Posted on 08/30/2004 7:37:41 PM PDT by Nevski
From "Orthodoxy":
"The man who cannot believe his senses, and the man who cannot believe anything else, are both insane, but their insanity is proved not by any error in their argument, but by the manifest mistake of their whole lives. They have both locked themselves up in two boxes, painted inside with the sun and stars; they are both unable to get out, the one into the health and happiness of heaven, the other even into the health and happiness of the earth. Their position is quite reasonable; nay, in a sense it is infinitely reasonable, just as a threepenny bit is infinitely circular. But there is such a thing as a mean infinity, a base and slavish eternity. *It is amusing to notice that many of the moderns, whether sceptics or mystics, have taken as their sign a certain eastern symbol, which is the very symbol of this ultimate nullity. When they wish to represent eternity, they represent it by a serpent with his tail in his mouth. There is a startling sarcasm in the image of that very unsatisfactory meal. The eternity of the material fatalists, the eternity of the eastern pessimists, the eternity of the supercilious theosophists and higher scientists of to-day is, indeed, very well presented by a serpent eating his tail, a degraded animal who destroys even himself.*"
"This chapter is purely practical and is concerned with what actually is the chief mark and element of insanity; we may say in summary that it is reason used without root, reason in the void. The man who begins to think without the proper first principles goes mad; he begins to think at the wrong end. And for the rest of these pages we have to try and discover what is the right end. But we may ask in conclusion, if this be what drives men mad, what is it that keeps them sane? By the end of this book I hope to give a definite, some will think a far too definite, answer. But for the moment it is possible in the same solely practical manner to give a general answer touching what in actual human history keeps men sane. Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of to-day) free also to believe in them. He has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also. Thus he believed that children were indeed the kingdom of heaven, but nevertheless ought to be obedient to the kingdom of earth. He admired youth because it was young and age because it was not. It is exactly this balance of apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man. The whole secret of mysticism is this: that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand. The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid, and succeeds in making everything mysterious. The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes lucid. The determinist makes the theory of causation quite clear, and then finds that he cannot say "if you please" to the housemaid. The Christian permits free will to remain a sacred mystery; but because of this his relations with the housemaid become of a sparkling and crystal clearness. He puts the seed of dogma in a central darkness; but it branches forth in all directions with abounding natural health. *As we have taken the circle as the symbol of reason and madness, we may very well take the cross as the symbol at once of mystery and of health. Buddhism is centripetal, but Christianity is centrifugal: it breaks out. For the circle is perfect and infinite in its nature; but it is fixed for ever in its size; it can never be larger or smaller. But the cross, though it has at its heart a collision and a contradiction, can extend its four arms for ever without altering its shape. Because it has a paradox in its centre it can grow without changing. The circle returns upon itself and is bound. The cross opens its arms to the four winds; it is a signpost for free travellers.*"
Commentary at http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9094/againstcalvinism.html
Against Calvinism
A critique of the greatest heresy.
"When tallying who the greatest heretic in Christian history might be, or at least, the greatest heretical doctrine, there are certainly a few sterling examples. Some might start with Saint Paul himself, oft cited as the originator of Christianity. It was Paul who, with his scholarly Jewish mind and particular spiritual vexations that turned the experience of Christ into a full religion. But I think one needs to better understand Paul's context to know his motivations and to read his works effectively and fruitfully. . . ."
"If I were obligated to pick one, which I guess in truth is presumptuous of me, then I would have to pick John Calvin. The influence of his life - from French lawyer to Reformation theologian to facist Genevan politician - may not have been so great. But the reverberations from his theology echo through history to our present state where Christianity may be entirely subsumed by his spiritual heirs (or "errs", as the case may be)."
"Perhaps the most frustrating thing about Calvin is that he almost got it right. He understood, correctly, that because of sin and human finitude, we cannot be active agents in our own salvation. The only active agent is God Himself, calling us through grace to be united to Him. God chooses to save us, we do not save ourselves by works or choices."
"Unfortunately, Calvin treats the subject the only way, I suppose, a lawyer could treat the subject. Martin Luther, who had the roughly same idea about salvation, was an Augustinian monk and therefore, rather than being true Reformation thinker, was much closer to Mediaeval ideas about God and spirituality. The Mediaeval period was one motivated very much by internal spiritual experience: the personal experiene of the Divine that lead one to internal transformation. In touch personally and intimately with God, the supreme Love of God becomes very clear. Indeed, Love becomes understood not merely as an attribute of God, but as a synonym for God."
"Calvin is very much a Reformation thinker, however. When the Black Death ended the Mediaeval era, the intimacy of God seemed very far off. As a reaction, society founded the Modern era, based on the principle of externality... Internal experience did not save people from the plague, so they instead sought to understand all the forces outside themselves, pursuing external knowledge. The promise of the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment was that through external knowledge, we could gain control over the forces affecting us. Indeed, the last 600 years of civilization have been naught but an immature knee-jerk reaction to the Black Death."
"The Reformation was not so certain that we could obtain control. It did, however, maintain the emphasis on external knowledge. God was just as far off for the Reformers as He was for the Scientific Revolutionaries. Luther's great objection was to any form of righteousness, such as the sale of indulgences, that did not lead to internal change and intimacy with God. Calvin responded that your internal state is irrelevant. His objection was to what he perceived to be a misinterpreted set of rules."
"Let a lawyer interpret Scripture and this is what you get. Rather than view Scripture as testimony to the faith of those that had gone on before us, the love affair of these writers with the Word, Calvin viewed Scripture as a legal document in need of proper interpretation. This legalistic approach further infects his theology: just as the Bible is a legal codebook, God is a transcendent Judge, with Whom and regarding Whom Love has no meaning."
"Calvin's great heresy, then, is divesting God of Love. In the entirety of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, the word "love" only appears twice, and both times it is in reference to the love we owe God. Without Love, Calvin reduces God to brute power concepts and legalistic approaches."
"God as the active agent in salvation ceases to be the transendent Being of passionate love for humanity, abiding patiently with each person until they eventually find their solace in Him... Instead, He is replaced by a version of Himself that chooses who is saved and who is damned without rhyme or reason except to exert His own power. Everything is oriented towards God's glory, His every action to assert His glory, our every religious devotion to praise that glory. He is an egotistical God, absolutely corrupted by His own absolute power."
"Unfortunately, the reaction of Christianity to Calvin was disasterously wrong-headed. What ended up happening with the Evangelical movement was the dismissal of those parts that Calvin actually got right and the retention of that which he got wrong. The Evangelicals insisted, as they do to this day, that humans are the only active agents in salvation. God has nothing to do with it, but instead, one is saved by "making a decision for Christ". They sought in this Decision Theology a gracious escape from Calvin's loveless God of arbitrary damnation."
"But because these reactionaries were also products of the Modern era, they kept the emphasis on external knowledge. They still insist upon reading Scripture as a legal codebook in need of proper interpretation and therefore continue to view God as an essentially loveless Judge. God's Love, once exaulted by mystics and theologians as God's primary and defining characteristic, has been reduced to subservience to God's Justice. Theirs is a God who imposes punishment upon people for breaking His rules, and Love once again has been subordinated and effectively eliminated as a characteristic of God's at all."
"In many Evangelical minds, God's Love is expressed by His desire to committ violence against us. Yet it is also expressed by God providing the legal loophole by which we can avoid His violence: Jesus Christ. Luther might object that Decision Theology does not cause inward change nor breed internal experience, but is rather a way of externally controlling and compelling God to save us through a legal clause."
"As I suggested at the outset, Calvinism in-and-of itself is not as influential as Calvin's Modernist approach to the faith. This approach, carried on in Evangelicalism, now threatens to subsume all of Christianity. Through media communiations, the message of Evangelicalism has managed to spread, convincing millions of people that theirs is the only true and valid form of Christianity. Even those who do not believe in Christianity have accepted that Evangelicalism is the "true" Christianity and often have disdain for those Christians who do not conform to Evangelical standards. This is what I mean when I say that Calvinism is the greatest heresy the Church has ever faced."
"How would I respond to the Calvinist, though? Not easily, since Calvinism by nature reduces the framework of discussion and has justified itself in tidy dogmatic packages. Calvinism only allows theological discourse in terms of dissecting a legal code, analyzing Scripture chapter-and-verse to determine the correct dogmas. Suggest that God is Love, and a Calvinist would ask 'what Bible verse says that?'"
"If one were to bring up any number of the verses that describe God's Love for humanity, then these would be neatly disposed of in favour of a theology built on other passages of judgement and wrath and power. Calvinism is a very, very tight doctrine... Coiled up as tight as a snake eating its own tail."
"Catholic journalist, columnist and humourist G.K. Chesterton once went about describing lunacy as a circle that is just not wide enough. There may be no way, logically, to prove to an asylum inmate that they are not the rightful heir to the throne of England. The horror of lunacy, he insisted, was not that the subject has lost all their Reason, but that they have lost everything but their Reason... They have tidied everything up in a perfect logical circle, impenetrable to attempts to puncture with Reason."
"Chesterton's solution? 'Nevertheless he is wrong. But if we attempt to trace his error in exact terms, we shall not find it quite so easy as we had supposed. Perhaps the nearest we can get to expressing it is to say this: that his mind moves in a perfect but narrow circle. A small circle is quite as infinite as a large circle; but, though it is quite as infinite, it is not so large. In the same way the insane explanation is quite as complete as the sane one, but it is not so large. A bullet is quite as round as the world, but it is not the world. There is such a thing as a narrow universality; there is such a thing as a small and cramped eternity; you may see it in many modern religions. Now, speaking quite externally and empirically, we may say that the strongest and most unmistakable MARK of madness is this combination between a logical completeness and a spiritual contraction. The lunatic's theory explains a large number of things, but it does not explain them in a large way. I mean that if you or I were dealing with a mind that was growing morbid, we should be chiefly concerned not so much to give it arguments as to give it air, to convince it that there was something cleaner and cooler outside the suffocation of a single argument.'"
"In the same manner, one might respond to the Calvinist that their theology make a quite tidy circle, but it is a very small circle. Chesterton even speaks specifically of Calvin when making his case of logic being the mother of lunacy: 'Perhaps the strongest case of all is this: that only one great English poet went mad, Cowper. And he was definitely driven mad by logic, by the ugly and alien logic of predestination. Poetry was not the disease, but the medicine; poetry partly kept him in health. He could sometimes forget the red and thirsty hell to which his hideous necessitarianism dragged him among the wide waters and the white flat lilies of the Ouse. He was damned by John Calvin; he was almost saved by John Gilpin.'"
"There is a circle quite larger than the circle of Calvinism. It is the circle that understands the infinity of God's Love. It is the circle that reads Scripture and, without needing or necessarily being able to point to a single proof text, recognizes that the message of the Gospel is Love. It is the circle that allows Scripture to move us to an inward change and internal experience of God rather than forcing it to feed back on itself as its own object."
"It is a circle that is able to repsond to perhaps the grestest objection of the heresy - the lunacy - of Calvinism: When asked about the Love of God, His supreme and sacrificial Love for humanity that caused Him to send His Son to die so that we may be united to Him, His Love which created us for Love and His Love which sustains us for that cause, many Calvinists state that it is presumptuous and arrogant of us to think that we are so important. Why should we be so significant that God should Love us so much? The response is simply that we do not know why God should care so much about us in our utter insignificance, but He does, and that is grace."
Nevski http://www.novaemilitiae.squarespace.com/
Yes, I have. Titus 2:11-12 teaches that God has provided that grace to all men.
Hence, while we, by our sinful nature, could not possibly come to Christ, Christ Himself has given that possibility to all men, so that they may make that decision.
Titus 2:11
11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, 12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,
I don't see in this passage that you referenced where it says Man is the source of the belief (and only some Men excercise the belief). I see the same "salvation to all men" reference that we alluded to in 1Timothy 2:5-6. Again, this scripture implies a universal salvation.
I think the topic might better be addressed if we grapple with the issue of John 3:3. What does it mean to be "born again"? Is this something that results from Man's (self inspired) belief? Or is this something that occurs which allows Man to believe?
I didn't say that. I said God has provided the grace that all men might believe. Without that grace, Man cannot come to Christ on his own.
ShadowAce:
"I said God has provided the grace that all men might believe. Without that grace, Man cannot come to Christ on his own."
I assume you mean, "Man can come to Christ on his own because of God's grace to all Men"? Still looks and smells like Universalism.
But I agree whole-heartedly in the last part of your statement, "Man cannot come to Christ on his own". That seems to be clearly taught in the Scriptures. And I must also agree with your assertion that God is gracious to all men - I believe this is what some theologians call "Common Grace". The larger question is that of "Saving Grace" - the grace that God gives that results (ALWAYS results) in our salvation.
Do you believe there are two sorts of grace? (common and saving)
Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark on the kind of Freepers who think God's favorite sport is lobbing hurricanes at sinners. ;)
In terms of the grace involved in salvation there is only one grace. The same grace which saves one man will damn another. The grace that saves the man who receives it will condemn the man who rejects it. It would appear to be the same grace.
Where does it say ALWAYS?
Saving Grace is given to all (Tit 2:11), but only those who accept it and Christ (John 3:16) will be saved.
1Ti 4:10 "For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.
Why does Paul makes a distinction in 1 Timothy between the Savior of all men and THEN singles out believers? Why didn't Paul just say "Savior of all men" and stop right there. What's the different of being the Savior of all men and Savior of believers? It seems to me the rest would be redundant from your perspective. This is from the very book 1 Tim 2:4 comes from.
Then there is but one grace. That one grace is doled out in equal amounts to all men and all men have but to accept (receive, comprehend, acknowledge) that grace. This is the essence of salvation?
Seems reasonable. But I still don't see the equity. From my perspective (a simple human), it doesn't appear that all men are given equal opportunity.
Some people are born to loving, Christian parents who expose them to God's love on a regular basis. Then there are people brought up into horrific conditions from birth to death who never (or rarely) hear God's message of salvation.
It seems that there are environmental factors that will greatly affect our choices. Does God control any of those factors? Can a man be blamed if he never chooses God when he rarely sees evidence of God's love in his life? Certainly some people are given more opportunity than others - is this part of God's "free" choice?
Exactly. You're not God, nor do you see from His perspective.
Don't put Him in a box.
But seriously--pray about the viewpoint issue. We cannot view the world as humans, but as God, if we are to understand it. Doing that is virtually impossible, I know, but we must do the best we can.
Grace is doled out to all men. Whether there are equal dolings or unequal dolings is irrelevant. That fact is that each man shall be responsible for the grace given to him. To whom much is given, much shall be required.
Seems reasonable. But I still don't see the equity. From my perspective (a simple human), it doesn't appear that all men are given equal opportunity.
Whether it is an equal opportunity is again irrelevant. The issue is not whether God gives each man an equal opportunity, only whether God gives each man an honest opportunity.
Some people are born to loving, Christian parents who expose them to God's love on a regular basis. Then there are people brought up into horrific conditions from birth to death who never (or rarely) hear God's message of salvation.
A lot of the former are preacher's kids and my experience tells me that a lot of them are doomed to hell. In regard to the latter, each man shall be responsible for the light that he is given. As Jesus noted in John Chapter 9, to those who are truly blind, those to whom no light has been given, their sin shall not remain. So God has to deal with them in his way. In the interim you and I, who have been exposed to the light, are responsible for the light we have been given.
It seems that there are environmental factors that will greatly affect our choices. Does God control any of those factors? Can a man be blamed if he never chooses God when he rarely sees evidence of God's love in his life? Certainly some people are given more opportunity than others - is this part of God's "free" choice?
God controls what he chooses to control. In the end God ordains all that happens, so in that sense everything is ultimately within God's control. He could force us to follow him or he could force us to reject him. Does he? I don't think so.
While some people have more chance than others to accept Christ, those same people have more opportunity to reject him. So to whom much is given, much shall be required.
No offense taken.
So we should not put God in a box? I whole-heartedly agree. God is God. As Paul says in Romans 9:20-24 (NASB):
20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
Paul certainly exhorts us to not question the motive of God. We obviously don't have proper perspectives of God's divine plan.
But what about this statement in verse 23, "which He prepared beforehand for glory". This seems to be one of God's privileges as well - to prepare beforehand. What does this mean? Is this how God uses environmental factors to guide our choice for Him?
Common grace is the grace of God that comes to all of us. We're told that God sends rain on the just and unjust alike.
In my opinion, common grace is a variety of prevenient grace which is grace that comes before salvation. Another variety of prevenient grace is "enlightening" grace which enables a man to clearly see the choice he must make to believe in Christ.
So, from your perspective, if I am an unbeliever I should curse the man who presents the Gospel to me? For if this man had never spoke this message of "salvation" to me, I could live my life with very low expectations from God?
In effect, we actually do a disservice in preaching the Gospel to those in the deepest darkest reaches of the earth because without our intervention, God may have spared their souls? Or at least took it easier on them?
If you are capable of cursing the man who presented the gospel, then you have rejected the grace given to you. You have no one to curse but yourself for rejecting it.
To those who claim they didn't know, they are without excuse (see Romans Chapter 1). To those who are incapable of seeing the light given to all men because of their infancy or incapacity, see John Chapter 9.
I've heard before the argument that preaching the Gospel is not helpful to those who are told.
Considering that they now have a chance to pass immediately from eternal death to eternal life, I'd say it was a pretty good deal.
Well, from a more pragmatic point of view, how many of those that you preach the Gospel to are actually saved? If you believe that all are eventally saved, then I agree with you completely.
But, if instead, only a small portion of those that hear actually heed the call, I would say you are doing a disservice. Am I condemning more than I am saving??? The Bible seems to imply that a minority are saved:
Matthew 7:13-14
13 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
I just don't think there is any relative judgement for those outside of Christ. Either you are condemned to an eternity of suffering or your sins are paid for by Christ. I think that all men are equal in that way.
But I can obviously see that God has given certain gifts, experiences, and love in greater measure to some over others. This, to me, is a sort of election. Regardless of whether someone hears the Gospel once in their life and rejects it or they hear it every day of their life and reject it, they still have the same outcome.
Not only this, but the unbeliever that murders 100 people versus the unbeliever that lives a moral life are none-the-less condemned to separation from God. Is that not true?
So from these assertions, I would say that God is not "fair" from a human point of view. I don't think "fairness" is a attribute we should use to measure the will of God. I would say justice is a better term.
You are assuming that they are not liable for the light that they do have.
Romans one says they are.
Therefore, they have zero chance before the preaching of Christ, and they have a real chance after the preaching of Christ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.