I would have to agree with Dr. Tait's assessment, and I speak as a former PCA-er. No one, as I once thought (and as many other Calvinists still daily demonstrate, I was not alone), could do any truly good thing unless he was a believing Protestant whose profession of faith was credible to me. I have known many Presbyterians (ultra-conservative, neo-puritan types) who had questions about the faith of any non-Presbyterian! I suppose that they might wonder whether my willingness to have non-Reformed friends ultimately led to my conversion to the Catholic Church 
For many Calvinists, the noetic effects of the Fall are such (in their view) that it's not possible for non-Protestants to have a sincere love of the truth that leads them anywhere but to Protestantism - preferably a Reformed group - and certainly *not* to Rome. Truth, for them, is the Reformed faith - full stop. Sincerity in seeking the truth can only lead one to the Reformed faith (preferably) or to some other conservative Protestant denomination. Catholics literally *cannot* be sincere, according to this view (I hasten to add that this is not the view of *all* Calvinists, but it is certainly true of quite a few of them), and even if they were...it wouldn't do them any good with God.
Certainly I would agree that Truth is not pluriform, and commitment to the truth is an admirable thing. But the seeming inability of many Calvinists even to contemplate the possibility that they might be even slightly mistaken is a sad thing. People are sinners, but non-Protestants are not always and everywhere evil, despite what some Calvinists think.
Here's a trick for the next party: ask a Calvinist whether a Catholic who rescues a drowning man has done a good work. The answer you get might surprise you: some Calvinists will insist that it was *not*. If he's lurking, he might clarify this, but I have been surprised by Turretinfan's apparent unwillingness to answer this question with a simple yes or no: Are Catholics evil no matter what they do or believe? I've received what amount to two dodges in response so far: "God restrains people from doing all the evil they want", and "Jesus was the only sinless man". Okay, great. But what is so hard about "yes" or "no"?
Sometimes I marvel that I managed to swim the Tiber. But I'm ever so grateful to God for his mercy.
It’s too bad that Groothuis acted that way.
This is a great paper that Dave wrote on how Catholics view Protestants:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...rotestants.html
I guess that I should add:
The reason why these Calvinists (again, I am not speaking of all of them) say that non-Protestants *aren't* sincere seekers of the truth is because of their views of what the Fall has done to us. They take Ps. 14:1-3/Rom. 3:10-12 very literally. If sincerely seeking the truth means that a person would be seeking God, then no one is sincerely seeking the truth because (as these verses seem to suggest) no one is seeking God. And if it appears that someone actually is seeking God, this is only because God has already given that person a new heart (regeneration for the Presbyterian is not exactly what we describe by that term) and thereby enabled him to do so. And if God has given that person a new heart, then in the very nature of the case that could *only* lead one to Protestantism (or, for at least some neo-puritans, to Calvinism).
In sum, the case is rigged against you if you're not Protestant. You can't be sincere if you're Catholic, because the only sincere seekers after God are Protestants (and *especially* Calvinists). So when it seems that they think we are acting in bad faith,...well, now you know why.
I'm not defending this, mind you. I've renounced it I'm merely reporting.
Other examples of what Fred reports:
http://ntrminblog.blogspot.com/2...ons-
remain.html
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?i...php?
itemid=1972
Gnosticism all over again. Reality? Who needs it? We can just go to our "happy place" where the facts don't bother us!
(cont)
At least I didn’t hear any of my favorite Christian evangelical philosophers/theologians/scientists, etc., acting inappropriately because of Beckwith’s move. It seems that my favorites (my favorites are the most prominent) understand issues better than some.
I think this is a very important point. Let me take it a step further. For the Calvanist, people are saved or not saved by the irresistable Grace of Christ alone without any human cooperation. Therefore. if God has predestined and saved a person, that person must of necessity be a Calvanist, becauase the doctrines of Calvanism are true. God infallibly brings these persons to faith in the truth; that is the very nature of what it means to be among the elect.
There is no room to say that a person's free will has led him or her to accept some of God's Graces - such as the Grace to come to Christ - and not the rest - such as the Graces to come to believe in the truth. People have no free will. So for a Calvanist, if a person who believed what they consider to be heresies was saved, that would mean that God infallibly led them to heresy, which God of course wouldn't do.
The problem is that almost all Calvanists are inconsistent in this regard, either to a greater or a lesser degree. Many will say that non-Calvanist Protestants are saved - but this is contrary to the ideas put forth about. It's inconsistent. Any beyond this, any honest and consistent Calvanist that followed his beliefs to the logical conclusion would have to believe that even other Calvanists with whom he has doctrinal differences must not be saved, or that he himself must not be, if the other Calvanist is correct.
I don't think this follows Shane. Calvinists don't believe God makes them perfect. He saves them and gives them the grace to be sanctified over time. That process is never complete so sin always remains. That sin can involve heresy. Most of my Calvinist friends believe I am still saved. They say God's grace is so amazing it can even save people who pope.
Your Calvanist friends may say that, but plenty of other Calvanists don't say that. I think it does follow, though, aside from what the popular opinions of Calvanists may or may not be. Calvanism rejects all varieties of synergism. The idea that God gives Grace by which the individual can become sanctified doesn't fit in here. God either sanctifies you or He doesn't, and whatever degree you are sanctified to is that degree to which He decided to bring you, for whatever reason.
Shane, you say
"There is no room to say that a person's free will has led him or her to accept some of God's Graces - such as the Grace to come to Christ - and not the rest - such as the Graces to come to believe in the truth."
But surely you agree people must accept at least some truths, otherwise they cannot be said to have come to Christ.
You see what is happening in the Episcopal Church- they believe in a purely social/political agenda and yet claim to be Christian. You wouldn't say they had come to Christ, would you? I just think your statement goes too far.
God either sanctifies you or He doesn't, and whatever degree you are sanctified to is that degree to which He decided to bring you, for whatever reason.
That is my point. Would that not apply to truth as well? You arrive at whatever degree of truth He decides to reveal to you for whatever reason. That is not 100% truth for the same reason you are not 100% holy. God has reasons for not making you perfect yet.
Still it becomes interesting when you think about salvation by faith alone. Faith in what? How much error can you have in your faith? Does it even matter? If it doesn't then are you really denying faith alone? You could make up some answers but trying to find some biblical basis for them would be hard.
Fred,
The reason why these Calvinists (again, I am not speaking of all of them) say that non-Protestants *aren't* sincere seekers of the truth is because of their views of what the Fall has done to us. They take Ps. 14:1-3/Rom. 3:10-12 very literally.
Psalm 14:3 says,
“All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.”
Yet verse five says,
“There they are, overwhelmed with dread, for God is present in the COMPANY OF THE RIGHTEOUS.”
How can there be “no one who does good” and at the same time, be those who are “righteous?” Who are these righteous?
http://www.biblestudytools.net/O...niv&
language=en
Also, St. Paul, writing to the only church whose “faith” (i.e., doctrines and beliefs) was ”being proclaimed throughout the whole world,” says:
“Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.” Romans 10:1-2
Now unless I'm quite mistaken, it seems Paul is saying here that the Israelites, despite their being 'unregenerate,' were nevertheless “zealous for God."
And if that's the case, doesn't this then conflict with Calvinist dogma?
Excellent stuff. We discussed similar things in the recent Total Depravity thread.
Ben,
I'm not sure if Ps. 14:5 contradicts the Calvinists, because of 14:4 (which probably does): "Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers, who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the LORD?"
That would seem to me to indicate that a *specific* group of people is in view in vv. 1-3, so that I don't think - by the usual Protestant terms of interpretation - you could apply it *in context* to the whole world. Very good point: I missed that when I was a Calvinist Verse 5, though, could probably be understood by Calvinists as recognizing a distinction between the Elect and the rest of the world. Verse 4, though, identifies a specific group of sinners as the target of vv. 1-3.
And I think that pointing Rom. 10:1-2 at Rom. 3 is a *brilliant* move that demolishes the way that Calvinists use the latter passage. If someone had done that to me as a Calvinist, I would have ... probably walked away shaking my head, because in my arrogance I would not have been willing to admit the obvious problem that this creates.
But this is part of the problem with Protestantism generally, it seems to me: they get so focused on proof-texting that they miss the forest for the trees. One of my favorite examples is Peter's first sermon in Acts 2. After he is done, his audience says, "Brethren, what shall we do?" Here it is: the first opportunity to preach "sola fide" if that is really true! A chance for Peter to say, "You don't have to do anything. Just believe." But does he do that??? NO. He doesn't. He tells them exactly what they must *do*. And that's not to say that we Catholics deny the necessity of faith. But there's just no good way to read Acts 2:37-39 through a Protestant lens without trying to import the sola fide stuff first: eisegesis, not exegesis. Because it's quite clear that, given a great opportunity to preach a sola fide gospel, Peter emphatically does not do so. I don't see how you can get around this on a sola fide, sola scriptura basis.
Fred,
I don’t know if my “pointing Rom. 10:1-2 at Rom. 3” would qualify as “brilliant” (if it is, maybe some of Dave’s brilliance has rubbed off on me!). For my part however, I’m inclined to call it just plain old common sense. But thanks for the compliment.
Because it's quite clear that, given a great opportunity to preach a sola fide gospel, Peter emphatically does not do so. I don't see how you can get around this on a sola fide, sola scriptura basis.
The great question is why Protestants feel they need to “get around this” to begin with? Why do they hate good works so?
I’ve tried to get a straight answer to this question from my Baptist friend on several occasions, but to no avail. Every attempt to engage him in such a discussion invariably results in his becoming extremely agitated - sometimes I think almost to the point of hysteria! In fact, so desperate is he to avoid any discussion of his Protestant beliefs that he has, on numerous occasions, literally ‘run away’ in the middle of a conversation! Yet he never misses an opportunity to attack the Catholic faith with the usual slanders.
Just yesterday for example, we were having a relatively friendly - despite his left leanings - conversation about politics. We covered the usual stuff: the war, Iraq, Bush, etc. We ended up talking religion (an almost always disastrous move). To make a short story even shorter, he once again ‘ran away’. This time his loony behavior was ‘triggered’ by my asking the simple question of whether or not a person could, after being “saved,” “sin all he wanted” and still go to heaven. BOOM!! That did it! Big, BIG mistake!!! However, he did hang around long enough to shout something about his always being in a “state of grace.”
“Even if you sin seriously?” I asked as gently as I could.
“YOU CATHOLICS THINK YOU CAN JUSTIFY YOURSELVES BY GOOD WORKS,” he BARKED!
Well, suffice it to say, the conversation took a MAJOR NOSEDIVE from that point on. And I reckon it will be another month or so (again) before we’ll be on speaking terms - despite the fact that he lives next door!
But as the song says, "Oh well, it's been a good day in hell. And tomorrow I'll be glory bound"
But seriously, I know soon enough he'll get back to "normal" and then we’ll go out as usual for coffee or a bite. And we'll have a few laughs and all will be well – until the next time!!! Really weird huh?
But the question remains: what is this (seemingly) irrational hatred our dear Protestant brethren have of good works? Or rather, what is the ROOT CAUSE of such hatred?
Ben,
To the contrary, I think it is a brilliant point. I don't think I ever saw anyone draw that connection when I was a Presbyterian. Take the compliment
With respect to the "why" question - why they seem to hate good works so much: my hypothesis is that it all boils down to assurance of salvation, and maybe more specifically Luther's assurance of salvation. Because they fear that if in any way our salvation is conditioned by what we do - as is so obvious in so many texts of the Bible - then there is no longer any assurance of salvation of the sort that Luther demanded for himself. Surely our salvation is entirely by God's grace - but he empowers us to obey him.
That's my story. FWIW I have a copy of an article by Sinclair Ferguson (a prominent conservative Presbyterian theologian) in which he cites St. Robert Bellarmine as saying the greatest heresy of Protestantism is its doctrine of assurance. I think if you push hard enough, you'd probably find this thing lurking behind every Protestant insistence upon sola fide.
That's my hypothesis, anyway
It is what I wrote somewhere recently: the either/or mentality. If you can't imagine good works in any context other than Pelagianism or gratefulness to God only, then all other mention of them is meaningless.
Yet the Bible doesn't pigeonhole works into those narrow choices. The Bible teaches similarly to what C.S. Lewis said (paraphrase): "to argue about faith or works is like arguing over which side of a pair of scissors is less necessary."
Fred,
I accept the compliment. And now a quick story if I may.
Many years ago, during a time in which I was quite ill, I was – providentially I believe - befriended by my parish priest
who helped me get through the worst of my ordeal. His name was Fr. Victor Brown.
One day, while father and I were talking, he said to me, “Benjamin, you very much exhibit the sensus catholicus.”
Even though I had ever heard the term before, I somehow knew exactly what he meant.
Anyway, my point is this: I believe it is this sensus catholicus, far more than any real “brilliance,” on my part, that enables me, despite my unworthiness, to "see" and appreciate, at least in some measure, the true meaning and beauty of the Church. And of course, I also believe this helps me to see and appreciate that which the Church most definitely is not, i.e., Protestant.
Incidentally, the coat I was wearing in that photo of me standing outside the San Marco hotel in Rome happened to belong to this same Fr. Brown. I, along with my mother (who scraped together the money for the trip in the hopes that my health might benefit) accompanied Father and a small group (just 9 of us total) on a pilgrimage which he led to France and Switzerland in June of 1987 (two weeks before I joined the Italian pilgrimage led by Fr. McQueeney). I unfortunately missed many of the sites here also because I was so ill - alas. Moreover, I came unprepared and nearly froze until Father took pity on this knucklehead and lent me his coat.
Oh yes, I did return the coat when I got back to the states.
It is a clear cut example of both lack of charity and lack of honesty that I was quoted here as an example of an uncharitable non-theological attack against Dr Beckwith. There is no excuse for the author of this blog making this obviously false claim. My comment was that Frank had aligned himself with a church the infallible teaching of which is that I am anathema. This is both theological and truthful, and it is the height of bad judgement to call the facts of the matter "uncharitable."
I wonder who is actually being uncharitable here? Actually that's not true - I don't wonder at all. It's not hard to see.
Commenting by HaloScan
