Calvinism and the modern Presbyterian church

[Targaryen]

I have been wondering quite heavily recently how much of a role does Calvin's teaching still play within the modern Presbyterian theological system?

Does double predestination for example still have adherents within PCUSA,PCA or the PCC (Canadian branch)?

How much of a role has the "Scoto-Catholic" movement within the Kirk (that's Church of Scotland) had on the North American branches?

Is it less Calvinistic then Arminian nowadays or neither?

I'm just curious as to what the average type of theology is nowdays within the Presbyterian bodies.

Looking forward to your answers.

 

[Radagast]

I have been wondering quite heavily recently how much of a role does Calvin's teaching still play within the modern Presbyterian theological system?

Well, for modern Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed churches, Calvin's teaching is filtered through several centuries of Dutch, Scottish, and English theology. The "Five Points of Calvinism" for example, date from a meeting held in the Netherlands in 1618-19 (Synod of Dort - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Presbyterianism in the USA in particular has had considerable influence from the Dutch Reformed community (and in turn, Presbyterianism has had a big influence on Reformed Baptists in the USA).

Does double predestination for example still have adherents within PCUSA,PCA or the PCC (Canadian branch)?

"Double predestination" is a phrase primarily used by opponents of Calvinism, so it's a bit of a straw man. What exactly do you mean by it?

I'm just curious as to what the average type of theology is nowdays within the Presbyterian bodies.

Well, the PCUSA is obviously quite different from the conservative groups like the PCA and OPC.

 

[Targaryen]

"Double predestination" is a phrase primarily used by opponents of Calvinism, so it's a bit of a straw man. What exactly do you mean by it?

I meant Calvin's full intepretation of the predesination of mankind as: "God has determined the eternal destiny of every human being. He has chosen some to eternal life and foreordained others to everlasting punishment."

In the more modern theological sense, I wonder if that view truly fits with the Presbyterian ethic any longer, at least within PCUSA and PCC.

 

[AMR]

I meant Calvin's full intepretation of the predesination of mankind as: "God has determined the eternal destiny of every human being. He has chosen some to eternal life and foreordained others to everlasting punishment."

In the more modern theological sense, I wonder if that view truly fits with the Presbyterian ethic any longer, at least within PCUSA and PCC.

I would be surprised if any Presbyterian group would deny this. The issue becomes when one starts to assume equal ultimacy in double predestination, as described here: "Double" Predestination by R.C. Sproul

There is also the discussion of supra and infra lapsarianism and how one views exactly what is being "foreordained" (a sinless or sinful "lump of clay" of humanity), see Notes on Supralapsarianism & Infralapsarianism

 

[hedrick]

You asked about the PCUSA. The PCUSA is a mainline church. Speaking of our overall approach, and not just predestination, we tend to view traditional theological statements on many subjects as oversimplifying Scripture. 20th Cent credal statements from the PCUSA try to take account of the whole range of Scriptural evidence, and use Scriptural terms. E.g. you will not typically find us speaking of persons or natures when speaking of the Trinity or Incarnation.

On the question of predestination, many in the PCUSA will tell you that Scripture does not say that God predestines people to damnation. This leads to a position similar to the later Luther’s, where those who are saved attribute this fact to God’s electing grace, but no statement is made about those who are not. There’s a nice discussion of the theological alternatives in this area here: What do Presbyterians believe about predestination (II)? ? Presbyterians Today Magazine ? Mission and Ministry ? Presbyterian Mission Agency. Many of us would say that all 4 of the Scriptural statements listed are essential, and thus that none of the doctrinal alternatives discussed is fully satisfactory.

In support of this, current PCUSA Scriptural exegesis is generally in line with that of ecumenical critical scholarship. Thus it does not always take the same view as Calvin of key passages often taken to support predestination. E.g. many Presbyterians would tell you that Paul’s references to Jacob and Esau were about God’s choice of Israel, and not the predestination of individuals to salvation and damnation. In general I would tend to see election as a call for a specific responsibility, and not as God choosing some to save and others to damn. However there are also people in the PCUSA with a more traditional Reformed understanding of predestination.

I know of two credal statements that deal with this. The first is a “declaratory statement” added to the Westminster Confession by the Northern church in 1903:

“First, with reference to Chapter III of the Confession of Faith: that concerning those who are saved in Christ, the doctrine of God’s eternal decree is held in harmony with the doctrine of his love to all mankind, his gift of his Son to be the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and his readiness to bestow his saving grace on all who seek it; that concerning those who perish, the doctrine of God’s eternal decree is held in harmony with the doctrine that God desires not the death of any sinner, but has provided in Christ a salvation sufficient for all, adapted to all, and freely offered in the gospel to all; that men are fully responsible for their treatment of God’s gracious offer; that his decree hinders no man from accepting that offer; and that no man is condemned except on the ground of his sin.”

Is this a possible interpretation of Westminster or a modification? The traditional Reformed understanding of predestination includes “compatibilism,” the idea that predestination is consistent with individual responsibility. You can find this in Calvin, and in more detail in Jonathan Edwards “Freedom of the Will.” That explains some of the statement. Even traditional Presbyterian theology said that individuals were properly held accountable for rejecting God, and thus rejected fatalism. However in my view this statement explicitly rejects limited atonement, and probably predestination to damnation.

The second credal statement is part of the Declaration of Faith, from the Southern church in 1977.

23 “The Spirit enables people to become believers.
24 The Spirit enabled people of all races, classes, and nations
25 to accept the good news of what God had done in Christ,
26 repent of their sins,
27 and enter the community of faith.
28 We testify that today this same Holy Spirit
29 makes us able to respond in faith to the gospel
30 and leads us into the Christian community.
31 The Spirit brings us out of death into life,
32 our of separation into fellowship.
33 The Spirit makes us aware of our sinfulness and need,
34 moves us to abandon our old way of life,
35 persuades us to trust in Christ and adopt his way.
36 In all these things we are responsible for our decisions.
37 But after we have trusted and repented
38 we recognize that the Spirit enable us to hear and act.
39 It is not our faith but God's grace in Jesus Christ
40 that justifies us and reconciles us to God.
41 Yet it is only by faith that we accept God's grace
42 and live by it.”

This speaks of the need for grace, but not predestination in the traditional sense.

While there are certainly members of the PCUSA who hold TULIP, I think the view expressed in the Declaration of Faith is also common, probably more common that TULIP.

 

[BryanW92]

I meant Calvin's full intepretation of the predesination of mankind as: "God has determined the eternal destiny of every human being. He has chosen some to eternal life and foreordained others to everlasting punishment."

God has foreordained that all deserve everlasting torment because we cannot live up to his standards. Think of all humanity as drowning in a sea of sin. The fact that God rescues any of us is really beyond our ability to comprehend. He doesn't need any of us, yet he has chosen to pull some of us out of the sea.

 

[hedrick]

The OP also asked about the Presbyterian Church in Canada. Their catechism takes a position consistent with the one I've described for the PCUSA.

"Question 54. What is predestination?
Predestination is God’s decision from eternity to move savingly towards us in Jesus Christ in whom and by whom we are chosen. As such, it is gospel, good news. We are chosen for a purpose, to be like Christ and to serve God.

"Question 55. Are those who do not believe, then not chosen?
Though we know that there are some who do not believe and who reject God, God’s love continues to invite them to faith. God wills the salvation of all and excludes no one from the reach of his love."

My first reading was that this explicitly rejects double predestination. Upon rereading, it may not entirely reject it, but this isn't the kind of statement someone who thinks TULIP is important would typically make.

-----

I see the following in the minutes of the 2010 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland:

Instruct the Council to consider afresh the place of the Westminster Confession as the Church’s principal subordinate standard and bring to the General Assembly of 2012 proposals for a more satisfactory expression of the fundamentals of the faith of the Kirk that would not require adherence to the doctrines of ‘Double Predestination’ or condemnation to ‘eternal torment’.

I don't immediately see what action was taken in 2012. However this suggests that actual beliefs in the Kirk are probably similar to the PCUSA and PCC.

I wasn't able to find quickly a statement on this issue from the Presbyterian Church in Australia, but I'd be surprised if it differs from the PCUSA and PCC.

 

[hedrick]

I would also caution you that Calvin doesn't mean just TULIP. Indeed it's not clear that Calvin even held limited atonement. But Calvin taught a full range of theology, and was a major Biblical commentator. He continues to be influential within the PCUSA. That doesn't mean that we follow everything in his theology.

 

[hedrick]

The OP asked about the Scoto-Catholic movement. As far as I can tell this was about worship. While not every aspect of what they wanted ended up in the PCUSA (e.g. private communion), there was a general ecumenical Protestant liturgical renewal in the 1960's or so. The PCUSA was part of it. It led to a new liturgy. The PCUSA communion liturgy now loosely follows early historical models, such as the Anaphora of the Apostolic Tradition. Communion in many churches moved from quarterly to monthly at about the same time. I believe that's about the same time that children began to be invited to communion (after some preparation, of course). Before about 7th grade I went to a Presbyterian Church. I never even saw a communion service; it was adults-only, once a quarter, with a really wimpy liturgy. Today we'd never dream of excluding older elementary school kids.

What specific features were you asking about?

 

[JLR1300]

I am not a Presbyterian but I used to be a member of a Reformed Baptist Church and my Pastor used to be in the PCA. My opinion is that the liberal Presbyterian groups have changed so much from what Calvin believed that they should rename themselves so that people won't wrongly imagine that they are actually the spiritual offspring of the Reformers. I do realize that they still maintain many of the same distinctives but mainly in the less important things. In some of the really important things they have abandoned the Reformation. For instance, Calvin taught faith is the firm confidence or trust that God is merciful toward me because of the work of Christ alone. He taught that faith alone justifies... and then repentance from sin follows. This would be criticized as easy-believism today. The Puritan era transformed the Presbyterians and others into Lordship Salvation difficult-believism. With Calvin's definition of faith assurance came fairly easy...because it was assurance. After Puritanism, Presbyterians and Reformed Baptist now have to write books all the time about assurance trying to gain some assurance of salvation. In spite of that they struggle a lot with that issue. Especially the conservative ones. The liberal ones don't believe God really punishes sinners anyway.

After the Presbyterians entered the puritan era they changed and brought in a subtle legalism. Now I admit that Calvin would say that although faith alone justifies that faith will not continue alone but will, by the work of the Holy Spirit produce works. I totally agree with this. But Calvin said that justification is by faith alone and not by repentance of sins or any other work. Those things followed. For Calvin, when we truly believe and are confident that although we are terrible sinners, nevertheless, we personally are now right with God because of Christ's work at the cross... we are justified. Only then will the Spirit produce repentance and good works.

I think that most Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists really believe in works salvation. For them the definition of faith has been changed from a confident assurance to all kinds of moral intentions and works. Faith now means submission, repentance, love for God, resolve to be a good disciple, good intentions etc. etc. They never stopped to realize that Love for God for justification is legalism because the greatest COMMANDMENT IN THE LAW is to love God. Repentance of sin for justification is legalism because according to 1st John 3:4 "sin is the transgression of the LAW." So the Puritanical Lordship doctrine says that we must Love God (Keep the greatest commandment in the Law) and Repent of Sin (agree to keep the law instead of transgressing it) in order to be justified. And they say that it is okay to require these works because since regeneration precedes conversion whatever works we demand aren't really works because they are caused by God's regenerating grace.

I agree that regeneration precedes faith but that doesn't make keeping the law for justification any less of a work. The Judaizers from Galatia said that you have to be circumcised and Paul did not say "That is okay because since regeneration precedes conversion it makes circumcision not really a work." Paul didn't allow for works of any kind for justification just because regeneration precedes faith. (Get back to Calvin... not because he is infallible but because He really believed in grace not works for justification.) We do indeed repent prior to justification but that repentance is not a repentance from sin but a change of mind regarding what we are believing and what we trust for salvation. Repentance of Sin follows faith and justification (like Calvin taught)

The main point of the Reformation was that Grace causes faith and that justification is by simple faith alone through Christ alone and is not by works or moral attributes. And faith is simple trust in Christ alone for salvation... it isn't a bunch of moral attempts to please Jesus. I believe that eventually the Presbyterian Church will join back with the Roman Catholics because they both believe that justification is by moral attributes and works which God produces in us by Grace. It may take 40 or 50 years but it will probably happen. I don't say any of these things to be rude... It is just an observation. I really believe that on the essential thing... Justification... the Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists are moving back toward Roman Catholicism.

 

[hedrick]

Unmerited grace and election continues to be alive in Presbyterian theology today. Where I think you'll find a change in attitude is in the treatment of reprobation. I suspect most of us will be closer to the later Luther in refusing to make doctrinal statements about it.

A lot of us today would agree that there were some issues in later Calvinism, but I'm not sure your characterization of Calvin on faith is quite right. Here's something he says in the Institutes in the primary chapter about faith:

"Since faith embraces Christ as he is offered by the Father, and he is offered not only for justification, for forgiveness of sins and peace, but also for sanctification, as the fountain of living waters, it is certain that no man will ever know him aright without at the same time receiving the sanctification of the Spirit; or, to express the matter more plainly, faith consists in the knowledge of Christ; Christ cannot be known without the sanctification of his Spirit: therefore faith cannot possibly be disjoined from pious affection."

For Calvin faith unites us with Christ. Faith isn't itself obedience, but faith does accept Christ as our Lord, because as Calvin says, faith grasps Christ as he is offered by God, which is as Lord. Calvinism, traditional and modern, tends to be distinguished from other Protestant theology in that salvation is distinct from justification. Non-Reformed Evangelicals tend to ask "are you saved" meaning basically "have you accepted Christ." Now first, grounding Christianity in our decision is not something we would do, traditional or modern. The question isn't whether we've accepted Christ but whether he's accepted us. But even so, using saved in that way confuses justification -- our status as accepted by God -- with the whole of salvation. For Calvin, salvation includes both justification and sanctification. God's goal is to rebuild us completely. So while this doesn't make works part of justification, it does say that complete salvation includes a change in behavior.

I'm not sure there's much difference between traditional and modern Reformed on these things.

If you look at what Jesus meant by focusing on love for God and neighbor, this was part of his overall commitment that changed behavior comes from changes in character and motivation. If you go for behavior directly, you inevitably end up with legalism. Love was intended to be the good tree that produces good fruit. Similarly, faith is our act of grasping Christ, moved by the Holy Spirit. It is another way of looking at the right core orientation from which right behavior comes. Jesus spoke of love as the core of being right with God. Paul spoke of faith. If we're not to turn Paul against Jesus we have to see those are being different ways of looking at the same transformation. While I admit that I'm not strong on later Calvinism, I'm not aware of Reformed saying that works are part of justification.

Others here know 17th and 18th Cent Calvinism better than I, but my impression is that the problem wasn't with justification, but with how people can be confident that they are accepted. There is a continuing temptation to try and come up with a test by which you can tell that you are justified. In Calvinism this is going to take the form of tests to see whether someone is elect, but the exact same concern occurs within Arminianism but is described differently. Both Reformed and Lutheran traditions would answer the same way, as would Calvin: we get assurance by looking to Christ and the promises of God. But there is a continuing temptation to look for objective tests as to whether someone is elect. In the end those tests always work out to be based on works. So while no Calvinist that I know would say that justification is based on works, for some our *confidence* in our justification came to be based on works. In practice this may look much like basing justification on works, even though that's not what it is supposed to be. But I'm not sure how widespread this confusion really was.

I'm not convinced that the later Calvinist tradition is quite so far off as you seem to fear, just as I don't think current Presbyterian theology is either.

There has been some convergence in Reformed and Catholic theology since the 16th Cent, but not enough to allow even liberal Presbyterians to accept the Catholic view of justification. There are both theoretical and practical problems. The theoretical problem is that Catholics continue to see justification as the whole process of our change. Thus it's effectively equivalent to the Reformed concept of salvation. In doing this, Catholics don't really have an equivalent of the Protestant concept of justification. This matters. Justification is God's accept of us, which in Lutheran and Reformed theology is something we can rely up. We can't rely upon the Catholic justification, because it depends upon our current progress or lack thereof. But the Protestant concept of justification says that God is like a Father, who accepts us even when we disobey. His acceptance may take the form of discipline, but he doesn't disown us at the very moment when we need him the most. This has wide reaching consequences in pastoral practice, our attitude towards the Church and sacraments, and even the way ethics is done. This is an area where I'm not seeing the difference between Catholic and Protestant going away, even liberal Protestant.

Furthermore liberal Presbyterians have more serious differences with Catholics on issues of gender, sex, family and general legalism. In key public policy questions and in their approach to ethics, there's actually more cooperation between Catholics and conservative Presbyterians. It's true that our Biblical scholars often have similar views, but until the results of Catholic Biblical scholarship and theology have a more direct effect on Catholic practice, that fact doesn't matter as much as you might think.

 

[JLR1300]

Thanks Hedrick for taking the time to respond... it is a busy time of the year.
I hope you are having a good day.

I do not think I disagree with Calvin in this section that you quoted....

"Since faith embraces Christ as he is offered by the Father, and he is offered not only for justification, for forgiveness of sins and peace, but also for sanctification, as the fountain of living waters, it is certain that no man will ever know him aright without at the same time receiving the sanctification of the Spirit; or, to express the matter more plainly, faith consists in the knowledge of Christ; Christ cannot be known without the sanctification of his Spirit: therefore faith cannot possibly be disjoined from pious affection."

It seems that Calvin is saying a couple of things here. One is that faith believes in Christ for both justification and sanctification. In other words the sinner not only believes and is confident that Christ, because of His sacrifice, justifies him.... but that Christ will also, by His Holy Spirit, transform him. I see no problem with this because it is simply a belief not a work. I also understand that when a person believes these two things and is justified, the result will be that the Holy Spirit will enter him and will begin the transformation. And that faith which believes that the Holy Spirit will sanctify him will be active for the rest of his Christian life.

Calvin in the second part of that section says that faith is knowledge. The sinner comes to know and believe that Christ is Lord and God. By the grace of God the sinner comes to know and trust that Christ is merciful to him and he also comes to know and have an assurance that Christ will, by His Spirit, sanctify him. This wonderful faith will continue to work in the person throughout life to some extent or another.

My belief is that it works like this..... God elects us unconditionally... then He regenerates us... then we believe and are confident that Christ is the Divine Lord and that because of Jesus' death for sin we are right with God and we believe that He will change us too.... Then he justifies us.... Then the Holy Spirit enters us and starts producing the fruit of the Spirit which includes love and goodness etc.... Now because of that love and goodness which the Spirit produces in us we begin to truly be sorry for our sins and we resolve to live for Christ.

So what I am saying is that prior to justification all the sinner does is believe and know and have confidence.... but no moral works need occur such as resolvings and commitments and promises to follow and love Jesus. Those things don't actually happen until the instant after the Spirit gives us faith and justifies us. That is for two reasons. 1. If we are promising to love God and follow Jesus before we by faith know we are forgiven then we are loving Him in order to get something from Him (salvation) and so it is not really love... it is a work and a manipulation. 2. The Holy Spirit cannot enter us and begin producing the fruit of the Spirit (which is love) unless we are first justified because the Spirit will not indwell a legally unclean temple.... which we are before we are justified.

So in conclusion, Calvin is not saying what the Lordship people are saying... that is that prior to justification we have to start loving God truly and commit ourselves to obedience and resolve to follow Jesus forever etc. etc. Maybe Presbyterians aren't saying that either but it sure seemed like the Reformed Baptists were saying that at times. Of course, I also disagree with the free grace people when they say you can get saved and never be changed. Thanks again.....

 

[hedrick]

So in conclusion, Calvin is not saying what the Lordship people are saying... that is that prior to justification we have to start loving God truly and commit ourselves to obedience and resolve to follow Jesus forever etc. etc. Maybe Presbyterians aren't saying that either but it sure seemed like the Reformed Baptists were saying that at times. Of course, I also disagree with the free grace people when they say you can get saved and never be changed. Thanks again.....

I disagree with some of what Lordship salvation teaches. But the biggest issue from a Reformed point of view is if loving and commitment is viewed as something we have to do before God accepts us. For Calvin faith is something produced in us by God when he has already resolved to redeem us. To the extent that God's acceptance is made conditional on anything we do, even our commitment, Reformed would see a problem.

I probably differ from classical Reformed here, but I think there's some ambiguity about what is meant by justification. In making it a consequence of faith, it's being viewed as our full reconciliation with God. In fact N T Wright would go further and say that justification is not so much our status as the recognition of our status. That's the way Paul uses it when speaking of Abraham. He seems to say that Abraham can be recognized as one of God's people by his faith. But if you mean God's acceptance of us in the sense of his decision to save us, then it's really the first thing. I don't think Wright is correct that this is the only meaning of justification. Paul also seems to use it meaning "to set right with God," but I do agree that it sometimes has that meaning.

But however you define justificaiton, if you say that our acceptance of Christ as Lord, and particularly our giving up sin, comes before God's acceptance of us, you've departed seriously from the Reformed tradition, even the liberal Reformed tradition.

In keeping Paul and Jesus in sync, I tend to understand faith as being equivalent of the concept of being a follower of Jesus in the Gospels. And I think Jesus is pretty clear that that includes following him as Lord. I quoted what I did from Calvin because he says that faith is grasping Christ *as offered by God* and he is offered as our Lord.

But just as Jesus tends to call people and say that their sins are forgiven, and they then respond in faith and repentance, so I want to make sure that in saying that I think faith includes faith in Christ *as Lord*, I don't make our decision or commitment a precondition to God accepting us.

My belief is that it works like this..... God elects us unconditionally... then He regenerates us... then we believe and are confident that Christ is the Divine Lord and that because of Jesus' death for sin we are right with God and we believe that He will change us too.... Then he justifies us.... Then the Holy Spirit enters us and starts producing the fruit of the Spirit which includes love and goodness etc.... Now because of that love and goodness which the Spirit produces in us we begin to truly be sorry for our sins and we resolve to live for Christ.

The only issue Calvin might have with your wording is "then we believe" and "then he justifies us...." This is in fact the order in Calvin's ordo salutis. However it's probably better to think of it as logical dependence, not temporal order. Basically God sees to it that we develop faith. Because faith is our connection with Christ, it is the basis of our justification and sanctification. But it's not like we produce faith and then God responds with justification as a next step.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Unmerited grace and election continues to be alive in Presbyterian theology today. Where I think you'll find a change in attitude is in the treatment of reprobation. I suspect most of us will be closer to the later Luther in refusing to make doctrinal statements about it.

A lot of us today would agree that there were some issues in later Calvinism, but I'm not sure your characterization of Calvin on faith is quite right. Here's something he says in the Institutes in the primary chapter about faith:

"Since faith embraces Christ as he is offered by the Father, and he is offered not only for justification, for forgiveness of sins and peace, but also for sanctification, as the fountain of living waters, it is certain that no man will ever know him aright without at the same time receiving the sanctification of the Spirit; or, to express the matter more plainly, faith consists in the knowledge of Christ; Christ cannot be known without the sanctification of his Spirit: therefore faith cannot possibly be disjoined from pious affection."

For Calvin faith unites us with Christ. Faith isn't itself obedience, but faith does accept Christ as our Lord, because as Calvin says, faith grasps Christ as he is offered by God, which is as Lord. Calvinism, traditional and modern, tends to be distinguished from other Protestant theology in that salvation is distinct from justification. Non-Reformed Evangelicals tend to ask "are you saved" meaning basically "have you accepted Christ." Now first, grounding Christianity in our decision is not something we would do, traditional or modern. The question isn't whether we've accepted Christ but whether he's accepted us. But even so, using saved in that way confuses justification -- our status as accepted by God -- with the whole of salvation. For Calvin, salvation includes both justification and sanctification. God's goal is to rebuild us completely. So while this doesn't make works part of justification, it does say that complete salvation includes a change in behavior.

I'm not sure there's much difference between traditional and modern Reformed on these things.

If you look at what Jesus meant by focusing on love for God and neighbor, this was part of his overall commitment that changed behavior comes from changes in character and motivation. If you go for behavior directly, you inevitably end up with legalism. Love was intended to be the good tree that produces good fruit. Similarly, faith is our act of grasping Christ, moved by the Holy Spirit. It is another way of looking at the right core orientation from which right behavior comes. Jesus spoke of love as the core of being right with God. Paul spoke of faith. If we're not to turn Paul against Jesus we have to see those are being different ways of looking at the same transformation. While I admit that I'm not strong on later Calvinism, I'm not aware of Reformed saying that works are part of justification.

Others here know 17th and 18th Cent Calvinism better than I, but my impression is that the problem wasn't with justification, but with how people can be confident that they are accepted. There is a continuing temptation to try and come up with a test by which you can tell that you are justified. In Calvinism this is going to take the form of tests to see whether someone is elect, but the exact same concern occurs within Arminianism but is described differently. Both Reformed and Lutheran traditions would answer the same way, as would Calvin: we get assurance by looking to Christ and the promises of God. But there is a continuing temptation to look for objective tests as to whether someone is elect. In the end those tests always work out to be based on works. So while no Calvinist that I know would say that justification is based on works, for some our *confidence* in our justification came to be based on works. In practice this may look much like basing justification on works, even though that's not what it is supposed to be. But I'm not sure how widespread this confusion really was.

I'm not convinced that the later Calvinist tradition is quite so far off as you seem to fear, just as I don't think current Presbyterian theology is either.

There has been some convergence in Reformed and Catholic theology since the 16th Cent, but not enough to allow even liberal Presbyterians to accept the Catholic view of justification. There are both theoretical and practical problems. The theoretical problem is that Catholics continue to see justification as the whole process of our change. Thus it's effectively equivalent to the Reformed concept of salvation. In doing this, Catholics don't really have an equivalent of the Protestant concept of justification. This matters. Justification is God's accept of us, which in Lutheran and Reformed theology is something we can rely up. We can't rely upon the Catholic justification, because it depends upon our current progress or lack thereof. But the Protestant concept of justification says that God is like a Father, who accepts us even when we disobey. His acceptance may take the form of discipline, but he doesn't disown us at the very moment when we need him the most. This has wide reaching consequences in pastoral practice, our attitude towards the Church and sacraments, and even the way ethics is done. This is an area where I'm not seeing the difference between Catholic and Protestant going away, even liberal Protestant.

Furthermore liberal Presbyterians have more serious differences with Catholics on issues of gender, sex, family and general legalism. In key public policy questions and in their approach to ethics, there's actually more cooperation between Catholics and conservative Presbyterians. It's true that our Biblical scholars often have similar views, but until the results of Catholic Biblical scholarship and theology have a more direct effect on Catholic practice, that fact doesn't matter as much as you might think.

Hedrick

Are you familiar with the Joint Catholic-Lutheran Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification?
Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

 

[hedrick]

Hedrick

Are you familiar with the Joint Catholic-Lutheran Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification?
Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

Yes. It's an interesting document. However it's not clear to me how much it's an exercise in careful wording and how much it represents a consensus.

In the 16th Cent and even since there was a lot of confusion based on differences in wording, which resulted in unnecessary conflict. However I think there are also genuine differences. While I might be willing to say that the remaining difference don't justified continuing condemnations, I do think that they are symptoms of differences that matter.

But this is largely moot, since the declaration was in the end not accepted on the Catholic side except as a promising work in progress. See Catholic official response. That response claims to be the official Catholic response to the joint declaration. Note specifically that according to the response, some of the condemnations of Trent related to justification do still apply to Lutherans. Since the intent of the joint declaration was to show that there was sufficient agreement that Catholics and Lutherans no longer need to condemn each other with respect to justification, I believe that statement effectively repudiates the joint declaration.

I'm also not sure that the document takes the right approach. There are differences in definition of key terms, such as justification, grace, and probably even faith. When you put things together you can see that at times one term for Lutherans plays the same role as a different term for Catholics. So while the schemes are different, taken as a whole they may in the end cover a similar set of concerns. But the declaration doesn't take that approach. Instead it tries to show agreement on the individual concepts. That makes it hard for me to assess how realistic the declaration really is.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Yes. It's an interesting document. However it's not clear to me how much it's an exercise in careful wording and how much it represents a consensus.

In the 16th Cent and even since there was a lot of confusion based on differences in wording, which resulted in unnecessary conflict. However I think there are also genuine differences. While I might be willing to say that the remaining difference don't justified continuing condemnations, I do think that they are symptoms of differences that matter.

But this is largely moot, since the declaration was in the end not accepted on the Catholic side except as a promising work in progress. See Catholic official response. That response claims to be the official Catholic response to the joint declaration. Note specifically that according to the response, some of the condemnations of Trent related to justification do still apply to Lutherans. Since the intent of the joint declaration was to show that there was sufficient agreement that Catholics and Lutherans no longer need to condemn each other with respect to justification, I believe that statement effectively repudiates the joint declaration.

I'm also not sure that the document takes the right approach. There are differences in definition of key terms, such as justification, grace, and probably even faith. When you put things together you can see that at times one term for Lutherans plays the same role as a different term for Catholics. So while the schemes are different, taken as a whole they may in the end cover a similar set of concerns. But the declaration doesn't take that approach. Instead it tries to show agreement on the individual concepts. That makes it hard for me to assess how realistic the declaration really is.

My understanding of the "Catholic Response" was minor fine-tuning. This appears the case when considering "From Conflict to Commuion" http://www.lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/From Conflict to Communion.pdf

 

[hedrick]

My understanding of the "Catholic Response" was minor fine-tuning. This appears the case when considering "From Conflict to Commuion" http://www.lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/From Conflict to Communion.pdf

What concerns me the most is the following:

"If, moreover, it is true that in those truths on which a consensus has been reached the condemnations of the Council of Trent non longer apply, the divergencies on other points must, on the contrary, be overcome before we can affirm, as is done generically in n.41, that these points no longer incur the condemnations of the Council of Trent. That applies in the first place to the doctrine on "simul iustus et peccator" (cf. n. l, above )."

This seems to reject the statement that the condemnations no longer apply, which was the whole point of the document.

It's possible that under the current pope things will go better. However if the Pope doesn't personally intervene, the same kind of people who wrote this response are still around.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

What concerns me the most is the following:

"If, moreover, it is true that in those truths on which a consensus has been reached the condemnations of the Council of Trent non longer apply, the divergencies on other points must, on the contrary, be overcome before we can affirm, as is done generically in n.41, that these points no longer incur the condemnations of the Council of Trent. That applies in the first place to the doctrine on "simul iustus et peccator" (cf. n. l, above )."

This seems to reject the statement that the condemnations no longer apply, which was the whole point of the document.

It's possible that under the current pope things will go better. However if the Pope doesn't personally intervene, the same kind of people who wrote this response are still around.

My impression is that the popes from John 23rd on have been very involved in the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue. John Paul 2 signed the magisterium document on Justification. Benedict was very engaged with Lutheran bishops. Francis has responded to the call for a mutual celebration of the Eucharist on the 500th anniversary of the Reformation with caution considering "ethical and anthropological issues" [female priests/ gay attraction].

 

[hedrick]

My impression is that the popes from John 23rd on have been very involved in the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue. John Paul 2 signed the magisterium document on Justification. Benedict was very engaged with Lutheran bishops. Francis has responded to the call for a mutual celebration of the Eucharist on the 500th anniversary of the Reformation with caution considering "ethical and anthropological issues" [female priests/ gay attraction].

I think there are significant theological differences between mainline Protestant, conservative Protestant and Catholic. But for most members the most significant difference is the cluster of gender, sexual, family issues that you're referring to, together with underlying differences in understanding of Christianity that lead to them. Because these are such important issues, I wouldn't want to see them papered over, e.g. with a joint celebration where the Lutherans carefully choose only heterosexual male priests for all celebrations.

Or the Pope could get his courage up and invite Ludmila Javorova to join the Catholic priests for the celebration. I suspect left to himself he might be interested in doing that.

 

[SPB1987]

God has foreordained that all deserve everlasting torment because we cannot live up to his standards. Think of all humanity as drowning in a sea of sin. The fact that God rescues any of us is really beyond our ability to comprehend. He doesn't need any of us, yet he has chosen to pull some of us out of the sea.

Do you think God foreordained all of us to be sinners? Do we have any free will in our ability to attempt to reject sin?