please explain TULIP and then Catholic disagreements

[2nd_Adam]

No, double predestination is not an allowable position to hold as a Catholic…as you have been told several times already.

catholicsource.net/Predestination.html

Predestination and the Catholic Church

by Adam C. Kolasinski

The Catholic Church, following St. Augustine (e.g., Grace and Free Will, 1,1; Sermon 169, 11,13), accepts predestination of the elect to heaven, but also affirms the freedom of the human will, thus staking out a position distinct from Calvinism. Predestination to hell, in Catholicism, always involves man’s free will, and foreseen sins, so that man is ultimately responsible for his own damnation, not God (double predestination is rejected).

The Catholic Church affirms predestination as a de fide dogma (the highest level of binding theological certainty), while at the same time affirming free will and the possibility of falling away from the faith.

But, there is no official teaching on how exactly this comes into play. There are numerous theological schools of thought on the matter, the two major ones being the Thomists and the Molinists. I tend to subscribe to the former. The latter is closer to the Arminian position.

Any theological position on election, however, must conform with the Church’s soteriological teachings. Molinism, Thomism, and Arminianism all conform, Calvinism does not. To conform, your theology must accept the following:

1. Free will; that is, God allows people to choose him, and allows them to reject them. People always have the option. Thus election, if you believe it, must be an act of persuasion and not compulsion.
2. Co-operation; it is necessary for salvation for a man to cooperate with God’s grace. Man must continuously allow God’s grace to work in him. If at any point a man prevents this, he falls from grace.
3. Jesus died for all men, and his sacrifice has the potential of saving all, but his act did not automatically save anyone, only those who choose to accept him.
4. Man is born in a state of sin, and must be called by God in order to accept Him and thus receive the merits of Christ’s sacrifice.
5. God predestines no one to Hell. i.e. you can only believe in negative reprobation, not positive.

There are, of course, many other teachings on salvation, but these are the main ones. Thomism, unlike Calvinism, accepts all of them. The main difference between the various schools of thought is how the calling grace of point 4 get dispensed, and its effects. Thomists maintain that God does not bestow it on everyone, while Molinists maintain that he does.

For more on the Catholic Church and Predestination, this essay by Ludwig Ott has more: Catholic Predestination

A Catholic form of double predestination:

1. Man is born in a state of sin, and must be called by God in order to accept Him and thus receive the merits of Christ’s sacrifice.

The main difference between the various schools of thought is how the calling grace of point 4 get dispensed, and its effects. Thomists maintain that God does not bestow it on everyone

The Reformed view of double predestination:

the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html

 

[E.E.N.S]

The Church teaches that the elect saved are predestined (and this is true in both Thomism and Molinism). It teaches (just like Augustine and over against Calvinism) that we have a free will, too. But it denies that the damned are predestined to hell (“double predestination”). The saved persons choose to accept God’s grace for salvation, entirely by God’s grace. The damned choose to reject this grace, and so basically choose to separate themselves from God and go to hell for eternity. God doesn’t predestine that, as Calvinism (and Martin Luther) teach. C.S. Lewis made an astute comment that “the doors of hell are locked on the inside.”

socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/03/catholic-predestination-molinism-and.html

From the Council of Trent:

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that, since Adam’s sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that it is not in man’s power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of Himself, in such wise that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul; let him be anathema.

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.

 

[guanophore]

That makes sense. I mean, I guess if you’re Calvinist, it sounds better?

I’d actually really like to understand Calvinism better. I’m curious about what 2nd saw as incorrect in my explanation.

Love is Patient

OH very much. If you read what 2nd posted in response to your summary, it is clear that all Reformed Christians believe themselves to be among the Elect (how could one believe otherwise)? Even those who later fall from the faith believed at the time they were among the Elect. As such, they have access to the grace of God that is not available to everyone.

 

[tweetymom]

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.

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

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.

You sure do like to throw my name around. Thank you.

 

[guanophore]

If you really want to understand Calvinism, you should visit a Reformed Forum site, or study Calvinism on the Reformed.org or monergism.com sites. Otherwise, you guy can continue with your unintentional or intentional misrepresentation of your separated Reformed siblings. If I want to understand the Catholic Faith, I won’t go to Protestant Forum site to understand it.

You have confirmed and emphasized the point I was trying to make, 2nd thank you. When you told me it would be more appropriate for me to open a thread about TULIP on the Apologetics area this is exactly what I was thinking. It does not make any sense for Catholics to try to champion doctrines that are not part of the Apostolic deposit of faith. Catholics can certainly participate in these discussions, and those of us who have been delivered from Calvanism may be able to enter that discussion with more background, but you are absolutely correct. those who wish to study a doctrine should go to the primary sources. Since this doctrine is not part of the Apostoli deposit of faith, no Catholic site will be a primary source for it.

 

[guanophore]

LOL!!!

Thanks, I needed a posting like this one. Laughter is good for the soul. You can’t crush the TULIP because we know that the grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever. The strenght of TULIP is the entire Word of God.

The Heart of Tulip!
Soli Deo gloria (“glory to God alone”)

I have no doubts that the creators of TULIP, and you as well, 2nd, are very fervent in their faith and commitment to the glory of God alone.

However, TULIP is not the Word of God, and though it is a systematic theology based upon the Scriptures, it cannot stand up forever because it is based upon the errors of men, committed and dedicated as they may be to their faith.

 

[guanophore]

So says ye.

He is right on that point. Any strength that exists in it at all is based in the Word of God, because that is all the makers of it had left,. Since they were separated from the Apostolic faith, they used the best thing they had, and tried with all sincerity to recreate a faith as they imagined it ought to be.

 

[guanophore]

I wish I could challenge your postings on TULIP (and how Augustine supposedly believes it), but all you’ve posted is links, and posts trying to postpone an actual discussion on TULIP. For all I know from what you’ve posted, it’s possible you don’t know that much about it yourself. You’re not even remotely trying to explain your understanding of it.

Second is not really ready to do this bookgirl. That is why he did not open the thread himself. Now that Scott is on the thread, I don’t think we will be able to lure him out of his shell.

 

[guanophore]

You sure do like to throw my name around. Thank you.

You make such a good example, it is most useful! However, I did not express that last one very well. I believe that you are VERY secure in your faith. What I should have done is modify the sentence with the word “Catholic”. You do not appear to place much security or confidence in Catholic faith.

 

[2nd_Adam]

The Church teaches that the elect saved are predestined (and this is true in both Thomism and Molinism). It teaches (just like Augustine and over against Calvinism) that we have a free will, too. But it denies that the damned are predestined to hell (“double predestination”). The saved persons choose to accept God’s grace for salvation, entirely by God’s grace. The damned choose to reject this grace, and so basically choose to separate themselves from God and go to hell for eternity. God doesn’t predestine that, as Calvinism (and Martin Luther) teach. C.S. Lewis made an astute comment that “the doors of hell are locked on the inside.”

socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/03/catholic-predestination-molinism-and.html

From the Council of Trent:

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that, since Adam’s sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that it is not in man’s power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of Himself, in such wise that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul; let him be anathema.

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.

Predestination is double sided. If you believe in a single sided predestination, then you are either a universalist, or you believe that nobody will be saved. We will need to listen to each other to what form of double predestination that we hold to. The Catholic Faith together with the Reformed Faith (Calvinism) rejects a positive positive form of double predestination, which is nicknamed hyper-Calvinism. It is heretical and unbiblical; therefore we reject it. I reject a positive-positive view of predestination in light of Scripture. You reject the same positive-positive view of predestination in light of Sacred Tradition. However, our conclusions are the same.

A Catholic view of Thomism predestination is very similar to Calvinism’s double predestination which is a positive-negative schema.

A Catholic form of double predestination:

1. Man is born in a state of sin, and must be called by God in order to accept Him and thus receive the merits of Christ’s sacrifice.

The main difference between the various schools of thought is how the calling grace of point 4 get dispensed, and its effects. Thomists maintain that God does not bestow it on everyone

Please see posts 120 for a more detailed explaination. I would suggest to click on the Catholic link and Reformed link on the issue of predestination and double-predestination.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Second is not really ready to do this bookgirl. That is why he did not open the thread himself. Now that Scott is on the thread, I don’t think we will be able to lure him out of his shell.

It’s a new day, so I will try to participate. So far, here is my discernment. Both Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians can agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith on this point.

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.

The Catholic Church and the Reformed Faith (Calvinism) reject a positive-positive form of double predestination, and consider this view to be heretical with no biblical basis. After we explore the doctrine of predestination, I am confident that we share a similar view of double predestination in a positive-negative schema. I know there are important distinctions, but our views are much more similar than most think. God passes over the non-elect (passive), or does not provide the same kind of grace in which He provides for the elect.

A Catholic form of double predestination:

1. Man is born in a state of sin, and must be called by God in order to accept Him and thus receive the merits of Christ’s sacrifice.

The main difference between the various schools of thought is how the calling grace of point 4 get dispensed, and its effects. Thomists maintain that God does not bestow it on everyone

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

God’s beautiful creation magnifying the glory of God!

 

[guanophore]

It’s a new day, so I will try to participate. So far, here is my discernment. Both Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians can agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith on this point.

Great! Ok, I just formulated a question reading your old thread which is now closed. You posted this:

2nd_Adam:

Honestly, I really believe dear brothers like Scott Hahn let go of Sola Scriptura in error. If I let go of Sola Scriptura as an essential truth, I could easily be Catholic. However, being Catholic or Protestant is not a crucial error from my view. Hence… ECT III on Catholic Answers!

You are caling Scott a “dear brother” here, so I assume you believe he is among the saved, and though he did fall away from the most pure systematic doctrine known to mankind (Calvanism) he is still saved, is that right?

If I am right, is it because God predestined Scott to be saved, and he is among the elect, and no matter if he falls into heresy or unbelief after having believed, God will save him anyhow?

If I understood this correctly, then I will understand also why you objected to my summary of your thoughts on the Justification thread. I wrote there that you believed such a person "could be saved’ but in actuality, it is the other way around, he is already saved, and cannot be “unsaved”.

 The  I know there are important distinctions, but our views are much more similar than most think. God passes over the non-elect (passive), or does not provide the same kind of grace in which He provides for the elect.

I think there might be a misunderstanding in the population to which the grace is poured out. God provides sufficient grace for all to be saved. Some respond to the calling grace, and some do not. To those that respond, more is given.

It is also important not to confuse theological speculations with doctrine.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Great! Ok, I just formulated a question reading your old thread which is now closed. You posted this:

You are caling Scott a “dear brother” here, so I assume you believe he is among the saved, and though he did fall away from the most pure systematic doctrine known to mankind (Calvanism) he is still saved, is that right?

If I am right, is it because God predestined Scott to be saved, and he is among the elect, and no matter if he falls into heresy or unbelief after having believed, God will save him anyhow?

If I understood this correctly, then I will understand also why you objected to my summary of your thoughts on the Justification thread. I wrote there that you believed such a person "could be saved’ but in actuality, it is the other way around, he is already saved, and cannot be “unsaved”.

I think there might be a misunderstanding in the population to which the grace is poured out. God provides sufficient grace for all to be saved. Some respond to the calling grace, and some do not. To those that respond, more is given.

It is also important not to confuse theological speculations with doctrine.

Before I answer your question, please address my post first since I posted it before you. Do you agree with my post above with the beautiful field of Tulips (post 130)? Do you hold to this Catholiic view, or another one? If you reject the Thomists view, please try to explain your position of predestination.

A Catholic form of double predestination
:

1. Man is born in a state of sin, and must be called by God in order to accept Him and thus receive the merits of Christ’s sacrifice.

The main difference between the various schools of thought is how the calling grace of point 4 get dispensed, and its effects. Thomists maintain that God does not bestow it on everyone

 

[guanophore]

Before I answer your question, please address my post first since I posted it before you.  Do you agree with my post above with the beautiful Tulip (post 130)?

"Westminster:

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

I do agree with it, but our understanding of what might glorify God may differ. I do not think it glorifies God for me to believe that He created souls for the purpose of perdition. I think He created human beings to love and to serve Him, that His intention is to have fellowship with us. I do not believe He wanted us to fall, and spend eternity apart from Him.

Do you hold to this Catholiic view, or another one? If you reject the Thomists view, please try to explain your position of predestination.

I will pass on this one.

This is not a major theological issue in the Eastern Church. It is a peculiarity of Western Philosophy.

 

[2nd_Adam]

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

I do agree with it, but our understanding of what might glorify God may differ. I do not think it glorifies God for me to believe that He created souls for the purpose of perdition. I think He created human beings to love and to serve Him, that His intention is to have fellowship with us. I do not believe He wanted us to fall, and spend eternity apart from Him.

I will pass on this one.

This is not a major theological issue in the Eastern Church. It is a peculiarity of Western Philosophy.

If you pass on this one, then I don’t think you are qualified to give your views on TULIP. I will pass over you (not respond to your threads) until you give me your view on predestination and double predestnation.

http://www.trancewave.com/novalounge/blog/images/chicken.suit.jpg

Predestination is in the Bible…

 

[tweetymom]

You make such a good example, it is most useful! However, I did not express that last one very well. I believe that you are VERY secure in your faith. What I should have done is modify the sentence with the word “Catholic”. You do not appear to place much security or confidence in Catholic faith.

And you certainly make a good example of what I hope I am not

 

[bookgirl32]

Second is not really ready to do this bookgirl. That is why he did not open the thread himself. Now that Scott is on the thread, I don’t think we will be able to lure him out of his shell.

I don’t know why I keep trying.

 

[2nd_Adam]

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:

Do you know see that the Catholic Church and Reformed Christians reject an unbiblical position of double predestination known as hyper-Calvinism (positive-positive schema)?

Can you know see that a Thomism’s understanding of predestination is quite similar to a Reformed view of predestination, which is really a form of double-predestination (positive-negative schema) in which God passes over the reprobate, or does not apply the same amount or type of grace that He does to His elect?

I do acknowledge that the Reformed view and Thomism’s view have differences which will come out through our discussion of TULIP. :flowers: Do you personally hold to a Thomism form of predestination? Why or why not? You see, the TULIP is not as ugly as you first thought. I believe all Christians are either a form of a TULIP or a form of a Daisy.

solochristo.net/daisy_vs_tulip.php

Click to see if you are more of a Tulip or a Daisy?

http://www.village-square.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/tulipdaisy.jpg

It is my view, I believe that all Daisy Christians will become TULIP Christians in heaven.

 

[guanophore]

And you certainly make a good example of what I hope I am not

And what might that be?

 

[guanophore]

I don’t know why I keep trying.

He gives a very tempting presentation of someone who really wishes to engage, I think.