The Good News According to Calvin

  • Thread starter Thread starter CHESTERTONRULES
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
ralphinal:
Hey Sandusky,
Thanks for all the help so far on this. please exlpain the 1 Tim 2:3-5 verse in light of Calvin’s teaching.
Scripture teaches predestination/election to salvation, both of us understand that, as each of our respective soteriologies teaches that. That should not be a problem for you.

When one understands election as God’s sovereign choice of some persons to be saved, it should be evident, necessarily, that another choice of God is at work: His sovereign choice not to save others.

That’s known as reprobation—God’s sovereign decision, before creation, to punish for their sins, those not chosen for salvation. It is through that choice that God manifests His justice.

What’s observed in scripture is that God’s will is spoken of in two distinct aspects: God’s “secret” will, and His “revealed” will, or will of “precept” (Dt 29:29).

God’s revealed will is His declaration concerning what men should do, or should not do because God has commanded them so to do, or not to do.

God’s revealed will is described by the Gk word thelō. That ”thelō” will of God, is the will of God that men disobey.

Regarding God’s secret will, it’s described by the Gk word boolay. That is His secret Counsel, His Divine Purpose. That ”boolay” will of God is the Divine Purpose of God that no man can disobey or thwart. A few exceptions interchange the Greek words, but overall, thelō and boolay describe God’s will as revealed, or secret respectively.

Back to reprobation, does scripture teach it? I think scripture does.

Jude speaks of some persons, “who ***long ago were designated for this condemnation, *** ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (Jude 4).

Paul says:Romans 9:17-22

17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.”

18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”

20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?

21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?Don’t be fooled by the “WHAT IF,” as it’s a statement of fact, in a rhetorical question—God is now doing what v 22 describes (cf v17).

We see further in Rom 11:7, that God did not choose all to be saved when Paul says of Israel, ”…the elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened.” And Peter echoes both Jude, and Paul, when he says, “they stumble because they disobey [refuse to repent and believe] the word, ***as they were destined ***[etethēsan] to do” (1 Pet 2:7, 8).

And Jesus thanked the Father both for hiding the knowledge of salvation from some, and for revealing it to others, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in your sight” (Mt 11:25, 26).

That God desires, or commands all men to be saved is seen in Acts 17:30, “God is now declaring to men, that all people everywhere should repent…”

Do all people repent? We know they don’t, even though it’s God’s revealed will that they should.

God also reveals that He desires men to live moral lives. That is seen in the moral law He gave to the Jews. God has made it clear to men, in the Decalogue, what they shall not do.

However, even though the Decalogue is God’s revealed will for men, they disobey, and break His law. Sometimes His punishment is swift, and other times, He is “longsuffering,” and forebears punishment (cf Rom 9:22).

God’s secret will, or Divine purpose, is seen in various passages of scripture.

In accordance with His Divine Purpose, God has predestined some to glory according to His secret Counsel (boolay). (Eph 1:3-6, 11).

Again, God’s secret will, His Divine Purpose, can neither be disobeyed by anyone, nor thwarted by anyone.

Further of evidence of God’s Divine Purpose are revealed elsewhere, “This man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God you nailed to a cross” (Acts 2:23).

We see God’s “secret” will stated in other passages, James says, ***"If the Lord wills, *** we shall live and we shall do this or that” (Jas 4:15; see also: Gen 50:20; Acts 21:14; Rom 1:10, 15:32; 1 Cor 4:19; 1 Pet 3:17; 4:19; Jas 1:18; Heb 6:17).

So the 1 Tim 2 passage is a statement of God’s revealed will—that all men be saved, but not a statement of His Divine Purpose, in which He saves some, and consigns others to destruction.
 
Calvinists claim that we have no opportunity to believe. Calvinists claim that God chooses some and rejects others regardless of their response to his grace.

The difference is that Calvinists deny that man must respond to God’s grace.
It has been explained to you over and over that this is not what Calvinists believe. Calvinists say that they don’t believe this. Three non-Calvinist posters have told you that Calvinists don’t believe this. How are you any different from Protestants who misrepresent Catholicism? They think they are putting Catholic beliefs into “plain English” too.

There is a difference between saying that human beings don’t have to respond to God’s grace, and saying that only those moved by God will respond. If you can’t see that difference, you are nonetheless obligated by justice to report the fact that the distinction is made–just as Protestants are obligated to report the fact that Catholics don’t think they worship Mary in the way they do Jesus, don’t think that the Mass is a repetition or replacement of Christ’s sacrifice, etc., even if those distinctions make no sense to Protestants.

Every religious tradition has distinctions that seem meaningless to unsympathetic outsiders. But it is essential to try to understand why these distinctions are meaningful to those within the tradition. If you can’t do that, you shouldn’t talk about that particular tradition at all.

You are particularly without excuse because Augustinians and Thomists within your own communion make the same distinction.

Edwin
 
It has been explained to you over and over that this is not what Calvinists believe. Calvinists say that they don’t believe this. Three non-Calvinist posters have told you that Calvinists don’t believe this. How are you any different from Protestants who misrepresent Catholicism? They think they are putting Catholic beliefs into “plain English” too.

If you read what the Calvinist posters write then you will see that they agree with my assessment. I have no idea why you find it useful to distort Calvinism to make it conform to your own beliefs.

I posted a statement from the Canons of Dordt.

Did you read it?
There is a difference between saying that human beings don’t have to respond to God’s grace, and saying that only those moved by God will respond.
 
40.png
CHESTERTONRULES:
Calvinists believe that NOTHING that a man does has any impact on his salvation.

**It is due EXCLUSIVELY to God’s good pleasure in choosing them before foundation of the world.

It is cruel, it is not loving, and it is not biblical, but it IS Calvinism:**

In the Canons of Dordt, First Point of Doctrine, Article 7, it states:

Before the foundation of the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, [God] chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin.
Catholics must believe that:
  1. GOD, BY HIS ETERNAL RESOLVE OF WILL, HAS PREDETERMINED CERTAIN MEN TO ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS (De fide)
.
**
It is due EXCLUSIVELY to God’s good pleasure in choosing them before foundation of the world.

Is it cruel? Is it loving? Is it biblical?

The de fide** belief above IS Catholicism 🤷
.
What’s the difference between the two, CHESTERTON? :hmmm:
 
Predestination we call the eternal decree of God, by which He hath determined in Himself what He would have to become of every individual of mankind. For they are not all created with a similar destiny; but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others.

-John Calvin

foreordain: To determine or appoint beforehand; predestine.

This says that eternal damnation is foreordained.
 
.
What’s the difference between the two, CHESTERTON? :hmmm:
I have no idea what you are quoting, but here’s what the catechism teaches:

2002 God’s free initiative demands man’s free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man. He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy.
 
40.png
CHESTERTONRULES:
More:

Article 9: Election Not Based on Foreseen Faith

This same election took place, not on the basis of foreseen faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, or of any other good quality and disposition, as though it were based on a prerequisite cause or condition in the person to be chosen, but rather for the purpose of faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, and so on. Accordingly, election is the source of each of the benefits of salvation. Faith, holiness, and the other saving gifts, and at last eternal life itself, flow forth from election as its fruits and effects.

Article 10: Election Based on God’s Good Pleasure

But the cause of this undeserved election is exclusively the good pleasure of God. This does not involve his choosing certain human qualities or actions from among all those possible as a condition of salvation, but rather involves his adopting certain particular persons from among the common mass of sinners as his own possession.
From Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

…complete Predestination to grace and glory conjointly is independent of every merit, as the first grace cannot be merited, and the consequent graces, as well as the merits acquired with these graces and their reward,

The Thomists, the Augustinians, the majority of the Scotists and also individual older Molinists (Suarez, St. Bellarmine) teach an absolute Predestination (ad gloriam tantum), therefore ante praevisa merita. **According to them, God freely resolves from all Eternity, without consideration of the merits of man’s grace, to call certain men to beatification and therefore to bestow on them graces which will infallibly secure the execution of the Divine Decree (ordo intentionis).**What’s the difference between the two, CHESTERTON? :hmmm:
 
Predestination we call the eternal decree of God, by which He hath determined in Himself what He would have to become of every individual of mankind. For they are not all created with a similar destiny; but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others.

-John Calvin

foreordain: To determine or appoint beforehand; predestine.

This says that eternal damnation is foreordained.
Everything is foreordained, if not, then God is not an omniscient and sovereign God, but a contingent God.

On what basis is eternal damnation determined in both Calvin’s, and Rome’s systems?
 
OTT’s writings are not Catholic doctrine.

I provided Catholic Doctrine for you.
 
OTT’s writings are not Catholic doctrine.

I provided Catholic Doctrine for you.
And I for you. Not all of Catholic doctrine is contained in the CCC, as Ott, and RobHom’s post from the Catholic Encyclopedia concerning this subject demonstrate.

Ott’s writings are dogma, thus the title of his book, The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.
 
And I for you. Not all of Catholic doctrine is contained in the CCC, as Ott, and RobHom’s post from the Catholic Encyclopedia concerning this subject demonstrate.

Ott’s writings are dogma, thus the title of his book, The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.
Ott’s writings are not dogma. He is a 20th Century Catholic theologian who is very influential.

The Catechism is Dogma.

A partial list of errors in Ott’s book:

jloughnan.tripod.com/critott.htm
 
Ott’s writings are not dogma. He is a 20th Century Catholic theologian who is very influential.

The Catechism is Dogma.

A partial list of errors in Ott’s book:

jloughnan.tripod.com/critott.htm
How about the writings of Scott Hahn, Keating, Scott Madrid and the Catholic Answers crew? Are their writings dogma or just tradition with a small t?

How about the thread “Ask an Apologist”?

forums.catholic-questions.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4

I want an answer acording to the big T and not the little t. 🤷 Why shoud I ask an Apologist if he or she can only give me an answer with a small t?
 
Ott’s writings are not dogma. He is a 20th Century Catholic theologian who is very influential.

The Catechism is Dogma.

A partial list of errors in Ott’s book:

jloughnan.tripod.com/critott.htm
🤷 Those are errors concerning the translation of the book from German to English only.

🤷 Moreover, the subject at hand, predestination, is not mentioned at all.

The CCC is not the only source of Catholic Doctrine, or Catholic Dogma. :hmmm:
 
Chester,

I’m not conceding anything, I am just not going to explain it to you again.

You really don;t have any idea what Calvinists believe. You scour the interwebs for quotes to paste here, but you take them out of context; not only their immediate context, but the full length and breadth of Reformed thinking on the subject.

No one expects you to have a PhD in the subject but some familiarity with it and how it has developed is certainly within your grasp.

I pointed it out, but I am gratified to see that Edwin has reiterated it: there is no difference between what you are doing here and what the worst anti-catholics do with your own beliefs.
 
Steadfast:

Chester is never wrong. The sooner we all know this, the more his posts will make sense… to him, anyway.

The logical paradigm for Chester is something like this:

God is love.
Love is blind.
Stevie Wonder is blind.
Therefore: Stevie Wonder is God.


Pure, simple logic. 😃
 
Steadfast:

Chester is never wrong. The sooner we all know this, the more his posts will make sense… to him.

The logical paradigm for Chester is something like this:

God is love.
Love is blind.
Stevie Wonder is blind.
Therefore: Stevie Wonder is God.


Pure, simple logic. 😃
😃 :rotfl:
 
Steadfast:

Chester is never wrong. The sooner we all know this, the more his posts will make sense… to him.

The logical paradigm for Chester is something like this:

God is love.
Love is blind.
Stevie Wonder is blind.
Therefore: Stevie Wonder is God.


Pure, simple logic. 😃
LOL! I think I like John Wesley more now. I guess he was very good friends with that Calvinist George.
 
I think that statement is pretty close to intentional slaner which is sin against God.
No, slander presupposes that the speaker knows the error, and speaks it anyway. In our case, this is our current understanding of Reformed theology (even if it is erroneous), so it may seem slanderous, but it is actually pitiful.

Some of us have been given to understand that God fashioned some vessels for perdition, so He does not extend saving grace to them. To us, this means that He created them for Hell (as well as all that they would do on the way there. I realize, it is not too far from the OP, which I personally found simplified and provocative, but this is really and true how it seems.

I have not been able to get answers to several puzzling scriptures that seem to me to contradict in many ways. 🤷
 
🤷 Those are errors concerning the translation of the book from German to English only.

🤷 Moreover, the subject at hand, predestination, is not mentioned at all.

The CCC is not the only source of Catholic Doctrine, or Catholic Dogma. :hmmm:
But its is my interpretation of it or what someone else says that matters,……isn’t it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top