The eschatological quote was good, but as Wright says in his response, it isn’t quite the same as what he means when he speaks about eschatology… it’s not “the 4 last things” but the “overlap of the ages” that is primarily in view.

You wrote: “How is Trent covenantal and eschatological?”

Even though I would say that Trent is “covenantal” (in virtue of the role of baptism) I didn’t say that in the post above. Rather, I said that Trent was “sacramental, transformational, COMMUNAL, and eschatological.”

The communal aspect comes out in Trent’s reference to the catechumenate as related to baptism – i.e. its a communal (even covenantal) approach to sacraments and justification.

The eschatological aspect comes out in this section of Trent (Session 6, ch 7):

Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are bidden, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe given them through Jesus Christ in lieu of that which [Page 36] Adam, by his disobedience, lost for himself and for us, that so they may bear it before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may have life everlasting.

Trent is old perspective in that it isn’t expressly eschatological or covenantal but rather just an answer to “how one goes to heaven”, BUT the answer is close to the new perspective in many ways – familial adoption, ecclesiastical communion, sacramental transformation, obedience, judgment by works on the last day, synergism… That is why Trent is a nice via media between the hard-core “Old perspective” (Protestant individualism) and hard-core New Perspective (”it’s all about ecclesiology rather than soteriology”) – BAPTISM and DIVINE FILIATION or ADOPTION INTO GOD’S FAMILY THROUGH HIS SON, THE NEW ADAM, AND GROWING IN UNION WITH HIM – these are the keys to seeing that The Catholic Perspective incorporates the best of the old and the new, the soteriological and the ecclesiological. What Wright has (W)rightly added is the covenant with Abraham stuff, it’s missing from Trent as well as his OP opponents (not Dominicans but Old Perspectivists). It needs to be given its rightful place.

Hope you are well. I have been on a little vacation but have kept thinking about some of the things we have discussed.

Can you tell me by what strength can we stay loyal to God? Is is ours? Is it God’s? Is it back to the “cooperation thing” between us and God? If so, do we get the ability to cooperate from God, or from ourselves?

Thanks

Sounds like a similar journey! Welcome. I hope that you’ll take a look at the podcasts which are the meat and potatoes of this site. And please leave comments. We’d love to interact with your questions, concerns, and comments.

PS. Great site!

Yes, Calvin ignored the fact that an elect person can move in and out of grace. So can the non-elect person. Augustine explicitly teaches that justification can be lost – something inconceivable for Calvin.

You can be a Catholic and believe in unconditional election – and so Augustine’s belief is not abhorrent to the Church. The problem is not that Calvin believes in predestination.

Is that a satisfactory answer or were looking for something else?

Taylor

“Do you think that we are really spiritually dead, before we turn to Christ?”

Also, would you say that Calvin got it wrong in interpreting Augustine in a way that supported his own view of Predestination? I would be especially interested in your view of Calvin, Book 3, Chapter 23, Point 14. I have not written out the quotation as I am hoping you have not burned your Calvin books, (Institutes).

Thanks