The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

...as a refresher, the OP had to do with synergism/monergism discussion related to Roman Catholic Theology.

I added a post to this thread relating that Roman Catholic Theology is difficult to characterize as either of these options, however, it's position is best understood by a willed assent of the faithful to faith, the resistibility of grace and its action and effect, and the requirement for Christians to will assent to actions such as the performance of charity, yielding to the influence of resistible grace, and co-operating our soul with grace, rather than counter to it.

The perspective I am seeking from members of this site who are not Catholic is the role and place of charity within an understanding of "fiducial faith", said version of faith being one where grace is irresistible (per Calvin), and willed assent is not required, due to the irresistibility of grace (man's will figures not one iota into his actions, if God's will is irresistibly at the controls...). From this question of mine came a request for an explanation of just how God's will can be characterized as irresistible, if we can observe those who appear to practice faith with great fervor and passion still selecting occasional sin from the options available.

I have asked for examples where I have mis-characterized the theology of Calvin by characterizing it as "fiducial", or otherwise mis-characterized the notion of "irresistible grace". I am waiting to see if Psychobobicus jumps back in here where he left off, as I believe he was getting ready to characterize for me the correct understanding of Calvin, as his teachings relate to the notion of irresistible grace.

...that's your re-cap at this point in the discussion...

_________________
..."Absence of evidence" is not "Evidence of absence"...

My last comment then I will get back on the topic of the OP:

I'm curious, if the Apostles "got it wrong from time to time" as you contend, then how do you know what the Christian faith is? If they were not infallible, then how can we believe what they said and wrote? If faith comes from hearing (cf. Rom 10:17) as St. Paul says, which is hearing the teachings of the Apostles about Christ, if they were wrong, then how do we know the truths about Christ? Would that mean the Gospel of St. Matthew, St. John, the Epistles of Peter, the Epistles of St. Paul and St. Jude and St. James could also be "wrong from time to time?"

Also, don't spend any of your valuable time searching for a Church Father who interpreted John 3:5 to mean something other than baptism. You will have wasted your time and searched in vain, for there were not any. You would have to jump to the 16th century to find anyone who said Jesus did not really mean what he said and that the Apostles and Fathers were all wrong. Perhaps that may explain why you can accept that the Apostles were "wrong from time to time"?

Have a Happy Thanksgiving,
Campion

_________________
Contemplare et contemplata aliis tradere. - St. Thomas Aquinas

I apologize for my absence. I've been very busy and away for a while.

I am sorry to disappoint you DH, but I have a limited understanding of what Calvin thought. As I said, I am about halfway through Institutes. However, I think I can safely say that Calvin thought that so-called "irresistible grace" (to my knowledge he never used the term) in this context only applies to when someone comes to faith. He was not a determinist or a fatalist. When the Arminians wrote up their five points of disagreement, they brought forth the idea that God dispenses equal grace to all people (they called it 'prevenient grace')- but only enough to "enable" them to choose or reject faith. In response, Reformed theologians argued that God's call to the elect is effectual and that they infallibly come to Him, hence this grace could not be given to all people, otherwise all people would come to faith.

I personally cannot comment on Mary and her willingness or rejection of being the Mother of God. The Scriptures only speak of man's inability to comprehend and accept the Gospel or his own will, and that only those drawn by the Father come to the Son, and everyone the Father draws will come to the Son. Many Reformed theologians speak of "effectual" grace because it more accurately portrays this concept. The grace God gives in regeneration is effective in drawing the person and restoring the person so that they are able to (and definitely will) believe the Gospel. "Willed assent" is still "required" but in my opinion, the Gospel - as "the power of God" - when presented to one whose will has been regenerated is such a powerful message that those who are regenerated always believe it. Conversely, those whose wills are dead and enslaved to sin cannot believe because they are unable to do so. All sides (used) to agree on this - we just all argue about who is given grace and when. Roman Catholics teach that God responds to desire and dispenses grace to the willing, or to those who are baptized as infants (correct?). Arminians teach that all people are given enough grace to allow them to choose or reject faith. Calvinists and Lutherans teach that God must first act on the person to enable them to believe. Every one of these positions teach that without God's grace, no one can believe.

With reference to sin, although God restores our will's ability to believe, He does not remove our sin nature. Hence, as Paul said, although we are no longer slaves of sin (Rom 6:6) and we are supposed to "put aside" the old man on "put on" the new (Eph 4:22-24), we continually battle between the "new man" and the "old man" (Rom 7:21-25). John said that true believers will sin, and if they claim to not sin they are liars (1 John 1:8-10). We will only be free from this sin nature when Jesus destroys sin and death in the Kingdom and all believers will finally be restored to our original state (Rev 21:1-8, Rev 22:3-5).

I think part of the problem is that you apparently see "grace" as singularly faceted - i.e., that it can only be applied the same way. Thus if grace is "irresistible" in the context of regeneration and the call of the Gospel, it must also be "irresistible" in the day-to-day life of the believer. I believe this to be in error. I think grace is contextual. Sometimes God does in fact decree something irresistibly, such as in the case of pharaoh not letting Israel go. Other times God allows things to happen according to His decree, such as when the believer chooses to sin (or resists temptation). Even the Roman Catholic Church has the idea of normal "grace" and "special grace."

Campion, Gal 2:11.

sorry but this thought process left me dumbstruck -- &, like p-bob, i've been quite BUSY

Gal. 2 is clear that there was a disagreement between Peter & Paul & Peter was wrong, as p-bob cited

the Bible was Written by the Holy Spirit Using ~40 authors -- were any of these authors infallible? -- read Rom. 3:23

as for your take on John 3:5 & Catholic doctrine in general, we disagree & i don't see that changing -- you & DH's arguments have not been compelling