No, this isn't part of Westminster, but "...by His Holy counsel..."Rather, Calvinistic doctrine is very clear that there is no reason one human is saved and another is not. And by "no reason" I mean that the decision was made without any reference at all to the humans themselves. God may have chosen, but His choice had nothing to do with anything we did or failed to do. We are, quite literally, inanimate pawns in a game of God on Calvinism.
Another aid to furthering these conversations would be to focus on meaning and logic rather than wording. When the Calvinist says "by His Holy counsel" they mean nothing other than what I've already stated, namely that man plays absolutely no part in his salvation and it falls completely on God.
Agreed. This is right up the line with the Calvinist stance.The distinction has always rested on gift vs merit. There is no merit in accepting a gift. If I am offered $1,000,000 and I accept it, it does not therefore follow that I merited the money, or that I deserved it more than someone else.
It isn't at all. AMR confirms here that Calvinism rejects even the idea that man can accept a gift.
To me, it is simply asserting that mystery or otherwise, we take God's counsel and don't offer it but trust. I'd think the end result is the same for both here.The Catholic position affirms a mystery, something we cannot understand. It affirms that man, in some mysterious way, plays an active role in his relationship with God and therefore his salvation; it affirms human responsibility just as the Scriptures do on each page. Calvinism avoids the mystery but in the process loses everything.
There is no such thing as trust on Calvinism, for the human being is not capable of such an action which implies freedom.
1. Calvinists believe that there is absolutely nothing about man that influences God's decisions about whether he will be saved. Man cannot reject salvation, man cannot accept the gift of Christ, man can do absolutely nothing with respect to salvation.
2. It logically follows that God's decision concerning who is saved is arbitrary with respect to man. "God's Holy counsel" is logically disconnected from any factor that applies to a particular man whatsoever. This is essentially equivalent to random/arbitrary choice regarding salvation, for whatever variables God takes into account to determine salvation, none of them are minutely related to any particular trait of any particular man, most importantly including his acceptance of a gift.
3. The Calvinistic God renders permanent judgment, sending some to Hell and some to Heaven, without taking into account anything about the particular people being judged. This is obviously unjust.
You seem to be rejecting Calvinistic doctrine and claiming that it is something that it isn't. I'd suggest either converting, assenting to the three points above, or addressing them. I'm glad that you are beginning to question the serious problems of Calvin's ideas, but you are trying to sit in the middle where no middle exists, precisely because the middle is orthodoxy and Calvinism, by its very nature, has rejected moderation and resorted to extremes, such as is evident by AMR's post. AMR believes that a marriage covenant can be properly modeled by monergism, or maybe he simply rejects the marriage covenant altogether. :idunno: