Theology of Salvation

Catholic vs semi-Calvinism on Soteriology

Here is the article of Akin's which the augustinian's post at the old BARM

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TULIP.htm

this the article on calvinism

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03198a.htm

Akin's article was written in 1993. I hope that, in the intervening years, Akin may have changed his views on this topic. But this commentary will consider the article as it stands. I am unaware of any more recent statements by Akin correcting any of the views that he expressed in that article.

Akin's article reviews and comments on the Calvinist formula for salvation (TULIP):

Total depravity,
Unconditional election,
Limited atonement,
Irresistible grace,
Perseverance of the saints.

This set of ideas has been substantially rejected by the Council of Trent and by the teaching of the Magisterium since that time. But Akin insists that a Catholic may accept each of these ideas, with only limited modification. All five Calvinist doctrines on salvation are explained by Akin in such a manner that Calvinist doctrine and Catholic doctrine are merged. His resulting position on soteriology is part Calvinist, and part Catholic, and fundamentally incompatible with sound Catholic teaching on grace and salvation.

Why is Akin's theology on other topics generally reliable, but on this topic so thoroughly erroneous? Jimmy Akin is a convert to Catholicism from Calvinism. All converts to Catholicism from Protestantism, or from other religions, must struggle with the differences between their former beliefs and their new beliefs. The incorrect ideas of the old faith must be eradicated, if they are entirely incorrect, or transformed, if they are partially correct, so that the truths of the Roman Catholic Faith always prevail. Sometimes traces of old and incorrect beliefs are carried forward and persist within the convert to Catholicism. Other times the convert, so as to avoid past errors, takes an idea too far in the opposite direction.

Akin's version of Catholic soteriology is severely distorted by a partial continuation of these five Calvinist errors on salvation. In covering the five Calvinist ideas called TULIP, he should have refuted each of these errors, and explained in its place the correct Catholic teaching. But instead, his article is an apologia for a modified
Calvinist view. He describes each idea in Calvinism, not so as to refute false doctrine, but so as to modify each idea to make it seem acceptable to Catholics. His view of Calvinist soteriology is colored by his current Catholic faith. Worse still, his view of Catholic soteriology is distorted by his Calvinist past. Akin presents a
modified version of Calvinist doctrine on soteriology, which is fundamentally contrary to, and essentially incompatible with, Catholic teaching. And yet he claims that this semi-Calvinist soteriology is acceptable belief for Roman Catholics.

Akin's description of Catholic soteriology contains serious doctrinal errors, and he is teaching these errors to Catholics as if these were correct beliefs. When I began reading the article, I expected Akin to refute each of the Calvinist ideas represented by the letters in the term TULIP. I was startled to find, throughout the article, that Akin was proposing that each idea, with some modification, should be accepted by Catholics. In the end, he openly states that Calvinists do not have to refute their understanding of salvation to become Catholic:

Akin: "In view of this, we might propose a Thomist version of TULIP:

T=total inability (to please God without special grace);U=unconditional election; L=limited intent (for the atonement's efficacy); I=intrinsically efficacious grace (for salvation); P=perseverance of the elect (until the end of life). There are other ways to construct a Thomist version of TULIP, of course, but the fact there is even one way demonstrates that a Calvinist would not have to repudiate his understanding of predestination and grace to become Catholic. He simply would have to do greater justice to the teaching of Scripture and would have to refine his understanding of perseverance."

The Council of Trent saw a need to strongly condemn and to thoroughly correct, numerous Protestant errors on grace and salvation, including the Calvinist view. But Akin sees only a need for refinement and limited modification of the Calvinist view on this same topic.

He also repeatedly misuses the name and work of Saint Thomas Aquinas to suggest that he is presenting a view of soteriology which should be acceptable to Catholics. His description of St. Thomas' view is inaccurate. And the writings of any particular Saint are not necessarily the same as the teaching of the Magisterium. Even so,
Akin's soteriology is not Thomistic or even Catholic, as he claims, but Calvinistic. He is teaching Calvinist errors under the name of Catholicism.


next... Total Depravity

total depravity:

Akin offers this incorrect description of the Calvinist idea of total depravity:

Akin: "Despite its name, the doctrine of total depravity does not mean men are always and only sinful. Calvinists do not think we are as sinful as we possibly could be. They claim our free will has been injured by original sin to the point that, unless God gives us special grace, we cannot free ourselves from sin and choose to serve God in
love."

To the contrary, Calvinism does teach that fallen human persons can do nothing good, and that their every act is sinful. Calvinists even hold that human nature itself ceased to be made in the image of God due to original sin. "On the other hand, when original sin took them once captive the image of God was entirety blotted out. This article of 'total depravity' also came from Luther…." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03198a.htm

And on the position of the Reformers in general, including Luther and Calvin, the Catholic Encyclopedia describes total depravity as:

"a profound and complete subversion of human nature; it is the physical alteration of the very substance of our soul. Our faculties, understanding, and will, if not entirely destroyed, are at least mutilated, powerless, and chained to evil. For the Reformers, original sin is not a sin, it is the sin, and the permanent sin, living in us and causing a continual stream of new sins to spring from our nature, which is radically corrupt and evil. For, as our being is evil, every act of ours is equally evil." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02091a.htm

The false doctrine of total depravity holds that free will is not merely harmed and weakened by original sin, but so totally corrupted that man can do nothing morally good, and every act is a sin:

Calvin: "the mind of man is so entirely alienated from the righteousness of God that he cannot conceive, desire, or design anything but what is weak, distorted, foul, impure or iniquitous, that his heart is so thoroughly environed by sin that it can breathe out nothing but corruption and rottenness; that if some men occasionally
make a show of goodness their mind is ever interwoven with hypocrisy and deceit, their soul inwardly bound with the fetters of wickedness." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02091a.htm

Therefore, Akin's and (this semi calvinist) mild description of total depravity is substantially incorrect. And his statement that Catholics should basically agree with total depravity, though they would reject the term itself, is based on this misunderstanding of the false doctrine of total depravity.

Akin: "The accepted Catholic teaching is that, because of the fall of Adam, man cannot do anything out of supernatural love unless God gives him special grace to do so. Thomas Aquinas declared that special grace
is necessary for man to do any supernaturally good act, to love God, to fulfill God's commandments, to gain eternal life, to prepare for salvation, to rise from sin, to avoid sin, and to persevere."

Akin's description of Catholic teaching is partially correct, but substantially incomplete.

Akin omits the Catholic teaching that human nature, after the fall, remains good and continues to be an image of God. This teaching is essential to oppose and correct the error of Calvinism called total depravity. He also omits the teaching that, even without grace, human nature, being good in itself even after the Fall of Adam and Eve, can do acts that are morally good, but not deserving of eternal reward, without grace. Moreover, he seems to suggest the contrary, that nothing good can be done without grace; such a claim is contrary to Catholic teaching, and tends toward the Calvinist error of total depravity.

Akin also fails to distinguish between prevenient grace, which all persons receive, even the most wicked, and subsequent grace, which free will can choose to accept or to reject. His entire article on soteriology makes no mention of prevenient grace, and no distinction between prevenient and subsequent grace. Worse still, Akin's explanation of grace and salvation shows a complete lack of awareness of even the concept of prevenient grace. And this deficiency is partially to blame for his other errors as well.

next...Trent versus Total Depravity

for the complete article click here :

http://catholicteachings.canadacry.net/catholicism-in-general-f13/the-errors-of-semi-calvinist-total-depravity-t3.htm

The semi calvinist states that the reprobate are condemned because of their sins: "They will not come to God, but it is because of their inherent sin, not because God damns them." But he nevertheless implies that God does not give them the graces needed for salvation, instead passing over them, allowing them to sin and to be condemned for sin. This idea is essentially incompatible with the salvific act of Christ dying for our sins on the Cross, since He died for us while we were yet sinners. He did not die only for the elect, but even for the reprobate. And it is part of the suffering of the reprobate in Hell that they realize Jesus died for their sins, that they realize God gave them all the graces needed for salvation without any exception at all, and that they realize that they are in Hell solely and entirely because of their own free choice, which choice was manifestly and fully contrary to the salvific will of God.

Fourth, Aquinas did not teach passive reprobation. He stated that predestination is in one sense active, and in another sense passive, in all persons.

"We have said above that predestination is a part of providence…. But the execution of providence which is called government, is in a passive way in the thing governed, and in an active way in the governor. Whence it is clear that predestination is a kind of type of the ordering of some persons towards eternal salvation, existing in the divine mind. The execution, however, of this order is in a passive way in the predestined, but actively in God." (Summa Theologica, I, 23, 2).

But, as Akin distorts it, the active predestination is only in the elect, and the passive predestination is only in the reprobate. What Aquinas was really saying is that predestination is active in God, and passive in us. But this passivity does not contradict our free will:

"I answer that, God does reprobate some…. Thus, as men are ordained to eternal life through the providence of God, it likewise is part of that providence to permit some to fall away from that end; this is called reprobation. Thus, as predestination is a part of providence, in regard to those ordained to eternal salvation, so reprobation is a part of providence in regard to those who turn aside from that end. Hence reprobation implies not only foreknowledge, but also something more, as does providence, as was said above (Question 22, Article 1). Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin." (Summa Theologica, I, 23, 3).

Notice that Aquinas attributes the reprobation of the condemned in Hell to free will. The reprobate freely
choose to 'turn aside from that end,' i.e. eternal salvation. God's role is not to pass over the reprobate, but to offer salvation to all, to grant prevenient grace to all, and to enable and permit free will to be exercised, even though some may choose to fall away from that end. God's work to save the elect is the same as His work to save the reprobate; the difference between the two is due to free will.

Notice, too, that predestination is not solely the foreknowledge of who will be saved and who will not be saved. Predestination includes the providence and grace of God working with all human persons toward their salvation, both enabling all to be saved and permitting anyone who wishes to fall away, by their own free choice, to do so in the end. It is the error of Calvinism to portray this work of God as choosing, simply and without regard for free will, who is saved and who is not. The correction of Calvinism offered by Catholic teaching, and entirely absent in Akin's explanation, is that predestination does not determine who is elect, or who is reprobate, apart from the true and full free choice of the human person, and that all persons, including the reprobate, are aided by grace to reach salvation throughout their lives.

http://catholicteachings.canadacry.net/catholicism-in-general-f13/the-errors-of-semi-calvinist-total-depravity-t3.htm

My dear friends pls. join us in this new Catholic forum.

You know yidda the difference between you and senpai theop that you dont understand him what he trying to say. It shows to your post that you didnt understand him. I know sometimes i feel that senpai theop is a calvinist but the more i learn St. Agustine life and theology and catholic church magisterium the more i understand what senpai theop about the truth about the teachings of the catholic church.

I Also agree with your post here coz that is your Generalization about the teaching of the church but senpai theop emphasize the sovereignty of God.. I hope that it is clear to your side that you must understand first the post of senpai Theop. Read it and analyzed it. The thing that is not in you is your analyzation to the post of others. Dont think once but think twice.

enghelee10 wrote:You know yidda the difference between you and senpai theop that you dont understand him what he trying to say. It shows to your post that you didnt understand him. I know sometimes i feel that senpai theop is a calvinist but the more i learn St. Agustine life and theology and catholic church magisterium the more i understand what senpai theop about the truth about the teachings of the catholic church.

I Also agree with your post here coz that is your Generalization about the teaching of the church but senpai theop emphasize the sovereignty of God.. I hope that it is clear to your side that you must understand first the post of senpai Theop. Read it and analyzed it. The thing that is not in you is your analyzation to the post of others. Dont think once but think twice.

I hope that you have read first my last word at the old BARM before you made this this post. I quote:

The errors that I am refuting are, for the most part, distortions of what Augustine, Aquinas, and Molina taught. Aquinas is cited by Calvinists to support their position, and yet Aquinas gave a fundamental role to free will, whereas Calvin did not. The same is true for the errors that Akin and others propose, regardless of whether they cite Augustine, Aquinas, or Molina. They are not correctly representing those respective positions.

The Catholic Encyclopedia might be helpful in understanding each position:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm

Notice that Thomas includes the cooperation of free will, and Molina includes the effectiveness of grace. The differences between Thomism and Molinism are largely of emphasis. This alleged adherents of Thomism or Molinism are also ignoring teachings of the Magisterium subsequent to the writings of Thomas and Molina.

The Church has grown in knowledge since the time of Saint Augustine. For example, that holy Saint did not understand the real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. The Church has grown in knowledge since the time of
Saint Aquinas. For example, that holy Saint did not understand the Immaculate Conception of Mary. These misunderstandings, at the time that each Saint held them, were not heresies, because the Magisterium had
not yet decided those questions. But at this point in time, those misunderstandings are heresies.

So it is not possible, on the basis of past opinions of Saints, to ignore the teaching of the Magisterium. Whoever believes what Aquinas said, in opposition to what the Magisterium now teaches, has gone astray. And the same can be said for any Saint.

Saint Paul complains about a similar problem in the early Church:

[1 Corinthians]
{1:10} And so, I beg you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that every one of you speak in the same way, and that there be no schisms among you. So may you become perfect, with the same mind and with the same judgment.
{1:11} For it has been indicated to me, about you, my brothers, by those who are with Chloes, that there are contentions among you.
{1:12} Now I say this because each of you is saying: “Certainly, I am of Paul;” “But I am of Apollo;” “Truly, I am of Cephas;” as well as: “I am of Christ.”
{1:13} Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

The Council of Trent occurred after Augustine and Aquinas, so their positions do not take account of the dogmas of that Council. It is not reasonable to expect every Saint to understand and hold to each and every future dogma, before it is taught by the Magisterium.

Molinism developed subsequent to Trent, and so takes account of the work of Aquinas as well as of Trent. But the apparent conflict between the effectiveness of grace and the freedom of the will is perhaps best and finally resolved by the foreknowledge of God, and by His humility.

Thus predestination includes all three elements: the grace of God, our freewill, the foreknowledge of God concerning grace and free will.

In this threefold plan of God for salvation, God humbly submits His infallible all-powerful grace to the free will of fallen sinful created human persons.

Akin and others are not truly advancing the positions of Augustine or Aquinas, they are advancing positions condemned by the Council of Trent, and contrary to the current teaching of the Magisterium.

No recourse to the past opinions of Saints can withstand the definitive teaching of the Magisterium.

Now what I'm trying to say is : you must understand that you are a catholic!

The truths of the Catholic faith are found in:
Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium

The Magisterium can only teach truth explicit or implicit in Tradition
or Scripture. Nothing can be added to, or taken away from, or changed in
Tradition and Scripture by the Magisterium.

Always reject every teacher who teaches what is contrary to Tradition,
Scripture, Magisterium.

The Church has two types of authority:

1. the Magisterium (spiritual/teaching authority)

a. infallible teachings
b. non-infallible teachings

2. temporal authority

for making practical decisions, judgments, rules, etc. These are called decisions of the prudential order; they are not teachings and are fallible

The Catholic Faith has three levels to truth:

1. infallible teachings (dogmas), issued in any of three ways:

a. papal infallibility (only certain teachings of the Pope meet the conditions for papal infallibility)

b. doctrinal definitions of Ecumenical councils (but not everything taught or decided by a Council is infallible.

c. the universal Magisterium, when successive generations and successive Popes are in agreement on one teaching defintively to be believed by all the faithful (this is the most common use of the infalllible teaching authority of the Church

All infallible teachings require unreserved acceptance and belief with the full assent of faith.

2. non-infallible teachings (doctrines)

These teachings can contain error to a limited extent, specifically, only to the extent that such errors do not lead the faithful away from the path of salvation. Non-infallible teachings are an essential part of the Faith and are necessary to salvation. One cannot attain a sure path to salvation by following only infallible teachings.Since such teachings are necessary to salvation and can only err to a very limited extent, the Church has the duty and right to require belief in these teachings. However, the level of assent required is not the full assent of faith, but a general assent with will and intellect (which might admit of some reservation or dissent on points which may be in conflict with Tradition, Scripture, or other teachings of the Magisterium).

3. fallible pious opinion and theological speculation

Because the faithful have the presence and guidance of the Holy Spirit within the Body of Christ, this search for truth, though fallible, cannot fail to bear some fruit by finding some truths which are present in Tradition and Scripture, but not yet taught by the Magisterium.

This search for truth and this adherence to fallible pious opinion is a necessary and very useful part of the Catholic Faith, because it allows the faithful to put the truths of the Faith in their own words, to take in and organize the truths of the Faith in a way that they can understand, and to apply the truths of the Faith to particular circumstances and situations.

Recent Popes have seen fit to write and publish books at this level, that is, not at the level of infallible teachings, and not even at the level of non-infallible teachings, but at the level of pious opinion and theological speculation, indicating the usefulness of this part of the Faith.

I am willing to apologize to you and theophilus if this is just a subject of discussion but if it is you adhere on this belief I call it heresy , and here I am to defend the Roman Catholic Faith. I hope we could talk about this in a catholic forum.

Please state your stand.

oohh botheerrr maybe its like calvinism but it is not...

What if i say that this is my position regarding the catholic soteriology, will you agree with this?

T = total inability (to please God without special grace);
U = unconditional election;
L = limited intent (for the atonement's efficacy);
I = intrinsically efficacious grace (for salvation);
P = perseverance of the elect (until the end of life).

Lets discuss this in brief please dont make your post too long coz my time is limited here. Do you understand? to clear what senpai theop stand and Catholic stand in soteriology.. okay but first Please answer the above following stand of theop. Please answer agree or not agree and state your reason why in brief and clear explanation. Is that clear?

Heres the original article of of James Akin Tip Toe tulip. I hope this will help to understand the catholic position of theop.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp

enghelee10 wrote:Heres the original article of of James Akin Tip Toe tulip. I hope this will help to understand the catholic position of theop.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp

This is the refutation of Akin and others theology:

http://catholicteachings.canadacry.net/catholicism-in-general-f13/the-errors-of-semi-calvinist-total-depravity-t3.htm

About Akin's article, it is an old article from 1993. Akin used to be a Calvinist. In the article, he reviews the Calvinist formula for salvation:

Total depravity,
Unconditional election,
Limited atonement,
Irresistible grace,
Perseverance of the saints.

He should have refuted each of these five false doctrines, and then explained the corrrect Catholic teaching in its place. Instead, he modifies each false doctrine, and tries to claim that it is now acceptable to Catholics.

enghelee10 wrote:oohh botheerrr maybe its like calvinism but it is not...

What if i say that this is my position regarding the catholic soteriology, will you agree with this?

T = total inability (to please God without special grace);
U = unconditional election;
L = limited intent (for the atonement's efficacy);
I = intrinsically efficacious grace (for salvation);
P = perseverance of the elect (until the end of life).

Lets discuss this in brief please dont make your post too long coz my time is limited here. Do you understand? to clear what senpai theop stand and Catholic stand in soteriology.. okay but first Please answer the above following stand of theop. Please answer agree or not agree and state your reason why in brief and clear explanation. Is that clear?

You are speaking as if you believe only on that TULIP as a source of truth, and not also Tradition Scripture and Magisterium. Are you Catholic or semi- Calvinist?

http://catholicteachings.canadacry.net/catholicism-in-general-f13/the-errors-of-semi-calvinist-total-depravity-t3.htm

If you had read the above link : it tackle each of these false doctrines, why it is false, and what the correct Catholic teaching is on each point.

You are speaking as if you believe only on that TULIP as a source of
truth, and not also Tradition Scripture and Magisterium. Are you
Catholic or semi- Calvinist?

http://catholicteachings.canadacry.net/catholicism-in-general-f13/the-errors-of-semi-calvinist-total-depravity-t3.htm

Nope it is just my guide to refute the Calvinist side and i definitely
100% believe the tradition scripture and magisterium of the catholic
church. You yourself do not understand how we relate the tradition of
scripture and magiterium to refute the calvinist position. You insisting
it as a heresy. Theopilus challenge you but you always rejecting whats
the matter with you? I already read this link of yours but most of your
statement misunderstand what theopilus trying to say, He already
qoute his position but you never refute the interpretation of his quote
instead you insisting that his a semi calvinist...

If
you had read the above link : it tackle each of these false doctrines,
why it is false, and what the correct Catholic teaching is on each
point.

Now Answer my question will you agree with this position answer it one by one and expalin in brief explanation so that we will might understand your understanding of the catholic magisterium.

T = total inability (to please God without special grace);
U = unconditional election;
L = limited intent (for the atonement's efficacy);
I = intrinsically efficacious grace (for salvation);
P = perseverance of the elect (until the end of life).


Please dont lift yourself answer this question to be able to understand your position. Answer this in the name of Jesus and the power of the holy spirit. One God forever and ever amen.

I will discuss each of these false doctrines, why it is false, and what the correct Catholic teaching is on each point.

Total depravity,
Unconditional election,
Limited atonement,
Irresistible grace,
Perseverance of the saints.

Akin should have refuted each of these five false doctrines, and then explained the correct Catholic teaching in its place. Instead, he modifies each false doctrine, and tries to claim that it is now acceptable to Catholics.

Total depravity is the Calvinist false doctrine that the fall from grace of Adam and Eve caused mankind to be totally corrupted, able to do nothing good, so that free will cannot choose anything that is moral. Calvinists even hold that human nature itself ceased to be made in the image of God due to original sin.

In Catholic teaching, free will, and human nature in general, is weakened and harmed by original sin, but not utterly corrupted. Catholic teaching is that human nature, after the fall, remains good and continues to be an image of God. Thus, even without grace, human nature, being good in itself even after the Fall of Adam and Eve, can do acts that are morally good, but not deserving of eternal reward, without grace.

Sirarch 42

{42:26} He has confirmed each thing as good. And who would tire of beholding his glory?

[1 Timothy 4]
{4:1} Now the Spirit has clearly said that, in the end times, some persons will depart from the faith, paying attention to spirits of error and the doctrines of devils,
{4:2} speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their consciences seared,
{4:3} prohibiting marriage, abstaining from foods, which God has created to be accepted with thanksgiving by the faithful and by those who have understood the truth.
{4:4} For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected which is received with thanksgiving;

enghelee10 wrote:

Nope it is just my guide to refute the Calvinist side and i definitely
100% believe the tradition scripture and magisterium of the catholic
church. You yourself do not understand how we relate the tradition of
scripture and magiterium to refute the calvinist position. You insisting
it as a heresy. Theopilus challenge you but you always rejecting whats
the matter with you? I already read this link of yours but most of your
statement misunderstand what theopilus trying to say, He already
qoute his position but you never refute the interpretation of his quote
instead you insisting that his a semi calvinist...



Now Answer my question will you agree with this position answer it one by one and expalin in brief explanation so that we will might understand your understanding of the catholic magisterium.

T = total inability (to please God without special grace);
U = unconditional election;
L = limited intent (for the atonement's efficacy);
I = intrinsically efficacious grace (for salvation);
P = perseverance of the elect (until the end of life).


Please dont lift yourself answer this question to be able to understand your position. Answer this in the name of Jesus and the power of the holy spirit. One God forever and ever amen.

Many devout Catholics fall into this error, of putting their own mind and heart above the teachings of the Church. If you, in your heart of hearts, after very prayerful and thoughtful consideration, in complete sincerity and with true love for God, arrive at one conclusion about what to believe, and the Church definitively teaches a doctrine which is contrary to, or incompatible with, your conclusion, then you are wrong and must abandon that belief. If you put your own ideas and conclusions above the teaching of the Church, then you are a heretic, and a schismatic, and an apostate: or at least you are on the road to heresy, schism, and apostasy. If you clearly see that something is white, and the Church definitively teaches that it is black, then
believe that it is black.

"We should always be prepared (so as never to err) to believe that what I see as white is black, if the hierarchic Church defines it thus." Saint Ignatius of Loyola

I don't care how holy you are (or think that you are), or how close to God in prayer you are (or think you are), if your understanding of truth is incompatible with the definitive teaching of the Church, then you are obligated as a Catholic and a disciple of Christ to abandon your own conclusion and believe Church teaching. Many persons, who were at first on the true road to Heaven and holiness, have been waylaid by this error and have fallen away from the true faith.

huhuhuhhuhuuhuhuhu please answer it i want your brief explanation about my question pleassseeee dont change the topic about anything that is not in the topic...

enghelee10 wrote:huhuhuhhuhuuhuhuhu please answer it i want your brief explanation about my question pleassseeee dont change the topic about anything that is not in the topic...

I will discuss each of these false doctrines, why it is false, and what the correct Catholic teaching is on each point.

Total depravity,
Unconditional election,
Limited atonement,
Irresistible grace,
Perseverance of the saints.

Akin
should have refuted each of these five false doctrines, and then explained the correct Catholic teaching in its place. Instead, he modifies each false doctrine, and tries to claim that it is now acceptable to Catholics.

Total depravity is the Calvinist false doctrine that the fall from grace of Adam and Eve caused mankind to be
totally corrupted, able to do nothing good, so that free will cannot choose anything that is moral. Calvinists even hold that human nature itself ceased to be made in the image of God due to original sin.

In Catholic teaching, free will, and human nature in general, is weakened and harmed by original sin, but not utterly corrupted. Catholic teaching is that human nature, after the fall, remains good and continues to be an image of God. Thus, even without grace, human nature, being good in itself even after the Fall of Adam and Eve, can do acts that are morally good, but not deserving of eternal reward, without grace.

Sirarch 42

{42:26} He has confirmed each thing as good. And who would tire of beholding his glory?

[1 Timothy 4]
{4:1}
Now the Spirit has clearly said that, in the end times, some persons will depart from the faith, paying attention to spirits of error and the doctrines of devils,
{4:2} speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their consciences seared,
{4:3}prohibiting marriage, abstaining from foods, which God has created to be accepted with thanksgiving by the faithful and by those who have understood the truth.
{4:4} For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected which is received with thanksgiving;

TULIP is rejected by the Magisterium. what brief are you saying? do you understand this discussion or what? I don't mean to say this to you; but what you do is exactly how the emotional ex calvinist does.

Example is this

Total depravity- disagree

Explanation/Reason:

blah blah blah

unconditional election- agree

Explanation/Reason:

blah blah blah


This is what i want you to do... You didnt understand my instruction above..

enghelee10 wrote:Example is this

Total depravity- disagree

Explanation/Reason:

blah blah blah

unconditional election- agree

Explanation/Reason:

blah blah blah


This is what i want you to do... You didnt understand my instruction above..

so you are not reading at all! whoos! Those were rejected by the Magisterium that is why I refuted them and show the correct catholic teachings on soteriology!

T_T I dont know why it is really totally misunderstanding... i thought this is your work.

http://catholicteachings.canadacry.net/catholicism-in-general-f13/the-errors-of-semi-calvinist-total-depravity-t3.htm

on the contrary you have copy paste it... i want a brief of this to make clear to stand of catholic church... thank you... please As soon..

Please explain this also

Canon of Orange

CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.

enghelee10 wrote:T_T I dont know why it is really totally misunderstanding... i thought this is your work.

http://catholicteachings.canadacry.net/catholicism-in-general-f13/the-errors-of-semi-calvinist-total-depravity-t3.htm

on the contrary you have copy paste it... i want a brief of this to make clear to stand of catholic church... thank you... please As soon..

wrong. Do you know who Shad is? Why was it written? it is because of me; that means I was there; why this TULIP of yours a calvinis heresy must be refuted.

What is the reason you can't read it now? it is because you are not a member Of that Roman Catholic Forum. I wish Shad will accept you to learn the Faith better.

TULIP, is an unsound and incorrect explanation of Catholic
teaching on salvation. That article of Akin's teaches serious doctrinal errors on
matters of faith, in contradiction to the teachings of Tradition,
Scripture and the Magisterium.

enghelee10 wrote:Please explain this also

Canon of Orange

CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.

whoos, I wish you would read my post here first instead of copying again feel free to read it.

http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/showthread.php?p=826112#post826112

You can consult me to the things you don't understand, so that you wont fall in concluding terrible error.

and beside this post of mine is written in brief, and you are actually evading it. Can you tell what is the correct teaching on this?

Total depravity is the Calvinist false doctrine that the fall from grace of Adam and Eve caused mankind to be totally corrupted, able to do nothing good, so that free will cannot choose anything that is moral. Calvinists even hold that human nature itself ceased to be made in the image of God due to original sin.

In Catholic teaching, free will, and human nature in general, is weakened and harmed by original sin, but not utterly corrupted. Catholic teaching is that human nature, after the fall, remains good and continues to be an image of God. Thus, even without grace, human nature, being good in itself even after the Fall of Adam and Eve, can do acts that are morally good, but not deserving of eternal reward, without grace.

Yidda wrote:wrong. Do you know who Shad is? Why was it written? it is because of me; that means I was there; why this TULIP of yours a calvinis heresy must be refuted.

No you dont, I already saw that is similar to your work. Well anyway this is not the case. You forgot to acknowledge St. Augustine works regarding this TULIP. Let me tell you brief history of this Soteriology.

This theology originates to St. Augustine who refutes the Pelagian heresy About the Freewill. Martin Luther is an Augustinian Monk who Protest and has been excommunicated. When the Reformation Starts Martin Luther Change the theology to supports his own theology and same as Calvin that has more similar to Augustine. That is why most of the calvinism today is like an augustinian When it comes to soteriology but not at all.

What is the reason you can't read it now? it is because you are not a member Of that Roman Catholic Forum. I wish Shad will accept you to learn the Faith better.

No i am already a member hehehe. I have a source that is similar to your work as if it is 3 weeks after you conversate to theopilus.

TULIP, is an unsound and incorrect explanation of Catholic
teaching on salvation. That article of Akin's teaches serious doctrinal errors on
matters of faith, in contradiction to the teachings of Tradition,
Scripture and the Magisterium.

Your Right, in Calvinistic view but i tell you this what is the difference between

Depravity and Inability?

Coz catholic supports inability of man instead of depravity.

Depravity is man freewill is totally destroyed due to the fall and all his will is evil and can do no good at all.

Inability (see Canon of Orange Canon

So you will see how they are differ to each other.

Yidda wrote:

whoos, I wish you would read my post here first instead of copying again feel free to read it.

http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/showthread.php?p=826112#post826112

You can consult me to the things you don't understand, so that you wont fall in concluding terrible error.

In my view that mans freewill to choose in not totally destroyed they have ability to choose good but not do good unless God will enable him. As i have mention above Canon 20 of Council of Orange. Correct me if im wrong..

Yidda wrote:and beside this post of mine is written in brief, and you are actually evading it. Can you tell what is the correct teaching on this?

Total depravity is the Calvinist false doctrine that the fall from grace of Adam and Eve caused mankind to be totally corrupted, able to do nothing good, so that free will cannot choose anything that is moral. Calvinists even hold that human nature itself ceased to be made in the image of God due to original sin.

Correct, The calvinist so much rely to the enabling grace without cooperating grace in a sense there is no freewill to them to responds. They too much rely on and they do not understand what is it mean of Phil 2:13.

In Catholic teaching, free will, and human nature in general, is weakened and harmed by original sin, but not utterly corrupted. Catholic teaching is that human nature, after the fall, remains good and continues to be an image of God. Thus, even without grace, human nature, being good in itself even after the Fall of Adam and Eve, can do acts that are morally good, but not deserving of eternal reward, without grace.

No he cant do morally good without Gods grace.

CANON 19. That a man can be saved only when God shows mercy. Human nature, even though it remained in that sound state in which it was created, could by no means save itself, without the assistance of the Creator; hence since man cannot safe-guard his salvation without the grace of God, which is a gift, how will he be able to restore what he has lost without the grace of God?

CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.

CANON 23. Concerning the will of God and of man. Men do their own will and not the will of God when they do what displeases him; but when they follow their own will and comply with the will of God, however willingly they do so, yet it is his will by which what they will is both prepared and instructed.

Example:

it is like king saul in the old testament when he saw a good sacrifice to God but God said that slay all those things in that city and no one will seen alive something like that. But you know what saul do? He do his own will.
He took the good sacrifice instead of obeying Gods instruction to him.

Yes they can choose good they can do good in their own will but not good in the presence of God. Good in there own will but not Good in God. that is why Canon 20 states that man can do no good without God.

Can i Ask if what is the standard of Morally Good in God sight and Man sight?