Thursday, December 04, 2008

Recent Silly Stuff...

Look out those of you commenting on blog posts, a Catholic apologist iis threatening to bring legal action against suspicious commenter's on his blog:

"There is also the possibility of pursuing federal charges, too, if the person(s) persist(s). Jonathan Prejean and Paul Hoffer are both attorneys. I'm sure they'd be happy to advise me as to how I would go about seeking legal measures."

Classic! Maybe I'll be sued as well for mentioning it. Hey, it's a tough economy... (Hint, use the "delete comment" button instead).

Also, Dr. Art Sippo has been recommending a particular Luther biography which is supposed to be the "bomb" so to speak.... So I tried to track it down, and I could only find one used copy for a measly one hundred thirty five bucks. I find it hard to believe any information on Luther at this stage in the game should cost that much. Hint to Art Sippo fans: there are plenty of good Luther biographies for under $135.

And lastly, I'm sure many would not find this silly, but I can't help but shake my head at what happens with bad theology when it is taken to its logical conclusions. Check out this quick MP3 clip of Tim Staples explaining the makeup of the Eucharist if someone feels "ill" (to put it nicely) after partaking.

32 comments:

Alexander Greco said...

Well I can't help but shake my head at your head-shaking. So we can just shake our heads at each other forever. Hopefully, invincible ignorance will come into play so that for all eternity you are not looking up at me shaking your head. ;)

James Swan said...

Hopefully, invincible ignorance will come into play so that for all eternity you are not looking up at me shaking your head.

Well since I don't believe the that the RCC is the "true" church, I am not accountable for willingly rejecting her and her teachings. I would have to know and believe the RCC was the true church and her teachings were true and reject her and her teachings in order to be sent to place where I would find myself looking up at you.

Of course this explanation wouldn't work if you were Gerry Matatics.

James Swan said...

I left an "a" above but don't care enough to delete the post, and re-post it.

Alexander Greco said...

Then you just might find yourself standing down there looking up shaking your head with vincible ignorance.

Remember, it is not enough to say that you only have to 'willingly' reject the teachings outright. The human will is determined by the good; i.e. actual good or seemingly good. Your freedom resides in the rational choices that you make, along with the virtue of prudence, in how you distinguish between the actual goods from the apparent goods. So be careful when you state, "Well since I don't believe that the RCC is the 'true' church, I am not accountable for willingly rejecting her and her teachings." You m ight still find yourself being held accountable for your vincible ignorance. Peace out.

Alexander Greco said...

James said: I left an "a" above but don't care enough to delete the post, and re-post it.

I say: Neither would I.

bkaycee said...

Was the Lord Jesus "invinsibly ignorant" when He spoke John 3:16? Did He omit mentioning the "true church" for salvation there, or any where else where He speaks of belief in Him only for salvation? I cannot comprehend why conversion to the "true church" is more important than conversion to the Savior. Read and study the Scripture without the Rome colored glasses.

Alexander Greco said...

Bkaycee, fallacies such as your either Church or Savior will not work with me. Granting that the Church is the true Church, and Christ is our savior, then by being brought into the Church through God's grace you are converting to the Savior.

James Swan said...

Then you just might find yourself standing down there looking up shaking your head with vincible ignorance.

I make use of the grace God has given me. I am fully convinced of a creed that Rome would not adhere to. I strive to serve God according to what the Scriptures teach, and to love God with my whole heart. I desire to belong to the one true church, but it is not the Roman Catholic Church. I believe that Rome is not a true church, but by denying the gospel at Trent, formally became apostate.

I leave it to your personal opinion as to where I stand according to the heretical body known as the Roman Catholic Church.

Alexander Greco said...

James wrote: "I make use of the grace God has given me."

Me: I doubt that God's grace would lead someone away from orthodoxy. However, I am interested in your choice of words and I would like a little clarification because it seems that you have a synergistic view. You make use of the grace of God. You are here speaking of a cooperation with God where God has His role in providing you with grace, and then you use His grace like a tool in your toolkit. As Catholics, we believe that our cooperation with God is *through* His grace and the merits of Christ, not simply *with* as you seemingly imply.

EA said...

Alexander Greco said: "As Catholics, we believe that our cooperation with God is *through* His grace and the merits of Christ, not simply *with* as you seemingly imply."

As practical matter, how do you differentiate between the two? How can you tell that you are cooperating "with" God's grace as opposed to "through" God's grace?

James Swan said...

I doubt that God's grace would lead someone away from orthodoxy. However, I am interested in your choice of words and I would like a little clarification because it seems...

So we've moved on from the "above" and "below" discussion? I was curious as to what basis you appear to thin you'll be above, and I'll be below, based on what I posted to you.

James Swan said...

Here's just a quick follow up on DA's lawsuits against those who comment on his blog. It appears DA's legal threats were just another method DA argumentation:

"So I reacted strongly. Part of that (esp. the veiled legal threat which I had no intention whatever of carrying out) was to see how you would react. It was a bit of psychology."

Yes, stating "There is also the possibility of pursuing federal charges" is quite a veiled threat. It certainly was "a bit of psychology"- but in my opinion, not in the same way DA thinks it was.

Whatever the motivations, I appreciated the entertaining aspect of it all.

Stacey said...

James,

What do you mean, denying the gospel at Trent?

James Swan said...

What do you mean, denying the gospel at Trent?

Hi Stacey,

The Council of Trent formally condemned sola fide. Previous to Trent, no such offical statements on justification existed. For a good historical overview of this, R.C. Sproul's book, Faith Alone. As a companion, his book Getting the Gospel Right works through recent attempts by certain Protestants and Catholics trying to come to agreement on the gospel but using poorly defined statements so each side can retain their own meaning- hence agreeing, but not meaning the same thing by the words used.

James Swan said...

Alexander Greco said: "As Catholics, we believe that our cooperation with God is *through* His grace and the merits of Christ, not simply *with* as you seemingly imply."

EA, I can't speak for Alexander, but by "through" I would speculate Roman Catholics mean, "Through the sacraments."

L P Cruz said...

Effectively, can it not be said that in the RC understanding and by virtue of the "through" and "with" language that Jesus helps you justify yourself?

LPC

Stacey said...

James,

Is this what you're talking about?

Canon 6.9: If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

I get the idea from browsing your site that you're a Calvinist? So does this mean you believe in predestination? I'm really not sure, so correct me if I'm wrong, but that would be the "sola fida" declared anathema in this canon since our free will is left out of salvation, right? It's my understanding that most of Protestantism would not be anathema, since they believe we have to accept Christ's sacrifice of our own free will. Is that right?

L P Cruz said...

Correct Stacey,

Most Prots won't be anathema because most Prots are semi-Pelagians.

LPC

James Swan said...

Is this what you're talking about? Canon 6.9:

Yes, that would be one of the official statements from Rome is which she formally separated herself from Christ's Church.

I get the idea from browsing your site that you're a Calvinist?

I'm Reformed. I don't spend a lot of effort on blog posts defending Calvinism, though there are some. I simply don't have the patience that others do- I actually dislike reading negative comments about Christ's perfect work, so I don't venture into that area often.

So does this mean you believe in predestination?

"Predestination" is a biblical word. Even the hosts of Catholic Answers would admit to believing in predestination. The question is, what does the term mean biblically? I would adhere to a typical Reformed understanding of predestination as explained in The Westminster Confession or the Canons of Dort.

I'm really not sure, so correct me if I'm wrong, but that would be the "sola fida" declared anathema in this canon since our free will is left out of salvation, right?
It's my understanding that most of Protestantism would not be anathema, since they believe we have to accept Christ's sacrifice of our own free will. Is that right?


The Reformers fought to present the Biblical doctrine that it is the merit of Christ received by faith alone that justifies one before a holy God. It is Christ's merit, imputed to a sinner. It isn't the extra merit of saints, it's Christ's righteousness alone. Sola fide leaves no room for such things like purgatory or indulgences, or being sanctified in order to be justified. It leaves no room for the infusion of sacramental grace. It is all or nothing. It is all Christ's active and passive righteousness, given freely to the sinner. Christ doesn't need to be transubstantiated (Trent anathematizes anyone who denies transubstantiation), his work of redemption was perfect, and once for all-

I could go on and on- I would strongly suggest getting the two books I mentioned. Particularly Sproul's "Faith Alone" as it lays out in historical detail the Reformers conflict with Rome.

James Swan said...

Most Prots won't be anathema because most Prots are semi-Pelagians.

I recall posting on "Arminian" (for lack of a better word) types of Christians once before, pointing out that they in effect, turn faith into a meritorious work. That post can be found here:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/03/semi-pelagianism-101-arminians-are.html

Perhaps Stacey may find it usefull.

L P Cruz said...

James,

This is most certainly true.

Most evangelicals are saved by faith through grace.

There is a difference.

LPC

The Dude said...

James,
Would breaking with Rome have not been necessary/justified if Trent had not treated infused righteousness as the unica causa formalis of justification, but rather *a* cause, or the *primary* cause in addition to imputed righteousness? I assume you accept infusion/inherent righteousness in your soteriology and as part of the gospel then, but cannot accept a position in which it is the single formal cause of justification.

James Swan said...

Would breaking with Rome have not been necessary/justified if Trent had not treated infused righteousness as the unica causa formalis of justification, but rather *a* cause, or the *primary* cause in addition to imputed righteousness?

I'm not sure how helpful a hypothetical like this is. It would probably serve to confuse matters more than clarify, allowing Roman Catholic theologians all sorts of ideas based on ambiguous dogma. Is the gospel really that complicated?

I assume you accept infusion/inherent righteousness in your soteriology and as part of the gospel then, but cannot accept a position in which it is the single formal cause of justification.

Justification never rests on an infused righteousness that is gained or lost, depending on the sinner. Christ is a perfect savior with perfect work.

The RCC affirms justification is by faith. It is a necessary condition for justification. Trent says faith is the begininning of justification. What the Reformers argued argued though is that justifaction is received through faith alone, and it is Christ's perfect active and passive work that justifies.

I would deny any theology that teaches any works performed at any point in one's life add to the merit of Christ or earn any merit that contributes in any way to the ground of one's justification. Thus I deny that one must be inherently righteous by cooperating with God's grace in order to be declared completely righteous.

Stacey said...

I actually dislike reading negative comments about Christ's perfect work

I understand that. We all do.

I have to confess I'm really confused when it comes to terms like "Reformed", "predestination per Westminster", "infused", "imputed", etc. You guys are all leaving me in the dust. These ideas are pretty new to me, so I'll go and do my homework and possibly return with questions. I'd hate to waste your time explaining trivialities. I'll take a look at that website and maybe pick up that book, but that'll be much later.

One thing I will ask though...

The Reformers fought to present the Biblical doctrine that it is the merit of Christ received by faith alone that justifies one before a holy God. It is Christ's merit, imputed to a sinner. It isn't the extra merit of saints, it's Christ's righteousness alone.

From what I've read, the Catholic Church teaches it's Christ's merit alone that saves us. Here's an excerpt from Trent:

We are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

Later you said:

I would deny any theology that teaches any works performed at any point in one's life add to the merit of Christ or earn any merit that contributes in any way to the ground of one's justification. Thus I deny that one must be inherently righteous by cooperating with God's grace in order to be declared completely righteous.

I assume you're talking about this:

They, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified, as it is written; He that is just, let him be justified still; and again, Be not afraid to be justified even to death; and also, Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. And this increase of justification holy Church begs, when she prays, "Give unto us, O Lord, increase of faith, hope, and charity."

From this paragraph, they are saying the justification that comes through works is only a continuing and increasing one, not works meriting or sufficient for justification or even beginning that justification. I read this continuing justification that they speak of as an increase in Christ-like qualities. It's indisputable that when a person has a conversion experience and is saved, they are not instantaneously Christ-like. They become more Christ-like through reading the Bible, practicing charity, and praying, etc. With this understanding, do you still have a dispute? Is it just the wording or is there a real problem here?

L P Cruz said...

Stacey,

What Rome denies is that imputation as the only basis of justification.

Imputation means Christ's righteousness is imputed to you. This is extranos, a righteousness by crediting outside righteousness to you.

Impartation means Christ's righteousness is infused to you. This is called intranos, a righteouseness produced by you though nevertheless from Christ.

Rome tries to affirm both but it does not work because the situation is all or nothing, either it is finished or not.

The Reformers affirm the truth of both but in their proper place. They say that Imputation is the only basis, Impartation does occur but we are not justified by the good things we do after Imputation, why? Because the good things we do are not perfect, it is still tainted by sin though pleasing to God. In the end, the Reformes are affirming what the Bible is saying all along - It is Jesus who pleases the Father for us - Matt 3:17. and on that basis along we are accepted.

LPC

The Dude said...

Hi James,

"I'm not sure how helpful a hypothetical like this is. It would probably serve to confuse matters more than clarify, allowing Roman Catholic theologians all sorts of ideas based on ambiguous dogma. Is the gospel really that complicated?"

But would you not agree that Christ's righteousness becomes ours by both imputation and infusion, but with imputation as the proper and sole ground of justification? I also wonder if you agree with Calvin's sentiment, “Let us then mark, that the end of the gospel is, to render us eventually conformable to God, and, if we may so speak, to deify us.” (don't see why you wouldn't).

The reason I asked was mainly because of the theory of duplex iustitia floating around before Trent amongst some RCs such as Contarini, expressed in his statement:
"Seeing we have affirmed that we attain a twofold righteousness by faith: a righteousness inherent in us, as charity, and that grace whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature; and the justice of Christ given and imputed unto us, as being graft into Christ, and having put on Christ: it remaineth that we inquire, upon which of these we must stay and rely, and by which we must think ourselves justified before God, that is, to be accepted as holy and just, having that justice which it beseemeth the sons of God to have. I truly think, that a man, very piously and christianly, may say, that we ought to stay, to stay I say, as upon a firm and stable thing able undoubtedly to sustain us, upon the justice of Christ given and imputed to us, and not upon the holiness and grace that is inherent in us. For this our righteousness is but imperfect, and such as cannot defend us, seeing in many things we offend all, &c.; but the justice of Christ which is given unto us, is true and perfect justice, which altogether pleaseth the eyes of God, and in which there is nothing that offendeth God. Upon this therefore, as most certain and stable, we must stay ourselves, and believe that we are justified by it, as the cause of our acceptation with God: this is that precious treasure of Christians, which whosoever findeth, selleth all that he hath to buy it."

Now of course his view was known and rejected at Trent, but I wonder how much things might have changed if it had been permitted (either explicitly affirmed or implicitly through Trent's language if it had not used "unica causa formalis") since it seems it could be good ground from which a compromise could be attempted (Regensburg notwithstanding).

"Justification never rests on an infused righteousness that is gained or lost"

Does salvation? Or is justification/imputed righteousness equivalent to salvation? Or, is justification the center of the gospel, or is union with Christ? Perhaps you do not agree with that dichotomy, and rather view salvation in terms of a two-fold grace, or as Calvin says, "By partaking of him, we principally receive a double grace: namely, that being reconciled to God through Christ's blamelessness, we may have in heaven instead of a Judge a gracious Father; and secondly, that sanctified by Christ's spirit we may cultivate blamelessness and purity of life."

"Thus I deny that one must be inherently righteous by cooperating with God's grace in order to be declared completely righteous."

So "one must be inherently righteous by cooperating with God's grace in order" for what (or must they not be inherently righteous)?

The Dude said...

Hah, oops, not "must they not be inherently righteous", but rather "one does not have to be".

LPC, you said "Most Prots won't be anathema because most Prots are semi-Pelagians." Do you equate synergism with semi-Pelagianism?

L P Cruz said...

Dude,

Thanks for the Contarini quote., btw, that is good to know.

Yes I do consider synergism and semi-pelagianism the same.

LPC

James Swan said...

I have to confess I'm really confused when it comes to terms like "Reformed", "predestination per Westminster", "infused", "imputed", etc. You guys are all leaving me in the dust. These ideas are pretty new to me, so I'll go and do my homework and possibly return with questions. I'd hate to waste your time explaining trivialities. I'll take a look at that website and maybe pick up that book, but that'll be much later.

Hi Stacey- it's not a waste of time, and thanks for stopping by. The issues between Rome and the gospel can be a bit cumbersome, especially if someone is not familiar with the terms. Sproul's material does a good job explaining the terminolgy. His audio materials or his daily radio show "Renewing Your Mind" (which is available free on MP3) is also helpful. I have found even Catholics will say Sproul at least adequately explains Rome's terms and position.

From what I've read, the Catholic Church teaches it's Christ's merit alone that saves us. Here's an excerpt from Trent: We are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

Rome teaches that faith is a necessary condition for salvation, but not a sufficient condition. Rome holds faith is the beginining and foundaition of salvation, but it is not faith alone. The Reformers held it is faith alone which grasps all of Christ's work, and only the Reformers can consistently say that justification is received through faith alone.

they are saying the justification that comes through works is only a continuing and increasing one, not works meriting or sufficient for justification or even beginning that justification. I read this continuing justification that they speak of as an increase in Christ-like qualities.

for the Reformers, saving faith will result in a changed life manifested by works, but these works are in no way the ground of justification. In the Roman view, a person must actually be holy and just to be considered holy and just, and until that person is so, either in this life, or most probably after many years in purgatory, a person is not at peace with God (Romans 5:1). For the Reformers, a sinner saved by faith alone is completely just because the works that ave viewed by God are the works of Christ, which are freely given to a sinner by faith alone. One can't increase their standing before God, because God judges the sinner by Christ's perfect work. When God looks upon a sinner, he sees Christ's perfect works- therefore one stands justified before God, at this very instant- not many years later, eventually.

It's indisputable that when a person has a conversion experience and is saved, they are not instantaneously Christ-like. They become more Christ-like through reading the Bible, practicing charity, and praying, etc. With this understanding, do you still have a dispute? Is it just the wording or is there a real problem here?

Rome teaches one must be sanctified before one is justified. The Bible teaches one is justified, and then sanctified. Romans 4:5 "to the man who does not work, but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness."
Thanks again Stacey for stopping by- and I think it's great your looking at both sides. I suggest also checking out some of Dr. James White's debates with Roman Catholics on justification (aomin.org). Entire 2-3 hour downloadable MP3 debates can be purchased for a few dollars. It would be my pleasure to send one to you, as my gift.

James Swan said...

But would you not agree that Christ's righteousness becomes ours by both imputation and infusion, but with imputation as the proper and sole ground of justification?

Rome's view presupposes the only true justness or righteousness is inherent righteousness- that's why her apologists often charge Protestants with "legal fiction."

Imputed righteousness will always be the sole ground, and only ground of justification in Protestant theology. Any "agreement" here in the sanctification of a true believer between the Reformers and Rome is an ambiguity that collapses in meaninglessness when scrutinized. They are simply two very different gospels that can't be smoothed over to be the same thing. When one unpacks what Rome means by infusion, it is clearly and easily seen as something quite different than what the Reformers meant.

I also wonder if you agree with Calvin's sentiment, “Let us then mark, that the end of the gospel is, to render us eventually conformable to God, and, if we may so speak, to deify us.”(don't see why you wouldn't).

Calvin first says,

"For we must consider from whence it is that God raises us up to such a height of honor. We know how abject is the condition of our nature; that God, then, should make himself ours, so that all his things should in a manner become our things, the greatness of his grace cannot be sufficiently conceived by our minds. Therefore this consideration alone ought to be abundantly sufficient to make us to renounce the world and to carry us aloft to heaven."

and then:

"Let us then mark, that the end of the gospel is, to render us eventually conformable to God, and, if we may so speak, to deify us."

Calvin goes on to say,

"But the word nature is not here essence but quality. The Manicheans formerly dreamt that we are a part of God, and that, after having run the race of life we shall at length revert to our original. There are also at this day fanatics who imagine that we thus pass over into the nature of God, so that his swallows up our nature. Thus they explain what Paul says, that God will be all in all and in the same sense they take this passage. But such a delirium as this never entered the minds of the holy Apostles; they only intended to say that when divested of all the vices of the flesh, we shall be partakers of divine and blessed immortality and glory, so as to be as it were one with God as far as our capacities will allow."

the context can be found here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom45.vii.ii.i.html

Calvin includes comments on the eternal state, and is not in any way appealing to Romish doctrines like sanctification unto eventual possible justification.

In the same context, Calvin states "all possess by faith the same Christ with his righteousness, and the same salvation," and "We have indeed been once for all reconciled to God by the death of Christ, and by faith we come to the possession of this so great a benefit;"

There is no harmony between Calvin and an unpacked Roman Catholic theology. Calvin affirms that Christ's righteousness clothes the sinner. That sinner is righteous in God's sight. The sinner though becomes sanctified (not in a romanist way), and eventually partakes in the full benefits of salvation including immortality and glory.

The reason I asked was mainly because of the theory of duplex iustitia floating around before Trent amongst some RCs such as Contarini, expressed in his statement:

Contarini's views were scutinized at Regensburg, and the ambiguities, once analyzed were exposed. Even Pope Paul IV saw Contarini's view as betraying the church on justification. When explained, Contarini's views represent an infused paradigm, clearly opposed to imputation.

Now of course his view was known and rejected at Trent, but I wonder how much things might have changed if it had been permitted (either explicitly affirmed or implicitly through Trent's language if it had not used "unica causa formalis") since it seems it could be good ground from which a compromise could be attempted (Regensburg notwithstanding)

Contarini stands as a good example of the freedom and divergence of views found among Catholics during the 16th century. Recently while reading on the early 16th century apologists, I was really shocked to see that the major Catholic apologists during that time did not spend much time attacking "faith alone." In fact, many of them, like Contarini, tried to synthesize it into their own view.

Does salvation [rest on an infused righteousness that is gained or lost]?

No. Christ is a perfect savior.

Or is justification/imputed righteousness equivalent to salvation? Or, is justification the center of the gospel, or is union with Christ?

Salvation has several tenses in the Bible. Sometimes the term is properly equated with justification. In a broader sense, it encompasses the totality of God's perfect saving work (past, present, and future work). It is always a perfect work, and never fails, because Christ is a perfect savior.

Perhaps you do not agree with that dichotomy, and rather view salvation in terms of a two-fold grace, or as Calvin says, "By partaking of him, we principally receive a double grace: namely, that being reconciled to God through Christ's blamelessness, we may have in heaven instead of a Judge a gracious Father; and secondly, that sanctified by Christ's spirit we may cultivate blamelessness and purity of life."

see: http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2007/09/analysis-6-john-calvins-stroke-of.html
Helm does a great job in explaining Calvin, and I would agree with his exposition and citation of Calvin:

Commenting on the Council of Trent Calvin states that justification and sanctification

"are constantly conjoined and cohere; but from this it is erroneously inferred that they are one and the same. For example: - The light of the sun, though never unaccompanied with heat, is not to be considered heat. Where is the man so undiscerning as not to distinguish the one from the other? We acknowledge, then, that as soon as any one is justified, renewal also necessarily follows: and there is no dispute as to whether or not Christ sanctifies all whom he justifies. It were to rend the gospel, and divide Christ himself, to attempt to separate the righteousness which we obtain by faith from repentance. (Tracts III.115-6.)"

Alexander Greco said...

It is impossible to read Ephesians and believe in imputed righteousness. Go back and read the entire text. Throughout Ephesians Paul discusses God making us righteous, and not just declaring us so. Look at verse 5:5. Calvin should have done a better job of reading Aquinas and his description of the human will, freedom etc. Calvin's God is not the Gospel's God.

James Swan said...

It is impossible to read Ephesians and believe in imputed righteousness.Go back and read the entire text.Throughout Ephesians Paul discusses God making us righteous, and not just declaring us so.

2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith- and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast.

1:4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

1:13-14 and you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit gauranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession- to the praise of his glory.

2:1-7 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins,wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience; among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:-- but God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved),
and raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus:
that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus:

Eph 2:11-16 Wherefore remember, that once ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands; that ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ.
For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace;
and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

. Look at verse 5:5.

"But those who are impenitent, and allow themselves either in the lusts of the flesh or the love of the world, are not Christians indeed, and so belong not to the kingdom of grace, nor shall they ever come to the kingdom of glory"- Matthew Henry

Calvin should have done a better job of reading Aquinas and his description of the human will, freedom etc. Calvin's God is not the Gospel's God.

...and exactly how much research have you done on Calvin's citations of Aquinas...or are you just saying something you know nothing about?a