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/
Not sure where to start. There are so many issues I wish to discuss in regard to your post...
I think we should start by realizing we hold a LOT of common beliefs. That should be expected in any two individuals that hold Scripture as the source of God's Holy Word. I am primarily a student of the Scriptures and don't desire to align myself with any philosopers or theologians. Do I agree with some in more ways than others? Of course! I trend more to the Reformers in most of my understanding of the Bible. I have disagreements with most all of them on one point or another but they appear to have the best foundation of those I have studied.
Let's try to get to the heart of the discussion. You have trouble understanding how God could be a God of love if He elects those who are His children and you think this makes God an accomplice in our sin. You see no glory in a God that would be akin to a grand "puppet master".
My struggle is I cannot comprehend a sovereign God who leaves anything out of His control. This is a dichotomy I cannot resolve in my mind - that God can create something outside of His sphere of influence. I also believe that scripture teaches that Man is totally depraved. If total depravity is correct, then what power of choice does Man really have? The old adage "a dead man cannot save himself" comes to mind.
Do you agree these are our fundamental differences? Sure, there are subtopics related to these fundamentals (irresistable grace, limited atonement, original sin), but the above items seem to be central to our debate. Maybe we can concentrate on these issues to reduce our "thrashing"?
You see, unbeknownst to you and thePilgrim, Rev was part of an email group with many of the Calvinists. This email group was not hosted on FreeRepublic, but we all knew each other from FreeRepublic. Rev did not participate all that much, but when he did, he was welcomed and was considered a friend.
Now to the irony. Rev may have pinged the RM regarding thePilgrim's posting of private FRmail to the public forum.
But the irony is that Rev himself posted information to FreeRepublic from those private emails from that private email group. He posted out of context with the intent of making the Calvinists look bad.
So, it is only out of hypocricy (he never apologized nor asked for forgiveness for this breech of trust) that he pings the RM to the apparent rule violation of thePilgrim.
I can only see the rationale behind his motivations as an attempt to get thePilgrim banned.
It seems to be the M.O. of the "neeners" to attempt to silence the Calvinists.
When they simply cannot respond to the arguments presented or to the critiques of their own theology, they either demand any specific Calvinist to refrain from pinging them, or they attempt to bring in the moderator in the hopes that the moderator will make notes on what the "neeners" think are abuses of FR rules by the Calvinists.
In the end, I fully believe that you are correct in your feeling that there is an orchestrated attempt to get the Calvinists of of FreeRepublic.
Jean
Luke 6:22
Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
With all due respect, Rev.
I don't know who you are talking about here.
There is no Calvinist or Arminian that I know of who believed that Christ washed "only some sins".
The Calvinist confessionally declares that Christ washed ~ALL~ the sins of those for whom he died without exception.
Article 21: The AtonementWe believe that Jesus Christ is a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek-- made such by an oath-- and that he presented himself in our name before his Father, to appease his wrath with full satisfaction by offering himself on the tree of the cross and pouring out his precious blood for the cleansing of our sins, as the prophets had predicted.
For it is written that "the chastisement of our peace" was placed on the Son of God and that "we are healed by his wounds." He was "led to death as a lamb"; he was "numbered among sinners"45 and condemned as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, though Pilate had declared that he was innocent.
So he paid back what he had not stolen,46 and he suffered-- the "just for the unjust,"47 in both his body and his soul-- in such a way that when he senses the horrible punishment required by our sins his sweat became like "big drops of blood falling on the ground."48 He cried, "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?"49
And he endured all this for the forgiveness of our sins.
Therefore we rightly say with Paul that we "know nothing but Jesus and him crucified";50 we consider all things as "dung for the excellence of the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ."51 We find all comforts in his wounds and have no need to seek or invent any other means to reconcile ourselves with God than this one and only sacrifice, once made, which renders believers perfect forever.
This is also why the angel of God called him Jesus-- that is, "Savior"-- because he would save his people from their sins.52
45 Isa. 53:4-12 46 Ps. 69:4 47 1 Pet. 3:18 48 Luke 22:44 49 Matt. 27:46 50 1 Cor. 2:2 51 Phil. 3:8 52 Matt. 1:21
(Article 21 of the Belgic Confession)
The Arminian declares that Christ did not actually wash ~ANY~ of the sins of those for whom he died.
”A spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred in recent decades. Thus many Arminians whose theology is not very precise say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Yet such a view is foreign to Arminianism, which teaches instead that Christ suffered for us. Arminians teach what Christ did he did for every person; therefore what he did could not have been to pay the penalty, since no one would then ever go into eternal perdition...They also feel that God the Father would not be forgiving us at all if his justice was satisfied by the real thing that justice needs: punishment. They understand that there can be only punishment or forgiveness, not both—realizing, e.g., that a child is either punished or forgiven, not forgiven after the punishment has been meted out.”
-Arminian theologian J.K. Grider, “Arminianism” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology p. 80.“If other cardinal doctrines of Calvinism are true, its doctrine of atonement is true. It is an integral part of the system, and in full harmony with every other part of it. The doctrines of divine sovereignty and decrees, of unconditional election to salvation, of the effectual calling and final perseverance of the elect, and that their salvation is monergistically wrought as it is sovereignly decreed, require an atonement which in its very nature is and must be effectual in the salvation of all for whom it is made. Such an atonement the system has in the absolute substitution of Christ, both in precept and penalty, in behalf of the elect. He fulfills the righteousness which the law requires of them, and suffers the punishment which their sins deserve. By the nature of the substitution both must go to their account. Such a theory of atonement is in scientific accord with the whole system. And the truth of the system would carry with it the truth of the theory. It can admit no other theory. Nor can such an atonement be true if the system be false”
-Arminian theologian John Miley, “The Atonement in Christ”, p. 22
When it comes down to it, both Calvinists and Arminians believe in a "limited" Atonement. While the Calvinist limits the "scope" (for whom Christ died), he does not limit the magnitude (Christ paid the price completely for ~ALL~ the sins of those for whom he died).
On the other hand, while the Arminian limits the magnitude (Christ did not actually pay the price completely for ALL the sins of ALL men without exception even though he died for ALL men without exception), he does not limit the scope (for whom Christ died) of the Atonement.
Puritan John Owen best sums the concept up in the following axiom:
The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:
- All the sins of all men.
- All the sins of some men, or
- Some of the sins of all men.
In which case it may be said:
You answer, "Because of unbelief."
- That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
- That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
- But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?
I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"
The solid logic of Owen’s axiom makes it self evident as to why the Arminian denies that Christ was actually punished for the sins of any man -either deny that, or embrace universalism.
And by denying that Christ actually paid the price for our sins, the Biblical problems for Arminian theology continue to stack up.
Jean
I have never, even once, had any conversation or other communication with anyone concerning any attempt to get someone banned or suspended. There has never been a need to even attempt to do so. Those who have been banned were quite successful on their own to get banned.
I do not equate my beliefs with the Gospel, so I am not so emotionally to my opinions that admitting I might misunderstand the Bible in some way destroys my theology. Many in the GRPL, but I don't think you would be, are that emotionally committed to their theology. Personally I think you have a relatively open mind about it all. We may disagree on lots of stuff, but it is a reasoned disagreement.
I have never really followed any of the Roman Catholic threads, but I got a sense that drstevej's major problems with the mods were more a result his participation and arguments on Roman Catholic thread.
What do you think?
Thanks. I appreciate your honesty.
All people get emotionally charged in their beliefs. Our jobs, as Christians, is to turn the other cheek.
Actually Arminian and Weslyan theology has Jesus Blood not saving anyone.
No one was saved at the cross, it was only a potential salvation not an actual one .
Calvinists believe Jesus really did save at the cross (contrary to arminian theology) .Jesus saved every one that He intended to (as His father willed, all those the Father drew)
Rev think of the typologies in the bible.
God applied the bloody skins to Adam and Eve to cover them . They has done as they willed and covered themselves with fig leaves.
The animal sacrifices were only effective for the elect nation of Israel .
But the principles and typologies of the limited atonement are all through out the OT.
As an example
God made a covenant with the twelve tribes of Israel (Gods elect nation) at the foot of Mount Sinai. Animal sacrifices were offered,as God had prescribed Then "Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you.
Hebrews 5 through 10 is a New Testament commentary on Leviticus, emphasizing the priesthood of Christ and his atoning death. there is nothing there to indicate the sacrifice of the High Priest was an unlimited atonment .
The sacrificial system of Leviticus foreshadows tha sacrifice of Calvery
"On the Day of Atonement the priest made a special sacrifice. At this annual event, the High Priest would make a sacrifice for the nation of Israel as a whole. He would take two goat kids, one of which would become a burnt offering.
The second kid was a sin offering,( "scapegoat." )The High Priest would place his hands on the goat's head and confess over it the sins of the nation of Israel . Israel's sin was symbolically transferred to the goat. Then the goat was released in the wilderness, to die in the wild .
Both these goats were types of Christ. The first died for Israel's sins. The second, the scapegoat, symbolized the carrying away of their sin, where it would be lost and forgotten. Like the first, Christ died for our sins and like the second He carried away our sins "as far as the east is from the west" , But when that High Priest placed his hands on those goats he knew who's sin he was transfering. It was specific to the nation of Israel
All of this was peculiar to the agreement between God and Israel. It was not a general atonment by the Lamb. It was a specific atonment for a limited preselected people.
This type of Christ demonstrated a limited atonement-
Jean -
I once had a discussion on the issue of Christ's substitutionary death (atonement) for our sins with a Christian brother. I would be interested in your view on the discussion.
My friend looked at our sin and guilt before God analogous to case law. That because of Christ's death, it was "just as though we had not sinned". His view was that our sins were erased and stricken from our record. I was more of the opinion, using the same case law analogy, that we were declared guilty before God's judgement throne yet the penalty of our sin was paid by Christ.
There is a minor difference between these two schools of thought since they both have similar results but I do think the difference is significant enough to argue. What say you?
The last time, Dr. Steve was banned for posting a NOAA gif to CALRepGal who also was banned. It was not on a RCC thread. I don't know the history of the NOAA gif and why the Mod was upset. Nor am I'm going to criticize the Mod.
But based on Rev post in #305, he admits having had a hand in the banning of Dr. Steve. Why he would be upset with the NOAA gif, which was posted only to CALRepGal is anyone's guess.
I think a better legal illustration would be that our convictions for our sins have been expunged from the record. The record reflects no existence of our past sins.
He was also very ungrateful concerning my agreement to remove the posts related to an opiniopn of a friend of his concerning drstevej's theology. He is not a very compassionate person.
True, but on Jesus was laid the sins of the whole world. So if you use the scapegoat analogy, then Jesus substitutionary atonement reached every sin of every man. The scapegoat was a limited atonement and the lamb was an unlimited atonement.
Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
If you take this verse literally, then all sin would be gone already - we would be living in Eden again. This is obviously not true. There is obviously a limit to the removal of sin in some way. The verse might be saying that it will (in the future) take away every sinners sin but this would be universalism. It could also mean that Christ will remove sin from the world eventually (i.e. when He comes again). This may speak more about a coming world in which sin no longer reigns...
In light of the whole of scripture, I tend more toward the latter interpretation.
Good question.
I would count myself in agreement with you -although I typically do not always care for the use of analogies -such as in an analogy to "case law". That gets too technical -especially considered the vast majority of Christians are not schooled in law.
That being said, I think the "rank and file" Christian -whether Arminian or Calvinist- would undoubtedly confess that Christ did indeed receive the punishment that was due to that "rank and file" Christian.
Why not? It certainly is Biblical. The Scriptures explicitly tell us that Christ was the "propitiation". It was either topcat54 or stop_killing_unborn_babies who emphasized that aspect just a few days ago.
Sadly, the doctrine of the Atonement and Justification are not discussed as they should be around here. The Arminians just aren't interested. Perhaps that is due to the fact that learned Arminians simply cannot make up their minds as to what it actually means. They do speak with a unified voice, however, in denying the Penal Atonement Theory. One Arminian is on record as saying Christ did a "something". Another is on record as saying that Christ "suffered" for us so that God can "believe in us" once again.
But I digress.
I have said often that we must have a correct Doctrine of God as a foundation for our Soteriological discussions.
The Arminians start with Free-Will and thus, understandably, some Arminians flirt with and even end up embracing "Open Theism". xzins himself once flirted with that very heresy just a couple of years ago on this thread. He has since rejected it. And one of the other FRminians can now be counted as a full fledged Open Theist -although he rarely posts here anymore.
It should not come as a suprise, then, that Calvin starts out with the "Doctrine of God" in his Institutes.
Summed up, if we understand that God is a perfectly JUST God, we know that our sins needs to be accounted for. It simply cannot be "taken off the books". Punishment must be given, or God is not actually perfectly JUST.
Since God is perfectly JUST and requires recompence for our sin, and since we are sinful human beings -even guilty of Adams sin as the Doctrine of "Orignal Sin" professes- we need a perfect sacrifice -the "unblemished Lamb"- to take our place.
Thus, Christ's atonement actually received the punishment that was due me and he fully paid for my sin.
Hand-in-hand with the Atonement is the Doctrine of Justification. We are made Holy and deemed Righteous because of Christ's active and passive obedience to the Law that has been imputed (credited) to us.
Arminianism, with its denial of Imputation, has at heart made Christ simply "suffer". Apparently, this "suffering" was enough such that God simply "imparts" (gives) man forgiveness and "imparts" man righteousness. It is not on account of Christ that we are forgiven and righteousness.
Less known, actually, is the Arminian position of the "new law" which states that we now must "accept" Jesus in order to fulfill the new law and account for our own righteousness. Wierd stuff!
Jean
We have discussed ping lists before.
Especially when you choose to use my name in a post in a negative (and less than forthright) way please give me a separate ping and not at the end of a list.
Less known, perhaps, yet I would guess your average American Christian if pushed to describe the relationship between faith and justification would describe exactly Neonomianism (New Law). And who can blame them?
First off, American Christians go around calling themselves "New Testament Christians", as if the way to salvation somehow changed between the Old Testament and the New despite Paul's own words.
Second, the whole process: the altar call, the decision card, and the sinners incantation is "the way" to salvation as popularly presented in many Churches. By carefully following these "spiritual laws", you too can be saved. Once the baptism has been completed the "new law" will have been satisfied and the person will go on their merry way, happy in the knowledge that they have fulfilled all the requirements.
no no - I was only injecting some sarcasm
I never admitted I "baited" him - he wouldnt even respond to my posts and pings - so please dont fib
You being one as you yourself admitted.
I admitted nothing other than whacking the button a few times
I’m not going to waste the Religious Moderator time with such petty squabbling
Yet you pinged him to your suppositions
I’m only pinging him/her because of your ping to the RM with your post. (as habit I try to ping all who were pinged to me).
uh huh
Personally since verifying this would probably be next to impossible I would like to see the banned Calvinists restored and as a sign of good faith I would like to hear you say the same.
Hold your breath - some really deserved it for thier violation of posted rules
Gal 6:7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
Yes they have - havent they ?
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.