A Critique Of Non-calvinist Soteriologies

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Broccolifish' date='Jul 25 2004, 09:30 PM'] 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. [/quote]
Aaron, I didn't say that a natural act by a natural man is sinful, I said that it has no value before God. It is inherently good [i]in the natural sphere[/i], but not the Spiritual sphere.

[ICTHUS]

Also, Aaron, you mentioned that the proposition that God gives us the grace to resist sin at all times is 'pelagianism in a dress'.

I disagree.

[quote name=' 1 Cor 10:13']Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
13  There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation [b]also make a way to escape[/b], that ye may be able to bear it.[/quote] IIRC, Pelagianism is the proposition that grace merely makes it easier to avoid sin and turn to God. I don't see, therefore, that the proposition put forward earlier is Pelagian...

[Theoketos]

B-Fish, you are the Man, I thank you for honestly seeking God, and making me do my home work. I admire you for your gusto.

[quote]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 sinners deserving of wrath.[/quote]

But it is through Grace that we are saved, no where does it say that we are condemned by a lack of Grace, if anything men are condemned by a lack of faith.

[quote] . However, not all people are destined for destruction, because He is merciful towards those whom He has chosen..[/quote]

Out of everything else you can say this is the oddest. I think that God, Who is Love, Loves every one, and that in that Love, He has given us free will to choose not to Love Him. I think that we are all loved by Him, and Chosen to be with him before we were even formed

-Ephesians 1
[b] 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him[/b]. 5 He destined us in love * to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6* to the praise of his glorious grace which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.



I think that it would be good to look at the first Letter of St. John.

2And he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Jesus is the propitiator of our Redemption through His Blood (Romans 3:25)

[quote]You say that God is unjust if He saves according to His Will, rather than man’s will or exertion; Paul refutes you.[/quote]

I do not say that, neither does the Church. What we do say is that God made man in His Image and Likeness. And that it would not make sense that God, who is love, would do something unloving, like arbitrarily send some one to hell. I believe in the forgiveness of sins, made possible for every one, by the Death of Jesus.

Now I know that you say that no one is deserving of Heaven, I am not, but God so loved the world that He sent His only Sun to die for it, so that who ever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

[quote] Everything that God does, He does for Himself and to His Glory:[/quote]

But His Glory is Love. I am sure that you think that. Let us do all things to Glorify God!

[quote] Since you haven’t given any reason to assert that Calvinism necessarily requires that the creation be more responsible or capable than God[/quote]

Basically Calvinism posits that Creation is not good on its own, and that God thus condemns what He made, because we do not deserve His Grace?


[quote]then Christ’s work did not do the saving[/quote]

Then it is Man’ Work that does the saving? That sounds like an early Heresy to me

Also I do think as you do that there is Grace given to Humans before they are baptized so that they may have the strength to become baptized or in other terms justified. But I also believe that this grace is given to every one, so some do not hear it, and thus bear no fruit, so some hear it, respond and then forget about it, thus bear no fruit, and some hear it and bear fruit (just like the parable). This does not fit in with Calvinism or Final Perseverance, but it does fit in the Catholic Sacramental Theology.

[quote][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]

These men teach with out the power of Apostolic Succession, or Theological Continuity, or Historical Continuity. Many of the Denominations that they started are and look nothing like the “Churches” they founded. Nor do most theologians follow what they said. (E.G. Scott Hauhn.)

[quote] . That’s just an illustration of my point concerning hermeneutics.[/quote]

I am glad that they Holy Spirit Guides the Minds of the Faithful toward truth and that Holy Mother Church never says any thing wrong.

[quote]That’s an opinion not backed by the Scriptures, and more importantly, it’s just 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 think 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 His 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]

I honestly thank you for this, It means that I must guard my speech more, and consider with greater gravity the things I say. You make me want to try harder. Praise be to God.


[quote] 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]

Every Facet of being is not bad, you even said that your self.

The Cliff analogy I think is lost on this discussion, not because we can not make it work, but there better things to talk about.

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

I really do not want to sound like an enemy of the Church, so tell me how. Once I see how I am wrong I will change. Also if you believe if absolute assurance, then do you not also believe that God would do this for the elect after regeneration?


[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.[/quote]

Fair enough I thought they were related though.

[Broccolifish]

[quote]Aaron, I didn't say that a natural act by a natural man is sinful, I said that it has no value before God. It is inherently good [i]in the natural sphere[/i], but not the Spiritual sphere.[/quote]

I see several problems with this.

First of all, the Scriptures explicitly show that [b][i]any and every[/i][/b] act by a natural man is sinful, so you may not say that a natural act by a natural man is sinful, but that's really irrelevant since the Bible says that it is as per Romans 14:23. So, the natural act by the natural man is [i]worse[/i] than unmeritorious; it condemns him.

Second, the words "inherently good in the natural sphere" amount to saying nothing at all, when we consider that every act, from tying one's shoes to killing one's enemy, is solely "natural". Every act which takes place in the heart of man or the natural world has an ethical aspect to it. If I open a can of soup, I'm making an inordinate number of metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical statements. If I am not a believer, if I'm not regenerated, then my opening the can is sinful because it is the rotten fruit of a rotten tree; it proceeds from the foundational assumptions which are not rooted in Christ. My behavior, as a nonbeliever, is ultimately tied up in my own statements of autonomy. As a believer, however, I open the can of soup in response to God's grace to me that day. For the [i]just shall [b]live[/b] by faith[/i], we're told in Habakkuk 2:4, Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:11, and Hebrews 10:38. Faith is not an exercise for isolated participation from time-to-time. It is a matter of life and death. The righteous man [i]lives[/i] by faith, and his life proceeds from the root of Christ. Thus, any act which does not proceed from this root, from faith, from life in Christ, is [i]inherently sinful[/i]. The idea that an act can be divorced from intent is excluded.

Another way to see this is to consider nonbelieving ethics. In general, the atheist has a real difficulty bridging the gap between what happens and what [i]ought[/i] to happen. Some philosophers have posited that the [i]outcome[/i] of a situation is all that matters, and the person's [i]intent[/i] is irrelevant. However, this creates the problem that a man may [i]intend[/i] to murder thousands of people, but if his actions inadvertently save those thousands, he's a hero. Conversely, if he intends to save them, but inadvertently causes their deaths, he's a villain. Others have believed that [i]intent[/i] is the determinant of right or wrong, and [i]outcome[/i] is irrelevant. Of course, we have to ask what the standard for a good or evil intent is, because every man is justified in his own mind. By this standard, unless some [i]objective[/i] means of determining the righteousness or unrighteousness of an intent is found, Hitler can be justified by simply saying that he [i]believed[/i] he was doing good.

Scripture tells us that the just live by faith, and that which proceeds not from faith is sin (Romans 1, Romans 14). We're told that the man who does things which appear good is actually working iniquity by his lawlessness, if Christ does not know him (Matthew 7). We're told that no one can even [i]see[/i] the kingdom of God unless he's born again (John 3), and that those who are in the flesh cannot please God (Romans 8). If the acts which are "inherently, naturally good" are sinful for the sinful man to perform, then he hasn't done anything actually good at all. The same act, for the regenerate man, is doing a different act because he does not proceed from a rebellious foundation; the accidens are the same, but the matter and form are different.

[Broccolifish]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 26 2004, 08:33 PM']Also, Aaron, you mentioned that the proposition that God gives us the grace to resist sin at all times is 'pelagianism in a dress'.

I disagree.

IIRC, Pelagianism is the proposition that grace merely makes it easier to avoid sin and turn to God. I don't see, therefore, that the proposition put forward earlier is Pelagian...[/quote]
I should have made that statement more clear. The poster was defending something along the lines of prevenient grace; by saying that God "predestines" all people for heaven, that all people have the same ability to come to faith, and that God gives grace to [i]everyone[/i] to avoid evil, he or she is essentially stating the position of Pelagianism. Pelagius taught that we all are given the ability to be good or evil people, and that Adam's fall is offset [i]for all people[/i] by Christ's work. This would be "the grace to avoid sin" given to every person.

On the contrary, the Scripture you cite is addressed to believers.

Edited July 27, 2004 by Broccolifish

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Broccolifish' date='Jul 27 2004, 03:01 PM'] I should have made that statement more clear. The poster was defending something along the lines of prevenient grace; by saying that God "predestines" all people for heaven, that all people have the same ability to come to faith, and that God gives grace to [i]everyone[/i] to avoid evil, he or she is essentially stating the position of Pelagianism. Pelagius taught that we all are given the ability to be good or evil people, and that Adam's fall is offset [i]for all people[/i] by Christ's work. This would be "the grace to avoid sin" given to every person.

On the contrary, the Scripture you cite is addressed to believers. [/quote]
Pelagius taught that we could avoid sin [i]without any grace at all[/i], though it would be almost impossible to do so, did he not?

[Broccolifish]

It's a distinction without a difference, since both Pelagianism and the form of semi-pelagianism that our friend posited makes humanity capable of doing the same things. That's why I called it "Pelagianism in a dress."

[Theoketos]

[quote]On the contrary, the Scripture you cite is addressed to believers.[/quote]

I thought that I had read that Paul writes to the Corinthians becuase they had fallen away from the Church. He must remind them what love is because they are not practicing it. He must defend his authority as an Apostle.


[quote]by saying that God "predestines" all people for heaven, that all people have the same ability to come to faith, and that God gives grace to everyone to avoid evil, he or she is essentially stating the position of Pelagianism[/quote]

How would you reconcile this with 1 John 2:2 [quote]And he(Jesus) is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.[/quote]
I really do not mean to be peleagian, in fact I believe that it is only with the Grace of God that we are able to breath, how much more do we need to come to faith?

It would also seem to me that not every one is as disposed to choose God, because habit to vice.

[Theoketos]

Though I would say that also not every one gets the same amount of grace, those that need more would get more.

Also while listening to Christopher West I remembered an anology that would fit well here.

Adam and Eve before the fall were like cars with normally inflated tires. After the fall Man is like a car with flat tires, but Jesus calls us to be fixed again, to have full tires, and though we can never go back to that orgininal state, Jesus calls us to go beyond Adam and Eve to fullfil our purpose. This purpose is to be [i]Very[/i] Good (Gen 1:31). So Jesus would call us in this analogy not only to have full tires but to grow wings.

God made and makes all humans to be very good, and thus God authers every one in that manner. If are made in the image of God, then we are made very good (thought we are still tainted by orginal sin). And why would God condem what is good? Although God is free to do what ever He wants, I do not think that He would do anything to frustrate His Purposes. [i]That I do not think that he would send someone to Hell with out giving them a chance to choose Him.[/i] I would think that a very good reason that He would let humans go to hell that some choose to deny this gift. The gift that I mention is the desire, which he wrote on our hearts, to be in union with God.

Edited July 28, 2004 by Theoketos

[Broccolifish]

[quote]I thought that I had read that Paul writes to the Corinthians becuase they had fallen away from the Church. He must remind them what love is because they are not practicing it. He must defend his authority as an Apostle.[/quote]

[color=blue]2Co 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God which is at Corinth with all the saints who are throughout Achaia: [/color]

It's obviously presented as a letter to [i]believers[/i], to the [i]church[/i] in Corinth, and not to reprobates or nonbelievers.

[quote]How would you reconcile this with 1 John 2:2 [/quote]
If you're going to take this narrow definition of "the whole world", then you'll have to reconcile it yourself with John 3:16 and 3:17, which clearly does not make the same usage:

[color=red]Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. [/color]

If "the world" in 1 John 2:2 refers to [i]every single person on earth[/i], then John 3:16 and John 3:17 must mean that no one is condemned. On the contrary, "propitiation not only for us, but for the whole world" refers to the fact that salvation is not only for Jews, but for Gentiles as well. This is the concept which is demonstrated by words such as "all men", "the whole world", et cetera. The reality is that this verse and others like it prove [i]too much[/i] for the Catholic and non-calvinist, because if the words are restricted to mean every person on earth, then similar passages which refer to salvation coming [i]to the whole world[/i] and [i]to all men[/i] necessitate universalism. Of course, this is contradictory to the rest of the Scriptures, and the Calvinist viewpoint is not in conflict with the Scriptures at all. You see, if Christ were the propitiation for the sins of [i]every individual in the world[/i], then anyone who went to Hell would be condemned for sins which are already paid for. This, of course, would be an affront to God's justice.

[quote]I really do not mean to be peleagian, in fact I believe that it is only with the Grace of God that we are able to breath, how much more do we need to come to faith?[/quote]
Obviously a lot, since men and women lived and died in sin, but Christ had to come to save the Elect.

[quote]It would also seem to me that not every one is as disposed to choose God, because habit to vice.[/quote]
So, what separates the one who chooses from the one who rejects?

Edited July 29, 2004 by Broccolifish

[Broccolifish]

[quote name='Broccolifish' date='Jul 27 2004, 02:48 PM']
[/quote]
I said this before, and now it won't let me edit it, but I wanted to correct an error:

[quote]Second, the words "inherently good in the natural sphere" amount to saying nothing at all, when we consider that every act, from tying one's shoes to killing one's enemy, is solely "natural".  Every act which takes place in the heart of man or the natural world has an ethical aspect to it.  [/quote]
I meant to say that [b]no[/b] act is solely "natural". All have an ethical aspect, and a spiritual aspect, for the reasons I gave.

[Theoketos]

[quote]So, what separates the one who chooses from the one who rejects? [/quote]

Free will.

No one is condemned unless they do something that condemns them.

[Broccolifish]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Jul 29 2004, 01:16 PM']
Free will.

No one is condemned unless they do something that condemns them. [/quote]
But all people are sinners. Every single person is worthy of condemnation. Where is free will, when all men stand condemned by their own sinfulness?

You didn't really answer the question, though. I'm asking what, in the non-calvinist sense, causes a person to [i]choose[/i] one or the other? To say "free will" is to miss the point. [i]Why[/i] does the "free" person choose grace or Hell?

[Theoketos]

Peace and Blessings B-Fish

[quote]Augustine pointed out that the grace preceding faith must be an interior enlightenment and strengthening, and that the preaching of the Word of God could not, unassisted, accomplish this; consequently the implanting of grace in the soul by God is necessary as a preliminary condition for the production of real faith, since otherwise the customary prayer of the Church for the grace of conversion for unbelievers would be superfluous. Augustine also introduces his view of an absolute predestination of the elect, without however especially emphasizing it, by remarking: "Cum tam multi salvi non fiant, non quia ipsi, sed quia Deus non vult" (Since so many are not saved, not because they themselves do not will it, but because God does not will it). Vitalis seems to have acquiesced and to have disclaimed the "error of Pelagius". [/quote]

More later...at work now.

[Theoketos]

[quote]If you're going to take this narrow definition of "the whole world", then you'll have to reconcile it yourself with John 3:16 and 3:17, which clearly does not make the same usage:[/quote]

I look at it and see the same usage. The whole world is supposed to be saved, but only those that believe are saved. At least we have an agreement on those that truly believe are saved, should that not commit a mortal sin.