Tiptoe through TULIP

[thinkandmull]

St Paul says there that nobody can resist the will of God.

 

[fhansen]

St Paul says there that nobody can resist the will of God.

Did God want Adam to eat of the fruit when He commanded him not to eat of it? Does God will evil to exist? Should we stop asking that His will be done on earth as it is in heaven? Does God will that any should perish?

 

[thinkandmull]

Thomas Aquinas says that God desires punishment over salvation when it comes to reprobates. I don’t see how St. Paul disagrees with him. Read Romans 9

 

[dblake22]

The statements of your sources are confusing to me, and I question whether they actually reflect Calvinist doctrine as it was penned by Calvin himself. I am especially surprised by the Westminster Confession’s statement, because up until now I would have guessed that its creators were at pains to agree with Calvin’s books.

If you are interested, I will happy to help clear up your confusion. This thread is discussing the “Five Points of Calvinism,” commonly referred to by the acrostic, TULIP. Many who have heard of TULIP, but not studied it, are surprised to learn that Calvin did not author this expression of soteriology. It comes from the Synod of Dort, convened by the Dutch Reformed Church from 11/1618 to 5/1619, fifty-five years after Calvin died. The Westminster Confession of Faith was approved twenty-seven years later in 1646 and is indeed a systematic exposition of Calvinist orthodoxy. Its creators took great pains to ensure that what they produced agreed with the Holy Bible. How closely it agreed with Calvin’s books is a measure of how closely Calvin’s books also agreed with their understanding of the Bible.

Earlier I quoted John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 2 Chapter 2: “Man [is] Now Deprived of Freedom of Will, and Miserably Enslaved.” Do you think the documents you quoted are a more authoritative source of Calvinist doctrine than Calvin’s own book? If not, how do you reconcile their statements seemingly in favor of free will, and Calvin’s statements seemingly against it?

I think to understand what Calvin is saying about man’s deprived state, you have to realize that Book 2 Chapter 2 is describing man’s condition after the Fall without God’s grace. He is showing how absolutely necessary God’s grace is for man’s salvation. And yes, I think the sources I cited are more authoritative regarding Calvinist doctrine than is Calvin for the reasons stated above.

 

[fhansen]

Thomas Aquinas says that God desires punishment over salvation when it comes to reprobates. I don’t see how St. Paul disagrees with him. Read Romans 9

Well, first of all Catholic doctrine isn’t based on one verse or one chapter of Scripture. But of course God desires the punishment of the reprobate-or else there’d be no hell. The question is whether or not the* will* of the reprobate plays any significant role in his reprobation.

**1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:

Father, accept this offering
from your whole family.
Grant us your peace in this life,
save us from final damnation,
and count us among those you have chosen. **

 

[thinkandmull]

If you believe in Romans 9 as infallible, the only way not for this to be a nightmare is to hope with all your heart that you are not the one who will offend God without the possibility of repentance. It takes love of God

 

[fhansen]

If you believe in Romans 9 as infallible, the only way not for this to be a nightmare is to hope with all your heart that you are not the one who will offend God without the possibility of repentance. It takes love of God

the charism of infallibility is only given to the Church as the living authority for interpreting scripture and holding the correct faith in every case. And God is infinitely merciful and fair. Slow to anger, patient, kind, forgiving

 

[thinkandmull]

One has to give a honest reading of the Bible AND the Church’s interpretation. Romans says that before Isaac and Eusu had done anything wrong, in order that God’s purpose of election may stand, not by works, but by Him who calls, it was determined what they would do, for it is not based on works but as God’s mercy, as when He hardened the Egyptian king’s heart; we are like clay, Paul says, and no one can resist his will.

newadvent.org/summa/1019.htm#article6

How to understand the Church when she says nobody is predestine to hell is the problem. St Paul is clear. They are predestined to hell in the sense that they are foreknown to go to hell; but the elect are foreknown to go to heaven, so according to the Molinists why can’t you say that they are absolutely predestined to hell since it is only based on foreknowledge? My interpretation is that the predestination is based on the graces God is going to give to the elect, but not on the lack of graces he will give to the reprobates, but on their foreseen sins, which they commit because they were not given the right graces to save them.

 

[fhansen]

One has to give a honest reading of the Bible AND the Church’s interpretation. Romans says that before Isaac and Eusu had done anything wrong, in order that God’s purpose of election may stand, not by works, but by Him who calls, it was determined what they would do, for it is not based on works but as God’s mercy, as when He hardened the Egyptian king’s heart; we are like clay, Paul says, and no one can resist his will.

newadvent.org/summa/1019.htm#article6

How to understand the Church when she says nobody is predestine to hell is the problem. St Paul is clear. They are predestined to hell in the sense that they are foreknown to go to hell; but the elect are foreknown to go to heaven, so according to the Molinists why can’t you say that they are absolutely predestined to hell since it is only based on foreknowledge? My interpretation is that the predestination is based on the graces God is going to give to the elect, but not on the lack of graces he will give to the reprobates, but on their foreseen sins, which they commit because they were not given the right graces to save them.

We don’t live in eternity now. Our choices happen in time. If that fact-and God’s eternal perspective- somehow means that humans cannot be morally responsible, then the Calvinist position holds true. So lets free all the prisoners and forget about justice/righteousness/holiness, because God, alone, is responsilbe for all good and evil. Can’t have it both ways. And the Church’s teaching and interpretation is the only way to know the faith with any degree of certainty BTW. Everything else is private and personal opinion.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

If anyone is still interested, here is an article called A Trample Upon Tulip, which evaluates the older article from another Catholic perspective:

catholicnick.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-trample-upon-tulip.html

 

[dmar198]

If you are interested, I will happy to help clear up your confusion.

Thank you. I am interested.

This thread is discussing the “Five Points of Calvinism,” commonly referred to by the acrostic, TULIP. Many who have heard of TULIP, but not studied it, are surprised to learn that Calvin did not author this expression of soteriology. It comes from the Synod of Dort, convened by the Dutch Reformed Church from 11/1618 to 5/1619, fifty-five years after Calvin died.

That is an interesting bit of history. In fifty-five years, I imagine that quite a lot can change.

The Westminster Confession of Faith was approved twenty-seven years later in 1646 and is indeed a systematic exposition of Calvinist orthodoxy. Its creators took great pains to ensure that what they produced agreed with the Holy Bible. How closely it agreed with Calvin’s books is a measure of how closely Calvin’s books also agreed with their understanding of the Bible. … And yes, I think the sources I cited are more authoritative regarding Calvinist doctrine than is Calvin for the reasons stated above.

I don’t think that’s very logical, but perhaps I am making a false assumption. I am laboring under the impression that the authors of the Westminster confession called themselves Calvinists. And I think that a man should call himself a Calvinist only if he is a follower of Calvin’s teachings.

I wouldn’t call myself a Catholic if I wanted to follow teachings other than the Catholic Church’s. Therefore, I don’t think the Westminster confessors should have called themselves Calvinists if they wanted to follow teachings other than Calvin’s. Do you think that is reasonable?

I think to understand what Calvin is saying about man’s deprived state, you have to realize that Book 2 Chapter 2 is describing man’s condition after the Fall without God’s grace. He is showing how absolutely necessary God’s grace is for man’s salvation.

Yes, I do realize that. I think it is un-Christian to say that a man has no free will, in fact, I think it makes him not a person, because I think what makes a thing a person is if it has free will. What do you think of that argument?

 

[mackbrislawn]

I had a friend that attended a multicultural nondenominational church strongly influenced by calvinistic beliefs. She gave me.the tapes of the sermons her pastor gave on T.U.L.I.P.
I was really turned off by the total depravity concept and never finished the rest of the tapes.

“God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten son…”

If the above statement is true, I wonder how God could love something that was totally depraved. It doesn’t make sense to me.

If an anthropologist ran across a remote tribe who believed in a God that created beforehand some persons to go to eternal fire and some to heaven with him, and in the mean time played head games with them, we would think what strange, savage beliefs these benighted people have!

But they are not remote. They are us.

 

[dblake22]

I think that a man should call himself a Calvinist only if he is a follower of Calvin’s teachings. I don’t think the Westminster confessors should have called themselves Calvinists if they wanted to follow teachings other than Calvin’s. Do you think that is reasonable?

No, I do not. First off, I do not know that they did call themselves Calvinists. And even if they did, it does not make your point. We call ourselves Christians yet believe any number of doctrines that were not taught by Christ. The Catholic faith developed over the centuries. So did the reformed faith. The fact that it is colloquially referred to as Calvinism does not restrict it to only doctrines enumerated by Calvin.

I think it is un-Christian to say that a man has no free will, in fact, I think it makes him not a person, because I think what makes a thing a person is if it has free will. What do you think of that argument?

I think it is flawed. The damned in hell are unable to exercise a free will yet maintain their personhood. The holy angels lack a free will, but are persons, nonetheless. I also think it is a strawman argument. I have already shown where those who espouse the reformed faith do not deny man has a free will.

 

[zaida]

hey everyone - I have just really gotten into this topic - I encourage the original poster to do some reading on molinism, and especially Father William Most - Most argues that:

• God desires all men to be saved
• gives all men sufficient grace
• foresees who will completely and totally refuse that grace
• elects everyone else to salvation, and those who he foresees as totally and completely refusing him don’t get elected

consistent with Gods love, and desire for us to freely choose Him…and as someone else said the “pre destination” should really be called “destination” because in God, it is all simultaneous.

 

[sudy]

I think it’s a bit bold to suppose that everyone else will be saved… If you read Matthew 7: 13-14 it suggests that few will be saved.

The Bible and its teachings are wonderful but there are also passages which seem to conflict when taken in isolation. With the predestination and free will debate, both opponents can find evidence in the Bible to support their case… personally I believe that both are true.

I think that we all want to understand everything these days… when God really wants us to approach Him as little children. I believe we are living in dangerous times and we should simply stick with the Catholic Church teaching as Jesus promised that He would not leave us orphans.

 

[dmar198]

No, I do not. First off, I do not know that they did call themselves Calvinists. And even if they did, it does not make your point. We call ourselves Christians yet believe any number of doctrines that were not taught by Christ.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying the Church has doctrines other than those taught by Jesus. I don’t think the Catechism allows this. In CCC 65-67, it says, “Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one.” And: “In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say.” And: “There will be no further Revelation.” And: “no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” And: “Revelation is already complete.” And: “Christian faith cannot accept ‘revelations’ that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment.” And CCC 73 summarizes: “God has revealed himself fully by sending his own Son.” And: “The Son is his Father’s definitive Word; so there will be no further Revelation after him.”

The Catholic faith developed over the centuries.

Yes, but CCC 65-67 seems to me to clearly say that this development added nothing to what Jesus taught. Development is mentioned in those paragraphs, but only to say it helps us “grasp [the] full significance” of Jesus’ teaching. It does not add anything He didn’t teach, but helps us grasp what He did teach.

So did the reformed faith. The fact that it is colloquially referred to as Calvinism does not restrict it to only doctrines enumerated by Calvin.

I think it should, just as I think the term Christian should restrict you only to the doctrines enumerated by Christ, and the term Catholic should restrict you only to the doctrines proposed by the Catholic Church.

I think it is flawed. The damned in hell are unable to exercise a free will yet maintain their personhood. The holy angels lack a free will, but are persons, nonetheless.

In Catholic theology, the angels do have free will: “Angels and men, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love.” (CCC 311) And: “Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels. This ‘fall’ consists in the free choice of these created spirits.” (CCC 392)

And I don’t think Catholic theology allows us to hold that the damned lose their free will. In fact, at least in reference to demons, the Catechism says that they have free will, because it says “[God] permits [them to sin] because he respects the freedom of his creatures.” (CCC 311) I would infer that what is true of damned angels is true of damned men, i.e., that God permits those in hell to sin because He respects their freedom. Where do you get your idea that the damned lack free will?

I also think it is a strawman argument. I have already shown where those who espouse the reformed faith do not deny man has a free will.

Well, if they were trying to follow Calvin, I don’t think they would believe in free will, because he said, in Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 2 Chapter 2: “Man [is] Now Deprived of Freedom of Will, and Miserably Enslaved.” source But since you say they do not even try to follow Calvin on this point, I am glad to hear it, and I hope that is true. Perhaps they can be convinced to abandon Calvin on other points where he disagrees with the Church as well.

 

[dblake22]

Hello dmar. I will respond to your points in reverse order.

Well, if they were trying to follow Calvin, I don’t think they would believe in free will, because he said, in Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 2 Chapter 2: “Man [is] Now Deprived of Freedom of Will, and Miserably Enslaved.”

Here you are repeating yourself. You have already brought up this idea, and I have already refuted it. Rather than repeating myself, here is a link to my previous post.

[dblake said:]
The damned in hell are unable to exercise a free will [and] the holy angels lack a free will.

[dmar responded:]In Catholic theology, the angels do have free will: “Angels and men, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love.” (CCC 311) And: “This ‘fall’ consists in the free choice of these created spirits.” (CCC 392)

Here you are again quoting a source out of context. Both CCC 311 and 392 are referring to the fall of the angels at the beginning of creation. As the CCC correctly teaches, in the beginning, the angels had a free will. In one, cataclysmic event, Satan and his followers rebelled, and the holy angels chose to remain faithful. From that point forward, their state is fixed. The holy angels can never sin, and the demonic angels can never be redeemed.

Where do you get your idea that the damned lack free will?

I suppose I consider it obvious. The saints in glory cannot sin, and the reprobate in hell cannot perform meritorious works.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying the Church has doctrines other than those taught by Jesus. I don’t think the Catechism allows this. In CCC 65-67, it says . . .

You misapply paragraphs 65-67. What they teach is the absolute harmony between the Father and the Son. They also teach the finality of Jesus, vis-a-vis, the prophets of old (Hebrews 1:1-3). That the Church holds to doctrines not taught by Jesus is easy to establish. Jesus did not teach the assumption of Mary, yet that is a dogma of the faith. Jesus did not teach the canon of Scripture, yet that also is a Church doctrine. There are others.