Is Calvinism a heresy?

[Mark Quayle]

Calvinism is not monolithic. Calvinism is a theological movement that originated in the 16th century, and there are various interpretations and denominations that fall under the umbrella of Calvinism, such as Presbyterianism, Congregationalism, and Reformed Churches. These different denominations may hold slightly different beliefs, practices, and interpretations of Calvinist theology. So, while they share certain core beliefs, they are not all identical in their beliefs or practices.

In my reading it seems that double predestination is a belief held by the Protestant Reformed Church denomination. It is the belief that God has predetermined both salvation for the elect and damnation for the non-elect, based on his own sovereignty and not on any human merit or choice.

The Protestant Reformed Church denomination was founded by the Dutch theologian and pastor, Herman Bavinck. He was a key figure in the development of Reformed theology in the Netherlands in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Bavinck's extensive writings and preaching helped to shape the distinctive character of the Protestant Reformed Church and its commitment to the teachings of the Bible and the Five Points of Calvinism.​

​

Herman Hoeksema was a Dutch-American theologian and pastor who played a major role in the formation of the Protestant Reformed Churches in the Netherlands and the United States. Hoeksema was a disciple of Herman Bavinck and became a leading figure in the Dutch Reformed community, where he was known for his uncompromising stance on the sovereignty of God and his emphasis on the Five Points of Calvinism. He was also a key figure in the split of the Protestant Reformed Churches from the Christian Reformed Church in the early 20th century.​

​

Herman Hoeksema was a prolific writer and theologian, and he authored several books on Reformed theology and the Bible. Some of his most notable works include:​

• "Reformed Dogmatics"
• "Behold, He Cometh!: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation"
• "The Triple Knowledge"
• "The Voice of Our Fathers: A Fresh Look at the Canons of Dordt"
• "Belgic Confession: A Study"
• "Why Protestantism?"

These works continue to be widely read and highly regarded by members of the Protestant Reformed Church denomination and other Calvinist Christians.​

​

His works are a significant influence on the main Reformed denomination in the area where I live - it is called "The Free Reformed Church" of Australia.​

​

These denominations are part of the background from which I write about Calvinism. Yet I acknowledge that these denominations hold views that other reformed denominations do not. It is always very difficult to deal with Protestant beliefs, including Calvinist beliefs, because of the wide variety of interpretations present in the movements one wishes to investigate.​

From a Catholic perspective, the belief in double predestination (the idea that God has predetermined who will be saved and who will be damned) is considered to be at odds with the Catholic understanding of God's love and mercy for all people. The Catholic Church teaches that God's grace is freely offered to all and that individuals have the free will to accept or reject it. While Catholics respect each individual's beliefs, they respectfully disagree with the idea of double predestination and believe in a God who offers salvation to all.

To me, when I hear you say that "double predestination is a belief held by the Protestant Reformed Church denomination" all sorts of protests come up. Not that you are wrong about the Protestant Reformed Church denomination, but that we all (Reformed/Calvinists) believe in it, even if only by logical implication. To me, if God is sovereign, then all that plays out, regardless of how, is a result of his intent-full creation, and there is no getting around it. But YES to the fact that, as many protesters say, the damnation of the lost is not God's PRIMARY reason for creating them. But much of the debate is so noisy as it is, because of the care people want to take to protect God from false accusations as to his intent toward man.

I have to say, that particularly in your last paragraph, the 'Self-Determination' that to me is common to maybe all non-Reformed/non-Calvinist denominations/sects is visible here in your description of Catholics' take on 'double-predestination'. (I say 'Self-Determination' because that seems to be the most consistent problem with the several points of view —too 'natural man' a feel for my comfort.)

 

[Mark Quayle]

And I understood what you were saying in that respect (and fully agree with you). Man is not in any sense a primary cause of anything. A proximate secondary cause, sure, but never primary. Every facet of our existence is analogical (image-bearers); nothing is ever shared univocally between creatures and the Creator. (Two things are related analogically when they are similar, univocally when they are identical, and equivocally when they have nothing in common.) Calvinists believe that God is alone the first cause, that everything happens in relationship to him unchangeably and infallibly, and that God providentially orders things to happen through secondary causes, whether by ordinary or extraordinary means.

I think Xeno is at home in a system of doctrine where God refuses to encroach on human free-will. On that view, it seems God so highly values this human faculty that he is willing to risk losing the image-bearer herself to hell forever. So, yeah, I doubt Xeno would agree with a Reformed view of God's eternal decrees and his providentially ensuring the end or telos that he has ordained (e.g., WCF 5:1). My response was couched in terms of saving grace, not common grace. Unregenerate sinners make choices independent of saving grace all the time, as that grace is bestowed only on regenerated believers. And while by common grace God restrains the evil that unregenerate sinners would otherwise do, he is not a causal agent in their sinning. In other words—and this is the crux of what I was saying—the sinful choices unregenerate sinners don't make are the result of divine influence, whereas the sinful choices they do make are independent of divine influence. (For example, Scripture speaks of God preventing some people from sinning and abandoning others to their sins, the latter being what I think it means for God to "harden" their hearts, e.g., Deut 2:30.)

The Westminster Confession of Faith puts it this way (5:4): God's providential control reaches even to the sins of men, wherein they are "not simply allowed by God but are bound, ordered, and governed by him in the fullness of his wisdom and power so that they fulfill his own holy purposes. However, the sinfulness still belongs to the creature and does not proceed from God, whose holy righteousness does not and cannot cause or approve sin."

-- DialecticSkeptic

As I told @Clare73 in another thread, "I admit it could just be "me". I'm having a hard time accepting terminology that doesn't immediately counter the notions of arminianistic* and particularly pelagianistic* theology. Maybe the fact that I find myself reacting so, is largely because of my gut-response to suggestions of late, that I don't really believe in the Calvinistic/Reformed-sounding beliefs I claim.

But I'm not asking you to change the description. I just feel the need to define it— to be sure nobody takes it to say what it does not say.


*pardon the unnecessary-sounding suffix. I want to be sure that those who use some of the same things that Arminian and Pelagian theologies are known for, understand that I am talking about THEM, too.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The Catholic Church teaches that God knows all things, including who will be damned. However, this knowledge is not a determining factor in a person's salvation or damnation. Rather, the Catholic Church emphasizes that every person has the free will to choose whether to accept or reject God's grace, and that this choice ultimately determines their eternal destiny.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a wilful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end." (1037) This means that while God may know who will ultimately choose to reject His grace, this decision is not imposed by God, but rather is made freely by the individual.

In addition, the Catholic Church teaches that God is a God of love, who desires all people to be saved. (1 Tim 2:4) This is why the Church offers the sacraments, such as the Eucharist and Confession, as means of receiving God's grace and assistance in choosing to follow Him.

In conclusion, while God knows all things, including who will be damned, the Catholic Church emphasizes the importance of free will in determining a person's eternal destiny. The Church encourages all people to respond to God's grace and to live a life of love and service to others, in accordance with His will.

Sometimes, reading your many posts on Catholic Theology et al, (and I don't mean this in a condescending nor in an antagonistic way), I get the feeling the official theology of the Catholic Church is a hodgepodge of what different writers write, or maybe what a consortium got together to write, each careful not to offend the sensibilities of the others. Please take the following as an attempt to describe how this comes across to me, and not to be in some disrespectful criticism of Catholicism; (that would be a different issue I don't mean to address here): I first thought the statements walked a thin top wire of the fence, then I thought they straddled the fence, but now I'm thinking they too often jump back and forth from one side to the other.

Anyhow, I find many logical inconsistencies, even in the short descriptions above, that so closely resemble the thinking of those (that earlier I called "Arminians", though they may not claim Arminianism), that write in hearty opposition to Calvinism/Reformed theology, that I don't know what else to call it to identify it, but maybe a more descriptive than nominative, "Self-Determination trumping Logical Causation". I see the attempt to be biblical without allowing it to impinge on the "natural mind".

As I have said before, I am skeptical of my own thoughts and mind, so I admit I could be wrong here, but that is what this looks like to me. It is, of course, drawn from the point of view of one who trusts the logic that causation is completely pervasive —totally endemic of all creation. But, to me, at least, that does not even begin to imply that one's choices are not real, with real, even eternal, consequences.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

To me, when I hear you say that "double predestination is a belief held by the Protestant Reformed Church denomination" all sorts of protests come up. Not that you are wrong about the Protestant Reformed Church denomination, but that we all (Reformed/Calvinists) believe in it, even if only by logical implication. To me, if God is sovereign, then all that plays out, regardless of how, is a result of his intent-full creation, and there is no getting around it. But YES to the fact that, as many protesters say, the damnation of the lost is not God's PRIMARY reason for creating them. But much of the debate is so noisy as it is, because of the care people want to take to protect God from false accusations as to his intent toward man.

I have to say, that particularly in your last paragraph, the 'Self-Determination' that to me is common to maybe all non-Reformed/non-Calvinist denominations/sects is visible here in your description of Catholics' take on 'double-predestination'. (I say 'Self-Determination' because that seems to be the most consistent problem with the several points of view —too 'natural man' a feel for my comfort.)

Two things struck me while reading what Xeno had written about double predestination being a belief held by the Protestant Reformed Churches denomination (ca. 1926). I mean, it certainly is a belief of the PRC. However, like you said, it is not unique to the PRC. Everyone who is Reformed or Calvinist believes it ("even if only by logical implication," as you said). But a couple of things struck me about Xeno.

First, he doesn't seem to understand the history of the Reformed church (which reaches back to the 16th century) because election and predestination had been well-established doctrines in our confessional standards for centuries by the 1920s, doctrines which Hoeksema and others retained. (The dispute regarded common grace, a related but totally different doctrine.)

Second, judging by the overall context of his posts up to this point, I find myself wondering if what he means to address is the ordo salutis controversy between the infralapsarians and supralapsarians. (Hoeksema was in the minority here, too, being in the latter camp.) There have been some supralapsarians who have held to a view called "equal ultimacy" by R. C. Spoul, and I wonder if that's the view Xeno considers in his objection to double predestination. As explained by Phillip R. Johnson (2000), the supralapsarian view holds that God, "contemplating man as yet unfallen, chose some to receive eternal life and rejected all others. So, a supralapsarian would say that the reprobate (i.e., non-elect) ... were first ordained to that role and then the means by which they fell into sin was ordained." He goes on to say (emphases added):

Supralapsarianism is sometimes mistakenly equated with double predestination. The term "double predestination" itself is often used in a misleading and ambiguous fashion. Some use it to mean nothing more than the view that the eternal destiny of both elect and reprobate is settled by the eternal decree of God. In that sense of the term, all genuine Calvinists hold to double predestination—and the fact that the destiny of the reprobate is eternally settled is clearly a biblical doctrine (cf. 1 Pet 2:8; Rom 9:22; Jude 4).

But often the expression "double predestination" is employed as a pejorative term to describe the view of those who suggest that God is as active in keeping the reprobate out of heaven as he is in getting the elect in. (An even more sinister form of double predestination suggests that God is as active in making the reprobate evil as he is in making the elect holy.) This view—that God is as active in reprobating the non-elect as he is in redeeming the elect—is more properly labeled "equal ultimacy" (cf. R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God, p. 142). It is actually a form of hyper-Calvinism and has nothing to do with true, historic Calvinism. Although all who hold such a view would also hold to the supralapsarian scheme, the view itself is not a necessary [entailment] of supralapsarianism. ... All hyper-Calvinists are supralapsarians, but not all supralapsarians are hyper-Calvinists.
​

So, here is what R. C. Sproul said in Chosen by God about this (emphasis added):

Equal ultimacy is based on a concept of symmetry. It seeks a complete balance between election and reprobation. The key idea is this: Just as God intervenes in the lives of the elect to create faith in their hearts, so God equally intervenes in the lives of the reprobate to create or work unbelief in their hearts. The idea of God's actively working unbelief in the hearts of the reprobate is drawn from biblical statements about God hardening people's hearts.

... Equal ultimacy is not the Reformed or Calvinist view of predestination. Some have called it hyper-Calvinism. I prefer to call it sub-Calvinism or, better yet, anti-Calvinism. ... [The double predestination of Calvinism] is not one of equal ultimacy, which was condemned at the Second Council of Orange in 529.

... The Reformed view teaches that God positively or actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to insure their salvation. The rest of mankind God leaves to themselves. He does not create unbelief in their hearts. That unbelief is already there. He does not coerce them to sin. They sin by their own choices. In the Calvinist view the decree of election is positive [or active]; the decree of reprobation is negative [or passive].
​

---

I was amused by what Kevin DeYoung had to say about the terms infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism (2021):

I'm not aware of any two words in the theological lexicon quite like supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism. They sound dreadfully esoteric and hopelessly elitist, like they might be concerned with how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, if that pin were resting upon a rock which God made so heavy not even he could lift it. First-year seminary students love to throw the terms around as a not-so-subtle reminder that they are in seminary. Pastors of a certain ilk toss around the words when they want to demonstrate how impractical theology can be. Parishioners hear the words and just cringe. ... The whole debate may seem utterly irrelevant; however, before dismissing the terms as a silly seminary schtick, we should appreciate how our understanding of the order of the decrees may influence (or perhaps reflect) our understanding of God. ... The debate is not insignificant, but neither is it a hill to die on.
​

-- DialecticSkeptic

(Edit: Added a further material to the quote from Sproul.)

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

To me, when I hear you say that "double predestination is a belief held by the Protestant Reformed Church denomination" all sorts of protests come up. Not that you are wrong about the Protestant Reformed Church denomination, but that we all (Reformed/Calvinists) believe in it, even if only by logical implication. To me, if God is sovereign, then all that plays out, regardless of how, is a result of his intent-full creation, and there is no getting around it. But YES to the fact that, as many protesters say, the damnation of the lost is not God's PRIMARY reason for creating them. But much of the debate is so noisy as it is, because of the care people want to take to protect God from false accusations as to his intent toward man.

I have to say, that particularly in your last paragraph, the 'Self-Determination' that to me is common to maybe all non-Reformed/non-Calvinist denominations/sects is visible here in your description of Catholics' take on 'double-predestination'. (I say 'Self-Determination' because that seems to be the most consistent problem with the several points of view —too 'natural man' a feel for my comfort.)

You could be right about "all Calvinists believe in it" but my reading has caused me to think that some Calvinists explicitly reject the damnation part of double predestination.

On your last paragraph, it goes without saying that Catholic teaching is also biblical teaching - from a Catholic perspective - so a Catholic catechist teaching will be happy to give biblical evidence and support for each element in the Catholic rejection of the damnation part of double predestination.

From a Catholic perspective, the belief in God damning the un-elect in his eternal decree is not in line with the teachings of the Church. The Catholic Church believes in a God of love, mercy, and compassion who desires that all people be saved. This belief is based on various biblical references that demonstrate God's love and concern for all people. Some of these references include:

• 1 Timothy 2:4: "God our Saviour desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
• 2 Peter 3:9: "The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."
• John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life."
• Ezekiel 18:23: "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? says the Lord God. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?"

These verses and others like them demonstrate that God desires the salvation of all people and that He is not the cause of anyone's damnation, but rather that people make their own choices that lead to their ultimate fate. The Catholic Church teaches that God's love and mercy are freely given to all who seek Him, and that all people have the opportunity to receive salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yes, but to me, that is the same thing Arminians say, "mystery", though true, Arminians are, for the most part, pretty definite in their 'logic', that if it is not libertarian freewill, it is robothood.

As a preliminary note: Catholic teaching is cognisant of many Arminian Christians acknowledging grace (in varying ways and degrees) as the fundamental source of "free will".

The statement "Arminians are, for the most part, pretty definite in their 'logic', that if it is not libertarian freewill, it is robothood," suggests that the Arminian perspective holds that one must have complete freedom to choose in order to have genuine moral agency. This view is distinct from Catholic teaching, which recognizes the importance of human free will but also acknowledges the role of divine grace in human choices and actions.

In Catholic teaching, human freedom is not absolute, but is limited by original sin and the effects of personal sin. Nonetheless, human beings are still able to choose good and avoid evil, and are called to cooperate with God's grace in order to grow in righteousness and attain eternal life. This view is supported by various scriptural references, including Romans 6:12-13, which states, "Therefore, do not let sin reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness."

The Catholic Church recognizes the role of grace in human life and its importance in enabling human beings to choose and act in accordance with God's will. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life" (Paragraph 1996). In addition, the Council of Trent, in its Decree on Justification, affirms the importance of grace in enabling human beings to cooperate with God's plan of salvation and to attain eternal life.

In conclusion, while Arminianism emphasizes the importance of human free will, Catholic teaching recognizes the significance of both human free will and divine grace in human life and the path to salvation.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

First, he doesn't seem to understand

I am unimpressed by this approach to responding, it lacks integrity.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Sometimes, reading your many posts on Catholic Theology et al, (and I don't mean this in a condescending nor in an antagonistic way), I get the feeling the official theology of the Catholic Church is a hodgepodge of what different writers write, or maybe what a consortium got together to write, each careful not to offend the sensibilities of the others.

Yes, I see your point and reply thus:
The bible seems like a hodgepodge of different authors writing things about God and it looks like some editor or committee of editors gathered it all up into a single book to use as a religious text for teaching and learning and being more like Christ.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Sometimes, reading your many posts on Catholic Theology et al, (and I don't mean this in a condescending nor in an antagonistic way), I get the feeling the official theology of the Catholic Church is a hodgepodge of what different writers write, or maybe what a consortium got together to write, each careful not to offend the sensibilities of the others. Please take the following as an attempt to describe how this comes across to me, and not to be in some disrespectful criticism of Catholicism; (that would be a different issue I don't mean to address here): I first thought the statements walked a thin top wire of the fence, then I thought they straddled the fence, but now I'm thinking they too often jump back and forth from one side to the other.

Anyhow, I find many logical inconsistencies, even in the short descriptions above, that so closely resemble the thinking of those (that earlier I called "Arminians", though they may not claim Arminianism), that write in hearty opposition to Calvinism/Reformed theology, that I don't know what else to call it to identify it, but maybe a more descriptive than nominative, "Self-Determination trumping Logical Causation". I see the attempt to be biblical without allowing it to impinge on the "natural mind".

As I have said before, I am skeptical of my own thoughts and mind, so I admit I could be wrong here, but that is what this looks like to me. It is, of course, drawn from the point of view of one who trusts the logic that causation is completely pervasive —totally endemic of all creation. But, to me, at least, that does not even begin to imply that one's choices are not real, with real, even eternal, consequences.

"from the point of view of one who trusts the logic that causation is completely pervasive —totally endemic of all creation."

From a Catholic perspective, the belief in the pervasiveness of causation within the created universe is in line with the idea of divine providence, which states that God is the ultimate cause of all things and directs all events towards his divine plan. This belief is based on passages from the Bible, such as Colossians 1:17 which states "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."​

​

However, it is important to note that while causation is pervasive, it is not necessarily exhaustive. This is because the Catholic Church recognizes the existence of free will, which allows individuals to make choices that are not predetermined by any created causal factors. The idea of free will is rooted in the concept of human dignity, which asserts that humans are made in the image of God and as such they have the ability to make choices that are not solely determined by their environment or past experiences. (see * below)​

Opinion: This is an explicit rejection of atheist material determinism. It is also a rejection of any system of thought that posits human will as solely a consequence of a chain of causation wholly encompassed within created reality.​

​

Additionally, Catholic theology acknowledges the reality of miracles, which are events that cannot be fully explained by natural causes. This is because miracles are seen as a manifestation of God's intervention in the world, and as such, they serve as a reminder that God is the ultimate cause of all things, including those events that defy explanation through natural causes.​

​

In conclusion, from a Catholic perspective, causation is indeed pervasive, but it is not exhaustive. The existence of free will and miracles serve as reminders that God is the ultimate cause of all things, and that his plan extends beyond our understanding of natural causes.​

​

* Does the Catholic Church reject God predestining each and every human act of will?

Yes, the Catholic Church does reject the idea that God predestines each and every human act of will. The Catholic Church upholds the doctrine of free will, which asserts that individuals have the ability to make choices that are not predetermined by God or any other causal factors. This belief is rooted in the idea of human dignity, which asserts that humans are made in the image of God and have the capacity to make decisions that are not solely determined by their environment or past experiences.​

​

The Catholic Church also recognizes the reality of original sin, which has damaged human nature and made it more difficult for individuals to make good choices. However, this damage does not eliminate the ability to make choices, and individuals are still held responsible for their actions.​

​

The Catholic Church believes that while God is the ultimate cause of all things, nevertheless, individuals have the ability to make choices that are not predetermined by God. This belief in free will is seen as a key aspect of human dignity, and it allows individuals to make meaningful decisions that contribute to their spiritual growth and journey towards God.​

 

[Mark Quayle]

Two things struck me while reading what Xeno had written about double predestination being a belief held by the Protestant Reformed Churches denomination (ca. 1926). I mean, it certainly is a belief of the PRC. However, like you said, it is not unique to the PRC. Everyone who is Reformed or Calvinist believes it ("even if only by logical implication," as you said). But a couple of things struck me about Xeno.

First, he doesn't seem to understand the history of the Reformed church (which reaches back to the 16th century) because election and predestination had been well-established doctrines in our confessional standards for centuries by the 1920s, doctrines which Hoeksema and others retained. (The dispute regarded common grace, a related but totally different doctrine.)

Second, judging by the overall context of his posts up to this point, I find myself wondering if what he means to address is the ordo salutis controversy between the infralapsarians and supralapsarians. (Hoeksema was in the minority here, too, being in the latter camp.) There have been some supralapsarians who have held to a view called "equal ultimacy" by R. C. Spoul, and I wonder if that's the view Xeno considers in his objection to double predestination. As explained by Phillip R. Johnson (2000), the supralapsarian view holds that God, "contemplating man as yet unfallen, chose some to receive eternal life and rejected all others. So, a supralapsarian would say that the reprobate (i.e., non-elect) ... were first ordained to that role and then the means by which they fell into sin was ordained." He goes on to say (emphases added):

​

Supralapsarianism is sometimes mistakenly equated with double predestination. The term "double predestination" itself is often used in a misleading and ambiguous fashion. Some use it to mean nothing more than the view that the eternal destiny of both elect and reprobate is settled by the eternal decree of God. In that sense of the term, all genuine Calvinists hold to double predestination—and the fact that the destiny of the reprobate is eternally settled is clearly a biblical doctrine (cf. 1 Pet 2:8; Rom 9:22; Jude 4).​

​

But often the expression "double predestination" is employed as a pejorative term to describe the view of those who suggest that God is as active in keeping the reprobate out of heaven as he is in getting the elect in. (An even more sinister form of double predestination suggests that God is as active in making the reprobate evil as he is in making the elect holy.) This view—that God is as active in reprobating the non-elect as he is in redeeming the elect—is more properly labeled "equal ultimacy" (cf. R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God, p. 142). It is actually a form of hyper-Calvinism and has nothing to do with true, historic Calvinism. Although all who hold such a view would also hold to the supralapsarian scheme, the view itself is not a necessary [entailment] of supralapsarianism. ... All hyper-Calvinists are supralapsarians, but not all supralapsarians are hyper-Calvinists.​

​

So, here is what R. C. Sproul said in Chosen by God about this (emphasis added):

​

Equal ultimacy is based on a concept of symmetry. It seeks a complete balance between election and reprobation. The key idea is this: Just as God intervenes in the lives of the elect to create faith in their hearts, so God equally intervenes in the lives of the reprobate to create or work unbelief in their hearts. The idea of God's actively working unbelief in the hearts of the reprobate is drawn from biblical statements about God hardening people's hearts.​

​

... Equal ultimacy is not the Reformed or Calvinist view of predestination. Some have called it hyper-Calvinism. I prefer to call it sub-Calvinism or, better yet, anti-Calvinism. ... [The double predestination of Calvinism] is not one of equal ultimacy, which was condemned at the Second Council of Orange in 529.​

​

... The Reformed view teaches that God positively or actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to insure their salvation. The rest of mankind God leaves to themselves. He does not create unbelief in their hearts. That unbelief is already there. He does not coerce them to sin. They sin by their own choices. In the Calvinist view the decree of election is positive [or active]; the decree of reprobation is negative [or passive].​

​

---

I was amused by what Kevin DeYoung had to say about the terms infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism (2021):

​

I'm not aware of any two words in the theological lexicon quite like supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism. They sound dreadfully esoteric and hopelessly elitist, like they might be concerned with how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, if that pin were resting upon a rock which God made so heavy not even he could lift it. First-year seminary students love to throw the terms around as a not-so-subtle reminder that they are in seminary. Pastors of a certain ilk toss around the words when they want to demonstrate how impractical theology can be. Parishioners hear the words and just cringe. ... The whole debate may seem utterly irrelevant; however, before dismissing the terms as a silly seminary schtick, we should appreciate how our understanding of the order of the decrees may influence (or perhaps reflect) our understanding of God. ... The debate is not insignificant, but neither is it a hill to die on.​

​

-- DialecticSkeptic

(Edit: Added a further material to the quote from Sproul.)

I can't speak to what @Xeno.of.athens was intending. I, myself, am not very familiar with the history of Calvinism and Reformed theology, as such.

As for the two lapsarian points of view, I had heard of them and understood them but forgotten about them. I have read RC Sproul's Chosen by God; maybe that was my introduction to them —I don't remember. Looking at them now, to me they are fun to think about, but they reek of human definition and use, humanly self-important 'organization' of logical progression that, again, "to me", God needn't have considered one way or the other. Believing what I do about the Simplicity of God, I don't see God as having to consider anything before doing whatever he does.

To me, when God spoke Creation into being, he spoke "the goal" into being, and the whole business from beginning to end. WE are the ones who must think in terms of time-progression, and it is even WE who need to consider logical progression. I say logical progression is fact —and I mean it completely pervasively over all things (pardon the redundancy) except first cause. But I acknowledge that it is, nevertheless, a consideration for our brains, and not God's. God's thinking needn't follow sequence, nor when he acts, need he first consider; he doesn't adjust anything. What we call interventions and even miracle, since they seem to us opposed to, or at least different from, what WE consider the natural order of things, are to him, (I think), the same as speaking the end product of all this into existence.

But, (by the way), that doesn't mean that all facts and all goals are of equal intention and equal desire to God. In 'double predestination' which is US thinking, I agree that our notion of God intending the salvation of some is not equal in intent to the reprobation of the rest. The salvation of some is part and parcel of his creation of the Dwelling Place of God. But the reprobation of the rest is only a part of what it takes, or part of what is necessary, for the formation of the members of that Dwelling. God did not create those primarily for the simple sake of their reprobation alone. He did create the Elect for the purpose of their salvation.

So, if I had to choose one, I'd go with supralapsarianism, because what God has predestined concerning his Dwelling Place implies the need for the fall, and not "implies the fall". But I don't think the difference is more than theoretical. To me, God spoke the whole business —every detail of it— into place with a word. He wasn't just working into fact a wonderful story.

But, admittedly, even that must fall short of how God sees this. The Simplicity of God means that ALL the attributes of God are one in him, inseparable, though we must deal with them separately in our limited minds. And so also he speaks to us according to our limitations.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, I see your point and reply thus:
The bible seems like a hodgepodge of different authors writing things about God and it looks like some editor or committee of editors gathered it all up into a single book to use as a religious text for teaching and learning and being more like Christ.

I hope by that you don't mean to imply equal authority to the Bible and to Catholic dogma.

And there is this, that I have noticed repeatedly, and specially when spending long hours "just reading through" the Bible: That God is consistently visible throughout. His heart in Genesis is the same heart, with specific references to things he says about himself and what he made, as in The Prophets and Wisdom books, and the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. (I won't compare what little I have heard/read of Catholic dogma to that, here.)

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I hope by that you don't mean to imply equal authority to the Bible and to Catholic dogma.

I do mean that, as explained here:

"Dogma" is the highest category of Church teaching and is reserved for what God reveals - hold your horses, this is not confined to holy scripture - "the teaching of the Church is the teaching of Christ" is a well known statement in Catholic theology. It means that the Church is the body of Christ and when she (this is a reference to her as Christ's bride) speaks she speaks with his words. Catholics teach and believe that Christ continues to speak in and by the Church to the world and to the faithful. This is not a claim to speak under inspiration. That gift is confined to holy scripture. And in the hierarchy of revealed truth holy scripture is the summit.​

 

[Clare73]

Yes, I see your point and reply thus:
The bible seems like a hodgepodge of different authors writing things about God and it looks like some editor or committee of editors gathered it all up into a single book to use as a religious text for teaching and learning and being more like Christ.

Interesting. . .I find it totally consistent and in agreement with itself.

 

[Clare73]

I do mean that, as explained here:

"Dogma" is the highest category of Church teaching and is reserved for what God reveals - hold your horses, this is not confined to holy scripture - "the teaching of the Church is the teaching of Christ"​

Where do we find the "immaculate conception" of Mary in the teaching of Christ, or the apostles?

is a well known statement in Catholic theology. It means that the Church is the body of Christ and when she (this is a reference to her as Christ's bride) speaks she speaks with his words. Catholics teach and believe that Christ continues to speak in and by the Church to the world and to the faithful. This is not a claim to speak under inspiration. That gift is confined to holy scripture. And in the hierarchy of revealed truth holy scripture is the summit.​

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Where do we find the "immaculate conception" of Mary in the teaching of Christ, or the apostles?

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is not explicitly stated in the teachings of Christ or the apostles as recorded in the Bible. Rather, it is a teaching of the Catholic Church that was defined as a dogma in 1854 by Pope Pius IX. According to this doctrine, Mary was conceived without original sin, and was therefore preserved from the stain of sin from the moment of her conception. This teaching is based on a tradition of interpretation and devotion to Mary that has developed over the centuries within the Catholic Church.

And since "the teaching of the Church is the teaching of Christ", you have the answer

 

[rturner76]

Yes, Calvinism is a heresy. It's Calvinism instead of Christianity

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yes, Calvinism is a heresy. It's Calvinism instead of Christianity

The Catholic Church recognizes the belief in predestination, a central tenet of Calvinism, as a matter of theological disagreement and diversity within Christianity. However, it also upholds certain teachings, such as the concept of free will, that are not in line with Calvinism.

Ultimately, the Catholic Church views all baptized Christians as members of the universal Church and acknowledges the valid sacraments and traditions of protestant Christian denominations, including Calvinist denominations. The Church recognizes that these differing beliefs are part of a larger, ongoing conversation within the Christian tradition and seeks to engage in respectful dialogue with other Christian communities.

 

[rturner76]

The Catholic Church recognizes the belief in predestination, a central tenet of Calvinism, as a matter of theological disagreement and diversity within Christianity. However, it also upholds certain teachings, such as the concept of free will, that are not in line with Calvinism.

Ultimately, the Catholic Church views all baptized Christians as members of the universal Church and acknowledges the valid sacraments and traditions of protestant Christian denominations, including Calvinist denominations. The Church recognizes that these differing beliefs are part of a larger, ongoing conversation within the Christian tradition and seeks to engage in respectful dialogue with other Christian communities.

Yeah, it's just that Calvinism doesn't recognize free will. We part ways on that

 

[Mark Quayle]

As a preliminary note: Catholic teaching is cognisant of many Arminian Christians acknowledging grace (in varying ways and degrees) as the fundamental source of "free will".

The statement "Arminians are, for the most part, pretty definite in their 'logic', that if it is not libertarian freewill, it is robothood," suggests that the Arminian perspective holds that one must have complete freedom to choose in order to have genuine moral agency. This view is distinct from Catholic teaching, which recognizes the importance of human free will but also acknowledges the role of divine grace in human choices and actions.

I don't recall hearing any Arminians saying (as such) that grace is the fundamental source of "free will", but I have heard some say that it is a gift of God, or a God-ordained fact. Both of those are, to me, by definition logically contradictory to the notion of libertarian free will —i.e. uncaused choice. If God gave it, God caused it. When I push that, they want to deal with degrees of freedom or degrees of causation. To me, it either is, or is not. There are no degrees to such questions. It is a matter of hierarchy, and not degrees.

The statement "Arminians are, for the most part, pretty definite in their 'logic', that if it is not libertarian freewill, it is robothood," suggests that the Arminian perspective holds that one must have complete freedom to choose in order to have genuine moral agency. This view is distinct from Catholic teaching, which recognizes the importance of human free will but also acknowledges the role of divine grace in human choices and actions.

I wonder why anyone even finds it necessary to include the word, "free", as definitive concerning "will". Only God has truly free will.

And it's not a matter of degrees.

This view is distinct from Catholic teaching, which recognizes the importance of human free will but also acknowledges the role of divine grace in human choices and actions.

In Catholic teaching, human freedom is not absolute, but is limited by original sin and the effects of personal sin. Nonetheless, human beings are still able to choose good and avoid evil, and are called to cooperate with God's grace in order to grow in righteousness and attain eternal life. This view is supported by various scriptural references, including Romans 6:12-13, which states, "Therefore, do not let sin reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness."

The Catholic Church recognizes the role of grace in human life and its importance in enabling human beings to choose and act in accordance with God's will. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life" (Paragraph 1996). In addition, the Council of Trent, in its Decree on Justification, affirms the importance of grace in enabling human beings to cooperate with God's plan of salvation and to attain eternal life.

In conclusion, while Arminianism emphasizes the importance of human free will, Catholic teaching recognizes the significance of both human free will and divine grace in human life and the path to salvation.

thanks.

 

[Mark Quayle]

However, it is important to note that while causation is pervasive, it is not necessarily exhaustive. This is because the Catholic Church recognizes the existence of free will, which allows individuals to make choices that are not predetermined by any created causal factors. The idea of free will is rooted in the concept of human dignity, which asserts that humans are made in the image of God and as such they have the ability to make choices that are not solely determined by their environment or past experiences. (see * below)Opinion: This is an explicit rejection of atheist material determinism. It is also a rejection of any system of thought that posits human will as solely a consequence of a chain of causation wholly encompassed within created reality.

Opinion here, also. Logic tells me that causation is exhaustively pervasive. That does not mean that human choice is puppetry, since God is hierarchically causing.

Also, I have to say that even atheistic causation, while very logical, neglects causation by 'extra-natural' causes, such as the 'intrusive' acts of the Spirit of God. I see no way that the will of anyone can escape causation, nor that causation denies actual real choice. It may well be that the immanence of God is the very means by which anyone is able to choose at all. But certainly, causation descending from God ESTABLISHES choice. To me, apart from God's decree, our sentience is no better compared to God's infinite sentience, than the sentience of a protozoan.