Posted on 05/08/2007 4:39:59 PM PDT by annalex
Is there a religion or a denomination called "Calvinism" or "Calvinist". Is somebody a member of the "Calvinist Church"? If not, is it really true that another "confession" was mentioned?
Yes, I quite understand that "Catholic-Orthodox" appears vague, but we all know that it would include Roman Catholics and those in communion with Constantinople and other noble and ancient sees.
But -- and I am not being indirect, I really do not know nor mean to claim or to imply knowledge -- is there a denomination which is explicitly "Calvinist"? Is such a Church explicitly in support of the "5 Solas"?
In other words once a comment is made to distinguish limited atonement from general atonement in a discussion distantly related to the principle topic, the thread immediately is thrown open to people who want to cheer lead for their denomination and slander other denominations? Is that really how it should work?
As an alternative could annalex be given the chance to retract the remark or could there be some other remedy so that we don't have to descend into denominational combat?
I fear that unless some fine-tuning of the policy is possible no real discussion can take place. There is a difference in theological systems endorses or adhered to by (A) those who think that God wants all to be saved and permits some to refuse salvation and (B) those who think that God's grace is irresistible and applied irresistibly. Once someone mentions that there are those who think column (B) is correct must the thread be thrown open to everyone?
I think there HAS to be some other way, but maybe there can't be. I dunno.
If anyone else had used the term, I would have given the poster of the article the option of removing the reply post containing the term or opening the thread.
Calvinism is a "confession" under the guidelines because it is a belief. Protestantism is also a confession as is Reformed as is Christianity. Calvinists might appear in any of those caucuses.
annalex certainly could have offered to withdraw the comment - and as long as the post(s) got pulled, I would have honored it and withdrawn myself from the discussion, leaving the "caucus" designation intact. FWIW, had annalex said in post #29 that Calvinism was "included" and not "excluded", I would have equally withdrawn, because no contention would have raised against Calvinism by the use of the name.
In other words once a comment is made to distinguish limited atonement from general atonement in a discussion distantly related to the principle topic, the thread immediately is thrown open to people who want to cheer lead for their denomination and slander other denominations? Is that really how it should work?
That wasn't the comment that did it, MD. "Limited atonement" didn't do it - "Calvinists believe so-and-so, and so-and-so confession excludes them because of it" was the comment. Note that I'm not saying that annalex was "picking a fight" by bringing Calvinism up - I don't believe he was doing so, and I appreciated the tenor of his posts wherein he did. But if you're going to discuss the other guy's group, you either modify the designation to include them in your caucus (i.e. Catholic/Orthodox/Calvinist Caucus), or you drop the designation entirely. Either way, you must give them the opportunity to respond. I don't see a third option here, unless you think talking about a group behind their backs is a legitimate choice.
“While we often discuss differences between these two churches (church authority, the filoque, etc), the atonement doesnt seem to be one of them. Is there a difference in views?”
Indeed there is. Orthodoxy does not teach, nor has it ever really taught (though a Father here and there has) the “atonement” theory. Orthodoxy looks to the Incarnation, Death and resurrection of Christ as a ransom of mankind from imprisonment by death and the Evil One. These are very different ways of looking at the etiology of our theosis/salvation. As I said earlier, the atonement theory as taught by the Latin Church is not heresy and never was. The idea though that the “Sacrifice on the Cross” was to satisfy some blood lust of God the Father, a belief that is current among some Latin circles now and indeed has been for centuries (I was taught something like that by the nuns as a kid) and even more prevalent among some Western Christian-non-Latins, is perilously close to heresy if not actual heresy.
What if I said,"Calvin teaches [such and such]." Whom (if anyone) would I have to admit then? When somebody, a Catholic, who might not have thought about it before comes to the thread and asks about "pro multis", if an answer is given that discusses the various POVs about the question, does that mean the thread has to forfeit caucus status?
I don't think that saying Calvinism was excluded or included was meant as a put-down (if that's relevant). At the worst it would have been a report of a put down. I mean it's like "When those guys decided to put 'for all' as a paraphrase of 'pro multis', they -- those guys, not me, annalex -- were saying,'We don't think what Calvinists think.'" I'm serious, that I did not see the issue as a put-down but as a distinction in two differing theological POVs
To me "limited atonement" is a logical necessity once you have irresistible grace. The whole package fits together very well and persuasively in my mind, even though I am no longer persuaded. I can certainly see how devout and reasonable people of good will could reach that conclusion.
But it's not irrelevant that the cpnversatin seemed to be going away from approving "for all" and wishing they'd stuck with "for many". (Once when I was celebrating I got acute fumble-mouth and said "for you and not for many," and must have turned several new and interesting shades of scarlet.)
And my other question still goes, I think: What group is "the Calvinists"? If somebody put up a thread entitled "Thomist" I don't know if I'd include myself or not. If they put up a thread dissing or just discussing (or cussing? heh heh heh) John of Damascus, I wouldn't think they were talking about me. Is there a TULIP denomination?
Now I have to go worry if discussing is half way between dissing and cussing.
And As I asked HarleyD if annalex had said "Calvin" instead of "Calvinist", then what?
I am surprised by this decision: I made a comment on the wording of a prayer during Catholic Mass and did not characterized Calvinism in any negative way. Where did I attack the Calvinist confession in my remarks? I clarified that the English translation of the prayer was, in my opinion, made to draw a brighter distinction with Calvinism, and I explained the Catholic doctrine of unlimited atonement as I understand it. That is all.
Are we allowed to mention another confession by name in caucus threads? Please clarify.
I will continue treating this thread as a caucus thread and will not participate in the off-topic discussions about Limited Atonement. Anyone wishing to make that a topic can easily start a thread for it. I would like to discuss the first two chapters of Cur Deus Homo in peace. Thank you.
Now, one may point out that Boso is completely fictional and Trypho could have been an actual opponent. But it does not seem to be a distinction strong enough to condemn the dialog method as "foreign". If you are with me so far, we are left with
As the right order requires us to believe the deep things of Christian faith before we undertake to discuss them by reason; so to my mind it appears a neglect if, after we are established in the faith, we do not seek to understand what we believe. Therefore, since I thus consider myself to hold the faith of our redemption, by the prevenient grace of God, so that, even were I unable in any way to understand what I believe, still nothing could shake my constancy; I desire that you I should discover to me, what, as you know, many besides myself ask
Is this breaking up the faith stage and the reason stage "foreign"?
We must be talking past one another. There is nothing strange or unOrthodox about a dialog style, whether with a real or a fictitious interlocutor. You've lost me.
I think annalex was hornswoggled, perhaps inadvertently.
The first mention of Calvinism is make as part of a negative criticism of a liturgical text. It is neither discussing nor condemning Calvinism, it's discussing a piece of liturgical text and its possible motivation.
Then Alex Murphy asks for clarification. Up to that point while Calvinism had been mentioned, it had not been discussed, I think. So Alex {whose tag line -"(FR Member Alex Murphy: Declared Anathema By The Council Of Trent)" - does not suggest the most irenic of intentions} started the discussion of Calvinism and then said that since Calvinism was being discussed the Caucus status should be forfeited.
He even says that had another answer been given to his question, he wouldn't have asked for the forfeiture.
I think it's an interesting problem.
Annalex (#23): MAYBE those guys over there who wrote that text were trying to make a distinction pertaining to Calvinism.
(silence, the conversation goes elsewhere.)
Alex Murphy (#28): Was this distinction you mention one of approval or one of disapproval?
annalex:Since you ask, we have a disgreeement with Calvinism.
Alex Murphy: See there? They're discussing us behind our backs! They should forfeit caucus status.
In 7 I asked “the separation of faith and reason, to the point of taking the point of view of the infidels [— is] this in itself already foreign to the Orthodox?”
You responded “Yes” in 8. I am trying to understand what exactly is foreign since the dialog method evidently is not.
In my so-called education (and this was reiterated in the recent RCIA for which I was a sponsor) it was said more than one that there is not ONE doctrine of the Atonement. My gloss on that is that it is an especially big problem, and that many ways, each one individually inadequate, to look at it are required to begin to get a grasp of it.
It’s of consequence. Thank you.
“In 7 I asked the separation of faith and reason, to the point of taking the point of view of the infidels [ is] this in itself already foreign to the Orthodox?
You responded Yes in 8. I am trying to understand what exactly is foreign since the dialog method evidently is not.”
OK. What is foreign is that we are the “rational flock”. Reason, as perhaps opposed to logic, is inseparable from Faith. As for dealing with infidels by taking their pov, well that we simply wouldn’t do. In a modern context, we can see this in Orthodoxy’s participation in the WCC. We don’t accept the points of view of the heterodox and do not use their methods to advance Orthodoxy. We simply state our faith as the Church believes it to be.
But reason is still something other than faith. Boso does not say, “I abandon the faith and take up the reasoning of the infidels”, he says, “Given that I already have faith, what would the reason say?”
For example, I had a discussion with an atheist, who did not believe in the Resurrection. I could have told him “and I do — buzz off”, or I could do what I did: point out that the witness evidence for the resurrection should be acceptable as historical evidence in absence of faith. Justin likewise does not advance his position to Trypho by postulating faith but rather reasons on the level Trypho could reason back. I understand the danger of syncretism, but I fail to see it in the methodology of St. Anselm, at least this far. Maybe in the sequel we’ll see something that would smack of false ecumenism, — please point it out.
Just be sure NOT to mention or suggest what another other confession believes (e.g. posts 23 and 29) because once you do, the other guy has an interest in responding.
The thread is fine as it is.
I still don’t see where I characterize Calvinism in either 23 or 29, unless mentioning the fact that it teaches Limited Atonement and we don’t is already an attack.
This is rather interesting Kolo. The early western church fathers taught a blood atonement in their writings so I wonder how the western and eastern churches reconciled this until the great split in 1000AD? Here are a very few excerpts from a very few of some great Church fathers who taught a blood atonement:
My understanding is the Catholic thinking on the atonement NOW is very similar to Eastern thought. I'd be interested in the names of some eastern authors around the 1st-3rd century (perferably NOT in Greek). :O)
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.