The Westminster Confession of Faith and Baptismal Regeneration

  • Thread starter Thread starter QNDNNDQDCE
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Let’s take the issue of prevenient grace out and just talk about subsequent grace (from the sacraments).
I don’t recognize a distinction, as He who begins a good work will complete it. But for the sake of argument I will explore this.
We can indeed do acts that are morally good without His grace, Tomy. These morally good acts, however, are not deserving of eternal reward, except through the intervention of God in His Grace.
I think I can go along with this, to a point. One objection is that even if you save one hundred drowning children, and each is a worthy act, you still are culpable for all your other sins. The second is that even at our best there is still something fatally flawed in all we do. Even if it is the size of a gnat in a swimming pool, it is enough, as God demands purity. He will reckon works as good that aren’t good, by His grace.
From the Council of Trent: (bold mine) "The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace,
ok…
to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost,** neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration**, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: ‘Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you,’ we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; ‘Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted,’ we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God."
I find this enormously ambiguous.
to convert themselves to their own justification,
sounds like man is to arrogantly do the work of the Holy Spirit, which is the work of conversion. We certainly cannot convert ourselves.
yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight
I THINK this refers to prevenient grace. Or is the same situation continuing? In either case this can be read to be in agreement with Reformed theology, or, due to the ambiguity, other ways, such as that we have to save ourselves once we get a gift of prevenient grace,.
 
Thomas Aquinas explains that grace is necessary for every good act.

I answer that, To know truth is a use or act of intellectual light, since, according to the Apostle (Eph. 5:13): “All that is made manifest is light.” Now every use implies movement, taking movement broadly, so as to call thinking and willing movements, as is clear from the Philosopher (De Anima iii, 4). Now in corporeal things we see that for movement there is required not merely the form which is the principle of the movement or action, but there is also required the motion of the first mover. Now the first mover in the order of corporeal things is the heavenly body. Hence no matter how perfectly fire has heat, it would not bring about alteration, except by the motion of the heavenly body. But it is clear that as all corporeal movements are reduced to the motion of the heavenly body as to the first corporeal mover, so all movements, both corporeal and spiritual, are reduced to the simple First Mover, Who is God. And hence no matter how perfect a corporeal or spiritual nature is supposed to be, it cannot proceed to its act unless it be moved by God; but this motion is according to the plan of His providence, and not by necessity of nature, as the motion of the heavenly body. Now not only is every motion from God as from the First Mover, but all formal perfection is from Him as from the First Act. And thus the act of the intellect or of any created being whatsoever depends upon God in two ways: first, inasmuch as it is from Him that it has the form whereby it acts; secondly, inasmuch as it is moved by Him to act.

And later,

Man’s nature may be looked at in two ways: first, in its integrity, as it was in our first parent before sin; secondly, as it is corrupted in us after the sin of our first parent. Now in both states human nature needs the help of God as First Mover, to do or wish any good whatsoever, as stated above (Article [1]). But in the state of integrity, as regards the sufficiency of the operative power, man by his natural endowments could wish and do the good proportionate to his nature, such as the good of acquired virtue; but not surpassing good, as the good of infused virtue. But in the state of corrupt nature, man falls short of what he could do by his nature, so that he is unable to fulfil it by his own natural powers. Yet because human nature is not altogether corrupted by sin, so as to be shorn of every natural good, even in the state of corrupted nature it can, by virtue of its natural endowments, work some particular good, as to build dwellings, plant vineyards, and the like; yet it cannot do all the good natural to it, so as to fall short in nothing; just as a sick man can of himself make some movements, yet he cannot be perfectly moved with the movements of one in health, unless by the help of medicine he be cured.

And thus in the state of perfect nature man needs a gratuitous strength superadded to natural strength for one reason, viz. in order to do and wish supernatural good; but for two reasons, in the state of corrupt nature, viz. in order to be healed, and furthermore in order to carry out works of supernatural virtue, which are meritorious. Beyond this, in both states man needs the Divine help, that he may be moved to act well.
dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/FS/FS109.html#FSQ109OUTP1
 
I don’t recognize a distinction, as He who begins a good work will complete it. But for the sake of argument I will explore this. I think I can go along with this, to a point. One objection is that even if you save one hundred drowning children, and each is a worthy act, you still are culpable for all your other sins. The second is that even at our best there is still something fatally flawed in all we do.
Yes. That is why baptism is oh-so-very important.
Even if it is the size of a gnat in a swimming pool, it is enough, as God demands purity.
Indeed. And that is why purgatory is oh-so-very important!
I find this enormously ambiguous.
Well, since the Council documents are about a million pages long, this one little blurb may not be very enlightening, as it applies to this very, very complicated issue of salvation.
We certainly cannot convert ourselves.
Yes, that is the work of the Holy Spirit.

But then we must act on that and assist in our conversion. It is a daily, ongoing process.
I THINK this refers to prevenient grace. Or is the same situation continuing? In either case this can be read to be in agreement with Reformed theology, or, due to the ambiguity, other ways, such as that we have to save ourselves once we get a gift of prevenient grace,.
It has never been Catholic teaching that we have to save ourselves, in the sense you mean.

And, yet, we do indeed save ourselves, as St. Paul states. He claims that he can save others, and that we can save ourselves!

Yep! It’s right there in the glorious Scriptures!
 
I’ve been following this thread with interest, and while there are a number of discussions going on simultaneously, a few of which are above my pay-grade, I have two clarifying questions:

First, do Protestants believe that the number of the elect, those ultimately saved, is fixed, because God determined the number and fixed it at a certain level, or because He simply knows before hand who will accept His grace, work with Him, and produce fruit unto salvation?

Second do Protestants, in general, reject the idea that Jesus can be both our equal, as well as our God? In other words, is there something inherently blasphemous about considering Jesus to be our Bride, and we the Bridegroom? I only ask because it sounds like a few of the comments divulge a discomfort with the Catholic doctrine of a one-flesh union through the Eucharist.

Third, is the consensus opinion in this thread that Jews are saved because they are God’s chosen people, and that Jews in general do not / cannot go to hell?

Thanks in advance.
 
I’ve been following this thread with interest, and while there are a number of discussions going on simultaneously, a few of which are above my pay-grade, I have two clarifying questions:

First, do Protestants believe that the number of the elect, those ultimately saved, is fixed, because God determined the number and fixed it at a certain level, or because He simply knows before hand who will accept His grace, work with Him, and produce fruit unto salvation?
There is no such thing as what “Protestants believe”. There are tens of thousands of differing Protestant denominations, each claiming that their interpretation of the Bible is the correct one.

As such, there are indeed some Protestants who believe that the number of the elect is fixed.
Second do Protestants, in general, reject the idea that Jesus can be both our equal, as well as our God? In other words, is there something inherently blasphemous about considering Jesus to be our Bride, and we the Bridegroom? I only ask because it sounds like a few of the comments divulge a discomfort with the Catholic doctrine of a one-flesh union through the Eucharist.
Catholics, too, reject the idea that Jesus can be our equal. He is the Word Incarnate, the Son of God. As such, we will never be equals with Him. He is by nature what we are by grace. We can only be partakers in his divine nature.

And he is the Bridegroom, not the Bride.
Third, is the consensus opinion in this thread that Jews are saved because they are God’s chosen people, and that Jews in general do not / cannot go to hell?
Thanks in advance.
The CC has always said that it is above her paygrade to discern who is in hell. I am pretty sure, though that she has never said that any human creature “cannot go to hell”.
 
There is no such thing as what “Protestants believe”. There are tens of thousands of differing Protestant denominations, each claiming that their interpretation of the Bible is the correct one.

As such, there are indeed some Protestants who believe that the number of the elect is fixed.

Catholics, too, reject the idea that Jesus can be our equal. He is the Word Incarnate, the Son of God. As such, we will never be equals with Him. He is by nature what we are by grace. We can only be partakers in his divine nature.

And he is the Bridegroom, not the Bride.

The CC has always said that it is above her paygrade to discern who is in hell. I am pretty sure, though that she has never said that any human creature “cannot go to hell”.
Ok, admittedly poorly phrased questions. Let me try again.

In terms of the number of the elect, for those that believe it is fixed, do they also believe that our actions play no role in our pre-destination? For example, God chose my wife to be saved, but not me, and therefore, no matter what I do, I am condemned to hell, and my wife, regardless of what she does, is always saved? Does free will have any influence on the number of the elect?

In terms of being equal, I did not mean to equate us with Jesus overall. However, He was flesh, and stooped to our level, which makes Him our equal in one sense (humanity, save sin). But as God, there is an infinite chasm that separates Him from us. So I did not mean to insinuate equality as you might have read it. What I’m getting at is whether protestants who deny the Real Presence do so from the position that Jesus does not enter into the marital relationship with us through the Eucharist, because they do not believe that Jesus stoops to become our Bridegroom (you correctly point out my mixup), and therefore, the covenantal union of Bridegroom and Bride, where what the Bridegroom has becomes the Bride’s, and what the Bride has becomes the Bridegroom’s, is an exaggeration of the relationship?

In terms of the Jews and their relationship with God, what I was getting at there is, if baptism is not always and everywhere regenerative, then can circumcision, which I understand to be the predecessor of baptism, also be selectively “adoptive” in nature? In other words, can a circumcised Jew appear to be a Jew on the outside, but not “on the inside”, which would be a natural conclusion to the theory that baptism is not regenerative for all who receive it, and that therefore, circumcision does not result in adoption into God’s family and covenant uniformly.

Am I making my questions any clearer? I hope so.
 
In terms of the number of the elect, for those that believe it is fixed, do they also believe that our actions play no role in our pre-destination? For example, God chose my wife to be saved, but not me, and therefore, no matter what I do, I am condemned to hell, and my wife, regardless of what she does, is always saved? Does free will have any influence on the number of the elect?
I hope my Calvinist friend, Tomyris, jumps in to respond and correct…

but I do think what you have articulated above is correct. Their belief has to do with God’s TOTAL sovereignty.

It is similar, to my mind, to the Muslim belief regarding Allah.
In terms of being equal, I did not mean to equate us with Jesus overall. However, He was flesh, and stooped to our level, which makes Him our equal in one sense (humanity, save sin). But as God, there is an infinite chasm that separates Him from us. So I did not mean to insinuate equality as you might have read it. What I’m getting at is whether protestants who deny the Real Presence do so from the position that Jesus does not enter into the marital relationship with us through the Eucharist, because they do not believe that Jesus stoops to become our Bridegroom (you correctly point out my mixup), and therefore, the covenantal union of Bridegroom and Bride, where what the Bridegroom has becomes the Bride’s, and what the Bride has becomes the Bridegroom’s, is an exaggeration of the relationship?
I think you are correct here, too.
In terms of the Jews and their relationship with God, what I was getting at there is, if baptism is not always and everywhere regenerative, then can circumcision, which I understand to be the predecessor of baptism, also be selectively “adoptive” in nature? In other words, can a circumcised Jew appear to be a Jew on the outside, but not “on the inside”, which would be a natural conclusion to the theory that baptism is not regenerative for all who receive it, and that therefore, circumcision does not result in adoption into God’s family and covenant uniformly.
I am not really understanding your question here.
 
In my last question, I’m getting at that idea that baptism is not regenerative universally (not to be confused with its ability to guarantee salvation, which it does not, but rather, whether it always brings about a new creation at the moment it is given). It appears that some posts on this thread indicate that certain doctrines dispute the universal regenerative grace of baptism. That for those who will not be saved, are not regenerated through baptism. Or, that baptism is not regenerative at that very moment in time. Stated simply, the universal efficacy of regeneration through baptism appears to be disputed.

If there are some that believe that, then perhaps they could help me understand how they view the act of circumcision, which is the regenerative / adoptive pre-cursor to baptism.

If baptism is not universally regenerative, then it stands to reason that circumcision was not universally regenerative / adoptive either. Which leads to the conclusion that even though someone could be circumcised, since they were ultimately not saved, they did not truly become a Jew through the rite of circumcision.

In my mind, the doctrine of baptism must be applied equally to circumcision, since they are essentially the same rite of regeneration through adoption. And likewise, the doctrine of circumcision must be applied equally to baptism.

Does that help?
 
I’m thinking about baptism, which is probably breaking all the rules here, because it is actually on topic. Oh, well…

Catholics believe the rite-sacrament of baptism is intrinsically effective: merely ‘going through the motions’ is enough. Probably that is a gross simplification, but there it is.

In contrast the Reformed hold that faith must be present for baptism to be effective. I will say that unless God acts, all that happens is that you get wet. I think baptism is a composite: God does things and man responds, or anticipates response (in infant baptism). I hold that baptism is unity of divine action and human action: the divine action is necessary for salvation, but the human action is not. However, someone whom God is calling to be baptized but refuses to be baptized has some serious problems with things like obeying God and so forth. Among other things it is a public profession of faith in Christ and a renunciation of the world. I am always thrilled when I see people get baptized who are capable of expressing their faith and desire for baptism, and it is really neat to see adult baptisms. It is also neat to see infant baptisms, but there is something tender and sweet about seeing a number of adults baptized that is heart-lifting.

The water, in itself, and the minister, in himself, does nothing except act out of obedience and a knowledge that God is at work. Sometimes you can feel God bending down and coming close to the moment and place, and it is very holy as He touches a soul in ways that we cannot know. We know some of it, but there is Mystery here, and that is not to be dissected.

In these things there is a limit to what we can know and what has been revealed: Paul uses the word “untrackable” both in Romans and Ephesians when he discusses these things, and so there is a point beyond which we cannot go, because it really becomes foolish speculation. The proper response, sometimes, is not more intellectual thought but worship of our amazingly awesome God who cares so much for us.
 
I’m thinking about baptism, which is probably breaking all the rules here, because it is actually on topic. Oh, well…
That made me SOL* 😃
Catholics believe the rite-sacrament of baptism is intrinsically effective: merely ‘going through the motions’ is enough. Probably that is a gross simplification, but there it is.
That is an incorrect explication of “ex opere operato”

If what you say above were true regarding sacraments (baptism et al), annulments would not exist–for what an annulment declares is, essentially, that the couple were “merely going through the motions”–and that is *not *enough.
In contrast the Reformed hold that faith must be present for baptism to be effective
This is the Catholic position.
I will say that unless God acts, all that happens is that you get wet.
As is this.
I think baptism is a composite: God does things and man responds, or anticipates response (in infant baptism). I hold that baptism is unity of divine action and human action: the divine action is necessary for salvation, but the human action is not.
I don’t see how that is logical. If a human action is not necessary, then baptism is not necessary.
The proper response, sometimes, is not more intellectual thought but worship of our amazingly awesome God who cares so much for us.
Amen!

*SOL = my own made up acronym for “Snickered Out Loud”. I anticipate the day when it will be part of internet lexicon and I will proudly think, “Yeah. That came from little old me.” 😛
 
I don’t see how that is logical. If a human action is not necessary, then baptism is not necessary.
This has been beaten to death on a thousand threads, so let’s whack at it, shall we?

The Catholic Church maintains that a baptism of desire is good enough if someone has not been, ah, wetted. And you already agreed that if God does nothing then nothing happens. So if God does everything else, what is there that is necessary for man to do? Since He can ‘cover’ for someone who is ‘dry’, what is the necessity?

In case you think I am arguing against baptism, I’m not. We are supposed to obey Christ, who told us to do this. Even if there were no other reason that would be enough. You may be surprised to learn that the Reformed believe there is sacramental grace that comes through baptism - I think I heard that Sunday, even.

Holy sacramentalism, Batman! Tomyris has said something Catholic!
 
Of course you know that since this is a Catholic forum you’re going to get this response:

I would love to get in this habit:

http://www.poorclaressantabarbara.org/images/M3-2.jpg
Did you see a movie with Hayley Mills in a Catholic boarding school a long time ago? She wound up becoming a nun. That made an impression on me. I thought about becoming a nun, but Mother would have none of it.

Do Catholic couples still sometimes split after the kids are grown, and Dad goes off to become a monk and Mom a nun?
 
Did you see a movie with Hayley Mills in a Catholic boarding school a long time ago? She wound up becoming a nun. That made an impression on me. I thought about becoming a nun, but Mother would have none of it.
Yes! It’s one of my DDs’ faves. In fact, we just watched it last Tuesday when DD#4 was home from school sick.

“The Trouble with Angels”. 🙂
Do Catholic couples still sometimes split after the kids are grown, and Dad goes off to become a monk and Mom a nun?
No one I know has done this of late. Or ever, actually, (emphasis on the "no one I know")
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top