The Institutes Book 1, Chapter 14

The Institutes of the Christian Religion ^ | 1500's | John Calvin

[xzins]

The Lord just hit me between the eyes with the fact that 31 years ago I became a Christian. Hallelujah.

What a journey!!

[Jean Chauvin]

"Arminianism thinks it has removed the problem of interference with man's free will because the enlightening makes possible a "clear" judicial choice. This choice enlightens all the way to a "no complaints" adjudicating. So then, it is at the "moment of choice and the exercise of choice" that 'free will' is not interfered with. "

What Arminianism "thinks" it has removed is irrelevant. The fact remains that Arminianism believes that God "forces" this "prevenient grace" upon man. God "forces" their eyes to be opened. If Calvinism's "Irresistable Grace" means that God "forces" man's will to believe, then Arminianisms "Prevenient Grace" also means that God "forces" this "enlightenment" upon man's will.

After all, what really is the difference between "seeing" and "believing"???

Luke 8
10 He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, " 'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'

John 3
3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

Jean

[ksen]

Happy Birthday! ;^)

[xzins]

"What a day that will be, when my Jesus I shall see, and I look upon his Face, the one who saved me by His Grace, and He takes me by the hand, and leads me to that promised land, What a day, glorious day, that will be....What a day, glorious day, that will be."

31 years ago...strung out and in an army bunk in Ansbach, W. Germany, at 2 a.m., I HEARD Jesus knock on my door. And I opened my heart to Him. And He made His abode with me. And He'll never leave me comfortless.

Who am I to judge my brother?

"What a day, glorious day, that will be."

[xzins]

So, then, there's no beef is there?

Arminians explain the choosing moment differently because they see scripture differently.

As you say, no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again.

No one WILL see the Kingdom of God until he is born again.

Is there a disagreement in there someplace?

[Jean Chauvin]

"Is there a disagreement in there someplace? "

Yes, don't play dumb.

I find it interesting you frequently hide behind statements which on the surface can be said to be grammatically the same, but that you very well know are entirely different.

The fact remains that the Arminian believes one must first "see" (be Enlightened) the Kingdom of Heaven in order to be subsequently "Born Again".

Calvinism holds steadfast to the Biblical truth that one must first be "Born Again" in order to even see the Kingdom of Heaven.

Furthermore, you have already declared that ALL men are "enlightened" by your interpretation of John 1:9. If your interpretation is correct, then Luke 8:10 is just flat wrong. Luke 8:10 tells us that there are people who have been "given" to "see" and there are likewise people who were not "given" to "see".

Jean

[xzins]

one must first "see" (be Enlightened) the Kingdom of Heaven the choice to receive Jesus as savior.

As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become sons of God.

Yeah, just slightly dumb.....but I get it honestly. :>)

[Jean Chauvin]

"As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become sons of God. "

Ask yourself this question:

Does the person who God regenerates to belief "receive" Christ?

Jean

[JenB]

Ksen, thanks for pinging me to this. I somehow missed some and need to play catch-up - but Calvin's not as hard as I'd been warned.

[ksen]

Ksen, thanks for pinging me to this. I somehow missed some and need to play catch-up - but Calvin's not as hard as I'd been warned.

You're welcome Jen! I figured you needed something light after your tests this past weekend. ;^)

I'm on section 8 above and slowly making my way through it.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

- could someone spell out for me something that catches my eye here - Is Calvin assigning "free will" to satan, recognizing God is not the author of evil ?

From the text of Institutes Rev:

Moreover, though we say that Satan resists God, and does works at variance with His works, we at the same time maintain that this contrariety and opposition depend on the permission of God. I now speak not of Satan's will and endeavour, but only of the result. For the disposition of the devil being wicked, he has no inclination whatever to obey the divine will, but, on the contrary, is wholly bent on contumacy and rebellion. This much, therefore, he has of himself, and his own iniquity, that he eagerly, and of set purpose, opposes God, aiming at those things which he deems most contrary to the will of God. But as God holds him bound and fettered by the curb of his power, he executes those things only for which permission has been given him, and thus, however unwilling, obeys his Creator, being forced, whenever he is required, to do Him service.

That does not appear what one would define or understand as free will. The question that you are getting at i believe is: "Did Satan in an original state of perfection excercise free will and rebel against God"? The answer to that is that i cannot know. i don't know the extent of free will, or even if God has it (knowing that there are some things that God cannot do) as we are popularly defining it. Maybe that is the key to this controversy, we are using a term and do not know the correct definition of it, or at least a consistent definition. IMO we need to agree on a definition of terms before we presume to argue pro or con on the question.

[xzins]

does the person God regenerates to belief "receive" Christ?

Person A gets regenerated by God. Since this was done irresistibly, then they have not yet had a conscious thought about belief. Since being an unbeliever is the sign of a lost and not an unregenerate person, then that person must at some point believe. (Interesting thought; is it possible to be regenerated and yet be an unbeliever? It is illogical, therefore, they must be irresisibly implanted with 'believingness' as well.) Since the "believing" and the "receiving" are merely synonymous expressions for the same work, then it is necessary (within a C'vist framework) for the person to be irresistibly brought to receiving Christ after they've been regenerated. That is what I'd expect a calvinist to say. Correct?

[drstevej]

Xzins, remember logical order, not temporal order. How easily you forget.

[P-Marlowe]

Does the person who God regenerates to belief "receive" Christ?

Which comes first, receive or believe?

[xzins]

I didn't forget. Didn't I say that it would be illogical to irresistibly regenerate someone and not implant them with belief at the same time. Otherwise, you'd have the odd case of one who is reborn but unbelieving. That is a locial impossibility given the facts of scripture.

However, regeneration must precede believing according to the c'vist theories. The timing would have to be instantly contemporaneous, though. And that is where the "logical" order rather than temporal order comes in.

However, Arminianism does not teach this.

It teaches, on the other hand, that one is enlightened to clarity of choice. When that choice is made for Jesus, in that case the person is immediately regenerated.

[Cvengr]

2. A NOTE OF AN INQUIRY WITH CALVIN INTO 'CHRIST'S PERSON', FROM THOSE WORDS READ OUT OF THE ATHANASIAN CREED

After I had read out these words to Calvin as well as to fifty clerics of his sect, I asked Calvin whether he had not departed from these statements in the Creed - a Creed acknowledged and accepted by the entire Christian world.
Calvin said
(1) he saw that he had plainly departed from them.

(2) I asked why he had done so. He replied that he had paid no heed to those words, but now when he did take notice of them he saw that he had departed from them and had followed his own thought in writing.

(3) I asked him what he thought now. He answered that if the Creed was true, and if it was acknowledged on every side as the true doctrine on the Trinity and on Christ's Divinity, plainly he had erred.

(4) I asked, Did he not want to acknowledge that the Divine and the Human, or God and Man, in Christ were one person, as soul and flesh were one man, according to the words of the Creed! He said he would like to, but could not because he had made up his mind differently.

(5) I asked whether he believed Christ to be one person or two. He replied, One, if hypostatic union made one, but he held the view that the Son of God was not the same [as Christ] and was with the Father, and that Jesus Christ was separate from the Son because the Son was in heaven.

(6) I asked, Was Christ then two! He replied, Yes; and in this he had departed from the Creed.

(7) I asked about hypostatic union, who was it from? He replied, From God the Father; that was the idea he had had.

(8) I asked about Christ's soul, what was it? Might it not be the Divine Itself, since it was said in Luke that it was from the Holy Spirit and the Power of the Most High ! He answered that he had observed this in Luke, but had believed tacitly within himself that the soul was from Joseph.

(9) I put the question, Was not Christ as to His Human the Son of God, as is openly said in Luke i 35? And in Matthew [iii 17], when Jesus was baptised; also in John [i 34]; and when He was transfigured [in Matthew xvii 5; Mark ix 7; Luke ix 35]; and in many other passages! He answered that when he mentioned or thought about the words 'the Son of God', he did not mean Christ Jesus as to His Human. When I said that to comprehend it in that way was contrary to Scripture, he answered that he saw it to be so, but had not thought it to have been so. I wanted him to renounce the idea, but he was conscious of his thinking while in the world and said that on that account he could not.

(10) At length he admitted that he had thought Christ was Joseph's son, but had not dared to write it.


Above from perhaps a dubious site of which I had not been aware. http://www.theheavenlydoctrines.org/

When I ran another search to see if it was considered 'New Age' or untrustworthy I encountered this reference: (Is this the ancestor of George Bush and if so, would this explain a great deal of freemasonry conspiracy theories?)

http://www.clements.umich.edu/Webguides/B/Bush.html

[Cvengr]

Looks like the Rev George Bush circa 1841 had a father Fairbanks Bush whose brother was a direct ancestor of our current president. Interesting lineage. This via http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/message/an/surnames.bush/1842.1

[xzins]

Is this information purporting to show that Calvin was not a trinitarian?

If so, I've never heard such before. Believe me, there was a time I would have pounced on something like this.

What is the source?

[ksen]

Thanks for posting the individual chapters of the Institutes for discussion..keep it up, for this is a great way for people to understand what Calvin really taught - instead of relying on half baked misconceptions of what he taught that keep floating around like contagious flu viruses.

Sorry I didn't respond to this sooner.

You're welcome BC. I have never read The Institutes and I am enjoying working my way through them with people who can answer my questions as they come up. ;^)

[drstevej]

Your link
http://www.theheavenlydoctrines.org/

doesn't work.

***(10) At length he admitted that he had thought Christ was Joseph's son, but had not dared to write it. ***

Yeah, right.