A Critique Of Non-calvinist Soteriologies

[ICTHUS]

Hey folks, this is by a friend of mine by the name of Aaron Adams, an Episcopalian youth minister from Houston, TX. Have at 'er.

1. Calvinist soteriology teaches that God accomplishes His Will by effecting salvation by Grace through the gift of Faith in those whom He has chosen before the foundation of the world unto this end. These chosen are drawn by His Holy Spirit unto repentance, and all others will fulfill their own desires on earth by rebelling against this God whom they know and the Truth about whom they suppress in unrighteousness.

2. Calvinist soteriology teaches that the work of God on the Cross is such that it does not merely provide the potential for salvation for all, but accomplishes salvation for all the Elect. In this respect, Calvinism teaches that Christ's work in the Atonement is effective for all the Elect, and intended for none of the Reprobate.

3. The non-Calvinist soteriologies do not take seriously the fact that God declares that salvation is solely His work, but ascribes the actual work of salvation to man. This can be shown by the following argument:

4. The non-Calvinist soteriologies generally teach that Christ's death pays for the sins of the non-believer in an actual sense. That is, that Christ's death on the Cross accomplishes for the believer the same potentiality that it accomplishes for the non-believer. The difference, they will say, is in whether the individual freely chooses to accept the gift of salvation. This means that Christ accomplishes the same thing for believers and non-believers.

5. This puts the non-Calvinist in an awkward position when it is pointed out that this places the work of salvation in man's hands, at least partially. The non-Calvinist rightly hates such an accusation (praise God! This shows that he has not totally sold himself to the semi-pelagianism that encroaches on his plan of salvation). He will say that it is still God who does the saving, for without His death on the Cross, no one would be saved.

6. However, it can equally be put back to the non-Calvinist that without some men freely choosing salvation (freedom which, in their plan of salvation, they require), no one would be saved. Thus, as men are free to choose or reject the Gospel according to their "free will", Christ's death has not accomplished salvation in anyone unless that person does, indeed, choose salvation.

7. Surely, the non-Calvinist will say, God knew prior to His death on the Cross, that some men would accept, and thus it would be impossible that no one would be saved. However, this volley can be returned to the non-Calvinist: They have, in fact, assumed a portion of the Calvinist position to prove their own true. For, if God's foreknowledge is absolute, if it is truly exhaustive (as it must be, since God is sovereign and His knowledge is ultimately self-referential and self-interpretive according to His own eternal Plan and Will, which brought all things into being), then it follows that His knowledge necessitates the fulfillment of its prescience. For, if He knew that a man would choose Him and the man proved Him false by rejection, then He would not be God. So, just as no man is required to act by divine compulsion, but still acts of necessity, so "free will" cannot really mean what it is intended to mean by the non-Calvinist, at least in a general sense. We might further ask, "If it is impossible that none would be saved, is it also impossible that a particular Christian would not be saved?" For, if we discount the one, we must discount the other, and we've essentially stated Calvinism. After all, what is Calvinism but God's foreordination of the salvation of His Church? Thus, the argument is its own undoing.

8. More important is the fact that, in the non-Calvinist soteriologies, by rejecting the effectual accomplishment of Christ's work for the Elect and the Elect only, they have destroyed the difference between Christ's work for the Elect and for the Reprobate altogether. This can be seen through the following:

9. If Christ's work accomplishes something for all, and some go to Heaven and others to Hell, then we might ask what His work accomplishes.
a. If it accomplishes salvation for all, then none go to Hell. This, obviously, is contra-Scriptural.
b. If it accomplishes the same opportunity for salvation for all, which is actualized by the individual, then it must be seen that Christ does not actually do the saving. For, if He does the same work for all people, and not all people are saved, then He must not have saved anyone! At best, we might say that He has saved some, with their own help. But what need has Christ for help in accomplishing what He claims to accomplish contrary to our natures?
c. One alternative to this view is the idea that Christ's death accomplished salvation for the Church, but that the Church is all those who freely accept the Gospel. In this view, God has chosen from all eternity who will be saved, but He has done so according to His foreknowledge that they will choose Him. However, the holder of such a view does not realize that he has really only restated the same position as that of (b) in new words. Here, if the believer rejects the universal work of Christ on the Cross for some mediated "limited" view, wherein Christ's work on the Cross only accomplishes its goal for those who accept Him, the believer has said, in effect, that Christ died for those who He knew would love Him. At first, this appears to be a meaningful departure from other thought. However, it must be seen for what it is. If Christ died for those who "freely" choose Him, then salvation is, again, taken out of the hands of God and put in the hands of men. It makes God's action contingent. Because God is ultimately self-determinative and all things must find their correct interpretation according to His own Nature, it would be destructive to our doctrine of God for His action to ever be contingent. Of course, this brings us to a point where we ought to formulate a doctrine of God. I propose that the Biblical model of immutability and independence necessitate that none of His actions be contingent, as this would require dependence upon some external.

These are thoughts I've been having lately. Of course, I think it's more beneficial to show Calvinism to be the Biblical model for soteriology, but here I hope that you will see that (just as in all thought), the departure from the Biblical foundation is destructive to all knowledge and truth.

[conservativecatholic]

Hey folks, this is by me, a Roman Catholic from Houston, TX. Have at 'er.

[color=red][b]Two central problems exist with the doctrines of Calvinism. They indite God's character by accusing Him of mass injustice and selfish egotism. These implications are unavoidable and necessarily implied by the beliefs that God arbitrarily judges mankind based on God's predestination and for His own glory.

These beliefs and their derivatives are impossible for me to accept. Why? Not because I personally find them offensive or distasteful, but because God condemns such behavior from his creation. Would Calvinism teach that the creation is more responsible and capable than its Creator? Not without contradicting its fundamental premise of God's absolute sovereignty.[/b][/color]

[maxk]

[quote]If it accomplishes the same opportunity for salvation for all, which is actualized by the individual, then it must be seen that Christ does not actually do the saving. For, if He does the same work for all people, and not all people are saved, then He must not have saved anyone! At best, we might say that He has saved some, with their own help. But what need has Christ for help in accomplishing what He claims to accomplish contrary to our natures?[/quote]

With our free will, God allows us to choose His grace and merit. Just because someone does not choose it doesn't mean they didn't receive the same opportunity.

[quote]If Christ died for those who "freely" choose Him, then salvation is, again, taken out of the hands of God and put in the hands of men. It makes God's action contingent.[/quote]

1. Why would His action be contingent if He's the one who made it possible for us to receive His grace?

2. God made Himself inferior by dying for us on the Cross, he allows us to "help Him help us" in our path to our salvation. Anything more on His part would contradict his desire for us to have a free will.

God Bless,
maxk

[Brother Adam]

Well, sure it "sounds" good on paper but unfortunately it is full of holes and misunderstands of the basics of covenant theology and yes, soteriology.

Anything can sound good and be "close" to the Truth, but Catholic theologians and scholars have totally blown Calvinism out of the water, from a scripture alone basis for those points to which it holds that are false. Nothing will ever beat the Church. No theological or traditional theory of man will ever come close. Not those followers of men such as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Huss, McCarthy, Chick, or any others who insist on being protestors and claiming divine authority to infallibly interpert the scriptures.

I could provide the refutation for you Ithcus, but I'm out of town right now and only have a couple of books with me. I still strongly suggest reading the book I suggested earlier. It shows Catholic proof for Justification from a solely scriptural angle and address those issues which you bring up here.

[Circle_Master]

Very well written Icthus. I myself used to be a 5 point Calvinist because of the overwhelming Scriptural support for such a position. More recently however I have found stronger arguments for unlimited atonement. You may want to meditate on 2 Peter 2:1 and how the false teachers were 'bought' in that passage. If you come to the same conclusion I did then shoot me and email and I'll let you know where it leads after thinking about it for a few years now .

Peace and Grace-
C_M

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Circle_Master' date='Jul 13 2004, 10:20 PM'] Very well written Icthus. I myself used to be a 5 point Calvinist because of the overwhelming Scriptural support for such a position. More recently however I have found stronger arguments for unlimited atonement. You may want to meditate on 2 Peter 2:1 and how the false teachers were 'bought' in that passage. If you come to the same conclusion I did then shoot me and email and I'll let you know where it leads after thinking about it for a few years now .

Peace and Grace-
C_M [/quote]
Or Icthus you could read what the first Christians wrote so that you will know instead of having to guess.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/fathers_know_best.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/fathers_know_best.asp[/url] (a starting point where you can get the name and paragraph numbers of the doc and find it then read what is before and after the statement)


Here is something you might want to ponder on brother...

[b]Proverbs 16:25 [/b]Sometimes a way seems right to a man, but the end of it leads to death!

How can we know if our way is right? I would think start in 33 AD... but I could be wrong. What did the first Christians say?


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Theoketos]

Peace and blessing!

I link to think thanks for Posting ICTHUS!

Free will is an interesting thing. I think that if we have it, there is greater Glory to God for it means that we really love him.

Calvinism relies on total deprevity and that I think is bunk (Genesis 3 where Adam and Eve Covered themsleves becuase they were ashamed, becuase they were still aware of how awesome the gift of the Body is).


There are so many philosophical problems with the Idea of "elect"

[quote]For, if He knew that a man would choose Him and the man proved Him false by rejection, then He would not be God. So, just as no man is required to act by divine compulsion, but still acts of necessity, so "free will" cannot really mean what it is intended to mean by the non-Calvinist, at least in a general sense. We might further ask, "If it is impossible that none would be saved, is it also impossible that a particular Christian would not be saved?" For, if we discount the one, we must discount the other, and we've essentially stated Calvinism. After all, what is Calvinism but God's foreordination of the salvation of His Church? Thus, the argument is its own undoing.[/quote]


God sees all time in the present, yes there we would agree. But Just because He knows now what we will do, this does not mean that His knowledge affects our actions.

I mean just becuase I see you running toward a cliff (that you can not see) and know what will happen when you get there, does not mean that I choose for you to run.

I believe that at every moment of our lives God gives us the grace we need not to sin.

[b]From what you wrote it seems that God would throw the non elect from the cliff instead of letting the fall off.[/b]*

Every person is capable of accepting that Grace or rejecting it. I believe that God pre-destined all of us to Heaven.

[b]But, God does not redeam us against our will.[/b]


I think that the way that you need to look at is the way Agustine looked at it. You can find it in the Confessions.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='maxk' date='Jul 13 2004, 07:21 PM']
With our free will, God allows us to choose His grace and merit. Just because someone does not choose it doesn't mean they didn't receive the same opportunity. [/quote]
[quote]With our free will, God allows us to choose His grace and merit.  Just because someone does not choose it doesn't mean they didn't receive the same opportunity.[/quote] So you are basically teaching the semi-Pelagian gospel of adding mans will to God's grace. Mmmhmm.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 13 2004, 11:39 PM'] Or Icthus you could read what the first Christians wrote so that you will know instead of having to guess.
[/quote]
The Fathers were not the first Christians. The apostles were, and they wrote the Bible.

[conservativecatholic]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 15 2004, 05:36 PM'] The Fathers were not the first Christians. The apostles were, and they wrote the Bible. [/quote]
The Apostles were great Catholics too!

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Jul 14 2004, 12:49 AM'] Calvinism relies on total deprevity and that I think is bunk (Genesis 3 where Adam and Eve Covered themsleves becuase they were ashamed, becuase they were still aware of how awesome the gift of the Body is) [/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]There are so many philosophical problems with the Idea of "elect"[/quote] 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.

[quote]God sees all time in the present, yes there we would agree. But Just because He knows now what we will do, this does not mean that His knowledge affects our actions.[/quote] 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]

[quote]I mean just becuase I see you running toward a cliff (that you can not see) and know what will happen when you get there, does not mean that I choose for you to run.[/quote] Unless, of course, you are Sovereign (like God), and it falls to you to write the 'books of the future.'

[quote]I believe that at every moment of our lives God gives us the grace we need not to sin.[/quote] Scripture?

[quote][b]From what you wrote it seems that God would throw the non elect from the cliff instead of letting the fall off.[/b]*[/quote] No. He foreknows them as reprobate persons, and they perish by their own sin.

[quote]Every person is capable of accepting that Grace or rejecting it. I believe that God pre-destined all of us to Heaven. [/quote] Scripture?

[quote][b]But, God does not redeam us against our will.[/b][/quote] I suppose thats right in line with a text such as Acts 16:14


[quote]I think that the way that you need to look at is the way Agustine looked at it. You can find it in the Confessions.[/quote] 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.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='conservativecatholic' date='Jul 15 2004, 06:02 PM'] The Apostles were great Catholics too! [/quote]
Sure, they were catholic. But not Roman Catholic. The Apostle Paul would foam at the mouth and then proceed to kick and scream and beat the Pope with the Letter to the Romans if he read the Catechism of the Catholic Church today.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 15 2004, 06:36 PM'] The Fathers were not the first Christians. The apostles were, and they wrote the Bible. [/quote]
Hrm....but why would you trust someone who has no link to the early christians over the Apostles disciples who were recorded to have taught what the Apostles themselves taught.

What is interesting being on "this side of the fence" is I know that which I believe is not my own, but comes from a higher source, the Church. Where the Protestant and other non-Catholics are required to themselves discern all true doctrine from un true doctrine and get it right. What a burden that laid on my soul as a non-Catholic, because scripture alone did not give me the gaurentee that I would get it right. And when it comes to Soteriology that is scary.

Non-Catholics each argue from their own perspective. Catholics argue from only one perspective: The Churches.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 15 2004, 07:36 PM'] The Fathers were not the first Christians. The apostles were, and they wrote the Bible. [/quote]
The fathers were the people that the Apostle's taught... The Trustworthy men.


[b]2 Tim 2:2 [/b]
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

Those who leave the first group, do so to their own destruction.



[b]Acts 20:29 [/b]I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock.
[b]30[/b]And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them.

[b]1 John 2:19[/b]
They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; 10 if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number.
[b]20 [/b]But you have the anointing that comes from the holy one, 11 and you all have knowledge.




We cannot know who is the first group unless we study what the first group wrote explaining the teachings of the bible.

If the bible was all we needed, then we all would have the same interpretation.

The Catholic Church had the authority to give us the NT because they are the authority that Christ left us. They hold the keys that Christ gave to Peter to be passed on as every Christian has taught since 33 AD. If the Catholic Church does not have authority then the bible is worthless.



God Bless.
ironmonk.

[ICTHUS]

[quote]Hrm....but why would you trust someone who has no link to the early christians over the Apostles disciples who were recorded to  have taught what the Apostles themselves taught. [/quote] Well, how do we know what the apostles themselves taught? The scriptures, of course. Why should we need anyone else. The apostles were protected by the Spirit, the Fathers, though learned and Godly men, were not.

[quote]What is interesting being on "this side of the fence" is I know that which I believe is not my own, but comes from a higher source, the Church. Where the Protestant and other non-Catholics are required to themselves discern all true doctrine from un true doctrine and get it right. What a burden that laid on my soul as a non-Catholic, because scripture alone did not give me the gaurentee that I would get it right. And when it comes to Soteriology that is scary. [/quote] We are given the Spirit for exactly this purpose. The burden is not so great that the consciencious man of God cannot discern the true meaning of Scripture.