Parallels and divergences, Calvin, Luther, and Saint Augustine

Fervent · Tuesday at 6:00 PM

FireDragon76 said:
It really depends on how theologically sophisticated they are. The classical Reformed ordo salutis of scholasticism places participation in election, with baptism and sanctification being signs of election, but not formal causes in the Aristotilian sense.

I suppose so, though when I speak of participation I am reflecting on a person's role in their own salvation. Reformed soteriology excludes personal participation, being antagonistic to the idea with their conception of monergism which is exclusively a divine action.

FireDragon76 · Wednesday at 2:33 AM

Fervent said:
I suppose so, though when I speak of participation I am reflecting on a person's role in their own salvation. Reformed soteriology excludes personal participation, being antagonistic to the idea with their conception of monergism which is exclusively a divine action.

We often don't recognize it when we see it. For instance, in what Max Weber called the Protestant Work Ethic. That's one reason in societies shaped more by Reformed Christianity, such as England, the US, or the Netherland,s there's more depression associated with things like job loss or economic downturns. Of course, that sounds ridiculous to modern ears, but that's only because this particular instantiation of a sacramental system was so fragile and broke in the face of the Enlightenment so easily, falling victim to the impulse to rationalize and explain.

It's also not true that the Reformed faith never had a sacramental vision. In places in Europe, it persisted, particularly in Germany, but also among German-American communities in the US, such as in Mercersberg Theology, a 19th century minority alternative to Princeton's Proto-Fundamentalism and American Revivalism.

Clare73 · Wednesday at 9:44 AM

fhansen said:
No, warnings are how God warns us. Calling and election are never so sure that they don't need to be made sure (2 Pet 2:10). Just as no one can predict their own election with perfect certainty, neither can they predict their own perseverance. Again, good fruit is the truest indicator.

"Made sure" is to be "kept sure."

fhansen · Wednesday at 8:59 PM

Clare73 said:
"Made sure" is to be "kept sure."

Correction: That should've read 2 Pet 1:10, not 2:10.

Anyway "Made sure" ("make your calling and election sure") is a directive, an exhortation, a warning. If the meaning was "kept sure", then there'd be no need for such instruction; it would already be done for us.

Xeno.of.athens · Wednesday at 10:17 PM

Clare73 said:
"Made sure" is to be "kept sure."

Catholics do not equate “made sure” with “kept sure” in the manner your formulation implies. To be “made sure” is to be established in grace through divine initiative—principally through baptism, the sacraments, and the Church’s visible ministry. This is not a subjective assurance but an objective reality grounded in Christ’s work and the sacramental economy.

To say one is “kept sure” suggests that assurance of salvation is maintained by personal conviction or perseverance alone. This risks reducing grace to psychological certainty or moral effort, which the Church has consistently rejected. The Council of Trent teaches: “If anyone saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end—unless he have learned this by special revelation: let him be anathema” (Session VI, Canon 16).

The Catholic Church affirms that one may have moral certainty of salvation, especially through the sacraments, but not infallible assurance apart from divine revelation. As the Catechism states: “Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification” (CCC §2010). Yet, “the sacraments are efficacious signs of grace... by which divine life is dispensed to us” (CCC §1131), and thus provide real assurance—not merely emotional conviction.

St. Augustine, writing against the Pelagians, emphasised that perseverance is itself a gift: “He who created you without you, will not justify you without you”—but even your cooperation is enabled by grace. Likewise, St. John Chrysostom taught: “Let us not be confident because we have once been enlightened; rather, let us tremble, lest we fall away” (Homily on Hebrews 6).

Assurance, then, is not a static possession but a dynamic participation in Christ’s life. As Scripture affirms: “He who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt. 24:13), and “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12)—not because salvation is uncertain, but because our response must remain faithful.

Clare73 · Thursday at 11:47 AM

fhansen said:
Correction: That should've read 2 Pet 1:10, not 2:10.

Anyway "Made sure" ("make your calling and election sure") is a directive, an exhortation, a warning. If the meaning was "kept sure", then there'd be no need for such instruction; it would already be done for us.

Unless warnings are one of the ways God keeps the elect, who heed those warnings while the non-elect ignore them.

Clare73 · Thursday at 11:49 AM

Xeno.of.athens said:
Catholics do not equate “made sure” with “kept sure” in the manner your formulation implies. To be “made sure” is to be established in grace through divine initiative—principally through baptism, the sacraments, and the Church’s visible ministry. This is not a subjective assurance but an objective reality grounded in Christ’s work and the sacramental economy.

To say one is “kept sure” suggests that assurance of salvation is maintained by personal conviction or perseverance alone.

Not necessarily. . .we are kept by the powoer of God working in us to sanctification.

fhansen · Thursday at 1:11 PM

Clare73 said:
Unless warnings are one of the ways God keeps the elect, who heed those warnings while the non-elect ignore them.

Yes, unless...
Either way, the way we know for certain that we've persevered, as the elect necessarily will, is at the end, when the Master gives His judgement.

Xeno.of.athens · Thursday at 1:18 PM

Clare73 said:
Not necessarily. . .we are kept by the powoer of God working in us to sanctification.

Not necessarily, indeed. I must affirm, in accordance with the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church, that sanctification is not the result of divine power working “in us,” as though it were an autonomous internal force. Rather, sanctification is a gratuitous gift of God, conferred through the grace of the Holy Spirit, and ordinarily mediated by the sacraments—most especially Baptism, which initiates justification and sanctification simultaneously.

The Church teaches that justification is not only the remission of sins but also “the sanctification and renewal of the interior man” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1989). This sanctification is effected by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who unites us to Christ and makes us partakers of the divine nature. It is not a self-sustaining process, nor is it reducible to human cooperation alone, though such cooperation is necessary and itself enabled by grace.

Therefore, I do not regard myself as “kept” by a power merely “working in me,” but rather as upheld by the merciful initiative of God, who sanctifies me through his Church, by his living Word, and through the sacraments instituted by Christ. My sanctification is not self-contained; it is ecclesial, sacramental, and entirely dependent upon divine grace.

Clare73 · Thursday at 1:26 PM

fhansen said:
Yes, unless...
Either way, the way we know for certain that we've persevered, as the elect necessarily will, is at the end, when the Master gives His judgement.

I choose not to override the words of Jesus (Jn 6:39, 10:27-28) nor the apostle (1 Pe 1:5) regarding one's certainty of salvation.

Clare73 · Thursday at 1:30 PM

Xeno.of.athens said:
Not necessarily, indeed. I must affirm, in accordance with the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church, that sanctification is not the result of divine power working “in us,” as though it were an autonomous internal force.

Autonomous internal force is your projection.

Scripture's idea is of the Holy Spirit working in one's disposition to dispose him to the will of God, which he freely and willingly chooses to do.

Xeno.of.athens · Thursday at 7:26 PM

Clare73 said:
Autonomous internal force is your projection.

Scripture's idea is of the Holy Spirit working in one's disposition to dispose him to the will of God, which he freely and willingly chooses to do.

I appreciate your engagement, and I welcome the opportunity to clarify the Catholic position more precisely.

You suggest that “autonomous internal force” is my projection. Yet I must insist that this terminology is not arbitrary, but rather a necessary theological safeguard against misconstruing sanctifying grace as a self-operating principle. According to the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church—particularly as articulated at the Council of Trent—sanctification is effected by the gratuitous infusion of sanctifying grace, which is the created participation in the divine life. It is not an impersonal or self-activating force, but the fruit of the personal action of God, who moves the soul interiorly while preserving its freedom.

The Holy Spirit works within the soul to dispose it toward the will of God, and the human person, aided by grace, freely cooperates. But this cooperation is itself enabled by prevenient grace; it is not a natural capacity of fallen man. The Catholic doctrine affirms that man cannot, by his own powers, even begin to will his conversion or sanctification without the prior movement of divine grace (cf. Trent, Session VI, Canon 3). Thus, while the will is truly free, it is never autonomous in the order of grace.

In short, sanctification is neither imposed nor self-generated. It is a synergistic reality, wherein God is the principal agent, and man, moved and enabled by grace, freely consents. To speak of an “internal force” apart from this relational dynamic risks obscuring the personal and ecclesial nature of grace, which is always mediated through Christ and His Church.

I hope this clarifies the Catholic position and invites further fruitful dialogue

fhansen · Thursday at 8:44 PM

Xeno.of.athens said:
I appreciate your engagement, and I welcome the opportunity to clarify the Catholic position more precisely.

You suggest that “autonomous internal force” is my projection. Yet I must insist that this terminology is not arbitrary, but rather a necessary theological safeguard against misconstruing sanctifying grace as a self-operating principle. According to the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church—particularly as articulated at the Council of Trent—sanctification is effected by the gratuitous infusion of sanctifying grace, which is the created participation in the divine life. It is not an impersonal or self-activating force, but the fruit of the personal action of God, who moves the soul interiorly while preserving its freedom.

The Holy Spirit works within the soul to dispose it toward the will of God, and the human person, aided by grace, freely cooperates. But this cooperation is itself enabled by prevenient grace; it is not a natural capacity of fallen man. The Catholic doctrine affirms that man cannot, by his own powers, even begin to will his conversion or sanctification without the prior movement of divine grace (cf. Trent, Session VI, Canon 3). Thus, while the will is truly free, it is never autonomous in the order of grace.

In short, sanctification is neither imposed nor self-generated. It is a synergistic reality, wherein God is the principal agent, and man, moved and enabled by grace, freely consents. To speak of an “internal force” apart from this relational dynamic risks obscuring the personal and ecclesial nature of grace, which is always mediated through Christ and His Church.

I hope this clarifies the Catholic position and invites further fruitful dialogue

I'd only add, also for clarification, that both the Council of Trent (Session 6, canon 4) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (para 1993) affirm that, while man cannot possibly move himself to God and be justified apart from grace, man is still not passive in this movement, because he can resist; he can say "no".

Clare73 · 2025-08-01T10:59:15-0500

Xeno.of.athens said:
I appreciate your engagement, and I welcome the opportunity to clarify the Catholic position more precisely.

You suggest that “autonomous internal force” is my projection. Yet I must insist that this terminology is not arbitrary, but rather a necessary theological safeguard against misconstruing sanctifying grace as a self-operating principle.

And in the process the work of the Holy Spirit is abrogated.

Xeno.of.athens said:
According to the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church—particularly as articulated at the Council of Trent—sanctification is effected by the gratuitous infusion of sanctifying grace, which is the created participation in the divine life. It is not an impersonal or self-activating force, but the fruit of the personal action of God, who moves the soul interiorly while preserving its freedom.

The Holy Spirit works within the soul to dispose it toward the will of God, and the human person, aided by grace, freely cooperates. But this cooperation is itself enabled by prevenient grace; it is not a natural capacity of fallen man. The Catholic doctrine affirms that man cannot, by his own powers, even begin to will his conversion or sanctification without the prior movement of divine grace (cf. Trent, Session VI, Canon 3). Thus, while the will is truly free, it is never autonomous in the order of grace.

In short, sanctification is neither imposed nor self-generated. It is a synergistic reality, wherein God is the principal agent, and man, moved and enabled by grace, freely consents. To speak of an “internal force” apart from this relational dynamic risks obscuring the personal and ecclesial nature of grace, which is always mediated through Christ and His Church.

I hope this clarifies the Catholic position and invites further fruitful dialogue

Xeno.of.athens · 2025-08-01T23:47:10-0500

Clare73 said:
And in the process the work of the Holy Spirit is abrogated.

By rejecting the notion of sanctifying grace as an “autonomous internal force,” I seek to safeguard the primacy of the Holy Spirit’s agency in the economy of salvation. Grace, as the Church teaches, is not a self-operating mechanism within the soul, but a gratuitous participation in the divine life—infused, sustained, and perfected by the Spirit Himself.

To speak of grace as autonomous risks rendering the Spirit superfluous, as though the soul were capable of sanctification apart from divine initiative. My language is therefore not a projection, but a theological hedge against precisely that error. Far from abrogating the Spirit’s work, I aim to underscore it as both origin and end of the soul’s transformation.

Human beings are not sock puppets operated by the Holy Spirit and God is not a puppet master.

Clare73 · 2025-08-02T12:03:05-0500

Xeno.of.athens said:
By rejecting the notion of sanctifying grace as an “autonomous internal force,” I seek to safeguard the primacy of the Holy Spirit’s agency in the economy of salvation. Grace, as the Church teaches, is not a self-operating mechanism within the soul, but a gratuitous participation in the divine life—infused, sustained, and perfected by the Spirit Himself.

To speak of grace as autonomous risks rendering the Spirit superfluous, as though the soul were capable of sanctification apart from divine initiative. My language is therefore not a projection, but a theological hedge against precisely that error. Far from abrogating the Spirit’s work, I aim to underscore it as both origin and end of the soul’s transformation.

Human beings are not sock puppets operated by the Holy Spirit and God is not a puppet master.

I'm not buying that God's word needs "improving" upon or altering for the sake of man.

Xeno.of.athens · 2025-08-02T12:46:40-0500

Clare73 said:
I'm not buying that God's word needs "improving" upon or altering for the sake of man.

Your concern is noted, but my intention is not to “improve upon” or “alter” the holy scriptures, but to articulate its meaning faithfully within the living Tradition of the Church, which, as Dei Verbum teaches, “transmits in its entirety the Word of God entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit” (DV §9). The Church does not presume to correct Scripture, but to interpret it rightly, guided by the same Spirit who inspired it.

When I speak of sanctifying grace not as an “autonomous internal force,” I do so to preserve the integrity of divine initiative. Grace, in Catholic theology, is gratuitous—a gift, not a mechanism. As St. Paul writes, “It is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8). The Catechism affirms this: “Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us” (CCC §2003). It is not an impersonal energy lodged within the soul, but the very life of God shared with us through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

To speak of grace as autonomous risks a subtle Pelagianism, wherein the soul becomes the agent of its own sanctification. The Council of Trent condemned such a view, affirming that “the beginning of justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God through Jesus Christ” (Decree on Justification, ch. 5). The soul does not sanctify itself; it is sanctified by God, who “works in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13).

My language is not a human projection, but a theological safeguard against reducing grace to a spiritual technology. I seek to echo the Fathers, who taught that “the Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (Romans 8:16), and that “without the Holy Spirit, man can do nothing pleasing to God” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III.17.2).

Finally, I reject any caricature of divine agency that renders man a mere puppet. The Spirit does not override human freedom but elevates it. As St. Augustine wrote, “He who created you without you, will not justify you without you” (Sermon 169). Grace does not obliterate the human will—it heals, perfects, and draws it into communion with God.

Thus, I do not seek to revise the scriptures, but to guard its meaning against misinterpretation. In doing so, I remain within the bounds of the Church’s magisterium, which is “not superior to the Word of God, but its servant” (DV §10).

PS: Were I to adopt a fully evangelical Calvinist framework, grace would be construed primarily as “undeserved favour”—a juridical declaration rather than an ontological transformation. In such a schema, the human being appears either wholly external to the grace received or reduced to a passive instrument, as though devoid of intrinsic dignity in the economy of salvation. The soul becomes not a participant in divine life, but a recipient of extrinsic imputation, moved entirely by a sovereign will acting upon it without interior renewal. This, however, is not the God who revealed Himself in Jesus Christ, who “calls us friends” (John 15:15), and who, through the Spirit, “renews the face of the earth” (Psalm 104:30). Catholic teaching affirms that grace elevates nature without annihilating it, and that human freedom, though wounded, is healed and perfected—not bypassed—by divine initiative.

Parallels and divergences, Calvin, Luther, and Saint Augustine

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Oldbie

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Oldbie

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Oldbie

Blood-bought

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Blood-bought

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Similar threads