please explain TULIP and then Catholic disagreements

[bookgirl32]

Howdy, Cr8ton, et al,

I’m very new to the site, as this is only my 2nd post. (Hey, everybody :grouphug I’ve only briefly perused the thread, as I was mostly searching to see if there were any other Calvinist critters about, and this thread popped up. I’m not even entirely clear yet on the nuances of here discussing theologies which might be considered out of kilter with RCC dogma. But, hey, I’m a Calvinist and willing to be brain-picked a bit if it will help to sort things out.

I did notice a few links to Reformed sites, which can be helpful. It might also be helpful, as I’m sure many here realize, to recognize that the typical Calvinist/Arminian discussion or divide or whatever is one of those long-standing ‘issues’ in Christendom, both predating Calvin and the originators of the TULIP acronym, and continually refining itself into all manner of tangents and idiosyncracies. To get hopefully not too technical, the acronym TULIP has come under a lot of scrutiny in the past couple of generations and is perhaps in dire need of clarification back toward it’s original intent and theological distinctiveness. Again, having not yet followed the thread in great detail, it may somewhat help to more precisely understand TULIP as follows:

T = total inability, or radical corruption. These days “Total depravity” tends to convey the concept that man is as bad as he can be, and this is not what the Reformers had in mind, but that as a creature fallen into sin, man is incapable in the entirety of his being of being completely holy as God requires. He is utterly dependant upon the grace of almighty God for righteousness. God has created us with a continuing natural ability to make choices, but our* moral ability* is enslaved by the Fall to our own desires. Without a wholly holy inclination to be good, we are bound to be evil in some respect, which is insufficient for perfect fellowship with our Holy God.
U = unconditional election. As has been said, this indeed conveys that in and of Himself and for His own glory God chooses those whom he will. It is God who determines who will enter into His Paradise. He sovereignly is the Gatekeeper, and is not conditioned upon any of His Creation to allow anything, to ‘elect’ anyone, other than as He alone determines.
L = limited atonement. There’s quite a lot of modern confusion over “limited”. A better term would be “particular” or “purposeful”, that God particularly and purposely redeems each and every person He qualifies for Heaven by the remission of their sins and infusion with righteousness as His new spiritual creation.
I = irresistible grace. Again, better termed efficacious grace. His grace is completely effective or efficacious toward salvation. That is, it accomplishes that to which it is applied Once the Holy Spirit inwardly calls and enables a righteous decision, a righteous decision will be made. If God has predestined one to an eternity in right fellowship with Him, if this is the sovereign choice of our King, it will not be thwarted or prevented by any force outside of God Himself. Which leads us to…
P = perseverance, or preservation of the saints. That is, that God preserves His own from this life to the next - that He is faithful and wholly capable of keeping each of those he has chosen to a life of holiness in His hands and by the power of His Spirit.

I may not be here too often, but thanks for welcoming me, and I’m happy to help out where I may.

That was very helpful, thanks! It’s nice to have some direction and clarity in this thread.

 

[clmowry]

Thomism is the good kind of double predestination. I learned this from a very grounded Catholic Christian. It is similar to a Reformed double predestination of a positive-negative schema. The Catholic Catechism opposes the same kind of double predestination that Calvinists refute too - positive-positive schema). Thomists are saying the same things Calvinists believe. God does not provide what He has provided to His elect. So, the retrobate is passed over by God.

What is the point of asking what the Chruch teaches if you are going to tell us what the Church teaches isn’t what the Church teaches?

Chuck

 

[2nd_Adam]

What is the point of asking what the Chruch teaches if you are going to tell us what the Church teaches isn’t what the Church teaches?

Chuck

Internet conversaitons are quite confusing since I get different answers from different Catholics at times. Within the doctrine of predestination, I even get more conflicting views in what is officially allowed as a Catholic Christian. A very grounded Catholic told me that a postive-negative double-predestination is permitted to believe as a Catholic Christian. I agree with him 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?

Do you want to post if you disagree with our shared conclusion, and explain why?

 

[clmowry]

A grounded Catholic told me that a postive-negative double-predestination is permitted to believe as a Catholic Christian. I agree with him that

Well that would certainly override what actual Church documents say.

Oh wait, no…it doesn’t.

Chuc

 

[guanophore]

Howdy, Cr8ton, et al,

I’m very new to the site, as this is only my 2nd post. (Hey, everybody :grouphug I’ve only briefly perused the thread, as I was mostly searching to see if there were any other Calvinist critters about, and this thread popped up.

Welcome to CAF, and welcome to the thread. No, we do not have sufficient Calvanists here. 2nd Adam is pretty much holding down the fort on his own, and is being over run buy hostile Catholics.

I'm not even entirely clear yet on the nuances of here discussing theologies which might be considered out of kilter with RCC dogma.  But, hey, I'm a Calvinist and willing to be brain-picked a bit if it will help to sort things out.

I suggest you use the link above and look over the forum rules. We welcome theologies that are not catholic. You might wish to be prepared fo r a heated response, though. Most of us here are pretty passionate about our faith.

I *did* notice a few links to Reformed sites, which can be helpful.  It might also be helpful, as I'm sure many here realize, to recognize that the typical Calvinist/Arminian discussion or divide or whatever is one of those long-standing 'issues' in Christendom, both predating Calvin and the originators of the TULIP acronym, and continually refining itself into all manner of tangents and idiosyncracies.

Those of us familiar with historical theology do recognize this ,but I think the OP is unfamiliar (original poster) and was trying to get located.

I personally have been found unqualified to discuss TULIP by our only Calvanits because I failed to embrace one or the other Western theological speculations on predestination.

I may not be here too often, but thanks for welcoming me, and I’m happy to help out where I may.

Well, I hope you can visit often. I am sure your expertise will be helpful to the discussion.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Well that would certainly override what actual Church documents say.

Oh wait, no…it doesn’t.

Chuc

God does not grant His mercy to some people because they know Him, but in order that they may know Him. Nor is it because they are upright in heart, but that they may become so, that He grants them His righteousness by which He justifies the ungodly. This thought does not inflate us with pride! The sin of pride arises when anyone has too much self-confidence, and makes himself the supreme reason for living. Driven by this conceited feeling, the proud person departs from the Fountain of life, from Whose streams alone we can drink the holiness which is itself the good life. Yes, the proud person departs from that unchanging Light, by sharing in which the rational
soul set on fire (so to speak) and becomes a created and reflected light.

On the Spirit and the Letter, 11 - Saint Augustine

Can we possibly, without utter absurdity, maintain that there first existed in anyone the good virtue of a good will, to entitle him to the removal of his heart of stone? How can we say this, when all the time this heart of stone itself signifies precisely a will of the hardest kind, a will that is absolutely inflexible against God? For if a good will comes first, there is obviously no longer a heart of stone.’

Augustine, On Grace and Free Will, 29

‘For we are now speaking of the desire for goodness. If they want to say that this begins from ourselves and is then perfected by God, let them see how they can answer the apostle when he says, “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5)’

Augustine, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, 2:18

 

[bookgirl32]

Well that would certainly override what actual Church documents say.

Oh wait, no…it doesn’t.

Chuc

2nd doesn’t quite get the concept that the Church’s doctrine is not affected by one’s opinion.

 

[guanophore]

God does not grant His mercy to some people because they know Him, but in order that they may know Him. Nor is it because they are upright in heart, but that they may become so, that He grants them His righteousness by which He justifies the ungodly. This thought does not inflate us with pride! The sin of pride arises when anyone has too much self-confidence, and makes himself the supreme reason for living. Driven by this conceited feeling, the proud person departs from the Fountain of life, from Whose streams alone we can drink the holiness which is itself the good life. Yes, the proud person departs from that unchanging Light, by sharing in which the rational
soul set on fire (so to speak) and becomes a created and reflected light.

You are required to cite your sources here, 2nd.

On the Spirit and the Letter, 11 - Saint Augustine

Can we possibly, without utter absurdity, maintain that there first existed in anyone the good virtue of a good will, to entitle him to the removal of his heart of stone? How can we say this, when all the time this heart of stone itself signifies precisely a will of the hardest kind, a will that is absolutely inflexible against God? For if a good will comes first, there is obviously no longer a heart of stone.’

Augustine, On Grace and Free Will, 29

‘For we are now speaking of the desire for goodness. If they want to say that this begins from ourselves and is then perfected by God, let them see how they can answer the apostle when he says, “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5)’

Augustine, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, 2:18

Neither of these passages indicates that one is regenerated apart from their own will. The work that is described here is what my Latin brethren call “prevenient grace”.

 

[clmowry]

God does not grant His mercy to some people because they know Him, but in order that they may know Him. Nor is it because they are upright in heart, but that they may become so, that He grants them His righteousness by which He justifies the ungodly. This thought does not inflate us with pride! The sin of pride arises when anyone has too much self-confidence, and makes himself the supreme reason for living. Driven by this conceited feeling, the proud person departs from the Fountain of life, from Whose streams alone we can drink the holiness which is itself the good life. Yes, the proud person departs from that unchanging Light, by sharing in which the rational
soul set on fire (so to speak) and becomes a created and reflected light.

On the Spirit and the Letter, 11 - Saint Augustine

Can we possibly, without utter absurdity, maintain that there first existed in anyone the good virtue of a good will, to entitle him to the removal of his heart of stone? How can we say this, when all the time this heart of stone itself signifies precisely a will of the hardest kind, a will that is absolutely inflexible against God? For if a good will comes first, there is obviously no longer a heart of stone.’

Augustine, On Grace and Free Will, 29

‘For we are now speaking of the desire for goodness. If they want to say that this begins from ourselves and is then perfected by God, let them see how they can answer the apostle when he says, “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5)’

Augustine, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, 2:18

First, Augustine’s theological opinions [no matter how good] do not constitue offical Church teaching.

Second, where do any of these quotes say God does not offer His grace to the reprobate?

Chuck

 

[2nd_Adam]

first, augustine’s theological opinions [no matter how good] do not constitue offical church teaching.

Second, where do any of these quotes say god does not offer his grace to the reprobate?

Chuck

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.

I will look for quotes on Augustine in regards to your question. However, we know the Thomism view is very similar to what you are asking for.

 

[2nd_Adam]

First, Augustine’s theological opinions [no matter how good] do not constitue offical Church teaching.

Second, where do any of these quotes say God does not offer His grace to the reprobate?

Chuck

Here’s something by Augustine that is very related to your request…

Only those taught by the Father come to Christ

Accordingly, our only Master and Lord Himself, when He had said what I previously mentioned — ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent’ (Jn.6:29) — says a little afterwards in the same discourse, ‘I said to you that you also have seen Me and have not believed. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me’ (Jn.6:37). What is the meaning of ‘will come to Me’ but ‘will believe in Me’? But it is the Father’s gift that this happens. Moreover, a little later Jesus says, ‘Do not murmur among yourselves. No-one can come to Me unless the Father Who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes to Me’ (Jn.6:43-5). What is the meaning of ‘Everyone who has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes to Me,’ except that there is no-one who fails to come to Me if they hear from the Father and learn? For if everyone who has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes, then certainly everyone who does not come has not heard from the Father! For if he had heard and learned, he would come. No-one has heard and learned, and yet has failed to come. But everyone, as the Truth declares, who has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes.

This teaching in which the Father is heard, and teaches to come to the Son, is far removed from the senses of the flesh. The Son Himself is also involved in this teaching, because He is the Father’s Word by which He teaches; and He does not do this through the ear of the flesh, but the ear of the heart. The Spirit of the Father and of the Son is also, at the same time, involved in this teaching; He, too, teaches, and does not teach separately, for we have learned that the workings of the Trinity are inseparable. And that is certainly the same Holy Spirit of Whom the apostle says, ‘We, however, having the same Spirit of faith’ (2 Cor.4:13). But this teaching is especially ascribed to the Father, because the Only Begotten is begotten from Him, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him, of which it would be tedious to argue more elaborately. I think that my work in fifteen books on the Trinity which God is, has already reached you.

No, this instruction in which God is heard and teaches is very far removed, I say, from the senses of the flesh. We see that many come to the Son because we see that many believe in Christ; but when and how they have heard and learned this from the Father, we do not see. It is true that that grace is exceedingly secret, but who doubts that it is grace? This grace, therefore, which is invisibly bestowed on human hearts by the divine gift, is not rejected by any hard heart — because it is given for the purpose of first taking away the hardness of the heart! When, therefore, the Father is heard within, and teaches, so that a person comes to the Son, He takes away the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh, as He has promised in the declaration of the prophet. He thus makes them children and vessels of mercy which He has prepared for glory.

On the Predestination of the Saints, 13

 

[guanophore]

Again, having not yet followed the thread in great detail, it may somewhat help to more precisely understand TULIP as follows:

T = total inability, or radical corruption. These days “Total depravity” tends to convey the concept that man is as bad as he can be, and this is not what the Reformers had in mind, but that as a creature fallen into sin, man is incapable in the entirety of his being of being completely holy as God requires. He is utterly dependant upon the grace of almighty God for righteousness. God has created us with a continuing natural ability to make choices, but our* moral ability* is enslaved by the Fall to our own desires. Without a wholly holy inclination to be good, we are bound to be evil in some respect, which is insufficient for perfect fellowship with our Holy God.

I am not sure there is anything in this part of what you wrote that is inconsistent with Catholic teaching. If there is, perhaps other Catholics will point this out for me?

U = unconditional election. As has been said, this indeed conveys that in and of Himself and for His own glory God chooses those whom he will. It is God who determines who will enter into His Paradise. He sovereignly is the Gatekeeper, and is not conditioned upon any of His Creation to allow anything, to ‘elect’ anyone, other than as He alone determines.

It seems that this section was written to refute the idea that all are called?

Whereas Catholics believe that God desires all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth, Calvanists don’t believe this?

I am curious what Calvanitsts do with the scriptures that indicate God calls everyone to repent, and that He gives the desire to everyman to seek and find Him.

I would like to continue to discuss the other petals as well, but I think it is too much all at once. I thank you for your excellent summary.

\

 

[2nd_Adam]

You are required to cite your sources here, 2nd.

If you look closer, the source was posted. Noticed that I had three works of Augustine with three different sources.

 

[2nd_Adam]

More Augustine…

God’s grace works in us sovereignly to produce a godly will

Some might interpret ‘It is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God Who shows mercy’ (Rom.9:16), in this sense — that salvation comes from both, that is, both from the human will and from the mercy of God. In that case, we must understand the saying, ‘It is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God Who shows mercy,’ as if it meant that the human will alone is not sufficient, unless the mercy of God goes with it. But then it would follow that the mercy of God alone is not sufficient, unless the human will goes with it! Therefore, if we may rightly say, ‘it is not of man who wills, but of God Who shows mercy,’ because the human will by itself is not enough, why may we not also rightly put it the other way round: ‘It is not of God Who shows mercy, but of man who wills,’ because the mercy of God by itself is not sufficient? Surely, no Christian will dare to say this, ‘It is not of God Who shows mercy, but of man who wills,’ in case he openly contradicts the apostle!

So it follows that the true interpretation of the saying, ‘It is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God Who shows mercy,’ is that the entire work belongs to God, Who both makes the human will righteous, and prepares it in this way for His assistance, and then assists it when it is prepared. For human righteousness of will precedes many of God’s gifts, but not all of them; and it must itself be included among those gifts which it does not precede. We read in Holy Scripture, both that God’s mercy ‘shall meet me’ (Ps.59:10), and that His mercy ‘shall follow me’ (Ps.23:6). Mercy goes before the unwilling person to make him willing; it follows the willing person to make his will effective. Why are we taught to pray for our enemies, who are plainly unwilling to lead a holy life, unless that God may produce willingness in them? And why are we ourselves taught to ask in order that may receive, unless that He who has created in us the wish, may Himself satisfy the wish? We pray, then, for our enemies, that the mercy of God may go before them, as it has gone before us; and we pray for ourselves that His mercy may follow us.

Enchiridion, 32

 

[2nd_Adam]

Neither of these passages indicates that one is regenerated apart from their own will. The work that is described here is what my Latin brethren call “prevenient grace”.

Prevenient grace - Arminianism and the Catholic Faith

in contrast to

Sovereign grace - Reformed (Calvinism)

 

[2nd_Adam]

I

Whereas Catholics believe that God desires all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth, Calvanists don’t believe this?

 

[guanophore]

 If you look closer, the source was posted.  Noticed that I had three works of Augustine with three different sources.

I noticed. I knew where you got it. Not everyone will recognize it, and the source did not accompany the quote.

Prevenient grace - Arminianism and the Catholic Faith

in contrast to

Sovereign grace - Reformed (Calvinism)

I don’t find this very useful, 2nd. Catholics, and I suspect Armenians, both believe that God’s prevenient grace is also sovereign.

All Calvinists believe this since this is clearly taught in Scriptures.

Maybe you can help me understand, then, how it is that God desires all to be saved, but they are not?

This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,  who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. - 1 Tim 2

Please explain your understanding of God’s desire in comparison to His sovereign will. God desires that nobody should sin and rebel against Him, yet everyone sins against Him.

Are you asking me to explain this? It makes sense if one believes that man has free will, and that God, in His sovereignty, allows man to sin and rebel against Him. What does NOT make sense is how, if God wants people saved, they end up not saved.

The gospel is actually a commandment given to all mankind. So, God actually commands all men everywhere to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for forgivness of sin and reconcilation. We are calling God a liar if we do not obey the command to believe in His Son.

No, 2nd. Rebellion is not necessarily a lie. People can believe God is telling the Truth, then still refuse Him.

Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. - 1 John 5:10

It is possible to believe, and still disobey. the devils do this.

Can God command something of His creatures in which they cannot obey apart from His enabling grace?  Well, we have the 10 commandments in which we all break daily. They are God's moral law in which never changes.

I am sure God “can” do whatever He wants, but it denies His loving nature to command that which He does not enable His creatures to do. He commands us to keep His Law because obedience results in freedom.

 

[Thing]

LOL… that’s a good one. And yes, I know that verse very well. Please share your Catholic version of predestination.

lol…my Catholic version is the Catholic version…/lol

 

[guanophore]

LOL… that’s a good one. And yes, I know that verse very well. Please share your Catholic version of predestination.

I know this has already been shared with you, but since it is not about TULIP or predestination, maybe I am not disqualified from speaking to it.

You know that Catholics believe the entire NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. Therefore, from the point of view of the Apostles, anything that departs from what the Apostles committed to the Church is a heresy. The reason TULIP qualifies is because every petal is a significant (albeit small at times) departure from the One Faith that was left once and for all with the Church.

 

[guanophore]

Well a "cafeteria" Catholic will tell you He/She can pretty much reject the whole thing and still be "Catholic".

In a sense they are correct. The Church very seldom actually excommunicates anyone.

Actually, the vast majority of Cafeteria Catholics have excommunicated themselves, and don’t know it.

 That said it really is a necessity that you **accept everything** the Church teaches to be in full communion with the Church.  That doesn’t necessarily mean that you need to even understand everything the Church teaches.  For example, you might not understand why women cannot be priests, you might even argue that this is not an issue that has not been settled (though it has) and want to debate the doctrine, but when push comes to shove, a Catholic must accept that this is true, simply because it is what the Church teaches.

This is well said, Chuck. I would add that this is the case because we approach in humility with the presumption that it is true because of Jesus’ promise to lead the Church into all Truth, and if we don’t understand, it is because we are not sufficiently catechized, or formed to the image of Christ,a nd understanding will follow faith.

 Frankly, accepting, many of the doctrines that non Catholics object to really are of no **practical** importance.   ]For example, you may be uncomfortable in believing that Mary was the Immaculate Conception, or that she is Queen of Heaven, even so you can still accept that the Church's teaching on the subject is the truth.  You are never going to be “required” to pray to Mary.

Clear as mud?  Chuck