please explain TULIP and then Catholic disagreements

[2nd_Adam]

"In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives. Even in the case of the “hardening” of the sinners’ already recalcitrant hearts, God does not, as Luther stated, “work evil in us (for hardening is working evil) by creating fresh evil in us.”

monergism- the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.

How does this not deny that man has free will?

Chuck

I guess we need to clarify what we each mean by the word free will. How do you see our will was changed or affected by the fall of mankind? Without the grace of God, are we more inclined to sin or more inclined to righteousness? Reformed Christians believe we are free to choose what we desire. On our own free will, are we inclined to come to Christ?

 

[clmowry]

I guess we need to clarify what we each mean by the word free will. How do you see our will was changed or affected by the fall of mankind? Without the grace of God, are we more inclined to sin or more inclined to righteousness?

The ability to choose to accpet or reject God’s saving grace.

Chuck

 

[2nd_Adam]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd Adam
I guess we need to clarify what we each mean by the word free will. How do you see our will was changed or affected by the fall of mankind? Without the grace of God, are we more inclined to sin or more inclined to righteousness?

The ability to choose to accpet or reject God’s saving grace.

Chuck

Are you saying you believe that we have the natural ability to accept or reject God’s saving grace apart from God enabling us to receive his provision of reconciliation?

 

[clmowry]

Are you saying you believe that we have the natural ability to accept or reject God’s saving grace apart from God enabling us to receive his provision of reconciliation?

Are you asking me if I think one can accept or reject what hasn’t been offered?

I don’t even understand the question, so no, its not what I believe.

I believe if man cannot chose to accept or reject the grace that he IS offered then he has no free will in this area.

Chuck

 

[2nd_Adam]

Are you asking me if I think one can accept or reject what hasn’t been offered?

I don’t even understand the question, so no, its not what I believe.

I believe if man cannot chose to accept or reject the grace that he IS offered then he has no free will in this area.

Chuck

This is a very difficult topic to discuss on a Forum Site. I believe the Catholic Church as well as Augustine believed that mankind does not have the natural ability to accept or reject the grace that is offered him on his own free will. Maybe we are trying to discuss the “I” in Tulip. Is God’s grace resistible or irrestible?

 

[bookgirl32]

This is a very difficult topic to discuss on a Forum Site. I believe the Catholic Church as well as Augustine believed that mankind does not have the natural ability to accept or reject the grace that is offered him on his own free will.

So, where do you come up with this belief?

 

[2nd_Adam]

So, where do you come up with this belief?

By reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as writings of Augustine. It’s amazing what is available on the Internet nowdays! Here, I just found this a minute ago.

Augustine and Pelagius
By R. C. Sproul

“It is Augustine who gave us the Reformation.” So wrote B. B. Warfield in his assessment of the influence of Augustine on church history. It is not only that Luther was an Augustinian monk, or that Calvin quoted Augustine more than any other theologian that provoked Warfield’s remark. Rather, it was that the Reformation witnessed the ultimate triumph of Augustine’s doctrine of grace over the legacy of the Pelagian view of man.

Humanism, in all its subtle forms, recapitulates the unvarnished Pelagianism against which Augustine struggled. Though Pelagius was condemned as a heretic by Rome, and its modified form, Semi-Pelagianism was likewise condemned by the Council of Orange in 529, the basic assumptions of this view persisted throughout church history to reappear in Medieval Catholicism, Renaissance Humanism, Socinianism, Arminianism, and modern Liberalism. The seminal thought of Pelagius survives today not as a trace or tangential influence but is pervasive in the modern church. Indeed, the modern church is held captive by it.

What was the core issue between Augustine and Pelagius? The heart of the debate centered on the doctrine of original sin, particularly with respect to the question of the extent to which the will of fallen man is “free.” Adolph Harnack said:

There has never, perhaps, been another crisis of equal importance in church history in which the opponents have expressed the principles at issue so clearly and abstractly. The Arian dispute before the Nicene Council can alone be compared with it. (History of Agmer V/IV/3)

The controversy began when the British monk, Pelagius, opposed at Rome Augustine’s famous prayer: “Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire.” Pelagius recoiled in horror at the idea that a divine gift (grace) is necessary to perform what God commands. For Pelagius and his followers responsibility always implies ability. If man has the moral responsibility to obey the law of God, he must also have the moral ability to do it.

Harnack summarizes Pelagian thought:

Nature, free-will, virtue and law, these strictly defined and made independent of the notion of God - were the catch-words of Pelagianism: self-acquired virtue is the supreme good which is followed by reward. Religion and morality lie in the sphere of the free spirit; they are at any moment by man’s own effort.

The difference between Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism is more a difference of degree than of kind. To be sure, on the surface there seems like there is a huge difference between the two, particularly with respect to original sin and to the sinner’s dependence upon grace. Pelagius categorically denied the doctrine of original sin, arguing that Adam’s sin affected Adam alone and that infants at birth are in the same state as Adam was before the Fall. Pelagius also argued that though grace may facilitate the achieving of righteousness, it is not necessary to that end. Also, he insisted that the constituent nature of humanity is not convertible; it is indestructively good.

Over against Pelagius, Semi-Pelagianism does have a doctrine of original sin whereby mankind is considered fallen. Consequently grace not only facilitates virtue, it is necessary for virtue to ensue. Man’s nature can be changed and has been changed by the Fall.

However, in Semi-Pelagianism there remains a moral ability within man that is unaffected by the Fall. We call this an “island of righteousness” by which the fallen sinner still has the inherent ability to incline or move himself to cooperate with God’s grace. Grace is necessary but not necessarily effective. Its effect always depends upon the sinner’s cooperation with it by virtue of the exercise of the will.

part 1

 

[2nd_Adam]

Part 2
It is not by accident that Martin Luther considered The Bondage of the Will to be his most important book. He saw in Erasmus a man who, despite his protests to the contrary, was a Pelagian in Catholic clothing. Luther saw that lurking beneath the controversy of merit and grace, and faith and works was the issue of to what degree the human will is enslaved by sin and to what degree we are dependent upon grace for our liberation. Luther argued from the Bible that the flesh profits nothing and that this “nothing” is not a little “something.”

Augustine’s view of the Fall was opposed to both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. He said that mankind is a massa peccati, a “mess of sin,” incapable of raising itself from spiritual death. For Augustine man can no more move or incline himself to God than an empty glass can fill itself. For Augustine the initial work of divine grace by which the soul is liberated from the bondage of sin is sovereign and operative. To be sure we cooperate with this grace, but only after the initial divine work of liberation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[bookgirl32]

By reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as writings of Augustine. It’s amazing what is available on the Internet nowdays! Here, I just found this a minute ago.

Okay, for now, I’m ignoring R.C. Sproul completely b/c he is not a representative of Catholic teaching. What part of the Catechism led you to believe that the Church teaches that

“mankind does not have the natural ability to accept or reject the grace that is offered him on his own free will”

??

 

[2nd_Adam]

Okay, for now, I’m ignoring R.C. Sproul completely b/c he is not a representative of Catholic teaching. What part of the Catechism led you to believe that the Church teaches that ??

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

 

[bookgirl32]

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

Sure. But it has absolutely no bearing on Catholic teaching and I’m trying to get at what exactly, from official Catholic teaching, led you to believe that “mankind does not have the natural ability to accept or reject the grace that is offered him on his own free will”?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I’m
I’m perhaps not following your meaning by “created for hell”?

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

Right?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

This is a very difficult topic to discuss on a Forum Site. I believe the Catholic Church as well as Augustine believed that mankind does not have the natural ability to accept or reject the grace that is offered him on his own free will. Maybe we are trying to discuss the “I” in Tulip. Is God’s grace resistible or irrestible?

The Catholic Church believes that all men are offered this grace by God.

Those who accept and remain in this grace are the elect.

Our cooperation makes God’s sufficient grace effective.

He helps us every step of the way, but we must cooperate.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

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

Do you believe these verses?

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

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

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

 

[2nd_Adam]

Do you believe these verses?

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

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

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

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

 

[2nd_Adam]

The Catholic Church believes that all men are offered this grace by God.

Those who accept and remain in this grace are the elect.

Our cooperation makes God’s sufficient grace effective.

He helps us every step of the way, but we must cooperate.

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

newadvent.org/cathen/14698b.htm

9.The Thomistic School is distinguished from other schools of theology chiefly by its doctrines on the difficult questions relating to God’s action on the free will of man, God’s foreknowledge, grace, and predestination. In the articles on these subjects will be found an exposition of the different theories advanced by the different schools in their effort to explain these mysteries, for such they are in reality. As to the value of these theories the following points should be borne in mind:

◦No theory has as yet been proposed which avoids all difficulties and solves all doubts;
◦on the main and most difficult of these questions some who are at times listed as Molinists — notably Bellarmine, Francisco Suárez, Francis de Lugo, and, in our own days, Cardinal Billot (“De deo uno et trino”, Rome, 1902, Th. XXXII) — agree with the Thomists in defending predestination ante praevisa merita. Bossuet, after a long study of the question of physical premotion, adapted the Thomistic opinion (“Du libre arbitre”, c. viii).

◦Thomists do not claim to be able to explain, except by a general reference to God’s omnipotence, how man remains free under the action of God, which they consider necessary in order to preserve and explain the universality of God’s causality and the independent certainty of His foreknowledge. No man can explain, except by a reference to God’s infinite power, how the world was created out of nothing, yet we do not on this account deny creation, for we know that it must be admitted. In like manner the main question put to Thomists in this controversy should be not “How will you explain man’s liberty?” but “What are your reasons for claiming so much for God’s action?” If the reasons assigned are insufficient, then one great difficulty is removed, but there remains to be solved the problem of God’s foreknowledge of man’s free acts. If they are valid, then we must accept them with their necessary consequences and humbly confess our inability fully to explain how wisdom “reacheth . . . from end to end mightily, and ordereth all things sweetly” (Wisdom 8:1).

◦Most important of all, it must be clearly understood and remembered that the Thomistic system on predestination neither saves fewer nor sends to perdition more souls than any other system held by Catholic theologians. In regard to the number of the elect there is no unanimity on either side; this is not the question in dispute between the Molinists and the Thomists. The discussions, too often animated and needlessly sharp, turned on this point: How does it happen that, although God sincerely desires the salvation of all men, some are to be saved, and must thank God for whatever merits they may have amassed, whilst others will be lost, and will know that they themselves, and not God, are to be blamed? — The facts in the case are admitted by all Catholic theologians. The Thomists, appealing to the authority of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, defend a system which follows the admitted facts to their logical conclusions. The elect are saved by the grace of God, which operates on their wills efficaciously and infallibly without detriment to their liberty; and since God sincerely desires the salvation of all men, He is prepared to grant that same grace to others, if they do not, by a free act, render themselves unworthy of it. The faculty of placing obstacles to Divine grace is the unhappy faculty of sinning; and the existence of moral evil in the world is a problem to be solved by all, not by the Thomists alone. The fundamental difficulties in this mysterious question are the existence of evil and the non-salvation of some, be they few or be they many, under the rule of an omnipotent, all-wise, and all-merciful God, and they miss the point of the controversy who suppose that these difficulties exist only for the Thomists. The truth is known to lie somewhere between Calvinism and Jansenism on the one hand, and Semipelagianism on the other. The efforts made by theologians and the various explanations offered by Augustinians, Thomists, Molinists, and Congruists show how difficult of solution are the questions involved. Perhaps we shall never know, in this world, how a just and merciful God provides in some special manner for the elect and yet sincerely loves all men. The celebrated Congregatio de Auxiliis did not forever put an end to the controversies, and the question is not yet settled.

]

 

[2nd_Adam]

B]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.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

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

newadvent.org/cathen/14698b.htm

9.The Thomistic School is distinguished from other schools of theology chiefly by its doctrines on the difficult questions relating to God’s action on the free will of man, God’s foreknowledge, grace, and predestination. In the articles on these subjects will be found an exposition of the different theories advanced by the different schools in their effort to explain these mysteries, for such they are in reality. As to the value of these theories the following points should be borne in mind:

◦No theory has as yet been proposed which avoids all difficulties and solves all doubts;
◦on the main and most difficult of these questions some who are at times listed as Molinists — notably Bellarmine, Francisco Suárez, Francis de Lugo, and, in our own days, Cardinal Billot (“De deo uno et trino”, Rome, 1902, Th. XXXII) — agree with the Thomists in defending predestination ante praevisa merita. Bossuet, after a long study of the question of physical premotion, adapted the Thomistic opinion (“Du libre arbitre”, c. viii).

◦Thomists do not claim to be able to explain, except by a general reference to God’s omnipotence, how man remains free under the action of God, which they consider necessary in order to preserve and explain the universality of God’s causality and the independent certainty of His foreknowledge. No man can explain, except by a reference to God’s infinite power, how the world was created out of nothing, yet we do not on this account deny creation, for we know that it must be admitted. In like manner the main question put to Thomists in this controversy should be not “How will you explain man’s liberty?” but “What are your reasons for claiming so much for God’s action?” If the reasons assigned are insufficient, then one great difficulty is removed, but there remains to be solved the problem of God’s foreknowledge of man’s free acts. If they are valid, then we must accept them with their necessary consequences and humbly confess our inability fully to explain how wisdom “reacheth . . . from end to end mightily, and ordereth all things sweetly” (Wisdom 8:1).

◦Most important of all, it must be clearly understood and remembered that the Thomistic system on predestination neither saves fewer nor sends to perdition more souls than any other system held by Catholic theologians. In regard to the number of the elect there is no unanimity on either side; this is not the question in dispute between the Molinists and the Thomists. The discussions, too often animated and needlessly sharp, turned on this point: How does it happen that, although God sincerely desires the salvation of all men, some are to be saved, and must thank God for whatever merits they may have amassed, whilst others will be lost, and will know that they themselves, and not God, are to be blamed? — The facts in the case are admitted by all Catholic theologians. The Thomists, appealing to the authority of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, defend a system which follows the admitted facts to their logical conclusions. The elect are saved by the grace of God, which operates on their wills efficaciously and infallibly without detriment to their liberty; and since God sincerely desires the salvation of all men, He is prepared to grant that same grace to others, if they do not, by a free act, render themselves unworthy of it. The faculty of placing obstacles to Divine grace is the unhappy faculty of sinning; and the existence of moral evil in the world is a problem to be solved by all, not by the Thomists alone. The fundamental difficulties in this mysterious question are the existence of evil and the non-salvation of some, be they few or be they many, under the rule of an omnipotent, all-wise, and all-merciful God, and they miss the point of the controversy who suppose that these difficulties exist only for the Thomists. The truth is known to lie somewhere between Calvinism and Jansenism on the one hand, and Semipelagianism on the other. The efforts made by theologians and the various explanations offered by Augustinians, Thomists, Molinists, and Congruists show how difficult of solution are the questions involved. Perhaps we shall never know, in this world, how a just and merciful God provides in some special manner for the elect and yet sincerely loves all men. The celebrated Congregatio de Auxiliis did not forever put an end to the controversies, and the question is not yet settled.

]

From your link:

The Thomists, appealing to the authority of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, defend a system which follows the admitted facts to their logical conclusions. The elect are saved by the grace of God, which operates on their wills efficaciously and infallibly without detriment to their liberty; and since God sincerely desires the salvation of all men, He is prepared to grant that same grace to others, if they do not, by a free act, render themselves unworthy of it

This is inconsistent with Calvinism.

 

[bookgirl32]

The Thomists, appealing to the authority of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, defend a system which follows the admitted facts to their logical conclusions. The elect are saved by the grace of God, which operates on their wills efficaciously and infallibly without detriment to their liberty; and since God sincerely desires the salvation of all men, He is prepared to grant that same grace to others, if they do not, by a free act, render themselves unworthy of it.

Would the part, in bold, be the difference then between Thomism and Calvinism?

 

[guanophore]

That’s an interesting comment that I never heard before. Could you please post what is prevenient grace, and how you believe it is sovereign? I guess this conversation would fall under the “I” in TULIP.

No, I think it falls more under the T.

Pre-venient is from the Latin which means “before coming”. It refers to 'calling" or “drawing” grace. It is the grace that is poured out upon all men, enabling them to hear the call of God to repent, and be saved.

I always thought Calvanists did not believe in this - that the only grace that could make men hear the call to repentance was “born again” grace.

Please see Theogrit’s post 183 on your question above. It is very important to qualify the"all" on passages. If we don’t, we would be preaching universalism on many many passages such as 1 John 2:2.

No, I am not confusing the fact that God calls all to repent with the error that everyone is saved.

This is where our theological roads appear to split. I believe God enables all His chosen ones to obey His command to believe in His Son in an effectual way.

No, we are in agreement on this point. Catholics go further to say that God enables ALL MEN to obey his command. Some choose to do so, and in their case, the grace is effectual. Some refuse God’s intention for themselves. For those that refuse, the grace poured out unto them is ineffectual. This is not a lack of sufficient power in God’s grace, but in His sovereignty, He allows men to thwart His purpose for themselves (salvation). So, though He desires that all be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth, He allows them to refuse Him.

The us or we in the following passage is speaking about a certain group of sinners, correct?

Peace with God Through Faith

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

No. This passage isn ot about sinners at all!

This passage was written to believers - Christians - saints. They are the “hagios” (holy), saved by His blood.

These are the ones who responded to the call to repentance.