Is Calvinism a heresy?

atpollard said:

Is the RCC planning to reverse the “anathema” from its councils?
Then we can all sing “kumbaya” together.

Until then, being eternally damned is sort of a deal breaker.

Click to expand...

The anathema of any council is a technical term, it doesn't imply damnation of any particular living modern day person.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Nope, the anathemas apply to the same people that they applied to when they were written; however, those who were the targets in 1560 are not people alive today and that is a matter that Protestants would do well to think about.

Click to expand...

I do (think about it).
To avoid the "Let's bash the RCC" bunny trail and get back to the TITLE OF THIS THREAD (and one would presume, its subject) ...

The fact of the matter is that the entrenched positions and the fundamental core issues remain UNCHANGED from the 16th Century.

• The RCC still places TRADITION on an equal plane with SCRIPTURE and sets the MAGISTERIUM as the final authority of determining Truth.
• The LUTHERANS still place SCRIPTURE above TRADITION and have merely semi-reformed Catholicism into a form that rejects Papal Supremacy and Authority over them.
• The REFORMERS that followed still embrace SOLA SCRIPTURA and true reform and our view is still held as HERESY by those that reject what SCRIPTURE actually teaches by buffering and redefining it with man-made TRADITIONS.

Hence these eternal topics forever popping up to slander and misrepresent what SCRIPTURE actually SAYS (Which is what so-called "Calvinism" quotes from scripture to teach.)

Q.E.D.: We who read Scripture and take God at His word are STILL called "anathema" for doing so!

But Peter and John answered and said to them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge."
- Acts 4:19 [NKJV]

Sola Scriptura​

Sola Fide​

Sola Gratia​

Solus Christus​

Soli Deo Gloria​

John Mullally said:

Open your eyes. Look on the internet and see who is trashing other ministries by name. It is almost all Calvinists. Again the points in "TULIP" are not directly supported by scripture, so what they are teaching is not Bible.

Click to expand...

So NONE of the points of TULIP are directly supported by scripture ...

John 6:44 [NKJV]
[Total Inability] "No one can come to Me
[Unconditional Election & Irresistible Grace] unless the Father who sent Me draws him;
[Preservation of the Saints] and I will raise him up at the last day.

... and what we are teaching is not in the Bible: REALLY?
I guess that YOUR Bible doesn't have John 6:44 in it.

atpollard said:

I do (think about it).
To avoid the "Let's bash the RCC" bunny trail and get back to the TITLE OF THIS THREAD (and one would presume, its subject) ...

The fact of the matter is that the entrenched positions and the fundamental core issues remain UNCHANGED from the 16th Century.

• The RCC still places TRADITION on an equal plane with SCRIPTURE and sets the MAGISTERIUM as the final authority of determining Truth.

Click to expand...

That's how you see it, but it could just be that the RCC merely sees tradition as the proper hermeneutical guide to the Scriptures.

atpollard said:

• The LUTHERANS still place SCRIPTURE above TRADITION and have merely semi-reformed Catholicism into a form that rejects Papal Supremacy and Authority over them.

Click to expand...

As a Lutheran I can tell you it's more complicated than that. We have a tradition of sorts too we place alongside the Scriptures, in the sense that to be a Lutheran means to at least recognize the place that traditional confessions and theology as as a hermeneutical guide for interpreting the Scriptures. For instance, you can't be a Lutheran without at least recognizing the Augsburg Confession as an historic testament to 16th century Lutheran doctrine. The Augsburg Confession may not be the end of theology, but for the Lutheran it certainly gives it its defining shape.

FireDragon76 said:

As a Lutheran I can tell you it's more complicated than that.

Click to expand...

Ultimately, EVERYTHING usually is "more complicated than that". However, communication necessitates the simplification of ideas.

atpollard said:

So NONE of the points of TULIP are directly supported by scripture ...

John 6:44 [NKJV]
[Total Inability] "No one can come to Me
[Unconditional Election & Irresistible Grace] unless the Father who sent Me draws him;
[Preservation of the Saints] and I will raise him up at the last day.

... and what we are teaching is not in the Bible: REALLY?
I guess that YOUR Bible doesn't have John 6:44 in it.

Click to expand...

Who is the Father giving, drawing and granting to come to His Son?

In this context of John chapter 6, it’s the faithful Jews who had “heard and learned from the Father.” (John 6:45) Conversely, according to John 12:32, a global drawing of “all men” doesn't occur until after Christ’s resurrection.

John Mullally said:

Who is the Father giving, drawing and granting to come to His Son?

In this context of John chapter 6, it’s the faithful Jews who had “heard and learned from the Father.” (John 6:45) Conversely, according to John 12:32, a global drawing of “all men” doesn't occur until after Christ’s resurrection.

Click to expand...

How does that negate ANY of the points in the verse?

1. Can they come without the draw of the Father? Jesus said NO. (T)
2. Will those that the Father draws, come? Jesus said YES. (I)
3. Will Jesus personally raise each and every one of them on the last day? Jesus said YES. (P)

Where is the disclaimer that Chapter 6 of the Gospel of John does not apply to gentiles?
Does that argument not apply to ALL of the gospels and most of the Old Testament?
Perhaps we need to publish a pamphlet “Bible verses for Gentiles” … so we don’t waste time on all those scriptures that are not talking about US.

QvQ said:

Which one wrote this?
The predestination of some to salvation means that God wills their salvation. This is where special and chosen loving come in. Special, because God wills this blessing of eternal salvation to some, for, as we have seen, loving is willing a person good, chosen loving because he wills this to some and not to others, for, as we have seen, some he rejects.

That is St. Thomas Aquinas

And double predestination
whether God reprobates any man, Aquinas answered God does reprobate some. He cited Malachi 1:2-3 as proof; God loved Jacob, but Esau, He hated. In this, Aquinas reasoned if Jacob is ordained to eternal life, then Esau must be equally ordained to everlasting death. Moreover, if God worked His will in Jacob to produce good things, then He must have permitted Esau to fall into reprobation. Thus, Aquinas concluded predestination is so-called double predestination, because some are ordained to life, and others to death.

This is St Thomas

I can't find any sorts of implications in Calvin other than it was a mystery and referred back to Augustine
Perhaps you could post chapter and verse, not the entire chapter, but where in the Institutes Calvin wrote about predestination, reprobates in any way different than Aquinas

Click to expand...

No, you are mistaken. Aquinas and Calvin differ both with respect to double predestination and free will. If you think the quote you have provided shows Aquinas to favor double predestination, then you do not understand what double predestination means. Double predestination involves positive predestination to damnation, exactly parallel to predestination to glory. Aquinas does not hold such a thing. He would never say something like this:

zippy2006 said:

No, you are mistaken. Aquinas and Calvin differ both with respect to double predestination and free will. If you think the quote you have provided shows Aquinas to favor double predestination, then you do not understand what double predestination means. Double predestination involves positive predestination to damnation, exactly parallel to predestination to glory. Aquinas does not hold such a thing. He would never say something like this:

"The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service..." (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)​

Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with double predestination. Similar statements were made by Luther, though perhaps Calvin's language is stronger.

This kind of language is common in medieval thought. It's only relatively recently that theologians have been concerned about an account of human freedom.

FireDragon76 said:

That has nothing to do with double predestination. Similar statements were made by Luther, though perhaps Calvin's language is stronger.

Click to expand...

Oh, but it does, and I will explain this below. But perhaps this is a better example:

(I have heard scholars and Lutherans disagree on whether Luther held to double predestination. The salient point is that Concord did not hold to it and Lutherans did not generally take up double predestination.)

FireDragon76 said:

This kind of language is common in medieval thought. It's only relatively recently that theologians have been concerned about an account of human freedom.

Click to expand...

No, this is altogether incorrect. Aquinas addressed the same sorts of issues relating to human freedom that Calvin focused on in his <Treatise against Pighius>, and they were only following the precedent of earlier thinkers such as Boethius, Augustine, Aristotle, etc. The predestinarian heresy was already being addressed ecclesially at the Second Council of Orange in 529 A.D.

Orthodoxy--including in the medieval period--demands that God reprobate individuals only because they have freely sinned. The reason my first quote of Calvin relates to double predestination is because we see him there attributing the cause of sin to the command of God and not to the agent. This is the key distinction that separates the heretics from the orthodox in the historical Christian West with respect to predestination.

Pascal had important points to make in his Provincial Letters, but they had more to do with later Thomism than with Thomas. The idea that Calvin went no farther than Thomas is demonstrably false.

zippy2006 said:

Oh, but it does, and I will explain this below. But perhaps this is a better example:

But were I to concede that by the different forms of expression Paul softens the harshness of the former clause, it by no means follows, that he transfers the preparation for destruction to any other cause than the secret counsel of God. This, indeed, is asserted in the preceding context, where God is said to have raised up Pharaoh, and to harden whom he will. Hence it follows, that the hidden counsel of God is the cause of hardening. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23)​

​

(I have heard scholars and Lutherans disagree on whether Luther held to double predestination. The salient point is that Concord did not hold to it and Lutherans did not generally take up double predestination.)


No, this is altogether incorrect. Aquinas addressed the same sorts of issues relating to human freedom that Calvin focused on in his <Treatise against Pighius>, and they were only following the precedent of earlier thinkers such as Boethius, Augustine, Aristotle, etc. The predestinarian heresy was already being addressed ecclesially at the Second Council of Orange in 529 A.D.

Orthodoxy--including in the medieval period--demands that God reprobate individuals only because they have freely sinned. The reason my first quote of Calvin relates to double predestination is because we see him there attributing the cause of sin to the command of God and not to the agent. This is the key distinction that separates the heretics from the orthodox in the historical Christian West with respect to predestination.

Pascal had important points to make in his Provincial Letters, but they had more to do with later Thomism than with Thomas. The idea that Calvin went no farther than Thomas is demonstrably false.

Click to expand...

I'd leave it to a Calvin scholar to comment on in detail, but it seems ambiguous enough to have a variety of interpretations.

Reformed churches do not necessarily teach God actively predestines anyone to Hell. Double predestination is a radical interpretation of Reformed thought, one mostly embraced by a few English and American Puritans, especially so-called "Reformed Baptists" in modern times.

FireDragon76 said:

I'd leave it to a Calvin scholar to comment on in detail, but it seems ambiguous enough to have a variety of interpretations.

Reformed churches do not necessarily teach God actively predestines anyone to Hell. Double predestination is a radical interpretation of Reformed thought, one mostly embraced by a few English and American Puritans, especially so-called "Reformed Baptists" in modern times.

Click to expand...

Yes, but I have never seen a Reformed scholar claim that Calvin did not hold to double predestination.

Quibble away
Fact remains Both Aquinas and Calvin believed in predestination and the elect. Aquinas and Calvin both believed in double predestination.
Aquinas believed that the atonement of the Cross was sufficient for all but not efficacious for all.

zippy2006 said:

Yes, but I have never seen a Reformed scholar claim that Calvin did not hold to double predestination.

Click to expand...

Calvin doesn’t say that God prevents the non elect from salvation in the same way that he regenerates the elect. In the commentary on Exodus, Calvin says that Pharaoh’s hardness was voluntary but alsopart of God’s plan. Calvin gives a more explicit example of the people who attacked Job. They made a responsible choice, but also acted in accordance with God’s plan. This is technically called compatibilism, the idea that predestination and responsible human choice are both true. To my knowledge this is the usual view of Calvin, and it’s what double predestination actually is. It does not say that God takes positive action to cause the damned to reject him.

hedrick said:

Calvin doesn’t say that God prevents the non elect from salvation in the same way that he regenerates the elect. In the commentary on Exodus, Calvin says that Pharaoh’s hardness was voluntary but alsopart of God’s plan. Calvin gives a more explicit example of the people who attacked Job. They made a responsible choice, but also acted in accordance with God’s plan. This is technically called compatibilism, the idea that predestination and responsible human choice are both true. To my knowledge this is the usual view of Calvin, and it’s what double predestination actually is. It does not say that God takes positive action to cause the damned to reject him.

Click to expand...

So you do not believe that Calvin was a supralapsarian?

To continue where I left off, the problem with the view that Calvin sees reprobation as merely a passing over is the fact that for Calvin God is the author of sin, and this is precisely the point at which many Calvinists distance themselves from Calvin. For example:

And from earlier in the thread:

zippy2006 said:

What [Calvin] rejected was the Catholic notion of the self-determining second cause. Neither would he allow the doctrine laid down by the Fathers of Trent (Secs. VI, Canon 16), that God permits evil deeds, but is not their author. (Calvinism | Catholic Answers)

Click to expand...

QvQ said:

Quibble away
Fact remains Both Aquinas and Calvin believed in predestination and the elect. Aquinas and Calvin both believed in double predestination.

Click to expand...

So you think that anyone who believes in predestination and election therefore believes in double predestination? It seems fairly clear at this point that you have no idea what you are talking about, and that you are not going to provide anything resembling argumentation.

"Predestination" is the idea that God determines one's final state in a temporally or logically prior way. Theologically we speak about God 'destining' prior to foreseen merits. So (complete) predestination to glory is ante praevisa merita (prior to foreseen merits). This is the thing that Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and pretty much every other significant theologian agrees to, and it involves predestination and election.

"Double predestination" is the idea that, in addition to the complete predestination to glory, there is also complete predestination to reprobation ante praevisa demerita (prior to foreseen demerits). This is precisely where Calvin and Calvinism depart from Thomas, for Thomas holds to (incomplete) predestination to reprobation post et propter praevisa demerita (posterior to and because of foreseen demerits).

Of course much of it comes down to the different ideas of free will. The reason Calvin cannot accept Aquinas' position is because Calvin rejects libertarian freedom and the notion that a human act could exist which God does not author. Aquinas cannot accept Calvin's position because he holds that necessitated acts are not free* and that God is not the author of evil. To conflate these two views is to be ignorant.

* Cf. De Malo, Question VI, Article 1