A reader writes:
I’m Catholic and have regularly been invited to join a dozen or so Reformed Calvinists for theological discussions while enjoying cigars. The next time we meet the guys want to talk about the Ordo Salutus (the order of salvation). In Calvinism it’s the call, regeneration, justification, adoption, and sanctification – all occur in that specific order. I don’t see anything so neat and tidy in the catechism about such, and I’m not certain if Augustine or Acquinas ever addressed this. I hate to attend the next meeting without a cogent way of explaining the Catholic view. Any ideas?
The Ordo Salutis is a big deal in Calvinist theology. It’s kind of one of their theological calling cards, and they devote a lot of energy to it. That’s the reason that you don’t find something equivalent in the Catechism. Other groups of Christians also don’t focus specifically on tihs concept the way Calvinists do.
For those who may not be aware, the Ordo Salutis (Latin, "the order of salvaion") is a set of stages through which each individual is held to pass on the way to heaven. The order of these stages is fixed and the same for everyone in the Calvinist view, beginning with God’s eternal election of an individual (before he even exists) and ending with his glorifcation in heaven.
Different Calvinists include different steps in the Ordo Salutis, and they debate the details of which steps precede which. They also construct what they perceive to be alternative understandings of the Ordo Salutis based on the theologies of other groups of Chrisitans. They then set about critiquing these alternative orderings. (At your next discussion you may be presented with a "Catholic Ordo Salutis" that they have constructed and want to critique.)
Here is a typical listing of the Ordo Salutis from a Calvinist perspective:
- election
- predestination
- outward call through hearing the gospel
- inward call to respond to the gospel through God’s grace
- regeneration
- conversion (faith & repentance)
- justification
- sanctification
- glorification
Calvinists stress that these stages are not all separated in time. They represent the logical order of what happens in salvation but not always the chronological order. For exmaple, justification and sanctification are held to happen at the same moment in time, but–according to Calvinists–justification is logically distinct from and prior to sanctification.
To back up their understandings of the Ordo Salutis, Calvinists appeal to various biblical texts–usually in Paul.
ALSO HERE, ESP. FOR BIBLICAL PASSAGES.
From a Catholic perspective there are several difficulties with the typical Calvinist articulation of the Ordo Salutis.
One that I would point out–though I don’t know that all Catholics would point this out–is that Calvinists frequently press biblical language beyond its limits in trying to come up with a precise Ordo Salutis. Specifically: They assume that the biblical authors are using the relevant terms in univocal senses. That means: They assume that the biblical authors use the same words in the same way all the time, so whenever Paul talks about "justification" in a discussion of salvation he always has to mean the same thing by it, and it is necessarily distinct from–for example–sanctification.
This is a problem because Paul’s language is a lot more complex than that. See the early chapters of my book The Salvation Controversy for a bunch of illustrations. (One to have in your hip pocket for the discussion is the fact that in Romans 6:7 Paul clearly uses the word "justify" in a way that overlaps with "sanctify." What he literally says in Greek in this passage is "He who has died has been justified from sin" but the context is so obviously sanctificational that most translations–even Protestant ones–will render this something like "He who has died has been freed from sin.")
This problem goes to the theological-exegetical method of Calvinists.
The next problem goes to a particular feature of Calvinist theology: Their understanding of regeneration. Calvinists conceive of regeneration as a work of God whereby God makes the person capable of responding to him in faith. Regeneration thus precedes faith, which precedes justification.
Unfortunately, they are just wrong on this one. Regeneration is an impartation of divine life that normatively happens in baptism and baptism (in the case of adults) follows faith. The paradigm for adult believers would thus be: God’s iniative of grace enabling one to respond in faith > faith > baptism > regeneration.
Expect John 3:3-5 to be a central text in debates with Calvinists concerning regeneration. See the stuff from the Fathers Know Best section of the library at Catholic.com to show patristic disagreement (which is unanimous) with the Calvinist understanding of regeneration.
It would be possible to construct a Catholic understanding of the Ordo Salutis. Unfortunately, I don’t have the leisure at the moment to do the heavy lifting needed to do a detailed Catholic articulation, but the core elements of one (for adults) might look like this:
- God’s initiative of grace enabling an individual to respond to his call.
- Conversion (faith and repentance)
- Baptism
- Regeneration/Justification/Sanctification
- Glorification in heaven.
When you start wanting to get into more detail than that, though, problems arise.
First, you’ll notice that I have listed regeneration, justification, and sanctification on the same line. That is because God normally does all of these at once in time (which Calvinists will admit in the case of justification and sanctification). I don’t know that one can establish any of them as being logically prior to the others.
Second, between steps four and five there are things that happen, and they do not all happen in the same order. These include things like falling from grace and being restored to it. They also include growth in justification (a concept wholly absent from Calvinist though), and purification in purgatory for some but not necessarily all people.
Third, you’ll note that I don’t have anything prior to step one like election or predestination. This is because the Catholic Church has not mandated a single view of these matters and permits considerably more flexibility than Calvinism does. Thomas Aquinas put election prior to predestination (and love prior to election), but that’s a matter of theological opinion, not something that the Magisterium mandates.
Then you’d have to build in ways of handling the situation of infants who are baptized and baptism of desire situations and baptism of implicit desire, and you see how complex this is all gettting.
We’re now hitting the reason why Catholics (and other non-Calvinist Christians) don’t generally go in for detailed articulations of the Ordo Salutis.
God just doesn’t have a fixed order of how he applies salvation to people. Even if you assign fixed meanings to terms like "election" (and it’s not AT ALL clear that Scripture uses this term the same way in every case), God just gives some people graces at different stages than he gives others.
What you can do is describe, within limits, how God normally does it in the archtypal case, but there just isn’t a "one size fits all" paradim for this in Scripture. Calvinists are wrong to think that there is, and they fail to do justice to the complexity of biblical language and the biblical text when they assume there is.
This is why many non-Calvinist Protestants accuse Calvinists of logic chopping the biblical text on these points.
Now: If you try to explain all this, you’re likely to meet with some stock responses, such as how complex the Catholic Church makes things. There are a number of responses to this, including:
- Excuse me, but your proposed Ordo Salutis is looking rather complex to me already.
- Indeed, it’s more complex than it appears, since you have to have an alternate Ordo Salutis to cover the case of elect infants who die before reaching the age of reason.
- And the existence of debate even in Calvinist circles about the precise sequencing of some steps shows that not every question is settled in your own movement and that different Scriptures can be brought forward to argue different positions.
- Trying to work out a detailed schema of salvation inevitably is going to result in complexity because of the mysteriousness of searching out God’s ways, which is another way of saying
- I didn’t make it complex. God did. You’re just not wanting to recognize the true scope of the mystery of God’s action as Scripture presents it to us, and
- Despite the complexity of a detailed account, the core message of salvation can be boiled down into a very simple form: "Repent, believe, and be baptized." (And, if you need to add: "If you fall into mortal sin then repent, believe, and go to confession.")
- The Catholic articulation of these matters can thus be presented in very simple, practical form that even a child can understand or it can be presented in all the enormous theological depth needed to satisfy a theologian.
- If you’re having trouble keeping up with the latter, Friend Calvinist, I’ll talk slower to make it easier for you.
Hope this helps!
Calvinist exegesis seems to be stuck in the 16th Century, and tends to ignore a lot of the better social context knowledge we have now of how first century world thought differently to our modern world. Tektonics.org is a place I always recommend if you want to learn about this kind of scholarship and what we can learn from it. Although it is a protestant site, it is not hostile to Catholics, and a Catholic has even contributed some articles to the site. This link is their take on these issues: http://www.tektonics.org/tulip/tulipsum.html
I was unaware that a Calvinist would state that “justification and sanctification are held to happen at the same moment in time”. I thought, for them, that justification was a one-time declaration, followed by a subsequent process of sanctification. At least, that’s how I understood it when I was Calvinist, but I am open to having been wrong. Anyone?
I attended a Calvanist university at which the topic of our freshman Bible survey was, Salvation history. Central to much of this was this concept of Ordo Salutis. The final for the course was to compose a paper about some topic or theme in Salvation history as covered in the class. Being the lone Catholic (I speak QUITE literally here) and something of an atagonist, I decided to write my paper against the ‘doctrine’ of predestination. I took a slightly different tack than Jimmy has, because I knew I couldn’t lean on the Magisterium, by explaining that predestination was contrary to the historical precedence given to us in the Old Testament. I focused on, for example, the Biblical accounts offered in Genesis regarding The Fall (i.e. Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge) as well as the story of Cain and Able. There were other stories I used from Samuel I & II, Daniel, etc., that all illustrate a organic growth of ‘faith’ that yeilds God’s Mercy which is explicitly contrary to predestination.
Think of Predestination as the keystone — if you take it out, the whole of Calvanist Ordo Salutis falls.
I’ve always thought of the issue of regeneration and sanctification as indistinct.
In Reformed theology, no one is truly regenerated nor is anyone truly sanctified according to the definitions of those words. Luther said something along the lines of, “You’re simultaneously righteous and a sinner.” And then there’s the ever descriptive imagery of the dung heap covered in snow. What good there is now in you, is not you – it’s God legal declaration upon you, and His active will working through you (and here, I always thought of it as a kind of puppet master). You are not being made anew to walk in righteousness … you’re being moved, counter to your natural ability (total depravity), to do only as God wants and has ordained.
But in Catholic theology, regeneration and sanctification are very real. God’s declaration of justification acts upon me in force, regenerating and sanctifying me throughout. I stand before God not as a dung heap covered in snow but as a heap of snow. And the life of faith, continued in a renewing of justification/regeneration/sanctification, is about learning how to walk in this righteousness without letting the “dung” of life desired by concupiscence into your heap.
And, I could be wrong here as I’ve not studied N.T. Wright myself, but N.T. Wright has been stirring up a lot of controversy in the Reformed world with his “New Perspective on Paul” which seems to draw together Justification and Sanctification together in a way that makes Reformed folk uncomfortable and unhappy … particularly because it seems so “Catholic.” The summaries I’ve ever heard of it makes me think of the Scott Hahn’s “Romanism in Romans” (my first introduction to an explanation of Catholic soteirology) where Scott explains the Covenantal form and message of Romans that Reformed theology overlooks.
The Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification presents something along the lines of an Ordo Salutis. (for full text see http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html)
“The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God.
CHAPTER VI.
The manner of Preparation.
Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.”
Would the mystical tradition be part of a Catholic Ordo Salutis? I am thinking of Garrigou-Lagrange’s explanation of the Three Ages of the Interior Life.
Justification through Union with Christ and his Church
…
Having earned my M. Div. at a Calvinist seminary, they are not in the 16th century exegetically (though that may be true of the Wisconsin Synod, but I’ve only heard that)
They -are- in a fit over N. T. Wright’s recent work on Paul. I am not very familiar with this controversy, and how much of it is exegetical, and how much is theological. That by ‘works’ in the letter to the Galatians, Paul meant the rituals of second temple Judaism, including the various washings, seems to be a valid insight. The fear that this undermines “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God” seems to me absurd and hyper-reactive. Thing is, even if every time Paul says we are not saved by works means the Old Covenant rites versus the New Covnenat, now that Christ has come, it -still- doesn’t undermine that we receive the forgiveness of sins because of what Christ did for us on the Cross, plus nothing, and we only come to Him with the empty hands of faith. Just because a favorite proof-text doesn’t mean what one once thought it meant, does not mean that the whole flow of Scripture is changed!
John Henry,
Correct, justification is punctiliar in time, sanctification continues until the consumation when we see Jesus face to face and are made like Him.
AC,
The dunghill and snow thing appears to be bogus. What Luther meant is that while we are counted righteous by God, and adopted by Him, forgiven of our sins, we still end up committing sins, for which we still need God’s mercy and grace.
And how is that first Trent statement contrary to solus Christus, sola Gratia, sole’ fide’?
Aquinas teaches that it is possible for someone to be regenerated/sanctified/justified before Baptism and that this is simultaneous to them beginning to possess living faith, i.e., faith informed by love. (This would include repentance motivated by that love.) For example, he says:
“a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism
of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins” [Summa Theologica, P(3)-Q(66)-A(11)]
But which is the cause and which is the effect? Well, such an act of perfect contrition proceeds from a changed heart, the change being the result of an actual, effectual grace that infuses charity. Aquinas says that “in the justification of the ungodly, a movement of charity is infused together with the movement of faith” [P (II-I)–Q(113)–A(4)].
Since the act of living faith is an act of will, the following quotation is relevant: “The entire justification of the ungodly consists as to its origin in the infusion of grace. For it is by grace that free-will is moved and sin is remitted. Now the infusion of grace takes place in an instant and without succession.” [P (II-I)–Q(113)–A(7)]. So, it sounds as if something like the Calvinist order is a live possibility in Thomism, unless there is something I am missing as a very amateur Thomist! I realise there is a difference between prevenient and sanctifying grace in his scheme, but it seems that sanctifying grace is what is required for the act of justifying faith, if my reading is correct.
Thoughts?
PS
I could be wrong, but I think Jimmy’s ordo salutalis would only apply for adults if their faith and repentance that brings them to baptism is not “living”, i.e., not informed by charity. In that case the sacrament of baptism would supply what was lacking to ensure justifying faith if received sincerely, similar to the way that Absolution in the Sacrament of Penance is generally held to convert attrition to “perfect” contrition.
I find it rather interesting that you say that Calvinists “frequently press biblical language beyond its limits”, and then discuss Purgatory in the same article. Really? That’s a problem with Calvinists?
It is truly enlightening (not of Calvinism, but of the “theology” being demonstrated here; “theology” being in quotes because true theology means a knowledge of God, something that is NOT being demonstrated here) to see people trying to criticize Calvinism by treating Predestination as something optional.
Since Jesus is not physically present with us, the only reliable method we have of knowing the LORD is through the 66 books of Holy Scripture—NOT the opinions of men, but God’s own Word. If you don’t accept ALL of it you don’t accept ANY of it—and you do NOT know the LORD, but only your own fantasy of what God should be like in order to please you.
Predestination is clearly and undeniably lain out by the APOSTLE Paul (the one who successfully, accurately, and publicly rebuked Peter) in Romans 8:28-30.
To think that you may enter, or even see Heaven while denying what God Himself put into the Holy Scriptures is to think the thoughts of a fool (Psalm 14).
Ambien online no prescription overnight delivery.
Purchasing ambien online. Ambien online. Ambien online no prescription overnight delivery.