Everything We Think and Do is a Caused Thing?

If you've been following the CathApol Blog you've seen the recent postings regarding predestination and foreknowledge between myself and Barry Hoffstetter.  Well, another has thrown his hat into the ring, a fellow who goes by "Tobiah" - or perhaps Roy Tobias (I've asked for clarification, none has been forthcoming as of this writing), I'll refer to him as "RT."

RT, though he claims to not be a Calvinist, presents a very Calvinist position on predestination. He opened our discussion with this challenge:

Everything we think and do is a caused thing. I'd challenge you to demonstrate otherwise.

Now, before I go much further, let me state - I am not really in disagreement with that statement! However, RT goes on to say:

The apostle Paul said God created man to search for him, and ordered all things towards that purpose. He said we love God because *He first loved us*, and that even when we were dead in our trespasses and sin *He*(God) brought us to life-so that we could respond. And yes, there are grounds for judgement regardless-since we are all children of wrath by nature *until* that awakening comes from God via His mercy.

And again, fundamentally, I would agree with this.  RT goes on to ask:

Explain to me how you make decisions free of influences that push you in certain directions.

I'll get to answering that in a moment here.  In his fourth response on this topic he states:

I asked you from the beginning to demonstrate the mechanisms of free will. Describe it, where does it arise, how is it free-and just what is your definition of 'free will'? How do you make any decisions at all free of all the influences shaping them and the causality that led you to the decision?

Sounding a bit more Calvinist?  I think so!  

First off, to be clear here, "from the beginning" all RT did was make an assertion and issue an open ended challenge.  "From the beginning" he did not ask me to "demonstrate the mechanism of free will," nor did he ask me to "describe it" nor show "where does it arise" and neither did he ask "just what is (my) definition of free will?"  He did not ask, "How do (I) make any decisions at all free of the influences shaping them and the causality that led (me) to the decision?"  All he did was assert "everything we think and do is a caused thing" and then challenged, "I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise."  So, from the beginning of his involvement we began on a false premise.  That being said, I am overlooking the false statement and will deal with his questions.  

If the previous was not enough to convince the semi-unbiased reader that RT holds a Calvinist position on predestination, read this from him:

God has predetermined who will come to Him, as well as the how/why of it. You want to understand my answer, you need to think outside of your box-this is why I've tried to get you to answer about free will. It does not exist. Only causality exists-and the statement you quoted is part of that causality. So is everything else that causes people to come to Christ. What's to fear? Losing your salvation-which is a goad for those chosen to respond to this call of God in a manner that keeps them on the path. I'm showing you the nuts and bolts of how determinism works, Scott. We can go deeper of course-but the same principle is there every step of the way. Every step of the way causality is leading you along your predetermined path by predetermined means to a predetermined end result.

Catholicism and Predestination
Now, before we continue can Catholics believe in predestination?  The answer is yes!  Is it the same way of thinking which Calvinists express and teach?  No!   So what are Catholic teachings on predestination?

To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.  

Catechism of the Catholic Church 600

What Catholics Cannot Believe Regarding Predestination

We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. 

Council of Orange (529 AD)

If anyone says that it is not in man's power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil as well as those that are good God produces, not permissively only but also propria et per se, so that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of St. Paul, let him be anathema.

Council of Trent, Session 6, Canon 6 of the Decrees on Justification

That which God has predestined, He has done so through His foreknowledge of how men will respond to the free gift (grace) He has made available to mankind.  Romans 8:28-30 lays out this "order" quite clearly.  Many Protestants even use the example of the "Golden Chain of Salvation" as seen here:

(source: http://ubdavid.org/advanced/greatsalvation/great-salvation_13.html)

Predestination does not come before foreknowledge.  Foreknowledge does not affect the free will God has given to man, it just means that God knows what choices man will make and based upon that, He can predestine those whom will be called "the Elect."

Back to RT...   RT states that nothing happens which God did not cause to happen.  Man, in RT's paradigm, is not responsible for his actions - for he makes no act without God.  We have a real problem here, well, "we" don't, but RT does.  In RT's theology, God is justified in the condemnation of all men, for mankind has a fallen nature due to Original Sin and it is only through God's grace that any man is saved.  God, therefore, can choose whom He will save and who will remain condemned - because, again, all men are condemned by Adam's sin and this is due solely to His mercy and grace.   

The problem the Christian Church has with this Calvinistic view is that it really removes all judgment from mankind, for in that view - man is already judged and condemned and it is only by God's grace that man can be pulled from that condemnation - no judgment, just grace.  The Christian Scriptures clearly state that all men (not just the elect) will be judged according to his works (Romans 2:6; 1 Corinthians 3:14-15). 

The Calvinist will argue that only those who are drawn can be saved, and those whom He takes in His hands will not be lost (John 6) but who is drawn?  According to John 12:32 "all men" will be drawn to Him - when He is lifted up.  Was Christ lifted up?  Yes!  On the Cross!  You could even say that lifting happened when He ascended into Heaven - either way, He HAS been "lifted up" and thus "all men" are drawn to Him!  Now the Calvinist knows full well that the true Christian Faith does not believe that all men will be saved - in fact "many are called, but few are chosen," (Matt. 22:14) another implication that more are drawn than will actually make it, so where does this leave us?  It leaves the free gift of grace as freely given to all - but clearly not all will accept the gift.  If all are drawn and/or many are called - but few are chosen - this leaves the Calvinist form of predestination with God failing to accomplish the drawing and/or calling.  The only way this drawing/calling works is if man is given the choice to accept or reject God's free gift. 

Can We Make Decisions Free of Influences?
Getting back to RT again, his position is that God influences all acts of men - no act is then autonomously man's.  He challenges:  "Explain to me how you make decisions free of influences that push you in certain directions."   To be wholly free of influences is not possible, but those influences do not make the decisions.  Influences CAN affect decisions, but that does not mean they always do.  Men are tempted, all the time, to do what is wrong - but men can CHOOSE to do what is right or wrong.  If we choose to do what is wrong, we must be prepared to suffer the consequences.  If I choose to go over the speed limit on the highway, I must be prepared to pay the fine if I'm caught.


   .  

Spring-Wound Watch 
You've probably heard the adage that a watch needs a watchmaker to exist, right?  Suppose I found a watch.  I pick it up and look at it, and it does not appear to be running as the second hand is not moving.  I decide to wind it up and it starts ticking!   But it is the spring which is causing the watch to turn, and it's the mechanisms of the watch which allow it to keep time.  The second hand is now moving, the watch is ticking away.  I am not the designer or the creator or even the spring of this watch, but my action has caused it to start working again.  Who is the Prime Mover in this scenario?  Answer:  the Prime Mover would be the Watchmaker - but that watch didn't start "moving" until I wound it up.  The Watchmaker made the watch, but it was my action which enabled it to have its own action (of keeping time).  So, is everything we do a "caused thing?"  Yes, but who does the causing?  Just because there is a "first cause," (the Watchmaker) that does not mean the "first cause" causes every other action (like the watch mechanism actually moving or the winding of the spring - or even the choice to NOT wind the spring).


AMDG,
Scott<<<
 
RT has responded here:  https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/catholicdebateforum/conversations/messages/77849
 


 

Infused v. Imputed

Infused v. Imputed

Article by Scott Windsor 

This is, perhaps, the dividing line between Catholics and (especially Calvinist) Protestants when it comes to Justification.  What do these terms really mean?  Let us begin first with definitions coming from each side as they define the terms then proceed with examination of the arguments.

Infused Righteousness (Catholic Position)

CCC 1999: The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification.

It is really as simple as that - grace is infused into the soul.  The soul is healed.

Imputed Righteousness (Protestant Position)

Lest we should stumble at the very threshold (this we should do were we to begin the discussion without knowing what the subject is), let us first explain the meaning of the expressions, To be justified in the sight of God, to be Justified by faith or by works. A man is said to be justified in the sight of God when in the judgment of God he is deemed righteous, and is accepted on account of his righteousness; 2038 for as iniquity is abominable to God, so neither can the sinner find grace in his sight, so far as he is and so long as he is regarded as a sinner. Hence, wherever sin is, there also are the wrath and vengeance of God. He, on the other hand, is justified who is regarded not as a sinner, but as righteous, and as such stands acquitted at the judgment-seat of God, where all sinners are condemned. As an innocent man, when charged before an impartial judge, who decides according to his innocence, is said to be justified by the judge, as a man is said to be justified by God when, removed from the catalogue of sinners, he has God as the witness and assertor of his righteousness. In the same manner, a man will be said to be justified by works, if in his life there can be found a purity and holiness which merits an attestation of righteousness at the throne of God, or if by the perfection of his works he can answer and satisfy the divine justice. On the contrary, a man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous. Thus we simply interpret justification, as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as if we were righteous; and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion Book III, Chapter 11.2)

They admit that the sinner, freely delivered from condemnation, obtains justification, and that by forgiveness of sins; but under the term justification they comprehend the renovation by which the Spirit forms us anew to the obedience of the Law; and in describing the righteousness of the regenerate man, maintain that being once reconciled to God by means of Christ, he is afterwards deemed righteous by his good works, and is accepted in consideration of them. The Lord, on the contrary, declares, that he imputed Abraham’s faith for righteousness (Rom. 4:3), not at the time when he was still a worshipper of idols, but after he had been many years distinguished for holiness. Abraham had long served God with a pure heart, and performed that obedience of the Law which a mortal man is able to perform: yet his righteousness still consisted in faith. Hence we infer, according to the reasoning of Paul, that it was not of works. In like manners when the prophet says, “The just shall live by his faith,” (Hab. 2:4), he is not speaking of the wicked and profane, whom the Lord justifies by converting them to the faith: his discourse is directed to believers, and life is promised to them by faith. Paul also removes every doubt, when in confirmation of this sentiment he quotes the words of David, “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered 2081,” (Ps. 32:1). 

I answer, that the grace which they call accepting, is nothing else than the free goodness with which the Father embraces us in Christ when he clothes us with the innocence of Christ, and accepts it as ours, so that in consideration of it he regards us as holy, pure, and innocent. For the righteousness of Christ (as it alone is perfect, so it alone can stand the scrutiny of God) must appear in court for us, and as a surety represent us judicially. Provided with this righteousness, we constantly obtain the remission of sins through faith. Our imperfection and impurity, covered with this purity, are not imputed but are as it were buried, so as not to come under judgment until the hour arrive when the old man being destroyed, and plainly extinguished in us, the divine goodness shall receive us into beatific peace with the new Adam, there to await the day of the Lord, on which, being clothed with incorruptible bodies, we shall be translated to the glory of the heavenly kingdom. (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter, XIV, Nos. 11 and 12).

In short, righteousness covers over sin - but does not remove it.  The righteousness only makes the sin "covered" and "buried" so that we do not come under judgement.  It is not so different from the paraphrase of Luther in the statement of "snow covered dung."  Below is some research I have previously done on this alleged statement from Luther:

He may not have said those exact words, though he has been allegedly quoted as saying such, not merely by Catholics, but even by other Lutherans. The paraphrase may have come from Martin Luther’s Sermon on Our Blessed Hope (St. Louis Ed. IX: 930-957):

"We see grain sowed in the ground. Reason now asks: What happens to the grain in winter that has been sowed in the ground? Is it not a dead, moldy, decayed thing, covered with frost and snow? But in its own time it grows from that dead, moldy, decayed grain into a beautiful green stalk, which flourishes like a forest and produces a full, fat ear on which there are 20, 30, 40 kernels, and thereby finds life where only death existed earlier. Thus God has done with heaven, earth, sun and moon, and does every year with the grain in the field. He calls to that which is nothing that it should become something and does this contrary to all reason. Can He not also do something which serves to glorify the children of God, even though it is contrary to all reason?"

We do get closer to the saying here:

"I said before that our righteousness is dung in the sight of God. Now if God chooses to adorn dung, he can do so" (Luther's Works, Vol. 34, page 184).

In that same document Luther adds:

"All the justified could glory in their works, if they would attribute glory to God with respect to themselves. In this manner they would not be dung, but ornaments" (Luther's Works, Vol. 34, page 178). http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2006/10/luthers-snow-covered-dunghill.html

The bottom line here is that Luther and Calvin are not far apart on this issue as both see justification as a "covering" of ones sin.

The Contrast

The contrast then is the Catholic position is one of healing and restoration of the soul to a condition of righteousness whereas the Protestant position doesn't cure or change anything - it simply covers it up - leaving the sinner with his sin (thus impure and cannot enter Heaven, according to Revelation 21:27).  Now this, alone, would not be so bad IF the Protestant position accepted Purgatory, wherein any stain of remaining sin in those who have been judged "righteous" or "saved" can be "purged," but they also reject Purgatory!  Thus the doctrine of imputation, as THEY define it, leaves them condemned to Hell!  The Catholic position of infusion of righteousness washes away sin and restores the soul to a state of grace which enables the person to be "saved" even if some stain of (venial) sin might remain, that too can be "cured" in Purgatory.  

Now the Protestant will argue, "How can one who has been imputed righteousness and judged righteous be condemned to Hell?"  And again, it is not the Catholic position that such a person would be condemned.  Those with any stain of sin remaining after they have been judged while still being "saved" will have their works tested.  If there are good works, they will endure the testing and the person will be rewarded; if there are bad works (sin) then these will be "burned up" and this person, though already judged as "saved" will "suffer loss."  This is fundamentally clear in St. Paul's words to the Corinthians:

 ¹³ Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is.

¹⁴ If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

¹⁵ If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

(1 Corinthians 3:13-15, DRB)

This is as clear of a testimony to Purgatory and describes exactly what will take place there!  I repeat again, this passage speaks to men who have already been deemed to be "saved" and their works are being tested by fire and those which "burn" will cause this saved person to "suffer loss."  But I digress.

Back to the point, in the Protestant position of imputation the person is "clothed" or "covered" in righteousness, but like a snow covered dunghill, the sin remains.  A clothing or covering does not change or remove that which is clothed or covered.  In the Catholic position righteousness is infused into the soul, the soul is changed.  

Non-Religious Examples:

Infused:  Gasoline which is infused with ethenol, while still gasoline is now a cleaner burning gasoline - it has been changed.  A coach can "infuse the team with confidence" (source).

Imputed: To assign fault, blame or credit.  "An example of to impute is find an oil leak as the cause for a car breaking down" (source). 

A Matter of Semantics?

I believe that when push comes to shove, the Protestant will acknowledge that the person is changed by this imputation, but if they do - then what they are really doing is accepting the Catholic position of infusion.  It would seem that they must ultimately accept the Catholic position here, even if they continue to call it "imputed righteousness," for as explained earlier, such an imputation does not change anything, it only covers it up.  In the Lord's Day (the Judgment) when all our works are tested - the "snow" will be melted away and expose that which it covered.  Any sin which remains will be a cause of suffering for the person (again, who has already been judged to be "saved" at this point).  So, when we get down to the fundamentals here, are not the Protestants still affirming the Catholic position?  If so, why is this a major point of contention between us?  

I plea to our Separated Brethren, why not come home?

  

  

Semi-Pelagian or Synergism?

I was asked to respond to an article posted by a Calvinist in CDF: 

Is Roman Catholicism Semi-Pelagian?

Brief Definitions:
Pelagianism:
A heresy in which salvation is by Man's effort alone and God's grace is only present through giving us an example to follow

sw: Not really the topic we're discussing.

Semi-Pelagianism:
1) a heresy in which grace is not necessary for the initial stage of salvation and will be imparted after the person has come to faith in Christ

sw: I'm OK with that definition, it's in agreement with what I posted earlier - though I'd use "justification" instead of "salvation" there.

2) (small letters) any system which has pelagian tendencies, i.e. ascribing to salvation any effort on Man's part

sw: That's getting a bit too lose with the terminology.  Semipelagianism is more accurately the first definition, and it can be the second one too so long as we're talking the initial stage of justification.

Synergism:
Man and God working together towards the individual's salvation

sw: This is the more accurate terminology to describe the Catholic view.  Protestants, especially Calvinists, will see this as heresy, but in reality (as we shall see later) this synergy is actually quite scriptural and straight out of the Pauline epistles which Calvinists like to run to.

Monergism:
Salvation being the work of God alone

sw: Monergism is the opposite of what we're discussing, and is heretically wrong.  The version of "Semi-Pelagianism" which this article refers to is more in line with "Synergism" than that which is defined as "Semi-Pelagianism."  To embrace Monergism to the exclusion of Synergism is where this becomes heretical.  Certainly God does work in the salvation of Man, but God does not work alone in this (see below).
 

Article:

Regarding Roman Catholic soteriology, it has been shown in the article 'Differences between Pelagianism, its derivatives and Christianity' that Roman Catholic soteriology is aberrational and heretical. Informed Christians from the Reformation onwards have referred to Roman Catholic soteriology as semi-pelagian. Is this statement true, especially since Rome in its early stages have denounced the error of Semi-Pelagianism as heresy in the Council of Orange ⁽¹⁾?

sw: The statement is not true because, as we shall see, Semi-Pelagian does not mean what the anti-Catholics say it means.  They didn't define the heresy and defend the Church against it for it came about 1000 years before there was a cult called "Reformed" and it was the Catholic Church which defined the term, thus we rightfully reject the novel definition of the "Reformed."

To answer this question, we must first define our terms. As stated above, Semi-Pelagianism was denounced as a heresy by the incipient Roman Catholic church during the Council of Orange of 529 AD. In this sense, Roman Catholicism should be distinct from Semi Pelagianism. Analysis of their respective soteriologies does confirm that they are different from each other. Whereas Semi-Pelagianism maintain that a person can initially come to God without God's grace, Roman Catholicism does say that God's grace must operate initially in order for a person to be saved. Thus, in this matter, it is true that Roman Catholicism ≠ Semi-Pelagianism.

sw: This is Semi-Pelagianism, and yes, it is not Catholicism.

However, there is another sense in which the term semi-pelagianism is used. Using Pelagianism as the root word, semi-pelagianism implies a theology that is partly Pelagian in its essence. It is this definition in which the term semi-pelagianism is used by most Christians in reference to Rome.

sw:  The term "most Christians" is a bit deceiving, since "most Christians" are Catholics.  That being said, this miniority group of Christians have taken the name of defined heresy and redefined it to suit their needs.  

The essence of Pelagianism is the idea of Man working out his salvation.

sw: The "essence" of Pelagianism is that Man brings himself to salvation - without the assistance of God.

Thus, anything which could be legitimately called semi-pelagian would of necessity involve Man playing some part in his/her salvation. This would thus be known as synergism, where God and Man work together for the latter's salvation. Thus, in Reformed circles, semi-pelagianism has a broader meaning of any system of theology that is synergistic in nature, as opposed to the more rigid definition of the heresy of Semi-Pelagianism which was specifically condemned by the Council of Orange and by both Christianity and Roman Catholicism alike.

sw: The definition used here does fit Synergism - and not Semi-Pelagianism.  Many non-Catholics have jumped upon the term Semi-Pelagian and wrongly use it - and even when corrected (or admit it themselves, as even this article has just done) they go back to defending their position that Catholicism is Semi-Pelagian.  They are simply wrong and apparently with too much pride to admit it.  Where Synergism may fit, Semi-Pelagianism certainly does not.

Using this broader definition of semi-pelagianism, Roman Catholicism IS semi-pelagian. This is because in Roman Catholicism, Man needs to cooperate with God to work out his salvation.

sw: This "broader definition" is not accurately Semi-Pelagianism - it is Synergism.  Words mean things.  It was the Catholic Church which defined what Semi-Pelagianism is - not Protestants over 1000 years later. 

This is seen in the 6th Session of the Council of Trent, On Justification ⁽²⁾:

CANON IV.- If anyone says that man's free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God's call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.

Also, this could be clearly seen in CHAPTER V of the same session of the Council of Trent: On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds

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, 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. (Emphasis added)

From this, we can see that according to Rome, Man must cooperate with God in order for him/her to be saved, therefore part of salvation is the work of Man in cooperating with God. This is made all the more evident when Rome declares that the grace of God is resistible ('... he is able to reject it...'), which implies that it is the part which is cooperating is the autonomous human will.

sw: Catholicism does not deny, and in fact does embrace the scriptural truth that we must "work out our salvation in fear and trembling," (Phil 2:12), that we cannot treat our salvation any differently than St. Paul who said "But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway" (1 Cor. 9:27). If we don't DO something and cooperate with God's Grace - we stand in danger of being that castaway, even as St. Paul feared becoming.

This is synergism and Roman Catholicism is therefore semi-pelagian in the broad usage of the word. Therefore, websites which deny this is therefore either ignorant or misinformed about the usage of the word in Christian Reformed circles, whether willfully or not.

sw: OK, the key here is "the usage of the word in Christian Reformed circles."  It really then has nothing to do with the REAL meaning of the terms here - but the redefinition of Semi-Pelagian by those who call themselves "Reformed."  Synergism is not Semi-Pelagianism.  Equivocating the terms and expected us to just accept it is just insulting to the intelligence of those who know that words mean things - not to mention that these "Reformed" are redefining OUR definition of Semi-Pelagian in order for them to use this "label" in debate to make it sound like Catholics on one hand rejected the heresy, but on the other embrace it, but this redefinition of terms isn't going to fly amongst those who actually understand the terminology.

sw: Jimmy Akin has an excellent article on this, and I recommend the whole article⁽³⁾, but let me excerpt a little here:

This is denounced as the evil doctrine of "synergism" because it claims that we work (-ergo) with (syn-) God—a horrifyingly blasphemous statement to Calvinist ears. which is ironic because the New Testament several times uses the very term "synergize" (Gk, sunergeo) with respect to God's action and ours. I'm sorry, but the Bible is a synergist book because it in the most literal sense possible it uses synergist language. You can't denounce the language of synergism without denouncing the language of the Bible.
...
(Quoting Protestant theologian, Dale Moody) "The best translation of Romans 8:28 that we have noted . . . says God 'cooperates for good with those who love God and are called according to his purpose.' This is just right, the way the Greek reads, but this understanding has been denounced as synergism. The Greek word for 'work with' is synergei, and from this word synergism was formed. It is strange indeed to hear people declaring they believe in the verbal inspiration of Holy Scripture, yet at the same time they denounce this verb! They seem to find an increase in zeal as they butt their heads in an obstinate way against the very language of the Bible. What really do they mean when they speak of the inspiration and authority of Scripture, if the words of the Bible are forbidden?" (The Word of Truth, 342)

However, Paul goes beyond Romans 8:28 into a verse that would make a Calvinist even more uncomfortable:

"Working together with (sunergountes) him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain" (2 Corinthians 6:1).

Here we have not only the language of men working with God (as opposed to God working with men), but Paul adds to this the exhortation not to accept the grace of God in vain, which means that the grace of God can be accepted in vain. In order to do a full exegesis of this we would have to show what grace is being talked about, whether it is the offer or the reality of salvation, but no matter what the answer to that question is, this verse says something that Calvinist language is not going to like, because it means it is either possible to accept the grace of salvation at one time and then have it to be vain or it means that it is possible to accept the grace of the offer of salvation and have it be vain because you fail to cooperate with the offer, which means that this grace is not irresistible. Of course, Calvinists have long differentiated between the internal and the external call of God, but in order to keep from talking about God's grace being resistible (and thus potentially "failing," "being frustrated," or "made vain"), but the point is that even if this verse did refer to the external call of God, it would still show that some of God's graces can be accepted but then made vain.

...

Besides using the verb "synergize" (sunergeo, the verb used in different forms in the three preceding verses) Paul even uses the more "shocking" term "synergist" (sunergos) or "co-laborer" with respect to himself and God, saying: "For we are God's fellow workers (sunergoi); you are God's field, God's building" (1 Corinthians 3:9).

sw:  In closing, Synergism - which the Calvinist rejects, is precisely what Scripture tells us to embrace!  God's Grace precedes any cooperation with God, for we cannot cooperate with that which He has not first given to us.  We cannot achieve or attain Grace on our own (Pelagianism) it must come from God and then we can have this synergy (Synergism) with Him and His Grace.

 

References
[1] Canons of the Council of Orange http://americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/councils/orange_canons.htm.
[2] The Canons and Decrees of the sacred and ecumenical Council of Trent: The sixth session. Taken from http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/TRENT/trent6.htm

(links changed to the ACTS website)

Adding my reference to Jimmy Akin:
[3] Akin, Jimmy, "Resisting and Cooperating with God" http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/COOPERAT.htm   also here: http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/cooperat.htm

 

The TULIP Revisited

I happened to stumble across a blog posting from over 3 years ago at Beggars All which pits my response to Akin's "Tiptoe Through the TULIP" article against who is right or wrong.  

It would be nice if someone is going to publish something about an article written by someone else that they would at least post a comment in the original blog to let the original author(s) know the existence of such "responses."  I'm sure this is a bit like "old news" to Mr. Swan and Co., but I just saw this - so I am responding now.   Mr. Akin and/or Mr. Swan can easily find articles I've written on my blog which directly concern them by using the "Label" of their name.  There are, as of this posting, now 4 articles involving Mr. Akin and 19 involving Mr. Swan.

For context, here are the links to the original articles:

Jimmy Akin's "Tiptoe Through the TULIP" article:

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm

My response to Jimmy Akin:

http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2009/01/akins-tiptoe-through-tulip-response.html

And here is the link to Mr. Swan's:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/01/here-was-interesting-exchange-by-jimmy.html

The content of Swan's post is this:

Friday, January 23, 2009

Here was an interesting exchange by Jimmy Akin and Scott Windsor on how to deal with Calvinists that swim the Tiber.

Jimmy Akin proposes Calvinists converting to Rome can keep "TULIP" if they understand it this way:

A Thomistic TULIP

In view of this all, we might propose a Thomist version of TULIP
T = Total inability (to please God without special grace)
U = Unconditional election
L = Limited intent (for the atonement's efficacy)
I = Intrinsically efficacious grace (for salvation)
P = Perseverance of the elect (until the end of life).

There are other ways to construct a Thomist version of TULIP, of course, but the fact there is even one way demonstrates that a Calvinist would not have to repudiate his understanding of predestination and grace to become Catholic. He simply would have to do greater justice to the teaching of Scripture and would have to refine his understanding of perseverance.

Scott Windsor's approach:

That is well and good, but the criticism of using their terminology still exists (as with my initial article which did much the same as Akin's here does). If one is to convert to the True Church, then why hang on to errors of the past at all? When one converts, they need to RENOUNCE their past - and EMBRACE that which they now KNOW to be the Truth. Let's not "tiptoe through TULIP," let's just crush the TULIP so they can move on and know the Truth.

Hmm... let's see...which one is the correct approach?

Posted by James Swan at 6:50 AM

I stand by what I said.  Encouraging any sort of embracing of Calvin's false doctrines is dangerous, in my opinion.  It is dangerous to one's soul!  If one can be encouraged to accept that this "Thomistic TULIP" is an acceptable approach, then they may end up complacent to remain in Calvin's error.  Why go through all the struggles and strife of conversion, the rejection by family and friends alike, and then hold on to something because it's not so different?    In reality, Calvinism is quite different from Catholicism.  I would also encourage the reader to go back and read my article (which includes Akin's and then responds) to get the bigger picture of what I was saying and not merely my closing remark.

In JMJ,

Scott<<<

God of Calvinism

SW: I wrote: "Our God is not the god of Calvinism."(1)  To which John Lollard wrote:

JL: I think that's a strange thing to hear you say. How seriously do you believe that Calvinists worship a false god of their own construction?

SW: I am quite serious about this.  They have taken a few verses from the context of Scripture as a whole and portray God as an unloving, arbitrary and unjust god.  I know, they reject this portrayal, but truly they can't get around it.   A favorite cited in response to Catholics is Romans 9:18,  "Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will; and whom he will, he hardeneth."   This is not saying that God has already decided, in our view of time, whom He will have mercy upon or whom He will harden, only that in specific cases, such as Pharoah (v. 17) where He has singled out someone to demonstrate His power, "To this purpose have I raised thee, that I may shew my power in thee, and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth."  Consider why God would want to "show His power" - that His Name may be declared throughout the earth... not just "the Elect" - but the entire earth.   Why would God need to have His Name declared throughout the earth if He's already decided whom He will save and whom He will condemn?  Calvinist logic is severely lacking here!

The context continues on:  

¹⁹Thou wilt say therefore to me: Why doth he then find fault? for who resisteth his will? ²⁰O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it: Why hast thou made me thus? ²¹Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?  ²²What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction, ²³That he might shew the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he hath prepared unto glory?  

The Calvinist would compare the Catholic position to the clay complaining to the Potter, however, again, the context is NOT about everyone in general being created for mercy or hardening, but for specific cases, like Pharoah.  Again, it makes no sense that God would need or want to proclaim His power to the earth if He's already made up His mind.

JL: For instance, if Calvinists worship a different (and hence false) god, then are they Christians?

SW: That would depend on how hard you want to draw the line of defining "Christian."  If that line is drawn at "one who believes in Jesus Christ," then I would say they are Christian.  Likewise, I would say Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian by that standard.  If the line is drawn at "one who believes Jesus Christ is True God and True Man, who gives Himself freely to ALL who will accept Him as their Lord and Savior," that pretty much eliminates the LDS, JWs AND Calvinists.  So, when I speak "seriously" about this matter of a "different gospel" and/or the "false god of Calvinism," it is this higher view of God, not the overly simplified "one who believes in Jesus Christ."

JL: If so, then in what sense?

SW: Well, I have pretty much answered that above.  To reiterate, if one is taking this higher view of God as One who "freely gives" Himself to ALL who will accept Him, then we (Catholics v. Calvinists) don't have the same deity.  

JL:  In worshipping their false Calvinist deity, are they guilty of idolatry?

SW:  Idolatry implies the worship of an actual object, like a statue or a mountain or a tree, so no, I would not call their worship "idolatry."

SW: The above answers the direct questions Mr. Lollard asked, but how about some more details?

What is the god of Calvinism?

Calvinism adheres to a strict concept of predestination where by they believe that God has already predestined everyone to Heaven or Hell.  Let us look at Calvin's own words:

In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we assert, that by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has once for all determined, both whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would condemn to destruction. We affirm that this counsel, as far as concerns the elect, is founded on his gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of human merit; but that to those whom he devotes to condemnation, the gate of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible, judgment. In the elect, we consider calling as an evidence of election, and justification as another token of its manifestation, till they arrive in glory, which constitutes its completion. As God seals his elect by vocation and justification, so by excluding the reprobate from the knowledge of his name and the sanctification of his Spirit, he affords an indication of the judgement that awaits them. (emphasis mine).(2)

Now, while I agree with Calvin that for those who are saved this is founded/based on His gratuitous mercy and is totally irrespective of human merit.  No one "earns" salvation, but that is not what Calvinists of today focus on here!  They focus on the bolded text above and have developed an ungodly (from the perspective of the True God) concept of predestination.  I have recently had a discussion on "foreknowledge" with Barry Hofstetter(3)  and I believe it is this concept of foreknowledge or "prescience" where Calvinism goes awry.  

A proper sense of this foreknowledge or "prescience" would be based in the fact that from God's perspective there is no past or future.  God is outside of our concept of time.  RC Sproul explains it this way, separating foreknowledge from what God foreordains:

If God foreordains anything, it is absolutely certain that what He foreordains will come to pass. The purpose of God can never be frustrated. Even God's foreknowledge or prescience makes future events certain with respect to time. That is to say, if God knows on Tuesday that I will drive to Pittsburgh on Friday, then there is no doubt that, come Friday, I will drive to Pittsburgh. Otherwise God's knowledge would have been in error. Yet, there is a significant difference between God's knowing that I would drive to Pittsburgh and God's ordaining that I would do so. Theoretically He could know of a future act without ordaining it, but He could not ordain it without knowing what it is that He is ordaining. But in either case, the future event would be certain with respect to time and the knowledge of God.(4)

This brings us back to the so-called "Golden Chain of Redemption" discussion:

²⁹For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren.³⁰And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified. Romans 8:29-30

God does not predestine those whom He has not first foreknown!  Therein lies the fatal flaw of Calvinism's view on predestination!  Sproul (whom I often disagree with) has it right when he said, "He could not ordain it without knowing what it is that He is ordaining."  So those whom He has foreknown to make the right decisions and to persevere until the end of the race, it is those whom God has foreordained and calls "the elect."  If it were not so then Scripture itself would not make sense where it tells us to "persevere" and "run to win the race" or to "buffet (our) body" as St. Paul Himself said:

²⁷But I chastise (buffet) my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway. 1 Corinthians 9:27

If St. Paul himself worries about losing his own soul and becoming a "castaway" - how much more should the rest of us be concerned?  God does already know where we'll be at the "end of the race" - but from OUR PERSPECTIVE we cannot and do not KNOW this.  We can have confidence in the fact that by His Grace He has given us the strength to accomplish the desired end(5) and that He will not allow us to be tempted beyond our ability to resist the temptation(6).  These scriptural concepts make no sense if God foreordains WITHOUT foreknowledge of the outcomes of our temptations and/or perseverance.

Sometimes called the "classicus locus"(7) regarding Calvinism's predestination is Ephesians 1:3-11:

³Blessed by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with spiritual blessings in heavenly places, in Christ:
⁴As he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in his sight in charity.
⁵Who hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ unto himself: according to the purpose of his will:
⁶Unto the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he hath graced us in his beloved son.
⁷In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins, according to the riches of his grace,
⁸Which hath superabounded in us in all wisdom and prudence,
⁹That he might make known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in him,
¹⁰In the dispensation of the fulness of times, to re-establish all things in Christ, that are in heaven and on earth, in him.
¹¹In whom we also are called by lot, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things according to the counsel of his will.

Now, keep in mind, the person writing this also wrote what we read above in 1 Corinthians 9:27!  So, either we have a contradiction of thought in St. Paul of 1 Corinthians v. St. Paul of Ephesians or this concept of predestination is based in foreknowledge - that God has foreknown the acts of men and therefore based upon this knowledge He predestines some to Heaven and others to Hell.  Rather than assent to a scriptural contradiction here, logic would side with the latter rather than the former.  If we read Ephesians 1 from the perspective that God already knows then it is not difficult to accept that He has also predestined those who will, in our perspective of time, persevere to the end and receive the prize which awaits the winner of the race.

The god of Calvinism is a "sovereign god" who will not have his will dictated by the acts of men.    This god has created men for salvation and others for damnation - simply because he desires some to live eternally with him and at the same time wishes some to perish in everlasting fire.  When one points out the unlovingness or unfairness of such a god - the Calvinist will be quick to throw Romans 9:18ff into the argument.  As we have already seen, Romans 9 is not about mankind in general, but about specific individuals whom God has used to show His power and might.  


Catholicism does not deny the sovereignty of God - we accept that it is PART OF GOD'S FREE WILL(8) that God GAVE men FREE WILL.  God ALLOWS for men to freely choose or reject Him (except in specific cases, as pointed out in Romans 9, where God uses individuals for His Own purpose).  That ALLOWS for men to truly LOVE Him, for God IS Love(9). Love is not something forced upon another, no true love is something GIVEN and GIVEN FREELY by the lover(10).  Therefore it is illogical to think that God chose "the elect" without their consent and through some "Irresistible Grace" (the "I" in TULIP) God has forced "the elect" into obedience and a warped concept of "love."  It is God's Will that we love Him, TRULY love Him - and those outside of His Will will suffer the ultimate - an eternity without God.

I hope this discussion has helped you, and if it has - I invite your comments.  As always, I also invite those critical of what I have said to comment.  

In JMJ,
Scott<<<




Footnotes:
(1) Windsor, Scott earlier on the CathApol Blog.
(2) Calvin, John,  Institutes, Book III, Chapter 21.7 - qtd. from here: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/calvin-predestin2.asp full source and context available here: http://www.reformed.org/books/institutes/books/book3/bk3ch21.html
(3) Catholic Debate Forum discussion started here and continues here then the concept is further challenged here.
(4) Sproul, R.C. qtd. from here: http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html
(5) Philippians 4:13 - "I can do all these things in him who strengtheneth me."
(6) 1 Corinthians 10:13 - "Let no temptation take hold on you, but such as is human. And God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able: but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it."
(7) White, James R. from debate: Does the Bible Teach Predestination? 
(8) CCC 295 We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God's free will; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, wisdom and goodness: "For you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created." Therefore the Psalmist exclaims: "O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all"; and "The LORD is good to all, and his compassion is over all that he has made."
(9) CCC 257 "O blessed light, O Trinity and first Unity!" God is eternal blessedness, undying life, unfading light. God is love: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God freely wills to communicate the glory of his blessed life. Such is the "plan of his loving kindness", conceived by the Father before the foundation of the world, in his beloved Son: "He destined us in love to be his sons" and "to be conformed to the image of his Son", through "the spirit of sonship". This plan is a "grace [which] was given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages began", stemming immediately from Trinitarian love. It unfolds in the work of creation, the whole history of salvation after the fall, and the missions of the Son and the Spirit, which are continued in the mission of the Church.
(10) CCC 2002 God's free initiative demands man's free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man. He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy. The promises of "eternal life" respond, beyond all hope, to this desire:

If at the end of your very good works . . ., you rested on the seventh day, it was to foretell by the voice of your book that at the end of our works, which are indeed "very good" since you have given them to us, we shall also rest in you on the sabbath of eternal life.

Many Are Called

Today, Septuagesima Sunday (welcome to Lent!), at the Extraordinary Rite of the Mass, the readings struck a chord with me, especially in regard to the discussion I'm having with Barry Hofstetter on the Catholic Debate Forum (CDF).  The readings scream out against Calvinist theology, let us look at them first and then comments to follow:

EPISTLE 1 Cor. 9:24-27; 10:1-5

Brethren: Know you not that they that run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize. So run that you may obtain. And every one that striveth for the mastery refraineth himself from all things. And they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown: but we an incorruptible one. I therefore so run, not as at an uncertainty: I so fight, not as one beating the air. But I chastise my body and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway. For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud: and all passed through the sea. And all in Moses were baptized, in the cloud and in the sea: And did all eat the same spiritual food: And all drank the same spiritual drink: (And they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.) But with most of them God was not well pleased.

 GOSPEL Matt. 20:1-16

At that time, Jesus spoke to His disciples this parable:"The kingdom of heaven is like to an householder, who went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. And having agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And going out about the third hour, he saw others standing in the marketplace idle. And he said to them: 'Go you also into my vineyard, and I will give you what shall be just.' And they went their way. And again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did in like manner. But about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing, and he saith to them: 'Why stand you here all the day idle?' They say to him: 'Because no man hath hired us.' He saith to them: 'Go ye also into my vineyard.' And when evening was come, the lord of the vineyard saith to his steward: 'Call the labourers and pay them their hire, beginning from the last even to the first.' When therefore they were come that came about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. But when the first also came, they thought that they should receive more: And they also received every man a penny. And receiving it they murmured against the master of the house, Saying: 'These last have worked but one hour. and thou hast made them equal to us, that have borne the burden of the day and the heats.' But he answering said to one of them: 'friend, I do thee no wrong: didst thou not agree with me for a penny? Take what is thine, and go thy way: I will also give to this last even as to thee. Or, is it not lawful for me to do what I will? Is thy eye evil, because I am good?' So shall the last be first and the first last. For many are called but few chosen."

So, let us start from the last words and work our way back...

"For many  are called, but few are chosen." 

Again, with Barry in mind and is Calvinist position of God's perfect sovereignty, foreknowledge and predestination...  how does this "calling" of "many" resolve to "but few are chosen?"   If "many are called" then why differentiate from "the chosen?"  Shouldn't it be (according to Calvinism) "many are called, and those same many are chosen?"  Was God, in a Calvinist view, somehow "imperfect" in this "calling" so that from that "many" only "few" are "chosen?"

The Laborers in the Vineyard

This is a comparison to the Kingdom of Heaven - where even those "chosen" at the "last hour" will receive the same reward as those chosen in the first, third, sixth and ninth hour.  One could ask, "Why does God not just take them all at once?"  Or, "If God's foreknowledge is perfect, then why are not all found at the first hour and 'chosen'?"  I'm not suggesting that God's foreknowledge is imperfect, but from a Calvinist view, at least from many who have engaged me in discussion and debate, God has already made up His mind.  It seems inconsistent then this story of the laborers being "chosen" at different hours.

But with most of them God was not well pleased.

This section deals with the people of Israel, God's "Chosen People" - yet "with most of them, God was not well pleased."   Again, how does a Calvinist explain that God "chose" these people, and yet He is not pleased with them?!  If, as per Calvinism's "Irresistible Grace" (the "I" in TULIP) His grace or calling is irresistible, how then could He (God) not be entirely pleased with the people of Israel (those "in Moses")?

Run That You May Obtain. 

Again, this part of the passage is wholly inconsistent with Calvinism.  First off, why run at all?  God has made His Choice - so no matter how much one runs or strives to "win the race" - it  really doesn't matter at all, God has already chosen!  But the clincher is next:

I therefore so run, not as at an uncertainty: I so fight, not as one beating the air. But I chastise my body and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.

Why is St. Paul himself worried about his salvation?!  If even St. Paul could "become a castaway" - then so much moreso you or I!  So much for the "OSAS" (Once Saved, Always Saved) mentality of the "P" in TULIP (the Perseverance of the saints).

May God richly bless all who read this, and may those trapped in Calvinism be set free.

In JMJ,

Scott<<<

 

(Citations of the readings from:  http://tridentine-mass.blogspot.com/search/label/Septuagesima%20Sunday )