The Westminster Confession of Faith and Baptismal Regeneration

[TRH1292]

This sounds like “yes, well, we believe in it, just not the way Calvin did.”

So it sounds to me like you are allowing Calvin to define your beliefs here.

Well, this is a forum that is supposed to be discussing the type of ideas present in the Westminster confession of faith. When it comes to predestination, those two are pretty much spot on each other.

You are supposed to be a Presbyterian, although you didn’t clarify if that means you are within the traditional reformed tradition last time I mentioned it when I saw you.

Every other poster seems to have already mentioned Calvin, because he is relevant to the discussion.

Calvin doesn’t play into defining my views of predestination in the least, but I mentioned him so that everyone can understand what we are discussing instead of spending several hours attempting to clarify terms or generating further misunderstandings which already abound on this topic.

Yes, the Catholic Church defines these ideas radically different that John Calvin. Not sure how any of that constitutes letting Calvin define my beliefs. I understand most of Calvin, having read the Institues three and a half times, but, define my beliefs?

 

[TRH1292]

If you observe, I referenced Aquinas’ definition of reprobation. It sounds exactly like what I have been taught on the subject. So if Calvin taught it, you don’t buy it?

Calvin teaching something has nothing to do with me buying it. I believe in plenty of things Calvin happened to teach, such as the trinity, the divinity of Christ, that Christ is prophet, priest, and king. But I don’t believe them because Calvin taught them. I don’t believe in Calvin’s view of Reprobation because the Church ruled it heretical.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Most discussions on CAF boil down to one on the authority of the Magisterium.

Do Catholics not believe in reprobration? Aquinas said yes to reprobation (Summa I,23,3), which is not the same thing as negative predestination. I don’t accept double predestination but I do accept the idea of reprobation.

Thanks for the distinction, yes.

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
Book 4, Part 1, Section 1, Chapter 3,

1. The Mystery of Reprobation

1. Concept and Reality of Reprobation

By Reprobation is understood the eternal Resolve of God’s Will to exclude certain rational creatures from eternal bliss. While God, by His grace, positively co-operates in the supernatural merits, which lead to beatification, He merely permits sin, which leads to eternal damnation.

Regarding the content of the resolve of Reprobation, a distinction is made between positive and negative Reprobation, according as the Divine resolve of Reprobation has for its object condemnation to the eternal punishment of hell, or exclusion from the Beatific Vision. Having regard to the reason for Reprobation, a distinction is made between conditioned and unconditioned (absolute) Reprobation, in so far as the Divine resolve of Reprobation is dependent on, or independent of the prevision of future demerits.

***God, by an Eternal Resolve of His Will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection.*** (**De fide.**)

The reality of Reprobation is not formally defined, but it is the general teaching of the Church. The Synod of Valence (855) teaches: fatemur praedestinationem impiorum ad mortem (D 322). It is declared in Mt. 25:41: “Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels,” and by Rom. 9:22: “Vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction.”

1. Positive Reprobation

a) Heretical Predestinationism in its various forms (the Southern Gallic priest Lucidus in the 5th century; the monk Gottschalk in the 9th century, according to reports of his opponents, which, however, find no confirmation in his recently re-discovered writings; Wycliffe, Huss, and especially Calvin), teaches a positive predetermination to sin, and an unconditional Predestination to the eternal punishment of hell, that is, without consideration of future demerits. This was rejected as false doctrine by the Particular Synods of Orange (D 200), Quiercy and Valence (D 316. 322) and by the Council of Trent (D 827). Unconditioned positive Reprobation leads to a denial of the universality of the Divine Desire for salvation, and of the Redemption, and contradicts the Justice and Holiness of God as well as the freedom of man.

b) According to the teaching of the Church, there is a conditioned positive reprobation, that is, it occurs with consideration of foreseen future demerits (post et propter praevisa demerita).

The conditional nature of Positive Reprobation is demanded by the generality of the Divine Resolve of salvation. This excludes God’s desiring in advance the damnation of certain men (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4; Ez. 33:11; 2 Peter 3:9).

St. Augustine teaches: “God is good, God is just. He can save a person without good works, because He is good; but He cannot condemn anyone without evil works, because He is just” (Contra Jul. III 18, 35).

1. Negative Reprobation

In the question of Reprobation, the Thomist view favours not an absolute, but only a negative Reprobation. This is conceived by most Thomists as non-election to eternal bliss (non-electio), together with the Divine resolve to permit some rational creatures to fall into sin, and thus by their own guilt to lose eternal salvation. In contrast to the absolute Positive Reprobation of the Predestinarians, Thomists insist on the universality of the Divine Resolve of Salvation and Redemption, the allocation of sufficient graces to the reprobate, and the freedom of man’s will. However, it is difficult to find an intrinsic concordance between unconditioned non-election and the universality of the Divine Resolve of salvation. In practice, the unconditioned negative Reprobation of the Thomists involves the same result as the unconditioned positive Reprobation of the heretical Predestinarians, since outside Heaven and Hell there is no third final state.

1. Properties of Reprobation

Like the Resolve of Predestination the Divine Resolve of Reprobation is immutable, but, without special revelation, its incidence is unknown to men.

(Emphasis mine)

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Most discussions on CAF boil down to one on the authority of the Magisterium.

Wanted to approach this on a separate post.

When we are discussing matters where we find differences of opinion we must then turn to that Office Christ gave us (Matthew 18, Matthew 28).

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scriptures are to be seen and taught in light of the boundaries by the Teaching Office (Magisterium). Most Protestants I talk to [wrongly] believe that I have no freedom to be led by the Holy Spirit or to read and interpret the Bible by myself. This is false. On this thread alone you can see a varied situation about predestination, where the faithful is **free **to side with one or the other. What the Magisterium **actually **does is protect us from error and the propagation of said error.

Really, unless you can experience all that Catholicism is you can’t have an informed opinion. Sadly, many fallen away Catholics (Like myself) did not truly enjoy Catholicism or settled for whatever teachers we had at the time, instead of persevering in the Faith.

 

[TRH1292]

Wanted to approach this on a separate post.

When we are discussing matters where we find differences of opinion we must then turn to that Office Christ gave us (Matthew 18, Matthew 28).

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scriptures are to be seen and taught in light of the boundaries by the Teaching Office (Magisterium). Most Protestants I talk to [wrongly] believe that I have no freedom to be led by the Holy Spirit or to read and interpret the Bible by myself. This is false. On this thread alone you can see a varied situation about predestination, where the faithful is **free **to side with one or the other. What the Magisterium **actually **does is protect us from error and the propagation of said error.

Really, unless you can experience all that Catholicism is you can’t have an informed opinion. Sadly, many fallen away Catholics (Like myself) did not truly enjoy Catholicism or settled for whatever teachers we had at the time, instead of persevering in the Faith.

Yes, often the Magisterium simply sets the boundaries, rather than deciding the game, so to speak.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, both are definitely found in Catholicism. But predestination akin to what is present in the Reformed Tradition does not exist in the Catholic Church, and “Free Will” as expressed in the classical reformed confessions is not the same thing as Free Will from a Catholic perspective.

Right.

And when I hear Reformed Christians talk about free will, it doesn’t sound very free at all. In fact, it has almost nothing to do with freedom. Or with one’s will.

 

[PRmerger]

Not true. I’ve seen it done many a time. I can’t recall the last time I heard it mentioned at church. proves nothing.

Well, I could also say that 3 John, an inspired book of the Bible, doesn’t even mention Christ yet nary a Christian would say that it has nothing to do with Christ.

I find this desire to disengage the Reformed theology from Calvin to be a bit peculiar…but if that’s your wish, I won’t mention him again in our dialogues.

Please identify exactly where what I wrote differs from the Catholic position.Since you haven’t said where that is, I don’t know what you mean here.

I think the biggest area of dispute is this: if you cannot affirm this statement then you are in opposition to the Catholic position…

Can you confess this: Salvation is offered unconditionally to every human person. The mere offer itself is endowed with actual, prevenient graces, which are the graces necessary to nourish us and enable the human person to freely accept or freely reject Him and His Will for us.

Yes? Or no?

Any yes that has qualifiers attached to it means that you cannot affirm and therefore it “differs from the Catholic position.”

 

[Tomyris]

Well, I could also say that 3 John, an inspired book of the Bible, doesn’t even mention Christ yet nary a Christian would say that it has nothing to do with Christ.

I find this desire to disengage the Reformed theology from Calvin to be a bit peculiar…but if that’s your wish, I won’t mention him again in our dialogues.

No,thanks, that isn’t necessary. I just want to make clear that that I think reformed theology is not necessarily equal to Calvin’s thoughts. I don’t regard him as a Moses or a Pope or anyone particularly authoritative. Some people may think “Oh, a Reformed Person! She worships Calvin!” He was certainly influential, but I hear about Dallas Willard and Ravi Zacharias and John Piper referenced a lot more than he is. There’s been 500 years of theological development since his time. There are times when it is appropriate to drag him into the conversation, but not EVERY time. I once attended a Bible study with a seminarian who began every statement with “Calvin said…” That lasted not very long because people wanted to know what he thought, not what Calvin said.

I think the biggest area of dispute is this: if you cannot affirm this statement then you are in opposition to the Catholic position…

Can you confess this: Salvation is offered unconditionally to every human person. The mere offer itself is endowed with actual, prevenient graces, which are the graces necessary to nourish us and enable the human person to freely accept or freely reject Him and His Will for us.

Yes? Or no?

Any yes that has qualifiers attached to it means that you cannot affirm and therefore it “differs from the Catholic position.”

Hmmmm. I need to think about that. It is more complicated than it appears.