please explain TULIP and then Catholic disagreements

[E.E.N.S]

For those who understand my thoughts about doctrine which grows our love and affection for God, please start here:

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

…make that 12 links in 7 posts.

 

[Cr8ton]

Here you go. I think you guys need to do some self-study before we continue. After you study for awhile, we can graciously discuss these issues to the glory of God alone down the road. I don’t think everyone has the right Christian motive to discuss such deep glorious issues about Christ and Him crucified. It doesn’t seem that this thread will glorify God at all, nor will it help Christian unity. Discussing doctrine for doctrine sake is meaningless. Doctrine when applied to the heart and mind will grow our love and affection for God. Without that proper motive, we will stumble each other to sin.

For those who understand my thoughts about doctrine which grows our love and affection for God, please start here:

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

I am the OP and I was more concerned about the explanation of TULIP in reformed view such as 2nd seems to hold. I do not have much to say as I am still in the learning process but I’m very interested in going deeper into it slowly so we all get a clarified understanding of it. After the clarity has set in I would be curious as to where Catholics would disagree with certain elements but I don’t think it’s as simple as posting definitions then refuting instantly based on a held scripture in mind. The more we focus on the heart of the matter and where it leads us in our spiritual journey is most important [of course Sacred Scripture being our basis for what we believe], so may we discuss this in the grace of God so that we may come to understand our Lord’s will and how our beliefs relate to that. :extrahappy:

 

[E.E.N.S]

Here you go.** I think you guys need to do some self-study before we continue. After you study for awhile,** we can graciously discuss these issues to the glory of God alone down the road. **I don’t think everyone has the right Christian motive to discuss such deep glorious issues about Christ **and Him crucified. It doesn’t seem that this thread will glorify God at all, nor will it help Christian unity. Discussing doctrine for doctrine sake is meaningless. Doctrine when applied to the heart and mind will grow our love and affection for God. Without that proper motive, we will stumble each other to sin.

For those who understand my thoughts about doctrine which grows our love and affection for God, please start here:

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

How perfectly arrogant of you to suggest that we are the ones who need study. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps you are the one who is mistaken and could benefit from more study on the topic of predestination (among other things regarding revelation)? I don’t claim to know your motives, but you seem to put up a false facade of this holy christian who wants to discuss the glories of God without going into apologetics, but you don’t seem to play by your own rules most of the time. I agree that it is good to speak and learn of God’s glory, but it is hard to have a decent, honest discussion with someone who speaks (with obfuscation I might add) as if they are the only one who is 100% correct and anyone who disagrees just needs to study your links more.

 

[2nd_Adam]

This is very explosive stuff… and very deep and profound truths which require much prayer, meditation, and guidance by God the Holy Spirit. I am not here to cause anyone to stumble and sin intentionally. I believe that in Christ, there is not such things as being Catholic or Protestant. For those whom the Spirit united to Christ, are eternal brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of our personal religious communities and denominations. There is a remnant chosen by grace according to Scripture. If you truly want to do your own self-study on Calvinism, please start with the first link. Thereafter, go to the 2nd link. There is enough on monergism.com to study for the rest of your earthly life. I wish all of you well, for God is an awesome God. It is because of Him that we are in Christ. I will be hanging out on the non-Catholic section of Catholic Answers. You guys have been great in general as my dear Catholic siblings in Christ.

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

monergism.com/

 

[bookgirl32]

This is very explosive stuff… and very deep and profound truths which require much prayer, meditation, and guidance by God the Holy Spirit. I am not here to cause anyone to stumble and sin intentionally. I believe that in Christ, there is not such things as being Catholic or Protestant. For those whom the Spirit united to Christ, are eternal brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of our personal religious communities and denomination. There is a remnant chosen by grace according to Scriptures. If you truly want to do your own self-study on Calvinism, please start with this link. Thereafter, go to the 2nd link. I wish all of you well, for God is an awesome God. It is because of Him that we are in Christ.

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

monergism.com/

So you don’t want to have this discussion?

 

[Cr8ton]

How perfectly arrogant of you to suggest that we are the ones who need study. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps you are the one who is mistaken and could benefit from more study on the topic of predestination (among other things regarding revelation)? I don’t claim to know your motives, but you seem to put up a false facade of this holy christian who wants to discuss the glories of God without going into apologetics, but you don’t seem to play by your own rules most of the time. I agree that it is good to speak and learn of God’s glory, but it is hard to have a decent, honest discussion with someone who speaks (with obfuscation I might add) as if they are the only one who is 100% correct and anyone who disagrees just needs to study your links more.

I think since we both need to understand each others position, we should all study the opposing view with which we are dealing. I also think depending on how you interpret 2nd’s post you could find it arrogant or an encouragement to learn more of the things we are about to discuss.

When we get to a point that is disagreed with in the Catholic faith, we can then study that side of the debate but we can only deal with one matter at a time. If you have a link that deals with predestination of a Catholic view feel free to post so we can read it as well. I don’t think anyone hear claims to have it “all figured out” and refuse to learn more about the other stances.

 

[Drawmack]

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 it best, in discussions like these to appeal to the original definitions. TULIP was defined by the Synod of Dort in 1619 in response to the Arminian heresy.

As for the five solas, which are off topic in this thread, they were defined by Luther. However the best way to understand the Solas is that they are a response to the Catholic Church’s this and that where Luther said no it is just this. So, the term Sola is a bit of a misnomer. For example, the Catholic Church says we are justified by Faith and Works, Luther says we are justified by Faith Alone. Most times when I read arguments about this Catholics try to bring things other than works into it – that is not valid because Faith Alone is a denial of justification by Works and nothing more. But, like I said one should appeal to the original author.

Additionally, if you really want to have a discussion based on a lack of infallibility in the Protestant faith, which is where discussions about “authoritative” definitions also go with Catholics, then you should start a new thread instead of attempting to pull this one off topic.

 

[bookgirl32]

I think since we both need to understand each others position, we should all study the opposing view with which we are dealing. I also think depending on how you interpret 2nd’s post you could find it arrogant or an encouragement to learn more of the things we are about to discuss.

When we get to a point that is disagreed with in the Catholic faith, we can then study that side of the debate but we can only deal with one matter at a time. If you have a link that deals with predestination of a Catholic view feel free to post so we can read it as well. I don’t think anyone hear claims to have it “all figured out” and refuse to learn more about the other stances.

I don’t think so either. But we all know we will get to the disagreements, and 2nd Adam seems to want to avoid those. If you stay vague, nobody can argue, but nobody can calmly discuss either. 2nd Adam seems to want to find the similarities and focus on them, which isn’t a bad thing necessarily. I just can’t tell if he really is trying to “not lead people to sin” or if he just wants to avoid the discussion altogether. He doesn’t want to acknowledge that he doesn’t know as much about Catholic teaching as he thinks he does. When he claims something about Catholic teaching and someone corrects him, that’s usually where we get derailed.

 

[clmowry]

Here you go. I think you guys need to do some self-study before we continue. After you study for awhile, we can graciously discuss these issues to the glory of God alone down the road. I don’t think everyone has the right Christian motive to discuss such deep glorious issues about Christ and Him crucified. It doesn’t seem that this thread will glorify God at all, nor will it help Christian unity. Discussing doctrine for doctrine sake is meaningless. Doctrine when applied to the heart and mind will grow our love and affection for God. Without that proper motive, we will stumble each other to sin.

Ok, so we should go study up and guess what we think someone elses doctrine might be so that we can discuss the validity of what we think that doctrine might be amongst ourselves.

No thanks,

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

I think it best, in discussions like these to appeal to the original definitions. TULIP was defined by the Synod of Dort in 1619 in response to the Arminian heresy.

That would be a reasonable way to go I think unless that definition has developed substantially over the intervening years.

Even if there has been much development, then I guess going back to the trunk, so to speak, would make more sense than trying to deal with all the branches.

Chuck

 

[Cr8ton]

Ok, so we should go study up and guess what we think someone elses doctrine might be so that we can discuss the validity of what we think that doctrine might be amongst ourselves.

No thanks,

Chuck

that wasnt the originial intent of this thread, it was to discuss the validity and invalidity of a doctrine so we may come to a clearer understanding about what scripture teaches on whatever that specific doctrine may be.

 

[clmowry]

that wasnt the originial intent of this thread, it was to discuss the validity and invalidity of a doctrine so we may come to a clearer understanding about what scripture teaches on whatever that specific doctrine may be.

Oh, I understand.

But you first need to define “WHAT” doctrine you are trying to show as valid / invalid.

It’s hard enough to get a consistent definition on a relatively simple term like “Sola Scriptura.”

What particular definition you use for “Total Depravity” will dramatically affect the conversation.

Maybe you already have the particular definitions in mind and I missed them.

Anyway, enough kibitzing from me, I’ll stay out of the way.

Chuck

 

[Cr8ton]

Oh, I understand.

But you first need to define “WHAT” doctrine you are trying to show as valid / invalid.

It’s hard enough to get a consistent definition on a relatively simple term like “Sola Scriptura.”

What particular definition you use for “Total Depravity” will dramatically affect the conversation.

Maybe you already have the particular definitions in mind and I missed them.

Anyway, enough kibitzing from me, I’ll stay out of the way.

Chuck

oh okay, no worries. I think this site explains them quite well…

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

 

[E.E.N.S]

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.

Originally posted by Catholic Dude:

Total Depravity:
The Catholic Church has a radically different understanding of Original Sin than Calvinists, their position leads to a corrupt human nature, the Catholic position leads to a plain human nature (uncorrupted) which has been stripped of sanctifying grace.
Both agree in the “total inability” of man to save himself, but total depravity is more than that and incompatible with Catholicism.

Unconditional Election:
More or less in agreement. Though Catholics would add that God does not predestine to hell, while Calvinists would generally say He does.

Limited Atonement:
Catholics totally disagree with the Calvinist understanding of the atonement, and thus limited atonement is incompatible with Catholicism.

Irresistible Grace:
This is similar to the Catholic notion of “efficacious grace,” though the Church (and Scripture) teach grace can be resisted at times, also when comparing each theology as a whole the Catholic position is still significantly different from the Calvinist view.

Perseverance of the Saints:
This terminology was stolen from people like St. Augustine and applied to the Calvinist position. The Catholic Church teaches Perseverance of the Saints as the Scriptures and Doctors of the Church taught it. Calvinist cannot technically believe in the concept of “persevering” because they believe in eternal security where the concept of falling does not exist. It would be as if a man was standing on solid ground at sea level and was told to “persevere” by not falling off a cliff. There is no cliff, he is on flat ground, the concept of perseverance doesn’t exist.
The Catholic (Biblical) view of perseverance is that salvation can be lost and you must avoid falling to be saved in the end. Further, even if someone does fall, they can still persevere by repenting before death.

Should we perhaps start with the “T” in TULIP? Any objections to the brief comparison given above? Catholic or Calvinist?

Let’s get this “TULIP thread” back on track, shall we?

 

[FCEGM]

Regarding the “T” in tulip, it seems to me that Calvinism is Islam in a Christian guise, i.e., attempting to explain God’s sovereignty in sight of sin, thus man’s total depravity and thus having to know oneself as one of the Elect in Calvinism, or resigned to one’s fate in Islam. Calvinism definitely distorts God’s nature as much as Islam does. Islam denies that God is a Father. Calvinism denies that God is a LOVING Father.

From Dr. Art Sippo’s review of a.C. Sproul’s The Truth of the Cross:

. . .In an Essentialist worldview such as we see in the Bible, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas, it is not possible to treat ‘good’ and ‘evil’ as mere external labels. What is needed to change a bad person into a good person is a true ontological change in the essential nature of the being in question.

Failure to grasp these philosophical points leads Sproul to misrepresent Catholic teaching:
The Roman Catholic Church holds the position that man’s character is not completely tainted, but that he retains a little island of righteousness. (Page 85)

This is not correct. Catholicism insists that man possesses several natural goods to which his human nature tends without the necessity of grace. But these are not supernatural goods, do not lead to salvation, and garner no merit before God. But they are the very seeds upon which grace works in order to elevate the merely human good work to one that pleases God. We insist that grace builds upon nature. It does not supersede or destroy the good found inherently in the natural man. Instead, it elevates it to another level so that joined with Christ we are able to please the Father in our lives as He did in His own incarnate life.

The Protestant view of ‘total depravity’ is a rarefied form of Manichaeism in which the imputation of sin is placed below the level of moral agency – that is the mind and will – and fixed in the very members of the human person. Thus any inclination of the human being towards any appetite is inherently sinful in Protestant eyes because it does not lead inexorably in the natural man to acts which please God. The distinction Sproul makes between ‘total depravity’ and ‘utter depravity’ is moot. If everything human beings do is sinful, the degree of sinfulness is unimportant. The central problem is that in Sproul’s system, to take in a deep breath is sin in defiance of God. There is absolutely no biblical warrant for such a notion.

Catholicism counters that human inclinations are morally neutral until the mind and he will are engaged. The sinfulness of an act is determined by one’s understanding and intention in the act. Condemning every act of the human person as sinful as the Protestants do is ludicrous. It does not make the right moral distinctions and fails to locate the real source of human sinfulness. This is the consequence of a Nominalist view of morality in which sin is the result of a ‘name-game’, and not a ‘real’ problem. It creates a ‘legal fiction’ in which guilt and innocence are assigned arbitrarily by God without regard to who and what we are.

art-of-attack.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.htm

And Dr. Sippo again, this time at “The Catholic Legate”:

. . .The Calvinist will also argue that only a God that can do whatever he pleases is worthy of worship because otherwise he cannot bring about what he promises to his followers. They show allegiance to God’s raw power, not to his inherent goodness. This disturbs me because it is exactly the apologetic that the Roman Emperors used when opposing Christianity, “I am powerful and can save your life in this world or make it miserable. Your God is impotent and cannot oppose my will.” This is naked theological positivism. Some extreme Calvinists like Gordon Clark are literally voluntarists. They believe that whatever God wills is good because he wills it, not because God adheres to any moral standards. Consequently, if God commands you to commit murder, theft, or adultery it is morally permissible because God’s will is the supreme authority. God could not be supreme if his will was limited in its scope. In this system all notions of good and evil are arbitrary extensions of the will of God. The Bible teaches that God is all good and that there is no shadow or turning in him. The Calvinist God does not meet these criteria but “transcends” them.

catholic-legate.com/articles/goid.html

 

[FCEGM]

And from Mark Bonocore at “The Catholic Legate”:

. . .for the German pagans, it was very easy to understand the Trinity in this Arian mode --a mode in which “God the Father” (i.e., Odin / Wodin) was taken to be some kind of wrathful sky god, and “God the Son” (i.e., Thor) was our heroic savior sent to satisfy the demands of that wrathful sky god. And, this cultural impression seems to haunt the Germanic peoples all through the medieval period and up to the age of Luther. Indeed, this kind of mentality pervades the writings of both Luther and Calvin …and even Calvin, who was nominally French (and so might be classified as a cultural Latin), was actually from the north-eastern Picardy region of France …which is why he attended the “College de la Marche” ("College of the Border). In other words, he was ethnically and culturally Germanic (as are most people of the Lorraine region). . . .

. . .The third aspect that leads us to the classical Protestant notion of God, and the one that affected Calvin most conspicuously, is an overly-simplistic (“black-and-white” Germanic) approach to the Old Testament literary style, especially when comparing it to New Testament literary style. Interestingly enough, Arius himself (like several Gnostics before him), made exactly the same presumptuous mistake; and argued that the God of the Old Testament (the Father) could not possibly be the same God as the Christ of the New Testament because their natures are so different. And, indeed, if you’re going to read these Scriptures (as Gnostics, Arians, and Protestants all do) independently of any living cultural or liturgical understanding of the Church (i.e. a living Covenant people with living Traditional insights into both these works and the nature of the God they worship ), then it’s quite understandable why an Arius, or a John Calvin, might arrive at their respective conclusions. For example, given Calvin’s point of view (i.e. the one he formulated via sola Scriptura), the God of the Old Testament is clearly depicted as the cause of both good and evil. Indeed, in the Jewish literary Tradition, He is depicted as so transcendent that it is He (and no one else) who “hardens Pharaoh’s heart,” thus originating the very obstacle that His miracles must overcome in order to free the Chosen People from Egyptian slavery.

catholic-legate.com/articles/calvingoid.html

 

[E.E.N.S]

Regarding the “T” in tulip, it seems to me that Calvinism is Islam in a Christian guise, i.e., attempting to explain God’s sovereignty in sight of sin, thus man’s total depravity and thus having to know oneself as one of the Elect in Calvinism, or resigned to one’s fate in Islam. Calvinism definitely distorts God’s nature as much as Islam does. Islam denies that God is a Father. Calvinism denies that God is a LOVING Father.

From Dr. Art Sippo’s review of** a.C. Sproul’s** The Truth of the Cross:

art-of-attack.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.htm

And Dr. Sippo again, this time at “The Catholic Legate”:

catholic-legate.com/articles/goid.html

I believe you meant “R.C. Sproul…”

 

[guanophore]

Heck, God made His enemies, the ungodly, and the wicked by the death of His to be His adopted children and co-heirs with Christ based soley on what He has done through Christ. Now, that’s Amazing Grace in which only a Calvinist is able to see with greater depth than non-Calvinist.

No, 2nd. This is not the case. On the contrary, the truth of these matters was written by Catholics, and preserved by Catholics for 1500 years prior to Calvin. Only great arrogance could disregard 1500 years of pre-Calvanist person by asserting that they don’t understand the depth of His grace.

. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?.. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. - rom 8

I think the great fallacy connected with this passage is that God’s love of us is equivalent to salvation, which it is not. God loved us, while we were yet sinners, and will love us after we are adopted as sons, even if we then choose to squander our inheritance.

This is a problem that we need to avoid. We can’t have Catholics teach us what Calvinism is about in the same way that you don’t want to have Calvinists teach you what the Catholic Faith is about.

That is not what happened, though. She gave a statement on the unregnerate person, to which you responded with a passage about the regenerate person. I think we are in agreement that these are two different populations (sheep vs goats; first Adam vs 2nd Adam)

Remember, Calvinists have been discussing Calvinism with our dear Arminian brothers for years, so we know what happens.

You mean, you have some expectations about how the conversations are going to progress?

You stated yourself that Arminian Protestantism is similar to the Catholic Faith in regards to these issues. So, Catholics who think similar to Arminian Christians are hostile to the Doctrines of Grace (TULIP) to start with.

No2nd, Castholics are not “hostile” to the doctrines of grace. We sometimes get hostile about heresies, and those would be teachings such as the TULIP that represent significan departures from the Apostolic Teaching. We are not hostile to Doctrines of Grace. On the contrary, the Catholic Church is the custodian of the Gospels of grace from Christ.

If poeple become restless, they should simply read think two Reformed links that I posted to go ahead from the rest of us.  I want to go slowly on this very deep topic. Here are the two links again for those who want to jump ahead.

So, are you saying of you are talking oranges and turnips, we should just ignore that fact?

 

[guanophore]

I personally believe TULIP should be moved to the non-Catholic religion section. Let’s see if the moderators agree.

This thinking is a puzzle to me. If you want to know why Catholics disagree with it, why would not NOT want to be on the Catholic Apologetics thread?

I don’t see how the opinions of JW’s, Mormons and Atheists will be helpful. Muslims either, for that matter.

I think you guys need to do some self-study before we continue.  After you study for awhile, we can graciously discuss these issues to the glory of God alone down the road.

For some reason you seem to think that reading these websites will predispose us to discussion - not sure why you think that,…I understand that there are some that are not familiar with the TULIP, is that why?

I think it would make more sense to walk thru the TULIP and have some specific discussion about how it is different from what was committed to the Church by the Apostles. For example, “Why don’t Catholics believe in Total Depravity”?
2nd Adam;5900720:

I don’t think everyone has the right Christian motive to discuss such deep glorious issues about Christ and Him crucified.

How is this evaluated?

What are the standards you use to determine the “right Christian motive” for a discussion?

I can certainly understand why you would not want to be invited to a discussion where you are not permitted a chance to speak!

It doesn’t seem that this thread will glorify God at all, nor will it help Christian unity.

I suppose that depends upon your perception of what glorifies God and supports unity. It is not glorifying to God to depart from what He gave to the Church, so to that extent, of course Catholics will not find TULIP glorifying.

Christian unity is not “helped” by pretending that the differences do not exist, or that they are not important.

Discussing doctrine for doctrine sake is meaningless.  Doctrine when applied to the heart and mind will grow our love and affection for God.  Without that proper motive, we will stumble each other to sin.

Maybe you are right, because I am certain that the TULIP wil nto grow any Catholic’s love and affection. It might, as understanding heresies does, make Catholics appreciate the faith that was committed to the Church even more.

If you are unwilling to learn why Catholics do not embrace the TULIP, then I agree, the thread is pointless.

For those who understand my thoughts about doctrine which grows our love and affection for God, please start here:

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

I don’t think everyone has the right Christian motive to discuss such deep glorious issues about Christ and Him crucified. It doesn’t seem that this thread will glorify God at all, nor will it help Christian unity. Discussing doctrine for doctrine sake is meaningless. Doctrine when applied to the heart and mind will grow our love and affection for God. Without that proper motive, we will stumble each other to sin.

For those who understand my thoughts about doctrine which grows our love and affection for God, please start here:

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

 

[guanophore]

That’s quite the untrue low blow my brother.

There is nothing shameful about having PTSD. That would be like saying it was a “low blow” to say that you have diabetes.

It is what it is it is not your fault.

My experience with a Catholic apologist from Catholic Answers probably occured about 12 to 14 years ago.

That’s what accounts for the ‘post’. The trauma happened a long time ago.

And believe me, none of the Protestants sitting at Saint Martha’s pew that night believed anything that he stated. He was the most uncharitable man that I knew who represented the Catholic Faith, which reflected his personal insecurities. Many of those on the Calvary Chapel door to door ministry team who attended that Catholic apologetics debate were actually ex-Catholics. Of course, since us Protestants were not allowed to speak, we were deceived to think that we were there to debate the issues.

And hence, the unpleasant feelings.

I wasn’t trying to imply you did not have a good reason to be gun shy of Catholic Apologetics. It seems to me that you have just reasons for getting cold feet with this. You are coming into it with an expectation that it will be biased and uncharitable.

I think you will find that most Catholics here are very secure in their faith - Tweety being a notable exception.