Calvin's Commentarys and Perseverance

[Cajun Huguenot]

So far you have failed to distinguish between justified and final salvation. For example Augustine clearly defines justification by means of "laver of regeneration" that means Baptism.

Also an important note here, the stuff Augustine is talking about is close to what is believed in calvinism, the problem is the stuff that has to be removed from Augustine to make it calvinist.

Hello Catholic Dude,

Augustine believed that salvation is to be found in the Church. One is brought into the Church through baptism. Calvin too would agree with St. Augustine at this point (though not on all items). Remember the first couple of questions to the catechism that Calvin wrote for children while he was at Strasburg? He wrote:
Teacher: My child, are you a Christian in fact as well as in name?
Child: Yes, my father.
Teacher: How is this known to you?
Child: Because I am baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Roman Catholics and Reformed Christians differ for real on some very important points, but many people seem to confuse Reformed thought with much that comes out of modern Evangelicalism (I grant that some Reformed people, at some points, think more like evangelicals than Reformed).

The point is the historic Reformed Faith is covenantal and takes both Baptism and the Supper far more seriously than do our modern Evangelical brethren.

Augustine clearly believed in predestination and perseverance of those predestined to eternal. Calvinists agree with him here and Roman Catholics (for the most part) do not.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[Catholic Dude]

hi

Augustine believed that salvation is to be found in the Church. One is brought into the Church through baptism. Calvin too would agree with St. Augustine at this point (though not on all items).

Augustine believed there was one church, visible to all, all through that writing he calls it the "catholic church". On this point Im not sure they believed the same in terms of bringing one into the "church" through Baptism.

Remember the first couple of questions to the catechism that Calvin wrote for children while he was at Strasburg? He wrote:
Teacher: My child, are you a Christian in fact as well as in name?
Child: Yes, my father.
Teacher: How is this known to you?
Child: Because I am baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Does he explicitly say they are justifed and forgiven of all their sins?

Roman Catholics and Reformed Christians differ for real on some very important points, but many people seem to confuse Reformed thought with much that comes out of modern Evangelicalism (I grant that some Reformed people, at some points, think more like evangelicals than Reformed).

I agree there is a lot of evangelicalism in the way of historical positions.

The point is the historic Reformed Faith is covenantal and takes things Baptism and the Supper far more seriously than do modern Evangelicals.

Do they believe that the Sacraments are truly saving acts? eg is there a official document that says "through Baptism all sins are forgiven"? I had a thread in GT where Calvin failed to distinguish between John's Baptism and Christ's, he said they were the same.

Augustine clearly believed in predestination and perseverance of those predestined to eternal. Calvinists agree with him here and Roman Catholics (for the most part) do not.

Catholics have a range of freedom on this issue, and Augustine's views are included.
Augustine made a distinction between predestination and perseverance, not all predestined to be Christians got the gift of perseverance. As in that example both men really were justified but one fell away, is there an official reformed document that says such a thing?

Also Augustine notes that nobody knows if they are going to persevere or not.
That is in contrast with the view I see in these forums. By subscribing to Calvinism the individual believes they will persevere (else they wouldnt subscribe to it).

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Hello Catholic Dude,

Thanks again for your comments.

Historic Protestants all recite the Nicene and Apostles Creeds. We all believe in one holy, and Apostolic Catholic Church – as do Eastern Christians – but unlike our Roman Catholic friends, we do not associate that title exclusively with those connected to the Roman See. But that is getting way of topic.
We do believe in “one baptism for the remission of sins” as the Nicene Creed states. Of understanding of baptism is not the same as that of Rome, but as the Westminster Confession states “Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.”

The Presbyterian Church in America (in which I am an ordained deacon) says this about baptism in its Book of Church Order:

56-4. Before baptism, the minister is to use some words of instruction, touching the institution, nature, use, and ends of this sacrament, showing:
a. That it is instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ;
b. That it is a seal of the Covenant of Grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, and of our union with Him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and life eternal;
c. That the water, in baptism, represents and signifies both the blood of Christ, which taketh away all guilt of sin, original and actual; and the sanctifying virtue of the Spirit of Christ against the dominion of sin, and the corruption of our sinful nature;
d. That baptizing, or sprinkling and washing with water, signifies the cleansing from sin by the blood and for the merit of Christ, together with the mortification of sin, and rising from sin to newness of life, by virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ;
e. That the promise is made to believers and their children; and that the children of believers have an interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the Church, under the Gospel, no less than the children of Abraham in the time of the Old Testament; the Covenant of Grace, for substance, being the same; and the grace of God, and the consolation of believers, more plentiful than before;
f. That the Son of God admitted little children into His presence, embracing and blessing them, saying, “For of such is the kingdom of God”;
g. That children by Baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the Visible Church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers; and that all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their Baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh;
h. That they are federally holy before Baptism, and therefore are they baptized;
i. That the inward grace and virtue of Baptism is not tied to that very moment of time wherein it is administered; and that the fruit and power thereof reaches to the whole course of our life; and that outward baptism is not so necessary, that through the want thereof, the infant is in danger of damnation;
j. By virtue of being children of believing parents they are, because of God’s covenant ordinance, made members of the Church, but this is not sufficient to make them continue members of the Church. When they have reached the age of discretion, they become subject to obligations of the covenant: faith, repentance and obedience. They then make public confession of their faith in Christ, or become covenant breakers, and subject to the discipline of the Church.

But again this is moving us from the OP, which is about perseverance in the faith. On that point let return to St. Augustine. He says “For we are speaking of that perseverance whereby one perseveres unto the end, and if this is given, one does persevere unto the end; but if one does not persevere unto the end, it is not given, which I have already sufficiently discussed above.”

Augustine does say that all who are ordained to eternal life will persevere and those not ordained to eternal life will not persevere and the evidence of both is whether or not one perseveres.

This thread started in response to some Reformed brethren who (IMHO) had mistakenly confused POS with OSAS. Nothing that St. Augustine says on this topic differs with the historic (pre OSAS confusions) Reformed view on this point.

We may have assurance of our salvation, as I mentioned in the posts above, if we are baptized into Christ Church, love Christ (as he is presented in the Scriptures and not our own imaginary version of Him) and persevering in the faith. Calvin agreed with Augustine on this point. Much (certainly not all) of the Medieval Church agreed with him on this point as well and most Modern Roman Catholics disagree with Augustine here.

The Catholics officially moved away from St. Augustine on the subjects of predestination and perseverance in reaction to the Augustinian positions of Luther (who was an Augustinian monk), Calvin and so many of the early Protestant Reformers, who were thoroughgoing Augustinians on this subject.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[Catholic Dude]

Hi,

Historic Protestants all recite the Nicene and Apostles Creeds.

Not to get off track, but Im pretty sure the Creed you use contains the filioque which was authoritativly added by the CC later in history.

We all believe in one holy, and Apostolic Catholic Church – as do Eastern Christians – but unlike our Roman Catholic friends, we do not associate that title exclusively with those connected to the Roman See.

Thats fair. At the same time what are your thoughts on the following:
-How do you define "Apostolic"?
-What about the office of Bishop?
-Do you believe the Church at one point lost the truth and/or stopped preaching it?
-Do you believe the Church is a visible institution where a person can go and find answers?

We do believe in “one baptism for the remission of sins” as the Nicene Creed states. Of understanding of baptism is not the same as that of Rome, but as the Westminster Confession states “Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.”

How does this differ from what the CC teaches?

The Presbyterian Church in America (in which I am an ordained deacon) says this about baptism in its Book of Church Order:

b. That it is a seal of the Covenant of Grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, and of our union with Him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and life eternal;
c. That the water, in baptism, represents and signifies both the blood of Christ, which taketh away all guilt of sin, original and actual; and the sanctifying virtue of the Spirit of Christ against the dominion of sin, and the corruption of our sinful nature;
d. That baptizing, or sprinkling and washing with water, signifies the cleansing from sin by the blood and for the merit of Christ, together with the mortification of sin, and rising from sin to newness of life, by virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ;

Where does this definition differ from what the CC teaches?

h. That they are federally holy before Baptism, and therefore are they baptized;

Not sure what this means.

i. That the inward grace and virtue of Baptism is not tied to that very moment of time wherein it is administered; and that the fruit and power thereof reaches to the whole course of our life; and that outward baptism is not so necessary, that through the want thereof, the infant is in danger of damnation;

Not quite sure about this either. Is this saying that things like the sins are not forgiven right at the moment of Baptism?

Also if I remember correctly Augustine indicated a infant who was not Baptized would go to hell.

But again this is moving us from the OP, which is about perseverance in the faith. On that point let return to St. Augustine. He says “For we are speaking of that perseverance whereby one perseveres unto the end, and if this is given, one does persevere unto the end; but if one does not persevere unto the end, it is not given, which I have already sufficiently discussed above.”

Augustine does say that all who are ordained to eternal life will persevere and those not ordained to eternal life will not persevere and the evidence of both is whether or not one perseveres.

For the most part thats right, here is the very next thing he says:

Let not men say, then, that perseverance is given to any one to the end, except when the end itself has come, and he to whom it has been given has been found to have persevered unto the end.
​

To sum it up, Augustine is saying nobody can claim they are going to persevere for they dont know what the future holds. Thats the key point I have been trying to get across to people around here. The views of Augustine cant be maintained if people are going to go around and think and teach that they are going to persevere for sure.

This thread started in response to some Reformed brethren who (IMHO) had mistakenly confused POS with OSAS. Nothing that St. Augustine says on this topic differs with the historic (pre OSAS confusions) Reformed view on this point.

I would call into question the "TULIP" summary of Calvinism and whether or not it conforms to Augustine's views which dont appear to agree. Augustine believed people could be justified and yet not make it. He also indicates that no one has any guarantee or total certainty they will make it. This goes against what I have been told on these forums, people have been going around thinking that they are "justified" and as a result that they will "persevere" for certain, thats far from Augustinianism.

We may have assurance of our salvation, as I mentioned in the posts above, if we are baptized into Christ Church, love Christ (as he is presented in the Scriptures and not our own imaginary version of Him) and persevering in the faith. Calvin agreed with Augustine on this point. Much (certainly not all) of the Medieval Church agreed with him on this point as well and most Modern Roman Catholics disagree with Augustine here.

Sure we can have assurance that we were forgiven and ingrafted into Christ, but on no grounds can we claim final perseverance. If Calvin believed that then he does agree with Augustine and is within the bounds of Catholic theology on this issue.

The Catholics officially moved away from St. Augustine on the subjects of predestination and perseverance in reaction to the Augustinian positions of Luther (who was an Augustinian monk), Calvin and so many of the early Protestant Reformers, who were thoroughgoing Augustinians on this subject.

From what I have come to understand Augustine's position wasnt as mainline as you make it sound. But from what I have been told St Thomas Aquinas (around the year 1100AD) took what Augustine said and improved upon it. This view called Thomism was a major influence and standard for a long time.

I have yet to read that much of Augustine's work, but as I have said before, it shouldnt be called Calvinism but Augustinianism if Calvin was so close to Augustine's views. From the works I have read there is a lot in common on some issues but major differences as well on others.

One more point is that Augustine isnt the Catholic Church, he was a Bishop but not the whole CC. Some of his views are opinion and not held as binding on Catholics. Also one thing that really bothers me is when I look on Protestant sources (eg my NIV Bible) and see Augustine as the only person listed on the historical timeline as if no Christian Saint came before or after him until the time of Luther. Thats just wrong and shallow, there are plenty of other saints who had their own views to offer.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Hi,

Not to get off track, but Im pretty sure the Creed you use contains the filioque which was authoritativly added by the CC later in history.

Hey CD,

Yes you are correct. We are, after all, Western Christians.The Reformers agreed with the historic Western position on the filioque clause, as we still do today. But I do believe the West was wrong to add it without a full council of the church. It was added long before the schism between East and West and (IMHO) the Eastern Church is correct that the West had no authority to unilaterally add it to the Creed without the agreement of a Council.

Thats fair. At the same time what are your thoughts on the following:
-How do you define "Apostolic"?
-What about the office of Bishop?
-Do you believe the Church at one point lost the truth and/or stopped preaching it?
-Do you believe the Church is a visible institution where a person can go and find answers?

Again these matters are off topic but let me touch on them.

Apostolic is of or from the Apostles.

I see the office of bishop and Elder to be used interchangeably in the Scriptures. I must add that the early church very quickly developed a type of hiearchical sytem. I believe the very early church had a structure that was somewhere between the episcopal (rule by bishops) and presbytrian (rule by plurality of elders) systems that exists today. I am planning on purchasing a book on Apostolic succession in the near future. It is a subject that I am interested in. The book I am getting comes highly recommended by a priest/theologian in the Reformed Episcopal Church.

I believe the Church of the High Renaissance was VERY corrupt at the very highest eschalons of the church. Innocent VIII, Alexander VI, Julius II, Leo X were not paragons of morality or Christian humility. The Church then was desperately Corrupt and Godly men in the church had been working for reform for centuries.

I believe the Church today is divided. I believe the Roman Church is a true Church, otherwise my own baptism would be invalid, but I do not believe that it is now THE Catholic Church. It is a denomination and A branch of the historic church. I have important doctrinal differences with Rome. While I do believe it's doctrines are false at many points, I do believe it is a true Christian Church (I know some Protestants disagree with me).

During and after the Reformation/Counter Reformation ALL the Churches wrote creeds and confessions that defined doctrine far more narrowly than what had been true of most of the Middle Ages. Catholics and Protestans alike wrote creeds that limited membership to those that agreed with them on some very narrow points of Doctrine. Most all of them (even though I agree with many of them doctrinally) wrote Creeds and Confessions that made true "catholicity" impossible. This was a terrible thing for Christ Church (IMHO).

How does this differ from what the CC teaches?

I don't know. You tell me.

Where does this definition differ from what the CC teaches?

Same thing.

Not sure what this means.

Paul says in I Cor 7 that the children of just one believer is "holy" or a "saint." We know that children are born in sin but Paul says God sees the children of believers as holy. HE also says the the children of unbelievers are "unclean." We see their holyness as Covenant (or federal) holyness.

Not quite sure about this either. Is this saying that things like the sins are not forgiven right at the moment of Baptism?

Maybe and maybe not. Some are forgiven then, but others may not realise the forgiveness of salvation until the ar older and make their election and Salvation sure by repenting an turning to Christ after not doing so earlier.

Also if I remember correctly Augustine indicated a infant who was not Baptized would go to hell.

I think you are correct, but can not swear to it.

For the most part thats right, here is the very next thing he says:

Let not men say, then, that perseverance is given to any one to the end, except when the end itself has come, and he to whom it has been given has been found to have persevered unto the end.


To sum it up, Augustine is saying nobody can claim they are going to persevere for they dont know what the future holds. Thats the key point I have been trying to get across to people around here. The views of Augustine cant be maintained if people are going to go around and think and teach that they are going to persevere for sure.

In fact, At the beginning of Chapter one Augustine said "I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God; and I call that the end by which is finished that life wherein alone there is peril of falling. Therefore it is uncertain whether any one has received this gift so long as he is still alive. For if he fall before he dies, he is, of course, said not to have persevered."

There is nothing in that statement that contradicts what Calvin has written on the subject, nor does it contradict what I've written in previous posts. If you read the Westminster Confession Chapters XVII and XVIII you will see what the Presbyterians have historically believed on this matter.

We believe someone can have a false assurance, but we believe we can also have honest assurance, but that is not based on some "conversion experiance," which is so common in Evangelical circles.

The confession admits that many may have a false assurance and there are those who are elect unto eternal life and are persevering that do not have assurance, but it does say that we can have assurance IF we "give all diligence to make his calling and election sure, that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits of this assurance; so far is it from inclining men to looseness."

I like that statement and think it is a good one as well as a biblical one. Christians should have such assurance, but this assurance is not presumption. Presumption will likely put you in hell.

I would call into question the "TULIP" summary of Calvinism and whether or not it conforms to Augustine's views which dont appear to agree. Augustine believed people could be justified and yet not make it. He also indicates that no one has any guarantee or total certainty they will make it. This goes against what I have been told on these forums, people have been going around thinking that they are "justified" and as a result that they will "persevere" for certain, thats far from Augustinianism.

I think we need to be careful here. Modern theologians use many terms in very specific, narrowly defined ways that were not necessarily used exactly the same by the ancients or even by the theologians at the time of the Reformation.

Augustine believed that God predestined some people to eternal salvation before the foundation of the world and that these people alone would be saved and that they would, in this life, persevere in the faith. That sounds pretty close to Calvinism to me. There are debates amoungst Calvinists about many particulars, but they all agree with St. Augustine on these items. Most Roman Catholics today do not agree with Augustine on these items.

I've read what the Roman Church wrote a Trent on this issue. Trent, like The Reformed Confessions, warn against presumption and admit that there must be fruit of salvation. Reformed Christians believe we should be able to have a good measure of assurance, where Trent says we should not have such assurance, though "all ought to place and repose a most firm hope in God's help."

Sure we can have assurance that we were forgiven and ingrafted into Christ, but on no grounds can we claim final perseverance. If Calvin believed that then he does agree with Augustine and is within the bounds of Catholic theology on this issue.

I think we are beginning to go in circles.

From what I have come to understand Augutine's position wasnt as mainline as you make it sound. But from what I have been told St Thomas Aquinas (around the year 1100AD) took what Augustine said and improved upon it. This view called Thomism was a major influence and standard for a long time.

During the Middle Ages there was more theological diversity then than there has been in any denomination since the Reformation. I hope for "catholicity" and Christian unity in the future (long after I am dead and gone), but I don't see it soon, yet I do believe God will unite His Church before the Second Coming of Christ.

I don't think that unity can truly happen as long as Vatican I stands. I think the weight of history ill prove this to be an untenable position. I agree with Luther: Popes and Councils have contradicted one another in the past. Vatican II contradicts Boniface VIII's Unum Sactum and Vatican I. I no Roman Catholics say no but I think that is an undefendable position

I have yet to read that much of Augustine's work, but as I have said before, it shouldnt be called Calvinism but Augustinianism if Calvin was so close to Augustine's views. From the works I have read there is a lot in common on some issues but major differences as well on others.

One more point is that Augustine isnt the Catholic Church, he was a Bishop but not the whole CC. Some of his views are opinion and not held as binding on Catholics. Also one thing that really bothers me is when I look on Protestant sources (eg my NIV Bible) and see Augustine as the only person listed on the historical timeline as if no Christian Saint came before or after him until the time of Luther. Thats just wrong and shallow, there are plenty of other saints who had their own views to offer.

Neither Augustine or Calvin spoke or wrote "ex cathedra" (of course I don't believe that Popes do either). I know of no one who would make such a claim for either (I hope). I believe both were giants in the Faith. I too have much of Augustine's works yet to read. I do have 8 volumes of his works in my 38 volumes of the ECF.

I want to know what Augustine taught along with all the other greats of the faith.

As I said before, the OP was written to show some of my Reformed brethren who (IMHO) had confused POS with OSAS that they are, in fact, very different things.

I think we can agree that St. Augustine agreed with and taught POS. He differs (perhaps) with the Westminster Confession on the degree of certainity that one, who is baptised and is exhibiting the fruits of savation in his life, can have but is clear that he believed it and taught it. I'm half way through with his treatis on the subject. WOW. This is a good read.

It is certain that Augustine, Calvin and the folks at Westminster were concerned with "presumption" (false assurance) that some in the church might might have and they seem to differ on the amount of assurance that one may have in this life. That is where they differ just bit. I think is is a VERY minor difference.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[WilliamRoper]

Augustine clearly believed in predestination and perseverance of those predestined to eternal. Calvinists agree with him here and Roman Catholics (for the most part) do not.

Augustine believed that God predestined some people to eternal salvation before the foundation of the world and that these people alone would be saved and that they would, in this life, persevere in the faith. That sounds pretty close to Calvinism to me. There are debates amoungst Calvinists about many particulars, but they all agree with St. Augustine on these items. Most Roman Catholics today do not agree with Augustine on these items.

Since my last comments on this issue touched off a firestorm, I will be brief. Augustine did believe that those elected to eternal salvation will persevere in the end. Catholics believe that too, and so do Calvinists. However, as I said, Augustine did not hold that all those who are regenerated will persevere. That is the Calvinist distinction that is different from both Catholicism and Augustinian theology. The sole difference between those who persevere and those who fall away is that the latter group were not predestined to persevere in the faith. It has nothing to do with whether they were justified or not. It is not that people who fall away "never believed to begin with," but that they were not predestined to persevere in the faith. See The Gift of Perseverance, chapter 21, which I quoted earlier in this thread.


I would be prepared, and more than willing, to start up a debate thread on exactly this point (i.e., Augustine's position on perseverance).

Augustinian positions of Luther (who was an Augustinian monk), Calvin and so many of the early Protestant Reformers, who were thoroughgoing Augustinians on this subject.

Would I dare suggest that those who are closest in their theological affinity to Augustine are those who belong to the order of monks that go by his name?

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Since my last comments on this issue touched off a firestorm, I will be brief. Augustine did believe that those elected to eternal salvation will persevere in the end. Catholics believe that too, and so do Calvinists. However, as I said, Augustine did not hold that all those who are regenerated will persevere. That is the Calvinist distinction that is different from both Catholicism and Augustinian theology. The sole difference between those who persevere and those who fall away is that the latter group were not predestined to persevere in the faith. It has nothing to do with whether they were justified or not. It is not that people who fall away "never believed to begin with," but that they were not predestined to persevere in the faith. See The Gift of Perseverance, chapter 21, which I quoted earlier in this thread.

I would be prepared, and more than willing, to start up a debate thread on exactly this point (i.e., Augustine's position on perseverance).


Would I dare suggest that those who are closest in their theological affinity to Augustine are those who belong to the order of monks that go by his name?

Hello WR,

Certainly there are many differences between St. Augustine and John Calvin beyond the 1,000 (plus) years that divide them.

Let me repeat once more that this thread was started to show some my own Reformed brethren that OSAS and POS were not the same thing. There are many in the Reformed Faith today who have taken on the Baptist believe of OSAS and read it into the Reformed Creeds and Confessions.

I think at this point we can all agree that Calvin and Augustine both taught that perseverance is necessary for salvation. I think we can also agree that both believed that all those predestined to eternal life were also predestined to persevere in the faith.

Calvin was a paedobaptist, just as with perseverance, many modern Reformed Christians would be very uncomfortable about some of the things that Calvin wrote about Baptism. So let me quote from one of the catechisms that he wrote for children:
Teacher: What is this baptism?
Child: It is the washing of regeneration and cleansing from sin.

Calvin certainly believed that baptism and regeneration were linked. You can see this in something posted on SR a year or so back. On baptism: John Calvin’s INSTRUCTION IN CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE FOR YOUNG CHILDREN

I mentioned in an earlier post that in previous times terms like “regeneration” were used differently (more broadly) than it is by modern theologians. We have defined theological terms very narrowly. I think the ancients and even the Reformers did not intend or have such exactness.

You can find other Reformed statements on baptism in the following links. Again much said in these Reformed Creeds would make a fair number of Modern Reformed Christians cringe, but the are part of the historic Reformed beliefs on baptism..

Some old Reformed statements about the Children in the covenant and baptism:

Scottish (Presbyterian) Baptismal Rite from the 1556 Book of Common Order

WR, I hope you will take the time to read these Reformed statements on baptism, and the part it plays in our salvation. Like I said we have very refined terms today, but in our refinement of terms we can easily read things into those pre modern Christians, who used like terms, without that refinement of definition.

Calvin was very much an Augustinian in many things. Predestination and perseverance are some of the main areas in which Calvin says yea and amen to what St. Augustine has to say. Calvin is much closer to Augustine on these items than are most modern Roman Catholics. The French Catholic Jansenists were closer to St. Augustine, but the Roman Church condemned them.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[WilliamRoper]

Calvin is much closer to Augustine on these items than are most modern Roman Catholics. The French Catholic Jansenists were closer to St. Augustine, but the Roman Church condemned them.

1) Thanks for the info on baptism, but my post was mainly about Augustine's position on perseverance.

2) Both Catholics and Calvinists agree that the elect will persevere to the end. That is not the issue. This issue is, on the other hand, that Calvinists think that all of those who believe and are justified are predestined to persevere. Neither Augustine or the Catholic Church has ever taught this claim. Neither do we believe that a person who "falls away" was never justified to begin with.

3) None of the five articles that Pope Innocent X condemned in the work of Cornelius Jansen had anything to do with perseverance. I myself do not know very much about Jansenism, but I would hesitate to say that they held the same views on perseverance as the Calvinists did.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Hello WR,

Thanks once again for your reply to on of my posts. I appreciate what you have to say.

1) Thanks for the info on baptism, but my post was mainly about Augustine's position on perseverance.

This discussion started out between Calvinists on the issue of perseverance, but CD and yourself (both Roman Catholics) have joined it and because of this it has morphed just a bit. I linked the items on baptism because of your assertion about St. Augustine's position of whether or not all those once "regenerated" will persevere. If you read Calvin and the other Reformed Statements on Baptism you will see that they too saw baptism and regenration linked together. Did Augustine and the Reformers see Regeneration in exactly the same way that St. Augustine did? I don't know, but I do know that it is possible (likely?) that none of those mentioned above had the modern, very refined definition used by theologians today in mind when they were writing.

As I've mentioned to my Reformed brethren here several times, many modern Reformed Christians would be very uncomfortable with Calvin's views on a number of subjects, including the supper and baptism.

I happen to like Calvin on these issues.

2) Both Catholics and Calvinists agree that the elect will persevere to the end. That is not the issue. This issue is, on the other hand, that Calvinists think that all of those who believe and are justified are predestined to persevere. Neither Augustine or the Catholic Church has ever taught this claim. Neither do we believe that a person who "falls away" was never justified to begin with.

Some Catholics agree with Calvinists on the issue of predestination and final perseverence. My own experiance tells me that this is a minority position within the RCC.

I agree that the Catholics and Calvinists disagree on the issue of perseverance, but I am not sure about Augustine. I think chapter 21 fits in nicely with early Reformed thinking, but I will grant that many modern Calvinists would disagree with it.

Calvin and the early Reformers, as do most of us today agree with St. Cyprian that (generally speaking) there is no salvation outside the Church. Baptism places you in the church and you are assumed to be elect unto eternal life (look at the baptism stuff linked above), in baptism we are united to Christ where alone there is salvation.

Reformed Christians see all these things interms of Covenant and certainly differ with the RCC, but still the differences are not (I believe) exactly what you think.

Here is a quote from Calvins institutes on perseverance.
"Again: You are grafted into the people of God? 'Be not proud but fear.' For God can cut you off again that he may engraft others. Finally, we are taught by this very experience that call and faith are of little account unless perseverance be added; and this does not happen to all. But Christ has freed us from this anxiety, for these promises surely apply to the future: 'All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who will come to me I will not cast out'" (Institutes book 3, Ch XXIV, 6)

"The other kind of call is special, which he deigns for the most part to give to the believers alone, while by the inward illumination of his Spirit he causes the preached Word to dwell in their hearts. Yet sometimes he also causes those whom he illumines only for a time to partake of it; then he justly forsakes them on account of their ungratefulness and strikes them with even greater blindness." (Institutes book 3, Ch XXIV, 8)

So you see Calvin did believe that some who believe and even had a faith do not persevere. He will qualify these statements, but no Reformed theologian today would say these things.

I think Calvin and Augustine were closer than you think, and remember we have to be careful about what we understand the ancients to mean and that we do not read back into their writings the exactitude of modern definitions for some theological terms.

I can not definitively say that you are wrong on this single point. I have read a some of both Augustine and Calvin's writings, but I am hardly a scholar in my knowledge of either.

We do know that both men believed that before the foundations of the earth God elected, for His own good pleasure, some people to eternal life and did not elect others. Those elected to eteranl life will, by God's grace persevere in the faith that God gave them.

[quote=WilliamRoper]

3) None of the five articles that Pope Innocent X condemned in the work of Cornelius Jansen had anything to do with perseverance. I myself do not know very much about Jansenism, but I would hesitate to say that they held the same views on perseverance as the Calvinists did.

[/quote]

Of course Pope Innocent X was only the first if a number of popes to issue bulls against Jansenism, but I too am not an expert on the subject, but Bishop Jansen has been accused of being too Calvin like in his views.

Again thanks for your response. I've been enjoying the discussion.

In Christ,
Kenith
Ps. If you really are 17, I am impressed.

 

[WilliamRoper]

Some Catholics agree with Calvinists on the issue of predestination and final perseverence. My own experiance tells me that this is a minority position within the RCC.

I happen to agree with Calvinists on many issues, and I know other Catholics who do as well. The Catholic Church does not have a real position when it comes to the grace/predestination/free will controversy.

I agree that the Catholics and Calvinists disagree on the issue of perseverance, but I am not sure about Augustine. I think chapter 21 fits in nicely with early Reformed thinking, but I will grant that many modern Calvinists would disagree with it.

You are correct- the Catholic Church does have a doctrine about perseverance that is distinct from the [modern] Calvinist version. For exaple, we do not agree with Calvinists that a justified person will never fall away.

I think chapter 21 fits in nicely with early Reformed thinking, but I will grant that many modern Calvinists would disagree with it.

I have no doubt that modern Calvinism has rejected the teachings of Augustine on this matter. I still need to do more study of the writings of the Reformers to figure out exactly what their position was.

Here is a quote from Calvins institutes on perseverance.
"Again: You are grafted into the people of God? 'Be not proud but fear.' For God can cut you off again that he may engraft others. Finally, we are taught by this very experience that call and faith are of little account unless perseverance be added; and this does not happen to all. But Christ has freed us from this anxiety, for these promises surely apply to the future: 'All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who will come to me I will not cast out'" (Institutes book 3, Ch XXIV, 6)

"The other kind of call is special, which he deigns for the most part to give to the believers alone, while by the inward illumination of his Spirit he causes the preached Word to dwell in their hearts. Yet sometimes he also causes those whom he illumines only for a time to partake of it; then he justly forsakes them on account of their ungratefulness and strikes them with even greater blindness." (Institutes book 3, Ch XXIV, 8)

So you see Calvin did believe that some who believe and even had a faith do not persevere. He will qualify these statements, but no Reformed theologian today would say these things.

I am pleased to inform you that Calvin's words here are in complete agreement with Augustine and Catholic theology on the matter.

We do know that both men believed that before the foundations of the earth God elected, for His own good pleasure, some people to eternal life and did not elect others. Those elected to eteranl life will, by God's grace persevere in the faith that God gave them.

Amen.

Of course Pope Innocent X was only the first if a number of popes to issue bulls against Jansenism, but I too am not an expert on the subject, but Bishop Jansen has been accused of being too Calvin like in his views.

Jansen was condemned for two principal reasons: 1) He held to the errors of Michael Du Bay, who promoted the ability of man in original justice to do good works by nature alone, and 2) He incurred the anathema of Trent for implying that God's grace merely produced an effect without reference to human will at all, as if God could merely put in x grace to acheive y result.

It must be admitted that on these two points Jansen held views that were very similar to Calvin's. Perhaps the chief problem that the Catholic Church had in regards to contemporary Calvinism is that Calvinists tended to empty out the mystery of predestination and free will. The Catholic Church has always been on the lookout for any theological positions that would tend to oversimplify the mystery of grace. The Calvinists solved the problem by just eliminating freedom of the will. Catholic theologians tended to be much more cautious in approaching such a delicate area. The Thomists emphasized predestination while the Molinists emphasized free will, but they were both united under the same Church and both partook of the same sacraments. In short, Calvinists tended to see things as "either/or", Catholics saw them as "both/and."

Again thanks for your response. I've been enjoying the discussion.

Likewise.

 

[WilliamRoper]

You should check out the book Predestination by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. I'm sure that you will find it interesting. He's Catholic, but he doesn't bite, I promise!

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

You should check out the book Predestination by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. I'm sure that you will find it interesting. He's Catholic, but he doesn't bite, I promise!

I read a good bit of Catholic stuff, and thankfully none have bitten me yet.

I will have to put it on my list. Thanks for the recommendation.

Dominus vobiscum,
Kenith