Catholic vs Armenian vs Calvinist
Why Catholics are Neither Arminian nor Calvinist
Posted on December 15, 2014 by Triumph Of Orthodoxy
I’ve often been told by Arminian heretics that Catholics entertain some form of Calvinism. Nothing could be more grossly misrepresented in the whole of Catholic theology than this idea that the Arminians maintain. I imagine they do this in order to defend their own beloved heresy of total depravity. The problem is that any meaningful dialogue between the Arminian and the Catholic will enable the Arminian to realize that while the Catholic holds the Arminian view of soteriology to be heretical, the Catholic also explicitly denounces the Calvinist heresy for similar reasons.
Exactly, where is it gathered that Catholics are Calvinists any way? My Wesleyan Nazarene friends lay the blame all on St. Augustine. But the problem is that Wesley did in fact draw upon the theology of St. Augustine to argue for synergism. Don’t believe me? Here is Wesley’s quote from “Sermon 85: On Working Out Our Own Salvation”:
Even St. Augustine, who is generally supposed to favour the contrary doctrine, makes that just remark, Qui fecit nos sine nobis, non salvabit nos sine nobis: “He that made us without ourselves, will not save us without ourselves.” He will not save us unless we “save ourselves from this untoward generation;” unless we ourselves “fight the good fight of faith, and lay hold on eternal life; “unless we “agonize to enter in at the strait gate,” “deny ourselves, and take up our cross daily,” and labour by every possible means to “make our own calling and election sure.” (2.7)
In other words, St. Augustine, like John Wesley, is a synergist. On this part, the Catholic and the Arminian are at agreement on. The Catholic doctrine has never denied that man is involved in his own salvation and must make an effort to maintain it. So in certain aspects, the Arminian heresy maintains a similar soteriology to Catholic doctrine. However, both the Arminian and the Calvinist remain in the wrong.
In many senses, there are significant difficulties with interpreting St. Augustine, however, it must be considered that St. Augustine was attempting to resist as best as he could the Pelagian doctrines of no depravity whatsoever. I admit, I’m no expert on grace and free will but I can find nothing in St. Augustine’s actual writings that suggest he would have bought into Calvinistic and Arminian readings of his theology on original sin as relating to total depravity. He clearly argues that man has in him the desire to praise God (Confessions, 1.1) much as St. Thomas Aquinas argues that man retains a desire for the good. The theology of the Angelic Doctor permits no such thing as total depravity as the Arminians might admit to.
I answer that, The good of human nature is threefold. First, there are the principles of which nature is constituted, and the properties that flow from them, such as the powers of the soul, and so forth. Secondly, since man has from nature an inclination to virtue, as stated above (60, 1; 63, 1), this inclination to virtue is a good of nature. Thirdly, the gift of original justice, conferred on the whole of human nature in the person of the first man, may be called a good of nature.
Accordingly, the first-mentioned good of nature is neither destroyed nor diminished by sin. The third good of nature was entirely destroyed through the sin of our first parent. But the second good of nature, viz. the natural inclination to virtue, is diminished by sin. Because human acts produce an inclination to like acts, as stated above (Question 50, Article 1). Now from the very fact that thing becomes inclined to one of two contraries, its inclination to the other contrary must needs be diminished. Wherefore as sin is opposed to virtue, from the very fact that a man sins, there results a diminution of that good of nature, which is the inclination to virtue. (Summa Theologica, “First Part of the Second Part”, 85.1)
The problem is that for the Arminian, total depravity corrupts every single aspect of human nature. According to Arminian theologian, Dr. Roger Olson, “Arminianism teaches that all humans are born morally and spiritually depraved, and helpless to do anything good or worthy in God’s sight without a special infusion of God’s grace to overcome the effects of original sin” (Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, 33). “Classical Arminianism agrees with Protestant orthodoxy in general that the unity of the human race in sin results in all being born ‘children of wrath'” (33). “Arminius, Wesley and classical Arminians in general affirmed inherited total depravity as utter helplessness apart from a supernatural awakening called prevenient grace” (27). According to Dr. Olson, because of the Arminian view on total depravity, it can be accurately said that because all are born into this state of total depravity, mankind has no free will apart from prevenient grace (75-76). This is exactly the Wesleyan view my Nazarene friends hold to.
Now, I should be careful to note that Arminians do insist that men are born retaining the image of God but this is not so. While Catholic doctrine agrees with Arminians and Calvinists in rejecting “that man may be justified before God by his own works…without the grace of God through Jesus Christ” (Council of Trent, Session 6, Canon 1) and therefore rejects Pelagianism as decreed in the Council of Orange, where Catholic doctrine rejects and finds fault in both Arminianism and Calvinism is that man is born totally depraved. True, man is born into a privation of sanctifying grace and his will is tainted by the fall as the Devil gains capacity over man [1] (CCC 407) but it is not totally tainted in that he still remains in his natural inclination toward God. According to Catholic doctrine, free will is an inherent part of being made in the image of God.
God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. “God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.”
Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts. (CCC 1730) [2]
Catholic doctrine stands firmly against both Arminian and Calvinistic insistence on the view that we have utterly lost our free will due to the effects of total depravity. According to official Catholic doctrine, our free will is part of our inherent nature being created in the image of God. According to Calvinism and Arminianism, grace needs to act on us in order to restore our free will. And hence, despite the heretics’ insistence that they affirm men are created in the image of God, they deny this utterly. “If any one saith, that, since Adam’s sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, Session 6, Canon 5) ultimately condemns both Arminian and Calvinist doctrines. Not either or.
There are additionally other bugs of Calvinism that Catholics would not agree with. For starters, limited atonement is rejected in favor of the “superabundant atonement” [3]. In addition, Catholic doctrine would reject the idea of the notion that a true Christian cannot commit apostasy (CCC 2089). It might find room for loosely defined elements of unconditional election and irresistible grace as even Arminian theologians do but it is more probable to say that Catholic doctrine is more like -U-I- Calvinism if there are any traces of Calvinism in it at all. Arminianism seems to me to be more like TU-I- or TU-IP Calvinism. After all, Wesley was apparently a hair’s breadth away from Calvinism (Thorsen, Calvin vs. Wesley: Bringing Belief in Line With Practice, xi). Catholics remain a mile away from both.�1. The major distinction is that contrary to the Protestant view that men are snow-covered dung born into an entire mess, the Catholic view holds that men are dung-covered snow of whom someone else made a mess out of us.�2. See also, CCC 1701-1709 for further emphasis on this.�3. Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 48, Articles 2 and 4.
https://newenglandsun.wordpress.com/2014/12/15/why-catholics-are-neither-arminian-nor-calvinist/
Compare Beliefs of Calvinism Vs. Arminianism
God's Sovereignty
Man's Depravity
Election
Christ's Atonement
Grace
Man's Will
Perseverance
By Mary Fairchild
Updated on July 03, 2019
One of the most potentially divisive debates in the history of the church centers around the opposing doctrines of salvation known as Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinism is based on the theological beliefs and teaching of John Calvin (1509-1564), a leader of the Reformation, and Arminianism is based on the views of Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609).
After studying under John Calvin's son-in-law in Geneva, Jacobus Arminius started out as a strict Calvinist. Later, as a pastor in Amsterdam and professor at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, Arminius' studies in the book of Romans led to doubts and rejection of many Calvinistic doctrines.
In summary, Calvinism centers on the supreme sovereignty of God, predestination, the total depravity of man, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints.
Arminianism emphasizes conditional election based on God's foreknowledge, man's free will through prevenient grace to cooperate with God in salvation, Christ’s universal atonement, resistible grace, and salvation that can potentially be lost.
What exactly does all this mean? The easiest way to understand the differing doctrinal views is to compare them side by side.
Compare Beliefs of Calvinism Vs. Arminianism
God's Sovereignty
The sovereignty of God is the belief that God is in complete control over everything that happens in the universe. His rule is supreme, and his will is the final cause of all things.
Calvinism: In Calvinist thinking, God's sovereignty is unconditional, unlimited, and absolute. All things are predetermined by the good pleasure of God's will. God foreknew because of his own planning.
Arminianism: To the Arminian, God is sovereign, but has limited his control in correspondence with man's freedom and response. God's decrees are associated with his foreknowledge of man's response.
Man's Depravity
Calvinist believe in the total depravity of man while Arminians hold to an idea dubbed "partial depravity."
Calvinism: Because of the Fall, man is totally depraved and dead in his sin. Man is unable to save himself and, therefore, God must initiate salvation.
Arminianism: Because of the Fall, man has inherited a corrupted, depraved nature. Through "prevenient grace," God removed the guilt of Adam's sin. Prevenient grace is defined as the preparatory work of the Holy Spirit, given to all, enabling a person to respond to God's call to salvation.
Election
Election refers to the concept of how people are chosen for salvation. Calvinists believe election is unconditional, while Arminians believe election is conditional.
Calvinism: Before the foundation of the world, God unconditionally chose (or "elected") some to be saved. Election has nothing to do with man's future response. The elect are chosen by God.
Arminianism: Election is based on God's foreknowledge of those who would believe in him through faith. In other words, God elected those who would choose him of their own free will. Conditional election is based on man's response to God's offer of salvation.
Christ's Atonement
Atonement is the most controversial aspect of the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate. It refers to Christ's sacrifice for sinners. To the Calvinist, Christ's atonement is limited to the elect. In Arminian thinking, atonement is unlimited. Jesus died for all people.
Calvinism: Jesus Christ died to save only those who were given to him (elected) by the Father in eternity past. Since Christ did not die for everyone, but only for the elect, his atonement is wholly successful.
Arminianism: Christ died for everyone. The Savior's atoning death provided the means of salvation for the entire human race. Christ's atonement, however, is effective only for those who believe.
Grace
God's grace has to do with his call to salvation. Calvinism says God’s grace is irresistible, while Arminianism argues that it can be resisted.
Calvinism: While God extends his common grace to all humankind, it is not sufficient to save anyone. Only God's irresistible grace can draw the elect to salvation and make a person willing to respond. This grace cannot be obstructed or resisted.
Arminianism: Through the preparatory (prevenient) grace given to all by the Holy Spirit, man is able to cooperate with God and respond in faith to salvation. Through prevenient grace, God removed the effects of Adam's sin. Because of "free will" men are also able to resist God's grace.
Man's Will
The free will of man versus God's sovereign will is linked to many points in the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate.
Calvinism: All men are totally depraved, and this depravity extends to the entire person, including the will. Except for God's irresistible grace, men are entirely incapable of responding to God on their own.
Arminianism: Because prevenient grace is given to all men by the Holy Spirit, and this grace extends to the entire person, all people have free will.
Perseverance
Perseverance of the saints is tied to the "once saved, always saved" debate and the question of eternal security. The Calvinist says the elect will persevere in faith and will not permanently deny Christ or turn away from Him. The Arminian may insist that a person can fall away and lose his or her salvation. However, some Arminians embrace eternal security.
Calvinism: Believers will persevere in salvation because God will see to it that none will be lost. Believers are secure in the faith because God will finish the work he began.
Arminianism: By the exercise of free will, believers can turn away or fall away from grace and lose their salvation.
It's important to note that all of the doctrinal points in both theological positions have a biblical foundation, which is why the debate has been so divisive and enduring throughout church history. Different denominations disagree over which points are correct, rejecting all or some of either system of theology, leaving most believers with a mixed perspective.
Because both Calvinism and Arminianism deal with concepts that go far beyond human comprehension, the debate is certain to continue as finite beings try to explain an infinitely mysterious God.
https://www.learnreligions.com/calvinism-vs-arminianism-700526#toc-christs-atonement
No comments:
Post a Comment