Posted on 02/28/2010 8:30:39 AM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
John Calvin's 16th century reply to medieval Catholicism's buy-your-way-out-of-purgatory excesses is Evangelicalism's latest success story, complete with an utterly sovereign and micromanaging deity, sinful and puny humanity, and the combination's logical consequence, predestination: the belief that before time's dawn, God decided whom he would save (or not), unaffected by any subsequent human action or decision.
Calvinism, cousin to the Reformation's other pillar, Lutheranism, is a bit less dour than its critics claim: it offers a rock-steady deity who orchestrates absolutely everything, including illness (or home foreclosure!), by a logic we may not understand but don't have to second-guess. Our satisfaction — and our purpose — is fulfilled simply by "glorifying" him. In the 1700s, Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards invested Calvinism with a rapturous near mysticism. Yet it was soon overtaken in the U.S. by movements like Methodism that were more impressed with human will. Calvinist-descended liberal bodies like the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) discovered other emphases, while Evangelicalism's loss of appetite for rigid doctrine — and the triumph of that friendly, fuzzy Jesus — seemed to relegate hard-core Reformed preaching (Reformed operates as a loose synonym for Calvinist) to a few crotchety Southern churches.
No more. Neo-Calvinist ministers and authors don't operate quite on a Rick Warren scale. But, notes Ted Olsen, a managing editor at Christianity Today, "everyone knows where the energy and the passion are in the Evangelical world" — with the pioneering new-Calvinist John Piper of Minneapolis, Seattle's pugnacious Mark Driscoll and Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Seminary of the huge Southern Baptist Convention. The Calvinist-flavored ESV Study Bible sold out its first printing, and Reformed blogs like Between Two Worlds are among cyber-Christendom's hottest links.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Is faith a necessary element of salvation? If so, then salvation is synergistic by definition.
What is it about a "free gift" that's so difficult to understand? Men have faith because they are given faith.
Do all men have eyes to see and ears to hear? Doesn't that tell you anything?
Is God wholly responsible for those he saves
Wow. That is the exact question Roman Catholics ask us. And you seem to be giving the same answer they do.
You should read it.
And finally, what in the world is wrong with the fact that God is "wholly responsible for those he saves?"
I thank God He's "wholly responsible" for me, my family, my life, my faith and my salvation. That knowledge strengthens my faith.
"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." -- 1 Corinthians 15:10
"Not I."
You know Kosta, I think this is the first time in all my years of posting on Free Republic that I find myself in agreement with you. :-)
Louie, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
So what is it?
And that's faith. From beginning to end it is the work of God in us.
"1. The Nature of the Human Will. What is the Will? We answer, the will is the faculty of choice, the immediate cause of all action. Choice necessarily implies the refusal of one thing and the acceptance of another. The positive and the negative must both be present to the mind before there can be any choice. In every act of the will there is a preference—the desiring of one thing rather than another. Where there is no preference, but complete indifference, there is no volition. To will is to choose, and to choose is to decide between two or more alternatives. But there is something which influences the choice; something which determines the decision. Hence the will cannot be sovereign because it is the servant of that something. The will cannot be both sovereign and servant. It cannot be both cause and effect. The will is not causative, because, as we have said, something causes it to choose, therefore that something must be the causative agent. Choice itself is affected by certain considerations, is determined by various influences brought to bear upon the individual himself, hence, volition is the effect of these considerations and influences, and if the effect, it must be their servant; and if the will is their servant then it is not sovereign, and if the will is not sovereign, we certainly cannot predicate absolute "freedom" of it. Acts of the will cannot come to pass of themselves—to say they can, is to postulate an uncaused effect. Ex nihilo nihil fit — nothing cannot produce something." -- A.W. Pink
Sure, but I'm just saying it isn't necessarily good Biblical Trinitarian faith. People with strong "faith" often have it in something completely wrong.
I agree that we should all strive to learn doctrine correctly. On the other hand, being rigid in our interpretation of esoteric religious points, such as soteriology can produce negative effects. Indeed rigid adherence to soteriology led to massive bloodshed during the years following the reformation. Rather than pounding out these differences in a rational fashion, people took up arms and killed each other over this issue.
Surely the history is true, but I can understand to some degree why those who fought thought it so important, even if their actions did not justify the sin they committed. One's soteriology, in a general sense, may or may not disqualify one from being a Christian. But even with conflicting Christian soteriologies I would think we would agree that some are much more filled with dangerous snares than others.
For example, two of my biggest criticisms of Catholicism are that its Christian soteriology dangerously tempts people away from God to worship others and dangerously appears to strip power and authority away from God to give it to men. Perhaps if practiced perfectly, their soteriology survives the Christian test. However, we have all seen with our own eyes how so many Catholics so clearly appear to not be practicing it correctly according to what we are told about Catholicism by Catholic posters here. IMO, much of the fighting could be over those temptations and snares.
In other words, I find it quite inconsistent that a Calvinist would ARGUE and try to convince a Non-Calvinist to think differently than they do. One would think a Calvinist would simply state their opinion and let God decide whether or not to change the heart and mind of the person to whom the doctrine was presented.
We do let God decide whether to change the heart and mind of a Christian over a particular matter, that is, whether to further sanctify (in our opinion) on the issue at that time. However, for the same reason we witness we recognize that God uses His children as instruments to assist in accomplishing these changes. Further, the difference between simply stating a position and arguing it over and over might well be a simple matter of persistence. For comparison we know that persistence in prayer is taught in the Bible, so persistence in arguing a theological point may well be a good thing too.
Curiously, why do you argue at all? Do you think you will change their minds? (FWIW, I do believe that people's minds can be changed through rational argument, but then I am not a Calvinist)
Just as my witnessing saves no one, neither do my arguments change minds. God does it all, but He may well be using me (and all believers for different things at different times) to accomplish some changes He wishes. I became a Calvinist by coming to FR and reading the exact same arguments I am making now, so I sure do think it is worthwhile. :)
AMEN, FK! Such is the power of the preaching of the Gospel. 8~)
A better way, IMO, to permit us what seems like a sensible compassion for infants is that God's mercy can extend to whomever He wants -- the mentally-handicapped, the bushman in Africa, the infant dying so young. We can't forget that it is God who determines their lives; who sets their boundaries; who gives them exactly the number of days He wants them to live.
And within God's perfect scenario for His entire creation there is, we can confidently hope, the real possibility for His grace to extend to those who seem so far removed from Him.
We simply don't know for sure. But this is one more good reason to believe in the covenant family, ordained by God for His glory. That fact should motivate Christian parents to raise their children in a faithful household so that they learn to kneel to none but Christ.
I probably do not understand the distinction you are making, but if "indwelling knowledge of scripture" means being able to quote scripture verses one has never heard of before just because the Holy Spirit has indwelt, it does not work that way. Holy Spirit does give correct interpretation of God's word to God's Church of all believers. This is done over the course of a lifetime of sanctification and to some it is given more than to others, and to some the same topics are covered at different times.
Therefore, when you and I disagree on interpretation I am NOT saying that Holy Spirit gives me interpretation, but not to you. As a believer, you get interpretation too. We can still disagree and both be Christians since we are being brought closer to Him on God's timetables and through His methods. While Holy Spirit does not teach error, He DOES allow error to be believed at least for a time, for His own reasons and timing. Surely as Christians we can all say that while Christians we have believed some things before that we now consider to be error. To whatever extent we are now correct on those issues it was Holy Spirit who made that happen.
Your statement on the Reformed reprobates doing better, even though they are going to wind up in hell, by knowing the Gospel is, shall I say, the most unChristian statement that I recall you posting.
I still have no idea why. Even by Catholic theology God already knows who will never accept Him. Among those people do not some lead better and happier lives than others? And among the happier ones, are not many of those also more moral than the less better off people (during their times on earth)? If you agree to all of this then you should find nothing controversial or unChristian about anything I have said on the matter. Could you explain where you are coming from?
FK: When we both see "the meek shall inherit the earth" we both say "true".
This passage means "all the meek", not just the Reformed elect meek.
Are there not many meek people without faith? If you say "Yes" then do all of them go to Heaven? If you say "No", then you really mean "all the meek who have faith". In that case we are saying the same thing.
What did God do prior to creation of this world?
I believe when it says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form and void.” that there is a gap between His transforming the formless earth.
The presence of Satan in the garden suggests Satan’s creation prior to the shaping of the earth. Perhaps it was included in the “the heavens” part of creation. However, we know that all that was not God was created, so therefore, our cosmology (biblically based) asserts that all sentient beings in addition to humans are also created.
Eden itself was a “spiritual” realm for God walked there openly and “God is Spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth.” Additionally, the way to Eden was closed to humanity, which suggests that it was a spiritual realm with direct intersection to the physical realm.
Therefore, the Triune God existed (I Am) from eternity and was, by virtue of that Triunity of 3 persons, complete and entire in Himself.
The course of Creation, brutal at times in history, was an act of Love focused on a purpose that renders all tragedy moot, glorifies God, and elevates Love. “Faith, hope, and Love, but the greatest of these is Love.” for “God is Love.”
To that end it has long struck me as peculiar that on some threads dealing with Catholicism many Calvinists will align themselves with people who clearly don't have Trinitarian beliefs (and in some instances openly deny the Trinity), why do you think this is?
Is shared dislike of Catholicism more important to some than the Trinity? At time it certainly seems that way and, if this is the case, what does this actually about their priorities?
However, we have all seen with our own eyes how so many Catholics so clearly appear to not be practicing it correctly according to what we are told about Catholicism by Catholic posters here.
You bring up an interesting point, but let me pose a hypothetical to you:
Let's say you were to go to a city where you didn't know anyone and you wanted to go to Church on Sunday. The hotel has a directory of nearby churches and it's determined that you will go to the FIRST church listed with the word "Presbyterian" in its name, what do you think the chances are that you will find yourself at a church that is actually Calvinist?
Now, let's assume you are a Catholic. You pick the first Catholic church on the list. You will go to the mass and you will hear EXACTLY the same readings as you would have heard at your normal church and the Liturgy of the Eucharist will be EXACTLY the same. Sure, the priest may be a nutcase who gives a homily on "social justice"; but the Mass IS NOT about the sermon, it is about the Liturgies of the Word and the Eucharist and Communion.
So yes, it is probably true that the Catholics who post on the RF are "stricter" Catholics than you might meet in your everyday life, but this is also true for the Protestants.
I firmly belief that the RF here is among the best places ANYWHERE for discussion of religious beliefs. There are Catholic internet forums, but they would never allow a strict Calvinist to post, and there are Calvinist forums that would never allow a Catholic to post. I would like to think that the debates here have made me a stronger Catholic, they have certainly given me a better understanding and appreciation for Reformed doctrine.
Dangerously????
Here is one contradiction that I have never been able to resolve. If Calvinism is true, then no amount of good doctrine is going to save a single person and no amount of bad doctrine is going to cause a person to lose a salvation that they were never intended to have in the first place. If Calvinism's soteriological construct is true, then doctrine is superfluous, the bible is superfluous, Faith is superfluous and effectively everything is meaningless except God's decision to elect you to salvation or to let you ignorantly or otherwise die in your sins. If Calvinism is correct in what it claims, then there is no such thing as Dangerous Doctrine. It is irrelevant. What do you care if people who are going to hell anyway are being taught doctrines that are true or doctrines that are false? If they hold to incorrect doctrines it is because God intended them to hold to those doctrines and you are kicking against the pricks by trying to correct their misconceptions.
But you don't believe a word of that, do you? You honestly believe (as I do) that there are "dangerous doctrines". But in your construct how can they be "dangerous"? Who can possibly be harmed by them? You? Me?
Maybe deep down you believe it, but in your Calvinistic construct, you don't. You can't. The elect are the elect and their salvation is not contingent upon them receiving correct teaching and the lost are lost no matter how much good doctrine they receive or how much good doctrine is taught to them or how many bible verses they've memorized or how much money they have given to the poor. They are lost so they are lost. Period. No hope. Hope is a mere illusion to both the elect and the lost. Sorry but my mind cannot wrap itself around those ideas. That is why I don't think I will ever be a Calvinist.
I can accept on the surface all that Calvinism asserts but then none of it makes any sense. On the one hand you cry that salvation is entirely monergistic and then in the next breath you speak of such contradictory nonsense as "dangerous doctrines" and the "necessity of saving faith".
Do you even recognize the inconsistency of your positions? Or are you so married to the TULIP that you can't bear to see anything beyond your theological horizon?
Or is it just me?
I became a Calvinist by coming to FR and reading the exact same arguments I am making now, so I sure do think it is worthwhile. :)
Then convince me. Oh wait, you can't, can you?
What aeons? You're assuming time existing prior to Creation.
That is a two way street wags. I have seen on many occasions Catholics (some of the most ardent defenders of Catholicism on FR, BTW) come to the defense of Mormons who are being challenged by Protestants so I have to assume that their hatred of Reformers must be driving their defense of Mormonism which is clearly and unequivocally a non-Trinitarian faith.
As a general rule I almost never see any of the active Catholic apologists jumping onto the LDS threads to challenge their beliefs, but I have found that on nearly every Protestant thread I have ever posted here there are the usual suspects who come in and get their digs into Protestantism and either run away after dropping their bombs or who stay and effectively destroy the whole tenor of the thread which I posted. It has kinda made me a bit gun-shy about posting stuff I like.
I actually at one time tried to have a weekly posting of a sermon by Charles Spurgeon, but I gave up on the idea after one of your Catholic compadres (I think you can figure out which one it is) made it clear that he considered Spurgeon to be an Anti-Catholic bigot and made it clear that he was going to come on and piss on every Spurgeon thread I posted. The last one I did, I just gave up and asked the RM to pull the whole thread and I then gave up on the whole project. I'm pretty sure you were pinged to those posts; his ping list was pretty long.
Probably. In this case, the Church is just plain wrong for allowing such icons. Like I said, depicting Christ in his humanity is one thing; depicting the Holy Trinity is a graven image of divinity, and that is as heretical as it gets.
It isn’t just you. It seems to me that ‘hyper-Calvinism’ is just Calvinism logically carried out.
In my letter resigning membership from my church (SBC), I asked the pastor if our missions T-shirts should read, “Jesus loves you!” or “If God has chosen you, join us!”
He agrees with the former, but wants Calvinism taught as our theology. I find it inconsistent, but maybe “doctrine is superfluous, the bible is superfluous, Faith is superfluous and effectively everything is meaningless except God’s decision to elect you to salvation or to let you ignorantly or otherwise die in your sins” - according to Calvinism.
Yes, but God existed for all eternity, and that was way before the creation, isn't it? What did God do all those eons before he started creating was my question? IOW, what does God do outside time when he doesn't deal with his magnum opus?
The presence of Satan in the garden suggests Satan’s creation prior to the shaping of the earth
Padre, there is nothing in the Bible that says the serpent is the same Satan that God deals with in the Book of Job, an angel of God. Surely, you don't think God "pardoned" him after cursing him in the Garden, only to restore him to one of the "sons of God" in the Book of Job sometime later?! LOL!
So why wold the serpent (animal) not be created along with all other animals instead of before the formation of earth?
Therefore, the Triune God existed (I Am) from eternity and was, by virtue of that Triunity of 3 persons, complete and entire in Himself.
Of course, God would is by deifnition self-sufficient, which makes creation even more of an enigma, don't you think?
God existed prior to creation, right? What did God do in his existence prior to creation?
I look at it a little differently. I have, on one or two occasions, made statements about anti-Mormon posts that can only be described as bigotry; this is not a defense of Mormon beliefs, it is a condemnation of bigotry. I view it as no different from condemning anti-Semitism.
As a general rule I almost never see any of the active Catholic apologists jumping onto the LDS threads to challenge their beliefs,
I'm going to say this as diplomatically as I know how and that is to say that I am unaware of any Mormon apologists on FR who possess the intellectual faculties to engage in meaningful debate (that IS NOT to say that there aren't any intellectual Mormons on FR, but they seem to avoid the Mormon theological debates). The Mormons on the theological debates seem incapable of doing much more than copying and pasting essays from official LDS sources, I don't think they even understand them, they only know where to find them. So, I basically consider the LDS threads a waste of time.
I actually at one time tried to have a weekly posting of a sermon by Charles Spurgeon, but I gave up on the idea after one of your Catholic compadres (I think you can figure out which one it is) made it clear that he considered Spurgeon to be an Anti-Catholic bigot and made it clear that he was going to come on and piss on every Spurgeon thread I posted.
I think that it is generally a bad idea to label historical figures based on modern standards. If Spurgeon was alive and giving the same sermons today, then I would say he was an anti-Catholic bigot, but the sermons of a 19th century Catholic priest would probably be just as bigoted toward Protestants. By today's standards Abraham Lincoln would probably come across as a racist, but by mid-19th century standards he was the furthest thing from a racist. Nevertheless, I have seen where modern anti-Catholics quote Spurgeon's anti-Catholic statements and that is bigotry.
Maybe it has to do with the Calvinists conviction that everything is according to God's will, including our sins, lest he not be God? Are you willing to say that everything is not according to God's will and perfect plan?
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.