Replies

The Protestant (I take it you are one) doesn't assign a normative value to tradition.

nor·ma·tive

(nôrma-tiv) adj.

val·ue

(valyoo) n.

Hmm.... er, yeah, actually, we do. A "standard" which "possesses utility"? I think that would describe the Old-School Baptist and Presbyterian consideration of Tradition. The difference is simply that Protestants do not assign a pre-eminent value to Tradition; Protestants believe that the relative worth of Patristic Tradition should be judged against the bar of Scripture (rather than the reverse, as in the Roman practice).

I don't overthrow the basis of your belief in Calvinism even if I prove that no one between 100 AD and 1520 AD held to the distinctively Calvinist systematic theory of grace.

Depending on just how narrowly you construct your definitions, you could just about prove that no-one since AD 1536 "held to the distinctively Calvinist systematic theory of grace", either... I suppose, if your definitions were sufficiently narrow, you could "prove" that John Calvin himself did not.

However, if one allows for a reasonably inclusive definition of doctrinal equivalency, there's ample evidence from Roman Catholic monks, bishops, and even popes acknowledging that groups of Western Christians independent of the Roman See held beliefs "the same as that of" Calvin, hundreds of years before John Calvin was born.

In any case, if you want to discuss Augustine's doctrine, I'm certainly happy to do so as a historical matter, and I refer you to the references I gave in my previous post for important differences between Augustine's teaching and that of John Calvin.

There are some differences between Augustine's beliefs and those of John Calvin (Luther was actually closer to Augustine himself; much of Calvinism is essentially Lutheranism with certain of Augustine's errors redacted); for example, Augustine believed that all unbaptized children dying in infancy automatically go to hell, whereas Calvin believed that the preponderance of Biblical evidence (if not, perhaps, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt") suggested the opposite. They were, however, both unreservedly monergistic on the doctrine of absolute predestination and the initiation of Salvation; and this is the key point of agreement Calvinists draw from Augustine.

Incidentally, some of the "differences" you purport to describe between Calvin's views and Augustine's actually prove just how identical their beliefs really are. For example, Calvinists do not deny the existence of "free will", either; Sinners freely will to Sin, for that is what they want to do... and what is more, I'm fairly confident that you could replace the term "Irresistible Grace" with "Infallibly-efficacious Grace" in every work of Calvinist theology ever written, and it would not change Calvinist theology one whit -- we wouldn't even have to trade in the TULIP acronym.

(You are describing essentially-identical doctrines for which Thomists and Calvinists just employ different terms. Calvinists do not claim that all Grace is "irresistible", just that the infallibly-efficacious sort of Grace "irresistibly" -- or "infallibly", if you prefer -- acheives its Divine purpose).

I could go on, but that really would be a subject for another thread.

Best, OP

For example, Calvinists do not deny the existence of "free will", either; Sinners freely will to Sin, for that is what they want to do... and what is more, I'm fairly confident that you could replace the term "Irresistible Grace" with "Infallibly-efficacious Grace" in every work of Calvinist theology ever written, and it would not change Calvinist theology one whit -- we wouldn't even have to trade in the TULIP acronym.

The main problem people have with Irresistible Grace is that they have never experienced it, it seems.

For me, it was unmistakable. And no one preaching, no one witnessing, no illness or loss of loved one, nothing in my life to turn me toward God. I was blithering along, off in my own little hermit world, oblivious as ever.

But He turned His heart to me. And He made me an offer even I wasn't so stupid and sinful so as to refuse. I'll never understand why He should have mercy on me. If I were Him, I'd never pick me.

There are miracles of faith. And faith is, precisely as scripture say, the gift of God. Certainly, this former atheist had none of his own.

I think some RC's and Arminians don't grasp that some of us, at least, are Calvinist because there is simply no other explanation for our experiences. God alone has saved us. And in such a way we can't give any credit to ourselves or to any person.

Thanks for your post, OPie. You're still #1 on this stuff.

Hi OP,

As far as "normative" tradition, sorry for any confusion. I meant as a norm or rule of faith. Obviously Protestants do recognize normative traditions such as the Lutheran Confessions or the WCF but they aren't rules of faith.

I can't agree that Calvin recognizes the existence of a "free-will" in the sense Augustine does. Augustine recognizes that, even under the influence of efficacious grace, the will retains the power to resist, i.e. its freedom. Calvin, so far as I can tell, doesn't.

As far as the other points, I'll leave them for that future thread.