|
F e a t u r e A r t i c l e
A TIPTOE THROUGH TULIP
By JAMES AKIN
|
This Rock
Volume 4, Number 8
 September 1993 
|
|
|
PREDESTINATION means many things to many
people. All Christian churches believe in some form of predestination,
because the Bible uses the term, [See Rom. 8:29-30, Eph. 1:5, 11.
For the Catholic Church's teaching on predestination see Ludwig Ott,
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 242-244, and William G. Most,
Catholic Apologetics Today, 114-122], but what predestination
is and how it works are in dispute.
In Protestant circles there are two major camps when it comes to predestination:
Calvinism and Arminianism. [Calvinists are followers of John Calvin
(1509-1564). Arminians are followers of Jacob Arminius (1560-1609),
not people from the Republic of Armenia]. Calvinism is common in Presbyterian,
Reformed, and a few Baptist churches. Arminianism is common in Methodist,
Pentecostal, and most Baptist churches.[ In Catholic circles, the
two major groups discussing predestination are the Thomists and the
Molinists, the followers of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and Luis de
Molina (1536-1600). Thomists emphasize the role of grace, while Molinists
emphasize free will. Neither school ignores grace or free will].
Even though Calvinists are a minority among Protestants today, their
view has had enormous influence, especially in this country. This
is partly because the Puritans and the Baptists who helped found America
were Calvinists, but it is also because Calvinism traditionally has
been found among the more intellectual Protestants, giving it a special
influence.
Calvinists claim God predestines people by choosing which individuals
will accept his offer of salvation. These people are known as "the
elect."[From the Greek word eklektos, which means
"chosen."]. They are not saved against their will. It is
because God has chosen them that they will desire to come to him in
the first place. Those who are not among the elect, "the reprobate,"
will not desire to come to God, will not do so, and thus will not
be saved.[Calvinists are sometimes wrongly criticized as teaching
that a person can be unconcerned about his salvation since he is already
either among the elect or the reprobate. According to a Calvinist
it would be a mistake for a person to say, "Well, if God chooses
me, I'll be saved, and if he doesn't, I won't, so I can sit back and
do nothing." A person who said this until his death would show
he was not one of the elect because he never did the things, such
as repenting and trusting God, which are necessary for salvation].
Arminians claim God predestines people by pronouncing (but not deciding)
who will accept salvation. He makes this pro nouncement using his
foreknowledge, which enables him to see what people will do in the
future. He sees who will choose to accept his offer of salvation.
The people who God knows will repent are those he regards as his "elect"
or "chosen" people.
The debate between Calvinists and Arminians is often fierce. These
groups frequently accuse each other of teaching a false gospel, at
least on a theoretical level, although on a practical level there
is little difference between the two since both groups command people
to have "faith alone" in order to be saved.[Among Catholics
the discussion has been much more peaceful. Since the controversy
over grace in the late 1500s and early 1600s, Thomists and Molinists
have been forbidden to accuse each other of heresy. In 1748 the Church
declared Thomism, Molinism, and a third view known as Augustinianism
to be acceptable Catholic teachings].
The debate is centered on the well-known formula TULIP. Each
letter of this acronym stands for a different doctrine held by classical
Calvinists [There are some Calvinists, known as Amyraldians or "four-point
Calvinists," who hold all of TULIP except for " L "]
but rejected by Arminians. The doctrines are:
Total depravity,
Unconditional election,
Limited atonement,
Irresistible grace, and
Perseverance of the saints.
It is important for Catholics to know about these subjects: First,
Catholics are often attacked by Calvinists who misunderstand the Catholic
position on these issues. Second, Catholics often misunderstand the
teaching of their own Church on predestination. Third, in recent years
there has been a large number of Calvinists who have become Catholics [Including
Scott Hahn, Gerry Matatics, Steve Wood, myself, and numerous others].
By understanding Calvinism better, Catholics can help more Calvinists
make the jump.
Total depravity
Despite its name, the doctrine of total depravity
does not mean men are always and only sinful. Calvinists do not think
we are as sinful as we possibly could be. They claim our free will
has been injured by original sin to the point that, unless God gives
us special grace, we cannot free ourselves from sin and choose to
serve God in love. We might choose to serve him out of fear, but not
out of unselfish love.[There is nothing wrong with serving out
of godly fear. The Bible often uses fear of divine chastisement as
a motivator. Love and a certain kind of fear do not exclude each other;
a child may both love his parents and have a healthy fear of his parents'
discipline. But service based on fear only, being self-interested,
does not please God in a supernatural way and does not receive a supernatural
reward. Love is necessary to please God and receive rewards].
What would a Catholic think of this teaching? While he would not use
the term "total depravity" to describe the doctrine,[That
term is badly misleading, as even Calvinists acknowledge. For example,
Calvinist theologian R.C. Sproul proposes the alternative term "radical
corruption," although this is not much better. Author Lorraine
Boettner uses the much better term "total inability."] he
would actually agree with it. The accepted Catholic teaching is that,
because of the fall of Adam, man cannot do anything out of supernatural
love unless God gives him special grace to do so.[In Fundamentals
of Catholic Dogma Ludwig Ott gives the following as a defined
article of faith: "For every salutary act internal supernatural
grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary"
(Ott, 229). He goes on to cite the second Council of Orange, which
stated that "as often as we do good God operates in us and with
us, so that we may operate" (canon 9) and that "man does
no good except that which God brings about" (canon 20). The Council
of Trent solemnly condemned the proposition that "without the
predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost and without his help, man
can believe, hope, love, or be repentant as he ought, so that the
grace of justification may be bestowed upon him" (Decree
on Justification, canon 3). The Church teaches God's grace is
necessary to enable man to be lifted out of sin, display genuine supernatural
virtues, and please God].
Thomas Aquinas declared that special grace is necessary for man to
do any supernaturally good act, to love God, to fulfill God's commandments,
to gain eternal life, to prepare for salvation, to rise from sin,
to avoid sin, and to persevere.[Summa Theologiae (hereafter
ST) I:II:109:2-10].
Unconditional election
The doctrine of unconditional election means God
does not base his choice (election) of certain individuals on anything
other than his own good will.[The Arminians, one will recall, said
God bases it on his knowledge of what individuals will do in the future].
God chooses whomever he pleases and passes over the rest. The ones
God chooses will desire to come to him, will accept his offer of salvation,
and will do so precisely because he has chosen them.
To show that God positively chooses, rather than merely foresees,
those who will come to him, Calvinists cite passages such as Romans
9:15-18, which says, "[The Lord] says to Moses, 'I will have
mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have
compassion.' So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon
God's mercy . . . . So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and
he hardens the heart of whomever he wills."[Catholics understand
this hardening in terms of Romans 1:20-32, where Paul repeatedly states
God gave pagans up to their sinful desires after they refused to acknowledge
him. See also James 1:13.].
What would a Catholic say about this? He certainly is free to disagree
with the Calvinist interpretation, but he also is free to agree. All
Thomists and even some Molinists (such as Robert Bellarmine and Francisco
Suarez) taught unconditional election.
Thomas Aquinas wrote, "God wills to manifest his goodness in
men: in respect to those whom he predestines, by means of his mercy,
in sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by
means of his justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God
elects some and rejects others. . . . Yet why he chooses some for
glory and reprobates others has no reason except the divine will.
Hence Augustine says, 'Why he draws one, and another he draws not,
seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.'"[ST I:23:5,
citing Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John 26:2.].
Although a Catholic may agree with unconditional election, he may
not affirm "double-predestination," a doctrine Calvinists
often infer from it. This teaching claims that in addition to electing
some people to salvation God also sends others to damnation.
The alternative to double-predestination is to say that while God
predestines some people, he simply passes over the remainder. They
will not come to God, but it is because of their inherent sin, not
because God damns them. This is the doctrine of passive reprobation,
which Aquinas taught.[ST I:23:3].
The Council of Trent stated, "If anyone says that it is not in
the power of man to make his ways evil, but that God produces the
evil as well as the good works, not only by permission, but also properly
and of himself, so that the betrayal of Judas is no less his own proper
work than the vocation of Paul, let him be anathema. . . . If anyone
shall say that the grace of justification is attained by those only
who are predestined unto life, but that all others, who are called,
are called indeed, but do not receive grace, as
if they are by divine power predestined to evil, let him be anathema."[Decree
on Justification, canons 6 and 17. The same points were taught
by the second Council of Orange (531), the Council of Quiersy (853),
and the third Council of Valencia (855), although none of these were
ecumenical councils].
Limited atonement
Calvinists believe the atonement is limited, that
Christ offered it for some men but not for all. They claim Christ
died only for the elect. To prove this they cite verses which say
Christ died for his sheep (John 10:11), for his friends (John 15:13-14a),
and for the Church (Acts 20:28, Eph. 5:25). [Calvinists view these
groups as identical with the elect. This assumption is false. Not
all who are at one time Christ's sheep or Christ's friends remain
so (see below on perseverance of the saints). Similarly, not all who
are in the Church are among the elect].
One cannot use these verses to prove Christ died only for the elect.
A person may be said to have given himself for one person or group
without denying that he gave himself for others as well. [Suppose
a father sacrifices his life in order to save an endangered group
of people that includes his family plus two friends. He might be said
to have given himself for his family, even though the group he saved
also included other people]. Biblical proof of this principle is found
in Galatians 2:20, where Paul says that Christ "loved me
and gave himself for me," not at all implying that Christ
did not also give himself for other people. That Christ is said to
have given himself in a special way for his sheep, his friends, or
the Church cannot be used to prove Christ did not also give himself
for all men in a different way.
The Bible maintains that there is a sense in which Christ died for
all men. John 4:42 describes Christ as "the Savior of the world,"
and 1 John 2:2 states that Christ "is the propitiation for our
sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." 1
Timothy 4:10 describes God as "the Savior of all men, especially
of those who believe." These passages, as well as the official
teaching of the Church, [See Ott, 188f], require the Catholic to
affirm that Christ died to atone for all men.
Aquinas stated, "Christ's passion was not only a sufficient but
a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according
to 1 John 2:2, 'He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours
only, but also for those of the whole world.'" [ST III:48:2].
This is not to say there is no sense in which limitation may be ascribed
to the atonement. While the grace it provided is sufficient to pay
for the sins of all men, this grace is not made efficacious (put into
effect) in the case of everyone. One may say that although the sufficiency
of the atonement is not limited, its efficiency is limited.
This is something everyone who believes in hell must acknowledge because,
if the atonement was made efficacious for everyone, then no one would
end up in hell.
The difference between the atonement's sufficiency and its efficiency
accounts for Paul's statement that God is "the Savior of all
men, especially those who believe." [1 Timothy 4:10]. God is
the Savior of all men because he arranged a sacrifice sufficient for
all men. He is the Savior of those who believe in a special and superior
sense because these have the sacrifice made efficacious for them.
According to Aquinas, "[Christ] is the propitiation for our sins,
efficaciously for some, but sufficiently for all, because the price
of his blood is sufficient for the salvation of all; but it has its
effect only in the elect." [Commentary on Titus, I,
2:6.].
A Catholic also may say that, in going to the cross, Christ intended
to make salvation possible for all men, but he did not intend
to make salvation actual for all men--otherwise we would
have to say that Christ went to the cross intending that all men would
end up in heaven. This is clearly not the case. [Matthew 18:7-9,
22:13, 24:40f, 51, 25:30, Mark 9:48, Luke 3:17, 16:19-31, and especially
Matthew 7:13f, 26:24, Luke 13:23ff, and Acts 1:25.]. A Catholic therefore
may say that the atonement is limited in efficacy, if not in sufficiency,
and that God intended it to be this way. [Although one must be sure
to maintain that God desires the salvation of all men, as the Catholic
Church teaches. 1 Timothy 2:4 states God "desires all men to
be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." See also
Ezekiel 33:11. This does not conflict with God's intent to save only
some, since a person may desire one thing but intend another. A father
may desire to not punish his son, but he may intend to do so nonetheless].
While a Catholic could not say that the atonement was limited in that
it was made only for the elect, he could say that the atonement was
limited in that God only intended it to be efficacious for the elect
(although he intended it to be sufficient for all). [Some Calvinists
are unhappy with the statement that the atonement is limited. They
prefer saying that Christ made a "particular redemption"
rather than a "limited atonement." These mean the same thing,
but the former destroys the TULIP acrostic, so the latter
is normally used].
Irresistible grace
Calvinists teach that when God gives a person the
grace that enables him to come to salvation, the person always responds
and never rejects this grace. For this reason many have called this
the doctrine of irresistible grace.
This designation has the drawback of making it sound as though God
forces people against their will to come to him (like a policeman
shouting, "Resistance is useless! Throw down your weapons and
surrender!"). The designation also sounds unbiblical, since Scripture
indicates grace can be resisted. In Acts 7:51 Stephen tells the Sanhedrin,
"You always resist the Holy Spirit!" [See also Sirach
15:11-20, Matthew 23:37].
For this reason many Calvinists are displeased with the phrase "irresistible
grace." Some have proposed alternatives. Loraine Boettner, perhaps
best known to readers of This Rock as the author of Roman
Catholicism, prefers "efficacious grace." [Loraine
Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1932), ch. 8, "Efficacious Grace."]. The idea is
that God's enabling grace is intrinsically efficacious, so it always
produces salvation.
This is the principal issue between Thomists and Molinists. [Some
Molinists, such as Bellarmine and Suarez, almost have been Thomists.
They agreed with almost all that Thomism says, such as its affirmation
of unconditional election, but they resisted the idea that grace is
intrinsically efficacious]. Thomists claim this enabling grace is
intrinsically efficacious; by its very nature, because of the kind
of grace it is, it always produces the effect of salvation. Molinists
claim God's enabling grace is only sufficient and is made efficacious
by man's free choice rather than by the nature of the grace itself.
For this reason Molinists say that enabling grace is extrinsically
efficacious rather than intrinsically efficacious. [One should note
Thomists do believe in free will, although not the sort Molinists
believe in. They claim God's grace establishes what will be freely
chosen, but in a way that does not disturb the will's freedom. Aquinas
said, "God changes the will without forcing it. But he can change
the will from the fact that he himself operates in the will as he
does in nature," De Veritatis 22:9.].
A Catholic can agree with the idea that enabling grace is intrinsically
efficacious and, consequently, that all who receive this grace will
repent and come to God. Aquinas taught, "God's intention cannot
fail .... Hence if God intends, while moving it, that the one
whose heart he moves should attain to grace, he will infallibly attain
to it, according to John 6:45, 'Everyone that has heard and learned
from the Father comes to me.'" [ST I:II:112:3.].
Catholics must say that, while God may give efficacious grace
only to some, he gives sufficient grace to all. This is presupposed
by the fact that he intended the atonement to be sufficient for all.
Vatican II stated, "[S]ince Christ died for all men, and since
the ultimate calling of man is in fact one and divine, we ought to
believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers
to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal
mystery." [Gaudium et Spes 22; "being associated
with this paschal mystery" means being saved].
Perseverance of the saints
Calvinists teach that if a person enters a state
of grace he never will leave it but will persevere to the end of life.
This doctrine is normally called the perseverance of the saints. [Many
Calvinists prefer the phrase "preservation of the saints"
since it puts emphasis on God's preservation of the saints rather
than on the saints' efforts in persevering (which is thought to smack
of "works-salvation"). This often results in a "holier-than-thou"
attitude ("Look how holy I am; I place the emphasis
on God's action, not man's"). But Scripture normally
uses a human point of view. It calls men to repent, have faith, convert,
and persevere. When one insists on preservation-language over perseverance-language,
one is actually taking a holier-than-thou attitude, because the one
who wrote Scripture used perseverance-language more than preservation-language.
In effect one is playing spiritual one-upmanship with Scripture and
the one who wrote Scripture]. All those who are at any time saints
(in a state of sanctifying grace, to use Catholic terminology) will
remain so forever. No matter what trials they face, they will always
persevere, so their salvation is eternally secure. [This differs
from the "once saved, always saved" teaching common in Baptist
circles. According to that theory, a person never can lose his salvation,
no matter what he does. Even if he leaves the faith and renounces
Christ he will be saved. Perseverance of the saints states that, while
a person will lose his salvation if he fails to persevere
in faith and holiness, all who do come to God will persevere. If a
person does not persevere, it shows he did not come to God in the
first place. Passages such as 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Galatians 5:19-21,
which say a person will not inherit the kingdom if he commits certain
sins, are understood to mean that, if one habitually commits these
sins, he was never a true Christian, no matter how sincere he appeared.
Both "once saved, always saved" and perseverance of the
saints teach "eternal security," but they are not the same.
Calvinism admits there are mortal sins, such as failure to persevere,
but says that no one who is saved commits these sins. "Once saved,
always saved" says no sins would be mortal for a Christian, even
in principle].
Analogies are used to support this teaching. Calvinists point out
that when we become Christians we become God's children. They infer
that, just as a child's position in the family is secure, our position
in God's family is secure. A father would not kick his son out, so
God will not kick us out.
This reasoning is faulty. The analogy does not prove what it is supposed
to. Children do not have "eternal security" in their families.
First, they can be disowned. Second, even if a father would not kick
anyone out, a child can leave the house on his own, disown his parents,
and sever all ties with the family. Third, children can die; we, as
God's children, can die spiritual deaths after we have been spiritually
"born again." [Elements of these responses are brought
together in Luke 15, where the prodigal son begins as a son, then
leaves the family and is spoken of by the father as "dead,"
only to return to the family and be spoken of as being "alive
again" (Luke 15:24, 32). Christ teaches we can be sons, die spiritually
by severing our ties to the family, then come back and be alive again--spiritually
resurrected].
Calvinists also use Bible passages to teach perseverance of the saints.
The chief ones are John 6:37-39, 10:27-29, and Romans 8:35-39. The
Calvinist interpretation of these passages takes them out of context, [John
6:37-38 and 10:27-29 are taken out of context with John 15:1-6, which
states Christians are branches in the vine which is Christ (v. 5),
that God removes every branch from Christ which does not bear fruit
(v. 2), and that the destiny of these branches is to be burned (v.
6). Romans 8:35-39 is taken out of context with Romans 11:20-24, where
Paul compares spiritual Israel to an olive tree and states that since
certain branches of spiritual Israel were broken off because of unbelief
in Christ (v. 20), Christians will not be spared if they fall into
unbelief (v. 21), but will be cut off (v. 22). The branches which
had been broken off may be grafted in again (vv. 23-24). Romans 8:35-39
is also taken out of context with Romans 8:12f, 17, and 14:15, 20.],
and there are numerous other exegetical problems with their interpretation [For
further discussion see Robert Shank, Life in the Son (Minneapolis:
Bethany House, 1989) and Dale Moody, The Word of Truth (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 348ff. Both authors are Baptists who believe
in conditional security, not eternal security].
Calvinists assume perseverance of the saints is entailed by the idea
of predestination. If one is predestined to be saved, does it not
follow he must persevere to the end? This involves a confusion about
what people are predestined to: Is it predestination to initial salvation
or to final salvation? The two are not the same. A person might be
predestined to one, but this does not mean he is predestined necessarily
to the other. [For example, if a person was predestined to enter
my living room, it would not mean he was predestined to remain forever
in my living room]. One must define which kind of predestination is
being discussed.
If one is talking about predestination to initial salvation, then
the fact that a person will come to God does not of itself mean he
will stay with God. If one is talking about predestination to final
salvation, then a predestined person will stay with God, but this
does not mean the predestined are the only ones who experience initial
salvation. Some might genuinely come to God (because they were predestined
to initial salvation) and then genuinely leave (because they were
not predestined to final salvation). [Catholic theology has defined
"predestined" to mean "predestined to final salvation."
Thus those who will end up with God in heaven are spoken of as "the
predestined" or "the elect." That a person experiences
salvation at some point does not mean he is among the predestined
(those God has chosen to persevere to the end)]. Either way, predestination
to initial salvation does not entail predestination to final salvation. [Once
the philosophical issue is cleared up, we can evaluate the teaching
of Scripture objectively. When we do so, it is clear there are numerous
indications in the Bible that a person can lose salvation. We already
have mentioned John 15:1-6, Romans 8:12f, 17, 11:20-24, and 14:15,
20. There are many more. Robert Shank gives a list of eighty-five
passages he believes will, if carefully interpreted in context, show
that loss of salvation is possible; see Shank, 333-337]. There is
no reason why a person cannot be predestined to "believe for
a while" but "in time of temptation fall away" (Luke
8:13). [I recognized this fact even when I was an ardent Protestant].
A Catholic must affirm that there are people who experience initial
salvation and who do not go on to final salvation, but he is free
to hold to a form of perseverance of the saints. The question is how
one defines the term "saints"--in the Calvinist way,
as all those who ever enter a state of sanctifying grace,
or in a more Catholic way, as those who will go on to have their sanctification
(their "saintification") completed. ["Sanctification"
and "saintification" are the same word in Greek. When one
has been completely sanctified (made holy), one has become a saint
in the fullest sense of the word. Since this happens only in heaven,
it corresponds to the common Catholic usage of the term "saint."].
If one defines "saint" in the latter sense, a Catholic
may believe in perseverance of the saints, since a person predestined
to final salvation must by definition persevere to the end. Catholics
even have a special name for the grace God gives these people: "the
gift of final perseverance."
The Church formally teaches that there is a gift of final
perseverance. [Trent's Decree on Justification, canon 16,
speaks of "that great and special gift of final perseverance,"
and chapter 13 of the decree speaks of "the gift of perseverance
of which it is written: 'He who perseveres to the end shall be saved
[Matt. 10:22, 24:13],' which cannot be obtained from anyone except
from him who is able to make him who stands to stand [Rom. 14:4]."].
Aquinas (and even Molina) said this grace always ensures that a person
will persevere. [Aquinas said it always saves a person because of
the kind of grace it is; Molina said it always saves a person because
God only gives it to those whom he knows will respond to it. But the
effect is the same: The gift of final perseverance always works].
Aquinas said, "Predestination [to final salvation] most certainly
and infallibly takes effect." [ST I:23:6.]. But not all who
come to God receive this grace.
Aquinas said the gift of final perseverance is "the abiding in
good to the end of life. In order to have this perseverance man .
. . needs the divine assistance guiding and guarding him against the
attacks of the passions . . . [A]fter anyone has been justified by
grace, he still needs to beseech God for the aforesaid gift of perseverance,
that he may be kept from evil till the end of life. For to many grace
is given to whom perseverance in grace is not given." [ST I:II:109:10].
The idea that a person can be predestined to come to God yet not be
predestined to stay the course may be new to Calvinists and may sound
strange to them, but it did not sound strange to Augustine, Aquinas,
or even Luther. Calvinists frequently cite these men as "Calvinists
before Calvin." While they did hold high views of predestination,
they did not draw Calvin's inference that all who are ever saved are
predestined to remain in grace. [The fact Calvinists are not aware
of this shows a lack of scholarship. Presbyterian theologian R. C.
Sproul attempts to redefine Calvinism as the "Augustinian"
view. While Calvin's view of predestination might be a variation of
Augustine's view, the two are not the same. Augustine did not believe
in Calvin's understanding of the "perseverance of the saints,"
and neither did the broadly Augustinian tradition. That understanding
was new with Calvin. For an accurate historical discussion of perseverance
of the saints, see J. J. Davis's article "Perseverance of the
Saints: A History of the Doctrine," in the Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society, 34/2 (June 1991), 213-228. Davis
is himself a Calvinist, and it is fitting a Calvinist help correct
the errors of other Calvinists on the history of their doctrine].
Instead, their faith was informed by the biblical teaching that some
who enter the sphere of grace go on to leave it.
If one defines "saint" as one who will have his "saintification"
completed, a Catholic can say he believes in a "perseverance
of the saints" (all and only the people predestined to be saints
will persevere). But because of the historic associations of the phrase
it is advisable to make some change in it to avoid confusing the Thomist
and Calvinist understandings of perseverance. Since in Catholic theology
those who will persevere are called "the predestined" or
"the elect," one might replace "perseverance of the
saints" with "perseverance of the predestined" or,
better, with "perseverance of the elect."
In view of this, we might propose a Thomist version of TULIP
T = total inability (to please God without special grace);
U = unconditional election;
L = limited intent (for the atonement's efficacy);
I = intrinsically efficacious grace (for salvation);
P = perseverance of the elect (until the end of life).
There are other ways to construct a Thomist version of TULIP
of course, but the fact there is even one way demonstrates that a
Calvinist would not have to repudiate his understanding of predestination
and grace to become Catholic. He simply would have to do greater justice
to the teaching of Scripture and would have to refine his understanding
of perseverance. [This has important implications for Calvinists
who are thinking about entering the Church, and it has implications
for Catholics who want to know what the Church requires them to believe
and how they might defend the Church against anti-Catholic Calvinists.
For an example of how Thomism can be used to refute Calvinist attacks
on the Mass, purgatory, and indulgences, see my article "Fatally
Flawed Thinking" (This Rock, July 1993). The article
critiques The Fatal Flaw, a book by James White, a Calvinist
and a professional anti-Catholic. For further reading on Catholic
teaching in this area, see Predestination by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange
(St. Louis: Herder, 1939). Pope John Paul II studied and wrote his
dissertation under Garrigou-Lagrange].
James Akin, a convert to Catholicism, is a contributing
editor to This Rock.
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
