Replies

A beautifully written essay, but one with which Catholics would disagree. The problem as I see it is that to leave out the concept of human cooperation in God's salvific act, we eliminate the notion of free will. If salvation were to be so exclusively God's doing, even apart from any freely given choosing by ourselves, then damnation would be all God's doing as well. The suffering souls in Hell would have had no part at all in their own choice of evil over good. This is repulsive to us on the face of it. It would be impossible to believe in God as a benign Being, given such a notion.

This theologian says, "There is nothing therefore, against which Calvinism sets its face with more firmness than every form and degree of auto-soterism." But "auto-soterism" is a pejorative term that does not adequately describe what is actually going on; cooperation or participation does not limit God's salvific act. If someone is drowning, he can still cooperate with the lifeguard's saving action by not resisting and rejecting the lifeguard's help. In a very loose sense, we say he's saving himself by doing so; but more truly it is the lifeguard alone who is saving him. That's how the Catholic sees it.

Happy Easter to you and your family!

damnation would be all God's doing as well. The suffering souls in Hell would have had no part at all in their own choice of evil over good. This is repulsive to us on the face of it. It would be impossible to believe in God as a benign Being, given such a notion.

Good summary, UR. Not much more I can add to it.

Jesus dispelled the pagan notion of "fate" and the fear that flows from it, and Calvin reintroduced it with his double predestination.

I find his ideas to be...well...sinister, definitely paganistic, possibly satanic, but certainly not Christian.

Sorry to be blunt, Steve, but you invited comments.

If salvation were to be so exclusively God's doing, even apart from any freely given choosing by ourselves, then damnation would be all God's doing as well. The suffering souls in Hell would have had no part at all in their own choice of evil over good. This is repulsive to us on the face of it.

Repulsive indeed.

Good response, thank you.

The problem with Calvin is, of course, that he totally ignores James and his words about faith without works being dead. Calvin opposes James who even cites the passage about Abraham believing God and having it counted as rightousness. Calvin then proposes an interpretation entirely counter to James. And James was friendly with Paul the Apostle. We can only assume that James was out of his friendship with Paul ensuring that Paul was not misunderstood, since he refers to Paul's teaching on this subject.

Calvin did not know Paul as James did. It is better to be guided by James than by Calvin.

There are actions a person must take to cooperate with God in salvation and remaining within that salvation. Those are not burdensome actions: baptism, repentance, obedience. Nor are they part of the old Jewish law which is what Paul meant when he referred to those who desired to be declared righteous by their works.