Catholic resource for TULIP Calvinist
#1
My TULIP-believing Calvinist friend seems intrigued by the Catholic faith. He’s asking why I believe what I believe.

Honestly I’m having a tough time responding because, no matter what I say, he bats back ‘Where is that in Scripture?’ I know that the Holy Faith is based — as well as in Tradition and the Magisterium, — in Scripture, but that’s not my area of expertise.

He’s wondering about how the Church is ‘justified’ after I told him about how there’s an ordained priesthood who is charged primarily w saying Mass. Because he’s a Protestant w Protestant concerns, I recommended and he ordered Scott Hahn’s The Lamb’s Supper. I sent him the FE page on the Eucharist which he read. He said it raised lots of questions, and asked me for a more scholarly resource. Now I’m wondering if Hahn was the right book to recommend.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Bryan M. M. Reynolds's post:
  • josh987654321
Reply
#2
Here's a debate between Scott Hahn and a Presbyterian about justification: https://www.fisheaters.com/justification.html

Here's the old "A Tiptoe through TULIP" by Akin: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TULIP.htm

And here's this, from the St. Benedict Center: https://catholicism.org/the-devils-doctrine.html

And here's Tim Staples on Calvinism. This is done in a Prot preachy style:




Hope they help...
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
[-] The following 1 user Likes VoxClamantis's post:
  • Bryan M. M. Reynolds
Reply
#3
Early Church Fathers Specifically Against Calvinistic Thought

http://practicalapologetics.blogspot.com...cally.html
[-] The following 2 users Like In His Love's post:
  • Bryan M. M. Reynolds, Roger Buck
Reply
#4
(02-12-2019, 10:28 AM)Bryan M. M. Reynolds Wrote: Honestly I’m having a tough time responding because, no matter what I say, he bats back ‘Where is that in Scripture?’ I know that the Holy Faith is based — as well as in Tradition and the Magisterium, — in Scripture, but that’s not my area of expertise.

The first question to ask your friend is 'How do you know what's in Scripture?' How does he know that the Gospel of John is inspired and the Gospel of Thomas isn't? The Bible comes from the Church, not the other way around. Answers to specific questions are important to know, but the big question is the authority of the Church. If the Church decided what's in the Bible, maybe the Church gets to interpret it, too.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Paul's post:
  • Bryan M. M. Reynolds
Reply
#5
(02-12-2019, 09:48 PM)Paul Wrote:
(02-12-2019, 10:28 AM)Bryan M. M. Reynolds Wrote: Honestly I’m having a tough time responding because, no matter what I say, he bats back ‘Where is that in Scripture?’ I know that the Holy Faith is based — as well as in Tradition and the Magisterium, — in Scripture, but that’s not my area of expertise.

The first question to ask your friend is 'How do you know what's in Scripture?' How does he know that the Gospel of John is inspired and the Gospel of Thomas isn't? The Bible comes from the Church, not the other way around. Answers to specific questions are important to know, but the big question is the authority of the Church. If the Church decided what's in the Bible, maybe the Church gets to interpret it, too.
The authority of the Church is highlighted in a particular way in 1 Timothy 3:15.
[-] The following 1 user Likes In His Love's post:
  • Bryan M. M. Reynolds
Reply
#6
(02-12-2019, 10:28 AM)Bryan M. M. Reynolds Wrote: Now I’m wondering if Hahn was the right book to recommend.

Definitely, can't go wrong with Scott Hahn, converted my Father to the One True Faith from Protestantism a little after I was born and  the main factor being the Holy Eucharist.

Still watching but this video is fantastic -


If it's all still not enough, there are also the Eucharistic Miracles such as Lanciano which have been scientifically verified, and even more recent one in Poland, Sokółka 2008 which is incredible and Argentina, Buenos Aires 2005 both incredible findings.

I would upload the information I have on these Eucharistic miracles but I need to find a good image hosting site or something to share them on here.]

In the mean time


Hope it helps, good luck and God Bless You Smile
"Behold the Heart that has so loved men that it has spared nothing, even to exhausting and consuming Itself, in order to testify Its love; in return, I receive from the greater part only ingratitude, by their irreverence and sacrilege, and by the coldness and contempt they have for Me in this Sacrament of Love. But what I feel most keenly is that it is hearts which are consecrated to Me that treat Me thus.” - St. Margaret Mary. Ignored by King of France Culminating in French Revolution.

"Charity concert at Cdl. Schonborn's Cathedral features shirtless actor dancing on Communion rail" - Dec 4, 2018





[-] The following 2 users Like josh987654321's post:
  • Bryan M. M. Reynolds, In His Love
Reply
#7
(02-13-2019, 01:32 AM)In His Love Wrote: The authority of the Church is highlighted in a particular way in 1 Timothy 3:15.

But a Protestant could say that applies to God, not the Church.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Paul's post:
  • Bryan M. M. Reynolds
Reply
#8
(02-13-2019, 01:10 PM)Paul Wrote:
(02-13-2019, 01:32 AM)In His Love Wrote: The authority of the Church is highlighted in a particular way in 1 Timothy 3:15.

But a Protestant could say that applies to God, not the Church.

But Calvin himself says 1 Tim. 3:15 applies to the Church, and aside from the errors he sneaks in, he gives a very traditional defense of the necessity and fittingness of the Church and its authority as rooted in Scripture (and Tradition). He also quotes approvingly Cyprian's dictum that "he can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother" (De unitate ecclesiae 6):

Quote:Institutes 4.1.1

But as our ignorance and sloth (I may add, the vanity of our mind) stand in need of external helps, by which faith may be begotten in us, and may increase and make progress until its consummation, God, in accommodation to our infirmity, has added such helps, and secured the effectual preaching of the gospel, by depositing this treasure with the Church. He has appointed pastors and teachers, by whose lips he might edify his people (Eph. 4:11); he has invested them with authority, and, in short, omitted nothing that might conduce to holy consent in the faith, and to right order. In particular, he has instituted sacraments, which we feel by experience to be most useful helps in fostering and confirming our faith.

Quote:Institutes 4.1.10

For such is the value which the Lord sets on the communion of his Church, that all who contumaciously alienate themselves from any Christian society, in which the true ministry of his word and sacraments is maintained, he regards as deserters of religion. So highly does he recommend her authority, that when it is violated he considers that his own authority is impaired. For there is no small weight in the designation given to her, “the house of God,” “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). By these words Paul intimates, that to prevent the truth from perishing in the world, the Church is its faithful guardian, because God has been pleased to preserve the pure preaching of his word by her instrumentality, and to exhibit himself to us as a parent while he feeds us with spiritual nourishment, and provides whatever is conducive to our salvation. Moreover, no mean praise is conferred on the Church when she is said to have been chosen and set apart by Christ as his spouse, “not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing” (Eph. 5:27), as “his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all” (Eph. 1:23). Whence it follows, that revolt from the Church is denial of God and Christ.

Also, to address the OP's topic, Calvin's notion of sola Scriptura is very different than modern American evangelicalism's notion. Calvin saw no problem in referring to Tradition, the Fathers, the Councils, in explicating the meaning of Scripture. He saw that these were legitimate hermeneutical references as long as they did not contradict the meaning of Scripture (what he didn't realize is that this line of argument is ultimately circular and self-destructs):

Quote:Tracts Relating to the Reformation, trans. Henry Beveridge, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1844), 66.

For, although we hold that the Word of God alone lies beyond the sphere of our judgment, and that Fathers and Councils are of authority only in so far as they accord with the rule of the Word, we still give to Councils and Fathers such rank and honour as it is meet for them to hold, under Christ.

The Reformed theologian Keith Mathison argues in his work The Shape of Sola Scriptura that the debate of the original Reformers vs. the Catholic Church was not one of Scripture vs. Tradition but whether Tradition was on the same level as Scripture or rather was subordinate to Scripture but still necessary as a guide to the proper interpretation of Scripture. One blog post explains this evolution well:

Quote:https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxb...rt-3-of-4/

The magisterial Reformation sought to maintain the relationship between Scripture and Tradition.  They vigorously opposed the Scripture-only hermeneutics of the Radical Anabaptists which excluded any other sources.  Keith Mathison labeled this position: solo scriptura.  However, it was this version of sola scriptura that would become the dominant paradigm in American Protestantism.  The spread of solo scriptura was due to a number of cultural factors: the Enlightenment which rejected traditional authorities and American culture which emphasized the freedom of individual conscience.  Thus, the solo scriptura of American Evangelicalism bears very little resemblance to that of Luther and Calvin.  This has created considerable confusion in current theological discussions because many people confuse the classic Protestant sola scriptura with the later version  —  solo scriptura— that rejects outright historical tradition.

The historical evolution of sola scriptura — from a working principle of the medieval Humanists, to the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformers, to its popular form in American Evangelicalism — underscores sola scriptura’s fluid and dynamic nature.  This fluidity means that sola scriptura lacks the capacity to provide Protestant Christianity with a stable hermeneutical framework it so badly needs.  The fluidity of sola scriptura helps us to understand Protestantism’s bewildering theological and denominational diversity.  As Luther and Calvin feared, sola scriptura opened up a hermeneutical Pandora’s Box (Williams 1998:358).

All of this touches upon the main problem with any form of Protestantism, as summarized by the theologian Clark Carlton, born a Southern Baptist and later converted to Orthodoxy:

Quote:The belief in the Bible as an object of faith and as a subject of Credal affirmation, however, represents a radical departure from the faith of the early Church.  None of the ancient creeds of the Church begins with a statement about the Bible; rather, all begin with an affirmation in one God, the Father (italics original).

And as we all know from our Derrida, once you make a text your source of authority, it's simply an infinite chain of signifiers à la différance. Generally when I have talked to Protestants, I start on the level of natural reason before we even discuss things like the Bible because I know that way I can hermeneutically cut them off at the sola Scriptural pass.

So to the OP, if your friend is a true Calvinist, you should shoot back at him, "Where's sola Scriptura of that sort in Calvin?" Answer: no where.
[-] The following 1 user Likes richgr's post:
  • Bryan M. M. Reynolds
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)