Chesterton on Determinism, Calvinism, and Commentary Thereon

Nevski

[visually_augmented]

Chesterton:
"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."


Can someone explain to me what Chesterton's stand on Scripture might be? Does he believe there are multiple interpretations of Scripture? Seems he may consider the Scripture as a biographical novel or love story and not the inspired word of God. Somewhat surprising that he would even capatilize the word scripture in that case.

I propose that if someone is in possession of the very word of God, a task of utmost importance would be to understand and interpret that word precisely.

[siunevada]

Um, Chesterton died in 1936, about three decades before Vatican II.

Let's try not to confuse things with the facts.

Okay, okay. Then he was a post Vatican I RC. They must have also been deperately deluded group, right? Infallibility and such. Hmph.

[HarleyD]

"Can someone explain to me what Chesterton's stand on Scripture might be?

"[T]he Catholic Church...does not, in the conventional phrase, believe what the Bible says, for the simple reason that the Bible does not say anything. You cannot put a book in the witness-box and ask it what it really means. The Fundamentalist controversy itself destroys Fundamentalism. The Bible by itself cannot be a basis of agreement when it is a cause of disagreement; it cannot be the common ground of Christians when some take it allegorically and some literally. The Catholic refers it to something that can say something, to the living, consistent, and continuous mind of which I have spoken; the highest mind of man guided by God."

G. K. Chesterton

Why I Am A Catholic

[HarleyD]

Can someone explain to me what Chesterton's stand on Scripture might be?

"[T]he Catholic Church...does not, in the conventional phrase, believe what the Bible says, for the simple reason that the Bible does not say anything. You cannot put a book in the witness-box and ask it what it really means. The Fundamentalist controversy itself destroys Fundamentalism. The Bible by itself cannot be a basis of agreement when it is a cause of disagreement; it cannot be the common ground of Christians when some take it allegorically and some literally. The Catholic refers it to something that can say something, to the living, consistent, and continuous mind of which I have spoken; the highest mind of man guided by God."

G. K. Chesterton

Why I Am A Catholic

[connectthedots]

"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."

Explains alot about many Calvinists I know; and Calvin himself.

[xzins]

Arminianism: Those fortunate few (not everyone) who have an opportunity to hear the gospel are given a choice. Those who don't get the opportunity to hear the message it's Hell. If some of those fortunate few make the wrong choice it's Hell for them.

Actually, you have that wrong.

God has provided for all to have the opportunity for salvation via the law. For some the law is written on their hearts; for others it was in the mosaic code.

In Christ, all have the opportunity to pass immediately from death to life through faith in the sacrifice of atonement rather than through the law which no man has been able to keep excepting The One. The sacrifice of The One was necessitated because of God's Justice and God's Love.

[visually_augmented]

Well, how do you argue with a man who claims "the highest mind of man guided by God" holds sway over Scripture (now I truly am surprised he has capitalized the word Scripture - it must have been his editor's fault).

I suppose Chesterton maybe had access to the "pope phone"? You know, the one that gives direct access to God's Holy and Divine Will. As far as I know, it is impossible to debate a man claiming divine authority.

[HarleyD]

"Actually, you have that wrong....God has provided for all to have the opportunity for salvation via the law. For some the law is written on their hearts; for others it was in the mosaic code.

Then HOW is the law written on their hearts and WHO writes it on their hearts if they never hear it? After all, with the Arminian perspective faith comes from hearing. That's what everyone keeps telling me with this or that exception.

[HarleyD]

I especially like the part about "the highest mind of man guided by God." Wouldn't the Dali Lama sitting on a mountain top have the highest mind? :O)

[aruanan]

Thanks for posting this. Get ready for a slew of trite, predetermined Calvinist reflexive knee-jerk responses. The modern reader would find John Wesley's essays on Calvinism quite interesting. You'd think he was responding to some tract by M.R. DeHaan. This is how long some of these "arguments" have been around and a measure of how threadbare they've become. Unfortunately, there's always a new generation of existentially uncertain and theologically uncritical folks who will glom onto Calvinism like they're drowning.

[perform_to_strangers]

The ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, "This is all hocus-pocus"; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation, breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might express that general view. I can understand his saying, "Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it are bosh." But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of that particular creed? To say to the priests, "Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense," is sensible. To say, "Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest," is not sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street.

G. K. Chesterton

The Catholic Church and Conversion

[lockeliberty]

IMO the fact that "God is Holy" makes it necessary...

Well golly, ya first have to figger out what holiness is, dohncha?

[aruanan]

"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."

I bet that as Calvin was growing up in France and attending seminary, the outlawed books being smuggled into Europe from Spain were probably pretty hot stuff, especially for someone like Calvin the incipient reformer. Against the corrupt Catholic church with the sales of indulgences, the concept of God presented in some of those outlawed books from one of the dominant religions of Spain--a god whose will was paramount, everything else being an expression of it--must have seemed very, very attractive to the young theologian.

[ShadowAce]

I don't agree with this sentence:

Those who don't get the opportunity to hear the message it's Hell.

God shows us His power in everything--the birds flying by, the sun rising, and the rain falling. Even the Gentiles had an altar to "the Unknown God" in case they forgot one. Paul used that pretty effectively in his ministry, BTW.

If one will see around him, then one can see the works of God, and worship God. You will be judged on what you know and hear.

[xzins]

13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Don't confuse the non-Christian with the Christian.

The law is a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ. Since it "leads" then it happens PRIOR to becoming Christian, which demonstrates it is active within non-Christians.

But for those who will "Today, if you will, harden not your hearts."

[P-Marlowe]

Not to change the subject or anything, but the Senior Pastor at the church I attend gave the invocation at the Republican Convention tonight. I missed it, but I'm sure they'll replay it on Sunday.

Carry on.

[xzins]

You do attend one of the Calvary Chapels, don't you.

My 2 favorite bible teachers are both CC ... Smith and Missler. During the premil debates of last year, I came to appreciate MacArthur who'd I'd not given his due prior to that.

He's probably 3rd, even though he's a calvinist.

[P-Marlowe]

You know its too bad Greg Laurie wasn't called on to give the benediction rather than the invocation. Greg always ends his benedictions with a call to Christ and/or a call to the altar.

Wouldn't that have been cool?

[HarleyD]

OK, without trying to sound difficult, let me again briefly summarize the two positions based upon your responses. (As best as my pea brain, warped Calvinistic views can understand.)

Calvinism: All men are already doomed to Hell. God chooses and rescues, for whatever reason (His call), the elect.

Arminianism: God writes the law on the hearts of all men. Those who never have an opportunity to hear the gospel still can come to a saving knowledge of Christ because the law is written on their hearts. If they never hear the message of Christ and do not choose to accept the law that is written on their hearts (however that happens) then they are doomed to Hell. For those who have an opportunity to hear the gospel they are given a choice. If some of those fortunate few make the wrong choice it's Hell for them. Since faith comes from hearing and hearing from the word of God it is important to share the message even though the message is written on everyone’s hearts.

My head hurts but I would hate to sound like a “knee-jerking” Calvinist. Have I correctly summarized the Arminian position and if not could someone provide me with a succinct definition and point out my error in the Arminian position? I don't need an Arminian sermon, just a definition.

Rom 3:9-10 “What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;”

[xzins]

Those who never have an opportunity to hear the gospel still can come to a saving knowledge of Christ because the law is written on their hearts.

No one said that.

Apparently, it's far better for you to operate out of your preconceived notions or out of your polemic.

Here's a definition for you:

Armininianism: the belief that those who aren't from Holland are lost and those who eat Nestle Chocolate Chip Cookies are saved even if they're not from Holland.

Feel free to have the last word.