D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
I remember reading somewhere that Augustine’s theology of ________________ was calvinistic in nature. Is this true? Did Calvin teach anything in comon with Augustine?
- Status
A
AquinasXVI
Guest
Daniel:
I think the more chronological arrangement would be:
Was Calvin an Augustinian?
Thanks.
in XT.
I think the more chronological arrangement would be:
Was Calvin an Augustinian?
Thanks.
in XT.
D
DNS
Guest
Daniel Marsh:
Some of what St. Augustine taught was similar to what Calvin taught, but as far as I know his view is still an acceptable view in Catholic theology (but not the only view).
Calvinists follow a formula known as TULIP:
T stands for “total depravity”
U stands for “unconditional election”
L stands for “limited atonement”
I stands for “irrestible grace”
P stands for “perseverence of the saints”
To better understand how close a Catholic may get to the Calvinist position, you can read “A Tiptoe Through TULIP” by Jimmy Akin. In it he explains the above concepts, and shows how close a Catholic Thomist may get to the Calvinist position. (Note that some of what is written in the article will be offical Church teaching while some will merely be the opinions a Catholic Thomist may hold. There are two schools of though in Catholicism regarding predestination: the Thomist and the Molinist. The Molinists will deny much of the opinions a Thomist may hold, which is perfectly fine.)
The word you were looking for to place in the blank is “predestination.”
Some of what St. Augustine taught was similar to what Calvin taught, but as far as I know his view is still an acceptable view in Catholic theology (but not the only view).
Calvinists follow a formula known as TULIP:
T stands for “total depravity”
U stands for “unconditional election”
L stands for “limited atonement”
I stands for “irrestible grace”
P stands for “perseverence of the saints”
To better understand how close a Catholic may get to the Calvinist position, you can read “A Tiptoe Through TULIP” by Jimmy Akin. In it he explains the above concepts, and shows how close a Catholic Thomist may get to the Calvinist position. (Note that some of what is written in the article will be offical Church teaching while some will merely be the opinions a Catholic Thomist may hold. There are two schools of though in Catholicism regarding predestination: the Thomist and the Molinist. The Molinists will deny much of the opinions a Thomist may hold, which is perfectly fine.)
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
thanks 
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
It’s not fine in the slightest, but lethal, when the denial is of our total reliance upon God - and by postulating merits foreseen as the ground of election, Molinism entirely denies the doctrine of grace, which implies precisely that.
Grace is not grace if it be not gratuitous in every respect, otherwise one is left with a mongrel concoction of God’s grace and man’s doing. Grace is either wholly gracious - or it is not grace at all. Either the working of God is entirely the working of God - or it is not the working of God at all. Synergism is no help here, because its solution is a solution to a different problem - the two must be not be confused with one another, as they so often are
And to make election depend on merits foreseen is to make God dependent on man - which is pagan, for such were the gods of the nations. Nothing whatever in God - not his being, works, or any other thing of any kind about God - is dependent on any creatures whatever. Otherwise one is denying His eternity, infinity, incommensurability with creatures, transcendence, sovereignty, and simplicity.
This is a deadly error of the worst kind - it is no better than outright atheism; in fact, it is a thousand times worse, because it looks like Christianity. Molinism has done more harm to Catholicism than ten thousand Calvins, because it has infected Catholic thinking; and as a man thinks, so he acts, so he believes, and so he prays. The harm it has done is quite simply colossal.
The “liberalism” - much of it is no such thing - which is so much abominated on these* fora*, is a fruit of the man-centred nonsense which is the “gift” to the Church of Luis de Molina, S.J. A man-centred doctrine of grace cannot bring forth a God-centred doctrine of predestination; it can only bring forth man-centred ideas, & man-centred thinking. It can bring forth error, and worldliness, and ignorance of God, and materialism; but not any Christian thing; not without a miracle.
Mercifully, we now have an Augustinian Pope - perhaps he will begin to repair the damage. An analysis and condemnation of the errors in Nominalism would also be an enormous help. ##
S
Seeker-2006
Guest
Hello,
As stated by a previous poster, the chronology here is reversed. The real issue is this: do St. Augustine’s teachings provide more support to Calvinism or to Catholicism?
This is a complex issue, but as with any other there are multiple perspectives.
Seeker-2006
As stated by a previous poster, the chronology here is reversed. The real issue is this: do St. Augustine’s teachings provide more support to Calvinism or to Catholicism?
This is a complex issue, but as with any other there are multiple perspectives.
- First, the Catholic perspective. If you go to the main site (www.catholic.com) and look under “Library”, you will see links for “Church & Papacy”, “Mary & the Saints”, etc. These take you to pages with more links, but ultimately, you will see quotes from St. Augustine being used to support standard Catholic doctrinal positions. There are also many very good Catholic articles on St. Augustine available as well through the main site.
- Next, the Calvinist perspective. Admittedly Calvinism has split up into denominations, but a very “strict” form of Calvinism was practiced by the Puritans. You can get a Puritan Calvinist perspective from www.apuritansmind.com as Dr. C. Matthew McMahon, a staunch Calvinist “neo-Puritan”, is a very good source of information from the Calvinist perspective and even seems to advocate St. Augustine’s works.
Seeker-2006
D
DNS
Guest
Gottle of Geer:
One of the biggest issues is this: does God give certain individuals grace to come to salvation that is intrinsically efficacious? Thomists say yes, and Molinists say that the grace must be “made efficacious by man’s free choice rather than by the nature of the grace itself” (Jimmy Akin, The Salvation Controversy, p. 80). Either way, the only reason we were able to attain salvation is due to God’s grace. The Molinists simply say that our free will needs to make the grace effective. And, as stated above, the Church says the Molinist view is compatible with Catholic Theology.
I don’t know much about the “postulating merits foreseen as the ground of election” issue (well, I don’t know much about any of these issues, but I’m referring to someone who does - Jimmy Akin), but if it is the official Molinist view it is compatible with Catholicism.
God bless,
Jimmy Akin says in his book The Salvation Controversy, p. 73, footnote 5 that “Thomists and Molinists have been forbidden to accuse each other of heresy. In 1748 the Church declared Thomism, Molinism, and a third view known as Augustinianism to be acceptable to Catholic teaching." Furthermore, I don’t think Molinism denies the doctrine of grace (unless you are talking about the Thomist view of grace), it merely emphasizes the role of free will more than Thomism (Thomists do believe in a form of free will, as every Catholic must). After all, I don’t think the Church would say Molinism is “acceptable to Catholic teaching,” if it denied the doctrine of grace.DNS:
It’s not fine in the slightest, but lethal, when the denial is of our total reliance upon God - and by postulating merits foreseen as the ground of election, Molinism entirely denies the doctrine of grace, which implies precisely that.
One of the biggest issues is this: does God give certain individuals grace to come to salvation that is intrinsically efficacious? Thomists say yes, and Molinists say that the grace must be “made efficacious by man’s free choice rather than by the nature of the grace itself” (Jimmy Akin, The Salvation Controversy, p. 80). Either way, the only reason we were able to attain salvation is due to God’s grace. The Molinists simply say that our free will needs to make the grace effective. And, as stated above, the Church says the Molinist view is compatible with Catholic Theology.
I don’t know much about the “postulating merits foreseen as the ground of election” issue (well, I don’t know much about any of these issues, but I’m referring to someone who does - Jimmy Akin
), but if it is the official Molinist view it is compatible with Catholicism.God bless,
C
Contarini
Guest
Daniel Marsh:
Calvin’s doctrine of predestination followed Augustine, but it followed a particularly radical late medieval tradition of interpreting Augustine and even pushed this ultra-Augustinianism in some new directions (such as the view that all the regenerate persevere, so that only the elect ever experience regeneration). Calvin was not as careful to hold predestination and free will in balance as Augustine was (Calvin admitted that human beings did have free will in a sense, but he didn’t see a lot of point in using the term).
So yes, Augustine and Calvin have much in common, beyond the things that all Trinitarian Christians share. But Augustine’s teaching on predestination was not identical to that of Calvin.
Edwin
Of course Augustine wasn’t “Calvinistic” since he lived 1000 years before Calvin. Calvin, however, was very Augustinian. (That isn’t just a verbal difference–it’s important to put things in their right order.)I remember reading somewhere that Augustine’s theology of ________________ was calvinistic in nature. Is this true? Did Calvin teach anything in comon with Augustine?
Calvin’s doctrine of predestination followed Augustine, but it followed a particularly radical late medieval tradition of interpreting Augustine and even pushed this ultra-Augustinianism in some new directions (such as the view that all the regenerate persevere, so that only the elect ever experience regeneration). Calvin was not as careful to hold predestination and free will in balance as Augustine was (Calvin admitted that human beings did have free will in a sense, but he didn’t see a lot of point in using the term).
So yes, Augustine and Calvin have much in common, beyond the things that all Trinitarian Christians share. But Augustine’s teaching on predestination was not identical to that of Calvin.
Edwin
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Daniel Marsh:
First, I went from extreme Calvinism to less extreme Augustine. Then, I went history wise from Augistine to Calvin.
Why can’t you read the whole question before jumping to false conclusions.
I did put things in the right order.I remember reading somewhere that Augustine’s theology of ________________ was calvinistic in nature. Is this true? ** Did Calvin teach anything in comon with Augustine?**
First, I went from extreme Calvinism to less extreme Augustine. Then, I went history wise from Augistine to Calvin.
Why can’t you read the whole question before jumping to false conclusions.
C
Contarini
Guest
Daniel,
I did read the whole post. It seemed to me that your two statements complemented each other. By framing the second question in the context of the first, you were presupposing the more extreme position of Calvin as your starting point. I appreciate that of course you recognize that Augustine came first. But at the risk of seeming to be nit-picking, I think it’s important to start with Augustine. If we do that, then your second question becomes obvious–of course Calvin taught much in common with Augustine. He also taught some things (such as the perseverance of the regenerate) that Augustine did not teach, and he taught many others (such as the relationship between grace and free will) in a less nuanced way.
I apologize for offending you. I think I did understand your post–I simply ascribe more importance to the order in which we approach the question than you do. Most discussion of Calvin and “Calvinism” gets off to the wrong start because people assume a unified thing called “Calvinism” associated with Calvin (often believing that Calvin invented much of it), rather than seeing Calvin as just one particularly important radical Augustinian theologian.
Edwin
I did read the whole post. It seemed to me that your two statements complemented each other. By framing the second question in the context of the first, you were presupposing the more extreme position of Calvin as your starting point. I appreciate that of course you recognize that Augustine came first. But at the risk of seeming to be nit-picking, I think it’s important to start with Augustine. If we do that, then your second question becomes obvious–of course Calvin taught much in common with Augustine. He also taught some things (such as the perseverance of the regenerate) that Augustine did not teach, and he taught many others (such as the relationship between grace and free will) in a less nuanced way.
I apologize for offending you. I think I did understand your post–I simply ascribe more importance to the order in which we approach the question than you do. Most discussion of Calvin and “Calvinism” gets off to the wrong start because people assume a unified thing called “Calvinism” associated with Calvin (often believing that Calvin invented much of it), rather than seeing Calvin as just one particularly important radical Augustinian theologian.
Edwin
A
Archbishop
Guest
Gottle of Geer, I agree with you 100%. How can a man’s free will make God’s grace efficacious? If it does, then salvation is not of grace because man had to add something to it. Man is morally responsible. But he is dead in his trespasses and sins if he is outside of Christ. The beauty of the Thomist position is that it puts man where he should be - totally dependent upon the grace and mercy of God for salvation.
Nothing in my hands I bring,
Simply to Thy cross I cling.
Naked, look to Thee for dress;
Helpless, Look to Thee for grace.
My question always has been, “Why would anyone want to deny that their salvation is totally dependent on God, first, last, and always?” Why would anyone feel that they just had to contribute something?
Nothing in my hands I bring,
Simply to Thy cross I cling.
Naked, look to Thee for dress;
Helpless, Look to Thee for grace.
My question always has been, “Why would anyone want to deny that their salvation is totally dependent on God, first, last, and always?” Why would anyone feel that they just had to contribute something?
J
Justice2006
Guest
Well you should also see how much common Catholic recent Papacy has with St. Augustine of Hippo when it comes to the fate of children:
**The fate of children who die before baptism has interested Christians since the religion’s earliest days. **
The idea was first suggested by St Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390 AD), who believed that the unbaptised would neither be punished nor access the full glory of God.
This was dismissed by St Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD), who insisted instead that baptism was necessary for salvation and that even babies would be consigned to hell if they were not baptised.
[Will the Catholics Ever make Up Their Minds?]](Will the Catholics Ever make Up Their Minds?])
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
This is what needs to be shouted from the rooftops - and why ISTM that the relation between God Who saves, and man who cannot save himself yet is responsible to God, needs to get away, if only for a while, from being stuck in the rut of synergism.
IMHO, how we think of the issues is very much at the mercy of how we picture them in our minds. ##At a guess, because they don’t want to deny the reality of free will, or of the more “Arminian-sounding” passages in the Bible.
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
Im not 100% sure if Calvin explicitly wrote this, but the average joe Calvinist believes a form of OSAS which St Augustine didnt believe in.
They basically state that they are the “elect” and that they will for sure “persevere” and make it to Heaven. From what I have read St Augustine say is that nobody knows who is going to persevere, and that just because a person is justified doesnt mean they will also persevere.
This is about where the greatest conflict arises and destroys the security that Calvinism claims to be authentic/historical Christianity and Augustinianism, both on the “died only for the elect” and the “perseverance” parts which are very substantial parts of Calvinism.
If someone knows of explicit quotes from Calvins Institutes books on this issue I would like to see them.
They basically state that they are the “elect” and that they will for sure “persevere” and make it to Heaven. From what I have read St Augustine say is that nobody knows who is going to persevere, and that just because a person is justified doesnt mean they will also persevere.
This is about where the greatest conflict arises and destroys the security that Calvinism claims to be authentic/historical Christianity and Augustinianism, both on the “died only for the elect” and the “perseverance” parts which are very substantial parts of Calvinism.
If someone knows of explicit quotes from Calvins Institutes books on this issue I would like to see them.
E
Eden
Guest
St. Augustine is a Doctor of the Church.
A
Aaron_I
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:## It’s not fine in the slightest, but lethal, when the denial is of our total reliance upon God - and by postulating merits foreseen as the ground of election, Molinism entirely denies the doctrine of grace, which implies precisely that.
Grace is not grace if it be not gratuitous in every respect, otherwise one is left with a mongrel concoction of God’s grace and man’s doing. Grace is either wholly gracious - or it is not grace at all. Either the working of God is entirely the working of God - or it is not the working of God at all. Synergism is no help here, because its solution is a solution to a different problem - the two must be not be confused with one another, as they so often are
And to make election depend on merits foreseen is to make God dependent on man - which is pagan, for such were the gods of the nations. Nothing whatever in God - not his being, works, or any other thing of any kind about God - is dependent on any creatures whatever. Otherwise one is denying His eternity, infinity, incommensurability with creatures, transcendence, sovereignty, and simplicity.
This is a deadly error of the worst kind - it is no better than outright atheism; in fact, it is a thousand times worse, because it looks like Christianity. Molinism has done more harm to Catholicism than ten thousand Calvins, because it has infected Catholic thinking; and as a man thinks, so he acts, so he believes, and so he prays. The harm it has done is quite simply colossal.
The “liberalism” - much of it is no such thing - which is so much abominated on these* fora*, is a fruit of the man-centred nonsense which is the “gift” to the Church of Luis de Molina, S.J. A man-centred doctrine of grace cannot bring forth a God-centred doctrine of predestination; it can only bring forth man-centred ideas, & man-centred thinking. It can bring forth error, and worldliness, and ignorance of God, and materialism; but not any Christian thing; not without a miracle.
Mercifully, we now have an Augustinian Pope - perhaps he will begin to repair the damage. An analysis and condemnation of the errors in Nominalism would also be an enormous help. ##
I’d hesitate to say it is lethal. After all SAINT Augustine said “God created you without you, but He cannot save you without you.” Clearly Augustine not only left room for free will, but he obviously asserted it as truth.
One thing to consider: God desires the salvation of all. If God’s grace is efficacious without any help from us, we should all be saved. This is a paradox that of necessity casts doubt on one of two things. Either the scripture must be wrong in the aforementioned claim, or God is not all-powerful. Now THAT strikes me as something potentially lethal, wouldn’t you agree?
I admit I haven’t really looked into this particular issue too much yet. I only found out about it fairly recently. But I know enough to recognize that both views are logical and valid.
C
Contarini
Guest
Catholic Dude:
Bucer may have invented this view. I’m not sure if Zwingli taught it or not.
Edwin
Calvin did teach this. He believed that the elect, after regeneration, could and should know that they are elect and thus that they will persevere. Martin Bucer (1491-1551) taught it before him. In fact, Bucer put even more emphasis on this aspect than Calvin, in my opinion–Bucer defines faith as “persuasio”–a conviction that God is gracious to you. For Bucer, unlike Luther, this involved the conviction that you would persevere to the end.
Bucer may have invented this view. I’m not sure if Zwingli taught it or not.
Edwin
P
Pjs2ejs
Guest
[After all SAINT Augustine said “God created you without you, but He cannot save you without you.” ] POSTED AARON.
Calvinists love to claim Augustine as their own. But I can reassure you Augustine was no Calvinist, he was 100% Catholic. And further more, he was one of the most intellectual theological thinkers ever. He’s no easy read. Calvinists pick and choose Augustininian beliefs.
Words of wisdom - The discussion of predestination is useless. Jesus never even hinted at it once. Paul obscurely mentions it. There are so many other important things for Christians to talk about.
Calvinists love to claim Augustine as their own. But I can reassure you Augustine was no Calvinist, he was 100% Catholic. And further more, he was one of the most intellectual theological thinkers ever. He’s no easy read. Calvinists pick and choose Augustininian beliefs.
Words of wisdom - The discussion of predestination is useless. Jesus never even hinted at it once. Paul obscurely mentions it. There are so many other important things for Christians to talk about.
A
Archbishop
Guest
Actually, the discussion of predestination is not useless because it leads a person to a deeper and fuller appreciation of the sovereignty of God in the matter of salvation even if one does not come down on the side of the Augustinian or Thomist positions.
To say that God desires all men to be saved is true. But you cannot leave out Jesus’ words that no one can come to Jesus unless the Father gives permission to do so. You cannot get away from Acts 13:48 which tells us that after Paul preached, “as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” Apparently there were some there that day who were not ordained or appointed to believe (at least not on that day which points even further to the sovereignty of God in the matter).
We need to understand that in the Scriptures we see both the sovereignty of God in salvation and the moral responsibility (notice I did not say free will) of man to believe the gospel. The two truths run alongside each other like train tracks. They do not meet but they are there nonetheless. Only in the next life will we be able to fully understand the two truths and how they could both be true at the same time. How can it be that God does not desire the death of a sinner and yet he also hates the workers of iniquity.
I did not use the term free will above because it appears from Scripture that man’s will is either in bondage to the devil or it is in bondage to God. We are either a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness. Jesus says that we shall know the truth and the truth shall make us free which means that before knowing the truth of the gospel we must have been in bondage. Yet, once we know the truth and are free, we are actually set free to be slaves to Jesus Christ. So our will is never totally free. Our free will has limits. That is why I personally prefer the term “moral responsibility.”
To say that God desires all men to be saved is true. But you cannot leave out Jesus’ words that no one can come to Jesus unless the Father gives permission to do so. You cannot get away from Acts 13:48 which tells us that after Paul preached, “as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” Apparently there were some there that day who were not ordained or appointed to believe (at least not on that day which points even further to the sovereignty of God in the matter).
We need to understand that in the Scriptures we see both the sovereignty of God in salvation and the moral responsibility (notice I did not say free will) of man to believe the gospel. The two truths run alongside each other like train tracks. They do not meet but they are there nonetheless. Only in the next life will we be able to fully understand the two truths and how they could both be true at the same time. How can it be that God does not desire the death of a sinner and yet he also hates the workers of iniquity.
I did not use the term free will above because it appears from Scripture that man’s will is either in bondage to the devil or it is in bondage to God. We are either a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness. Jesus says that we shall know the truth and the truth shall make us free which means that before knowing the truth of the gospel we must have been in bondage. Yet, once we know the truth and are free, we are actually set free to be slaves to Jesus Christ. So our will is never totally free. Our free will has limits. That is why I personally prefer the term “moral responsibility.”
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Aaron I.:
This is why our mental pictures are so important - and God’s grace is indeed always efficaciousness even without us. There is certainly a paradox, but undermining the sovereignty of God is not a way ahead in appreciating it - and Molinism does exactly that. God is so sovereign, that He can even come among us to be crucified as though he were the lowest of the low. That is sovereignty. The logic of the Cross is a logic that can be known of only by revelation - that is why the Cross is a stumbling-block to the to folly to the Greeks. The natural man cannot understand it, any more than he can submit to the God Who predestines because it is His Will. Because God is the One Who predestines, why seek for any other reason for His so doing, than the fact of His so doing ?
And there again, Molinism is sub-Christian - it refuses to let God’s act be enough reason for that act; it insists on trying to submit God’s act to the judgement of man. And that is to make God into an idol. If God is God at all, it is not our business to try telling Him what wonderful fellows we are, and how that must be borne in mind.
But free, how ?
This is why our mental pictures are so important - and God’s grace is indeed always efficaciousness even without us. There is certainly a paradox, but undermining the sovereignty of God is not a way ahead in appreciating it - and Molinism does exactly that. God is so sovereign, that He can even come among us to be crucified as though he were the lowest of the low. That is sovereignty. The logic of the Cross is a logic that can be known of only by revelation - that is why the Cross is a stumbling-block to the to folly to the Greeks. The natural man cannot understand it, any more than he can submit to the God Who predestines because it is His Will. Because God is the One Who predestines, why seek for any other reason for His so doing, than the fact of His so doing ?
And there again, Molinism is sub-Christian - it refuses to let God’s act be enough reason for that act; it insists on trying to submit God’s act to the judgement of man. And that is to make God into an idol. If God is God at all, it is not our business to try telling Him what wonderful fellows we are, and how that must be borne in mind.
- Status