Calvinism offers much to be admired, and of great use in theology. I come down on the Arminian (specifically, Catholic Molinist) side, but Calvinists make many good points, especially in their laudable emphasis on the sovereignty of God. Where they go off, I think, is in misunderstanding that Arminianism neither denies God's absolute sovereignty nor asserts Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism.

In my opinion, Calvinism's essential failure is an inability or unwillingness to acknowledge one of the many paradoxes that are inherent to Christianity (i.e., free will and -- not versus -- God's sovereignty). They radically assert man's total depravity as if it flows logically and inexorably from God's sovereignty. It does not. God and man are not some sort of zero-sum game, where the greater one thinks God is, the lesser man must get. It comes down to a difference in the extent and nature of the Fall. But there are certainly many worse errors. The Calvinist motive is very good, but Calvinism fails in its premises and prior exegetical framework in approaching Scripture.

I respect Calvinists and the Reformed brand of Christianity greatly, though, and stressed that in the following paper, which was an appendix of my second book, More Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: "My Respect for Protestants."

Dr. [Robert] Morey summed up the problem I have with Middle Knowledge:

Does God reward us with the decree of salvation on the basis of what He foresaw we would do by our own power?

No, in this schema He would reward us with salvation on the basis of what He foresaw us doing with the grace-power He offers freely to all. God causes it, but we must freely accept it.

Prevenient grace saving the idea of middle knowledge . . . If failure to act on prevenient grace is the fault of man, then to assent to it must be a virtue. God rewards those who are smart enough to choose him.

It is ultimately a mystery for either view why some men choose and some do not. The Calvinist says that God chose those who come to faith with no consideration at all of their own choice in the matter (the very choice is predestined), but then it cannot be explained why He chose some and not others when all were equally sinful, equally fallen. In Arminianism and Molinism, it is a mystery why some accept and some reject the grace available to all. But in both approaches it is said that salvation is a free gift of God and not initiated at all by man, and that damnation is not the fault of God, but of men. It's not a matter of being initially "smart" or meritorious in some self-generated sense, but of the mystery of free will and predestination.

So much for the idea that, "Those in the flesh cannot please God,"

No, this is true in both systems, which is why I said that grace is the cause, as much for us as for you.

so, I still stand with Morey comments that God rewards us for what we do by our own power if middle knowledge is correct.

It's not our own power. It is simply how we respond to grace. God's grace is still the cause. We merely assent to it. A prisoner doesn't cause his pardon. He accepts the free gift of the governor, which in many cases he doesn't deserve at all.

Thus He decreed to save us because He foresaw that we would repent and believe?

Yes. He incorporates our free will response into it, lest we be robots, not freely choosing to serve Him.

I would think that "free will" is indeed our own power. Explain how free will is not our power, . . .

Okay, fair enough. Free will is in our own power, and we believe we retain a small measure of it to do good, being made in God's image. But we agree with you that this free will cannot make even the tiniest first step towards God unless that is caused by God's enabling grace.

This is basically the same question as the first. In the first instance you say no,

I said no to self-generated salvation by man's own power, because that is Pelagianism, which Catholics reject.

in the second instance you say yes. In the first question, the emphasis is on "our own power."

Which we agree cannot save anyone.

In the second question, our own power is able to "repent and believe." Which is it Dave? Yes or No?

Apples and oranges. In the second answer I was concentrating on free will, but in a sense in which it is bathed, enabled, caused by God's grace. In other words, it is no longer simply our power. It is now (having received grace) our cooperation with God's saving grace, so, then, it is not "our power."

Is God’s grace given in response to what we will do before (and thus without) His grace?

No, as that is Pelagianism, which is condemned by the Council of Trent and a thousand years earlier in the Council of 2nd Orange. See first response.

I would be interested in seeing how Molina handled prevenient grace. Have you read him?

No.

Dr. Morey goes on to state:

Many Catholic theologians were horrified by what Molina invented and labelled it as nothing more but a modern twist on the old Pelagian heresy. They almost succeeded in getting one Pope to condemn it.

Yep. It is well-known that there were and are competing theories of predestination in Catholicism. They are still both allowed. We no longer fight over these issues much, the way Protestants do on places like this board. :-)

But I would like to know why some RC's thought it was "a modern twist on the old Pelagian heresy."

Well, obviously because they failed to make crucial distinctions between the two, the same mistake Calvinists usually make with regard to both Arminians and Catholic Thomists and Molinists to this day. They incorrectly collapse all three of those categories into Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism, when they are absolutely incompatible and contradictory. We tend to blur or run together distinctions and premises between views we know less about, just as several mountain ranges in the distance look like a single one, until we get closer to them. Human nature, I suppose.

Does He love us because He foresaw that we would first love Him?

He loves all men.

He loves all men, especially those "smart" enough to choose salvation. Those he seems to love a lot more.

As I said, it is no more difficult to grasp one man's free choice to accept grace and the next man's refusal than it is to grasp why God would choose to damn a great mass of men without their choice in the matter playing any part whatsoever. Both views start in necessary paradox and end in unutterable, unfathomable mystery. And that's why I think it is silly to get angry at all about it because it is so over everyone's head that we can barely comprehend it at all. In such situations dogmatism is completely inappropriate.

Does He choose us because He foresaw that we would first choose Him?

No; again, that is Pelagianism. The key here is God's knowledge of potential and possible actions: middle knowledge.

I disagree. Pelagianism teaches that human nature is good, and that
men can be sinless, and that God's grace facilitates human goodness. I
understand why Morey says that middle knowledge was similar to
Pelagianism, because in your answers, you point to an ability that men
have that allows them to make a virtuous choice. In middle knowledge,
I cannot see how the choice of choosing God does not result in: God
chooses those who choose Him.

It's a choice already bathed in and caused by grace, which is how it escapes the charge of Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism, because in those views man can do something towards his own salvation without God's grace.

For Molina, the decree to save us is a reward for what God foresaw we will do by our own power.

I don't know the details of Molina's views, but I highly, highly doubt that he (anymore than Arminius) was a Pelagian, which is what this description would entail. It's the typical Reformed caricaturing of all non-Reformed views as Pelagian.

Also, is it true that Molina held that both Jesus and Mary were preserved from all sin throughout their whole lives by God supplying them with gifts and aids that He knew would always elicit a favorable free response from them?

Jesus could not possibly sin, being God, so the question is nonsensical and inapplicable with regard to Him. Mary could have sinned, but didn't, by a special act of God's grace (the Immaculate Conception). I don't think she was absolutely prevented from sinning. She chose not to, just as Eve could have chosen not to in the beginning. The Immaculate Conception merely put her back in the position that Eve was in originally. Mary said "yes" (at the Annunciation) whereas Eve had said "no" to God. Hence, the patristic description of Mary as the "Second Eve."

I have heard indeed Molina taught this, I thought you being keen to this view would know the answer. Do you?

I haven't read him. I just knew that my particular view was called Molinism over against Thomism, and is essentially, it seems to me, the same as Arminianism. As I said, I doubt that he would teach such a false view of Jesus' potentiality to sin, because that is very shoddy theology proper.

Why wouldn't He do this for others? Why not everybody?

I don't know. Why did God allow Adam and Eve to fall (and in them, the entire human race)? He could have prevented that, just as He could have taken away original sin from us today. All I know is that it makes perfect sense for the Theotokos, the Mother of God, to be free from original sin, because that was what God had intended for every human being. He made an exception to original sin in her case, for obvious reasons.

I would be VERY interested to see what Biblical support you have for middle knowledge. RC's are big on pointing out that the phrase sola scriptura is not in the Bible...

The point there is not that the phrase is absent, but that the concept is nowhere taught either.

well neither is the phrase middle knowledge. At least being Reformed I can say, "I believe in election...here are some verses..." or "I believe in predestination...here are some verses." Both would have the words.

Catholics believe in predestination and election, too, just not to damnation. As to the concept of middle knowledge (or at least something quite consistent with it), I would cite Mt 11:21,23:

Woe to you, Chorazin! woe to you, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes . . . And you Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. (RSV)

This has to do with what Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom would have done had they received more preaching like the first three. This is middle knowledge: knowledge of possible, conditioned responses that didn't actually happen due to differential circumstances.
 
The mystery for us Reformed types is why did God save anybody? It is only because of His incredible mercy that He saves even one from being dead in sin.

Why is that a mystery? God is love; He is merciful. We all agree on that. The mystery comes in His choosing some and not others, because, as you say, we were all equally unworthy as sinners.

At least I got you to speak within a Reformed framework. Yes indeed, I would grant the mystery to both. Indeed since God declares Himself Holy, I find it amazing that He lets anything unholy live. Every breath is a gift from God, He owes none of us anything, except His perfect        justice. And secondly, I grant the mystery you state. He chooses some, and not others. Romans 9.

Fair enough.

You are perhaps the first person I've talked to here at CARM over the past few years that has at least been honest enough to say they don't know why "some accept and some reject the grace available to all."

That's weird, as it is self-evidently ultimately a mystery. Both sides on this end in unfathomable mystery, and anyone who denies that hasn't thought about the subject very deeply.

I would take it a step further, and point out (as I have here last week), that I don't think God is fair at all from a non-Reformed stance because millions have died never even getting a chance to accept (or let only reject) God's "free gift." Perhaps RC's have developed a way past this dilemma.

Well, we didn't have to, because the Apostle Paul already figured it out in Romans 2:1-16. It is not necessary to actually hear the Gospel to be saved, because God "will render to every man according to his works" (2:6)

If indeed God renders salvation to us based on our works, rather than Christ salvific work in fulfilling the Law,

It's not either/or; it is true saving "faith that must work," as Paul constantly reiterates.

I find it hard to believe anyone  would be saved in such a way.

So do I, because that is not my position. I'm not advocating "works salvation," nor does my Church. We are merely saying, with James, that "faith without works is dead" (i.e., is no faith at all).

You have spent considerable time bringing the denial of Pelagianism to my attention, and yet I don’t see  how your above statement is anything but Pelagian.

Then Paul is a Pelagian. Your problem is with him, not me.

Paul says both Jew and Greek will be judged on whether they do "evil" (2:9) or "good" (2:10), because "God shows no partiality" (2:11). It is the "doers of the law who will be justified" (2:13). Those who "do not have the law" (by logical and contextual extension, without the Gospel; 2:14) "show that what the law requires is written on their hearts" (2:15), and will be judged based on their conscientious behavior, given what they know (2:15-16). Very un-Reformed.

Is this really an RC view? If so, I’m amazed.

Why would it be "amazing" that any Christian takes the Apostle Paul (which is inspired Scripture, after all) at his word, and not selectively?

Verses 12-15 states that all are judged by the law, since all have it, whether written down or        written on the heart: Paul later says that all are therefore guilty, and that no one will ever be justified by the law.

They're not justified by "works of the Law" (i.e., Jewish ceremonial rites such as circumcision), nor by their own works, but works done in the "obedience of faith" are one criterion God uses to judge us on the Last Day. This is biblically undeniable.

         Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it
         saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be
         stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
         20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in
         his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

That's right: the Law itself never saved anyone; it was always God's free grace that saved. No disagreement there.

And then 3:21-26 presents the gospel as the only way of salvation.

I agree; that is not at issue.

If Paul were a Calvinist, he wouldn't bother with all this nonsense. He would simply say (i.e., in this context) "those who God has chosen before the foundation of the world: the elect, will be saved." But he speaks very differently. The way you frame the question would be utterly foreign to Paul's way of thinking.

         Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the
         foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame
         before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus
         Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, the elect, will be saved."

I figured that you would merely cite another verse. Your task is to harmonize the passages I presented, with those like this one, which are standard Calvinist proof texts (note my remark: "in this context"). We can easily harmonize both together. I'm not so sure that Reformed can do so. Catholics believe in the predestination of the elect every bit as much as Calvinists do.

         2 Timothy 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that
         they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

No problem. We believe this. I was trying to get you to exegete the other passages consistently within your own framework. Merely citing more Scripture is a non sequitur in that regard.

         Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to
         them that love God, to them who are the called according to his
         purpose.
         29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be
         conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn
         among many brethren.
         30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom
         he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also
         glorified.
         31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be
         against us?
         32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how
         shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
         33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that
         justifieth.

More "Bible quote machine." No problem for Catholics here. See my previous comment. Predestination itself is not at issue (at least not for the elect saved), but how it works out in relation to human free will and behavior.

Regardless, the question becomes, “which is the correct mystery, Biblically? I would posit (since of course, I’m reformed), that the Bible does indeed explain the mystery you hold to. Of course I would point to John 6, where all that are given to the Son by the Father are raised up on the last day (6:44). Christ looses none that are given to Him (6:39), and those that are given to Him are enabled to believe (6:65).

None of that is inconsistent with either Catholic view, whether Thomist or Molinist. We all accept predestination and election and the absolute necessity of God's grace alone for salvation, over against Pelagianism. The differences have to do with the relation of human free will to grace and predestination. The three systems work that out differently.

So I really don’t see your mystery. Scripture is quite clear in John 6 why some accept grace, and others don’t.

It is? Show me where.

         John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent
         me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

         John 6:65 This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the
         Father has enabled him.

         John 6:66 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and
         walked no more with him.

This doesn't answer my question, which is precisely why some believe and some do not. No one can answer that, in any ultimate sense. To say, "well, because God chose person A and not B" is simply a declarative sentence, not an explanation, because then one has to immediately ask, "Why did God do so?" That's what I was getting at. All agree that God chooses the elect and predestines them. Scripture says they reject it because they are evil and hard of heart or whatever, but doesn't go any deeper than that. It also shows people accepting God freely, and falling away freely, which runs contrary to Calvinism.

Dave, Calvinism teaches that those enabled by God do indeed “freely” accept Christ,

You also teach that they could not do otherwise. That is what we deny.

and that those dead in sin are indeed “evil and hard of heart.”

Of course they are. We accept original sin as you do. But Total Depravity takes it a bit too far when it claims that man has a sin nature.

A prisoner doesn't cause his pardon. He accepts the free gift of the governor, which in many cases he doesn't deserve at all.

I would disagree with your image, obviously. The prisoner has already been executed.

No, that would be hellfire. :-)

We are spiritually dead prior to regeneration. Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Of course, but I was [below] talking about passages which clearly teach our cooperation with God's grace and the possibility of falling away.

Jesus comes into the morgue and says, "Prisoner come forth." This would be the only way the prisoner has not contributed anything to his salvation.

Then why does Paul say, "work out your salvation in fear and trembling" (Phil 2:12-13)? You say the next verse speaks of "for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." Indeed He is. That is the whole point. But we work along with Him, cooperating with His enabling grace, as in 1 Cor 3:9: "we are God's fellow workers." Paul speaks similarly in 1 Cor 15:10: ". . . I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me" (cf. Eph 2:8-10). Cooperation, vigilance . . .

Indeed, we are running the spectrum here. This is the obvious difference between the RC position of sanctification unto justification, and the Reformed view of justification unto sanctification.

What can I say? Both sides have to grapple with all of Holy Scripture, not just that which appears to fit into their prior theology, while the rest is ignored, dismissed, or minimized. It will not do to stare down a bunch of Pauline utterances and then marvel that a Catholic would accept those teachings (!!).

         Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of
         yourselves: it is the gift of God:
         9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
         10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good
         works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Thank you. I love this passage. It shows precisely what I have been arguing: One is not saved by "works" (i.e., contra Pelagianism -- v.9), but we must do good works (v. 10), which are ordained along with our salvation. That's why many Protestants conveniently leave off v. 10 in their citations, because it sounds so "darned Catholic!" (sort of like James' notorious, "faith without works is dead" -- which made Luther strongly consider booting the book out of the New Testament). I commend you for leaving it on.

I assume you are aware that a Reformed person does not believe in synergism in regards to salvation, but in terms of sanctification the word can be applicable.

Yes, I'm very familiar with the position, but I was interested in your exegesis of the passages I gave. Perhaps another time, as you say.

Heb 5:9 teaches that God "became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him." How can a dead person "obey" God? 2 Pet 1:10 urges believers to "confirm your call and election; for if you do this you will never fall" (cf. 1 Cor 10:12, Heb 3:12-14, 2 Pet 2:15,20-21). Fall? I thought that was impossible for (those who think they are) the elect????? Paul says that it is possible for him to become "disqualified" (1 Cor 9:27), and that believers can "fall away from grace" and become "severed from Christ" (Gal 5:4). Paul  says that "some will depart from the faith" (1 Tim 4:1; cf. 5:15). The author of Hebrews writes that "we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end" (Heb 3:14). That's a lot of Scripture you have to reckon with in order to square your above comments with biblical revelation. Grace alone is not at issue, but cooperation and vigilance is.

If it is bathed in God’s grace, then the bath must not work, because many reject that grace.

Yep, because God gives us that freedom, just as He gave it to Adam and Eve and the angels from the beginning, to follow Him or go their own way. It always works if it is accepted.

I was simply pointing out that you said earlier, “It's not our own power. It is simply how we respond to grace. God's grace is still the cause.”

Initially, absolutely. We all agree on that. Sola Gratia.

So who is really responsible for salvation? I can’t see how “its not our own power” is not in some way an exercise of our POWER of choice. At least be consistent and say it’s God exercise of his power to save, and it’s also our exercise of our power and ability to believe.

We believe only because God gives us the grace to do so. The very act of belief is entirely enabled by God (without Whom we couldn't do it at all), yet we do it, and cooperate with the grace given us, and could choose not to. It's somewhat of a paradox: one of many in Christianity. That's how I would describe the Catholic position, and I think it would apply to Arminian soteriology as well.

And I’m sure you would say it would be a human’s fault that he rejected that grace.

Of course, just as you say it is the human's fault that he is damned by God from all eternity, and it is grace and mercy for God to save any from such a horrible fate, since they are all in the same boat. So which is worse (or more plausible): a human's fault that he gets to be damned, while his friend can go to heaven, neither having any choice in the matter at all, or a human's fault that he doesn't choose to accept the grace God freely offers to all?

You would blame his own “power” of free will.

Free will is the immediate cause. The mystery of evil is the deeper one; far more difficult to understand and explain.

So, why is it God’s grace on the one hand, but not the other?

Because God cannot cause evil, and fallen man cannot save himself.

The answer I feel is obvious. From your position, it must be our “power,” in both instances of accepting and rejecting.

Not at all. God gives the grace. If we accept it, He gets all the credit, because He enabled us to accept. If we reject the grace, that is our fault.

Show me a few verses where Scripture says “we retain a small measure of it to do good.” See Gen. 6:5; Rom. 3:10-11; 1 Cor. 2:14.

The proof lies not only in many positive assertions or indications, but in the wrongness of your proof texts for a supposed "fallen, absolutely wicked nature." E.g., you cite Gen 6:5 as if absolutely every man was wicked. Yet a mere three verses later, we learn that "Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord." 6:9 informs us that "Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation" (cf. Job 1:1,8).

Are you saying Noah was sinless, and saved by His works apart from Christ?

I'm saying what the Bible said: "Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation." It doesn't present him as totally depraved, with absolutely no good thing in him, and "thinking evil continually," etc. Too bad you don't have time to reply to all this. I think it is very fascinating to talk about.

Rom 3:10-11 is another standard text: "None is righteous, not one . . . " Etc. What people who interpret this text in the fashion you do almost always fail to do, however, is look up the original context (Ps 14:1-3 and 53:1-3), as it is an OT citation. And what do we find? Of course it is the same as with Gen 6:5. Ps 14:5 refers to "the generation of the righteous." Ps 15 is all about a righteous person, "He who walks blamelessly, and does what is right" (15:2). It is a prominent motif all through the Psalms and Proverbs: the "good" or "righteous" vs. the "evil" or "foolish" man. Same thing with Ps 53. Right near it, Ps 52:6 and 55:22 talk about "the righteous" and 52:9, "the godly." This is the nature of Hebrew poetry and metaphorical exaggeration. But a certain common form of Protestant (esp. Calvinist) hyper-literal proof-texting overlooks that.

Paul refers to the "unspiritual man" in your text 1 Cor 2:14. Well, sure, the unregenerate man without the Holy Spirit cannot save himself and cannot understand many things. Yet Paul in Romans 2 (mentioned above) does not entirely exclude them from salvation, because God can save them if He so chooses. Paul says that a pagan can know about God's existence and His power by observing creation, "so they are without excuse" (Rom 1:19-20).

There was a chapter in Surprised by Truth, in which the author pointed out that Arminianism is much closer to Rome than Calvinism. I found this refreshing.

LOL Gee, I wonder which chapter that was?????? LOL Thanks for reading the book! Maybe you'd be interested in my own two books, too, huh, if you like reading Catholic stuff?

I have always thought this. Many Arminians don’t grip how RC they actually are on salvation.

Yes, on soteriology Arminians and Wesleyans are closer to Catholicism (i.e., our real views, not the misinformed polemical caricature of them) than to Calvinism.

Interesting how you can affirm that God loves everybody, yet He lets those places [Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom] perish even though He knew what would lead them to repentance. I simply don’t get it.

God could have chosen to save everyone, couldn't He? That is a problem for both sides ("why doesn't God do more than He does?"). More true or spiritual knowledge is always better and more beneficial to anyone. Yet the Bible says all men have enough knowledge to believe, at least to believe in God and His moral laws, or the natural law. Whether we have enough to believe and whether we in fact do believe are two different things. But you asked for the proof and I gave it to you. You have to fit this into your schema. I already fit it into mine. I would like to see how you interpret it.

Dave, my apologies for not answering every point you bring up. As I began working on this, I realized it was getting long, and way off the subject of Middle Knowledge, though of course I realize one thing leads to another . . . and yes, thank you for engaging me in the conversation.

No problem. I went through the same thing with [name]. He posted War and Peace in response to me and I was simply overwhelmed and that took away any desire on my part to respond. Only so many hours in a day.

Just a quick gripe before I begin. I have noticed a lot of RC apologetic web sites tend to have extremely long winded responses to Protestants . . . While I commend all the effort, I must say there are perhaps two mice on a small wheel inside my brain, and they tire easily.

If Protestants didn't radically misunderstand Catholicism, then the long responses wouldn't be necessary. Generally speaking, length is in proportion to how much error needs to be refuted. E.g., you said that elect persons could do absolutely nothing, so I had to provide several biblical examples to the contrary (which suggest that salvation is a process, not an instantaneous extrinsic declaration). I can't help it if that material is in the Bible in the first place. But it has to be pointed out to you, to show the error in the Reformed view in that regard. As to "long-winded," I plead guilty as charged, but it is mostly for that reason.

At this point, the mice have grown too weary. Perhaps another time.

I hope so. Thanks.