A Critique Of Non-calvinist Soteriologies

[conservativecatholic]

I have a question for you ICTHUS. Why do remain here at Phatmass when you disagree with the Roman Catholic Church nonstop? You have never recognized a single iota of light within the Church in any of your posts. Do you feel as if you need to win souls for the Calvinists here at Phatmass? Or do you feel good inside slamming the Catholic Church at every chance you get? No offense but I would like to know what your intentions are here at Phatmass. May God Bless! I pray that you find the light.

Edited July 18, 2004 by conservativecatholic

[ICTHUS]

I see that foundsheep edited out what I said - the thing is, if foundsheep had read Romans 1, he/she would've realized that [i]I was quoting directly from it [/i] and that they were EDITING THE WORD OF GOD. (No doubt, Romanists would like to throw the Letter to the Romans out of their canon, though, since it contradicts so many of their beliefs)

Romans 1:18

[color=blue]The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness[/color]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 18 2004, 07:50 PM'] I see that foundsheep edited out what I said - the thing is, if foundsheep had read Romans 1, he/she would've realized that [i]I was quoting directly from it [/i] and that they were EDITING THE WORD OF GOD. (No doubt, Romanists would like to throw the Letter to the Romans out of their canon, though, since it contradicts so many of their beliefs)[/quote]
ICTHUS, perhaps you haven't realized this yet, but it is the way that you misuse Sacred Scripture that is the problem. You seem to be filled with hatred for the Church, the Church that canonized the Bible, and that hatred is simply contrary to Christian charity.

Clearly, you need time to think about the things you are doing and saying, before you act. I will pray for you, because at the present time it is clear to me, that you are not interested in discussing these theological issues in a civil manner.

You may choose of your own free will to continue to adhere to the human created doctrine of [i]Sola Scriptura[/i], but I will not. I gave that doctrine up back in the mid 1980s because I realized then that it was, is, and always will be, contrary to what God has revealed in Christ Jesus, both in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

God bless you,
Todd

Edited July 19, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Theoketos]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 15 2004, 06:03 PM'] Total depravity is not that man is as sinful as he will ever be. Total depravity is that man does not have the spiritual capacity to come to God on his own. He is born sinful, a spiritual enemy of God and dead in his sins, and God must come and resurrect him from the dead for him to have faith.

Really? Is that why St. Peter and St. Paul use it in the Scriptures so often? (2 Peter 1:10-11, Romans 9:11-15) Philosophy is man's wisdom. Listen, rather, to GOD's wisdom.

Yes, our actions are our own. The Calvinist denies [i]free will[/i] in the sense that most non-Calvinists use it. We do, however, affirm [i]free agency.[/i]

Unless, of course, you are Sovereign (like God), and it falls to you to write the 'books of the future.'

Scripture?

No. He foreknows them as reprobate persons, and they perish by their own sin.

Scripture?

I suppose thats right in line with a text such as Acts 16:14


I think that you need to look at it the way Augustine really looked at it. You can find it in his anti-Pelagian writings. [/quote]
ICTHUS brother in Christ!

I am so honestly happy that you post here. Becuase of you I read my Bible with greater Zeal in the Spirit. For that you should be happy.

[quote]Total depravity is not that man is as sinful as he will ever be. Total depravity is that man does not have the spiritual capacity to come to God on his own. He is born sinful, a spiritual enemy of God and dead in his sins, and God must come and resurrect him from the dead for him to have faith.[/quote]

If Man can not come to God on his own then what is the point of free will? If we do not have free will then we can not truly love God. If we can not love God freely then there is no point to human life. Certainly we are all sinners and thus are not worthy of His love, or capable on this plain of understanding it, but I think that the end of man is something he must choose, he is made to choose it.

We are made to be happy, When God made man he said that it was very Good. We are ment to be Like Adam and Eve before the Fall. Jesus makes this possible.


When you say

[quote]Unless, of course, you are Sovereign (like God), and it falls to you to write the 'books of the future.' [/quote]

God writes us to hell or to heaven. I do not think that God, who is love, would choose to some to hell. I think that out of Love, He lets us Go there, but it is our choice.

[b]If life is of the manner that you speak it would seem to me that then God would be the author of evil, and I know that you would never say that, becuase God is all Good, can I get an Amen at least to God as all Good?[/b]

Further, I heard once that "an action can be indirectly voluntary when it results from negligence." Which means that if God did not give us the Grace that we need at the moment to avoid sin, He would co-author our sin, which is just not possible, when we sin we do it alone, to hurt every one.

I got God does not redeam man against his will from the Pope in 'Love and Responsibility'. The point come from the fact that God does not use man as a means to an end, for this is intrinsically wrong. A person is an end not a means, and thus God gives man his end but it is up to man to come to that end which is union with him

When Jesus spoke to the rich man, He let him go away. The Rich man had done everything he was supposed to by the law as his faith had suggested, but he could not give everything away to follow Jesus, but Jesus did give him that Choice.

[quote]I suppose thats right in line with a text such as Acts 16:14  [/quote]
That does not contridict any thing else I was saying.

Also if Man's reason contridicts Faith then the reason is flawed, but Faith can be understood with much more clairity. Philosophy is love of Wisdom and it really is all about knowing more about God.

I look forward to your response!

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Jul 19 2004, 12:09 AM'] If Man can not come to God on his own then what is the point of free will? If we do not have free will then we can not truly love God. If we can not love God freely then there is no point to human life. Certainly we are all sinners and thus are not worthy of His love, or capable on this plain of understanding it, but I think that the end of man is something he must choose, he is made to choose it.

We are made to be happy, When God made man he said that it was very Good. We are ment to be Like Adam and Eve before the Fall. Jesus makes this possible. [/quote]
Theoketos, you are completely correct in your rejection of Calvinist determinism, but the statement quoted above is somewhat ambiguous and could be misinterpreted in a Pelagian sense. The idea that man can come to God without the aid of grace has been rejected by the Catholic Church at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (AD 431), which condemned Pelagius and Celestius, and at the Second Council of Orange (AD 529), which condemned both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism.

The infusion of grace is necessary for a man to act rightly in the supernatural order. Therefore, as it concerns man's salvation, grace is always primary, in that it restores, perfects, and elevates man's will so that he can choose the way of eternal life. In other words, man cannot do anything that will lead to his own salvation without first receiving the infusion of God's grace. But once he has received God's grace, and is put into a state of sanctifying (i.e., deifying) grace, then, and only then, can he act meritoriously in the supernatural order, for then it is God working in, with, and through him, in order that he may achieve his own salvation.

Moreover, the Catholic Church distinguishes between the natural and the supernatural realms. In order to understand this teaching, one needs to understand the nature of original sin. When Adam fell from grace in the Garden of Eden, he lost the supernatural gift of sanctifying grace, and the preternatural gifts of immorality, impassibility, infused knowledge, and integrity; but he lost nothing essential to his human nature itself. Instead, he lost various gifts contingently given to him by God, which exceeded his natural abilities, and which were meant to adorn and perfect his nature.

As a consequence of this teaching, the Catholic Church holds that man can still exercise his free will in the natural order, and thus he can choose between various naturally good things. The objective nature of an action (i.e., its end) determines the good or evil character of the action in question. Therefore, it is wrong to say that all of man's natural actions are sinful.

In conclusion, let me reiterate the two main points of this essay: (1) in the natural order man can still exercise his free will and choose between various good actions, i.e., actions which are good in their objective content, but he can also abuse his natural freedom by choosing to sin; and (2) the Catholic Church teaches that a man can only perform supernaturally good actions with the prior infusion of God's grace; or in other words, he cannot rightly use his free will in the supernatural order, without the constant assistance of Almighty God. [cf., Phil. 2:12-13] Thus, salvation is a gift of God, and not something that man can achieve through his own natural efforts.

Edited July 19, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Theoketos]

Apotheoun, Thanks for the Clarification, and I will be careful when I speak about free will. I did not mean to come of sounding like Pelagius. In Fact I have been reading Augsitine's [i]Against the Pelagians[/i]. I will recommit my efforts so that I lead no one into error. (Note Bene Every thing you write does sound like it belongs in a book, and very holy and righteous book. I would really like to know where you recieved your training.)

I have an honest question though, Does not God give the grace to every one which they need to do right? My heart sang with joy when I read.

[quote] the Catholic Church teaches that a man can only perform supernaturally good actions with the prior infusion of God's grace; or in other words, he cannot rightly use his free will in the supernatural order, without the constant assistance of Almighty God. [cf., Phil. 2:12-13][/quote]

I still have in my mind that man can still deny this gift, even if he has been given the Grace. To use a popular analogy, Grace is like wind to a ship, every ship recieves what it needs to get to heaven, but it the ship 'must will' the sails to be raised. The Sail Boat is incapable of moving on its own it must have the wind. (I think there is where I avoid the heresy of Pelagian) Every Ship is built to sail on ward, against the current, Just as human is built to go to heaven.

This also reminds me the distinction between [i]ex opere operantis[/i] and [i]ex opere operante[/i] in that when recieving the communion the work of the work is always present and always tremendous regradless of the worker, but if the worker works to be open the grace, at least the effects of the grace or more fruitful, if there is not more grace involved?

Any way I would apperciate thoughts on the matter!

God Bless those who Love and Learn!

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 19 2004, 03:12 AM'] In conclusion, let me reiterate the two main points of this essay: (1) in the natural order man can still exercise his free will and choose between various good actions, i.e., actions which are good in their objective content, but he can also abuse his natural freedom by choosing to sin; and (2) the Catholic Church teaches that a man can only perform supernaturally good actions with the prior infusion of God's grace; or in other words, he cannot rightly use his free will in the supernatural order, without the constant assistance of Almighty God. [cf., Phil. 2:12-13] Thus, salvation is a gift of God, and not something that man can achieve through his own natural efforts. [/quote]
apotheoun,

can you give examples of good actions that man can do in the natural order and good actions that man can do in the supernatural order. this would help me to better differentiate the catholic stance on grace and salvation as compared to the protestant stance on total depravity.

thanks,
phatcatholic

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jul 19 2004, 11:45 AM'] apotheoun,

can you give examples of good actions that man can do in the natural order and good actions that man can do in the supernatural order. this would help me to better differentiate the catholic stance on grace and salvation as compared to the protestant stance on total depravity.

thanks,
phatcatholic [/quote]
There is no difference [i]per se[/i] in the objective nature of the actions in question; instead, the difference lies in the energy (i.e., grace) by which the actions are performed. In the case of a naturally good action, the action in question is performed by a man through his own innate natural abilities; while in the case of a supernaturally good action, the energy by which the action is performed is the power of God's grace. For God's grace heals, perfects, and elevates man's will so that he can act rightly, while also giving his actions a truly supernatural quality. In other words, actions performed with the aid of God's grace are elevated beyond their natural goodness into a supernatural state of being, and as a consequence they are ordered to man true end, which is found only in God. As an example, suppose a man, by his own natural abilities gives alms to the poor; this action, as long as it is done with the right subjective dispositions, is in itself good, but because it is done by man alone, it is not meritorious, and so it cannot lead to a man's eternal salvation. Salvation is a gift of grace, and thus it is not something that man can achieve through his own natural abilities. But if the same action is done with the aid of God's grace, then it follows that the action, which is naturally good, is raised to a supernatural level, because it is God willing and working in man for His good purpose. [cf., Phil. 2:12-13] In other words, when a man in a state of sanctifying grace performs actions which are motivated for the love of God, those actions, while always and rightly the actions of the particular man who performs them, are God's actions as well, because it is God who is working in, with, and through man. Therefore, as St. Paul said, "It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me," and from truth we are able to say, that it is no longer I who work, but Christ works in me, and it is no longer I who pray, but Christ prays in me, etc. I hope this explanation helps.

[ICTHUS]

Apotheoun, the distinction you make between the natural/supernatural order sounds verymuch like the distinction we Calvinists make between works done by regenerate men, and those of unregenerates. (The former are meritorious, the latter are never so)

[Hananiah]

I have never before heard a Protestant of any stripe say that works can be meritorious. I have heard very knowledgeable Calvinists claim that grace excludes the possibility of merit in much the same way as Pope Leo XIII said that Biblical inspiration excludes error.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 19 2004, 03:52 PM']Apotheoun, the distinction you make between the natural/supernatural order sounds verymuch like the distinction we Calvinists make between works done by regenerate men, and those of unregenerates. (The former are meritorious, the latter are never so)[/quote]
That's because the theological terms "regenerate" and "unregenerate" were used by Catholic theologians for more than 1400 years before Calvinism even existed. However, the use of these terms by both sides gives the appearance of agreement, where in fact there is none.

In Catholic theology the regeneration of man in Christ involves the removal of all that is truly sinful within him (concupiscence alone remains in a man who has been regenerated in Christ), while it simultaneously brings about an ontological translation of man from a state of mortal sin to a state of grace and filial adoption. Thus, regeneration involves a real and intrinsic justification and sanctification of man in Christ. In opposition to the Catholic doctrine of regeneration, the Reformers taught that regeneration involves merely the non-imputation of sin, and an extrinsic imputation of Christ's own righteousness. Thus, for the Reformers, man remains in reality completely sinful, and as a consequence of this, he is in no way sanctified, because instead of truly becoming just and righteous by being incorporated into Christ through Baptism, he merely has an extrinsic and foreign righteousness imputed to him. In other words, man is neither really forgiven of his sins, nor is he ontologically justified and sanctified; instead, "regenerate" man is in all respects identical to unregenerate man, except that a legal fiction is held to have made him acceptable to God in spite of the fact that remains sinful.

In addition to this disagreement, the Catholic Church and the Reformers also disagreed on the ability of an unregenerate man to perform morally good actions in the natural order. The Catholic Church holds that there is an objective moral order, and that the morality of an action is determined by its objective end. Thus, if the subjective disposition of the acting agent is good, and the objective nature of the action in question is also good, it follows that the action is not sinful, but is morally good in the natural order. But this naturally good action on the part of an unregenerate man is will not avail unto salvation, because it is not performed under the impulse of God's grace. In teaching that not all the actions of an unregenerate man are sinful, the Catholic Church defends the objective nature of the moral order itself, while simultaneously emphasizing the necessity of grace for the performance of supernaturally good actions, i.e., actions that avail unto a man's salvation. In opposition to this teaching the Protestant Reformers held that all of the actions of an unregenerate man are by definition sinful, because they are not done with the aid of grace. But even more than this, the Reformers, due to their doctrine of forensic justification, taught that even those actions of a man "regenerated" in Christ are worthless and sinful, because in their theology to say that a man can do supernaturally good actions is to take away from the merits of Christ. This error of the Reformers is based on their failure to see that it is Christ who acts, in, with, and through the members of His Body, the Church. [cf., Galatians 2:20, Philippians 2:12-13]

So, the common use of these two theological terms, i.e., "regenerate" and "unregenerate," gives the false impression of agreement, where in fact there is none.

Edited July 20, 2004 by Apotheoun

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Jul 20 2004, 12:28 AM'] I have never before heard a Protestant of any stripe say that works can be meritorious. I have heard very knowledgeable Calvinists claim that grace excludes the possibility of merit in much the same way as Pope Leo XIII said that Biblical inspiration excludes error. [/quote]
Not if you factor in the Augustinian statement "What merit have we before grace, when our every good merit is bestowed on us only by grace, and when God, in crowning our merits, crowns nothing else but His own gifts to us" - God crowns our merits, which He Himself has bestowed upon us. They are properly our merits, but wholly come from God.

[p0lar_bear]

Ummm...did you just use Augustine as an example of Protestant thought?

[ICTHUS]

I did

[Hananiah]

I agree whole heartedly that merits are gifts of grace. That is Catholic teaching. But I have never before heard any Protestant accept the concept of merit in any way, shape, or form. John Calvin never admitted the classes of congruent and condign merit into his theology.

[p0lar_bear]

Augustine was a [i]Catholic[/i] Bishop....not a Protestant theologian....I think you are off by about 12 centuries....

[Theoketos]

But Agustine was a hero to Calvin and Luther, which is why you see his work in their work, though most of the time it is taken in a different way then he intended it to be.

The reformers also seem to forget that Augustine said that Schism is never a good thing...doh.

Lord bring your Church together!

[Hananiah]

The Lord's Church already is together. May He increase its size by adding to it former heretics and schismatics.

[God Conquers]

Calvinism is the "new" manicheanism according to Chesterton:

[quote]The old Manicheans taught that Satan originated the whole work of creation commonly attributed to God. The new Calvinists taught that God originates the whole work of damnation commonly attributed to Satan. One looked back to the first day when a devil acted like a god, the other looked forward to a last day when a god acted like a devil. But both had the idea that the creator of the earth was primarily the creator of the evil, whether we call him a devil or a god. [/quote]

From St. Thomas Aquinas.

Just read that today by coincidence.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Jul 22 2004, 12:34 PM'] Calvinism is the "new" manicheanism according to Chesterton:



From St. Thomas Aquinas.

Just read that today by coincidence. [/quote]
And we should care what Chesterton thinks because...?