Is Calvinism a heresy?

[Xeno.of.athens]

If the Catholic Church teaches that it is 'not so', it is therefore 'not so'? Lol (Just pickin' atcha)

I get your point. It actually, though from a slightly different route, comes to the same thing as most claim, that God being in total control negates free will. I don't know if you heard this argument before, but: If one in their consideration, removing God from causing their decisions, then can see that logically all things naturally are effects of causes, to include decisions, then what difference does it make to place God into the considerations as uncaused first cause?

The logic of causation has yet to be disproven; both scientists and philosophers depend on it, and theologians used to, though of late, elements of both are going the way of theologians. It does not mean that we are animals, as some claim, "mere animals with bigger brains and the corresponding capability for introspection." (I say that to those who consider that animals do not have free will, but are fleshly robots.) And the notion that our minds may be able to do more than we at first thought, and that to a fantastic degree, does not make us in any way independent of causation.

Some of the wording in your post is obscure but I think I have a reasonable idea of what you mean. So I have decided to answer this question:

"How do Catholics deal with determinism of both atheist and Calvinist kinds with regard to human free will? Has God made human will free in a similar way to God's own freedom to will as he pleases?"​

The Catholic Church teaches that human beings have free will, and that this free will is a central aspect of what it means to be made in the image and likeness of God. However, Catholics also believe that God's providence is a significant factor in shaping the course of human events, and that even the decisions that people make with their free will can ultimately be seen as part of God's plan for salvation.

The Catholic Church has addressed the issue of determinism, both from the perspective of atheism and from the perspective of Calvinism, by stating that the two are not compatible with the Church's teachings on human free will and divine providence. According to the Church, determinism, whether from a purely materialistic viewpoint or from a predestinarian viewpoint, is incompatible with the belief that human beings have free will and that their choices have eternal consequences.

In regards to whether God's will is free in a similar way to human free will, the Catholic Church teaches that God's freedom is fundamentally different from human freedom. God's freedom is not limited by any external factors, whereas human freedom is limited by our human nature and the influence of sin. Nevertheless, the Church teaches that human beings can participate in God's freedom by freely choosing to cooperate with his grace and his will for their lives.

 

[Mark Quayle]

@Mark Quayle Thanks for the constructive reply, much appreciated, Can I start a new thread for this as although my thesis does ultimately contribute against TULIP doctrine I am finding I have gone off at tangent and this is not relevant/helping to the main thread, that ok?

Sure. It might help me too, because I find myself confusing in my mind which person I'm answering sometimes. You may be the only one referencing Kerr, but you aren't the only one attempting to posit an extra-Orthodox theory.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Some of the wording in your post is obscure but I think I have a reasonable idea of what you mean. So I have decided to answer this question:

"How do Catholics deal with determinism of both atheist and Calvinist kinds with regard to human free will? Has God made human will free in a similar way to God's own freedom to will as he pleases?"​

The Catholic Church teaches that human beings have free will, and that this free will is a central aspect of what it means to be made in the image and likeness of God. However, Catholics also believe that God's providence is a significant factor in shaping the course of human events, and that even the decisions that people make with their free will can ultimately be seen as part of God's plan for salvation.

The Catholic Church has addressed the issue of determinism, both from the perspective of atheism and from the perspective of Calvinism, by stating that the two are not compatible with the Church's teachings on human free will and divine providence. According to the Church, determinism, whether from a purely materialistic viewpoint or from a predestinarian viewpoint, is incompatible with the belief that human beings have free will and that their choices have eternal consequences.

In regards to whether God's will is free in a similar way to human free will, the Catholic Church teaches that God's freedom is fundamentally different from human freedom. God's freedom is not limited by any external factors, whereas human freedom is limited by our human nature and the influence of sin. Nevertheless, the Church teaches that human beings can participate in God's freedom by freely choosing to cooperate with his grace and his will for their lives.

(Not meaning this as scorn, nor as complement, but just a comment. There are many I see in any denomination, cult or religion, who defend what they espouse, not as rational arguments as such (though I don't mean to imply that they are irrational), but that their basis for their position is the works of that denomination etc, and not the Bible, (Kuran, Torah etc, nor their reasoning concerning it). It is a little like saying, "we go by the Talmud —not that we can't argue from the Torah, but the Talmud is altogether reliable." I don't know. I see you continually referring to what Catholicism teaches or says, and not, "I believe". Apparently you consider the Church as in Authority over your own current understanding, and thus as THE way to interpret Scripture. To be fair, I see this constantly being practiced, (if not claimed as true), by many Calvinists also; instead of saying, "I believe", they almost always say, "Calvinism interprets that passage as meaning..." with the implied "and so I (being a Calvinist) hold to that interpretation.".

(But it does make for easier conversation and debate, and I'll give you that. Among my several problems with Catholicism is the way it, like many Protestant denominations, in their official language and writings become very vague, as if answering, but not really answering a question or describing a thesis.

(And so, sometimes, they say something that sounds one way to me, and next thing I know they are contradicting what I took them to be saying; but I suppose they do that in an attempt to define further what they had meant with the first. Either way, the language pretty consistently comes across to me as "'sort of' this, 'sort of' that".)

Before I jump into this, I want it clear that I understand that I am more than capable of extracting meaning that is not intended, from what I read. God knows that readers do that to what I write often enough, and I will be judged by the standard I use to measure my readers! So take all I am saying here, as, "it comes across to me as...", or, "I take it to mean":

Anyhow, to me, if human freedom is "fundamentally limited by human nature and the influence of sin" then it is by that description NOT what I have heard called, 'Libertarian Freewill', which by extrapolation I take to mean or to imply, "uncaused choice" —i.e. "uncaused by sources outside the chooser".

In the paragraph just above it, you said that Catholicism's stand is that predetermination (whether materialistic or by 'predestination') is incompatible with freewill, which statement doesn't say whether Catholicism stands with freewill or stands with predeterminism, (though I can guess which one they do stand with).

But in the paragraph just above THAT, you said that Catholicism teaches freewill, which you quickly limit by saying that (my paraphrase, here) that freewill is still part of God's causation, 'sort of'.

I'm left with this frustrated feeling: "Exactly what ARE you saying then?"

 

[Mark Quayle]

I have a question, lets drill down as I agree with much of what you say but not all
So, it is my will that I am typing this response, it was my will that I had a cup of coffee first and it is my will when I shake my head or smile or whatever it is me who initiates the command ,I, me then action that command.
So I was 'pricked by the Holy spirit and put in certain situations where i heard the gospel and I remember sitting on my parents sofa with my saved brother telling me about Jesus how it came to me that it well this was all true. i believe tHe Holy Spirit presented Jesus to me and like a magnet draws me to the truth.
Some time later I invited The Lord Jesus Christ into my life as Lord and savior. Whose will said those words?

Can you admit to the chain of causation being entirely effective and pervasive?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I don't know. I see you continually referring to what Catholicism teaches or says, and not, "I believe". Apparently you consider the Church as in Authority over your own current understanding, and thus as THE way to interpret Scripture.

I am replying to this comment separately for clarity's sake.

I type "The Catholic Church teaches" and similar to make it clear that the position I present is what the Church teaches rather than an individual's opinion. This does not mean I have no opinion, nor that my personal opinions are different from the teaching I present. Equally, such phrases do not imply that my personal opinion is identical to the teaching that I present. I use the phrases that I do to make it clear what I am presenting. So, my purpose when I use such phrases is to present Catholic Church teaching.

When I type "I think" or "my opinion is" then that is what I mean. In such cases I am not presenting official Catholic teaching, even if my opinion happens to match official Catholic Church teaching in that particular instance.

You're wondering if my personal views are identical to official Catholic teaching, and I say often my personal beliefs correspond well to the Church's teaching but sometimes my personal opinions vary in greater or lesser degree from official Church teaching. However, on this forum it seems to me that people seek something more definitive than my personal opinions so I rarely offer an opinion as a reply to an enquiry about what Catholics believe and teach. I hope you do the same. Personal opinions, in my experience, are highly variable with time and from one person to another and, as such, high variability leads to unproductive discussions. After all, if I wanted to exchange opinions rather than exchange information, I'd just have a chat with a chap somewhere near where I live, I know plenty of Calvinist ministers and elders so I have no shortage of sources for personal opinions and reflections - I say this of the elders and ministers that I know because they are friends and I prefer not to engage in "official" level debate and discussion with them for the sake of peace and good relations.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Anyhow, to me, if human freedom is "fundamentally limited by human nature and the influence of sin" then it is by that description NOT what I have heard called, 'Libertarian Freewill', which by extrapolation I take to mean or to imply, "uncaused choice" —i.e. "uncaused by sources outside the chooser".

Catholic teaching is not consistent with philosophical "libertarian free will".

In the paragraph just above it, you said that Catholicism's stand is that predetermination (whether materialistic or by 'predestination') is incompatible with freewill, which statement doesn't say whether Catholicism stands with freewill or stands with predeterminism, (though I can guess which one they do stand with).

The statements I made deal with determinism rather than predeterminism, but in practical terms there is little to distinguish one from the other except that determinism is chiefly about immediate causes rather than about distant causes in time or space. However both do imply that there is an immediate cause that can be iterated backwards through a finite number of steps to an ultimate cause - one caution here, atheistic determinism posits a finite chain of causation only because it also posits a finite age of the universe while Calvinistic determinism posits a finite chain of proximate and less proximate causes because creation is finite, Calvinism does not intend to imply that such a finite chain means that God's eternal decree is limited to finite time or space or anything created. That is to say, Calvinist determinism and Calvinist predeterminism are logically distinct, I think, but not practically so.

So, the Catholic Church teaches that determinism is incompatible with the Church's teachings on human free will and divine providence.

Let me insert a personal opinion here, I'll be as brief as I can.

There is a deep mystery in time and providence and another deep mystery in free will. One cannot know all the details of providence. One can guess and one can speculate, but God is not a man and his thoughts and deeds are not like a man's thoughts and deeds. Fundamentally there is a point at which providence is beyond our current ability to understand and know; God can reveal some of the mystery, as he has, yet those revealed parts do not give a full understanding of providence. ​

​

I say the same about free will. Catholic free will is not secular "libertarian free will" and it is not "subsumed under God's revealed decree" but it could, conceivably, be subject to an as yet unrevealed something. So, what I think, and this is not official Catholic teaching, is that in human nature is an element of the divine nature that remained after the fall yet is hindered by all the morass of consequences from the fall to such a degree as to make human freedom and free will very hard to exercise without God's grace enabling the will to rise to express divine-like freedom. We might think of this as prevenient grace in the matter of coming to Christ for salvation. And we might think of it as sustaining grace in the matter of living a godly life. But we are taught, and I believe, that we must not say that those who do not come to faith in Christ were denied prevenient grace or that those who come and later, as per Hebrews 6:1-8, to reject Christ after having experienced graces that ought to be accompanied by salvation, were denied sustaining grace. ​

​

In these opinions I have not strayed very far from official teaching, I suspect a nihil obstat would be granted, but I have exceeded the bounds of official statements on these matters.​

But in the paragraph just above THAT, you said that Catholicism teaches freewill, which you quickly limit by saying that (my paraphrase, here) that freewill is still part of God's causation, 'sort of'.

I'm left with this frustrated feeling: "Exactly what ARE you saying then?"

What Catholics teach is that human free will is rooted in God's freedom in a way that is fundamentally mysterious; it is not and cannot be the same as God's freedom because God's freedom is completely other.

Opinion insertion - God's freedom is one of the infinities of the divine nature and no creature can possess that infinity as a creature - even the incarnate Christ has a creaturely nature limiting what his creaturely nature can be, yet Christ is God as well as a man and his divine nature is complete, while his resurrected human nature is now as close to the divine as a creature's nature can be (elevated far above the angels as the scripture says).​

Human freedom is in a mysterious way un-predestined and un-decreed as far as the revealed content of God's decrees and Predestination goes.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I am replying to this comment separately for clarity's sake.

I type "The Catholic Church teaches" and similar to make it clear that the position I present is what the Church teaches rather than an individual's opinion. This does not mean I have no opinion, nor that my personal opinions are different from the teaching I present. Equally, such phrases do not imply that my personal opinion is identical to the teaching that I present. I use the phrases that I do to make it clear what I am presenting. So, my purpose when I use such phrases is to present Catholic Church teaching.

When I type "I think" or "my opinion is" then that is what I mean. In such cases I am not presenting official Catholic teaching, even if my opinion happens to match official Catholic Church teaching in that particular instance.

You're wondering if my personal views are identical to official Catholic teaching, and I say often my personal beliefs correspond well to the Church's teaching but sometimes my personal opinions vary in greater or lesser degree from official Church teaching. However, on this forum it seems to me that people seek something more definitive than my personal opinions so I rarely offer an opinion as a reply to an enquiry about what Catholics believe and teach. I hope you do the same. Personal opinions, in my experience, are highly variable with time and from one person to another and, as such, high variability leads to unproductive discussions. After all, if I wanted to exchange opinions rather than exchange information, I'd just have a chat with a chap somewhere near where I live, I know plenty of Calvinist ministers and elders so I have no shortage of sources for personal opinions and reflections - I say this of the elders and ministers that I know because they are friends and I prefer not to engage in "official" level debate and discussion with them for the sake of peace and good relations.

Well said, and well done. My problem is that I have not trained myself in Reformed or Calvinist theology as such, but used what they say to help me better organize or describe or defend what I believe. (I only call myself 'Reformed' because it makes conversation, trust and fellowship with like-minded believers come a little quicker.) And, of course, there is no official Reformed or Calvinist denomination as such, with official universal teachings and authority. Though there are the confessions, particularly the Westminster Confession, which is pretty much standard for reference for both Reformed and Calvinist Theologians and apologists.

 

[Mark Quayle]

From a Catholic perspective, being "subject to" God's sovereignty does not imply that every thought and deed is specifically "under" God's sovereignty in the sense that human free will is not overridden or negated by God's sovereignty. The Catholic Church teaches that God has given human beings the ability to make choices and that these choices have moral value. God's sovereignty is understood to be consistent with the existence of human free will, rather than in opposition to it.

It would probably be educational and useful to compare the Westminster Confession's statements concerning this issue with the Catholic statements. I seem to recall the Westminster wording "yet not so as to violate —aargh! Let me look it up.

God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (WCF 3.1)

Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently. (WCF 5.2)

Naturally, the Confession doesn't pretend to explain HOW God doesn't violate the will of the creatures, in sovereignly ordaining whatsoever comes to pass. And I don't see why it should need to, as, in fact, it establishes it.

To your point, though it may seem necessary to point out that the Catholic view of Sovereignty and Determination by God do not override or negate human free will, I simply don't see why that must be pointed out. God's plans USE human "freewill".

But as to the logic of mere causation, God's decree, ("God's planning", if you will), also causes human 'freewill', whatever is meant by it. Therefore, whatever else might be meant by 'freewill', it cannot be causeless, nor is it, by way of causation, what determines God's plans.

The Catholic Church teaches that God's sovereignty and human free will are not mutually exclusive but are rather complementary. The Immanence of God means that God is present in every aspect of human life and that God's providence is at work in the world, but it does not mean that God's sovereignty negates human free will. The Catholic Church holds that God respects human freedom and allows individuals to make choices that have consequences.

And I agree with that, except I can't leave it there, but must mention, that both logically and Scripturally, they are not merely complementary, but as the Westminster says, God's sovereignty in fact establishes human 'freewill', whatever it is.

So, it is not accurate to say that "being "subject to" God's sovereignty, if to no other, implies, by the Immanence of God, that their every thought and deed is specifically 'under' God's sovereignty." in a sense that negates human free will.

We may in our compartmentalizing habits of thinking, separate human freewill from God's sovereignty as a separate thing —after all, certainly it is not the same thing!— but as certainly God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, freewill —whatever it is— is not only compatible with, but is ordained by God. EVEN IF IT OPPOSES GOD, in the way of Satan and sin and depravity, it is still ordained by God. We are not talking about Satan obeying God's will, here. We are talking about Satan stepping precisely where God from the beginning had planned for him to step.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

To your point, though it may seem necessary to point out that the Catholic view of Sovereignty and Determination by God do not override or negate human free will, I simply don't see why that must be pointed out. God's plans USE human "freewill".

This is where the objection to Limited Atonement is significant.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I want to say that I have very much enjoyed this exchange of late. Thank you for that.

Also, I have to say, at least for this part of Catholic Dogma, that I have learned a certain respect that I had not expected, and for yourself.

Catholic teaching is not consistent with philosophical "libertarian free will".

I'm glad to hear that!

The statements I made deal with determinism rather than predeterminism, but in practical terms there is little to distinguish one from the other except that determinism is chiefly about immediate causes rather than about distant causes in time or space. However both do imply that there is an immediate cause that can be iterated backwards through a finite number of steps to an ultimate cause - one caution here, atheistic determinism posits a finite chain of causation only because it also posits a finite age of the universe while Calvinistic determinism posits a finite chain of proximate and less proximate causes because creation is finite, Calvinism does not intend to imply that such a finite chain means that God's eternal decree is limited to finite time or space or anything created. That is to say, Calvinist determinism and Calvinist predeterminism are logically distinct, I think, but not practically so.

I can't say that I consider predeterminism and determinism as distinct things, except in name and definition only —I.e. both are human constructions, and specially predeterminism, are full of noise! To me, they both necessarily hail back to first cause. But in my arguments with others, particularly those who seem to think they can make choices free of any effective influence, uncaused, I deal with them differently for the sake of argument, and allow them to conflate the two.

So, the Catholic Church teaches that determinism is incompatible with the Church's teachings on human free will and divine providence.

Now you've lost me. I'll have to review. To me, at least, divine providence is altogether dependent/involved on/in determinism.

Let me insert a personal opinion here, I'll be as brief as I can.
There is a deep mystery in time and providence and another deep mystery in free will. One cannot know all the details of providence. One can guess and one can speculate, but God is not a man and his thoughts and deeds are not like a man's thoughts and deeds. Fundamentally there is a point at which providence is beyond our current ability to understand and know; God can reveal some of the mystery, as he has, yet those revealed parts do not give a full understanding of providence. I say the same about free will. Catholic free will is not secular "libertarian free will" and it is not "subsumed under God's revealed decree" but it could, conceivably, be subject to an as yet unrevealed something. So, what I think, and this is not official Catholic teaching, is that in human nature is an element of the divine nature that remained after the fall yet is hindered by all the morass of consequences from the fall to such a degree as to make human freedom and free will very hard to exercise without God's grace enabling the will to rise to express divine-like freedom. We might think of this as prevenient grace in the matter of coming to Christ for salvation. And we might think of it as sustaining grace in the matter of living a godly life. But we are taught, and I believe, that we must not say that those who do not come to faith in Christ were denied prevenient grace or that those who come and later, as per Hebrews 6:1-8, to reject Christ after having experienced graces that ought to be accompanied by salvation, were denied sustaining grace. In these opinions I have not strayed very far from official teaching, I suspect a nihil obstat would be granted, but I have exceeded the bounds of official statements on these matters.

Even some Reformed/Calvinists I have researched claim to not understand such things a freewill vs predestination, calling it 'mysterious' and so on. But to me, while I can't pretend to have plumbed the depths, there is so much that we DO know, that the logical hierarchy of choice and causation is obvious —again, 'to me'.

But while it may seem counter-intuitive to go here, to me, to abandon, as is practical, or even possible, our human notions of definitions and limits to some of these concepts, or at least to be very skeptical of our conceptions, and instead to attempt to look to God's point-of-view, is productive. Too much of our reasoning depends on "we say" or "we think", as if conclusions drawn on those two are valid for more than "we say" and "we think". "Determination" and "Predetermination" are human terms, and while logically useful, imply (to us, anyhow) and assume all sorts of things that may not be so.

To try to parallel that thought, though rather vaguely, granted, I point at our several attributes-of-God, which we may all affirm, but then also, we may all affirm the Simplicity of God, which allows for none of the attributes we ascribe to him as independent of the rest. In our discussions we deal with them separately, as apparently we must, but we should bear in mind that they are not any of them without the others. In fact, even that narrative falls short of the fact of God's nature. Here, for example, I run into a problem with the liberal notion that if some doctrine "doesn't line up with God's love" it is to be discarded. What do we know of God's love? Though it overwhelms us, we know very little of it. And it certainly doesn't deny the rest of what we Biblically must ascribe to God. "That doesn't sound like Love to me!" Ha!

What Catholics teach is that human free will is rooted in God's freedom in a way that is fundamentally mysterious; it is not and cannot be the same as God's freedom because God's freedom is completely other.
Opinion insertion - God's freedom is one of the infinities of the divine nature and no creature can possess that infinity as a creature - even the incarnate Christ has a creaturely nature limiting what his creaturely nature can be, yet Christ is God as well as a man and his divine nature is complete, while his resurrected human nature is now as close to the divine as a creature's nature can be (elevated far above the angels as the scripture says).Human freedom is in a mysterious way un-predestined and un-decreed as far as the revealed content of God's decrees and Predestination goes.

A lot of thoughts come rumbling into my mind here; I'm trying to figure out how to deal with any of them without forgetting the rest! Granted, the first sentence; no commentary needed for now.

I am pleased to see a similar analysis to mine, of the two natures of Christ. The one is not the other, and they are not confused, nor separated. (As a side excursion/speculation, I wonder if there is some reversed application —maybe even a play on words!— concerning being made in the image of God, here.)

Twice now, I see you referencing God's decree in a way that tells me you see it somewhat different from me. I expect you are familiar with the Reformed/Calvinist notion of the two wills of God (and I have seen some propose more than two). Roughly, they are "God's decree", and "God's command", or just as often, "God's hidden will" and "God's revealed will". I hold to these, somewhat loosely. While I would agree with what I expect you would point out —that God's command isn't all he has revealed— and he has revealed several basic things concerning his decree, that are not commands, I see Human Freedom as altogether decreed. But then, to my mind, everything except God himself, is decreed. To me, I'm wondering, though, if our difference here isn't a language difference, more than philosophical or doctrinal. Not sure. Does what we differ on, I wonder, have more to do with the meaning (or nature(?)) of, and source of "man's freedom", than with the meaning of "God's decree"?

 

[Mark Quayle]

This is where the objection to Limited Atonement is significant.

How so? I don't follow.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Xeno is my nickname. You are right to use it.

I know, but it's not your complete nickname. So, I was saying that I would be referring to you as Xeno, and not Xeno.of.athens.

And since you are interacting with what I've said with a meaningful and substantive response, I will address you directly—and I hope this can continue.

You are wrong to claim I do not engage with your critiques. It is you who refused to deal with what was written without editing it to a point where I was unsure of what you wanted to discuss it in your posts.

First, someone who is unsure would usually ask something like, "I'm unsure of what you want to discuss. Would you please elaborate?" Thus, the response that you chose was ... unusual, to say the least.

Second, I quoted the material that was (a) the clearest and (b) most relevant point of possible disagreement and excluded everything else, and it was hyperlinked to your post in its original form in the event that anyone wanted or needed to know the surrounding context. That is simply how forums have always worked. I did not wish to include material that either we both held in common belief or wasn't relevant to the point of possible disagreement. Quoting a massive wall of text is unnecessary, cumbersome, and distracting, especially when the material point within it is only a single sentence.

(I also usually edit the other person's post for spelling, punctuation, and grammar—and also syntax, sometimes, but that gets placed within brackets—because I'm an incorrigible Grammar Nazi. That is far less common in discussion forums but, again, it's linked to the original material, so anyone can verify that it's essentially unchanged.)

I offered to discuss what was written ...

No, you did not. The entirety of your response was, "But that is not a problem" (source). WHAT isn't a problem? Who knows. You didn't explain. WHY isn't it a problem? Again, who knows. You never explained. There was nothing to go on, so I removed myself from our discussion in a rhetorical fashion (source). You then replied by saying that you were unwilling to discuss it unless I quote the entire paragraph (source), which I thought was just silly and didn't bother to respond.

And here you are once again telling me that you're unwilling to discuss it unless I quote the entire paragraph (emphasis added):

Xeno said: "[If you still want to discuss it,] then raise your objections again with the context of what I had written intact, [and] a reply is likely to be given."
​

(As you can see, this quote is hyperlinked to your post in its original form, allowing anyone to verify what you originally said and its surrounding context.)

If one is unable to will to do good, because one's will has been curtailed by the fall and one is in bondage to wickedness, then one's will is free only to choose between one wickedness and another. If that is [counted] as human freedom, then fine, that is the kind of freedom Calvinism teaches. But how does that pan out for the good that pagans, atheists, and non-Calvinists do? Or is all their "goodness" filthy rags, nothing but wickedness all the time?

Your inclusion of the term "non-Calvinists" here is yet another example of that misrepresentation I was talking about. (Again, it could accidental because you don't understand Calvinism. But if you do, then it's purposeful.) The inclusion of that term implies Calvinism teaches that only Calvinists do good, that the so-called good done by non-Calvinists isn't truly good (as if the Holy Spirit doesn't indwell non-Calvinists). That portrayal is not only wildly inaccurate but incredibly unethical (bearing false witness). Pope Francis said that the holy commandment against bearing false witness requires you to be truthful not only in your words but in your conduct with others (Rome Reports, November 14, 2018), which I have to assume includes accurately portraying and addressing what other Christians believe. I call upon you to do better, Xeno, especially when dealing with the family of God.

I will respond by first correcting that misrepresentation:

"How does that pan out for the good that pagans and atheists do? Or is all their goodness filthy rags, nothing but wickedness all the time?"
​

That is correct. Their so-called good is only so by the corrupt standards of fallen humans, which is rather like criminals deciding what is and is not a crime. As you anticipated, the minute we judge it against the standards established by God (his character and commands) we find that they are filthy rags at best (Isa 64:6)—literally "a menstrual rag" (NET), "the rag of a menstruous woman" (Douay-Rheims). In short, their good is not truly good at all, if God defines what is true (and he does).

Where is the error in this?

Further, I want to draw your attention to the concluding remark in the original post, which addresses your unwarranted claim of misrepresentation: "It is worth noting that Calvinism is a diverse tradition, and some Calvinists may have different interpretations of the doctrine of total depravity."

Yes, Calvinists can differ on certain doctrines in their system, as can Roman Catholics on theirs. That's hardly remarkable (so it's weird that you did). However, my claim is proven to be unwarranted only if you can quote those outlier Calvinist whose "different interpretation" asserts that the doctrine of total depravity and the denial of autonomous human free-will are the same thing (such that the latter is known as the former). In other words, who are those Calvinists teaching this, and where is that teaching found? Otherwise, if the claim originated with you, then you did misrepresent Calvinism (when you made that assertion).

-- DialecticSkeptic

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

What do you claim to be the Catholic position on this matter? Does it differ significantly from the contents of the original post in this thread?

The Roman Catholic position is not the topic of this thread, which you ought to know because you started it. I will not be thrown off the trail by red herrings, even when the person who started the thread is tossing them. The topic is whether or not Calvinism is a heresy. You clearly denied that it's a heresy, but pointed out that there are certain doctrines with which the Roman Catholic church disagrees, such as double predestination, the idea that God determines in advance the salvation of some and damnation of others (source). As a Calvinist, I wanted to show that Calvinism is not in error, using this doctrine as an example. My aim is to show that Roman Catholics ultimately don't disagree with it, even assuming the logic of your own system of doctrine.

You claimed to disagree with double predestination because, you said, "God desires the salvation of all humanity" (source). That struck me as a causal relationship, that you reject the idea that God determines in advance the damnation of anyone because "God desires the salvation of all humanity." That is what led to my follow-up question, which you were unwilling to answer: "Does God know who will be damned?"

Even now you are still unwilling to answer that question. Is Roman Catholic theology weak, ambiguous, or confused on that issue? Is that why you're unwilling to answer with a yes or no? You addressed the question by asking a question, but it's one that I simply can't answer because I don't know what your beliefs are. It is you who must tell me whether there is a difference between "knowing and deciding-to-act-so-as-to-cause-or-allow-their-damnation" and, with that clarification made, answer the question I had asked you.

Again: "Does God know who will be damned?"

-- DialecticSkeptic

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

If I read you right, [you are the one] saying Calvinism holds that "individuals have the ability to make choices independently of divine or supernatural influence," ...

Basically, yes. Xeno claimed that Roman Catholics believe, in contrast to Calvinism, that "individuals have the ability to make choices independently of divine or supernatural influence" (source). The problem was his claim that there's a contrast, because there isn't one. I was highlighting the falsehood of his statement by pointing out the fact that both Roman Catholics and Calvinists believe the same thing here. He was attempting to portray the Roman Catholic position as the better option, but when it comes to that question—whether humans can make choices apart from divine influence—both sides believe the same thing. How does that make Roman Catholicism better than Calvinism? It doesn't.

I don't know if it's on purpose or not but Xeno is kind of sneaky. As he did there, he tends toward ascribing some entirely biblical idea to Roman Catholicism and presenting it as being "in contrast to" the teachings of Calvinism when it's actually something that Calvinism likewise teaches. (The confusion is the result of the contrast often being false equivalence fallacies, wherein he says in essence, "Calvinism teaches [insert metaphorical apples here], whereas Roman Catholicism teaches [insert metaphorical oranges here].")

Exactly what "choices" does Xeno think humans can make independent of divine influence? And what does he mean by "divine influence" anyway? There is too much ambiguity and I worry that it's on purpose, but as it stands Calvinism likewise teaches that "individuals have the ability to make choices independently of divine or supernatural influence." Either Xeno must admit that Calvinism teaches truth there or he has to pursue greater precision, which runs the risk of exposing the biblical strength of Calvinism and weakness of Roman Catholicism.

-- DialecticSkeptic

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Thank you for the long and passionate reply. With no irony or sarcasm, I loved it.

Thank you. Cheers.

I believe with all my heart that the TULIP [doctrines have] deterred and will deter people from salvation.

How? Is it because an unregenerate sinner can use it as an excuse to further his rebellion against God? Or because it portrays God in ways that are contrary to Scripture? Pick one. I'm your huckleberry. Let's get into this.

It would have deterred me. I will not back off until you can show me scriptures otherwise.

Otherwise of what? If you want me to show you something, you need to specify what.

I have a question. I am trying to understand your thought process. [With regard to 1 Timothy 2:4,] are you saying that "all people" means just people in authority?

No, not "just" people in authority. I was very clear, so I don't know how you missed it (source). As I explained—and here I will put it in other words—Paul was basically telling Timothy, "Prayers are to be offered on behalf of all people, by which I mean don't forget about kings and other people in authority. They are part of ‘all people’."

Again, everyone whom the Father gives to Jesus will come to him—including kings and emperors. Everyone who believes in the Son will not perish but have eternal life—even kings and emperors.

I have a question. Let's drill down, as I agree with much of what you say, but not all.

[After sharing a personal testimony about his conversion experience, James essentially asked, "When later I invited Jesus Christ into my life as Lord and Savior, whose will said those words?"]

It was your regenerated will.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Now you've lost me. I'll have to review. To me, at least, divine providence is altogether dependent/involved on/in determinism.

Take my sentence as saying "human-free-will in relation to divine providence" I apologise for any lack of clarity.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

To me, I'm wondering, though, if our difference here isn't a language difference, more than philosophical or doctrinal. Not sure.

The heart of the difference is in "mystery". For both of us, I presume that mystery is agreed to be that which humanity cannot of itself learn, know, or understand without a revelation from God. Many mysteries are presented to us in scripture as revealed truths. The incarnation, the Blessed Trinity, humanity's future as "like Christ" are all revealed truths that we embrace yet we cannot fully define and cannot claim to fully understand.

In Catholicism mystery is embraced - I believe - more readily and more fully than appears to be the case in Protestantism, though Protestantism is so various it is not possible to state any view of "Protestantism" without the qualification that some Protestants interpret things differently.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

How so? I don't follow.

I am tired now so will - God willing - try to return to this later.
I think that what I mean is implied - or directly stated - in my previous posts. But I acknowledge they are heavy going.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I will not be thrown off the trail by red herrings, even when the person who started the thread is tossing them.

I will bow out of further discussion with you, but I thank you for your time and effort and the comments you've posted. I am bowing out because I am not here for a debate/fight style exchange. It seems that you want a debate. If I am mistaken then please accept my apology for any errors in my perception of your posts.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The topic is whether or not Calvinism is a heresy.

The definition of heresy is a belief or doctrine that is at odds with the official doctrine of a particular religious group. Whether or not Calvinism is considered a heresy depends on the perspective of the religious group in question.

In Christianity, there are different interpretations of scripture, and Calvinism is a branch of Protestantism that emphasizes predestination and the sovereignty of God in salvation. Some Christians view Calvinism as a legitimate interpretation of scripture while others consider it to be a deviation from orthodox Christian teaching and therefore a heresy.

It is important to remember that ultimately, determining the legitimacy of a belief or doctrine is a matter of personal interpretation and faith. It is not productive to label one's beliefs as heretical without understanding and respect for differing interpretations. The most important thing is to maintain humility, love, and unity in our relationships with others, despite theological differences.

The Catholic Church has a nuanced view of Calvinism and recognizes that there are theological differences between the two traditions. However, it is also important to acknowledge that these differences do not diminish the validity of either tradition, and that both have made valuable contributions to the development of Christianity.

When evaluating theological beliefs, the Catholic Church relies on Sacred Scripture, the writings of the Church Fathers and the magisterium, or the authoritative teaching of the Church. Based on these sources, the Catholic Church teaches that salvation is a gift from God, but that it can be accepted or rejected through human free will. This perspective differs from Calvinism's emphasis on predestination.

While the Catholic Church considers some elements of Calvinism to be inconsistent with official Catholic doctrine, it recognizes the importance of engaging in respectful dialogue and promoting unity among all Christians. The Catholic Church encourages a careful study of all theological perspectives and a continual effort to deepen one's understanding of the faith. Ultimately, the goal is to grow closer to God and to live a life of love and service to others, in accordance with His will.