A Critique Of Non-calvinist Soteriologies

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Jul 21 2004, 12:19 AM'] 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. [/quote]
I don't understand what you mean by 'condign' and 'congruent' merit. However, my point was that we have merit before God which is properly ours, because it is God's gift given to us, but it is also wholly God's gift.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 22 2004, 02:59 PM'] [. . .] However, my point was that we have merit before God which is properly ours, because it is God's gift given to us, but it is also wholly God's gift. [/quote]
Where does Calvin teach that man has a form or merit that is truly his own, even though it is given to him as a gift from God? I must admit that I read Calvin's "Institutes" some years ago, but I don't remember reading that in it.

Edited July 22, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Theoketos]

I still think that we must choose the freely offered gift.

[Theoketos]

This [i]just in[/i] from the Council of Trent...

[quote]CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man's free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema. [/quote]

[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ195.HTM"]http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ195.HTM[/url]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 22 2004, 02:58 PM'] And we should care what Chesterton thinks because...? [/quote]
And why should anyone care what John Calvin thinks?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Jul 23 2004, 05:50 PM'] I still think that we must choose the freely offered gift. [/quote]
Yes, you are correct. Grace perfects nature, it doesn't destroy it. So, it follows that we must freely choose salvation, under the impulse of God's grace of course, because grace is always primary in the supernatural order. The Church has always taught that grace heals, perfects, and elevates man's nature to a supernatural level.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 23 2004, 08:33 PM'] Yes, you are correct.  Grace perfects nature, it doesn't destroy it.  So, it follows that we must freely choose salvation, under the impulse of God's grace of course, because grace is always primary in the supernatural order.  The Church has always taught that grace heals, perfects, and elevates man's nature to a supernatural level. [/quote]
Under the impluse is the key.

Do you all not think though that we are all destined to go to heaven, id est we are supposed to, and that it is the rejection of the grace of God which leads us there?

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


AMEN UNUM SINT

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Jul 23 2004, 07:50 PM'] This [i]just in[/i] from the Council of Trent...



[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ195.HTM"]http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ195.HTM[/url] [/quote]
This quote doesn't take seriously St. Pauls statement in Ephesians 2 that we are [b]dead[/b] in our sins. We cannot co-operate with anything in our own salvation because of the fact that we are [b]dead. [/b]

[Theoketos]

God be praised for ICTHUS!


Yes we are dead in Sin, but thanks to Christ we are alive by His Grace. This state of living is what we are pre-destined for being, it is what we are made for, it is the way Adam and Eve were before orginal sin, and What Jesus is, and what we will become, if we should only cry Abba (Romens 9).But we are dead until we repent. We Repent only on our free will, and we are only able to because of God's Grace. (I think that this could also lead to the position of a distinction between mortal and venial sin.)

In the Letter to the Ephesians Paul is reminding the Gentiles not to tease the Jews who disobeyed the Covenant, becuase they were with out Christ. Now they are to reconciled, as they are saved by Jesus, through thier unified faith. Is this not right? I think that it helps with the context of the word dead.

[quote]we have merit before God which is properly ours, because it is God's gift given to us, but it is also wholly God's gift.
[/quote]

There is something which I agree, though I am not sure what the world properly really means here.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 25 2004, 02:46 PM']This quote doesn't take seriously St. Pauls statement in Ephesians 2 that we are [b]dead[/b] in our sins. We cannot co-operate with anything in our own salvation because of the fact that we are [b]dead. [/b][/quote]
This is the crux of the disagreement between the Catholic Church and the Protestant Reformers.

The Catholic Church holds that man, prior to his justification by grace, is dead in his sins and can do nothing under his own natural powers to bring himself back to spiritual life. [cf., the canons of the Second Council of Orange] But once man has been justified by God's grace, and has been put into a state of sanctifying grace, then it is possible for him to act in the supernatural order, because it is God working in, with, and through him for his own salvation. Therefore, it is true to say that man is not passive in his own salvation, but that he actively cooperates with God, and this is possible because once man is justified he is simultaneously regenerated in Christ and becomes a new creation; and yet even this cooperation on man's part is an additional gift of God's grace. For all is by grace, but grace does not destroy human freedom; instead, it restores and perfects it. The denial of human freedom and cooperation under the impulse of grace is in many respects related to the Monothelite heresy, which denied that Christ had a human will and energy. Because just as Christ's human will and energy, in the unity of the divine person of the Word, cooperated with the Divine Will and Energy in bringing about the redemption of humanity; so too, those who are justified by Christ must cooperate in the work of their own salvation, for Christ is the exemplar of those who are justified by His grace.

The Protestant Reformers, in union with the Catholic Church, held that man, prior to his justification, is dead in his sins, and can do nothing on his own to justify himself. But in opposition to the Catholic Church, they also taught that man, even after he has been justified by God, remains completely sinful and spiritually dead, because for them justification is merely a [i]legal fiction[/i]. In other words, God lies and says that man is just, when in fact he is not just. In addition, for the Protestant Reformers Christ's righteousness is simply imputed to man, and so it remains foreign and extrinsic to him, and this means that it cannot really effect the condition of man's existence. That is why Luther taught that man is "simul justus et peccator," because for Luther and the other Reformers, justified and regenerated man is actually still sinful and depraved, but in spite of his sinful condition God [i]calls[/i] him just. Now, it is important to note, that the doctrine of forensic justification is contrary to everything taught by the Church during the first 1500 years of Christian history, and this fact is openly admitted by the Protestant scholar Alister McGrath in his book [u]Iustitia Dei[/u], for as he puts it, "The essential feature of the Reformation doctrine of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification and regeneration. Although it must be emphasized that the distinction is purely notional, in that it is impossible to separate the two within the context of the [i]ordo salutis[/i], [b]the essential point is that a notional distinction is made where none had been acknowledged before in the history of Christian doctrine. A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before[/b]. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification as opposed to its mode must therefore be regarded as a genuine [b]theological novum[/b]." [Alister McGrath, [u]Iustitia Dei[/u], volume 1, page 186]

In conclusion, it is important to point out that some of ICTHUS' comments are contrary to the teaching of the Reformers, especially his statements about man possessing merit as a gift of God. This idea was denied by the Reformers because of their doctrine of forensic justification. Logically, if justification is merely a [i]legal fiction[/i], and if the righteousness of Christ is something that remains foreign and extrinsic to man, it follows that man can in no sense merit anything, not even if you refer to the "merits" as gifts. For the Protestant Reformers man is completely passive in his own salvation.

Edited July 26, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Theoketos]

Even though McGrath is not Catholic I like almost everything he does.

[Broccolifish]

[quote name='conservativecatholic'] Hey folks, this is by me, a Roman Catholic from Houston, TX. Have at 'er.

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.[/quote]
First of all, let me say that this post does not actually interact with the “critique” at any point. You’ve put forth claims about Calvinism, but you haven’t addressed the argument before you.

Now, it would not be appropriate that I should let comments such as the ones above go unanswered, as long as I have the ability to answer them. You can say that God is accused of injustice and egotism in Calvinism, but declaring one’s position is not the same as defending it. You claim that these things are inescapable, but you don’t [i]prove[/i] that this is true. You state that God has done an injustice by ‘arbitrarily’ judging mankind based on predestination. However, what you fail to see is that Calvinism [i]does not teach[/i] that God ‘arbitrarily’ judges anyone. God’s judgment is poured out in wrath on sinners not because God has ‘arbitrarily’ chosen to punish them like a child who burns ants with a magnifying glass, but because they are [i]sinners deserving of wrath[/i]. The people on whom wrath is visited have [i]earned[/i] His wrath by their sinfulness. However, not all people are destined for destruction, because He is merciful towards those whom He has chosen. His mercy is not based on a man’s works, however, because no one can earn His Grace, but based on [i]His[/i] purpose in Election. This, too, is not ‘arbitrary’ in any more sense than it is ‘arbitrary’ for God to have made us such that we don’t have wings. It suited God to do so, and God is the standard of Goodness. Who will bring a charge against Him? Who has given to Him that He should owe a debt? If He chooses to save some and pass over the rest, who are you to answer back to God? You place yourself in Job’s shoes, and I doubt very much that you are prepared anymore than Job was for a “gird up your loins like a man” speech. The funny thing about your objection is that Paul has already addressed it.

[color=blue]Romans 9:10-24 (ESV)
And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, [11] though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—[b]in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call—[/b] [12] she was told, "The older will serve the younger." [13] As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
[14] What shall we say then? [b]Is there injustice on God's part[/b]? By no means! [15] For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." [16] So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. [17] For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." [18] So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
[19] You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" [20] But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" [21] Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? [22] What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, [23] in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— [24] even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? [/color]

You say that God is unjust if He saves according to His Will, rather than man’s will or exertion; Paul refutes you. For, none of us [i]deserves[/i] to be saved, and God would be perfectly just to punish [b]all of us[/b] with damnation. How could He be [i]unjust[/i] then if He chooses to have mercy on some? He has not punished the others unjustly; He has simply punished Christ for the Elect. God’s purpose in Election is shown here, too, in verses 22-23. His purpose is to [i]show forth the riches of His glory[/i] on the objects of mercy, in contrast with the objects of wrath.

The second objection is that Calvinism makes God an ‘egotist’. I suppose it would be sufficient to define egotism as “an exaggerated opinion of one’s own importance.” If this is a sufficient definition, then I suggest that it is impossible to accuse God of egotism. After all, God’s opinion of Himself is the opinion which we must also have, since He is the sovereign creator and sustainer of the Universe, by Whom all other things are interpreted. To say that God, should Calvinism be correct, is an [i]egotist[/i] is again to take Job’s place, in an attempt to judge Him according to human standards. To accuse God of selfishness is to do the very same thing, and God has answered for Himself. Everything that God does, He does for Himself and to His Glory:

[color=blue] 1Sa 12:22 "For the LORD will not abandon His people on account of His great name, because the LORD has been pleased to make you a people for Himself.

2Sa 7:23 "And what one nation on the earth is like Your people Israel, whom God went to redeem for Himself as a people and to make a name for Himself, and to do a great thing for You and awesome things for Your land, before Your people whom You have redeemed for Yourself from Egypt, from nations and their gods?

1Ki 14:14 "Moreover, the LORD will raise up for Himself a king over Israel who will cut off the house of Jeroboam this day and from now on.

Psa 4:3 But know that the LORD has set apart the godly man for Himself; The LORD hears when I call to Him.

Psa 135:4 For the LORD has chosen Jacob for Himself, Israel for His own possession.

Isa 63:12 Who caused His glorious arm to go at the right hand of Moses, Who divided the waters before them to make for Himself an everlasting name,
Isa 63:13 Who led them through the depths? Like the horse in the wilderness, they did not stumble;
Isa 63:14 As the cattle which go down into the valley, The Spirit of the LORD gave them rest. So You led Your people, To make for Yourself a glorious name.

Tit 2:14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds. [/color]

Even God’s purpose in salvation is to save them [i]for Himself[/i]. He restores the sinner’s soul, He leads the restored in paths of righteousness not for their own sake, but for [i]His Name’s sake[/i]!

[color=blue] Psa 23:3 He restores my soul; He guides me in the paths of righteousness For His name's sake.

Rom 1:4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,
Rom 1:5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles [b]for His name's sake[/b],

1Jo 2:12 I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you [b]for His name's sake. [/b]

Psa 106:7 Our fathers in Egypt did not understand Your wonders; They did not remember Your abundant kindnesses, But rebelled by the sea, at the Red Sea.
Psa 106:8 Nevertheless [b]He saved them for the sake of His name, That He might make His power known. [/b][/color]

Salvation is for our own sake also (1 Corinthians 9:10, Romans 4:24), but it is for our sake [i]for His Name’s sake[/i]. God’s glory is logically prior to His provision for us, because it is the [i]precondition[/i] for His salvific work. He saves us for our own sake [i]because[/i] it is for His Name’s sake to save us. The point in all of this is that “selfishness” is a word which connotes [i]undue[/i] concern for one’s own interest. Surely, it is impossible to accuse God of [i]undue[/i] concern for His Own interests! Does God do all things for Himself? Yes. Is this “selfishness”? Only in a more proper sense, that is, as another way of saying that God is ultimately self-referential in all things. To say that His self-referential character is [i]undue[/i] concern for Himself is to make an absurd statement.

[quote]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.[/quote]
Since you haven’t given any reason to assert that Calvinism necessarily requires that the creation be more responsible or capable than God, this paragraph is not particularly relevant. In fact, if you did attempt to prove it, you would be relying either on a misunderstanding of Calvinism or a basic flaw in reasoning as per the judgment of God’s actions. God is not egotistic in Calvinism, but we [i]always are[/i]. God is not unjust in Calvinism, but we [i]always are[/i]. This very argument that you’ve put forth is evidence of the egotistic nature of sinfulness, that you would impugn God’s justice to save your skin (a la Job 40:8). The idea that any of us is in a position to weigh or judge God’s actions as either just or unjust is answered by God’s words there to Job.

[quote name='maxk'][quote name='the critique']
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]
You missed the point—if Christ’s work is [i]the same[/i] for those who are saved and for those who are not, then Christ’s work did not do the [i]saving[/i]. This is a logical necessity. If Christ saved anyone, and all are not saved, then He did not save everyone, which means that His work must be different for the saved and the unsaved.

To say that He saves according to who will freely choose His grace is to make three errors. First, it’s contrary to the Scriptures (particularly Romans 8-11, which make it clear that He did not save anyone based on their own merit or choice, but by [i]His[/i] choice). Second, it misapplies the word “save”. For something to save something else, it must do the work which prevents the calamity. To say that Christ saves someone apart from merit or exertion (as Romans 9 requires), and then to say that He relies on [i]our choice[/i], is contradictory. Either He saves us alone, or with our help. If He saves us with our help, then the Scriptures are rendered null and we might as well not believe He saves anyone at all. If He saves us alone, then His work must be different for the saved than for the unsaved. If His death accomplished the same thing for the believer and the nonbeliever, then it [i]does not save anyone[/i], since it doesn’t save the nonbeliever. The salvific work is then in the hands of the believer, in believing. Third, it fails to deal with another problem that sin creates: The inability to see the Kingdom of Heaven. John 3:3 says that unless one is born again, they cannot [i]see[/i] the Kingdom of Heaven. Regeneration [i]precedes[/i] the ability to seek God. Jesus shows Nicodemus that he cannot do anything with merit until he is born again. Now, you may argue that regeneration occurs at baptism; that is a matter for another thread, I’m sure. What you will not be able to deal with if you take that position, however, is that this does not allow for anyone who is [i]not[/i] baptized to seek God. It precludes an atheist from being able to seek God until after he’s baptized! The real humor comes out when it then becomes obvious that the atheist could not have chosen baptism for any [i]good[/i] reason; since he wasn’t regenerated until after baptism, he was given [i]grace[/i] through regeneration in response to an [i]evil[/i] act!! His choice to be baptized was evil because it did not proceed from faith (Romans 14:23), and God responded to his evil act with regeneration. Of course, this undermines the very idea of merit for nonbelievers, since even this act which seems to be good was, in fact, evil. It also shows that nonbelievers must either do an [i]evil[/i] thing to be saved (such as choose God not from faith, but [i]unto[/i] faith) or that the entire system is bankrupt.
[quote name='maxk'][quote name='the critique']
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?[/quote]
Because it means that His activity (either to do this or that) is [i]dependent[/i] on [i]our[/i] activity. He saves this person because they choose him. The [i][b]cause[/b][/i] of His action in salvation is the act of the person. Thus, His action is contingent.
[quote]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.[/quote]
On the contrary, it does nothing of the sort. We still act according to our natures. We freely choose to do what we desire to do. But we cannot freely choose Him, because we are sinful. Our hearts must be changed for us to choose Him, because we are all in bondage to sin! Calvinism does not say that a person does this or that against his will or without a will, but that we all act according to our natures. When the man or woman comes to faith, the Calvinist says that he or she does so in accordance with his or her [i]new[/i] nature, whereas every other form of Christianity either expects man to act in contradiction to his sinful nature or negates the Scriptures which show that it is not in man’s nature to do good, to seek God, to see the Kingdom, et cetera.

[quote name='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. [/quote]
Saying that my dog can talk does not make it so. Perhaps you can point me to a Catholic response to John Owen’s book, [i]The Death of Death in the Death of Christ[/i]? Let me point out that this is another post which does not address the argument at all.

[quote]Nothing will ever beat the Church. [/quote]
On this, I agree. The definition of the Church is in question.

[quote]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. [/quote]
This is actually totally irrelevant. It’s a claim with no apologia.

[quote]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. [/quote]
I would like to read this book, too.

[quote name='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 [/quote]
If you have arguments for unlimited atonement that can surmount the problems stated above, please share them. As for 2 Peter 2:1, one’s hermeneutic informs who the verse will best describe. I am convinced that it is more descriptive of the semi-pelagian doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church than Calvinism. Of course, you’re bound to say that that is because I’m a Calvinist. That’s just an illustration of my point concerning hermeneutics.

[quote name='ironmonk'] 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?[/quote]
Paul was among the first Christians, and the words of Romans 9 are infallible, whereas the words of Irenaeus, Clement, and the Fathers are not.

[quote name='Theoketos'] 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. [/quote]
That’s an opinion not backed by the Scriptures, and more importantly, it’s [i]just[/i] an opinion. I could just as easily say, “I think the sky is a crystal shell, because the sky is a prettier object if it is a crystal shell.” Just because [i]I think[/i] the sky is prettier if it’s a crystal shell does not mean that it is. The statement makes two errors: First of all, the idea of “prettiness” is not something for which I am the ultimate judge. Second, whether or not I’m the judge of prettiness doesn’t affect what the sky is made of!! Similarly, you are not the judge of what makes God more or less glorious. God is the judge of that, and we are bound to interpret glory according to [i]His[/i] standard, which can be found in the Scriptures. Also, you’re not the judge of what makes love “real”. In other words, the first part of your post is really just a paraphrase of the statement, “I believe in free will because I don’t like the alternative.”

[quote]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]
This is a misunderstanding of Total Depravity. Total Depravity does not mean that we are as evil as we can be; that is an impossibility since “being” itself is a good (see Genesis 1 and 2). Total Depravity is the teaching that sin permeates us, that it corrupts every facet of our being. Yes, we are still capable of recognizing beauty. In fact, we [i]still know[/i] God, as per Romans 1:18-25, but we [i]suppress the truth about Him[/i] in our unrighteousness. We know Him, but do not honor Him as God, because we are in bondage to sin and death. Total Depravity teaches that, because we are sinners, it is not in our nature to do anything which is good unless we are born again. Every single act that Adam and Eve committed after the Fall is tainted by sin because they are sinful; it is impossible to please God without faith (Hebrews 11:6). Likewise, all of us, until we come to faith in Christ, cannot do [i]anything[/i] which is pleasing to God. We can do things which appear good, such as giving to charity or feeding our children, but unless they proceed from [i]faith[/i], the [i]foundation[/i] is sin.


[quote name='Theoketos'] 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.[/quote]
First of all, you are equating God’s knowledge with man’s knowledge. If you see someone running toward a cliff, and you know what will happen when he gets there, you are watching a present event and [i]inferring[/i] what will happen in the future. God doesn’t do anything like this. God’s knowledge is ultimately self-referential; the subject and object are the same. If it were any other way, God’s knowledge would be contingent. His knowledge is not based on observation of future events, like an historian in a time machine, watching the future through a porthole as it unfolds. No, God’s knowledge is [i]exhaustive[/i] because it is [i]self-referential[/i]. He creates according to His plan, and He knows what you will do because He made you. If a man falls off a cliff, God didn’t know it beforehand because He saw it coming, but because He [i]made[/i] the cliff and the man.

[quote]I believe that at every moment of our lives God gives us the grace we need not to sin.[/quote]
This is Pelagianism in a dress.

[quote]From what you wrote it seems that God would throw the non elect from the cliff instead of letting the fall off.*[/quote]
This is another misunderstanding of Calvinism. The Elect and the Reprobate have [b][i]both[/i][/b] run off the cliff, hit the ground, and died. Jesus [i]breathes new life[/i] into some. The others will remain in the sinful death that [i]they[/i] have chosen.

[quote]1.  Every person is capable of accepting that Grace or rejecting it.
2.  I believe that God pre-destined all of us to Heaven. [/quote]
1. If this were true, we would ask what makes some accept and others reject. Are they [i]better people[/i]? Then they’re saved on their own merit, in which case the Scriptures are false and we might as well believe any old thing we want. Are they [i]more intelligent[/i], that they figured out the truth? Then God blesses those who are more intelligent and damns those who are stupid. God also assigns intelligence, though, so we have a new old problem. Are they [i]lucky[/i]? Then salvation is a crapshoot. Is it determined by the person’s [i]environment[/i]? Then they have little choice in the matter after all. If these are not the things which determine whether someone accepts or rejects, then [i]what determines it?[/i] You may say, “The free will.” Very well, then, why does one person [i]will[/i] to accept and another [i]will[/i] to reject?

2. If all people are predestined for Heaven, then none go to Hell!

[color=blue] Rom 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
Rom 8:30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. [/color]

[i]Those who are predestined are called, justified, and glorified[/i].

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


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]
Calvinism doesn’t teach that God redeems us against our will. This is what is meant by Luther when he says that all things are done of necessity, but not of compulsion.

[ICTHUS]

Hi Aaron

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Aaron']This is a misunderstanding of Total Depravity. Total Depravity does not mean that we are as evil as we can be; that is an impossibility since “being” itself is a good (see Genesis 1 and 2). Total Depravity is the teaching that sin permeates us, that it corrupts every facet of our being. Yes, we are still capable of recognizing beauty. In fact, we still know God, as per Romans 1:18-25, but we suppress the truth about Him in our unrighteousness. We know Him, but do not honor Him as God, because we are in bondage to sin and death. Total Depravity teaches that, because we are sinners, it is not in our nature to do anything which is good unless we are born again. Every single act that Adam and Eve committed after the Fall is tainted by sin because they are sinful; it is impossible to please God without faith (Hebrews 11:6). Likewise, all of us, until we come to faith in Christ, cannot do anything which is pleasing to God. We can do things which appear good, such as giving to charity or feeding our children, but unless they proceed from faith, the foundation is sin.[/quote]

Aaron, a point has already been mentioned which I think it's a good idea to bring up. Can an act be inherently good, though it does not proceed from faith? Catholicism makes a distinction between the natural and the spiritual order. Things done in the natural order never have any value before God, because as you pointed out earlier, they proceed from a nature tainted by sin. But once a person has been regenerated in Christ, their acts no longer proceed from sin, and thus, have a merit which God's grace endows them with.

[Broccolifish]

Notice that the view you mention contradicts baptismal regeneration. Here's how:

1. A natural act, by a natural man, is sinful. It proceeds not from faith.
2. An act by the regenerate man is good, because it proceeds from faith.
_______________________________
3. Regeneration therefore requires faith.

The other possibilities are that all baptized people have faith, which is demonstrably untrue, that good acts can proceed from regeneration without faith, which denies the Scripture, and that all men are regenerate, which denies the Scripture.

So, I could agree with this statement and show that it disproves the doctrine it attempts to defend, but I think I would disagree with the premise. No act can be inherently good, unless it proceeds from faith. By failing to give credence to the Lord and by faiiling to admit of Christ's authority, the most seemingly good act actually condemns. Martin Luther showed this in his Heidelberg Disputation, but it can be shown from Matthew 7 as well.

[color=red]Mat 7:16 "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?
Mat 7:17 "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
Mat 7:18 "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
Mat 7:19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Mat 7:20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits.
Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
Mat 7:22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
Mat 7:23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.' [/color]

Notice that the men who are damned have done things which seem to be good; they have practiced the works which God requires. However, they are called [i]lawless[/i] (Greek [i]anomia[/i]) because Jesus does not [i]know[/i] them. They are bad trees who bear bad fruit which appear good. However, a peach can look good to the eye and be noticeably rotten when touched. Christ continues in kind:

[color=red]Mat 7:24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock.
Mat 7:25 "And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock.
Mat 7:26 "Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.
Mat 7:27 "The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell--and great was its fall." [/color]

If the foundation is not Christ, then the house is not made firm. If the root isn't Christ, the tree is evil, and it [i][b]cannot[/b][/i] produce good things. Saying that an act can be inherently good assumes that there can be acts which are not ethical in nature. I don't think the Scriptures allow for such an act. So, while it is true that the regenerate man's acts can proceed from faith, this must also assume that regeneration preceeds faith. In fact, it's a logical requirement for any good work, including trusting in Christ.