. Can someone please educate your fellow Catholics by postings the various views of Catholic predestination, including a form of double predestination?

Of course the Church believes in the Elect, but it doesn’t define it the same way you do. Thomism, Molinism, conditional or unconditional predestination, we’re free to choose from these views of predestination. Double predestination, no.

CCC 1037:

God predestines no one to go to hell for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance

 

[guanophore]

I think Christians who consider themselves to be Reformed would approve of these two links for a proper understanding of Calvinism. These are not simplistic issues, and require much reflection and thinking. Therefore, these two sites are quite extensive.

monergism.com/

reformed.org/

:knight1::hey_bud:

I agree. I think the 2000 years of Catholic historical theology attests to this as well.

Can someone please educate your fellow Catholics by postings the various views of Catholic predestination, including a form of double predestination?

I don’t think so.

In fact now that I see it, I think that the whole TULIP is too big for one thread. However, it might be better to start with the T in tulip. That is what sparked this thread anyway. We were talking about justification, and the nature of man.