The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Roman Catholicism

Thanks for this ... it has clarified a lot of things.

I'm sure there's no limit to how far one can explore the caverns of Calvinism and it seems from Calvinists I know that there is a jockeying to espouse a form of Calvinism purer than the other's. I see all Calvinists as picking and choosing from what Calvin taught. I have yet to hear a Calvinist agree with Calvin that Mary was an ever-virgin.

I'm familiar with the biblical defenses of Calvinism. Any way that it's explained, I can't help but conclude that the Calvinist's version of God's sovereignty is threatened by the free will of man; as if man cannot act by unhindered volition, even to the point of choosing salvation freely, without trespassing upon God's sovereignty. I also can't help but to think that the sovereignty of God, in the Calvinist's view, is limited and inferior to that which, according to according to the arminian view, can bend the path of people and nations to His perfect will without rail-locking the eternal fate of men.

Total Depravity as defined here, seems to exclude entirely the choice that man still has in spite of the fall to "choose life, that you might live." Well ensconced in most of Christianity is the notion that nobody can come unto Jesus without an initial act of grace to open the heart to repentence. But TULIP Calvinism makes this an all or nothing proposition. Either the heart is regenerated inevitably and irrevokably to salvation, or it has no chance. I see a different lesson in the parable of the sower whereby some souls are quickened to saving grace, but then fall away, not having the root to sustain their germination. I see free will affirmed here.

Agreed. God would have been perfectly just to condemn all men and offer no chance at redemption.

But didn't you and I just agree that God does have free will? God would have been just to condemn us all just as he would have been to wipe out the rebellious Israelites and make a new nation out of Moses. But God chose mercy when to withhold mercy would not have impuned upon his righteousness.

But how can a reasonable man conclude otherwise upon hearing Calvinist teaching spelled out? Of course man has no part in salvation because he has no choice. He will either invariably "choose" salvation according to predestinational selection, or he will be consigned irrevokably to perdition being unable to choose anything else. The most absurd claim of Calvinism is to make the case that man retains free will by voting on a ballot with only one candidate.

Cooperation is at the heart of the Incarnation. Mary was not compelled to be the portal of salvation and yet Mary, on behalf of all mankind, received Christ into the world. At every step of the salvation of man, God solicit's man's acquiescence and cooperation. Only in the either/or prescribed view of Calvinism does this violate or diminish the sovereignty of God.

The economy of heaven isn't either/or.

Not really. I find it equally amusing when people quote early Church fathers to me as if all of their teachings became teachings of the Catholic Church. I'm well aware of Augustine's views on predestination and invincible ignorance. It's because the fathers were human and therefore inclined to disagree that shines greater credibility on the gospel they handed down.


A couple of points. The Apostles were told to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, so making the point that John's baptism was insufficient doesn't detract from baptism itself. Also, as I said, since water baptism was so prevalent not only in the New Testament but in the early church in generational proximity to the Apostolic age, the burden of proof lies on you to lay out a compelling case that refutes the relationship between water baptism and entry into the Church as unnecessary.



Not at all. On the contrary, he was justified by faith, the moment he believed.
[/quote]

Please don't shoot from the hip. My point is obvious that the man received forgiveness he didn't solicit but very much needed. Though the weeping prostitute in Luke 7 seemed very much remorseful, she also didn't solicit forgiveness before Jesus said, "Your sins are forgiven." (7:48) The mental ascent that evangelicals require before God responds seems to be absent. God shows mercy even before we are aware of how desperately we need it.

And yet you quote one of many scriptural references that affirms the free agency of man to "choose life, that ye might live." Your objection, though outspoken, doesn't even seem to touch upon what I saying except to parry the notion that an ungospelled man can be saved. Can you flesh this out a little better for me?

1. Calvinism is not simply the recitation of what John Calvin wrote. Calvinism is Confessional, which is based upon biblical teaching and NOT the man, John Calvin. We acknowledge that Calvin contributed much, but like all men, he was fallible. What he taught must be put under the light of Holy Scripture and evaluated as to its faithfulness and veracity.

2. It is not surprising that you: "have yet to hear a Calvinist agree with Calvin that Mary was an ever-virgin." There is simply no biblical support to defend the view (see #1). And, Calvin didn't much expound on this particular view either. The most noted place where this is to be found is in the Second Helvetic Confession.

I would prefer not to get into this subject here because it is unquestionably

However, I will simply reply and say that Scripture is marvelously clear in that Christ had biological brothers and sisters.

Matthew 13:55 (ASV) "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas?"

Mark 6:3-4 (ASV) "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended in him. And Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."

John 2:12 (ASV) "After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and [his] brethren, and his disciples; and there they abode not many days."

John 7:2-5 (ASV) "Now the feast of the Jews, the feast of tabernacles, was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may behold thy works which thou doest. For no man doeth anything in secret, and himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou doest these things, manifest thyself to the world. For even his brethren did not believe on him."

I really can't conceive of any possible reason not to accept what the divinely inspired Word of God says above and not conclude that Jesus of Nazareth had siblings born of Mary.

1. Calvinism is most assuredly not threatened by the heresy promoted by all non-Calvinists. The fact that the non-Calvinist view of "free-will" is indefensible shows it is non-threatening.

2. All of man's choices are made due to some kind of "influence"; internal or external or both. There is no such thing as "unhindered volition", i.e., a choice made in a vacuum. ALL of man's choices are made most "freely" and are never forced, even by God Himself. God's eternal foreordination and decree does not in any way impact upon the choices men make. (cf. Prov 16:9; Acts 2:23; 3:18; 4:26-28)

3. The real issue is and always has been: What are the noetic effects of the Fall? Did man actually die as God had promised/threatened as a penalty for disobedience? Or, was Satan telling the truth when he told Eve that she wouldn't die if she ate of the fruit but in fact, she would ascend to a place equal with God knowing for herself good and evil? (Gen 3:4,5) The antagonism which men launch against the biblical doctrine of Total Depravity is simply the natural hatred and resistance expressed against God as God. Put another way, fallen men just can't take the insult which this biblical doctrine teaches. Their insatiable desire for autonomy overrides the ability to think logically and even rationally at times. Paul addresses this issue quite nicely in Romans 9.

We Calvinists cannot ascribe to a "god" who is akin to the little Dutch boy who is forever trying to stop the leaks in the dike, i.e., a reactionary rather than the Supreme Creator and sustainer of all things who has decreed ALL things according to His eternal council and providentially brings them to pass for His own glory. Men are born by nature under the just wrath and condemnation of God. The LORD God is under no obligation whatsoever to offer some "chance" for a dead sinner to save himself by the exercise of some alien free-will choice.

1. Yes, Total Depravity excludes any possibility of a fallen man in his natural state to choose "life". And pray tell how could anyone who hates the very thought of submitting to God and His indictment against him choose to do so? Again, fallen man's nature, pre-disposition, inclination is contrary to God and all that is good. (cf. Gen 6:5; 8:21; Eph 4:17-19; et al) Man cannot because he will not. And he will not because he cannot (cf. Jh 5:40; 6:44,65). Postlapsarian mankind is under the curse of God rendered by God for his disobedience in Adam, aka: Original Sin = Imputed Guilt and Inherited Corruption of Nature.

2. That "initial act of grace" is defined quite differently depending upon who you ask. Calvinism teaches that it is "regeneration"; the total and radical change of nature effected by the Holy Spirit in the elect. We find all other definitions as defective and unsupported by Scripture.

3. The parable of the sower is hardly a proof-text for "free-will". Hermeneutics 101 should be adhered to:

1. The New Testament interprets the Old Testament
2. The Epistles interpret the Gospels
3. The didactic interprets the symbolic
4. The universal interprets the local

Secondly, parables are extended similes and are not to be read as propositional but rather illustrations to make a particular point.

Thirdly, even if we take the Parable of the Sower as a paradigmatic illustration concerning the will of man, it actually proves the opposite of which you are trying to prove. Notice the phrase in Matt 13:21 "hath he not root in himself". Compare that to Jesus' teaching, given before the parable, in Matt 7:16-20 and 12:23,35 and after the parable, Matt 15:18,19. All who have not a new heart (good ground) to whom the Gospel comes either reject it outright or assimilate some parts of it to serve their self-serving desires. It is interesting to compare this also with Joshua's disdainful remarks to those who were likewise unregenerate in his day: Josh 24:15. The "choice" was to be made between "other gods" and not God and the other gods. The people had already and most naturally rejected the true Living God and thus all that was left was to choose between the idols of men. The same has always been true (cf. Rom 3:10-18).

1. No, we didn't agree that God has a "free-will" as defined by Arminians/semi-Pelagians, etc. I stated specifically that even God does not have this type of "free-will" because it is impossible even for God to desire never mind do that which is contrary to His nature, which is inexorably holy.

2. It was God's desire and thus His will to save a remnant of Adam's fallen race by showing mercy to them. But this mercy wasn't in any way contrary to His nature either. God couldn't simply forgive men for their sins which would be a violation of His equally holy justice. Thus, it was antecedently, absolutely necessary that the Son take upon human flesh, live a perfectly holy life and provide a vicarious substitutionary atonement by dying on the cross in behalf of all those whom the Father predestined to salvation in Him.

1. No sinner chooses Christ, to use your phrase, because of God's "predestinational selection". God's decree, in and of itself, doesn't save anyone. The Scriptures teach that God decrees both the end AND the means (to that end). The only reason a sinner repents of sin and believes on Christ is because he wills to do so. And the reason a sinner wills to do so is because God has chosen to save him and has sent Christ to die for Him and has sent the Holy Spirit to create a new nature within him which irresistibly desires God and will do whatever is necessary to obtain salvation; repent of sins and believe upon Christ. There is no magic involved here.

2. All men are born under the wrath and just judgment of God. You have already agreed that if God hadn't chosen to save some, then all would be consigned to hell. This the Scriptures also teach, e.g., Jh 3:18,19,36; Eph 2:3; Rom 3:9,22,23; 9:22 Heb 10:29.

3. Re: "voting on a ballot with only one candidate" I have already addressed this issue. Men by nature "vote" for everything but God and righteousness. They freely choose all that is evil according to their corrupt natures and hatred of God. Given the choice, fallen man in his natural state will always desire and will to do that which is against God and all that is good. This natural enmity is something man has merited on his own which is part of the consequence for his sin in Adam (Rom 5:12-19).

1. What kind of absurdity is this? "Mary was not compelled to be the portal of salvation and yet Mary, on behalf of all mankind, received Christ into the world.? Are you really saying that Mary had a "choice" to bear the incarnate Son of God or not?... that she could have simply refused the conception of the Holy Spirit, of which she was not even aware of until such time as her pregnancy was perceivable? Really now... you cannot be serious.

2. The Gospel is to be preached promiscuously. But the Gospel isn't some "invitation" to accept Jesus into your heart or some similar dribble. What we read in Scripture is that men are commanded to repent and believe. Salvation isn't secured by man's free-will decision but rather by the power of the Holy Spirit working in and through the true Gospel preached/read (Rom 1:16; Ps 110:3; Jer 23:29; Rom 8:7,8; 1Cor 1:18-24; 2Cor 2:14-16; Col 1:5,6; 1Thess 1:5; Heb 4:12).

via_dolorosa
I would like to thank you for helping me understand the RC position better.

Pilgrim
As far as I am concerned, that was a great refutation of the RC position.

Tom

wow, Pilgrim excellent!!! really well done!

I don't understand all the confusion??? Total Depravity is pretty self explanatory. I don't know why Catholics defend free-will so vehemently. There are many scriptures that support TD and none that support FW. Catholics take God's revealed will as support for FW but the truth is unless we are granted the grace to respond we are dead to the Truth.

I have friends that have absolutely no use for the Gospel. They don't feel themselves to be sinners or want to part with sin. In fact, they believe the gospel is a fairy tale and find my desire to be faithful off-putting. But I was not too far removed from where they are at one time myself. So, unless a radical change takes place, a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit, we will be hostile or at least indifferent to the Gospel message. With man it's impossible.

@Via Dolorosa: as a convert to the Reformed faith from lib(tard)eral Judaism and via broad evangelicalism, I'm curious about a few of your points. I too know evangelicals - and Jews - who have swum the Tiber, Bosporus, Channel, Rhein, etc, but have always wondered about a few claims: a)
how do your verses from St Paul regarding Tradition prove that the content of such is in any wise different from the content of Scripture; if this Tradition is so necessary for understanding Scripture and the absence of such is often used as a reason for the fragmentation of Protestantism, why are so many different churches (eg, RCC, EOC, non-Chalcedonians, vagante synods, sedevacantists, Old Catholics, etc)claiming to be the repository of it; are we saved by good works, or unto them, as the former infallibly points to works-righteousness; by "free will" do you mean that my unaided reason is capable of choosing either good or evil, or just that my will is free from external compulsion? Just curious.

...another observation, based on my discussions with Roman Catholics...

and let me add that most have been very respectful and civil (I think many Catholics view Protestants as lost puppy dogs that have a false understanding of what the RCC really teaches.....and with a little gentle guidance can be led back into the fold)

....but back to my point,

I think there are many loop holes or just holes with RCC teachings/understandings when the debate turns to sovereign grace/regeneration.

1) Baptismal Regenration - catholics claim that baptism is necessary or at least normnative source of regeneration but they also make room for special cases when the desire for baptism is there but the opportunity was never presented. So from their perspective baptismal regeneration is essential but there are exceptions.

Also, baptismal regeneration only washes away original sin and guilt, but not actual sins that occur throughout the lifetime. So baptism is necessary to enable salvation but unrepented sin and falling away will make the baptism null & void with the end result being the eternal damnation of the individual (or at least some serious time in purgatory).

2) Election - when arguing against election catholics will argue that each individual is judged by God and ultimately saved based on the amount of light they receive. In an effort to maintain and defend the free-will of the indivdual I've had Catholics tell me that Jews and Muslims, etc. worship the same God and will not be penalized for growing up in non-Christian environments in which they were never exposed to the Christian gospel. They use the same argument for heathens and the like, who have never heard Jesus preached. They will argue that God cannot and will not condemn those who were not in a postion to make an informed, educated 'choice.'

While those in the reformed camp will argue from Romans 10:

The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

So while the Reformed declare that the evidences of election via sovereign grace is apparent when considering the multitudes that are adverse to the gospel message, the multitudes that are ignorant of the gospel message, and the multitudes whose beliefs in false gods transplant the gospel message....the catholics hold onto exceptions, loop holes and strange theories in their quest to uphold the free-will of man and defeat the doctrine of Election.