Catholic Answers to Calvinism (w/ Joe Heschmeyer)
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 08. 2024
- In this episode of The Cordial Catholic, I'm joined by @catholiccom apologist extraordinaire Joe Heschmeyer to talk about a topic that we get lots of questions about on this show: Calvinism.
What does the Catholic Church have to say about this Reformation-era idea? What's the Catholic view of it? What's the Catholic response to it? And how can a Catholic become equipped to speak about Calvinism from place of understanding as a Catholic.
Plus, with Joe as our guide, we drop back in time to the Early Church and look at how the first disciples of Christ understood Calvinism. Can we find its roots in the Early Church? Or is this truly a Reformation-era innovation? And, if so, how do we address that, too?
It's a fantastic conversation.
For more from Joe check out latest book The Eucharist Really Is Jesus and all his other fine books are available from Catholic Answers Press here:
shop.catholic.com
And check out his podcast and CZcams channel @ShamelessPopery.
Send your feedback to cordialcatholic@gmail.com.
Sign up for our newsletter for my reflections on episodes, behind-the-scenes content, and exclusive contests at newsletter.thecordialcatholic.com
To watch this and other episodes please visit (and subscribe to!) our CZcams channel.
Please consider financially supporting this show!
For more information visit the Patreon page. All patrons receive access to exclusive content and if you can give $5/mo or more you'll also be entered into monthly draws for fantastic books hand-picked by me at / cordialcatholic
If you'd like to give a one-time donation to The Cordial Catholic, you can visit the PayPal page at paypal.me/cordialcatholic
Thank you to those already supporting the show!
Calvinism is a part of the reason that I converted to Catholicism. Thanks guys.
I was never a Calvinist but the controversies brought up by Calvinists definitely pushed me to study, which in turn pushed me to read the fathers, which led me to Catholicism
That was definitely part of my journey as well. I was never a Calvinist either (I grew up evangelical). I remember thinking: I can understand why you believe that - given the verses you have listed, but I just can't write off the rest of the Bible that way. The questions I encountered caused me to dive into why I believe what I do. What was the source of truth? How do we learn truth? Why should I believe scripture? Kind of a scary place to be. @@andrewscotteames4718
Curious, How do you respond when people say you converted because you never knew or understood Calvinism?
@@heb597 I would ask how they know what I know or understand about Calvinism. It is always a curious way to start a conversation with people. "No, no, no... you are just ignorant!". That doesn't seem a particularly convincing tactic to me. Furthermore, prior to converting (long before I even considered Catholicism), I spent many many hours in discussions with my Calvinist pastor about it. To be clear, I didn't convert simply because I thought Calvinism was wrong, I converted because I was convinced of the positive claims of Catholicism. I found Calvinism and it's treatment of scripture and it's perspective on God so twisted that it caused me to go back to the beginning and inspect how we know what is true. That inevitably led me to Catholicism.
I am not converted yet but I am on a journey. Also because of Calvinism!
“The problem is, Calvin can’t say how much God loves us.”
St Robert Bellarnine
I've recently been reading some early church writings. I'm current reading Ignatius of Antioch 's 7 epistles. A combination of words keeps appearing together that makes me think of our Reformed brethren who, in my experience, appear to be really tied to 'Faith alone'. The two word combination I keep finding is 'faith and love'. I don't recall hearing it stated just that way. The closest I've heard is 'faith working through love' and 'faith vs works'. Seeing them together has helped me better understand the relationship between faith and works. That is to hear it expressed as a commandment of faith and love. I can't say enough about how the early church writings have help clarify proper Scripture interpretation for me. I consider them the best kept secret commentaries. Thank you Lord.
wow
@@user-hf5wf7lc6x
Catholics don’t believe we save ourselves
@@user-hf5wf7lc6x the rosary is not required for any catholic to go to heaven. The 7 sacraments are from Jesus and they are the way Jesus gives us grace. Your problem is Jesus
@@user-hf5wf7lc6x
In heaven they say
Holy holy holy without ceasing
Rev 4:8
Bible says to “pray without ceasing.”
So either u must repeat words or
U must continually invent new words.
So what do u do ?
Calvininst are predestined to have the wrong theology
😂😂😂😂❤❤❤
"Irresistible Error"
“Universalism is just Calvinism with mercy added on to it” - great description!
Exactly, they cannot escape it. It's years and years of categorizing obedience to God as mere self righteous works. That's a problem. Obedience to God is mandatory, and distictive from self righteous works. They are each in separate and different categories, but Calvinists cannot recognize it. Heb. 5:9.
YESSSSSS this might be the maximum of Catholic cordiality!
I’m a convert from Calvinism.
Thanks for all you do!
Welcome home 🙏
Same here just converted this past Easter after 10 years of Calvinism.
Welcome home!
God bless you!!! That is courage.
@@timboslice980 God Bless you! That is courage.
Through my Protestant studies, I grew up Assemblies of God, but was learning about RC Sproul and TULIP. I didn’t dive too deep into it, but at a surface level I thought TLIP was plausible. Thankfully, through RCIA and apologists such as Joe, Tim, Trent, I’ve come to the Catholic Faith in 2021
RC Sproul told his congregation: "God looked at His son and shouted "God DAMN YOU!"
The flock still clung to him.
Not even 15 minutes in and already impressed. “Universalism is just Calvinism with mercy added to it” is genius
Glad you’re enjoying it!
When I first got saved I thought all churches and theology perspectives were the same. Online is saturated by Calvinists. James white, RC, Voddie, Lawson etc etc. I thought their perspectives were the only ones 😂. I was so close to joining a Presbyterian church.
One day, I woke up and the Lord put it on my heart to look into Calvinism before I rushed into anything.
So glad I did my research, seems like I saved myself a lot of damage.
Looked into Leighton flowers, Idol killer and a few others.
On my journey towards Catholicism now though. 😊
Cheers, brother. Peace be with you!
God bless you brother!
Praise be to God!
Calvinists do not believe in the development of doctrine, while they are developing doctrine.
I’m a new catholic converted from Calvinism last year! I Would love a series on every major denomination on this very topic. Were the messianic Jews the early Christians? Etc…. such a good idea!
No, the original Christians were Catholic. Jesus founded the Catholic Church.
Are you born again or are you Catholic? Because religion leads to hell Jesus is the way to heaven
@@patricialurice61 Yes, Catholics are born again. The process begins when we are baptized and born again into the family of God. Galations 3:26-27, John 3
@@patricialurice61are you Christian or protestant?
@@patricialurice61Where did you get the idea that religion leads to hell? Does the Bible not teach sin leads to hell?
I am a Protestant Christian came to this looking for information about Calvinism thinking I might believe in it - after hearing someone presenting some ideas under Calvinism that sounded like what I agree with. I appreciate how you unpacked this and it clarified that I am not a Calvinist.
I liked that universalism is Calvinism with God's mercy line.
I have recently found this channel, I love it. I’m trying to study up on our faith especially when it comes to converting to Catholicism. We have be asked to be on the teaching team for our OCIA class this next year.
Wow. Thank you! I'm so glad this can be helpful!
Joe maybe my favorite Catholic apologist but don't tell Jimmy.
😂
🤐
Just found this post. I’m telling Jimmy Monday! Fellow CALive mod Steven..lol
53:05 This is the highlight. Building a Frankenstein Church Father from out of context quotes that maybe sounds like a Presbyterian (at best). That sums up every Protestant trying to make a case from Church history for their denomination.
Great discussion. I was a strong calvinist for quite a while. Currently Catholic. One thing that made making the jump a bit easier for me was realizing that some of the calvinist notions that i held were not completely foreign to catholicism. Articles like jimmy akin's tiptoe through the tulip and new advents articles on predestination were very helpful. It was helpful to realize that there isn't a singular view of grace and free will that Catholics need to hold, as long as their views stay within certain limits.
I went to a Bible study yesterday. Episcopal and Presbyterian denominations. The Presbyterian ministry said, “we should all be running to get the Eucharist”. I wanted to ask her, why should we run to get a symbol but I don’t know what Presbyterians believe about the Eucharist? However, in the OT the Jews were the ones with the priesthood and the priest had to be from the Levitical line. It is heresy to believe that you can change this on a whelm. All this division and heresy is painful and Protestants don’t realize how damaging it is.
Presbyterians don’t believe it is merely a symbol. Presbyterians believe in the real presence. Anglicans and Lutherans also believe in the real presence.
Anglicans believe in real presence
It is painful to watch the division and acrimony going on in the Roman Catholic Church. They are far from unified.
@@paulsmallwood1484 true there are orthodox and more liberal followers and interpreters. However, there are doctrines and dogma that are quite cohesive. To everyone who professes to be Roman Catholic not all are 100% faithful. Unfortunately, in the last 500 years if you don’t like or believe it you can make up your own church and there lies the difference.
@@GMAAndy333 Dogmas maybe but I have to say no on doctrine. There is diverse views on doctrine. Only God can make a church. There is only one church.
Joe is definitely the right man here. Awesome insights
Great discussion n Joe is really insightful..
”they are all dead inside but…” had me cracking up 🤣
It’s weirdly true. I’ve never had a Calvinist be willing to talk about miracles but they’ll write their own commentary on biblical hermeneutical approaches in a second. If I mention theology to a non denominational they run away throwing salt at me. Lol different strokes I guess
Calvinism - the only doctrine that declares a human creature can love more than God. A mom can love her child more than God, because she would never want her son to go to Hell, whereas God might want that boy condemned to Hell.
😂imagen that
Top guest, good job landing him! @cordialcatholic, I think it would be beneficial for you to be more concise in your points and questions.
Keep up the good work!
Super interesting episode. I'm a Lutheran in theology but was Reformed a few years ago. I am also more open minded to finding the truth. Could you please do an episode on Mary? Particularly when it comes to the accusation of worship.
Helo, If I may give my humble answer: please READ and Learn THE GOSPEL by yourself. Take a time to read the Gospel seriously and ALL the GOSPEL ! Yes everyone who seeks the TRUTH has to do a (little) personal Work to find JESUS.
And You will understand ALL the TRUTH by Yourself, including THE HOLY MOTHER OF GOD.
Thank you !
and also, pray. Pray to Jesus Christ and ask him to show you the Truth. Pray, again and again.
God bless You !
Dr. Brant Pitre has a video on the Jewish roots of Mary. You can find it on CZcams.
God bless
@@billlee2194 Do You have a video also about the jewish roots of JESUS and of his appostles ?
Dear@@adelbertleblanc1846, yes, Dr. Brant Pitre also has written of the Old Testament roots for many of the Catholic teachings.
It's in the Bible. Have you looked at How To Be Christian? He tells how Christians read the Bible, and Protestants read the Bible with amendments -- adding words and concepts. Because the Catholic Church has not changed her teachings from the time of the Apostles, we do not need to add or subtract from the Bible.
Great discussion!
I think Calvinism is the most dangerous heresy known to man, because it strips God of the very love by which He is defined.
Great episode
Hey, thanks! I love your stuff, too. Great approach.
@@TheCordialCatholic Thanks man! Much appreciated.
The comparison of Protestant/Calvinist view of predestination to pagan fate is very interesting...and provocative, lol.
Sweet new video drop day!
1. To love is to will the good of the other.
2. Heaven is what is maximally good for a man, and Hell is what is maximally bad for a man.
3. Scripture reveals that God loves all men. (John 3:16) (1 John 4)
4. Therefore God wills that all men attain Heaven. (1 Tim 2:3-4)
5. Therefore God does not desire that any man go to Hell.
6. Therefore God does not predetermine before time that any man be damned.
7. If the salvation of all saved men was predetermined by God before time, then the damnation of all damned men is predetermined by God before time as well.
8. Some men are eternally damned. (Matt 7:13-14)
9. Therefore salvation is not limited to those whom God has predetermined before time to be saved.
10. Therefore the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election is false.
I had only recently decided to read the primary Catholic sources from 50AD-200AD...and...Protestant Reformation sources beginning in 1517. This is where my interest lies. This talk should serve as a bridge between the two to help me understand better the errors in the Reformation.
Yes, I will bring that assumption with me because, to me, if the disciples of the Apostles got it wrong, then the truth of Christianity is merely anyone's guess.
Thanks Joe
Why does no one talk about how Thomas Aquinas held a view that was identical to the Calvinist view of predestination and unconditional election?
Because he didn't.
@@michaelogrady232 I’ll give you a quote, and I want you to tell me who said it:
“God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He wishes them all some good; but He does not wish every good to them all. So far, therefore, as He does not wish this particular good-namely, eternal life-He is said to hate or reprobated them.”
@@ServusChristi777 Aquinas? How about Trent. "Anyone who says God predestines men to hell: let him be anathema."
@@michaelogrady232 Whoa slow down. Will you concede your first point now?
@ServusChristi777 No. I would have to read his entire dissertation on the matter. He usually states the opposing arguments while making his conclusions. I have no way to tell if that is what he is doing in the snippet cited here. It may be his conclusion, and I have no problem with that. If you could cite where in the Summa that is found I will look at it further.
Great content. The thing is: Christians can say "Jesus die for you", but calvinists can't.
Love the t-shirt nod to another great Christian channel
Great 👍
If Calvinists believe we are "Totally depraved" how can they formulate sound doctrine?
I’m a former Catholic and current Calvinist who is discerning a reversion back to the Catholic faith. I think Joe has some things right about what Calvinism is but there are points in his understanding I would push back on.
I often tell my Protestant brethren that we should learn about Catholicism from Catholics, I would also encourage my Catholic brethren who wants to learn more about Calvinism to look at some Calvinist sources. One I would highly recommend is RC Sproul and Ligonier Ministries.
I was a Ligonier Calvinist and converted to Catholicism 2 years ago. The intellectual rigor I found in Calvinism, compared to what I perceived in broader evangelicalism, definitely helped me in my process of conversion.
@@TheologicalAmatuer I certainly find that reformed theology is the most mentally robust of the Protestant traditions.
@@oldmovieman7550 I am really appreciative of my time there.
@@oldmovieman7550I was a “ligionier Calvinist” for 36 years of my life. Converted 2 years ago.
Dear@@oldmovieman7550, in this case, we are listening to someone who can tell us what the Early Church said. So Calvinists would not answer the need.
But I pray you will return to the Church. All that is good about Calvinism (and there are good things!) are also in the Catholic Church.
Joe is the man!
Regarding the first 8 minutes:
If you want less drop off rates, jump into the question in a sentence or two. Or may be follow a script tightly or edit it out
Please please do Lutheranism and cover Martin Luther in depth, Joe.
Among the modern Protestant churches, which are the ones closest to the Calvinism?
I'm guessing Presbyterian and any other faiths that use the word Reformed such as Reformed Baptist. My experience is that the latter is huge on faith alone.
I would like to share here a word from Father Maurice Zundel (Catholic priest and mystic): "God is not knowledge but a discovery. God is not an explanation but a person to encounter"
Technically, God is three Persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit...
I think maybe both are true, and that our minds are too small to understand that which can only be understood in the infinite Wisdom and Power of God. It could just be that God’s absolute sovereignty and man’s ultimate responsibility is a supranational truth that we can never untangle in this mortal shell. To insist on an either / or proposition only shows that your god is too small. This is how I read Garrigou LaGrange.
It is always enlightening listening to Joe.
was jon knox an excatholic and was jon calvin an excatholic
Calvin definitely was. From all I could find, Knox was not.
@@billlee2194Knox was a catholic priest.....before he became a satanic protestant heretic.
Yes, indeed the early Church was CATHOLIC. because the early christian celebrate the EUCHARIST, as teached and demanded by JESUS himself, at the last supper. Right away the Eucharist was celebrated in houses in Jerusalem and very soon in houses tranformed to chuches (around 70 AD) !
In fact, the first church in JERUSALEM was a house belonging to the family of SAINT MARC
Wrong. They believed in the real presence to be sure but the transubstantiation mode of explaining how real presence worked was unknown. In fact there wasn’t unanimity among the early church fathers on exactly what real presence mean’t. In fact some church fathers sound more Lutheran or Presbyterian in their understanding of the real presence. The various streams of understanding weren’t really resolved officially by the established church of that day until the 13th century when the transubstantiation view of real presence was declared dogma. As far as ways to explain the real presence, transubstantiation is a Johnny Come lately in church history. Real Presence is not synonymous with transubstantiation. While real presence was indeed known in the primitive church, transubstantiation as a way to explain it was unknown. 46:26
@@paulsmallwood1484 Ok, Paul ! Everyone is free to believe what he want to believe. Have a nice day and God bless You !
@@adelbertleblanc1846 It isn’t a matter of being free to believe what you want. It is a matter of historical fact. Please do some more study. Cheers my friend.
@@paulsmallwood1484
Historical facts aren't your invented mind readings on what the Church fathers taught.
The understanding of Jesus being present in the Eucharist went through continual development over the first millennium of the Church, that much is obvious although some protestants pretend the Catholic Church simply decided one day to invent it. What's disingenuous is to say that any of the Church fathers "sounds" this or that brand of protestant sect when: 1) these sects didn't exist, by definition 2) they are asserting something fundamentally different than any sort of protestant articulation of the real presence.
Consider St Justin Martyr defending the Catholic Church from charges of cannibalism by pagans. He does in fact defend the _real_ presence of Jesus in the host in such a way that it doesn't contradict Catholic doctrine or the less ruinous protestant sects. Does that make him "sound" presbyterian? Obviously only in the sense a common denominator among all those traditions exists, nothing more. The questions about the liturgical implications of Jesus' relationship in the host only came later and were resolved in due time.
Meanwhile, the Orthodox keep an older understanding of the real presence that protestants pretend is the same as what they believe. It isn't. Metaousia isn't consubstantiation, it's not the Lutheran view or that of any other sect, it's the former view of the western Catholic Church and the one still believed in the eastern rites. To a fault, the protestants that at least believe in a type of Eucharist think of it as cramming Jesus into a vehicle, metaousia and transubstantiation are about how you are consuming Jesus, not a thing with Jesus in it.
@@paulsmallwood1484 Ok, Paul well noticed. have a nice day and God bless You !
I would argue not only is Calvinism not biblical, if it were true, God would be a sinner. The problem is the T in "Tulip", Total Depravity. On multiple occasions in the Bible, God decrees judgement, but relents in response to his creation. One example is Jonah, who repented from the land of the dead. Another when God relented in judgement on Nineveh when the people repented. Another from Jeremiah 18:1-10, where God states he will relent in judgement on evil clay (people) that repents and follows God. If people are totally depraved, they cannot repent without God making them do so. As such, if God cast judgement, but makes his creation repent, he has cast judgement in vain. In this case, God would have lied about casting judgement. If God is good, he cannot lie, therefore Calvinism is diabolically wrong.
Absolutely, if TULIP runs it's course, you find that God is either metaphysically impossible or alternatively, evil.
A calvinist shamelessly replied to me in a post recently that because God is omniscient, he _knew_ sin from before eternity. It should not take more than a moment to realize this is nothing less than to call the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, sin itself. Utter blasphemy! Yet that's the logical conclusion of calvinism
Thomas Aquinas deemed a Doctor of the Church wrote as follows:
…predestination, as we have said, is part of Providence, which is like prudence, as we have noticed, and is the plan existing in the mind of the one who rules things for a purpose. Things are so ordained only in virtue of a preceding intention for that end. The predestination of some to salvation means that God wills their salvation. This is where special and chosen loving comes in.”
Here is Aquinas on predestination of reprobation: Reprobation, like predestination, is a part of providence since by God’s providence men are guided to their final destination. For Thomas, reprobation is God’s “will to permit someone to fall into fault and to inflict the penalty of damnation in consequence.” Reprobation includes the idea of damnation. As a result of God’s dereliction people are left to themselves and eternally punished for their demerits. Those deprived of saving grace are said to be hated by God. In support of this assertion Thomas cites Malachi 1:2 both in the ST and the CG, “I loved Jacob, but hated Esau.” Some are guided to their last end with the aid of grace, while others deprived of this grace fall from their last end. According to Thomas, this distinction has been ordained by God from eternity. God’s rejection permits individuals to fall, the non-elect are fully responsible for their sin. Thomas is adamant that God is not the cause of iniquity; the guilt lies with man.
@@paulsmallwood1484
The difference of course is that St Thomas Aquinas was a genius and Calvin was a clown. 3 centuries beforehand he had already given the superior take on predestination, which obviously is fully orthodox in Catholicism, by rejecting _double_ predestination in which God is the cause of the sin of the sinful. People are given _sufficient_ Grace, which God existing outside of time knows simultaneously it's outcome. That doesn't mean you don't get the live it out iteratively in this life.
Hell is metaphysically necessary if God is just, because created rational beings either accept or reject God's freely offered Grace and as some join him in adoption with the Son, the ones who reject him exist somewhere else as a just punishment, _but God didn't put them there._
St Thomas Aquinas is a doctor of the Church. Do you think you found out the secret sauce about how he was actually a heretic and nobody knew about it for 800 years
@@paulsmallwood1484
Another thing, since calvinists seem obsessed with the idea of God hating people. That's crass anthropomorphism, God "delights" in the good and "detests" evil which can be seen by the proper function of the goodness of a thing and the lack in the metaphysical evil of the deficiency of another.
For example, God loves the devil. We can say this because the devil exists, so he is literally loved into existence by God and yet, God detests the devil, because no creature has fallen from higher than the devil, so God rejects the lack of fulfillment in the good that the devil _should_ have but doesn't.
God is impassible so _obviously_ description of him being moody are a form of analogical predication. God doesn't "hate" because God can't be petty.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Are you done now with you incoherent babbling full of inaccuracies and vitriol. Now please go troll somewhere else.
Muslims have the same idea . I did not know that the pagans had that belief.
Good content, but be more concise in presenting. The giggling gets distracting. But, you’re intelligent men with good things to share.
Some John Calvin references:
1. His profession of double predestination:
"We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that GOD by his eternal and immutable counsel DETERMINED once for all those whom it was his PLEASURE one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his PLEASURE to doom to destruction."
[Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter 21, No. 7, Beveridge translation, P. 571, ntslibrary website, pdf page 579 of 944]
2. His profession that the Institutes of the Christian Religion (A) actually were authored by God, not by him, and (B) should be memorized first before reading the Bible so that the reading of the latter might become "profitable":
(A) "And since we are bound to acknowledge that all truth and sound doctrine proceed from God, I will venture boldly to declare what I think of this work, ACKNOWLEDGING IT (the Institutes of the Christian Religion) TO BE GOD'S WORK RATHER THAN MINE ..."
(B) "My opinion of the work then is this: I EXHORT ALL, WHO REFERENCE THE WORD OF THE LORD, TO READ IT (the Institutes of the Christian Religion), AND DILIGENTLY IMPRINT IT ON THEIR MEMORY, IF THEY WOULD, IN THE FIRST PLACE, HAVE A SUMMARY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, and, in the second place, an introduction to the profitable reading both of the Old and New Testament."
[Institutes of the Christian Religion, Preface To The Reader, SUBJECT OF THE PRESENT WORK, (prefixed to the french edition, published at Geneva in 1545), Page 22, Paragraph 6, Beveridge translation, ntslibrary website, pdf 30 of 944]
3. His profession that the Pope, the Catholic Bishop of Rome is "the Roman Antichrist" and the Mass, center of
Catholic worship "offers the greatest insult to Christ":
"By these and similar inventions, Satan has attempted to adulterate and envelop the sacred Supper of Christ as with thick darkness, that its purity might not be preserved in the Church. But the head of this horrid abomination was, when he raised a sign by which it was not only obscured and perverted, but altogether obliterated and abolished, vanished away and disappeared from the memory of man-namely, when, with most pestilential error, he blinded almost the whole world into the belief that the Mass was a sacrifice and oblation for obtaining the remission of sins. I say nothing as to the way in which the sounder Schoolmen at first received this dogma.I leave them with their puzzling subtleties, which, however they may be defended by cavilling, are to be repudiated by all good men, because, all they do is to envelop the brightness of the Supper in great darkness. Bidding adieu to them, therefore, let my readers understand that I am here combating that opinion with which the ROMAN ANTICHRIST and his prophets have imbued the whole world- viz. that the mass is a work by which the priest who offers Christ, and the others who in the oblation receive him, gain merit with God, or that it is an expiatory victim by which they regain the favour of God. And this is not merely the common opinion of the vulgar, but the very act has been so arranged as to be a kind of propitiation, by which satisfaction is made to God for the living and the dead. This is also expressed by the words employed, and the same thing may be inferred from daily practice. I am aware how deeply this plague has struck its roots; under what a semblance of good it conceals its true character, bearing the name of Christ before it, and making many believe that under the single name of Mass is comprehended the whole sum of faith. But when it shall have been most clearly proved by the word of God, THAT THIS MASS, HOWEVER GLOSSED AND SPLENDID, OFFERS THE GREATEST INSULT TO CHRIST, suppresses and buries his cross, consigns his death to oblivion, takes away the benefit which it was designed to convey, enervates and dissipates the sacrament, by which the remembrance of his death was retained, will its roots be so deep that this most powerful axe, the word of God, will not cut it down and destroy it? Will any semblance be so specious that this light will not expose the lurking evil?"
[Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter 21, No. 7, Beveridge translation, P. 866, ntslibrary website, pdf 874 of 944]
4. Based upon his belief that his writings were actually the work of God, John Calvin vehemently objected to a Lutheran theologian in 1552 referring to his work as Calvinism as if it was just another school of Protestant theology:
"They could attach us no greater insult than this word, Calvinism. It is not hard to guess where such a deadly hatred comes from that they hold against me."
- John Calvin, Leçons ou commentaires et expositions sur les révélations du prophète Jeremie, 1565
[Cottret, Bernard (22 May 2003). Calvin, A Biography. A&C Black. p. 239. ISBN 978-0-567-53035-6 - via Google Books.]
5. John Calvin's early followers respected his wishes and did not refer to themselves as Calvinists. In France they referred to themselves as Huguenots, in Scotland as Covenanteers and in England, Holland and New England as Puritans. Over the centuries, the later followers of John Calvin's writings slowly began to refer to themselves as Calvinists, but this was in opposition to his stated wishes. However, they remain in agreement with John Calvin that his writings are God's template by which the Bible is to be interpreted and acknowledge no other possibility of interpretation.
Sounds like a loon
1. John Calvin is definitely an interesting personality study. He was a legal and organizational genius, but yet was fixated on what he himself referred to "the horrible doctrine", that by an irrevocable decree pronounced before the creation of the world, God had predetermined what the outcome was to be for every human being, some elected to salvation, some elected to damnation.
2. From my observations, those in the present day who refer to themselves as Calvinists are unfamiliar with the Institutes of the Christian Religion. Rather, they memorize the five point TULIP acrostic teaching tool devised by 20th century Reformed theologian Dr. Loraine Boettner as a distillation/simplification of Calvin's doctrine. Since it is my guess that Dr. Boettner chose to name his five points after a flower because his last name resembled botany, the study of plants, I think it would be more accurate to describe contemporary followers of Calvin as TULIP Botanists. Dr. Boettner himself said that his TULIP did not in any way represent the completeness of John Calvin's teachings.
3. The 20th century historian Will Durant, in his Reformation chapter on John Calvin from his book series The Story of Civilization, after enumerating the many accomplishments of Calvin, concluded with this final judgment: "But we shall always find it hard to love the man who darkened the human soul with the most absurd and blasphemous conception of God in all the long and honored history of nonsense."
[Quoting from the youtube video "Will Durant Explores the Life and Theology of John Calvin"]
I didn’t think that Dr. ortlund was a Calvinist.
Yes, he calls himself a Calvinist here:
czcams.com/video/DAnisH9amss/video.htmlsi=Nfyk5hzCw74Hhm8j&t=2320
There's a trend among Calvinist apologetics to not talk to much about Calvinism itself. Maybe because it's not too popular with the Evangelicals...
@@TheCordialCatholic he calls himself a Baptist in the Sola Scriptura discussion with Jimmy Akin. Can someone be both? That interview was 2 years ago however.
You’d have to ask him but he has certainly labelled himself as a Calvinist in the video I posted above.
@@Vidmr2407According to Dave Armstrong's response to “Trent Horn and Gavin Ortlund on Baptism,”
"Gavin affirms - just for the record - that he is a “Calvinist.” He believes in all five points of TULIP (as he said shortly after). So he is a Reformed Baptist [28:26-27]." HTH!
He said Mary did nothing to deserve
Her sinlessness ? I think Mary
Said to the Angel
“Be it done unto me according to thy word.”
So she complied with the will of God.
So she deserved to be sinless.
When u and I sin we disagree with the will of God. So we don’t deserve to be sinless
Mary was sinless from her conception. She did not deserve it, any more than we deserve infant baptism.
Her obedience came later. As our obedience comes after God gives us grace.Our free will is given us to comply with God.
@@susand3668
God is not limited to time and space.
Mary said yes to the Angel
God can pay her back before she was born
By making her sinless. God is unlimited in his
Power. Mary said yes to the will of God.
We say no.
Dear@@PInk77W1I know, and am not talking about God's limitlessness.
I would say that Mary's sinlessness at conception is much closer to our Baptism as infants -- when the Sacrifice of Jesus is applied to our souls -- than to a reward for her obedience.
Eve was also sinless -- until she sinned with Adam, and started Original Sin. True? And Mary is Second Eve to Jesus being Second Adam.
@@susand3668 yes and eve chose to sin
Mary didn’t
Dear@@PInk77W1, yes, exactly. So being conceived without sin was not a reward for Mary's later choice to obey.
That's all I meant to say. Mary is a wonderful mother, and I love her dearly, and I am so glad that you do, too!! May she be very close to you today, and every day! I am praying for you today, and I do hope you will pray for me!
Diversity amongst apostolic fathers seems apparent.
Yes, but all agreed on some very basic things, like Baptismal regeneration and the Eucharist and Mass and bishops ...
Most of us read selected quotes from the apostolic fathers and not their complete writings
Yes, you nailed it. Those are the most important things the disciples of the Apostles wrote about.
How are Calvinists Christians any more than Mormons or JW's are?
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, SALVATION IS OF THE LORD!!!! TO HIM ALONE BE THE GLORY!!!! HALLELUYAH!!!!
If works don't count at all to save you, why would you be judged by them, for everything you do "in the flesh"?
John 14:11-14
I have dozens of verses that totally refute 16TH century doctrines like Faith ALONE, double PREDESTINATION, limited atonement OSAS, ETERNAL SECURITY. Does the word "whoever" imply coercion or freewill?
John 14: 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the WORKS themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, WHOEVER believes in me will do the WORKS I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do WHATEVER YOU ASK in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. Cross references:
John 6 35-37"WHOEVER comes to me will never go hungry, WHOEVER believes in me will never be thirsty." And "WHOEVER believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:15).
Calvin wanted to he Pope
WAS the Catholic Church! Man, forgot own book title. 😅 Understandable.
This is the very pleasant Joke, read in a comment : "The book of Acts tells of many Protestant churches started by Paul and his people." - So, I ‘have well noticed : Saint Paul has invented "Protestantism" (and not Martin Luther at 16th Century) (!) yet to who reads his 13 letters, it is very clear that Saint-Paul was a defender of the Spirit against a strictly reading of the Scriptures. That's indeed SAINT-PAUL who said : "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant-not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (2 Corinthians, chapter 3) - So, be aware : "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life"
Calvinism is predestined to have the wrong theology
The mental gymnastics required to understand this (calvanism) is ridiculous. I'm sure Jesus did not intend that.
Knockout one of the five points and they all fall like a house of cards
L - Limited Atonement
to anyone with an innate sense of justice and moral accountability, such a doctrine to an unbeliever makes a mockery of Christianity, to the faithful it is a total contradiction of John 3:16. It teaches that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was not for everyone rather only those God randomly "elected". While it is true that not everyone will receive Christ's atonement, that is due to their choice to reject His free gift. His atonement is still an open invitation to all who ask for it, John 3:16.
Christ indeed died for the "sins of the world" not just the supposed "elect." Jesus' sacrifice must be applied to everyone.
I - Irresistible Grace
This teaches that there is no free will even in the supposed elect. It states that God will force His elect to accept His gift of eternal life and they have no choice in the matter at all. They must accept His offer.
Once one is saved, yes. I believe that once you are saved, the Holy Spirit will continue to draw you back to repentance. But for the unsaved, God does not force anyone to come to Him which is what this false doctrine teaches. Again, it is by one's decision to accept Christ's sacrifice that brings you into His family. This is not a work and no glory goes to man (Eph 2:8-9) But God wants obedience and submission. Forced obedience isn't true submission and it is not the kind of follower that would bring God any glory, let alone full glory.
P - Perseverance Of The Saints
This is another name for the age old "once saved always saved" debate. Meaning, once you are saved, you can never lose your salvation no matter what you do in decades to come.
I have been both sides of the fence with this one. I used to believe all you need do is say a "sinners prayer" and you were in and nothing could touch you. Then I went the other way and said that we could give up our salvation if we choose to. This isn't something that is done unaware; you have to make an appointment for this. Yes a "righteous person can turn from his righteousness and sin to lose his life" This is a theme emphasized in more than 75 verses
But I do believe that one can tell God forget it, you no longer want anything to do with Him and walk away and God will let you go. The Calvinist’s work around here is they say "well, they were never saved in the first place then so they didn't lose salvation because they never had it."
That just doesn't make sense as I have been around true believers that turned their back on God. I am not saying if you fall into sin you lose salvation- on the contrary. God's grace is sufficient to save us from all unrighteousness. And the Bible warns us about falling away and apostasy. Why would God warn us if it wasn't possible? WELL??
You might want to actually study the doctrines before totally misrepresenting people. When you confused unconditional election with perseverance you showed your ignorance. U means that God chooses us apart from a consideration of any of our works or choices. (Which Aquinas teaches too btw).
Cohen>Cahuin>Calvino.
Calvinisme is one of the worst heresies. Unfortunately both Saint Augustine and St.Thomas Aquinas taught errors regarding this subject, which in their times hadnot yet been authoritatively defined. Predestination of a smaller or larger group of human beings to Heaven automatically means that God has predestined all others to Hell, as heaven and Hell are the only last possibilities for us. Thus a Catholic cannot hold to single predestination anymore than to double predestination. God firesees who will accept His grace and who will reject it, but that foreknowledge is NOT strictly speaking predestination.
A brief response from a Protestant representing the Reformed tradition:
(1) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments also constitute a record of the history of God's people, including the early Church, and thus if elements of proto-Calvinist soteriology are indeed present in the Bible even implicitly, they are ipso facto also present in history.
(2) Some doctrines or aspects of doctrines that constitute elements of proto-Calvinist soteriology were present in the ancient catholic Church, especially in the works of St. Augustine of Hippo and his disciples, including, for example, St. Prosper of Aquitaine or St. Fulgentius of Ruspe.
(3) Even if understanding, systematizing and expressing explicitly the elements of soteriology that we now associate with Calvinism was the fruit of a long process of reflection by the Church's theologians, there is also room in classical Protestantism for a theory of the development of Christian doctrine, as evidenced by the works of such Protestant thinkers as Philip Schaff, Robert Rainy and James Orr.
One of the gravest falsifications in Calvinism is the arguable “development” from St Augustine’s soteriology. That affirmation is strictly nonsensical, since, for St Augustine, _”God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us”_ (St. Augustine, Sermo 169, 11, 13: PL 38, 923). It’s sufficient for anyone of good will to say a deep look in St Augustine demolishes Calvinism, since it could never derive from Augustine to simply contradict him. That’s not how development of doctrine goes.
Of course Catholics can see some manifest heresies in soteriology, but two of them, found on the extreme antipodes, can be picked for clarity: 1) Pelagianism, on one hand, and 2) Calvinism, on the other. Since St Augustine was the brave combatant against Pelagianism, it’s obvious one can find some “heavy pen” in his works against Pelagius and Celestius (and their faulty soteriology), that, used in an “ad hoc” intellectual process, was claimed by Calvin as the original “topoi” of his own works. But that can never be a development: it would rather be a corruption or a “evolution” without any basis.
I’d recommend St Iohn Henry Newman, but most of all _”A Brief Introduction to the Development of Doctrine: According to the Mind of St. Thomas Aquinas”_ (by Fr Thomas Gilby, OP).
God bless!
but this is merely to concede the point that the Church didn't know how salvation worked for 1500 years and judging by the number of calvinists in the world, only a marginal fraction of it knows how salvation works _now._
This isn't consistent with the idea of Jesus sending the Holy Spirit to guide the Church across all ages.
I was a Calvinist for 36 years. Actually reading Augustine was the first domino for me… because he was in no way a proto-Calvinist. There is no way Calvin would have allowed Augustine to preach in Geneva.
Oh, and St Prosper was even more hard core than Augustine. It’s simply a myth by Calvinists that their theology has roots in Christian antiquity… unless you include the gnostic heretics.
Indeed, the exact same argument I made about St Augustine can be made about St Prosper of Aquitaine, for instance. He is generally deemed to be the chief opponent of Semi-Pelagianism, mostly St John Cassian’s soteriology, just like St Augustine is the chief intellectual opponent of pure and simple Pelagianism.
As far as “theolegoumena” go, no individual saint is infallible as a theologian, but still it’s more or less undisputed for historians and theologians that St Vincent of Lerins or St John Cassian took the Augustinian theory of grace as if the movement of God being first emptied the need for us to cooperate with the action of grace, and they moulded their own reaction against that perception, not really against Augustine. The “heavy pen” used by the ‘Doctor Gratiae’ to condemn Pelagius gave, particularly to St Vincent, a certain - wrong - impression that predestination would be irreconcilable with free will in Augustinian terms, but that’s obviously a bad reading of the Northern African bishop’s metaphysics of the intellect and will. St Vincent of Lerins was most probably sympathetic to Semi-Pelagianism (since that theory was largely endorsed by the monks in Southern Gaul at that time), but even if he was indeed a Semi-Pelagian of his own, the same with St John Cassian, still they wouldn’t be deemed formal heretics because the faulty doctrine was only officially condemned in the Council of Orange (529), so much later in time. According to Catholic teaching, no theologian saint is to be blamed for anything later defined which was still disputable during his or her lifetime.
The view of prevenient grace in St Augustine was entirely read into Protestant premises in the 16th century, particularly the way the Protestant Revolution articulated “sola fide” taking out the salvific value of the works of charity, denying the mere existence of free will, as in Luther’s doctrine but specially in Calvin’s. It’s 100% Catholic understanding that it’s nothing but a wrong reading used by Protestants to vindicate an alleged antiquity for their theories in Augustine. But just to remember: Protestants in general falsely accuse anyone non-Protestant of Pelagianism (like Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, for instance) even when they don’t use those words, by the fact that they accuse whomever rejects “sola fide” as a proponent of a “works-based” salvation, so the mere fact that Protestants use Augustine wrongly shouldn’t say a word on the theory of prevenient grace in Catholic (and Orthodox) saints of the Patristic period, since it’s nothing short of anachronistic and “ad hoc”. The Ecumenical Council of Trent, in line with St Augustine’s global framework and how St Thomas Aquinas explains him, explicitly affirmed God’s gratuitous work and initiative in the justification process, but also asserted that we cooperate with God’s grace. To say grace is prevenient in us is to say it’s first and unmerited, NOT that we don’t have free will, that we suffer from total depravity or that grace is irresistible in Calvin’s metaphysics of the intellect and will.
So God’s grace enables us - unmeritedly - to do good but doesn’t accomplish in and for us all that concerns to choosing whether doing or how to do, so that it doesn’t entail the absolute absence of free will and much less any spurious theory like Calvinism’s double predestination, which is undoubtedly unbiblical and incompatible with God’s all goodness. I’d respectfully say the denial of free will is one of the core theological errors of Luther (not necessarily of Lutheranism) and Calvin (in this case of Calvinism too), one that some later Protestants tried to correct but yet outside of the Catholic Church. In that, Catholics must safely confess _“That grace is preceded by no merits. A reward is due to good works, if they are performed; but grace, which is not due, precedes, that they may be done”_ (Second Council of Orange II, A.D. 529, Can. 18; v. Denzinger-Hünermann n. 388).
As the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains, _”No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit. Every time we begin to pray to Jesus it is the Holy Spirit who draws us on the way of prayer by his prevenient grace”_ (CCC, par. 2670).
For the greatest readings, my friend, I would suggest you to read the “Decree Concerning Original Sin & Decree Concerning Reform” (Session V of the Council of Trent) and just then the “Decree Concerning Justification & Decree Concerning Reform” (Session VI of the Council of Trent).
Those are easily accessible online if you search exactly like I put it. It shows how the Catholic Church functions at the level of ecclesiastical authority, how she operates doctrinal anathemas and what she infallibly and definitively has defined which concerns to both original sin and justification.
Have a nice reading! God bless! From 🇧🇷 Brazil.
The common cavil among detractors today is the assertion that there was nothing resembling “Calvinism” that was ever taught before Augustine. However, John Gill demonstrated that there were significant traces of the doctrines of grace detectable in the pre-Augustinian Patristic authors, therefore, in his work, “The Cause of God and Truth,” he lists numerous Patristic authorities where doctrines such as predestination, election, reprobation, definite atonement, and perseverance may be found.
For instance, on the doctrine of predestination, Gill cites 19 Patristic authors who taught this doctrine, 17 of which predated Augustine’s conversion in 386AD. Regarding definite atonement, Gill cites 33 Patristic authors, 19 of which predate Augustine’s conversion.
References to the Patriarchs and their teachings of the infancy of the doctrines of grace can also be found in the Appendix to Michael Horton’s book, “Putting Amazing Back Into Grace.”
predestination is subsumed into Catholicism, that's not the innovation. How many of them taught double predestination and limited atonement?
@@SouthernFriedPapist
Citations? It's the WHOLE 328 page book!
Dear@@lawrencestanley8989, I understand your frustration, and I myself have not read Gill's book. (And I am too old, I do not expect to use my precious little remaining time in reading it) -- I have heard commentaries on the book that say the quotations are taken out of context. And Heschmeyer reports that Calvin himself did not find any Calvinism before Augustine.
@@susand3668
For the moment, let's grant the assertion that the quotations are taken out of context. Ultimately, what the patriarchs had to say doesn't matter. If we take away nothing else from a study of the patristic authors, it is that they are inconsistent with one another, inconsistent within their own writings, and in some cases are simply demonstrably unbiblical in their attempts to be pastoral. They were simply uninspired men attempting to do the best they could with what they had. Our theology should come from a deep study of scripture and an attempt to uncover its authorial intent. If we utilize the teachings of others, we should do so very carefully, always letting the scriptures be the determination of whether or not their teaching is sound. "To the law and to the testimony! If they teach not according to this, it is because they have no dawn." And this applies to every teacher.
Dear@@lawrencestanley8989, actually, I would not go so far. Yes, the early Church Fathers were not infallible, and Scripture is. Yes, the Bible is "the Word of God in the words of men", and the writings of the Early Church Fathers were merely human.
But they were not as confused and confusing as your words about them imply.
Nevertheless, the study of Scripture -- as basically and vitally important as THAT is!! -- is not the topic of this interview. The question was, whether or not Calvinism is a novelty. And Calvin himself said it was.
(As for the Truth of the Catholic Church as revealed in the Scriptures, there is so very much written about that! Have you had a chance to read any of Brant Pitre's books?)
Calvinism is one of the saddest protestant denomination out there.
I would say the reason we have so many denominations is because the Roman Catholic church excommunicated and executed anyone that disagree with the Pope/Catholic church teachings. The Roman Catholic church handled it just like the Jewish rulers in the time of Jesus, "you do not adhere to our teachings, to death you shall go!"
My point is, if the Jewish rulers and the Roman Catholic church would have handled things more differently things would have been very different. Handled it how? IDK... teaching, reasoning, debating, loving them, etc.
But nope! "At the stack! You blasphemous heretic!"
Not to mention the corruption in the Roman Catholic church is their.
Anyways, peace and grace in the knowledge of God our Father and our saviour Jesua Christ.
You say : "Not to mention the corruption in the Roman Catholic church is their. "
So, for yourself, remain outside the Church, and for sur sure You will be saved whitouth the BLOOD and the FLESCH of JESUS CHRIST. You will enter into the Kindom of Heaven Whith ALL YOUR SINS, ! Good job !
@@adelbertleblanc1846 the Roman Cathlic church is not THE church. Who are those that are in the TRUE church. The true church are the ones that get to hear, "well done, my good and faithful servant, enter in to my rest." Chriat is building his church among the tares.
Listen, there are MANY Catholics going to Hell and many protestants as well. Just because you warm a bench at a Cathlic church don't mean that you are eternally secured.
Lol, yes to your sarcasm! I need His blood, and his body for eternal life. I need all my sins cleansed. He can cleanse me outside the Roman Catholic church, just like the theif on the cross, who did not a chance to get baptized, etc., but Christ added another soul (the theif on the cross) to his church/kingdom.
But Yes! I will drink my Lord's blood and eat my Lord's flesh so I may never die! His precious blood and flesh that was torn for us. God bless!
As if Calvin never killed people that disagreed with his doctrine??? The world is run by the evil one, he gets into everything and corrupts it, churches governments etc… Look to the saints as examples, not the corrupters.
The Protestants infamously persecuted Catholics and other variants of Protestants they disagreed with as soon as they came into power. John Calvin had a fellow Protestant executed for heresy in Geneva for being the wrong kind of Protestant.
In Britain and the Low Countries of Europe, Catholics were banned from public office. The monarch of the UK was banned from marrying a Catholic until they repealed it in 2013. Celebrating Christmas was illegal at various points, condemned as Catholic superstition.
The famous witch trials of Europe and New England were carried out in Protestant Northern Europe and by extremist Protestants in New England. Catholic teaching at the time was witches didn’t have actual power and probably didn’t exist.
Martin Luther said Copernicus, who worked for the Catholic Church and dedicated his work to the Pope, would burn in hell because his heliocentric theory contradicted Luther’s interpretation of the Bible.
The idea that the Protestant reformation was peaceful and tolerant is a myth of the English-speaking Protestant world.
Protestant response. Aquinas taught predestination. If you have a problem with Calvin, then you have a problem with Aquinas and Augustine. What the gentleman failed to mention is that Calvin did not suddenly decide to create the doctrine of predestination out of thin air on a whim. There were serious theologians before him who wrote extensively on predestination. The great Thomas Aquinas wrote extensively on this subject. I am amazed that the gentleman making the presentation did not even mention Aquinas. Calvin studied both Augustine and Aquinas. Calvin was a patristic scholar. Calvin and Aquinas were heavily influenced by Augustine. There is overlap between the two men on this subject. For Aquinas, God elects some individuals to freely receive eternal life and foreordains them to this glorious end. Thomas reasons as follows:
…predestination, as we have said, is part of Providence, which is like prudence, as we have noticed, and is the plan existing in the mind of the one who rules things for a purpose. Things are so ordained only in virtue of a preceding intention for that end. The predestination of some to salvation means that God wills their salvation. This is where special and chosen loving comes in.”
Here is Aquinas on predestination of reprobation: Reprobation, like predestination, is a part of providence since by God’s providence men are guided to their final destination. For Thomas, reprobation is God’s “will to permit someone to fall into fault and to inflict the penalty of damnation in consequence.” Reprobation includes the idea of damnation. As a result of God’s dereliction people are left to themselves and eternally punished for their demerits. Those deprived of saving grace are said to be hated by God. In support of this assertion Thomas cites Malachi 1:2 both in the ST and the CG, “I loved Jacob, but hated Esau.” Some are guided to their last end with the aid of grace, while others deprived of this grace fall from their last end. According to Thomas, this distinction has been ordained by God from eternity. God’s rejection permits individuals to fall, the non-elect are fully responsible for their sin. Thomas is adamant that God is not the cause of iniquity; the guilt lies with man. Needless to say the contemporary Roman Catholicism has abandoned Aquinas on this issue. If you want to understand Calvin on this issue read his Institutes of the Christian Religion. There is no question that without Augustine and Aquinas, you would not have Calvin. Although all three Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin are rooted in the writings of the Apostle Paul who clearly taught predestination.
Jesus gave us the Gospel with instructions on how we ought to conduct ourselves. Begin reading it today and learn about Jesus. We need to follow his path. He said “if you wish to follow me, pick up your Cross and follow me.” He never said “shut your Gospel, let it stay on the shelf and keep chanting I only need to believe in Jesus and not do anything else and I will be saved.”
@@olivetaelizabeth You are confusing law with gospel. Be careful that you don’t connect the law with the Gospel to the point that the law absorbs the Gospel. The law describes what God requires. It demands perfection: a standard we cannot meet. “Gospel” describes what God provides so that we may live, namely the person and work of Jesus Christ. When we misapply Scripture, we replace grace with legalism. But, rightly understood, the law of God is good, unmasking our self-righteousness and exposing our depravity. It sends us running for cover in the righteousness of Christ, won at Calvary. It liberates us to rest from our labors at keeping the law, and it leads us to green pastures of deep and overflowing joy in Christ alone. A good life is the result of salvation, it is not a prerequisite for it.
@@paulsmallwood1484 I would like to hear your understanding of the Law.
@@olivetaelizabeth The law is God’s moral law as summarized in the Ten Commandments. By studying or meditating on the law of God, we attend the school of righteousness. We learn what pleases God and what offends Him. The moral law that God reveals in Scripture is always binding upon us. Our redemption is from the curse of God’s law, not from our duty to obey it. We are justified, not because of our obedience to the law, but in order that we may become obedient to God’s law. To love Christ is to keep His commandments. To love God is to obey His law.
@@paulsmallwood1484
Why does obedience matter if you believe you're going to heaven anyways?
It comes down to human arrogance. You think God has to be fair. The text teaches you must be born from above which is not something that occurs by the will of the flesh. Thank you.
As Someone who believes whole heartedly in the Catholic faith, you should really study what the Dominican tradition has said about these issues, largely in the thought of Dominican Friar Domingo Banez. Some of the critiques you lay against Calvinism, simultaneously condemn your Catholic brothers from the Thomist school of thought.
Honestly, that’s nonsense. Calvin’s “Institutas” were written as a reaction against the “Summa Theologica” and the theology of St Thomas Aquinas, so what part of Calvinism do you feel to conflate or at least approximate / reconcile with Thomism in the theological realm, considering the very anti-Thomist nature of Calvin’s work? Because there are some people online that seem to think predestination/ election are Calvinist terms for Calvinist theological concepts, which they obviously aren’t, even though there is a perceptible “semiotic capture” of this nomenclature through Calvinist overuse. For example: to say grace is prevenient in us is to say it’s first and unmerited, NOT that we don’t have free will, that we suffer from total depravity or that grace is irresistible (and without cooperation), or, even less, anything that even resembles double predestination. And that’s indisputable. Even so, of course there are ways to read Calvin in light of St Thomas: not in all parts of his general theological thought, but some of his metaphysics.
For instance, it’s much easier to find common grounds with Thomism (and the Dominican School) than with Molinism (the Jesuit School), as far as the metaphysics of divine intellect and will goes. Your accusation that the condemnation of Calvinism means an arguable condemnation of the Thomist thought is nonsensical. Calvinist soteriology and theology of grace, for example, are rigorously anti-Catholic and anti-Thomist by definition, as the sessions of the Ecumenical Council of Trent concerning both original sin and justification proved. I suggest you to read the “Decree Concerning Original Sin & Decree Concerning Reform” (Session V of the Council of Trent) and just then the “Decree Concerning Justification & Decree Concerning Reform” (Session VI of the Council of Trent), in this order.
So I’m actually very curious to understand your argument, my friend. Are you talking about the metaphysics of the divine intellect and will (how God knows and how God decrees), which is proper to the philosophical rhetoric, or are you talking about soteriology, theological anthropology, the theology of grace and original sin, and so forth? For me it’s obvious that Calvinism is an innovation that arose during the Protestant Revolution, and the possible reconciliation of its metaphysics with parts of Thomist metaphysics doesn’t change this very reality.
Brother, if you want to actually know the Thomist and the Dominican thought, I recommend anything written by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (OP) nevertheless. The “Thomist Institute” online has some fabulous courses too.
God bless!
yeah im MERELY referring to the scholastic reformed view of predestination. Sorry you took the time to type all of that out, but the scholastic reformed view of predestination, is the same as Father Lagrange. Obviously, all of their other distinctives are heretirical. @@masterchief8179
again to be clear, only referring to predestination, not TULIP@@masterchief8179
Calvinism is really akin to a teenager's first attempt at understanding Aquinas. It has none of its virtues and invents new vices.
Perhaps if a Catholic intellectual produces a work so alike to a condemned heresy, his work should be revised by the Church, and the improper parts of it reprimanded.
Protestant response. This better explains the Reformed position on Predestination: God has reached out through the ages, and passed over the unrepentant crowds of the reprobate, to save YOU, and you specifically. Not because of something you did, or because you have something that makes you fundamentally better than the rest of Creation. We are all equally dead in our sins. Yet, God saves us for no other reason than that he loves us that much. What the gentleman failed to mention is that Calvin did not suddenly decide to create the doctrine of predestination out of thin air on a whim. There were serious theologians before him who wrote extensively on predestination. The great Thomas Aquinas wrote extensively on this subject. I am amazed that the gentleman making the presentation did not even mention Aquinas. Calvin studied both Augustine and Aquinas. Calvin was a patristic scholar. Calvin and Aquinas were heavily influenced by Augustine. There is overlap between the two men on this subject. For Aquinas, God elects some individuals to freely receive eternal life and foreordains them to this glorious end. Thomas reasons as follows:
…predestination, as we have said, is part of Providence, which is like prudence, as we have noticed, and is the plan existing in the mind of the one who rules things for a purpose. Things are so ordained only in virtue of a preceding intention for that end. The predestination of some to salvation means that God wills their salvation. This is where special and chosen loving comes in.”
Here is Aquinas on predestination of reprobation: Reprobation, like predestination, is a part of providence since by God’s providence men are guided to their final destination. For Thomas, reprobation is God’s “will to permit someone to fall into fault and to inflict the penalty of damnation in consequence.” Reprobation includes the idea of damnation. As a result of God’s dereliction people are left to themselves and eternally punished for their demerits. Those deprived of saving grace are said to be hated by God. In support of this assertion Thomas cites Malachi 1:2 both in the ST and the CG, “I loved Jacob, but hated Esau.” Some are guided to their last end with the aid of grace, while others deprived of this grace fall from their last end. According to Thomas, this distinction has been ordained by God from eternity. God’s rejection permits individuals to fall, the non-elect are fully responsible for their sin. Thomas is adamant that God is not the cause of iniquity; the guilt lies with man. Needless to say the contemporary Roman Catholicism has abandoned Aquinas on this issue. If you want to understand Calvin on this issue read his Institutes of the Christian Religion. There is no question that without Augustine and Aquinas, you would not have Calvin. Although all three Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin are rooted in the writings of the Apostle Paul who clearly taught predestination.
Predestination is part of Catholic doctrine, double predestination which is what Calvin believed, is heresy.
The problem with the Calvinist position as you have articulated it is NOT the abounding grace poured out to the unworthy sinners whom the sovereign God wills to save and predestined from all ages for glory. The issue is the heretical conception of your fellow man as worthless and hopeless reprobates who, not as matter of their free will, but by divine decree have been created and placed to be outside the reach of the redemptive power of the cross even in principle. It is not that the non-Calvinist has too low a view of the power of grace or the sovereignty of God, the Calvinist just has too low a view of the power of the cross and mercy of the sovereign God.
Rather, if we are to imagine all men as equally dead in sin, then all men through the God of the Resurrection have access to sufficient grace to live with Him forever. Furthermore, graces will follow graces that any man might be washed free of all stain of decay, and sustain his life with that blood of the new covenant and that bread of life. But men still, in the end, scripture tells us will be found dead. To St. Agustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Vincent de Lerins, and others the answer is clear... it was not God's will that they perish, but the men themselves are to blame as while having access to sufficient grace to live in harmony with God forever they choose to spurn the bread of life and thus wrought their own destruction.
The most obvious lie of Calvinism is not found in any strong defense of grace against Pelagianism, nor any true assertion of God's omniscience including the names of all the saints before they were born... the error of Calvin is in the limitations put on the Cross and the denial of the responsibility each man has been given by God as regards the care of his own soul.
@@steeldragonsdx7765 actually it isn’t strictly speaking the “Calvinist” position. It is based on the writings of the great Augustine of Hippo. A church father and influential 5th century theologian. It is Augustinian. John Calvin was an Augustinian scholar. His writings are peppered with quotes by Augustine. Your argument is with Augustine. You exaggerate the so called “Calvinist” position to the point where becomes a caricature. Calvin never ever makes God responsible for sin. That is a bold faced falsehood. It is solely on the basis of God’s mercy that anyone is saved. Salvation is all about God’s grace. You really need to get better informed.
Calvinism is grounded in Scripture. Start with the 5 Points of Calvinism.
Jehovah's witnesses say they're grounded in the Bible, grab a number.
Mormons too!
@@iggyantioch Mormonism denies the Trinity. God was once a man who became a god. He had spirit children smith was a false prophet.
Mormons say the same.
At my door recently.
@@Justas399
Calvinism attributes evil to God, that's probably worse.
Non-intelligible at least to me. Awful.
Protestant response. The error of libertarian free will. According to libertarians, the power of contrary choice means that it is always within the ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel. But if we have the natural capacity to believe or reject the gospel freely (in the libertarian sense) why is there the need for the Holy Spirit in salvation at all, especially when the gospel is preached? If you ask a libertarian whether he could come to faith in Christ apart from any work of the Spirit, like all Christians, they must answer ‘no’. In other words, even to a libertarian, it is not “within the [natural moral] ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel.” There is still the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit, who is the sine qua non of the affections being set free from sin’s bondage. Therefore, they are forced to admit that the possibility of the natural will exercising faith would be inconsistent with basic Christianity, since we all know that the natural man is hostile to God and will not willingly submit to the humbling terms of the gospel. We all agree then, that left to himself, man has no libertarian free will to choose any redemptive good, since his affections are entirely in bondage to sin (until Christ sets him free) and cannot choose otherwise. So it ends up that libertarians must believe that, in his natural state (which is most of the time), man’s will is only free in the compatibilist sense, since, apart from the Spirit, he can only choose according to the desires (love of darkness) of his fallen nature. Unless, of course, they can offer another explanation of why one cannot believe apart from the Holy Spirit.
Protestant response. Here is the Reformed understanding of free will. God does not violate free will. The problem is that when many people say free will they mean libertarian free will and this does not exist. Calvin (and Augustine) made a distinction between moral ability and natural ability. Natural ability has to do with the abilities we have by nature. As a human being, I have the natural ability to think. I have the ability to speak. I can walk upright. I do not have the natural ability to fly through the air unaided by machines. Fish have the ability to live underwater for great periods of time without tanks of oxygen and diving equipment because God has given them fins and gills. He has given them the natural equipment necessary to make them able to live in that environment. Hence, they have a natural ability that I do not have. God has given natural abilities to birds that I do not have. When we’re talking about moral ability, we’re talking about the ability to be righteous, as well as to be sinful. Man was created with the ability to be righteous or to be sinful, but man has fallen. Calvin is saying that, in his fallen state, man no longer has the ability in and of himself to be morally perfect because he is born in sin. Because of original sin, He has a fallen nature, a sin nature, which makes it utterly impossible for him to achieve perfection in this world. He still has the faculty of thinking. He still has the ability to make choices. But what he lacks is the inclination or disposition toward godliness. At this point, Calvin is merely echoing what Augustine had taught centuries earlier with a similar distinction. Augustine said that man had a liberum arbitrium, or a free will, but what man lost in the fall was libertas, or liberty-what the Bible calls “moral liberty.” The Bible speaks of fallen men as being in bondage to sin. Those who are in bondage have lost some dimension of moral liberty. They still make choices and they still have a free will, but that will is now inclined toward evil and disinclined toward righteousness. There is none who does good. There is none righteous. There is none who seeks after God, no not one (Rom. 3:10-12). That indicates something has happened to us on the inside. Jesus says that the fruit of the tree comes from the nature of the tree (Matt. 7:17-20). Fig trees don’t produce oranges. You don’t get a corrupt fruit from a righteous tree. There is something wrong inside of us where our desires and our inclinations reside-it is in bondage. But even that fallenness does not eliminate the faculty of choosing. There is really no difference between Augustine and Calvin on this. What Augustine is saying when he says, “We still have free will, but not liberty,” is the same distinction that Calvin is making between moral ability and natural ability.
Protestant response. The early church was not Protestant, Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. It was the Universal Christian Church not to be confused with the Roman Catholic church. The early or primitive church and Roman Catholicism are not the same. Much of what we see in contemporary Roman Catholic doctrine and practice was unknown in the early or primitive church . The three great Christian traditions look to the early church as part of the common heritage from which they all descend. She is our common mother. You are being so disingenuous harping on about “divisions” in Protestantism while ignoring the divisions within the Roman Catholicism. This gentleman is passing along all the standard mischaracterizations of so called “Calvinism”. It is obvious that the guest is not an expert on this subject. His presentation was full of inaccuracies. If you want accurate information about the Reformed tradition, don’t listen to someone from Catholic Answers. Contact someone in the Reformed tradition who actually knows what they are talking about. This was not a Calvinist/Catholic discussion. This was a polemical attack on the Reformed tradition. Don’t be fooled.
We have no divisions on dogma by definition. What's disingenuous is pretending that administrative problems or a group of people not liking another or thinking they're wrong is in any way comparable with having multiple, irreconcilable soteriologies, contradictory ecclesiology, etc.
When was calvinism invented? what about it corresponds to the early Church?
@@Qwerty-jy9mj…spot on!!!🎯
I'd be curious if you could point to one point that Joe got wrong
I really doubt you even watched the video (at least attentively), but as a Catholic, I wouldn’t know any era as “pre-Roman Catholic”. Episcopal communion with the Successor of Peter is not an accidental, but a constitutive ontological element of the Church, as Our Lord Christ Jesus made it to be. So it seems one must assume the (Protestant) premises in the conclusion you put - and it sounds to me like a strange historiography of the very Church. Of course all Christians have a fair-share in Church ancient patrimony. Yet that can only be manifestly true if (and insofar) we understand that fractured groups, which are visibly seen because of the deplorable sin of division - with guilt presumably found in all parts, let’s be honest - came from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and THAT body STILL continues to exist (= “subsistit in”, as in Latin) necessarily, or else Christ would have failed his promises and we would rely on the “ecclesiology of invisibility” in a STRICT sense. I’m not arguing against Protestant ecclesiology or even for the Catholic one here. But what if we look for the ancient inheritance in the strictest and perfect sense by means of continuation? The further honest question would be what that body is, but surely it’s false that we (and everybody) came from an undecipherable “plastic” ancient ecclesial BODY that is a pure and incorrupt tradition, and that was interrupted SOMEHOW, but is kind of radiographed in a myriad of groups /“denominations” that can equally claim continuity from this alleged lost ecclesial brute mass. I’d argue for that kind of intellectual “topoi” being unbiblical and surely counter-apostolic. That’s what Protestantism is and does by definition.
Please, i’m not saying Catholicism is simply exempt from ‘disputatio’, nothing of this sort, nor that TRUTH as we see it is self-evident and obvious to anyone of good will. But for the sake of debating authenticity, of course multiple answers would be given. Although in an incomplete sense all Christians can and must claim they receive the one true inheritance from Christ Himself, ecclesiologically it seems wrong to advocate for a sort of “proto-ecclesia” that exists no longer, even if a region or a continent falls down to non-Christian dominance. As a Catholic, my claim is that the *Church of Christ IS the ONE that “continues to exist in” (= or, as in Latin, ‘subsistit in’) the Catholic Church.* Undoubtedly. I would be all day here to argue for that position but I guess everybody could have predicted that. I’d only say the Catholic Church is “Roman” if only we qualify it’s an apostolic body visibly governed by the successor of St Peter, whose ‘cathedra’ is stationed in Rome not only _lato sensu_ but also _stricto sensu,_ both canonically and apostolically, and by the bishops in communion with him, even though imperfect degrees of unity manifest indeed and surely elements of sanctification and truth can be seen outside of those very visible boundaries (‘Lumen Gentium’, 8). So we must make a lot of effort to take ecclesiology in seriousness, avoiding either a sort of prideful arbitrariness that would fail the revealed data, the four ‘notes’ of the Church or history (or all of them), or a sort of indifferent ecclesial relativism.
God bless!
still twisting and lying troll Universal church Means Catholic Church sorry your BS can't change it.
Roman Catholic Church,” The term originates as an insult created by Anglicans who wished to refer to themselves as Catholic. They thus coined the term “Roman Catholic” to distinguish those in union with Rome from themselves and to create a sense in which they could refer to themselves as Catholics (by attempting to deprive actual Catholics to the right to the term).
Different variants of the “Roman” insult appeared at different times. The earliest form was the noun “Romanist” (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which appeared in England about 1515-1525. The next to develop was the adjective “Romish” (similar to something done or believed in the Catholic Church), which appeared around 1525-1535. Next came the noun “Roman Catholic” (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which was coined around 1595-1605. Shortly thereafter came the verb “to Romanize” (to make someone a Catholic or to become a Catholic), which appeared around 1600-10. Between 1665 and 1675 we got the noun “Romanism” (the system of Catholic beliefs and practices), and finally we got a latecomer term about 1815-1825, the noun “Roman Catholicism,” a synonym for the earlier “Romanism.”
A similar complex of insults arose around “pope.” About 1515-25 the Anglicans coined the term “papist” and later its derivative “papism.” A quick follow-up, in 1520-1530, was the adjective “popish.” Next came “popery” (1525-1535), then “papistry” (1540-1550), with its later derivatives, “papistical” and “papistic.” (Source: Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, 1995 ed.)
This complex of insults is revealing as it shows the depths of animosity English Protestants had toward the Church. No other religious body (perhaps no other group at all, even national or racial) has such a complex of insults against it woven into the English language as does the Catholic Church. Even today many Protestants who have no idea what the origin of the term is cannot bring themselves to say “Catholic” without qualifying it or replacing it with an insult.🤢🤢
This is one of the worst explanations of Calvinism that I've heard. It seems like this video would be more impactful/meaningful if a more accurate/honest explanation of Calvinism were given.
Give us starting point you feel was lacking
Respectfully
@@iggyantioch Protestant response. This better explains the Reformed position on Predestination: God has reached out through the ages, and passed over the unrepentant crowds of the reprobate, to save YOU, and you specifically. Not because of something you did, or because you have something that makes you fundamentally better than the rest of Creation. We are all equally dead in our sins. Yet, God saves us for no other reason than that he loves us that much. What the gentleman failed to mention in his presentation is that Calvin did not suddenly decide to create the doctrine of predestination out of thin air on a whim. There were serious theologians before him who wrote extensively on predestination. The great Thomas Aquinas wrote extensively on this subject. I am amazed that the gentleman making the presentation did not even mention Aquinas. Calvin studied both Augustine and Aquinas. Calvin was a patristic scholar. Calvin and Aquinas were heavily influenced by Augustine. There is overlap between the two men on this subject. For Aquinas, God elects some individuals to freely receive eternal life and foreordains them to this glorious end. Thomas reasons as follows:
…predestination, as we have said, is part of Providence, which is like prudence, as we have noticed, and is the plan existing in the mind of the one who rules things for a purpose. Things are so ordained only in virtue of a preceding intention for that end. The predestination of some to salvation means that God wills their salvation. This is where special and chosen loving comes in.”
Here is Aquinas on predestination of reprobation: Reprobation, like predestination, is a part of providence since by God’s providence men are guided to their final destination. For Thomas, reprobation is God’s “will to permit someone to fall into fault and to inflict the penalty of damnation in consequence.” Reprobation includes the idea of damnation. As a result of God’s dereliction people are left to themselves and eternally punished for their demerits. Those deprived of saving grace are said to be hated by God. In support of this assertion Thomas cites Malachi 1:2 both in the ST and the CG, “I loved Jacob, but hated Esau.” Some are guided to their last end with the aid of grace, while others deprived of this grace fall from their last end. According to Thomas, this distinction has been ordained by God from eternity. God’s rejection permits individuals to fall, the non-elect are fully responsible for their sin. Thomas is adamant that God is not the cause of iniquity; the guilt lies with man. Needless to say the contemporary Roman Catholicism has abandoned Aquinas on this issue. If you want to understand Calvin on this issue read his Institutes of the Christian Religion. There is no question that without Augustine and Aquinas, you would not have Calvin. Although all three Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin are rooted in the writings of the Apostle Paul who clearly taught predestination.
@@iggyantioch Protestant response. The error of libertarian free will. According to libertarians, the power of contrary choice means that it is always within the ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel. But if we have the natural capacity to believe or reject the gospel freely (in the libertarian sense) why is there the need for the Holy Spirit in salvation at all, especially when the gospel is preached? If you ask a libertarian whether he could come to faith in Christ apart from any work of the Spirit, like all Christians, they must answer ‘no’. In other words, even to a libertarian, it is not “within the [natural moral] ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel.” There is still the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit, who is the sine qua non of the affections being set free from sin’s bondage. Therefore, they are forced to admit that the possibility of the natural will exercising faith would be inconsistent with basic Christianity, since we all know that the natural man is hostile to God and will not willingly submit to the humbling terms of the gospel. We all agree then, that left to himself, man has no libertarian free will to choose any redemptive good, since his affections are entirely in bondage to sin (until Christ sets him free) and cannot choose otherwise. So it ends up that libertarians must believe that, in his natural state (which is most of the time), man’s will is only free in the compatibilist sense, since, apart from the Spirit, he can only choose according to the desires (love of darkness) of his fallen nature. Unless, of course, they can offer another explanation of why one cannot believe apart from the Holy Spirit.
@@iggyantioch Protestant response. This better explains the Reformed position on Predestination: God has reached out through the ages, and passed over the unrepentant crowds of the reprobate, to save YOU, and you specifically. Not because of something you did, or because you have something that makes you fundamentally better than the rest of Creation. We are all equally dead in our sins. Yet, God saves us for no other reason than that he loves us that much. What the gentleman failed to mention in his presentation is that Calvin did not suddenly decide to create the doctrine of predestination out of thin air on a whim. There were serious theologians before him who wrote extensively on predestination. The great Thomas Aquinas wrote extensively on this subject. I am amazed that the gentleman making the presentation did not even mention Aquinas. Calvin studied both Augustine and Aquinas. Calvin was a patristic scholar. Calvin and Aquinas were heavily influenced by Augustine. There is overlap between the two men on this subject. For Aquinas, God elects some individuals to freely receive eternal life and foreordains them to this glorious end. Thomas reasons as follows:
…predestination, as we have said, is part of Providence, which is like prudence, as we have noticed, and is the plan existing in the mind of the one who rules things for a purpose. Things are so ordained only in virtue of a preceding intention for that end. The predestination of some to salvation means that God wills their salvation. This is where special and chosen loving comes in.”
Here is Aquinas on predestination of reprobation: Reprobation, like predestination, is a part of providence since by God’s providence men are guided to their final destination. For Thomas, reprobation is God’s “will to permit someone to fall into fault and to inflict the penalty of damnation in consequence.” Reprobation includes the idea of damnation. As a result of God’s dereliction people are left to themselves and eternally punished for their demerits. Those deprived of saving grace are said to be hated by God. In support of this assertion Thomas cites Malachi 1:2 both in the ST and the CG, “I loved Jacob, but hated Esau.” Some are guided to their last end with the aid of grace, while others deprived of this grace fall from their last end. According to Thomas, this distinction has been ordained by God from eternity. God’s rejection permits individuals to fall, the non-elect are fully responsible for their sin. Thomas is adamant that God is not the cause of iniquity; the guilt lies with man. Needless to say the contemporary Roman Catholicism has abandoned Aquinas on this issue. If you want to understand Calvin on this issue read his Institutes of the Christian Religion. There is no question that without Augustine and Aquinas, you would not have Calvin. Although all three Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin are rooted in the writings of the Apostle Paul who clearly taught predestination.
@@iggyantioch Protestant response. The error of libertarian free will. According to libertarians, the power of contrary choice means that it is always within the ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel. But if we have the natural capacity to believe or reject the gospel freely (in the libertarian sense) why is there the need for the Holy Spirit in salvation at all, especially when the gospel is preached? If you ask a libertarian whether he could come to faith in Christ apart from any work of the Spirit, like all Christians, they must answer ‘no’. In other words, even to a libertarian, it is not “within the [natural moral] ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel.” There is still the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit, who is the sine qua non of the affections being set free from sin’s bondage. Therefore, they are forced to admit that the possibility of the natural will exercising faith would be inconsistent with basic Christianity, since we all know that the natural man is hostile to God and will not willingly submit to the humbling terms of the gospel. We all agree then, that left to himself, man has no libertarian free will to choose any redemptive good, since his affections are entirely in bondage to sin (until Christ sets him free) and cannot choose otherwise. So it ends up that libertarians must believe that, in his natural state (which is most of the time), man’s will is only free in the compatibilist sense, since, apart from the Spirit, he can only choose according to the desires (love of darkness) of his fallen nature. Unless, of course, they can offer another explanation of why one cannot believe apart from the Holy Spirit.