# How would you respond to the Thomistic answer to Calvinism?



## Anglicanorthodoxy (Sep 20, 2017)

One of the most prominent conswrvative Thomist theologians that Trad Catholics have recommended I read is Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. 

He wrote a book on Predestination, and!i looked through it today. Here's his critique of Calvinism 

"Against predestinarianism and the doctrines of Protestantism and Jansenism that revive it, the Church teaches: (a) God wills in a certain way to save all men and He makes the fulfilment of His precepts possible for all; (b) There is no predestination to evil, but God has decreed from all eternity to inflict eternal punishment for the sin of final impenitence which He foresaw, He being by no means the cause of it but merely permitting it." 

How would you respond to this?


----------



## jw (Sep 20, 2017)

"Nuh uh."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Sep 21, 2017)

Anglicanorthodoxy said:


> One of the most prominent conswrvative Thomist theologians that Trad Catholics have recommended I read is Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange.
> 
> He wrote a book on Predestination, and!i looked through it today. Here's his critique of Calvinism
> 
> ...



It's a case of philosophy vs. Scripture. I would respond that the above are assertions and not proof. Respond with Scripture. Chances are the RC opponent will move to the authority issue; Church vs. Scripture and so forth. God has indeed created vessels of wrath. The above quote from RGL sounds like Arminianism.


----------



## earl40 (Sep 21, 2017)

Anglicanorthodoxy said:


> One of the most prominent conswrvative Thomist theologians that Trad Catholics have recommended I read is Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange.
> 
> He wrote a book on Predestination, and!i looked through it today. Here's his critique of Calvinism
> 
> ...



I would say He wills to permit the fall, and eternal punishment for His glory. Also it is not "possible" evidently because all have not heard The Gospel.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 21, 2017)

I would just quote Thomas on predestination.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 21, 2017)

ZackF said:


> It's a case of philosophy vs. Scripture. I would respond that the above are assertions and not proof. Respond with Scripture. Chances are the RC opponent will move to the authority issue; Church vs. Scripture and so forth. God has indeed created vessels of wrath. The above quote from RGL sounds like Arminianism.


Most of the time in debates between the Church of Rome and others, it does seem that evidently they fall back to the authority given to them by God as being the true church, and that their understandings trumps the scriptures themselves it would seem.


----------



## ZackF (Sep 21, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Most of the time in debates between the Church of Rome and others, it does seem that evidently they fall back to the authority given to them by God as being the true church, and that their understandings trumps the scriptures themselves it would seem.



Exactly.


----------



## Anglicanorthodoxy (Sep 21, 2017)

ZackF said:


> Exactly.


All of you were proven correct today. I started having a theological discussion with an RCC friend at dinner, and challenged him to prove the Immaculate Conception from Scripture. He did not directly answer my question, but immediately fell back on the authority of the Church, and especially the authority of the Pope. He said that our differences ultimately come down to Papal infallibility. He said "If I can get you to accept the authority of the Pope, nothing else matters." He told me that he wanted to debate the issue of the Papacy with me at a later time. I need some recommendations for solid books on Church History. I can make a Scriptural argument against the Papacy, but I don't think this guy will accept it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 21, 2017)

Anglicanorthodoxy said:


> him to prove the Immaculate Conception from Scripture.



You can really have fun with that one. Ask him what Thomas Aquinas thought on it.


----------



## Anglicanorthodoxy (Sep 21, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> You can really have fun with that one. Ask him what Thomas Aquinas thought on it.


Actually, I did bring that up. I know Aquinas rejected the Immaculate Conception. When I brought this up, his response was "Aquinas isn't infallible. The Pope is" (when he speaks from the Chair of Peter)


----------



## timfost (Sep 21, 2017)

> God wills in a certain way to save all men



Many of the reformed teach this in the well-meant-offer.



> ...and He makes the fulfilment of His precepts possible for all;



This is where it goes wrong. Even if we grant a natural inability to exercise faith, man still has a moral inability to have faith in God. A moral inability renders man unable because he is unwilling, as a faithful bondservant to sin.



> (b) There is no predestination to evil, but God has decreed from all eternity to inflict eternal punishment for the sin of final impenitence which He foresaw, He being by no means the cause of it but merely permitting it."



To my knowledge, the scriptures with the confessions only use the word predestination in reference to the elect. The confessions also use the word "permit" in relation to the fall. This is not an issue as long as we don't understand it as "bare permission." We need to see God's decree in the things He permits, otherwise, He is not omnipotent.


----------



## timfost (Sep 21, 2017)

Also, in the construction of the Westminster standards, Twisse cited Aquinas favorably in reference to the decree... Aquinas wasn't all bad.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Sep 21, 2017)

I would ask him to show you where the Pope got His authority that they believe he has. Was it from the office itself or do they have their authority from Christ and/or Scripture. If from Christ it must be based on Scripture, because Scripture gives us the only infallible account of Christ's words. Therefore he should be okay to argue strictly using Scripture. If he says the Pope's authority is inherent in the office and that it comes down from the Apostles, show him that even the Apostles did not change or contradict the OT or one another. If they have the same authority as the Apostles had, we would then expect the Popes not to contradict either Scripture or themselves. Again go to Scripture with him to see if that is the case.


----------



## Anglicanorthodoxy (Sep 21, 2017)

Goodcheer68 said:


> I would ask him to show you where the Pope got His authority that they believe he has. Was it from the office itself or do they have their authority from Christ and/or Scripture. If from Christ it must be based on Scripture, because Scripture gives us the only infallible account of Christ's words. Therefore he should be okay to argue strictly using Scripture. If he says the Pope's authority is inherent in the office and that it comes down from the Apostles, show him that even the Apostles did not change or contradict the OT or one another. If they have the same authority as the Apostles had, we would then expect the Popes not to contradict either Scripture or themselves. Again go to Scripture with him to see if that is the case.


I actually already asked him that. He says Peter was the first Pope, and that the Pope's authority is based on Mathew 16:18.


----------



## ZackF (Sep 21, 2017)

timfost said:


> Also, in the construction of the Westminster standards, Twisse cited Aquinas favorably in reference to the decree... Aquinas wasn't all bad.



No he wasn't. In fact, Aquinas, like Augustine, became more and more predestinarian as he went on in life. Most Catholics today reject Augustine and Aquinas mature views on things related to election though they'll give lip service to their views being within the pale of orthodoxy.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 22, 2017)

Anglicanorthodoxy said:


> I actually already asked him that. He says Peter was the first Pope, and that the Pope's authority is based on Mathew 16:18.


The attached is worth a read.

As soon as a Roman Catholic argues from Scripture he denies the need for an infallible magisterium. Once he points to Rome apart from Scripture, he shows himself to be a blind follower of Rome in the face of Scripture.

It was Damasus I (reigned 366–84), who first asserted the title _pope_ (from the Latin _papa_, “father”) for the bishop of Rome, and there was nothing remotely like the papacy as we know it until Gregory I (reigned 590–604). The claim of the Roman Catholic Church that the Pope is infallible was not proclaimed as dogma until 1870 and later confirmed in _Lumen Gentium_ at Vatican II. This is very late in history, and totally absent from the early centuries of church history. The Romanist's claim is also that only it as a church is infallible and infectible – before the dogma was proclaimed in 1870, the church and bishops and councils, etc. were infallible in doctrinal decisions and interpretations. The existence of simultaneous popes in Rome, Avignon, and Pisa also illustrates the grave problem of the very notion of an unbroken Petrine succession.

I could go on and on.  (<--note: numerous second and ninth commandment violations at this site.)

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## bookslover (Sep 22, 2017)

For those who might not know:

Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (1877-1964), French Roman Catholic theologian and author. He was a fairly big wheel in Catholic circles in the middle decades of the 20th century.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 22, 2017)

Anglicanorthodoxy said:


> I actually already asked him that. He says Peter was the first Pope, and that the Pope's authority is based on Mathew 16:18.


Actually, They need to define just how many Popes the first Church had among them, as James was the head of the Jerusalem church, Peter head of the Jewish group, and Paul the Gentile .
The true church was founded upon the Chief Cornerstone, Jesus, the Big rock Himself, as Peter would agree with in full.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 22, 2017)

ZackF said:


> No he wasn't. In fact, Aquinas, like Augustine, became more and more predestinarian as he went on in life. Most Catholics today reject Augustine and Aquinas mature views on things related to election though they'll give lip service to their views being within the pale of orthodoxy.


Their greatest theologian, Augustine and his theology, found root in John Calvin and others, but not in Church of Rome.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 22, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The attached is worth a read.
> 
> As soon as a Roman Catholic argues from Scripture he denies the need for an infallible magisterium. Once he points to Rome apart from Scripture, he shows himself to be a blind follower of Rome in the face of Scripture.
> 
> ...


The Church of Rome is same as the Pharisees were at time of Christ, as both elevated traditions of Man equal to the sacred scriptures.


----------



## yeutter (Sep 22, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I would just quote Thomas on predestination.
> 
> http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm



St. Thomas and St. Augustine are considered by the Church of Rome to be Doctors of the Church. Let these Doctors give them a dose of medicine. I do not know Aquinas well; but I know him better then most of my well educated Roman Catholic friends. They are shocked by how much St. Thomas Aquinas agrees with Luther and Calvin.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 22, 2017)

yeutter said:


> St. Thomas and St. Augustine are considered by the Church of Rome to be Doctors of the Church. Let these Doctors give them a dose of medicine. I do not know Aquinas well; but I know him better then most of my well educated Roman Catholic friends. They are shocked by how much St. Thomas Aquinas agrees with Luther and Calvin.


Church of Rome really no longer teaches what those 2 theologians of theirs wrote.


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 22, 2017)

Anglicanorthodoxy said:


> I can make a Scriptural argument against the Papacy, but I don't think this guy will accept it.


You could start off by saying something like, "Did you know that the Apostle Paul describes the office of the Papacy in detail in II Thessalonians?" I bet it would spike his interest.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 22, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> You could start off by saying something like, "Did you know that the Apostle Paul describes the office of the Papacy in detail in II Thessalonians?" I bet it would spike his interest.


Or the Whore of Revelation.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Sep 22, 2017)

Anglicanorthodoxy said:


> I actually already asked him that. He says Peter was the first Pope, and that the Pope's authority is based on Mathew 16:18.


That is my point they have to go to Scripture for their authority. It is within Scripture where Jesus is recorded saying that to Peter. And as Patrick pointed out that makes the magisterium superfluous.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 23, 2017)

Goodcheer68 said:


> That is my point they have to go to Scripture for their authority. It is within Scripture where Jesus is recorded saying that to Peter. And as Patrick pointed out that makes the magisterium superfluous.


They have the Bible, but their man made traditions are actually superior to them per their theology.


----------



## yeutter (Sep 23, 2017)

bookslover said:


> For those who might not know:
> 
> Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (1877-1964), French Roman Catholic theologian and author. He was a fairly big wheel in Catholic circles in the middle decades of the 20th century.


Very few of my conservative, educated, Roman Catholic friends have wrestled with the Summa itself. Most get their Thomism second hand via luminaries like Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange, Jacques Martain, Joseph Marechal, and Edward Feser.


----------

