Exurge, Calvinisti, et judica causam tuam...

drstevej (Pope Piel I)

[drstevej]

Exurge, Calvinisti, et judica causam tuam...

Arise (some mss read Swarm), O Calvinists, and plead your cause. The doctrines of grace are mightily assailed by those who would proclaim with their father, “I will be like the Most High.” Set forth the biblical case for a sovereign God who is jealous for His glory. Disallow through disputation (and lampooning when needed) the damnable errors of those who have refashioned the great sola doctrines into a salvation-helper gospel that exalts the fallen will of man.

From every corner, in every thread exalt the right of God to do whatsoever He pleaseth. Be not dismayed by persistent anthropocentric rantings. Blessed are you when they revile you for the sake of the truth. Happy are ye when the Servetus card is played and the strawmen are paraded before you for He who is enthroned in heaven reigns.

– Pope Piel I, Thread Pope

[RnMomof7]

31 Calvinists on FR? Who Knew?

There are still many AWOL

My ping list has 106. So even allowing that some have left FR ...we are still missing many

[P-Marlowe]

But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. Just some food for thought. :)

The zin master and I had that discussion here. Follow it,

BTW, Where were you?

[RnMomof7]

Anyway, I thought I'd ping them, in case they would like to add their names to the list (perhaps we could add a "nominated -- pending application" section?)

They are on my ping list so they have been called to account for themselves:>)

George W was the one that had me start a ping list when I was still Arminian..it used to be his joke that an Arninian

Ohh GWB where are you??

[snerkel]

My plate runneth over. I'm taking a break tonight and posting. :)

[RnMomof7]

Seeing I have not posted a quote , I though i should get with the program

"Vain man would be wise, though he be born like a wild ass’s colt." Accordingly, he finds fault with election, as a mere system of arbitrary partiality and favoritism; and tells us that if there be such a thing as total helplessness in man, and sovereign election in God, then man is not to blame if he be lost. Man’s entire apostasy and death in sin, so that he cannot save himself, and God’s entire supremacy, so that He saves whom He will, are doctrines exceedingly distasteful to human pride. But they are Scriptural.



Why was one thief saved and the other lost? "Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight." God was not bound to save the one, and He had power enough to have saved the other, and neither could save himself. What made the difference? The sovereign grace of God.



Why was Paul saved and Judas lost? Was it because the former deserved to be saved and the latter lost? No, neither deserved to be saved. Was it because the one was a fitting object for the grace of God and the other not? No, the one was no more a fitting object than the other. Was it because Paul chose Christ, and Judas rejected Him? Well, but how was it that Paul chose Christ? Was it not because Christ chose him?



Why was it that Judea was made a land of light and Egypt remained a region o darkness? Who made the difference? Man or God? Was God unjust in leaving Egypt it the shadow of death when He made light to arise on Israel? What had Israel done to deserve a privilege like this?



Why is it that Britain is a land of light and Africa a land of darkness? Who made the difference? Who sent the gospel to Britain and withheld it from Africa? Is God unjust in leaving the mighty continent in the hands of Satan, and in delivering from his yoke this small island of the sea?



None have deserved salvation. No man is more fit for it than another. God was no bound to save any. God might have saved all. Yet He has only saved some. Is He, then unjust in only saving some when He could have saved all? Objectors say, Oh, those who are lost, are lost because they rejected Christ. But did not all reject Him at first’ What made the unbelief of some give way? Was it because they willed it, or because God put forth His power in them? Surely the latter. Might He not, then, have put forth His power in all, and prevented any from rejecting the Saviour? Yet He did not Why? Because so it seemed good in His sight.



Is it unjust in God to save only a few when all are equally doomed to die? If not, i there any injustice in His determining aforehand to save these few, and leave the rest unsaved? They could not save themselves, and was it unjust in Him to resolve, in His infinite wisdom, to save them? Or, was it unjust in Him not to resolve to save all? Had all perished there would have been no injustice with Him. How is it possible that then can be injustice in His resolving to save some?


There can be no grace when there is no sovereignty. Deny God’s right to choose whom He will and you deny His right to save whom He will. Deny His right to save whom He will, and you deny that salvation is of grace. If salvation is made to hinge or any desert or fitness in man, seen or foreseen, grace is at an end.



One of the controversies of the present day is respecting the will of God— as to whether His will or man’s is the regulating power in the universe, and the procuring cause of salvation to souls. The supremacy of God’s will over individual persons and events is questioned. Things are made to turn on man’s will, not on God’s. Conversion is made to turn on man’s will, not on God’s. Man’s will, not God’s, is to decide what individuals are to enter heaven. Man’s pen, and not God’s, is to write the names of the saved ones in the Lamb’s Book of Life! Much zeal is shown for the freedom of man will, little jealousy seems to be left for the freedom of God’s will. Men insist that it is unjust and tyrannical in God to control their wills, yet see nothing unjust, nothing proud, nothing Satanic in attempting to fetter and direct the will of God. Man, it seems, cannot have his own foolish will gratified, unless the all-wise God will consent to relinquish His!


Such are some of the steps in the march of Atheism. Such are the preparations making in these last days by the wily usurper for dethroning the Eternal Jehovah.



Men may call these speculations. They may condemn them as unprofitable. To the law and to the testimony! Of such speculations, the Bible is full. There man is helpless worm, and salvation from first to last, is of the Lord. God’s will, and not man s, is the law of the universe. If we are to maintain the gospel— if we are to hold fast grace if we are to preserve Jehovah’s honour—we must grasp these truths with no feeble hand. For if there be no such a Being as a Supreme predetermining Jehovah, then the universe will soon be chaos; and if there be no such thing as free electing love. every minister of Christ may close his lips, and every sinner upon earth sit down in mute despair.

Horatius, Bonar D. D.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

With all that benign tolerance towards Amyrauldian dissent, you'll have to include the Thomists: A Thomistic TULIP ~~ T = Total inability (to please God without special grace)

Thomistic Roman Catholic Application DENIED on the very First Point.

The First Point of Calvinism is NOT properly termed "Total Inability".

I am aware of the fact that some Calvinist Theologians have sought to re-define the First Point as "Total Inability", in a mis-guided attempt to countermand the Arminian argument for "Limited Ability".

But such Theologians are wrong. They are Wrong and Stupid.

The Holy Scriptures, and the writings of Father Augustine, know NOTHING of this imaginary and stupid doctrine of "Total Inability".

Scripture NEVER tells us that Man's free-will ABILITY of Conscious Volition has been impaired one whit by the Fall (other than Natural Degeneration), no more than his strength of Arm or Leg has suffered in ability to act.

I do not care that some Calvinist Theologians have subscribed to this ridiculous notion of "Total Inability". This whole idea of "Total Inability" is profoundly UNBIBLICAL, and indeed has given rise to the ridiculous Wesleyan notion of God "restoring" Man's Ability to Act -- Man never LOST the Ability of Volitional Action in the First Place!!

It is True, that Saint Martin Luther insisted upon the fact that Fallen Man is under Satanic Slavery -- and thus his Free Will suffers under the Bondage of Demonic Oppression. This much is true enough, I will admit.

But the idea of "Total Inability"? This notion I cannot find in either Scripture, nor Augustine ~~ Man never LOST the Ability of Volitional Action in the First Place!!

---

The genuine Reformed Doctrine of Original Sin can only be properly expressed as TOTAL DEPRAVITY. The "ability" is not the problem... the HEART is the problem!

In the Garden of Eden, the Race of Man has made his Free-Will choice -- he has chosen Satan, he has rejected God, he HATES GOD. "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." (John 3:19)

---

"Total Inability" is nonsensical. One might as well pretend that every man is born into this world with a broken Arm, or a broken Leg, as pretend that a Man is born into the world with a broken Will. The idea is simply absurd, and is opposed to the inviolate uniqueness of the Imago Dei.

The Will is not broken. The Will is INDEED FREE. And this is the Greater Condemnation.

For Man is not a Robot. He has truly chosen. He has chosen Satan, he has rejected God, he hates God. Strengthen his Will twice as much, and he will only shake his fist against God twice as hard.

Give his Will all the power in the Universe, and he will raise the Universe against God. HE HATES GOD. This is the natural spirit of Fallen Man -- his WILL is not the Problem, it is his HEART which is rotten to the core!!

His WILL is not the problem -- his HEART must be Monergistically re-engineered, by deliberate Divine Sovereign Intervention. (in this, his Free Will is not "violated". In fact, his Free Will is not even consulted. God gives Life as He chooses.)

And this, among many reasons, is why I call DrSteveJ a True Calvinist. I hear some of my fellow Calvinists talking about "Total Inability" -- and I mean them no disrepect, but such imaginitions are simply idiotic. "Total Inability" is a largely invented dogma.

Scripture describes Total Depravity -- Man HAS Free-Will Volitional Ability; but as long as a man is Unregenerate, he always hates God. And he will use his Ability to Reject God. That is the true First Point of Calvinism. Though you be an "Amyrauldian" -- would you not agree, DrSteve?

I think, perhaps, you will agree -- proving a better understanding of the First Point, than even some of the "Five Pointers". best, OP

[jude24]

Darby certainly did have his good points. He was a Calvinist, and I think he would be aghast to see the state at which the Plymouth Brethren are today, with the growing anti-calvinism all-too-rampant in the denomination.

There's a few of us who are dedicated to the doctrines of grace within the denomination. The PB's toleration of anti-calvinist heretics like Dave Hunt is deeply troublesome to me, since he is a full-fledged Pelagian.

My other pet peeve is that the PB insists on teaching the Scofield model of dispensationalism to children. I refuse to do so, because the children are not theologically sophisticated enough to recognize what's actually Scriptural and whats theoretical. Until they reach the age where we can say, "here's covenant theology and the case for it, here's dispensationalism and the case for it, here's the difficulties in each, and here's why we're dispensationalists" (which would be an advanced high school or adult context), I remain convinced that it should not even be addressed.

[RnMomof7]

Many faith groups hold Servetus in high esteem. I suspect this is Marlowe's church

For some it is hard to know one heresy from another

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Warsteiner! Heaven's man, you drink that Horse Piss? OP Boy, we've got to introduce you to the better cut of German Beers - Bitburger Lager, Erdinger Hefeweizen, and Koestrizer Schwarzbier. Look 'em up. #1 selling German beers in each category.

Yes, now... please identify the liquor shops selling these fine brews in the South Florida Keys.

(OP taps his feet impatiently)...

No answer?!?!

Yes, that's about what I figured. So, in the meantime, I'll make do with Warsteiner (ten years ago, I could scarcely find it outside the New York tri-state area. Progress marches on...)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Thought that was Spanish for "Let's have a potato."

Potatoes? Potatoes?!?! Only if ye plan to raise an Army on behalf of the Presbyters of Iona, to liberate "Greater Scotia" (ye olde Celtic Christian name for "Ireland") for the Reformation, Your Fishiness!!

Then, we shall all have Potatoes to spare!! "Freedom Fries" for the whole Great Reformed Ping List, cholesterol be damned!!

[RnMomof7]

Hey Sue..

[RnMomof7]

My OPC pastor did say Sabbath keeping was a matter of Christian Liberty. And a John Calvin Bowling league would be an excellent idea. :-) Although the after bowling BBQ might scare Arminians.....

Bowling pins make great fire starters ..

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The Race of Man has made his Free-Will choice -- he has chosen Satan.

Great post.

And since whoever controls the language, controls the debate, it's no coincidence the sharp, clear and righteous lexicon of the Reformers is being intentionally diluted.

I've always thought "depraved" was a perfect word-choice. All hope lost, save the Lord.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

My other pet peeve is that the PB insists on teaching the Scofield model of dispensationalism to children. I refuse to do so, because the children are not theologically sophisticated enough to recognize what's actually Scriptural and whats theoretical. Until they reach the age where we can say, "here's covenant theology and the case for it, here's dispensationalism and the case for it, here's the difficulties in each, and here's why we're dispensationalists" (which would be an advanced high school or adult context), I remain convinced that it should not even be addressed.

The whole matter of "Liturgical Inclusion of Children" is a quiet war within Conservative Presbyterianism itself.

As you know, Conservative Presbyterians have generally come to the conclusion that the New Testament Dispensation has clearly transfigured the mode of the Covenant Rite of Inclusion, from Circumcision to Baptism.

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the Circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in Baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:10-11)

However... we are unable to locate, ANYWHERE in the New Testament, ANY commandment of Christ and the Apostles, that the Children of Believers should no longer be Covenanted.

And given that God COMMANDED the Covenanting of the Children of Believers in the First Place... we cannot forsake the Commandment of God. Indeed, the New Testament does not command us otherwise... in fact, the New Testament reinforces the Ancient Commandment:

• For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call. (Acts 2:39)
• For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. (I Corinthians 7:14 ~~ cross-reference with any passage you please from the Old Testament)

If Believers in God, after 2,000 years of Covenanting their Children, were now supposed to STOP covenanting their children, surely God would have informed us of this RADICAL DISCONTINUITY. And yet the New Testament knows nothing of such a radical change.... "the promise is unto you, and to your children".

Now, then... While the Ancient Christian Church has, from the earliest records which are available, always Covenanted the Children of Believers (the most ancient Church Councils on the subject concerned the matter of whether or not it was necessary to wait "eight days", after the manner of circumcision), there is a Question as to how soon the Children of Believers should be admitted into the Rite of Participation -- The Christian Passover, or "Lord's Supper".

• There is a Presbyterian School which says that Christian Children should not be admitted to the Supper until age 12 or 13... but as for myself, I think that these theorists owe far much to Roman Catholic "Confirmation" and Jewish "Bar Mitzvah", being the Traditions of Men

• There is another Presbyterian School which says that Christian Children should be admitted to the Supper even in Infancy, that they may participate in the Sacraments of Grace. But I fear that such Presbyterians attend little to the example of the Old Testament.

I find both ideas quite Innovative (i.e., NEW and WORTHLESS)

As for myself, I find no evidence suggesting a Radical Discontinuity in Sacramental Praxis between the Old Testament and the New Testament. And where God has not specifically ordained a radical discontinuity in Sacramental Praxis, I shall not endeavor to create one.

Thus I am convinced to attend to the Model of Praxis once for all time:

• The Rite of Inclusion (Circumcision, Baptism) should be granted to the Children of Believers upon Birth. So it has ever been; so it ever shall be.
• The Rite of Participation should be granted to the Children of Believers upon their ability to explain the meaning of the Sacrament (Passover, Lord's Supper). So it has ever been; so it ever shall be.

The Church, is the Church, is the Church. And she is 6,000 years old.
So it has ever been; so it ever shall be.

best, OP

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I've always thought "depraved" was a perfect word-choice. All hope lost, save the Lord. 293 posted on 12/11/2003 11:08:27 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg

It is the perfect word-choice.

It is dead-on perfect word-choice.

And as I have alreadly said, this is why I have never relented in my defense of "DrSteveJ" as a True Calvinist, even though he subscribes to the Amyrauldian ordo salutis, to the dismay of some "Five Pointers".

I think that "DrSteveJ" understands this matter far better than some of our brethren "Five Pointers", even though they surely enjoy my love and respect.

They may be, perhaps, too enamored of Luther's "Bondage of the Will" -- for although Luther made some excellent points regarding the Demonic Slavery under which the Will of Man suffers, the Will isn't even the real problem.

The problem with Fallen Man is not in his Arm or Leg or even his Will -- it is precisely in his HEART. In and of his Natural Fallen Self, he HATES GOD. Give him twice the Strength of Free Will, and he will only Curse God twice as violently.

His HEART must be, by the Irresistible Power of the Holy Spirit, Monergistically and Sovereignly Re-Engineered to Love God.

And in this, the Holy Spirit does not overthrow the Man's Free Will -- in fact, the All-Holy Spirit does not even consult the Man's Free Will.

• The All-Holy Spirit creates Spiritual Life, where before there was only Spiritual Death.
• The All-Holy Spirit creates Spiritual Love, where before there was only Spiritual Hate.
• The All-Holy Spirit creates Spiritual Faith, where before there was only Spiritual Rejection.

And THEN... in Life, and Love, and Faith... a Man freely wills to Believe -- just as a Living Man freely desires to breathe sweet oxygen!!

DrSteveJ gets it. He really gets it, as far as this Presbyterian Calvinist is concerned.

"Total Inability" doesn't "hit the mark". It does not "protect the ancient landmarks". And it leaves the door open for stupid Wesleyan and Arminian and Molinistic and Thomistic theologies which WASTE OUR TIME. TOTAL HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY -- Why It Is the Real Battleground.

best, OP

[Revelation 911]

• Orthodox Presbyterian, Minister of Diplomacy

I love you both as only a confused Arminian Free Methodist can, but I admit to a big coffee spewing snort when I read that LOL

I would kindly ask Papal dispensation to be included in the ping list, to which I promise not to foul with the heretical humanism to which I find my heart strangely warmed (ref Wesley).....not to be confused with alphabet prophets and pedophiles from Upstate NY

[condi2008]

Have a favorite quotation from the Reformed church fathers?

Perhaps not the Reformed church fathers, but a Puritan:
“All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth to such as keep His covenant and His testimonies.”~Psalm 25:10
Not only in good things does a Christian have the dew of God’s blessing, and find them very sweet to him, but in all the afflictions, all the evils that befall him, he can see love, and can enjoy the sweetness of love in his afflictions as well as in his mercies. The truth is that the afflictions of God’s people come from the same eternal love that Jesus Christ came from. The ways of God, the ways of affliction, as well as the ways of prosperity, are mercy and love to him. Grace gives a man an eye, a piercing eye to pierce into the counsel of God, those eternal counsels of God for good to him, even in his afflictions; he can see the love of God in every affliction as well as in prosperity. ~Jeremiah Burroughs

and this man:
"I am always content with what happens; for I know that what God chooses is better than what I choose." ~Epictetus

Now, I must accomplish a lot of catch up reading on this thread before I can think about attempting to join your erudite (and snappy) discussion. I'm afraid I should be out of my league. But it is enjoyable to observe from the sidelines. As long as no one gets ugly.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Orthodox Presbyterian, Minister of Diplomacy ~~ I love you both as only a confused Arminian Free Methodist can, but I admit to a big coffee spewing snort when I read that LOL

I'm not exactly sure how I ended up as "Minister of Diplomacy", either.

I admit that, on occasions, I am sometimes more diplomatic than "Dr.Warmoose", who advocates using Arminians for 12-gauge skeet-shooting practice.

And I do maintain cordial relations with the Lutherans and the Eastern Orthodox, this is true enough (as I respect, with disagreement, their independent Faith Traditions -- which were not founded upon an artificial bastardized construct of Roman Jesuitism, as is the entire history of Arminianism)

But in the end... OP as Minister of Diplomacy??

Perhaps it is enough to say, His Fishiness works in mysterious ways.

best, OP

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Now, I must accomplish a lot of catch up reading on this thread before I can think about attempting to join your erudite (and snappy) discussion. I'm afraid I should be out of my league. But it is enjoyable to observe from the sidelines. As long as no one gets ugly.

We'll "get ugly" (or hopefully not) on another thread.

This is just a "Ping List" for those who profess the Martin Luther-John Calvin tradition of Unconditional Election. Your "Jeremiah Burroughs" quote is from a fine Puritan; and if you consider yourself an adherent of the Martin Luther-John Calvin tradition of Unconditional Election, I'm sure that DrSteveJ will be happy to include you (clear your Application with him; he is the Thread Pope).

[Revelation 911]

Perhaps it is enough to say, His Fishiness works in mysterious ways.

all will be revealed when I get my swarm decoder goggles with x-ray glass...