math1h3@jetson.uh.edu (01/22/91)
In article <Jan.16.04.34.15.1991.10001@aramis.rutgers.edu>, dragon!cms@gatech.edu writes: > Catholics are in complete agreement here. Protestants, as I > understand it, believe that the gift of salvation in Baptism must be > accepted to be considered valid; in other words, an action on the part > of the believer (acceptance) is required for the Baptism to be valid. > Catholics believe that Baptism is an absolutely free and unconditional > gift of love from God. That's sort of a twist on the faith/works > issue wherein Protestants usually take the opposite stance. Well, Lutherans certainly believe that baptism and conversion are completely God's work and not our own. However I have the distinct impression that Roman Catholics (officially) teach that conversion is a cooperative effort between the individual and God. Corrections and comments are certainly welcome! Yet I am glad to see Cindy saying something very Lutheran and Scriptural about Baptism. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran. "Let us also die with Jesus. His death from the second death, From our soul's destruction frees us, Quickens us with life's glad breath. Let us mortify, while living, Flesh and blood and die to sin; And the grave that shuts us in Shall but prove the gate to heaven. Jesus, here I die to Thee There to live eternally. --"Let Us Ever Walk With Jesus" v.3 --Sigismund von Birken, 1653. --from "The Lutheran Hymnal" #409. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.
cms@gatech.edu (01/29/91)
I write: > In article <Jan.16.04.34.15.1991.10001@aramis.rutgers.edu>, dragon!cms@gatech.edu writes: >> Catholics are in complete agreement here. Protestants, as I >> understand it, believe that the gift of salvation in Baptism must be >> accepted to be considered valid; in other words, an action on the part >> of the believer (acceptance) is required for the Baptism to be valid. >> Catholics believe that Baptism is an absolutely free and unconditional >> gift of love from God. That's sort of a twist on the faith/works >> issue wherein Protestants usually take the opposite stance. David responds: In article <Jan.22.02.48.49.1991.593@athos.rutgers.edu>, math1h3@jetson.uh.edu writes: > Well, Lutherans certainly believe that baptism and conversion are > completely God's work and not our own. However I have the distinct > impression that Roman Catholics (officially) teach that conversion > is a cooperative effort between the individual and God. Corrections > and comments are certainly welcome! Yet I am glad to see Cindy saying > something very Lutheran and Scriptural about Baptism. "Charis" is a Greek word meaning favor; the word "eucharist" is derived from it. The following is true for all people: Jesus did me a favor: He died on the Cross for my sins. God did me another favor: He raised this Man Jesus from the dead so that I might believe. God loves me. He gave me my salvation. Salvation is like plunging into drinking water, body and soul, drinking and gulping the water, and yet still being able to breathe, even while completely immersed in an ocean of salvation and God's love. Salvation is like slavation, complete submissal to the will of God. Salvation is being given a fish, fresh from the water of life, chopping off its head, splitting it down the middle, seeing its internal redness, cooking it in a hot frying pan, smelling its goodness and its sweetness, and it eating it humbly and gently and with great reverence. Salvation is God's gift to me, God's favor. We enjoy God's favor. Salvation from God yields slavation to God; slavation to God helps us participate in our salvation from God. Prayer is God's way of allowing us to participate in God's actions on our behalf; prayer to the saints is God's way of allowing God's saints to participate in God's actions on our behalf. God doesn't need our prayers; we need our prayers to God to help us participate in God's actions in our hearts and in our lives. Similarly, good works and obedience to the commandments are God's way of allowing us to participate in our own salvation, in fear and trembling. God does not need our good works and obedience; we need our good works and obedience to help us participate in God's salvation history. God's grace is God's greatest gift, God's greatest favor, bestowed upon us. God has chosen to allow us to participate in our own salvation, in fear and trembling, such that it is God's choice that our good works and obedience have salvific relevance. I don't think that's what Luther's was saying, but if that is what he was saying, then he was right because this is what the Ancient Catholic Church has always taught. > David H. Wagner > a confessional Lutheran. -- Sincerely, Cindy Smith _///_ // SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ // _///_ // <`)= _<< CARPENTER _///_ //<`)= _<< <`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ \\ _\\\_ <`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ <`)= _<< >IXOYE=('> \\\ \\ \\\ \\_///_ // // /// _///_ // _///_ // emory!dragon!cms <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<< \\\ \\<`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgia A Confessional Catholic
jhpb@garage.att.com (02/08/91)
The moderator wrote:
[Calvinism doesn't exactly say free will has no part. It's just
that its role is entirely a result of grace. That's why for Luther
and Calvin there's no question of resisting grace. I'm never sure
what people mean when they talk about irresistible grace. This term
is the result of the question "could we reject God's grace if we
wanted to", the answer being no. However in the Reformed view the
question is ill-posed. When God gives grace, he regenerates us,
after which we will not make any such choice. It's not that he
short-circuits our will somehow. So it's not that we are unable to
reject God's grace if we want to, but that given God's grace we
won't want to. At least this is what I understand Reformed
theologians to be saying. (Certainly it's what Jonathan Edwards
said. Calvin isn't quite as clear, but I think it's what he means.)
Thus I think the distinction you are drawing is real, but your
description of the Calvinist side is probably not quite what a
Calvinist would say. --clh]
I think Calvin's idea of grace corresponds closely to the Catholic idea
of "efficacious" grace. A man nevers resists efficacious grace, by
definition. It seems to me that Calvin got ahold of a profound truth,
but oversimplified, to the point of excluding another profound truth.
Catholic systems have the idea of a resisted grace. I can think of a
couple examples in the New Testament to support this, such as, St.
Stephen's speech, "...you always resist the Holy Ghost," or our Lord's
"how often I would have gathered thee together... but thou wouldst not."
In some fashion, God gave enough for men to be good, but they instead
were bad. Not because God did not give enough, but because the men
involved were morally perverse.
The Catholic system that I find most appealing is Congruism, the Jesuit
system. It states that God, knowing the free response that any man will
give when any particular motive (i.e., grace) is granted to him,
predestines someone to Heaven by willing to grant those graces that He
foresees to be efficacious in the end.
That seems to me to be profoundly scriptural. It preserves God's grace
as primary in salvation, yet preserves man's free will: two things
necessary in any Catholic system of grace. God *infallibly* causes the
predestined to *freely* choose salvation.
On the other hand, the damned end in Hell through their own fault.
Though God foresaw that they would not persevere, it is in no sense
attributable to Him that they did not. It is attributable to one thing
only, man's free will. The motives that God presented were truly
sufficient, just not efficacious, through the free (and morally
perverse) choice of man's will.
There is nothing unjust in Congruism, because though God foresees that
some men will be damned, He in no sense *causes* it, anymore than our
knowledge of the past causes the past to happen. The great question in
Congruism, of course, is *how* God knows the future acts of a free will.
I think Trent's problem with Calvin is that he would not allow as how
the grace that the damned received was truly and properly grace. He
sees grace as intrinsically efficacious, and thus makes salvation or
damnation depend solely on God, without reference to man's free acts.
This seems to be confirmed by what you've said above.
[Your view seems to be almost exactly that of Luther. I find this
hilarious, since as you've already observed, most Protestants now deny
election, even of the moderate kind that you hold. Your position --
together with Luther's -- says that ultimately God is responsible for
determining which people are saved, although he does so without doing
violence to their status as responsible human beings. As I understand
it, most Protestants now believe that God offers grace to everyone
equally, and it is up to them whether to accept it. In your terms,
this denies that God ever uses efficacious grace, or at least that he
"crafts" his grace to be efficacious for particular people. This
modern Protestant position is precisely that of Erasmus, which got
Luther so upset in "On the Bondage of the Will".
The relationship of this position to Calvin's is open to debate.
Calvin certainly acknowledges that grace of a kind (which others have
referred to as "common grace") is involved in all good actions,
whether people are saved or not. Furthermore, Calvin certainly
believes that people who are damned have in fact deserved that
condemnation through their own choices. I think Luther (with you) and
Calvin differ, not in their opinion of how God works, but in the
degree of responsibility we should attribute to him. Luther, like
you, says that while God forsees that the damned will be lost, he does
not positively will them to be lost. He simply permits it. Calvin
takes the view that we have to regard God as responsible for all the
results of his actions. If he gave efficacious grace to some, and
chose not to give it to others, he have to say that he intended those
from whom he withheld it to be damned.
This leads to very interesting issues, among which is how to reconcile
this with the Bible's assertion that God wants everyone to be saved.
Calvin's approach is to distinguish between what one might call God's
public announcements and his secret decisions. God announces
publically that he wants everyone to be saved. This is simply part of
his general invitation. The fact that he invites everyone doesn't
mean that he has arranged it so that everyone will actually come.
"Many are called, but few are chosen".
It seems to me that Calvin's position is the more logical. However in
matter of theology, logical consistency may not be everything.
Unfortunately in this case it may have the result of turning God into
a hypocrite.
In my own opinion, Calvin is right that God is responsible for
everything, both good and bad, but he has failed to do full justice to
the scope of God's intent. Rom 11:25-36 makes it clear not only that
God has willed both salvation and hardness of heart, but that what at
first appears to be damnation is intended ultimately for salvation.
--clh]