Catholic Critiques of Calvinism

Hi Zig Forums, baby Catholic here looking for some critiques of Calvinism either based on Scripture or writings of theologians/Church Fathers

I'd prefer Catholic-centred criticisms, so an hour video of Anderson ranting isn't what I want

Attached: 98c3f533e9a90e9186ea156dc91e20e4.jpg (677x392, 38.45K)

Other urls found in this thread:

crivoice.org/creedcyril.html
crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html
catholicnick.blogspot.com/search?q=calvinism
yuriystasyuk.com/relearn-the-bible-10-verses-where-all-does-not-mean-all/
nakedpastor.com/2017/06/the-gay-calvinist/
desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism
patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/04/st-augustine-was-catholic-not-proto-protestant.html
theophilogue.com/tag/antecedent-will-vs-consequent-will/
desiringgod.org/articles/are-there-two-wills-in-god
gotquestions.org/Gods-will.html
jamesjpn.net/basic-bible/kjv-bible-verses-compared-geneva-bible/
youtube.com/watch?v=xJrptikLjq8
reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/500ica/can_anyone_explain_covenant_theology_to_me/
reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/202upu/covenant_theology/
reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/paedobaptist_resources
theologian.org.uk/doctrine/calvin-baptism.html
youtube.com/watch?v=L14UNjaZJm8
youtube.com/watch?v=I-vKLszXeEo
youtube.com/watch?v=3JIYQTNbnNE
articulifidei.blogspot.com/2017/02/infant-salvation-brief-survey-of-early.html
articulifidei.blogspot.com/2017/03/infant-salvation-lutheran-tradition.html?m=1
ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.iii.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

"All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."
Calvinism ain't wrong, user

Romans 9, John 6 (as the 2nd user stated), Ephesians 1, the end of Isaiah 53.
The Westminster Confession of Faith is also a good thing to read, even since you're a catholic you don't abide by it. It will include verses which support its arguments.
Calvinism ain't wrong, user

Attached: JohnCalvin.png (220x282, 118.48K)

Whosoever will.

The Confession of Dositheus isn't Catholic, but I'm sure you might find it interesting. Be sure to read the Confession of Cyril Lucaris first, as Dositheus refutes 'him' point by point. I used quotations there, as it is thought that Cyril's confession is actually a forgery by Calvinists who were trying to influence the Orthodox Church. None of Cyril's other writings expound these or similar beliefs, so even if he did actually write it, he repented of such ideas.
crivoice.org/creedcyril.html
crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html

Any denomination that would teach that only some are saved can roundly be dismissed as false.
Matthew 12:31-32, KJV:
31. Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
I really, really doubt 99.9% of people even know how to begin to blaspheme against the Holy Ghost.

For starers catholicnick.blogspot.com/search?q=calvinism

You're misusing this passage.
"Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people"
Here, the people is in reference to those who are going to be saved. It is not possible that everyone is going to be saved.
How would verses like Matthew 25:41,46 and Mark 9:44 come into effect if no one is going to hell (eternally).

Because the only people going to hell eternally are the ones who blaspheme the holy spirit, according to Christ's own statement. I don't see any vagueness in the "All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men" portion.

Just because you can believe whatever you want doesn't mean you should

I read them, they say those on the left hand go to hell, those on the right hand are saved, and those in hell won't have their worms quenched. I see no confusion or contradiction between Christ's statements in all these verses. Do you?

Why are you pretending that "men" means everyone when it's obviously being used in an indeterminate way?


Because the verse literally says "All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men."
Take it up with Christ, He said it.

Matthew 2:3, Matthew 3:5-6, Matthew 4:8,24 , matthew 26:52, 2 chronicles 9:23, psalms 145:9, luke 2:1, 1 corinthians 15:22
Examples taken from yuriystasyuk.com/relearn-the-bible-10-verses-where-all-does-not-mean-all/ where all doesn't mean all.

Okay fine, lets grab ones with more clear contradictions.
Matthew 7:13 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

What does God mean by this?
Matthew 22:14's one is better when read with context since its a tale instead of a easy quote.

ftfy

Universalist heretic detected

Attached: iiostu037s301.jpg (645x614, 34.57K)

...

I'll be honest with you I misunderstood "Universalist" so this pic is on me. I'm not the guy saying that only some are saved are false.

Attached: 1522073380979.png (1400x1000, 88.1K)

...

nakedpastor.com/2017/06/the-gay-calvinist/

St. Francis de Sales' the Catholic controversy, you can find the pdf on archive.org

mmmmmm sure user

What are good Protestant debunkings of Calvinism?

None.
You should be looking for both sides of the argument, supporting it and the opposite.
Defenses would be:
Westminster Confession of Faith
reddit.com/r/Reformed (heehee plebbit)
desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism TULIP by John Piper
Various famous calvinists: John Calvin obviously, John Owen, John Piper, RC Sproul, James KA Smith

I'll let attempted debunkings of it go to other anons

Attached: JohnCalvinHmm.png (228x255, 155.74K)

steven anderson(though he isn't a protestant)

Attached: kjv.jpg (1655x1939, 646.87K)

I already listen to Steven Anderson and use the KJV, but I would like a thorough written refutation of Calvinism from a Protestant or Baptist pov, that debunks all the Calvinist proof texts.

Attached: [mask hisses and bane groans].jpg (805x581, 237.8K)

I already know that Calvinism can't be true and is a damnable heresy based on the fact that limited atonement explicitly contradicts the Bible, and the concept of being elected unconditionally especially contradicts John 3:16. I just need a thorough analysis of how Calvinists twist and quote scripture out of context to justify their Augustine-derived heresies.

Attached: 0c06a894f33b2984fadac7399607a945c501f8385e7ddc726e17cb66f03f2715.jpg (480x435, 40.13K)

You ignore the other side, senpai

Not heresy.
How does limited atonement contradict the bible? I'll need sources for this one.
Unconditional election in no way contradicts John 3:16.
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
The belief comes from God.

He believes John 3:16 contradicts the freedom of grace because he reads the words "whosoever believes in Him", and thinks that is putting forth the work which one must perform to merit eternal life.

no
patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/04/st-augustine-was-catholic-not-proto-protestant.html

HERESY!!!

Is this the thread where we REEE because we don't like the Calvinists being right about determinism and capitalism?

Help, this man is assaulting my feelings!
Also, can you tell me more about Calvin and capitalism? I've never heard of Calvin's political beliefs.

I am not claiming Augustine is a proto-Protestant, I am claiming Calvinism is only possible through his erroneous and unbiblical doctrine of Original Sin, which informs the Calvinist view of Total Depravity. Calvin himself cited Augustine constantly throughout his Institutes.

'And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.'
1 John 2:2

'But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. '
Hebrews 2:9

'For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one *died for all*, then were all dead: and that *he died for all*, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. '
2 Corinthians 5:14-15

Calvin was wrong about determinism

'For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. '
1 Timothy 2:3-4

Capitalism was a result of Calvinist determinism because they believed in a truly free market God would guide us towards heaven on Earth because that was God’s deterministic plan. So if left unhindered we would reach paradise. Seeing how much (((government))) ruins everything they were clearly right. I’m Catholic, but I’m not sure how to reconcile free will. I just can’t convince myself my will is that of a personal random number generator unique to me and not the result of some previous conditions decided by God.

Predestination is a false heresy. God "will have all men to be saved", which means he desires salvation for everyone, not for a select few he randomly picked. You have free will whether you like it or not. What do you think of Genesis 3 is about? It demonstrates man has free will.

Define free will. I’m not kidding. I want to know what people mean when they say it. “Eve did it” only explains how it was used, not what it is.

The capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. For example, Eve had the choice of obeying God, or eating the fruit. She had the capacity to ignore Satan and obey God's commandment, but she chose not to out of her own free will. Ditto for Adam.

You had the choice to accept faith in Christ for your salvation, or to remain in unbelief. You had the capacity to choose either alternative, and you freely chose, nobody compelled you to believe.

A markov chain is a rational agent. Do I have more free will than a markov chain, and if so then why?

How is a markov chain a rational agent? Does it have self awareness?

Are these terms, "world", "every man", etc. truly unlimited as you take them to be? Furthermore, the understanding you have is heretical, because christian universalism is against orthodox belief (as far as I'm aware).

Here's the NASB translation which I prefer:
3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
God has different levels of "will". Desire, will, possibly more. With the understanding you are taking, God *desires* for all men to be saved, but still does not sovereignly will it. Another understanding of this verse I have heard is, like I said to the last user, the "all men" is in reference to the elect.

Man, do I love Calvin :)
Aren't there reformed catholics? Or is this considered heresy. My understanding of predestination and all came first from Romans 9, leading my interest in theology. I believe humans do have free will, but in the total depravity way as in everything we do is sin (Romans 14:23 plus much more).

Look at what I said to the 1st and 2nd anons.

Adam and Eve had 'untainted' free will. Due to original sin, we are no longer in possession of this. Therefore, Eve's will does not apply to us.

Attached: calvin.jpg (362x450, 13.77K)

So the only requirement for a rational agent is self awareness? Determinism is still true then. Self awareness does not imply multiple outcomes.

Explain how a markov chain is a rational agent first? A markov chain is like a game played with dice, right? That is based on probabilities, not on a rational capacity to choose alternate courses of action. You have to be completely deluded by Calvinism to think free will is like playing dice.

Semantics. That’s what I assumed every normie meant by free will since they always mention their every possibility exists bs when talking about it.

theophilogue.com/tag/antecedent-will-vs-consequent-will/
Thomas 'Aquinas thinks that the word “all” in this passage likely means “applying to every class of individuals, not to every individual of each class; in which case they mean that God wills some men of every class and condition to be saved, males and females, Jews and Gentiles, great and small, but not all of every condition” (ST I.19.6.ad.1).'

Attached: ThomasAquinas.jpg (220x342, 30.22K)

I'm not arguing in favour of Christian universalism, that's not the same thing as denying limited atonement. The atonement is unlimited, in the sense that it is sufficient to cover the sins of every human who has ever lived. That does not imply everyone will receive atonement, because in order to receive atonement for salvation you need faith, and most people will refuse the free gift.


"All men" does not mean the elect because the elect are not all men, all men means all men. Nice try with distinguishing will and desire as separate levels of "will" though. If God desires something, he will make it happening. So if he "desires" all men to be saved, why did he "will" for only a select few to be saved. God can accomplish whatever he desires.

I find it interesting that you brought up "sovereign will". Where in the Bible does the concept of sovereignty as you understand it, appear? And if he "desires" all men to be saved,


I'm glad you accept that Adam and Eve had free will. Now where in the Bible does it say that they had untainted free will prior to the Fall, and our free will was "tainted" by the Fall? Or did you get that from Calvin and Augustine? What does it mean to have your will "tainted"?

I already defined free will for you, so why are you pretending as if I haven't, and assuming that I my understanding of free will is not what I explicitly defined it as, but superimposing another definition into it? Is it because you can't summon any objection to free will as I defined, so you out of your own free will decided to ignore my definition because you think a "normie" definition is easier to debunk?

I'm interested in what the Bible says, not in Aquinas' opinion on what the Bible says. The Bible is my authority, not Aquinas.

However, I believe that Aquinas' opinion on this specific topic comes from the Bible.

In your opinion, does Jesus still only cover the sins of the elect on the cross?

I believe I'm misunderstanding you. You say you are not a christian universalist, but then you say God does not have separate wills/desires. If you believe that v4 references all men, would this not mean that all men are saved?
Here is another article on God's wills/desires from John Piper.
desiringgod.org/articles/are-there-two-wills-in-god

Attached: JohnPiper.jpg (400x400, 22.5K)

Here's an article from the same site but quite a bit shorter
gotquestions.org/Gods-will.html

I never agreed with the normie version. Yours is less insulting to the intellect, and I currently have no means to prove it wrong. But my markov chain post was made before you expanded on the requirement of self awareness.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Christ's death on the cross is a propitiation to God that is sufficient to cover the sins of ALL men, saved and unsaved, and sufficient to save all men from the wrath of God. But in order for the atonement to be received, it must be accepted by faith in accordance with our free will. If everyone who ever lived believed in Christ, his death, burial and resurrection, then all men would be saved, but only IF they believed.

What I mean is, that IF man is not saved by accepting salvation of his own free will, but by unconditional election, then ALL men would be elected, and not a few. Yet, while desires all men to be saved, he permits us the free choice to receive salvation or reject it. He gave us free will because while he desires all to be saved, he wants us to freely choose to be saved, and not be compelled.

Rational actor implies self-awareness anyway.

...

You're circling around my questions
So Jesus only covers the sins of these people? You have never answered my statement on this. You say Jesus COULD save everyone, but then he doesn't. So does this mean he only actively carried the sins for the elect?
And to your #2, you are arguing that God CANNOT 'force' us to believe, so his sovereign will does not apply to us? You obviously believe in some sort of separation between God's desire and will.
Read Romans 9, John 6, Isaiah 53, Ephesians 1 & 2.

Jesus covers the sins of the saved alone, but it is not because he chooses not to cover the sins of certain people whose damnation is predetermined by God, but because the unsaved chose to refuse the free gift of salvation. Those who reject salvation die condemned by their sins, but they must reject it out of their own free will. Atonement is unlimited in that it is freely available to everyone, not only to a select predetermined few. It is up to the individual to choose whether they want to receive salvation or not, but their choice is not predetermined.

Serious question; why do so many reformed people hate(hold in contempt or regard as outdated) the KJV and make the Academic standard the NASB or opt for the ESV but love John Calvin at the same time when he used the Geneva Bible which was along the same framework as the King James Bible.
Some diffrences are listed here:
jamesjpn.net/basic-bible/kjv-bible-verses-compared-geneva-bible/

I go to a "reformed baptist" church, one pastor loves the KJV(secretly) but the head pastors and sermons, we use the ESV.
We don't baptize babies, are replacement theology, non-commies no women pastors which differentiate us from other reformed churches/presbyterian ones that do.

Attached: Bible_History.gif (1350x1739, 379.52K)

It's mainly the PCUSA I believe that has the feminist bullshit, not all of presbyterianism.

NASB is one of the most accurate translations (besides transliterals), even more so than the ESV and KJV. The KJV and Geneva Bible had their uses, but newer translations are based on better manuscripts, are easier to read, and are more accurate.

What's with pic related?

Also, you've gotta get on board with Covenant Theology and Paedobaptism :)

I'm in Canada, ((((Toronto))), everything is pretty much liberal here, aside from a small pocket of churches, mainly reformed tradition churches, or baptist(which most hold reformed stances).
>(((Covenant Theology)))
no thanks, can't not believe on christ and be saved; do you really think Christ rejecting jews are saved?
If you want to baptize babies, sure, but baptize again as a proclamtion of faith. If it's just symbolic and a continuation of the circumision, then just baptize the boys.

That's the funny thing about most reformed folk regarding Sola Scriptura; you say you believe in the Bible, but can't show me one. God couldn't preserve his word if (((better and older))) manuscripts are found.
Are (((scolars))) going to give us a new translation that aligns with the anti-christs message to deceive more people because it was found in another vactican library?
Can God not preserve his word? People keep refering back to the greek using lexicons, and declare the KJV to be wrong, without knowing the language itself or context of the words.
Give this a fair listen; James White(the protestant pope) vs the Bishop of Tempe
youtube.com/watch?v=xJrptikLjq8

I do believe KJV is the best translation, but won't reeeee on someone using a diffrent translation.

Attached: KJV_modernVersions.png (962x722 23.2 KB, 851.8K)

First, what is "saved"?

I think you misunderstand covenant theology.
reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/500ica/can_anyone_explain_covenant_theology_to_me/
reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/202upu/covenant_theology/

Paedobaptism:
reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/paedobaptist_resources
John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion has a section on it too.
theologian.org.uk/doctrine/calvin-baptism.html

Covenant Theology and paedobaptism are both part of calvinist/reformed theology.
I currently go to a non-reformed southern baptist church, but plan on going to maybe PCA once I'm out.
Not underaged


If Jesus has paid for your sins (he didn't pay for everyones' sins), you are saved.
I'm not OP btw.

Attached: JeanCalvin.jpg (354x500, 56.26K)

Yes I seem to have mispoke; I do agree with covenant/replacement theology; where the church has always existed and we are grafted on to the tree of life assuming we keep the covenant of God.
But it was never circumsion that saved; and most people attribute that to (((jews))) today not needing Jesus to get to heaven; as it always been about faith; there was always a faithful remant in israel that did not bow the knee to Baal.
That's why I and my church disagree with paedombaptism as a valid baptism; it doesn't save.

saved being; going to heaven when you die; inheriting eternal life.
(Joh 3:17)  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
(Joh 3:18)  He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
and yes; Jesus sacrifice was enough for everyone and he did die for everyone, but not everyone will accept the gift of salvation.

Attached: Clavin_thinking.jpg (1485x700 951.55 KB, 69.08K)

No he didn't, he couldn't speak a word of English. If you read Calvin and find him citing from the Geneva, that's the translator, not Calvin.

You're acting like baptism is something we do because we feel like it, and not because it is commanded by God. If infant baptism is valid, a necessary consequence of this is that someone once baptized as an infant should not be baptized again later in life.

This is incorrect, think about it again, that would mean justification precedes faith.

I don't get your logic. By this logic, shouldn't you baptize nobody at all, because it doesn't save? Should the Jews have not circumcised their children, because it didn't save?

If you have time for some movie-length youtube videos:
youtube.com/watch?v=L14UNjaZJm8
Not specifically about Calvinism but Protestants in general. It attacks a very important distinction in Reformed thinking between Justification and Sanctification, and also uses clips and quotes from several prominent Calvinists (John Piper, John McArthur, RC Sproul,…)

youtube.com/watch?v=I-vKLszXeEo
Zig Forums's favorite pastor Steven Anderson can be pretty good sometimes. He specifically addresses all 5 points of Calvinism in order with scripture.

If you look around on Youtube, you can find many more videos but I haven't seen them.
I also wish, that I could present to you a few books, but sadly the Church hasn't released a whole lot of books attacking various heresies since its early days.

Augustine didn't invent the idea of original sin, stop believing Orthoprots acritically

I don't want to be uniformed; be not haste to reject something on not having giving it fair shot.
Should I go to the source of Calvin's writings? people have diffrent views on what Calvinism is; two calvinists could hold diffrent views on it.
What do you recommend reading?

Nobody claimed he invented it, nerd, but that it was popularized through him.

Also:
lmao

Nice try you dirty little papist

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (910x310, 55.86K)

You don't have to agree with everything that he says. I mean, he is a Sedevacantist so I don't like all he has to say either, but you can still listen to what he has to say on some things. Same as Anderson.

I'm just curious, do you agree with him on this video ? youtube.com/watch?v=3JIYQTNbnNE

He completely ignores Romans 4.

Attached: Anderson PBUH.jpg (557x513, 341.49K)

...

Well, firstly, it's important to distinguish between Calvinism and Reformed theology. The former is a basic soteriological position, the latter a fully orbed systematic theology. If you want an introduction to Calvinism, I recommend meme theologian James White's book The Potter's Freedom. With regard to Reformed theology, for a more 'basic' understanding of it, I recommend Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, and for 'advanced' learning, Francis Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology.

To be honest, the entire works/faith distinction to me seems very artificial.
Most Calvinists would say that if you are saved by faith, but if you don't live according to God's commandments, that means that you don't really believe. You don't need works to be saved, but you aren't saved without them.
Most Catholics on the other hand would say that if you do good deeds but don't have faith in Christ, that there is no salvation.

So, both believe that you ultimately need both faith in Christ as well as works or else you aren't really Christian. It's just that Calvinists look at works as evidence for salvation (meaning that any person that is actually born again would do these things), whereas Catholics believe that if you continue sinning & don't act like a Christian, you can lose your salvation.

Do you believe infants go to heaven?
1 - all do
2- only the children of believers
3 - none
My understanding of paedobaptism is currently very shallow, so I lean towards 3 but leave room for 2.

Then when did Jesus pay for our sins? When we are saved? After the second return? At the foundation of the world?

Do you have arguments under an hour long?

Calvinism - the Protestant theological system of John Calvin and his successors, which develops Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone and emphasizes the grace of God and the doctrine of predestination.
Both supporters and opponents of calvinism many times boil it down to beliefs on salvation, but it is so much more than that.

I think that's most protestants, not just calvinists.

Attached: heehee.jpg (641x478, 68.34K)

Debunking Calvinism (or any other false beliefs) is like cutting heads off a hydra. You would be better served spending the majority of your time studying Catholic doctrine. That way, when you do see Calvinist beliefs, you will be able to discuss them versus that Catholic position more inteligently.

One recommendation I have is the book "Predestianation" by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. Predestination is a hot topic, and I think many Catholics have a false understanding of the Catholic doctrine (and various Catholic schools of thought), and that the Calvinist position is not so far from the Catholic position as people make it seem. The real big differences are due to the sola fide doctrine and all that entails.


These are good. I wouldn't take most of his articles as more than a starting point, but he has a lot of interesting arguments.


This is a good read, even if some of the arguments seem kind of outdated now (since he was writing 400 years ago).


They're not Orthoprots. They're just modernists. Vladmir Moss's website debunks the modernist denial of original sin.>>631962

Christ said "suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them no, for of such is the kingdom of God." I wouldn't take this to mean that all infants are automatically saved, but I think it would have been a rather inapt saying if no infants were saved.

I'm Catholic, so of course, my position is that we can assume the baptized infants are saved, and we can speculate that God might (or might not) intervene in an extraordinary manner for the others.

These blog posts have some info about historical Protestant traditions.
articulifidei.blogspot.com/2017/02/infant-salvation-brief-survey-of-early.html
articulifidei.blogspot.com/2017/03/infant-salvation-lutheran-tradition.html?m=1

In Calvinism, there's more an emphasis on true elect versus false elect that I don't think exists in Lutheranism.

I was talking to about the infant thing.
I think you were
Per the burden of proof, the default position is that God does not intervene.
As I said before though, I'm still learning about paedobaptism. I'm currently going to a southern baptist church with my parents (im 18) so of course everyone is strictly credobaptist.
It definitely does not initiate conversation on this topic, and they won't share the other side of the argument with you, similar to calvinism.
I see in Calvin's Institutes book 4 there is a chapter (maybe more) on paedobaptism, so maybe I'll get learnt by him.

Shouldn't people try to see whether they are truly saved or not?

No, that was my first post.


From my view, it would be better to have an objective confidence of salvation. For Catholics, we can look at the sacraments and know that God has attached promises of grace to them. There is room for insencerity on the part Catholics or potentially failings due to delusion or ignorance, but for someone with their head on straight, they can have a reasonable certainty of their salvation. Do I accept the teaching of the Church? Am I participating in the sacraments? Am I conducting my life in accordance with the Church's moral teaching,. If so, then I can have confidence I am in a state of grace.

In Calvinism, two people can have subjectively identical conversion experiences, but one is elect and the other reprobate. They can both outwardly appear to be good Christians and interiorly have basically the same experience. Yet one endures to the end, the other falls away eventually, maybe after a long time. There's nothing wrong with that except that this means for Calvinists that the reprobate person never had any grace at all. Every part of this person's life as a Christian was false. And this also means that there is little objective certainty of salvation. Someone can have all the signs of election only to find out it was all a delusion. The only real objective certainty is of reprobation if someone completely apostatizes. Calvin said that we can come to know our election with time. However, while you could be elect and know your election, you could also be reprobate and only delusionally think you are elect.

I found the passage from Calvin that I was thinking of.

>11. I am aware it seems unaccountable to some how faith is attributed to the reprobate, seeing that it is declared by Paul to be one of the fruits of election; and yet the difficulty is easily solved: for though none are enlightened into faith, and truly feel the efficacy of the Gospel, with the exception of those who are fore-ordained to salvation, yet experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. Should it be objected, that believers have no stronger testimony to assure them of their adoption, I answer, that though there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith, yet the elect alone have that full assurance which is extolled by Paul, and by which they are enabled to cry, Abba, Father. Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only for ever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this there is nothing to prevent an inferior operation of the Spirit from taking its course in the reprobate. Meanwhile, believers are taught to examine themselves carefully and humbly, lest carnal security creep in and take the place of assurance of faith. We may add, that the reprobate never have any other than a confused sense of grace, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only, applying it by special faith to their use. Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy, they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy. In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end. Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure for ever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.
ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.iii.html

When He died.
When His merits are applied to us by faith.

No. No, they most certainly should not. It is a shame this idea is so pervasive today. If you seek assurance by your own good deeds, it is a bad sign if you feel anything but abject terror. When you look inwardly, you should only find sin. If you find anything other than a sinner, you are not being honest with yourself. This is why this method of assurance is at best spiritually dangerous. The natural solution to finding this sinner (which ought to cause such a person to question their salvation) would be to try and do good so as to correct the problem in their relationship with God. Because this false doctrine causes men to measure their relationship with God by their own works, it is not hard to see how it can cause men to seek to be justified by law.

Not if you are honest and thorough. You should be asking yourself about the times you might have sinned without knowing or realizing it, about if you have done enough for Christ, if you're comfortable with the possibility you might go to hell just because you got hit by a truck a day before confession, or if you remember every mortal sin you committed when you go to confession. One might not like being a pessimist, but if one wishes to be saved they will leave no stone unturned.
Only if faith isn't part of the conversion experience.
It means there is absolutely no subjective certainty of salvation. What is subjective is when one bases their assurance on what they do. You know what I noticed in your questions for a Roman Catholic concerning their state? "I" "I" "I". What a person ought to derive their confidence from is that upon which they rely. Whenever a Christian feels fear or worry regarding their eternal future, all they should do about it is look to Christ, and be at peace.
No. Apostates may be brought back into the faith, but genuinely that time.

Why can we not hold this to be objectively true without feeling the need to apply this subjectively? Outwardly, they may have all the signs of election, yes, but they cannot posses true faith, which a person may have certainty of by its definition in scripture. Indeed, apostates frequently reminisce about their past as false brothers, and nearly always a clear problem is found in their descriptions that shows they did not have true faith. It is extraordinarily rare for the vain imitation to be so similar to the reality as to be difficult to distinguish.

In the Institutes, Calvin speaks similarily to you. He says we have increased confidence through staying in the church, doing the sacraments, etc.
Do catholics believe in perseverance of the saints (once saved always saved)? I know at least some do.
Regardless of this, the fear is still the same for you. What if you fall away? Is my faith really that strong? Was I ever even saved in the first place?

So we were justified before we had faith. (this to your 1st point)
to 2nd: good deeds =/= salvation. Also see what I said above to the other guy. Even for you, you don't know if you are saved 100%, or if you will lose your salvation due to lack of faith (if you don't believe in perseverance). On top of this, this takes away from the sovereignty of God. "I can save myself!" is practicaly what you are saying.

Did you reply to the wrong person? Nothing you said makes any sense as a response to anything I said except maybe the first sentence, but it sounds like you're implying that's what I'm saying, which would be absurd.

You said this part was proper.
For the second part, I am concurring that good deeds do not equal salvation, then I continue on to say you still have a problem with knowing whether you are saved or not, PLUS whether you will lose your faith.
Saying we can lose our salvations means Jesus died for us, but he didn't really, because he doesn't carry all of our sins. Does he still cover the sins while we were saved? Or are we still punished for them.
We are not able to get to God due to total depravity and original sin. It is God who comes to us.

You said "So we were justified before we had faith", there's no not in there.
I don't believe Jesus loses any of His sheep.
Reading comprehension 200%? I was pointing out flaws in a false doctrine of assurance

Replying about certainty of salvation.

I agree that the basis of one's hope of salvation should be in Christ. That's not the point. In the Catholic view, Christ paid for the sins of the whole world. Forgiveness is offered to all through through the sacraments. In Calvinism, Christ died only for the elect. A Catholic can look back to their baptism and know that even if they will fall away later, they really received the gift of God's grace in baptism. A Calvinist can look back to their conversion and make a prudent judgment, but he cannot know with certainty whether he really receieved any grace at all, or whether he just receieved the kind of counterfeit grace that Calvin says God gives to damn you harder later. Maybe this does not seem like a big deal to you but it is to a lot of people, including many Protestants.

The Catholic view is not self-reliant. Sacraments are not things that we do to earn God's favor. They're objective signs of God's grace established by God. This idea is not unique to Catholics. You are right that a Catholic may be delusional, but you're exaggerating how much so. First of all Catholics, believe on a distinction between mortal and venial sin. It is very possible for a Catholic to avoid all mortal sin. Even if you do die on the way to confession after commiting a mortal sin (which merits famnation anyway, so serves you right), the Catholic teaching is that so-called "perfect contrition" with intention of confessing your sin is sufficient for forgiveness. If you make a confession and you omit some sin by forgetfulness, assuming you repented from it, it is still forgiven in the sacrament. You could have the example of the unrepentant sodomite who tells themself their sin is not a sin and goes to confession, and of course their sin is not forgiven because they are insincere. But for a normal person who heeds the moral teaching of the church and is sincere, they just go to confession and receive the forgiveness of sins, free and easy. People make it out as if Catholicism makes salvation nearly impossible, but the reality is not like that at all.

And practically speaking, there's not much difference in terms of human effort between Calvinism and Catholicism. They differ in explanations of what's going on behind the scenes, but both systems teach that God will guide the predestinate to do those things that are associated with the life of grace and to avoid sin.


You don't know how rare it is. No one but God knows. I don't get the impression Calvin thought it was as rare as you suggest.


No, that is contrary to Catholic dogma. Any Catholic that believes that is either misinformed or not a Catholic at all.

If you read the book I recommended to OP earlier, Predestination by Regonald Garrigou-Lagrange, he talks about this topic. For example, he writes about the distinction between predestination to grace and predestination to heaven (I don't think that's the exact term he uses). The second class is smaller than the first. Catholics believe that not everyone who is predestined to grace is predestined to persevere to their death. Some will fall away. That does not mean that they were never "saved" (never received real grace). An analogy could be people (sinners) drowning in the ocean. A ship comes and saves some by hauling them aboard. Some stay on the ship all the way to dry land. Some, through their own carelesness fall back into the water and drown. Some who fall back in are hauled back on board (even multiple times), but end up making it back on the ship to land.

Yes, that is part of the problem. Christ failed to achieve salvation, so we are left to fill in the blanks. We are made the masters of our own salvation, and I think that has serious ramifications for one's assurance. If I thought my ultimate fate was up to me, I'd give up, the only thing I'd have confidence in is my own damnation.
Is that supposed to be a consolation? 'I can be damned to hell forever, but at least I was temporarily imperfectly right with God once'? I think that's something that ought to give greater fear, since it means they sin against greater light and incur a greater judgement.
They shouldn't be looking back to their conversion for assurance. There are multiple sources from which they may derive assurance, but that is not one.
First of all, there is the simple, plain, biblical teaching that assurance is a special grace of God which believers normally receive (Romans 8:15-17). One may derive their assurance from their ongoing faith in Christ, inasmuch as Christ promises to them salvation, and His promise is sure. But I also believe it is consistent with scripture and with the Reformed tradition to say that a believer may derive their confidence of their eternal salvation from the promises of God given in their baptism.
He can know with certainty that he possesses true faith if he knows his own heart. The delusions of false believers do not change this. Lunatics cannot tell they are insane, this does not mean the sane cannot tell with certainty they are sane.
I'm well aware, but you must also be aware their efficacy is dependent on our cooperation.
I have complete confidence that if a Catholic believes he has a good chance of going to heaven he is suffering a delusion.

I know, they have to, if your church taught the biblical standard of holiness the jig would be up. But the fact this false distinction is introduced to justify the false gospel doesn't change the fact the bible teaches us God is so holy He cannot tolerate even a hint of sin (Revelation 21:27, James 2:10, etc).
The loopholes like this and "baptism of desire" are inconsistent not only with the same biblical standard I just spoke of but also with mere common sense. Does God require your confession? Then He requires your confession. It doesn't matter how sincere your attempt to achieve God's standard was, it doesn't matter how close you came, if that is truly God's standard, too bad for you. I find it hard to understand how someone can believe in these loopholes except from a desire to cheat God should they get caught in such circumstances.
Catholicism make salvation impossible because it requires us to put in the effort. Our assurance is derived from the very fact it is not us who accomplish our salvation. We don't have to give it our all because we rely on one who already performed all righteousness. I'll repeat this, because it's important: Our assurance is derived from the very fact it is not us who accomplish our salvation. This is why we don't have a problem about our assurance in eternal salvation, but Roman Catholics do.
That is incredibly naive. I think practically speaking there is a massive difference between us. Sure, we're both going to have a drive to do good works, but that is not the extent of practicality. Just as one example, a Calvinist is going to feel at peace, and their attitude toward God will be one of gratitude, a Roman Catholic is going to feel panicked, and their attitude toward God will be one of fear (keep in mind I am talking about consistent exemplars, so please don't reply with anecdotes).
Obviously I was giving an anecdote, not making a universal claim as if I thought myself omniscient.

No. Man can fail to accept Salvation by not accepting Christ. Avoiding the Mortal Sin and attending to the Eucharist is there to satisfy the "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day."

If you have a problem with this, let me remind you, so did the disciples that left Him.


Yes, Baptism leaves an indelible mark of the Holy Spirit on the soul. Even if you leave the Church, you are still marked as a sheep of Christ, and still have an innate resistance to evil. However, it will be worse for you to know the Way, and to turn back away.


He can know with certainty if he keeps the Lord's commandments.


Then take it up with Jesus, we keep his commandments, and we eat of His Body and His Blood, as He commanded us to do.

Which is? We've kept the battle up against masturbation, pornography, divorce, and birth control, what Protestant sect are you from that has carried the torch here?


You find it hard because you will not listen to what He asked of us. We do not confess our sins for our pleasure, we do it out of love and fear of God, Jesus Christ. We believe that someone with a *genuine* internal drive for confession/repentance can receive it because we believe God has made the decision to call them out of this life before they can. The Sacraments are not merely rituals, they are suffused with the Holy Spirit, which is God.


Oi, sounds like you're accusing Christ here. He is the narrow way.


Your assurance is derived out of reading Scripture without accepting any particular apostolic authority, pure and simple.


Most definitely.

It does not matter what the cause of the failure is. If Christ set out to save men, and they nullify that effort, that is failure. To set out for something and not accomplish it is the very definition of failure.
Lol, ok.
Christ doesn't lose any of His sheep.
Romans 3 says you don't.

Nope, Christ Himself did the heavy lifting.

I found these replies to be shallow and disengenuous.

I find your theology and concept of reality to be completely alien, and almost completely divorced from the meaning of the Gospels.

No surprise the theological permutations of calvinists go off into un-christian tangents constantly.