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 ...
You bring up a perfect point. If Calvinism is true, then the Bible, worship and all debate becomes meaningless. If a person is either among the elect or among the damned and NOTHING can change it, then talking about it is a waste of time. Why do Calvinists spend a penny on missionary work if they actually believe in election? Calvinism, taken to its logical conclusion, really means that a person can live their life however they wish because the outcome has been predetermined.
When some inquisitive theologian asked him what God was doing before he created the world, Martin Luther quipped, “He was busy creating hell for foolish theologians who pry into such questions”.
I understand Calvinism more than you think. Frankly, because I am NOT a Calvinist, I think I can view it objectively whereas you, who are a Calvinist, cannot view it objectively. I find it interesting that rather than answer my questions you criticize the motive behind the question. That is an objective indication that you have no legitimate answers to the questions I have posed.
A type of Theological Fatalism, which is not Reformed theology.
If Calvinism is not Theological Fatalism, then it is synergistic. You guys claim that salvation is wholly monergistic and yet you then go on to argue for a position which is objectively as synergistic as Arminianism.
Maybe it is not "Theological Fatalism" in a strict sense. Maybe that is because underlying the idea of Theological Monergism is an incosistent acknowledgement of Theological Synergism (which you bury your head in the ground and refuse to recognize).
If you know so much about what Calvinism means, then you should have no problem addressing my questions and giving me logical and biblical responses to my challenges. Instead you just cry "Strawman! Strawman!" and run and hide.
Why don't you just answer my challenges. Either that or stand back and let someone who isn't afraid to answer my questions do it for you.
I remember back in the days of the old Cal/Arm wars being told that it is bad theology to sing the song "Jesus Loves the Little Chidren" because Jesus very well may HATE some of those little children just as he Hated Esau.
That kind of thing sticks to your memory banks.
The general argument is that if they don't spend that penny then maybe they are not really numbered among the elect. It seems to me to be a back-door approach to the idea that you are saved by works.
I find it interesting that rather than answer my questions you criticize the motive behind the question.I'm not questioning your motive. I'm pointing out that you are not arguing against Calvinism. You are arguing against what you think Calvinism is, though you are not arguing against Calvinism.
That is an objective indication that you have no legitimate answers to the questions I have posed.There is no legitimate answers to illegitimate questions. I can't argue for the strengths of Theological Fatalism because I'm not a fatalist. So what answer am I supposed to give other than, "that's not Reformed?" Am I supposed to accept that what you are arguing is an acceptable criticism of Reformed Theology even though it is not addressing Reformed Theology? That would allow the question to be begged. It's poor argumentation.
If you know so much about what Calvinism means, then you should have no problem addressing my questions and giving me logical and biblical responses to my challenges. Instead you just cry "Strawman! Strawman!" and run and hide.Fine, I'll give a logical answer.
If Calvinism is not Theological Fatalism, then it is synergistic.That is a false dicotomy. Your argument is fallacious. Better?
Maybe that is because underlying the idea of Theological Monergism is an incosistent acknowledgement of Theological Synergism.What does this mean? Seriously, I'm confused. But, it may be a better argument and something I can legitimately address if explored.
It seems to me that if a Calvinist truly believes in election that discussing it would make about as much sense as thinking the weather is affected by our opinion of it.
Why do Calvinists spend a penny on missionary work if they actually believe in election?Means.
I think that's the wrong question--or, at least, phrased incorrectly. God doesn't exist in time. He's outside of it. Thus, "prior to creation" doesn't work.
“Are you willing to say that everything is not according to God’s will and perfect plan?”
Sin is not God’s will. Every time I sin, I have gone outside his will.
Is he surprised, or will it upset God’s apple cart?
Nope. But I’ve read far too much of the Bible to think God looks at my sin and says, “Perfect! Just as I willed!”
The above was my answer to what God was doing pre-creation.
Satan/serpent in the Garden is a theme of Revelation in which John identifies them as one and the same. Not being a braintrust, I always assumed it was some kind of possession what with serpents (snakes) also being part of the animal creation.
And, would God pardon Satan?
Why not? He doesn't immediately destroy Him at the end, but rather locks him up for a 1000 years.
The above was my answer to what God was doing pre-creation.
Satan/serpent in the Garden is a theme of Revelation in which John identifies them as one and the same. Not being a braintrust, I always assumed it was some kind of possession what with serpents (snakes) also being part of the animal creation.
And, would God pardon Satan?
Why not? He doesn't immediately destroy Him at the end, but rather locks him up for a 1000 years.
The Calvinist teaching our Sunday School class - good guy, BTW, with bad doctrine - told me we don’t sneeze unless God willed for us to sneeze from before Creation! That sounds pretty deterministic to me.
Personally, I find it silly to say that God irresistibly saves the elect, but that they choose him freely, and the unelect have been chosen for damnation, but they choose it on their own. That is a Calvinist who is ashamed of his own doctrine, and trying to hide it - IMHO.
I don’t really care what others think.
I like the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches. I like their unity of effort, clear chain of authority, division of the world into parishes, and their insistence on their historic lineage back to Christ. I don’t like their Mariology or their opulence.
I like the Presbyterian (&Reformation) Church. I like its intellectual approach to scripture and, if truth be known, the bulk of any writing on theological issues is by reformed scholars. I like its appreciation of ancient forms and its insistence on Reforming rather than replacing the historic Christian position. I also like that it insists on its historic lineage. I don’t like their stuffiness and their antinomian tendencies.
I like free evangelical churches, Calvary Chapel (and earlier Methodism) being part of that group, for their insistence on spiritual, rather than human, lineage. It makes them search the scriptures; and generation to generation exhibit a willingness to adapt to what they learn of bible truth. I don’t like their divisions and divisiveness, their competitiveness & even hatred toward one another, their inability to trust one another and work together.
I don’t think there are other churches than these that are part of historic Christianity. There is no restorationistic church that I accept, because I don’t believe the Church could fail, so that it would have to be restored.
Excellent point!
And especially anti-trinitarian restorationists
“I asked you whether or not salvation is truly monergistic or whether it is synergistic.”
Yes.
“So what is it? Is God wholly responsible for those he saves or do men actually have to do something to secure their election.”
God’s foreknowledge is according to His predetermination and providence and is in keeping with the voluntary choices (choosing what we want or desire most). The choices are exercised voluntarily, not forced against our will, but the circumstances (be they prior prejudice, inclination, disposition, corrupt nature, culture etc.), that bring about these choices are through divine determinism (Acts 2:23, “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:”; 4:27-28, “For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done”). Our choices are only our choices because they are voluntary. They are what we want and we can choose no other.
A poor analogy, but the best I can come up with on a beautiful spring, Neener, Friday;
When I was first married and in Law School, it was K’s and my first anniversary. We lived in a second floor apartment. K worked as a Speech Therapist in the Waco school system. Mondays were terribly stressful for her as she did therapy in inner city schools. In spite of my wonderful cheerful nature K found fault with a couple of my minor eccentricities like loudly tromping up the stairs and turning up the stereo, especially when playing the nasal Dylan.
Seeing the anniversary fell on a Monday and knowing K would be stressed I bought flowers and an unaffordable gift hoping the surprise would cheer her up. Now the problem was how to give these gifts to her and get the biggest reaction for the bucks
So, I tromped up the stairs, extra loudly; banged open the door to the apartment; put a Dylan LP on the stereo and turned up the volume so loud that the neighbors could hear and put the flowers and gift on the stereo. Then I walked into the kitchenette just as K stormed out to turn down the stereo. I got the reaction I wanted, she was pleasantly surprised, and K by voluntarily reacting to the circumstances, received the gifts.
Before they made P-Marlowe, they broke the mold. S. J. Perelman
I strongly aver that Creation refers to both the physical realm and the spiritual realm, that God is the only observer and that the perspective of Scripture does not change to man's until Adam is banished to mortality at the end of Chapter 3 of Genesis. Emphasis mine.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. – Genesis 1:1
Note that the tree of life is in the center of the garden of Eden and also in the center of Paradise.
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. – Revelation 2:7
God's Name is I AM.
I think this is where we disagree. God's predetermination is according His foreknowledge.
You claim that salvation is monergistic yet you claim that you are saved by grace through faith
So either salvation is entirely monergistic, which means that you are saved by virtue of election and election alone or there is an element to salvation that the person must do in order to be saved, i.e, repent, believe, exercise saving faith...
Unless the faith is God's faith, the repentance is God's repentance and the belief is God's belief, then there is a measure of synergism involved and therefore either election or salvation is conditional or you are preaching fatalistic determinism. You may not believe that you believe in Fatalistic Determinism, but by your construct you have created a theological condition whereby your salvation (or your damnation) are both determined wholly and totally by God's predetermined declaration and his unchangeable divine order and plan.
I hear you screaming "Oh, but that is a Hypercalvinistic heresy, which I don't believe." Ok, if you don't believe it, then tell me, is there anything you could have done in your life to change your elect status?
How is that not Fatalistic Determinism?
Explain that to me so that it makes sense. I've been here for 10 years and nobody yet has given me a satisfactory answer to that dilemma. You want to give it a stab, or do you just want to complain that I don't understand it so you are going to cry "Strawman! Strawman!" and pretend the contradiction does not exist?
Defend your position. Prove to me that divine election as you understand it is not fatalistic determinism. And if it is not fatalistic determinism, then show me how it is not theological synergism?
Take your time. I've been waiting 10 years for the answer, I can wait a while longer (God willing).
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.