Casey Chalk Discusses TULIP on the Creedal Catholic Podcast
Jul 8th, 2020 | By Casey Chalk | Category: Blog Posts
CtC contributor Casey Chalk has been featured on the “Creedal Catholic” podcast in a five-part series on the Calvinist doctrinal acronym TULIP. He and Creedal Catholic host (and Protestant convert to Catholicism) Zac Crippen have discussed Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. Here’s the link.
Really enjoyed the series, thanks Casey.
Hi Casey,
Thanks for the series. I listened to the first one yesterday but I have a question that is also a concern:
I know very well the Church teachings on the fall and the loss of sanctifying grace, and how it compares to the doctrine of Total Inability. You pointed out at the typical Calvinist proof texts (which are quite a few), but when it come to trying to prove the Catholic position the texts were scarce.
More over, it seems like the only proof text we have to probe that man’s nature didn’t get totally corrupted is Rom 2:14, which you quoted:
“When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.”
My concern is that this text is extremely problematic for many reasons. Mainly because if the gentiles can do the Law by nature, then it means that as Paul says one verse before they could be justified by the Law, and if that’s the case then Pelagianism is true.
Aquinas clearly recognizes this problem in his commentary on Romans. In reference to this commentary he says:
“But the expression by nature causes some difficulty. For it seems to favor the Pelagians, who taught that man could observe all the precepts of the law by his own natural powers. Hence by nature should mean nature reformed by grace. For he is speaking of gentiles converted to the faith, who began to obey the moral precepts of the law by the help of Christās grace”.
In other words he is talking about the Christian pagan that has already being justified, and not of the “natural man” of 1 Cor 2:14. So, this passage can hardly be used to support the assertion that man’s nature didn’t get totally corrupt. In fact, I have noticed a couple of protestants exegetes like N.T Wright or Richard Hays suggesting that the best translation could be: “When Gentiles who have not the law BY NATURE do what the law requires” since the clause “ĻĻĻĪµĪ¹” can affect the name or the verb. This would make more sense exegetically but also in light of the Catholic doctrine of Justification by faith working through Love (Rom 13:10).
But at the end of the day my concern is that the idea of Man’s nature being only weakened but not totally corrupted is hard to “proof-text” and becomes more of a theological conclusion, which of course makes any discussion with our protestant brethren quite difficult.
What I usually do when I get into these deep waters is to use the case of Cornelius, which shows that his nature was good before being baptized and professing faith in Christ (“Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God”).
But in any case I just wanted to ask if you have explored others texts that could help us support the Roman Catholic view of nature after the fall.
thanks in advance for your help.
Hey Hugo (#2),
Thanks for listening to the podcast and for your comment. So, similar to what you’ve written, I’ve seen Catholics interpret Rom 2:14 at least two ways: (1) “by nature” modifies the verb “do”, in which case the GentilesĀ follow the natural that God has inscribed on their hearts (c.f. CCC 1954, 2070); or (2) “by nature” modifies the verb “have” in which case the Gentiles are not privilegedĀ to possess the Mosaic Law. Either way, it would be keeping the law not apart from grace, but healed and restored by grace (c.f. Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter, 47). However, with (1), this would be something that would be at least possible prior to explicit Christian conversion, and that’s the way I was citing it in the podcast.
To your question, I know Catholics have cited many otherĀ verses to substantiate the belief that the Fall did not result in the total corruption of human nature. For example Gen 6:8-9 speaks of Noah as a man who was blameless and righteous,Ā while Abraham is called righteous on separateĀ occasions (Gen 15, Gen 18) — of course, within the Catholic paradigm, their good ability still requires grace. Prov 12:5,15:26, and Psalm 112:5 all suggest men are capable of doing good, either in a salvific way, or in a way that is naturally good and thus, inchoately and analogically oriented toward the salvific.
The longer I am engaged in ecumenical dialogue, the less interested I am in the “proof-texting” debates, because I think they obscure the more essential differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, and because such debates often end up presuming certain Protestant premises anyway.
Hope that helps. in Christ,
casey
hi Casey,
Thanks for your reply. I listened to the whole series and was excellent. I have a couple of comments but I prefer to listen to the series again first.
In your reply you were referring to Genesis 3:14 but I think you meant Romans. Just clarifying that in case someone gets confused by reading your answer.
Your advice on avoiding too focus too much in proof-texting during conversations is great. Once you get in that infighting is hard to get out, and it all becomes a clash of wills. As N.T Wright pointed out in his debate with John Piper: “almost anything can be proved by picking piecemeal at verses here and there”. Thanks for the advice.
After studying the Thomistic position on grace, free-will and predestination from great scholars like Dr. Eleanore Stump or Dr Taylor Patrick O’neill, I can see better some distinctions between Aquinas’s and Calvin position. I have met some really smart and charitable Protestant brothers that belong to this new movement within Protestantism called Provisionalism. Their position tends to privilege libertarian free-will and the love of God for all his creatures. Unfortunately, when I mention a couple of principles from the Thomistic position, since they don’t understand clearly the difference between act and potency, they tend to conclude that this two positions are the same.
The main concern with Thomism is that BaƱezian distinction between sufficient and efficacious grace. The argument is typically that if how could the agent be morally responsible if God doesn’t provide efficacious grace? and how sufficient grace is really truly sufficient?.
Probably I am going into deeper waters here, but I’d love to hear if you have any comments on how to address this thorny question. I have noticed a significant interest from some Protestant friends regarding the Catholic position on Predestination (specially Molina’s), so I think this is a nice opportunity to have a meaningful dialogue.
In Christ,
Hugo.
Hi Hugo (#4),
Whoops! Thanks for the catch. I have edit ability at CtC, so I made the change with the Romans reference in my previous comment. I confess I don’t have sufficient familiarity with the Thomism/BaƱezian debate to comment authoritatively (or even speculatively) regarding your question. A couple of the other CtC guys who are true theologians or philosophers (e.g. Bryan Cross, Barrett Turner, Joshua Lim) would probably be better equipped to answer that question. in Christ, casey