The council of Orange and calvinism

[6glargento]

I am having a discussion with a calvinist over the council of orange. He believes that the council of orange teaches calvinism and that the RCC has since abandoned this teaching.

he quotes

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).
Not only is it Grace that makes us able, but it is also grace that causes our will and strength to do that which we ought. God’s grace does not merely remove chains and free our will, it causes good to happen. It so affects our being, our will, our strength so that we choose to do what we ought.

he claims that this teaches that God has predetermined everything and that man does not have to cooperate with God’s grace.

he says

“The council strictly says that the gift of grace is NOT based on any obedience or humbleness in man. This council does not, anywhere, say man can reject grace, neitehr does the bible for that matter. This council took an Augustinian predestinarian stance, which the Roman Church does not hold now.”

I am trying to explain to him that God’s grace is sufficient for salvation but that man needs to accept his grace. but he resonds that one cannot hold that position and claim to believe in sola gratia because, according to him, it would be “half God and half man” rather than 100% God.

What would be a good argument to respond?

 

[spauline]

I am having a discussion with a calvinist over the council of orange. He believes that the council of orange teaches calvinism and that the RCC has since abandoned this teaching.

he quotes

he claims that this teaches that God has predetermined everything and that man does not have to cooperate with God’s grace.

he says

“The council strictly says that the gift of grace is NOT based on any obedience or humbleness in man. This council does not, anywhere, say man can reject grace, neitehr does the bible for that matter. This council took an Augustinian predestinarian stance, which the Roman Church does not hold now.”

I am trying to explain to him that God’s grace is sufficient for salvation but that man needs to accept his grace. but he resonds that one cannot hold that position and claim to believe in sola gratia because, according to him, it would be “half God and half man” rather than 100% God.

What would be a good argument to respond?

I heard one guy who I believe was a Thomist, on Steve Ray’s Board, say that salvation is 100% God AND 100% man?

 

[tdgesq]

I think it makes sense to examine it in two parts.

1)if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man . . .

The grace of God (even its assistance) is not dependent upon any work we can do. It is a free gift. I would guess you have no problem with this part, since it’s classic Catholic teaching.

. . .and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble

This also must be true according to Catholic teaching. If it wasn’t then we would have to deny that grace causes us to be obedient and humble. The question is: is it only grace that makes us act in an obedient and humble way? The Council doesn’t say that it does. That is what your adversary assumes. Sola gratia means that without grace we cannot be obedient and humble, not that it is the only thing that makes us obedient and humble.

By the way, you might want to throw in that people who are not Christians clearly do act in an obedient and humble way. Check out the Mormons. I believe your Calvinist friend will have to confess that they don’t receive God’s grace - only the elect receive that, and it is irresistable. How is it then they can act in an obedient and humble way? Catholics disagree with the Calvinist. God offers his grace to every human being. That is why even the Mormon can act in this way. Good luck.

 

[cor]

They cite Augustine but he also said this:

St. Augustine, Sermo 169, 11, 13: PL 38, 923.

“God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us.”

which is quoted in the Catechism
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art8.htm

Both Catholics and Calvinists and everyone should read this by Jimmy Akin, A Tiptoe Through Tulip:

catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp

This is the principal issue between Thomists and Molinists. [Some Molinists, such as Bellarmine and Suarez, almost have been Thomists. They agreed with almost all that Thomism says, such as its affirmation of unconditional election, but they resisted the idea that grace is intrinsically efficacious]. Thomists claim this enabling grace is intrinsically efficacious; by its very nature, because of the kind of grace it is, it always produces the effect of salvation. Molinists claim God’s enabling grace is only sufficient and is made efficacious by man’s free choice rather than by the nature of the grace itself. For this reason Molinists say that enabling grace is extrinsically efficacious rather than intrinsically efficacious. [One should note Thomists do believe in free will, although not the sort Molinists believe in. They claim God’s grace establishes what will be freely chosen, but in a way that does not disturb the will’s freedom. Aquinas said, “God changes the will without forcing it. But he can change the will from the fact that he himself operates in the will as he does in nature,” De Veritatis 22:9.].

A Catholic can agree with the idea that enabling grace is intrinsically efficacious and, consequently, that all who receive this grace will repent and come to God. Aquinas taught, “God’s intention cannot fail … Hence if God intends, while moving it, that the one whose heart he moves should attain to grace, he will infallibly attain to it, according to John 6:45, ‘Everyone that has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.’” [ST I:II:112:3.]. Catholics must say that, while God may give efficacious grace only to some, he gives sufficient grace to all. This is presupposed by the fact that he intended the atonement to be sufficient for all. Vatican II stated, “ince Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate calling of man is in fact one and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.” [Gaudium et Spes 22; “being associated with this paschal mystery” means being saved].

 

[jemfinch]

What would be a good argument to respond?

The Council of Orange was condemning Pelagianism in that statement. Unless your friend can argue successfully that Calvinism is the only non-Pelagian theological system, he can’t prove that the statement by the Council of Orange is Calvinistic.

Jeremy

 

[Bishopite]

I am having a discussion with a calvinist over the council of orange. He believes that the council of orange teaches calvinism and that the RCC has since abandoned this teaching.

he quotes

he claims that this teaches that God has predetermined everything and that man does not have to cooperate with God’s grace.

he says

“The council strictly says that the gift of grace is NOT based on any obedience or humbleness in man. This council does not, anywhere, say man can reject grace, neitehr does the bible for that matter. This council took an Augustinian predestinarian stance, which the Roman Church does not hold now.”

I am trying to explain to him that God’s grace is sufficient for salvation but that man needs to accept his grace. but he resonds that one cannot hold that position and claim to believe in sola gratia because, according to him, it would be “half God and half man” rather than 100% God.

What would be a good argument to respond?

Your Calvinist friend is full of wishful thinking if he/she thinks the council of Orange in 529 AD was a Protestant “Calvinist” council. It was a council made up of Catholic bishops. Here are a few things you may want to show your friend from the council of Orange…

CANON 25. Concerning the love with which we love God. It is wholly a gift of God to love God. He who loves, even though he is not loved, allowed himself to be loved. We are loved, even when we displease him, so that we might have means to please him. For the Spirit, whom we love with the Father and the Son, has poured into our hearts the love of the Father and the Son (Rom. 5:5).

Can we please God? Yes by cooperating.

**CONCLUSION. **And thus according to the passages of holy scripture quoted above or the interpretations of the ancient Fathers we must, under the blessing of God, preach and believe as follows. The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God’s sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him.

Ask your Calvinist friend if he/she believes Adam and Eve were only weakened by the fall or “totally depraved?” Notice the above statement "the first man (Adam) “was so impaired and weakened
free will” NOT totally depraved will.

continued from the council of Orange…

"According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. "

Notice that it says according to the catholic faith. This is THE Catholic faith not Calvinist faith. And notice it says cooperation with Christ, this type of language doesn’t sit well with Calvinist’s. This is synergistic language which means we must cooperate with God as coworkers with Christ language for the bible teaches synergism NOT monergism. It sure looks like the council of Orange was a “Catholic” council NOT a Calvinist one.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Your Calvinist friend is full of wishful thinking if he/she thinks the council of Orange in 529 AD was a Protestant “Calvinist” council. It was a council made up of Catholic bishops. Here are a few things you may want to show your friend from the council of Orange…

CANON 25. Concerning the love with which we love God. It is wholly a gift of God to love God. He who loves, even though he is not loved, allowed himself to be loved. We are loved, even when we displease him, so that we might have means to please him. For the Spirit, whom we love with the Father and the Son, has poured into our hearts the love of the Father and the Son (Rom. 5:5).

Can we please God? Yes by cooperating.

**CONCLUSION. **And thus according to the passages of holy scripture quoted above or the interpretations of the ancient Fathers we must, under the blessing of God, preach and believe as follows. The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God’s sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him.

Ask your Calvinist friend if he/she believes Adam and Eve were only weakened by the fall or “totally depraved?” Notice the above statement "the first man (Adam) “was so impaired and weakened
free will” NOT totally depraved will.

continued from the council of Orange…

"According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. "

Notice that it says according to the catholic faith. This is THE Catholic faith not Calvinist faith. And notice it says cooperation with Christ, this type of language doesn’t sit well with Calvinist’s. This is synergistic language which means we must cooperate with God as coworkers with Christ language for the bible teaches synergism NOT monergism. It sure looks like the council of Orange was a “Catholic” council NOT a Calvinist one.

Thats right. Beat me to the quotes!

I love it when Calvinists act as if Orange was a Calvinist council. I pull out a couple quotes and they disappear ( Whats really nasty is when some Calvinists-who know better- have the nerve to quote Orange against other unsuspecting Catholics …then again when your “covered by the blood of the lamb” they way they teach nothing is a sin anymore ). The conclusion of the Council is the best, it fully supports synergism and, the anathema at the end condemns the notion God ordains evil in any way, shape or form. It also has other passages mentioning the restoration of free will through Baptism.

(p.s. I cant tell if Im being mean with this post, I just got done being treated like a fly by some other Protestants)

 

[Bishopite]

Thats right. Beat me to the quotes!

I love it when Calvinists act as if Orange was a Calvinist council. I pull out a couple quotes and they disappear ( Whats really nasty is when some Calvinists-who know better- have the nerve to quote Orange against other unsuspecting Catholics …then again when your “covered by the blood of the lamb” they way they teach nothing is a sin anymore ). The conclusion of the Council is the best, it fully supports synergism and, the anathema at the end condemns the notion God ordains evil in any way, shape or form. It also has other passages mentioning the restoration of free will through Baptism.

(p.s. I cant tell if Im being mean with this post, I just got done being treated like a fly by some other Protestants)

You aren’t being mean. I noticed you were busy with Sandusky in another thread. Keep us the great work!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

bump

 

[Teflon93]

I am having a discussion with a calvinist over the council of orange. He believes that the council of orange teaches calvinism and that the RCC has since abandoned this teaching.

he quotes

he claims that this teaches that God has predetermined everything and that man does not have to cooperate with God’s grace.

he says

“The council strictly says that the gift of grace is NOT based on any obedience or humbleness in man. This council does not, anywhere, say man can reject grace, neitehr does the bible for that matter. This council took an Augustinian predestinarian stance, which the Roman Church does not hold now.”

I am trying to explain to him that God’s grace is sufficient for salvation but that man needs to accept his grace. but he resonds that one cannot hold that position and claim to believe in sola gratia because, according to him, it would be “half God and half man” rather than 100% God.

What would be a good argument to respond?

The shepherd calls and if the sheep doesn’t come it doesn’t remain part of the flock. The sheep not coming doesn’t mean the shepherd didn’t call.

This is the fundamental error of Calvin.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

The shepherd calls and if the sheep doesn’t come it doesn’t remain part of the flock. The sheep not coming doesn’t mean the shepherd didn’t call.

This is the fundamental error of Calvin.

Can you explain more about how you believe this ‘sheep not coming’ is the fundamental error of Calvin? Thank you.

 

[Teflon93]

Can you explain more about how you believe this ‘sheep not coming’ is the fundamental error of Calvin? Thank you.

Sure. To extend the analogy, Calvin would say that the sheep didn’t come because the shepherd never truly called them. The sheep which did come did so because they were predestined to do so, in other words. They were never truly part of the flock. Moreover, sheep which were not called would have no ability whatsoever to come to the flock if the shepherd didn’t call them.

This is the fundamental error because it presumes the sheep has no will of its own, and further that the shepherd wills all that happens to his sheep.

It also presumes that the shepherd only wants those sheep in the flock which remain at the end.

It is the result of a fallacy: that because God can do anything, everything that happens is caused by God.

Luther in his “On the Enslavement of the Will” used a slightly different analogy—that man was like a horse with either God or the Devil in the saddle, and not responsible for where either took him. In this case, the sheep was driven away from the flock by the evil shepherd; it could not elect to wander away on its own.

Erasmus of course differed. Sheep wander away sometimes. The shepherd may call, but the sheep may or may not come back.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I still think Father Most was close to right at the solution of the dilema of either God doing everything and thus violationg Man’s free will

Or

Man Choosing God and saving himself.

The way out of the dilema–out of the either/or trap that Protestants always get into is this:

Man doesn’t have a choice of

Choosing God–if that were true he’d be saving himself

OR

God saving man through God’s sovereignty only regardless of what man wanted–for that would violate Man’s freedom of will.

The way out of an either/or or a +/-

Is that the real choice is Neutral/Minus

If man surrenders his own will and is Neutral and does Nothing

Then God does all the saving and man’s free will isn’t violated!

If Man Rejects God’s will then God lets man go to Hell!

In that instance God hasn’t Predestined man to Hell for man has chosen it and his free will has not been violated!

Of course some will object that if God only Foreknows what man will choose then man’s choice determines what God will do.

The way out of that is to understand that God being Pure Act is able to Choose the Elect and Foreknow how people will respond to His grace all at the same time so that man in no way limits the choosing of the Elect by God.

So God can predestine AND Foreknow!

And heres’ the greatest thing: When man is neutral and Does Nothing and God does all the saving Man cooperates with grace while at the same time doing nothing to effect that grace!

So there is no Either/Or!

God is Sovereign AND Man has free will!

God Predestines and God Foreknows!

God predestines the Elect for Heaven–

While at the same time NOT predestining the non-Elect for Hell!

Is it hard to understand how all these things can be true and not Contradict one another?

Yes!

Is it hard to understand that the Infinite God we worship would be big enough to accomplish all these things without contradicition since all are taught in the Bible–

And not Either/Or being taught in the Bible?

No it’s easy to understand that all these things are true!

The Catholic Church understands it and teaches it!

Only one track mind people with Finite theology refuse to listen to the Catholic Church and accept it!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Jerry-Jet:

If man surrenders his own will and is Neutral and does Nothing

Then God does all the saving and man’s free will isn’t violated!

I’m lost. First of all surrendering his own will is a choice. It is a choice to not have any choice and then blame someone else when what has been chosen for him does not please him. Surrendering his own will supposes that he has no responsibility for the outcome. That is illogical. With freedom comes responsibility.

Why not just choose God in the first place? I know we, as fallen folks, do not have the wherewithall to choose God and that is where God’s Grace comes in. God’s Grace is the wherewithall to choose; it is not the choice itself. Why? Because even with the wherewithall some will still choose against God.

I think part of what Calvin is saying is how can anyone in their right mind not choose God? So he equates ‘right mind’ with ‘choosing God’.

The problem for me with the rest of what Calvin proposed is that frankly it gives me a knot in my stomach. It conjures visions of Hannibal Lector. The idea of the elect being able to do whatever they want without losing their salvation and the idea of the reprobate not being able to do anything to be saved results in what?

A kind of society where you have a brutal aristocracy and a sociopathic underclass, both following the rallying cry of

[SIGN]
Nothing really matters!
[/SIGN]

Sound familiar?

Correct me if I am wrong. Puleeze correct me if I am wrong!

:crying:

 

[Teflon93]

I still think Father Most was close to right at the solution of the dilema of either God doing everything and thus violationg Man’s free will

Or

Man Choosing God and saving himself.

The way out of the dilema–out of the either/or trap that Protestants always get into is this:

Man doesn’t have a choice of

Choosing God–if that were true he’d be saving himself

OR

God saving man through God’s sovereignty only regardless of what man wanted–for that would violate Man’s freedom of will.

The way out of an either/or or a +/-

Is that the real choice is Neutral/Minus

If man surrenders his own will and is Neutral and does Nothing

Then God does all the saving and man’s free will isn’t violated!

If Man Rejects God’s will then God lets man go to Hell!

In that instance God hasn’t Predestined man to Hell for man has chosen it and his free will has not been violated!

Of course some will object that if God only Foreknows what man will choose then man’s choice determines what God will do.

The way out of that is to understand that God being Pure Act is able to Choose the Elect and Foreknow how people will respond to His grace all at the same time so that man in no way limits the choosing of the Elect by God.

So God can predestine AND Foreknow!

And heres’ the greatest thing: When man is neutral and Does Nothing and God does all the saving Man cooperates with grace while at the same time doing nothing to effect that grace!

So there is no Either/Or!

God is Sovereign AND Man has free will!

God Predestines and God Foreknows!

God predestines the Elect for Heaven–

While at the same time NOT predestining the non-Elect for Hell!

Is it hard to understand how all these things can be true and not Contradict one another?

Yes!

Is it hard to understand that the Infinite God we worship would be big enough to accomplish all these things without contradicition since all are taught in the Bible–

And not Either/Or being taught in the Bible?

No it’s easy to understand that all these things are true!

The Catholic Church understands it and teaches it!

Only one track mind people with Finite theology refuse to listen to the Catholic Church and accept it!

Forknowledge is not the same thing as making something happen. This is where the various Protestant predestinationists go awry; at heart it is a difficulty with theodicy.

I think the truer picture is God the shepherd calls, we the sheep answer or do not answer, and join the flock or do not join the flock.

Does God call every sheep? Apparently not.

Does every sheep called answer God’s call? Definitely not.

Do some join the flock only to wander away again, and not heed the shepherd’s call? Surely.

It is not the sheep to be commended for answering the call of the shepherd, but the shepherd, whose diligence and love keeps the flock safe.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Does God call every sheep? Apparently not.

Did not Jesus come so that all may be saved?

 

[Teflon93]

Did not Jesus come so that all may be saved?

Did he? What of those who died not having been exposed to the gospel at all?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Did he? What of those who died not having been exposed to the gospel at all?

Invincible Ignorance. :extrahappy: Dont ya luv our Church! She thinks of everything!

 

[Teflon93]

Invincible Ignorance. :extrahappy: Dont ya luv our Church! She thinks of everything!

That is a good point. In my analogy, I suppose that would apply to sheep who never heard the call but would have joined the flock had they heard it.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

St. thomas Aquinas says that we are only damned when we posit an impediment to God’s grace.

If someone is neutral and is not positing an impediment to God’s grace one might call that a Positive choice but is it really?

The surrendering of the will is not a positive choice–it is just a cessation of a negative choice.

Man can’t choose positive or negative–his only choice in Free will is to oppose God or not oppose God–not to Oppose God or choose God–His will–and what is good.

And why is that?

Because all that is good comes from God–that includes ALL GOOD CHOICES!

Now some will say doesn’t Jesus command us to take up our crosses and follow him?

Of course!

We are judged not only on out faith but by what we do!

But ultimately whenever we choose to DO what God wants us to do we are not choosing good “out of our own creation” but choosing not to Impose an Impediment to God’s grace which continually flows and when we don’t oppose God or raise an impediment we DO good works.

When we DO them we are cooperating with God by doing Nothing as far as our own will is concerned for we cannot Generate positive anything–we can only inhibit what is positive or good and that comes from God!

Now don’t get me wrong–faith alone is bunk!

All that I’m saying is that the positive things we do come from cooperating with God by NOT exercising our will which can only either oppose God or do nothing and be moved by Him!

When understood that way–God does all the saving–we do nothing and we Cooperate, too!

Paradox does exist.

It amazes me that some many people can’t fathom that–and that includes Catholics and Calvinists!

Just mark me down as being inbetween the Congruist-Molinist camp and the Thomistic camp.

But either camp is preferable to the Monster god camp of the Calvinists who believe that God predestines hell.

How could anyone believe such?