“Probably?” Um….you want to bet your soul on that?
I link the story and paste the pic primarily because it connects to something I’ve been wondering about recently.
You see, Mom and I have been having a casual series of discussions on the nature of spirituality. She believes that spirituality is a gift, something one is born either with or without, and that to attempt to explain or encourage the religious impulse to someone who lacks such gift is akin to trying to explain or encourage an appreciation of musick to somebody who is tone-deaf.
While I can see her point, I’m uneasy about this proposition for the simple reason that it would seem awfully hard cheese on somebody born without the gift. What, exactly, is such a person supposed to do? I mean, I can fully understand God’s wrath coming down on somebody who ignores or rejects His call (and Heaven knows their name is Legion), but what about someone who simply can’t hear it to begin with?
Doesn’t seem quite cricket to me. But then again, I’m an utter tyro in these matters, so am probably missing some basic understanding of the matter.
48 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 6, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Mrs. Peperium
Oh great. We’ve been discussing metrovamps. Now we’re moving on to Calvinists.
?
Do metrovamps let anything get between them and their Calvins?
January 6, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Robbo
What? Is that Calvinism? I thought the whole point there was that you’re marked to go upstairs or downstairs from the start and it doesn’t matter what you do about it.
Nice line, tho…… Except that I think Metrovamps would not wear jeans, only the latest fashions from Paris.
January 6, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Mrs. Peperium
Spot the difference (in meaning not wording) between:
“She believes that spirituality is a gift, something one is born either with or without, …”
“I thought the whole point there was that you’re marked to go upstairs or downstairs from the start and it doesn’t matter what you do about it.”
January 6, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Robbo
Well, because I think it fair to say that Mom also believes those who can hear the call have the choice whether to answer it or not and where they wind up depends on that choice. It isn’t exactly predestination, more a question of predisposition.
January 6, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Mrs. Peperium
Oh, then to bat that one out of the park you have to flip over to Romans (LA!) and see what St. Paul had to say what happened to the Jews when they refused to listen or answer the call.
Those passages are thought in some artistic circles, am not speaking of Church circles -remember I’m an old art student, why Jews are sometimes depicted as owls on some of the great Cathedrals in Europe…
January 6, 2009 at 7:49 pm
ScurvyOaks
Robbo: “Doesn’t seem quite cricket to me.”
St. Paul, writing by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost: “Who are you, o man, who answers back to God?”
In all seriousness, it’s time to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the 9th chapter of Romans (actually, keep going through chapter 11). This very tough issue has been around for a long time, and Scripture addresses it head on.
January 6, 2009 at 7:51 pm
ScurvyOaks
Mrs. P, I didn’t see your comment; I was writing while you posted.
January 6, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Mrs. Peperium
Ha! Scurvy it’s Romans -oh gosh now I’ve forgotten – 10: 7-10? Or is it !!: 7-10.
And then go over to Hebrews 11. One of my most favorite parts of the Bible besides the King David bits.
January 6, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Diane
Gah. My head hurts everytime I think about this.
Rom 9 -11 is pretty clear about salvation coming by faith, to all who will receive it. The problem is finding harmony with some of the rest of Scripture, particularly Eph. 1:11 “In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will”.
Rather than try to figure it out (and I’ve been involved in a few studies), I try to take a pracitical approach -
1. Only God truly knows who will eventually be His, whether through predestination and a propensity for spirituality, or because the offer is open to all.
2. In light of #1, my only responsibility is to keep sharing the gospel. Either a person will get it or not – it’s not up to me to persuade them.
My head hurts less that way, not to mention my heart at the thought there may be people destined for hellfire simply because they cannot, rather than will not, hear.
January 6, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Robbo
I tried to anticipate Paul (and believe it or not, I am familiar with that quote and – tongue in cheek comments aside – remind myself of it regularly) by the following line, although “moron” might have been a better descriptive noun than “tyro”.
January 6, 2009 at 8:27 pm
ScurvyOaks
So does anyone here think St. Paul wasn’t a Calvinist?
January 6, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Mrs. Peperium
OK, who wants to really mix it up? I
What’s the major difference between the Calvinist doctrine/sacrament? of infant baptism and the Roman Catholic (and yes Scurvy, this includes Anglicans as you think like us on this one -qualifier: the sane Anglicans think like us, not the Spongers) sacrament of infant baptism.
The Catholics/Anglicans say the infant receives the Holy Spirit. I don’t believe the Calvinists make this claim but you can check it.
The Holy Spirit is the one who leads us to Christ – that is if we listen.
January 6, 2009 at 9:24 pm
The Abbot
Interestingly enough, the Orthodox churches not only baptize the infant but also confirm the infant (chrismation, which is the sacramental equivalent of confirmation), giving him the promise of baptism and the full gifts of the holy Spirit all at once. Now that’s sacramentally aggressive.
January 6, 2009 at 9:32 pm
ScurvyOaks
Mrs. P,
1. Let me clarify and limit my challenge a bit: I’m only talking about the doctrine of election. With respect to that doctrine, I assert there is an unbreakable line from St. Paul through Augustine to Luther and Calvin. (It’s no accident of history that Luther was an Augustinian.)
2. As an adherent of classical Anglicanism, I confess the 39 Articles, including Article XVII:
“XVII. Of Predestination and Election. Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God’s purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God’s mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.
As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God’s Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.
Furthermore, we must receive God’s promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.”
Article XVII was written with exquisite care and, as you surely know, there has been more than one reading of it. I naturally lean toward a strong reading of it, being an A.M. Toplady/J.I. Packer kind of Anglican. But all traditional Anglicans are stuck with Article XVII; no matter how you read it, the thrust of it cannot fairly be ignored. So, as someone who subscribes to the reformed doctrines of grace, I am well within classical Anglicanism.
January 6, 2009 at 9:50 pm
The Abbot
On the Catholic side of things, there is the great predestination throwdown between the Dominicans, led by St Thomas Aquinas, and the Jesuits, led by Luis Molina. Although I am a Thomist (or a neo-Thomist, or to my own humble thoughts, a pseudo-Thomist) in most things, I think Molina’s view of the reconciliation between free will and God’s foreknowledge is pretty close to my own.
The church allows both points of view, but has never ruled definitively on it.
January 6, 2009 at 10:09 pm
ScurvyOaks
Now I’ll go a totally different direction. On vacation last month, at an old mountain resort in New York, I picked up Chesterton’s biography of St. Thomas Aquinas from the house library. I got about half way through it before we left. I’ve since ordered a copy from Amazon. Fascinating stuff; I know much too little about Aquinas.
So, particularly to the Roman Catholics here (maybe that’s everybody besides me), what else should I read to learn about Aquinas?
January 6, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Robbo
I have books about Aquinas (including Chesterton’s) and books by Aquinas. I find the books about him fascinating and inspirational. I find the books by him make me feel like a complete idiot.
January 6, 2009 at 10:29 pm
The Abbot
I have in my library three books, none of which are fully satisfactory.
I have Etienne Gilson’s The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, I have Dr. Peter Kreeft’s A Summa of the Summa, and I have Msgr. Paul Glenn’s Tour of the Summa.
Gilson, though difficult to read (translated from French)is helpful in establishing the hitorical background to Aquinas’s thought, Kreeft is good for translating into the modern English vernacular, Glenn is good for giving you the bullet points of what Aquinas is saying without being particuarly explanatory. That being said, I’ve at times needed each of them.
The best approach to Aquinas is to read him and wrestle with him directly, though he is quite a challenge. The best translation of the Summa Theolgica is the 1921 English Dominican translation (most faithful to the Latin); it is reproduced on the web, for free, here.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/
I’ve also heard that Aquinas is more easily approached through his apologetic work, the Summa Contra Gentiles, before taking on the Summa Theolgica; I was not wise enough to try that route, though.
Most helpful would probably to take a refresher on Platonism and on Aristotle first. It helps to understand the Platonic idea of forms and the Greek ideas on causality (material, efficient, final, and formal causes, etc.) before taking on Aquinas, as he uses all of these ideas and assumes the reader does, too.
January 6, 2009 at 11:04 pm
ScurvyOaks
Robbo, yes, I’m planning on reading a good deal about him before I read stuff by Aquinas. I’m sure I’d feel like a complete idiot, too.
Thanks, Abbot, for that very detailed response. The really embarrassing thing for me is that what should be a refresher on Platonism and Aristotle will be a first-time tour. I’ve picked up pits and pieces, but never learned it systematically.
January 7, 2009 at 12:21 am
Captain Ned
To get back to the original premise, I do believe in the concept that some are born immune to the Call. I did as Mom wished and went to church (Anglo-Catholic Palie; full smells ‘n’ bells) all through school. I was an acolyte starting in 6th grade and was Senior Acolyte (I got to carry the 40lb crucifix every Sunday, because I was the only one who could) in my senior year in high school. I went to Sunday School, youth group, and Confirmation classes.
Never once did I hear the Holy Spirit. Nothing ever pulled me away from rationality to think of God. I went through the motions to remain acceptable in the eyes of my mother and Father John. I can still recite the Episcopalian Rite #2 word for word, but it has no higher meaning.
January 7, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Mrs. Peperium
Okay, dialing the discussion back down to my intelligence level, let’s us ponder the idea that a loving God, who as the bible tells us, “knew us before he knit us together in our mother’s womb” -that’s close to a direct quote from Isaiah (NIV) if dementia has not gotten its hooks in too deeply in yet, and the bible also tells us – again in Isaiah “that [all] children’s/babies’ are born with their hearts far from me (God)” which is a bang up case if you needed one for the Roman/Anglican sacrament of infant baptism which allows the Holy Spirit to come into the infant’s’ life of course naturally followed up with the sacrament of Confirmation to receive the full pouring out of the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Spirit, but I’m getting off track and so let’s get back on to the first part of my sentence – How would a loving God would allow for souls to be born immune to the Call? How could such a God be called or even considered loving if he intentionally allowed this to happen to some of his creation?
This is the same God who created Jesus (through the Holy Spirit) from an immaculate conception so it’s not like He doesn’t have the capacity to intercede in such delicate matters.
January 7, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Robbo
Well, in the end, all I know is that contemplation of God and my skimpy little self under His gaze fills me with great joy and great terror at the same time.
January 7, 2009 at 4:45 pm
The Abbot
I do not believe any soul is immune from the call. I believe each person is given the grace necessary for salvation, if the person can accept the gift, and conform their will to God. And I also believe that God’s call, for some, takes time to be recognized and answered. It is those who are most “immune” who sometimes undergo the profoundest conversions. Plus, we do not see what is working behind the scenes in a person’s heart; we are not with a Richard Dawkins or a Christopher Hitchens at 3:00 AM to truly know what they are thinking, experiencing, fearing, and knowing in the depths of their heart. We do not know what is at work in them. We only know what they publicly profess, the mask they wish all to see. However obstinate their professions of disbelief, recognize that their professions are still just a mask.
And, likewise, the same for the holy. To my friends I am something of a religious marvel, yet I know my heart is as black as coal. I find my religious “gift” or whatever we are calling it is necessary to counter the terrible sins of thought, word, and deed, of what I have done and what I have failed to do. It is medicine for what ails me, and what ails me is strong — as strong as death.
I know in my own life there was something like 20 years where I completely disregarded God’s efforts to save me. Those 20 years wrought terrible damage in my soul, but in the end, the truth won out. I believe. I cannot look at society without rejecting it in favor of the cross. I cannot look at something objectively sinful, no matter how much it might potentially please me, without also knowing it as an evil. I hope to persevere. I recognize that these things are gifts not associated with my own merit, but gifts received, often ungratefully, as by a child tearing open Christmas presents without a thought given to their author or purpose.
January 7, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Mrs. Peperium
Robbo, as it should.
Abbot, ditto for the first three lines. I enjoyed the rest of your comment but no one has ever thought of me as a religious marvel, much less religious, so I am unable to ditto the rest…
January 7, 2009 at 7:27 pm
ScurvyOaks
Robbo, to your 3:53 p.m., Amen! (Especially when I contemplate my own black heart.)
Mrs. P and Abbot, I understand your points, which concern your own views on this soteriological issue. Neither of you has answered my challenge concerning St. Paul’s views. Should I understand that silence to reflect an implicit concession?
I’m not saying I like Luther’s and Calvin’s views on election — in a sense, who would? — but I am saying (i) it doesn’t matter much whether we like those views and (ii) perhaps our understanding of fairness, which is the work of minds still suffering to some extent the effects of the Fall, notwithstanding the sanctifying work of the Holy Ghost within us, is not as reliable a guide as we’re inclined to believe. That would be another rather uncomfortable and humbling conclusion to come to, but I throw it out as a possibility.
January 7, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Mrs. Peperium
What? That he was a Calvinist? Sorry. Thought you were joking.
January 7, 2009 at 7:58 pm
ScurvyOaks
Mrs. P, thanks also for your focus on Baptism. Your comments got me to pull off the shelf a book I’ve been meaning to read for a long time — “Signed, Sealed and Delivered,” a study of Baptism by Rt. Rev. Ray Sutton, a bishop in the Reformed Episcopal Church. Bp. Sutton focuses on the Anglican understanding of Baptism especially as it developed in the 17th and early 18th century. I’m looking forward to being able to put some meat on the bones of the short Article XXVII on Baptism. If you wouldn’t mind, I’ll send you an email off-line when I eventually get through the book and have some substantive thoughts to offer on the matter.
My second daughter was baptised October 5, using the 1928 BCP office. I looked forward to her Baptism with intense excitement, and it was a very joyful event. It’s high time for me to develop a better understanding of what exactly my church believes occurred in that sacrament.
January 7, 2009 at 8:36 pm
ScurvyOaks
Nope, not joking. The wink was intended to convey that, although I did want “to really mix it up,” as you put it, I intended to mix it up with as much good humor as a nasty ol’ Calvinist can muster.
January 7, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Mrs. Peperium
Okay, I do not for one moment believe that St. Paul was a Calvinist. However after glancing through Romans yesterday, I could readily see how an argument could be put forth that he was. If you would like to know why, I will be happy to give it to you – not just today as we have Irish dance in 30 minutes.
Congratulations on your daughter’s baptism. I too was baptized under the ‘28 Prayer book. And I believe that it was that sacrament of infant baptism (combined with the sacrament of confirmation) is what hooked me because there is no other explanation. And believe me I did many years in a Baptist bible study (CBS) trying to find any another plausible reason. This is why, when we left TEC, we went towards more/greater participation in the sacramental life (RC) rather than drop the sacraments for full bore Protestantism. One of my early (serious) disagreements with the Episcopal Church was with the ‘79 (revised) baptism service as well as the (revised) ordination services.
Now I shall be most intrigued to learn what you learn of the Reformed Episcopal Church’s understanding of infant baptism. I’ve always understood the break came over the issue of infant baptism. (this may not be exact words or so try to understand what I’m saying as I’m going far too fast) TEC believes (on the books at least) that it is an interior sacrament for the . The Reformed Episcopal Church does not believe the interior aspect so they have something again..later…down the road for the child to gain the interior aspect. If I’m wrong on this, do set me straight.
January 7, 2009 at 9:42 pm
The Abbot
I would suggest that St. Paul was not a Calvinist by simple virtue of the fact that he was not a time traveler.
But (and I say this respectfully and with affection
) the development from St. Paul to Augustine and then to Luther and Calvin omits 11 centuries of doctrine. What happened in the meantime? Were the entire 11 centuries spent merely taking a detour? At the same time the church saw an explosion of growth as Europe was converted from paganism and the cathedrals were built. The great monastic orders were formed, and the theological schools of Bologna and Paris and Oxford were founded.
I sometimes feel as if Protestant history goes from Acts through the Church Fathers and then to Nicaea and then to Augustine, and then there is a big ellipsis . . . “and for the next 11 centuries, until Luther, nothing happened.”
January 7, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Anchovy
It’s not that Protestants would claim nothing happened–it’s that much of what happened was of no direct interest and didn’t have a whole lot of relevance to their central doctrinal understandings. Of course some people speak as though history was on hold from Constantine until Joseph Smith (to take the most extreme example), but the accessible highlights of Western theology between Augustine and the Reformation are certainly few. Anselm and Aquinas are almost the only ones who can be read and perhaps understood by educated amateurs.
January 7, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Anchovy
PS. Calvin wasn’t a Calvinist either.
January 7, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Robbo
To go back to what the Abbot said earlier:
“I do not believe any soul is immune from the call. I believe each person is given the grace necessary for salvation, if the person can accept the gift, and conform their will to God. And I also believe that God’s call, for some, takes time to be recognized and answered. It is those who are most “immune” who sometimes undergo the profoundest conversions. Plus, we do not see what is working behind the scenes in a person’s heart; we are not with a Richard Dawkins or a Christopher Hitchens at 3:00 AM to truly know what they are thinking, experiencing, fearing, and knowing in the depths of their heart. We do not know what is at work in them. We only know what they publicly profess, the mask they wish all to see. However obstinate their professions of disbelief, recognize that their professions are still just a mask.”
If you link back to the original article, you will see that part of the publicity campaign involves the printing of quotes from various famous persons who question or reject the existence of God. Among them is Douglas Adams, whose writing I find very funny and incisive. But the Abbot’s remark reminded me of the intense frustration I encountered in reading Adams’ The Salmon of Doubt, a collection of essays on this, that and the other in which he also spells out some of his philosophical and (anti-) theological thinking. Time and again it seems, Adams spots God’s thumb-prints all over Creation, yet he willfully refuses to acknowledge them.
I should say “refused” because Adams is dead, of course. One can only hope that he finally “got it” before it was too late.
January 7, 2009 at 10:35 pm
The Abbot
To paraphrase the old joke about Stalin:
“God is Dead” Douglas Adams, 1977
“Douglas Adams is Dead”, God, 2001
January 8, 2009 at 12:17 am
ScurvyOaks
Anchovy, I think Luther was more of a Calvinist than Calvin.
Abbot, your point about the intervening 11 centuries is very well taken; with my interest in Aquinas, I’m trying to work on filling that gap. I also have a copy of Cur Deus Homo, but I have to admit that I haven’t yet mustered the self-discipline to get past the first several pages of Anselm’s dialogue.
Mrs. P, on the REC vs. PECUSA front, it’s interesting that many REC parishes these days, including mine, use the ‘28 book. The baptismal office in it differs considerably (e.g., “this child, now regenerate . . . “) from the office in the old REC prayer books. The glowing forward to Bp. Sutton’s book was written by Rt. Rev. FitzSimons Allison, retired bishop of South Carolina (PECUSA), so I’m very curious about what I’ll find. The REC may have come around to a view more along the lines of PECUSA’s.
(FWIW, some background on my experience: I too was baptised under the ‘28 book and still use one of the BCPs given to me by my godfathers in 1962 every Sunday. Through high school, I was a churchman but not a Christian, to use John Owen’s formulation. Thereafter, I lived a miserable, sin-gripped stretch of my life generally far from the things of God until the Lord hit me over the head in the context of a PCA church at age 33. The scales fell from my eyes lickety-split. Two years as a Presbyterian defined my thinking on soteriology, but I longed for liturgical worship. I joined an independent ‘28 book parish and eventually chaired the Affiliation Committee that recommended we join the REC. You may be thinking, “well, that all explains a lot.”)
So, in an attempt at greater precision, here’s my narrowed thesis: St. Paul’s views on election, as reflected in the canonical epistles he wrote, are substantially in accord with those views concerning election that the 16th- and 17th-century Protestant Reformers held in common, as set out in the reformed statements of doctrine from that period. (I’d be happiest to work from the Westminster Confession of Faith, since it was written in English and, candidly, because it has such helpful footnotes to Scripture.)
And Robbo, my apologies for hijacking this thread. I’m certainly happy to take this offline into email if this is getting tiresome or taking up too much space. Thanks sincerely for your hospitality and your readership.
January 8, 2009 at 3:49 am
Robbo
Scurvy –
My dear fellow, this is Liberty Hall! There is no hijacking – feel free to argue away!
January 8, 2009 at 12:50 pm
The Abbot
Scurvy,
Others worth reading from the period are St. John of Damascus (8th century) and St. Bonaventure, Aquinas’s Franciscan contemporary. Pope Benedict — very much an Augustinian — did his doctoral thesis on Bonaventure. I think you’d like Benedict’s writing very much, to me he feels very Protestant in his approach to theology, by which I mean he likes to reason from first things and from Scripture (which I admire).
Two other worthies whom nobody really reads are Peter Lombard and Albertus Magnus; Aquinas studied under Albert and throughout the Summa refers to Peter Lombard as “The Teacher”, which to me is high praise indeed. I’ve read neither but they’re on my list.
January 8, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Mrs. Peperium
Scurvy, when you and the Abbot get going, I get lost. We need to dial back the intelligence level if you hope for me to understand anything that is going on. Okay, now I’ve got to run to school for a few hours and I’ve thought about this St. Paul = Calvinist idea and must observe the most obvious thing in the world : If indeed, as you suggest, St. Paul was a Calvinist, then wouldn’t Calvinism be actually thought of as Paulism because it was St. Paul’s revelation and not John Clavin’s?
And second, to help our discussion along here, and take into consideration my days as a theologically abused Episcopalian, I know why many believe St. Paul was a misogynist and why many believe he was a homosexual, but not why you believe he was a Calvinist. Can you outline, using elementary grade reasoning if you could, why you think he is a Calvinist, excuse me Paulist?
January 8, 2009 at 5:57 pm
The Abbot
I think that Scurvy is thinking of Romans 8:29-30, which leads one into the theological issue of Unconditional Election. This is, for the Calvinists, the “U” in the “TULIP” (which is the acronym for the Calvinist doctrines of Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints). I do not necessarily believe in Unconditional Election, but I have not considered it at sufficient length to say for certain. Aquinas and Robert Bellarmine believed in a form of it, though with a different understanding than Calvin. Bellarmine was the prime theologian at Trent. Luis de Molina, as I understand it, did not.
Google any of these things if you have a few hours to kill — it leads one into all kinds of fascinating speculation on the nature of God’s foreknowledge. Throw in a Google on “double predestination” for even more fascinating stuff.
January 8, 2009 at 6:10 pm
The Abbot
Correxction: I’m mistaken about Bellarmine being at Trent — he was in the generation that grew up after Trent.
January 8, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Mrs. Peperium
Alright Abbot, (oh and thanks for the dial down) I’m back in the Baptist bible study. Take a deep breath, and duck because the china shall soon be flying, do you 1. accept the time- honored concept that the God who is the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow is a loving God?
If you said no, my argument is shot and you are perfectly free to believe that St. Paul is a Calvinist, a misogynist and a homosexual if you wish.
If you said yes, how do you reconcile Judas Iscariot?
January 8, 2009 at 7:07 pm
The Abbot
Mrs. P.,
I certainly believe that God is a loving God. I wrestle greatly with what love is, though — both personally and intellectually. I think that part of the nature of love is that it is offered freely, and that the freedom with which love is offered is an intrinsic part of it. We cannot truly offer love if it is not done so freely; hence the terrible problem of free will — for human love to be offered freely, it must be done so with two terrible possibilities implied — the first is that one might not offer love at all, and the second is that one’s love might be rejected. God loves us so much that he wants our gifts to him to be meaningful; therefore we are truly free to reject him. A fundamental aspect of God’s love is his terrifying respect for our free will. In our free will, Hell is an implied possibilty. We may choose it.
I do not believe that St. Paul is a Calvinist, due to the time travel issue. I much prefer your formulation that Calvin is a Paulist. I merely was offering, in my previous post, a paraphrase or explanation of where I believe Scurvy is headed in his argument. I understand TULIP, I do not assert it, as I am a Catholic. Calvin is fascinating in his reasoning, though — he is, in a sense, very much like Aquinas in the persistence of his logic. I think that the errors of Calvin are not in his logic, but in his premises. I do not believe that St. Paul is a misogynist; for I believe he loved women very much. I do not believe he was a homosexual, for I believed he loved women very much. Bishop Challoner in his commentary in the Douay Rheims identifies the “thorn in his side” to which Paul refers as lust. I think he is correct.
As for Judas Iscariot, I take the Lord quite literally at his words in Mark 14:21. It is not for me to reconcile Judas; it was for Judas to reconcile Judas. I believe that Judas is likely in Hell, though I do not state it with certainty, for I am not the Lord.
January 8, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Mrs. Peperium
DITTO!!!!
January 8, 2009 at 7:33 pm
The Abbot
As a further thought, I often consider St. Peter when considering Judas. In a sense, both rejected the Lord. But then consider their next acts — Peter came back to the Lord, and though he had rejected the Lord three times, he was forgiven three times. Judas did not come back to the Lord, but rather despaired. He did not live to see the Resurrection. Had Judas not killed himself, he might have sought forgiveness, and I believe that had he lived to see the risen Lord, and had he asked for forgiveness sincerely, he would have received it, for Christ forgave even while dying on the cross. But that is not the route Judas took. Had Judas taken Peter’s route, he might have had the opportunity to ask for forgiveness.
January 8, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Mrs. Peperium
Total agreement. Judas was not born immune to the Call. He actually rejected the Call. He was, some say based on his connection to Zealots, looking for his idea of a political saviour. That was not Jesus. So Judas missed who Jesus really was and handed Jesus over for 30 pieces of silver. Then, when he seemed to realize his error, he really didn’t. Instead, he despaired and committed murder by killing himself.
I take a lot of comfort in St. Peter and his goof ups….
January 8, 2009 at 9:15 pm
ScurvyOaks
Sorry to be away for a while. The pesky practice of law, you know.
Robbo, many thanks. I can’t tell you how much I’m enjoying this. I love to learn from and debate intelligent people of good will who know things I don’t and view things a bit differently from the way I do.
Abbot, I’m crazy about Benedict XVI. His very important Regensburg speech has really settled into my thinking, especially the notion that it is providential that Christianity was Hellenistically inculturated. My hope is that I will work back through Aquinas to Aristotle and Plato, and then be able to bring more of the historical/philosophical context to understanding the New Testament — especially the Gospel according to St. John, but also great big stretches of St. Paul. I’ve read Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures and part of Jesus of Nazareth — which is really wonderful, too. I agree that Benedict seems very Protestant — or maybe reading him makes me more Catholic.
It will take me a little time to put together the basic argument for how I think the reformed understanding of election is Paulist. (I’m quite happy with that formulation.) I’ll come to Romans 8:29-30 rather late in the analysis, because that’s a passage that’s argued by Arminians at least as often as it is by Calvinists. (I think the better reading of it is the reformed one, to be sure, but I admit in fairness that it can be read either way.) There are a number of places where St. Paul is more explicit, both elsewhere in Romans but also, with great directness, in Ephesians.
The Molina/Arminius attempt to reconcile free will and predestination via foreknowledge is an elegant solution and thus intellectually appealing. The problem is that there’s a lot of Scripture that really doesn’t accord with it, as I hope to demonstrate.
Btw, I don’t for a minute think that St. Paul was either a misogynist (that mistake is the product of anachronistic thinking, IMO) or a homosexual (I’d never even heard that one, which I find extremely difficult to reconcile with Romans 1:26-27, unless one speculates on the basis of Romans 7:14-23 that he was a self-loathing one).
January 8, 2009 at 11:32 pm
The Abbot
Scurvy,
I look forward to it.
The best Molinist Scriptural example I’ve read about is Matthew 11:21-23, in which Christ gives the counterfactual example of what would have happened to Tyre and Sidon and Sodom had his works been done there. In the Molinist way of understanding, this implies that Christ (God) has knowledge of all possible things that might have been done or might yet be done, thus giving an example of God’s “middle knowledge”.
January 9, 2009 at 12:14 am
ScurvyOaks
Wow, Abbot, that’s extremely interesting. And you’re starting to intimidate me.