A Critique Of Non-calvinist Soteriologies

[ICTHUS]

I think most modern Evangelical Anglican would say (as I would) what Jesus said about divorce - that it is unacceptable and a terrible evil, except in case of adultery.

Also, you said you were Anglican. Did you hold to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion? In them is a summary of the Reformed faith, akin to that of the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Anglican communion is catholic, but not Roman Catholic.

When I was a Roman Catholic I considered the Anglicans the closest Protestant church to what I considered,at the time, ancient Christianity. I still do, except I am a Protestant (Calvinist)

Incidentally, Abp. Cranmer and Bp. Ridley, two early Anglicans whose work was a major catalyst of the English Reformation, were Calvinists too.

Edited July 17, 2004 by ICTHUS

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 17 2004, 02:55 PM'] I think most modern Evangelical Anglican would say (as I would) what Jesus said about divorce - that it is unacceptable and a terrible evil, except in case of adultery. [/quote]
That is a good thing, but it doesn't negate the historical fact that the Church [i][b]in[/b][/i] England became the Church [i][b]of[/b][/i] England, in order to give a king a divorce. The immorality of divorce is a bad foundation stone upon which to build a Church. Enjoy your new supreme governor Elizabeth II, visible head of the Church of England.

God bless,
Todd

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 17 2004, 02:02 PM'] This is the most superficial reasoning I have heard in my life.  So, I suppose every Calvinist has good fruits?  You don't leave the Church because there are people in it who happen to be lukewarm; anymore than you stop going to doctors because one doctor is a quack.  By the way, I love to read the Letter to the Romans, but I refuse to read it in a Calvinist sense.  No one before John Calvin read it in the way he did, so why should anyone today be obliged to read it and understand it as he did. [/quote]
It seems that Augustine did, except he just used different wording, (i.e. in his 'massa damnata' theory). But the Catholic Church repudiated Augustinian soteriology (not to mention Eucharistic Sacramentology) at Trent.

Edited July 17, 2004 by ICTHUS

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 17 2004, 02:55 PM']Also, you said you were Anglican. Did you hold to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion? In them is a summary of the Reformed faith, akin to that of the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Anglican communion is catholic, but not Roman Catholic.

[/quote]
I thought it was fairly clear in my original post, but let me say it again, I was Anglo-Catholic, and we didn't read the 39 articles in a Calvinist sense, because lucky for us, they are so vaguely worded that they can actually be read in a rather Catholic manner. That was intentional on the part of the authors of the articles, because the entire Elizabethan settlement was founded on being as ambiguous as possible, in order to include divergent opinions. Let's be honest about all this, it was a political solution, and not really a theological one.

In my own case, I followed in the footsteps of Cardinal Newman. I read the 39 articles in a Catholic sense, rejecting the Zwingilian and Calvinist (Bucerian) viewpoints as contrary to the truth as it has been revealed by God. The socalled "Reformed" faith is only 450 years old, and so, I would never subscribe in matters of religion and theology to such a human creation.

The problem for most Protestants is that they have no grasp of history, but as an Eastern Catholic, I can tell you that the ideas of the Reformers have had no influence on the Byzantine understanding of salvation. The Eastern Churches continue to hold, as they always have held, the faith once delivered to the saints, and which is passed on through the living tradition of the Church.

As far as the Anglican Communion being Catholic is concerned, it is not, in fact it is barely a communion at all. The Low Church versus the High Church, versus the Broad Church, you must admit that there really isn't an Anglican Church, and never has been. Some Anglicans believe in Catholic doctrines, some don't; some are vehemently opposed to all things Catholic, some aren't; some are more Calvinist than others, while many are anti-Calvinist; if you think about it long enough, it actually becomes clear just how pathetic a situation it is. When I was an Anglican, I wouldn't have agreed with your Calvinist views at all, and yet somehow we would have been seen as being in communion with each other. Now that is funny.

ICTHUS, may God bless you on your journey of faith, and I pray that one day He leads you back to the fullness of truth, which is found only in Christ's Holy Catholic Church, governed by the successor of St. Peter.

God bless,
Todd

Edited July 17, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 17 2004, 02:55 PM'] Incidentally, Abp. Cranmer and Bp. Ridley, two early Anglicans whose work was a major catalyst of the English Reformation, were Calvinists too. [/quote]
Yes, they did tend in that direction, but you might want to read Dom Gregory Dix's magnum opus, [u]The Shape of the Liturgy[/u], because then you will see that Anglicanism as a whole never accepted the Calvinistic views of Cranmer. As Dix shows, Cranmer's prayer book was open to different interpretations, and by the way Cranmer was intentionally ambigious in the prayer book, because he knew that his views were not held by most of the people in the Church of England, but his ambiguity allowed the vast majority of Anglicans to interpret the prayers in a non-Calvinist sense. I suggest you read more Anglican authors before you just jump into the Anglican Church. Most are not Calvinists.

God bless,
Todd

Edited July 17, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 17 2004, 03:04 PM'] It seems that Augustine did, except he just used different wording, (i.e. in his 'massa damnata' theory). But the Catholic Church repudiated Augustinian soteriology (not to mention Eucharistic Sacramentology) at Trent. [/quote]
Augustine never taught that there is a distinction or separation between justification and sanctification, and even the Protestant scholar Alister McGrath admits this in his book, [u]Iustitia Dei[/u]. You could even read the article I posted in this thread earlier by an Eastern Orthodox author, he has an excellent section in his article on St. Augustine. No one held the Calvinist view of salvation prior to Calvin. You may want to follow Calvin, but I will follow the Church founded by Christ, which has existed for 2,000 years and which has never taught the nominalist position of Calvin.

Also, you should try to broaden your view of the Church. St. Augustine is not all that important in the theology of the Eastern Catholic Churches; instead, St. Athanasius, the Cappadocians, and St. Cyril of Alexandria are far more important. To overplay the importance of one Father, is to lose sight of the entire Patristical tradition.

Edited July 17, 2004 by Apotheoun

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jul 16 2004, 05:20 PM']
Yet You are using scripture out of context here. If the the burden was not so great then all men who earnestly sought out God would be able to equally as much interpret scripture. And yet Protestantism is a great testiment to the reason why this doesn't work. The gift to correctly interpret the scriptures is not given to everyone who seeks after God. The gift is given to the Church. [/quote]
This falls down when you consider the apostasy that much of so-called "Protestantism" has fallen into.

There are only a few groups left who hold to historical Protestant (i.e. biblical) doctrine - (Reformed) Anglicans (the ones who aren't caught up in [color=red]edited by foundsheep [/color]and actually hold to their Calvinist roots), conservative Presbyterians, and some Baptists. The most you could possibly get is three or four distinct groups, and there is remarkable unity between them (i.e. the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy) and they finance each others missions, co-author books, etc.

I'd say that this is more unity than there is in the Catholic Church, especially since she has not yet even solved the conundrum between the Thomists and the Molinists.

Edited July 18, 2004 by foundsheep

[Brother Adam]

There is no such thing as "historical protestant doctrine". First you have to decide who is the first protestant group. Angelicans? Lutherans? Calvinists? Anabaptists? Who figured out the "true doctrine"?, they could not decide among themselves. Luther and Zwigli did not get along in fighting those lying "Romanists". Better yet, maybe it was the Circumcisers, Gnostics, Montanists, or Sabellianists that had it right. After all some of these groups began around the same time that Christ walked the earth. Surely they would have a better idea than the Church. Right? So what obscure group of people were able to brilliantly and logically interpret all scripture correctly? Where is the evidence? The proof of divine Revelation?

Sure, Calvinists can agree among themselves and have unity within their own group, but so do other groups both of us would agree are very wrong.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jul 18 2004, 01:59 PM'] There is no such thing as "historical protestant doctrine". First you have to decide who is the first protestant group. Angelicans? Lutherans? Calvinists? Anabaptists? Who figured out the "true doctrine"?, they could not decide among themselves. Luther and Zwigli did not get along in fighting those lying "Romanists".
[/quote]
Well, Luther and Calvin were very close, soteriologically. Calvin was, in a sense, a development of Luther.

The anabaptistic tendency to interpret the Scriptures out of context and apart from the ancient traditions of the Church (which are, of course, answerable to the Scriptures) is sad indeed, but the issue was settled in the 15th Century, with the Calvinists coming out on top - modern day Charismatic Pentecostals, Arminians, and even Roman Catholics, etc, simply supress the Truth [color=red][b]edited by Foundsheep.[/b][/color]

Edited July 18, 2004 by foundsheep

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 18 2004, 02:32 PM'] Well, Luther and Calvin were very close, soteriologically. Calvin was, in a sense, a development of Luther.

The anabaptistic tendency to interpret the Scriptures out of context and apart from the ancient traditions of the Church (which are, of course, answerable to the Scriptures) is sad indeed, but the issue was settled in the 15th Century, with the Calvinists coming out on top - modern day Charismatic Pentecostals, Arminians, and even Roman Catholics, etc, simply supress the Truth [color=red][b]edited by Foundsheep.[/b][/color] [/quote]
ICTHUS, the fact that you never accurately address the arguments against the [i]sola scriptura[/i] doctrine, but that you simply blindly reassert it over and over, and the fact that you constantly resort to [i]ad hominem[/i] attacks against the Church, illustrate clearly that you have no spiritual or intellectual foundation for your new found beliefs.

Please, prove from Scripture alone the canon of Scripture (its full extent and limits), or desist from ascribing any validity to 16th century human created [i]sola scriptura[/i] doctrine.

Edited July 18, 2004 by Apotheoun

[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