Question for Calvinists

  • Thread starter Thread starter CHESTERTONRULES
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Grace is not coercion
Calvinists do not define it as coercion.
it is God’s help.
Help to do what we could do otherwise, only not so well? Or help to do what we could not possibly do otherwise? And is it not true that one of the things we could not possibly do otherwise is accept God’s help in the first place. God does not come along to help us out of a hole we are trying to get out of, because the “hole” we are in is called sin, and sin exists in the will itself. It is precisely by willing to get out of the hole (by repenting and believing) that we get out of it. Grace is therefore necessary for us to have the desire in the first place. This is the teaching of St. Augustine, and I am quite confident that it’s the teaching of the Catholic Church. Calvinism is a crude and brutal caricature of this teaching. Your position is less brutal, but no less a crude caricature, if not an utter denial of the orthodox, anti-Pelagian, Catholic position.

We are not in disagreement about the fact that Calvinists believe in irresistible grace. What I am trying to get you to see is that whenever you say things like “Calvinists think you don’t have to respond” or “what do Calvinists think happens if one of the elect chooses to reject God,” you are ignoring Calvinist belief in irresistible grace, because repentance, faith, and perseverance are the things that irresistible grace irresistibly causes!

Edwin
 
Calvinists do not define it as coercion.

They absolutley do, as I just demonstrated. You are unbelievable.

Are you telling me that something that cannot be resisted is no coercion?

Calvinist Definition of Grace:
Irresistible Grace
A grace that cannot be resisted
and always works in the manner in which God desires. Since grace is undeserved by any person, Irresistible Grace teaches that when the Spirit of God is sent to change a person’s heart, that person cannot resist the change.
Help to do what we could do otherwise, only not so well? Or help to do what we could not possibly do otherwise?
 
Grace is therefore necessary for us to have the desire in the first place. This is the teaching of St. Augustine, and I am quite confident that it’s the teaching of the Catholic Church. Calvinism is a crude and brutal caricature of this teaching. Your position is less brutal, but no less a crude caricature, if not an utter denial of the orthodox, anti-Pelagian, Catholic position.
It is. From the Second Council of Orange:

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me” (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, “The will is prepared by the Lord” (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, “For apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, “Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5).

From the Council of Trent on Justification:

**Canon 1.
**If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law,[110] without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.
Code:
 **Canon 2.
**If anyone says that divine grace through Christ Jesus is given for this only, that man     may be able more easily to live justly and to merit eternal life, as if by free will     without grace he is able to do both, though with hardship and difficulty, let him be     anathema.


 **Canon 3.
**If anyone says that without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost[111] and     without His help, man can believe, hope, love or be repentant as he ought,[112] so that     the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him, let him be anathema.
From the Catechism:

[1996](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/1996.htm’)😉 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.46

[2001](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2001.htm’)😉 The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, "since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:"50

Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing.51This is the constant and official teaching of The Church.

Asimis
 
40.png
CHESTERTONRULES:
We cannot be saved without grace.

Grace helps us do what we are incapable of doing without it. We cannot possibly please God without his grace.

However, this grace is offered to all men.

Calvinists teach that God has chosen to withhold his grace from some men since before the beginning of creation.
Unbelievable.

Below is an excerpt from a post by RobHom, found here.so the reprobate perish solely on account of their wickedness (Denz., nn. 318, 321). God foresaw the everlasting pains of the impious from all eternity, and preordained this punishment on account of their sins (Denz., n. 322), though He does not fail therefore to hold out the grace of conversion to sinners (Denz., n. 807), or pass over those who are not predestined (Denz., n. 827).That’s such a vain, and purposeless notion of your Church—that God would extend saving grace to those He’s preordained from eternity to eternal punishment. :confused: :confused:

What reason would God have for extending the grace of salvation to those He’s preordained to eternal punishment?

What reason? So that the Catholic might feel better about God? Or, perhaps, that God might feel good about Himself?”
 
Unbelievable.

Below is an excerpt from a post by RobHom, found here.so the reprobate perish solely on account of their wickedness (Denz., nn. 318, 321). God foresaw the everlasting pains of the impious from all eternity, and preordained this punishment on account of their sins (Denz., n. 322), though He does not fail therefore to hold out the grace of conversion to sinners (Denz., n. 807), or pass over those who are not predestined (Denz., n. 827).That’s such a vain, and purposeless notion of your Church—that God would extend saving grace to those He’s preordained from eternity to eternal punishment. :confused: :confused:

What reason would God have for extending the grace of salvation to those He’s preordained to eternal punishment?

What reason? So that the Catholic might feel better about God? Or, perhaps, that God might feel good about Himself?”
Read the quote. You posted it, even though it is not Catholic Doctrine, it does conform to Catholic Doctrine.

I’ll help you:
  1. on account of their sins
  2. though He does not fail therefore to hold out the grace of conversion to sinners
He wants us to convert and allow his grace to work in our lives.

He wants this for all men.

Do you disagree?
 
Read the quote. You posted it, even though it is not Catholic Doctrine, it does conform to Catholic Doctrine.
It is Catholic Doctrine, posted by your compadre RobHom.
40.png
CHESTERTONRULES:
  1. on account of their sins
That’s very Protestant of you.
40.png
CHESTERTONRULES:
  1. though He does not fail therefore to hold out the grace of conversion to sinners
To those He’s already preordained to eternal punishment. :confused:
40.png
CHESTERTONRULES:
He wants us to convert and allow his grace to work in our lives.
Not those who, in Catholic doctrine, He’s preordained to hell; I think that should be obvious.

CHESTERTONRULES [/quote said:
He wants this for all men.

But your doctrine states He preordains some to hell; how do you reconcile that, with your church’s teaching that He extends grace to those He’s preordained to hell? How do you make sense of that?
 
{snip}
But your doctrine states He preordains some to hell; how do you reconcile that, with your church’s teaching that He extends grace to those He’s preordained to hell? How do you make sense of that?
This is nonsense because it not Church teaching. Where do you get these lies from?
:confused:
 
40.png
davidv:
This is nonsense because it not Church teaching. Where do you get these lies from? :confused:
From posts by your fellow Catholics, David.

The one to which you are referring above, can be found here, and here’s another one.

I find it harder and harder to know, of all the Catholics I speak with, which one to believe, as it seems they all believe differently. :hmmm:
 
From posts by your fellow Catholics, David.

The one to which you are referring above, can be found here, and here’s here’s another one.

I find it harder and harder to know, of all the Catholics I speak with, which one to believe, as it seems they all believe differently. :hmmm:
What an honor! A post of mine being used as a reference. 😛 I would go with Ludwig Ott.

God Bless,
Michael
 
🤷 They’re telling he’s wrong, Mike.
I think they perhaps are confused by “preordained to hell,” since Catholicism rejects positive reprobation.

I have to go, but I will say this. It’s not really an issue of what makes sense to us. Extending saving grace to the non-elect may not make sense to our minds, but it makes sense to God and accomplishes a purpose known to Him.

I hope you and your family have a blessed weekend! 🙂

God Bless,
Michael
 
I think they perhaps are confused by “preordained to hell,” since Catholicism rejects positive reprobation.

I have to go, but I will say this. It’s not really an issue of what makes sense to us. Extending saving grace to the non-elect may not make sense to our minds, but it makes sense to God and accomplishes a purpose known to Him.
I disagree with you, and I find that scripture states otherwise, however, if that’s your answer, OK.
40.png
mikeledes:
I hope you and your family have a blessed weekend! 🙂

God Bless,
Michael
Thanks, Mike. :tiphat:
 
UThat’s such a vain, and purposeless notion of your Church—that God would extend saving grace to those He’s preordained from eternity to eternal punishment. :confused: :confused:
God has “preordained” them *on account of their sins. *That is what you are missing out. In Catholic thought, reprobation is based on foreknowledge, whether or not election is.

It’s on points like this that Calvinism shows its clear inferiority to Catholicism–particularly in your insistence in pushing your rationalistic theories over against the teaching of God’s Word.

Edwin
 
God has “preordained” them *on account of their sins. *That is what you are missing out. In Catholic thought, reprobation is based on foreknowledge, whether or not election is.
That’s the scriptural statement, Edwin, everyone’s a sinner.
40.png
Contarini:
It’s on points like this that Calvinism shows its clear inferiority to Catholicism–particularly in your insistence in pushing your rationalistic theories over against the teaching of God’s Word.

Edwin
Why do find it rationalistic?
 
CHESTERTONRULES;4304992:
You demonstrated nothing of the sort.

It is only coercion if the person tries to resist and fails. The Augustinian understanding of grace (not just Calvinist) is that it moves the heart effectually, so that the person willingly chooses what is good.

Edwin
That’s semantics. If God makes you unable to resist, it is coercion.

That’s like me tying your hands and telling you are free to brush your teeth anytime you like.

It is not the work of a loving God, and therefore, unbiblical.
 
That’s semantics. If God makes you unable to resist, it is coercion.

That’s like me tying your hands and telling you are free to brush your teeth anytime you like.
No, it’s not like that at all. Because if my hands are tied I may want to brush my teeth, but will be prevented from doing so.

Again, let me emphasize that I think the common Calvinist way of talking about this is too crude and simplistic (even though in fact it’s fairly complex, compared with the popular “Arminian” approach in both its Protestant and Catholic forms–and no, this is not quite the same as Molinism, which is why I use the inappropriate Protestant word). I’m much more interested in debating the Thomist position, which I do not yet fully understand but which I take far more seriously. But however many problems I have with the Calvinist way of putting it, the fact is that the Reformers and (as far as I know) the later Calvinists all insist that “coercion” is the wrong word. Call it semantics if you like. The first step in understanding a religious tradition not your own is to try to understand why they engage in what seem to you like meaningless semantic distinctions. If you’re unwilling to do this, it’s because you don’t want to understand at all. You only want to caricature and attack.

You find my position “unbelievable” because you seem unable to imagine that someone might actually want to be fair to a position with which they disagree.

Edwin
 
Why do find it rationalistic?
Because you are uncomfortable with the paradox of the Thomistic position: that God genuinely offers grace to those whom He has eternally ordained will be damned on account of their sins. I don’t like this paradox either, but it’s not because I find it illogical (I can see the logic of it), but because I find it too coldblooded.

I was admittedly trying to push some buttons, because more typically Calvinists accuse Thomists of being rationalists. My point is that you are exalting a rather simplistic kind of logic over against an attempt to be faithful to the paradoxes of Scripture.

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top