A Critique Of Non-calvinist Soteriologies

[Theoketos]

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

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

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

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

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

Any way I would apperciate thoughts on the matter!

God Bless those who Love and Learn!

[phatcatholic]

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

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

thanks,
phatcatholic

[Apotheoun]

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

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

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

[ICTHUS]

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

[Hananiah]

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

[Apotheoun]

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

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

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

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

Edited July 20, 2004 by Apotheoun

[ICTHUS]

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

[p0lar_bear]

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

[ICTHUS]

I did

[Hananiah]

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

[p0lar_bear]

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

[Theoketos]

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

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

Lord bring your Church together!

[Hananiah]

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

[God Conquers]

Calvinism is the "new" manicheanism according to Chesterton:

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

From St. Thomas Aquinas.

Just read that today by coincidence.

[ICTHUS]

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



From St. Thomas Aquinas.

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