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 ...
Romans 1 is about natural revelation and has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. The chapter is clear on that. That is why there is no excuse for anyone to deny God’s existence because of the law in their heart. He goes on and talks about that in the subsequent chapters. You can’t just pick apart Paul’s thinking and apply your own thesis apart from understanding the entirety of his argument. Show me how the conclusions you come to are a necessary consequence of his entire argument without cherry-picking a few verses and mistranslating them for your purposes. Give me an analysis of Romans 1-8.
It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification. Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God."
We OBTAIN ACCESS. How? BY FAITH. Access into what? This grace in which we stand.
If we have access ("the ability, right, or permission to approach, enter, speak with, or use; admittance") by faith, then we enter thru faith.
If you want to call that a new law, then I would remind you of the Jews in John 6:
28Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?"
29Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."
Jesus says that if you want to be justified by works, then there is one you must do - believe. IF you want to call that a work - but scripture does not.
What do you think revelation is? Do you think men look at nature, and on their own realize there is a god?
What does it SAY?
" 18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them."
Pull off your Calvin blinders and READ!
“IF you want to call that a work - but scripture does not.”
I don’t think your semantic switcheroo will work. A condition is a law is a work.
Jesus has already answered your objection. If you won’t listen to Jesus, then you aren’t likely to listen to Mr Rogers...
Yes.
"Pull off your Calvin blinders and READ!"
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves. Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another.
“Jesus has already answered your objection. If you won’t listen to Jesus, then you aren’t likely to listen to Mr Rogers...”
lol. What part of what Jesus said wasn’t I listening to? “This is the work of God”?
You asked for an outline of 8 chapters of Romans, but you cannot read 2 consecutive verses without distorting it to meet your traditions of man:
28Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?”
29Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
Laugh all you want, and out loud, but it is repentance that is needed. God gives revelation, but those who reject it will lose it.
I'm sure you have a perfectly clear scripture to back up that statement.
BTW "through faith" is a condition... unless that verse is just fluff.
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?
I think it is totally issue-oriented, so either one of us could agree with a non-Trinitarian about some matter of Christianity without associating ourselves with that non-Trinitarian belief. By comparison (not involving Trinitarian belief) I agree with Catholics that the Orthodox are wrong in their belief that all the Scriptures are not infallible. However, I join with the Orthodox in disagreeing with Latins over things like Papal supremacy and the Immaculate Conception. I don't think this would peculiarly link me to either Orthodoxy or the Latin Rite in any general sense.
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?
I would say it should never be more important than the Trinity (more precisely the identity of Christ), but I understand that there are many issues that people think are very very important. I'm sure all of us at times have lost track of the fact that we are throwing our rocks at our Christian brothers and sisters, and so we should try to remember to do it with love. :)
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?
I would think less than 50-50, but I have no idea of an actual number. What I would do in reality would be to look for an "Orthodox Presbyterian" church. Then I would have full confidence.
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.
Yes, many Catholics have told me that and I have no reason to question it. But I think the same principle would apply to churches with the words "Orthodox Presbyterian" or "Southern Baptist" or "Reformed church". In each case I could be reasonably sure of what to expect.
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.
Agreed, and I think it's a good testament to both sides that most of the regular posters really do know what they're talking about concerning their own faiths.
I firmly believe that the RF here is among the best places ANYWHERE for discussion of religious beliefs. ......... 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.
I couldn't agree more. I am very grateful for the many many hours Catholics have spent writing to me and teaching me about Catholicism. I know it has helped me to understand my faith better and to grow as a Christian, especially in being introduced to the history and writings of the early Church Fathers.
Unless God (assuming you would recognize him!) said it in front of you, you must believe it, based on nothing more than another man's testimony. So, when you say that God said something how is it that you "know" unless you are willing to believe that a book, which was written by an human, represents God word?
In the past I have gotten answers like "because the Spirit revealed it to me," or something to that effect. Which basically means I have would have to believe you just because you say so.
In other words you believe it's true because it's in the book and the book is true because you believe it is!
ALMIGHTY GOD
Is faithful
--according to HIS priorities, ways and schedule--
to provide plenty of dialogue and evidence of HIMSELF in a Believer's life
WHO is earnestly endeavoring to put Him first and walk according to His Manual.
While also providing sufficient hindrances to the haughty, demanding, prissy, self-righteous pharisees to leave them and their stinkin' thinkin' and stinkin' attitudes outside the camp.
Folks who seek to know God must approach Him according to HIS SCRIPT, not theirs.
He shows remarkable flexibility for those who truly LOVE HIM and show it.
He's the most immovable entity there is . . . to those who won't.
Yes. It comes down to belief. It doesn’t have to be an unreasonable belief, but there is a reason we are saved by grace thru faith, not grace thru proof.
Worth repeating:
He shows remarkable flexibility for those who truly LOVE HIM and show it.
He’s the most immovable entity there is . . . to those who won’t.
Off the hook? What kind of craziness is this? Have you even been around newborn babies? There can be no kind of talk about "off the hook" or responsibility or anything like that with newborns. To consider newborns 'responsible' for anything is several kinds of evil.
THX for your kind reply.
Circular logic hardly qualifies for 'reasionable' even for a belief, but isn't all the Bible quoting "proving" that you are saved by grace through faith?
I am not talking of quoting Scripture verses; I am talking about the knowledge of salvation given to one by the Reformed Holy Spirit. If the Reformed Holy Spirit can give one perfect knowledge, then why rely on these multiple versions of Scripture translated, interpreted and printed by men?
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?
Yes. And?
And among the happier ones, are not many of those also more moral than the less better off people (during their times on earth)?
In your previous argument, you stated that temporal happiness was related to knowledge of the Gospel. I still challenge you to provide evidence that Reformed reprobates led happier lives on earth knowing the Gospel. I will further ask whether that is even pertinent. An eternity in the agony of hell dwarfs a lifetime of being a Reformed reprobate, does it not? Does it then matter?
Could you explain where you are coming from?
I'll try. If the Reformed Holy Spirit transfers all required knowledge to the newly transformed believer, then there is no point to any printed matter, since the believe will have all that he requires. Preaching the Gospel to the Reformed reprobate is worse than useless to them, since it might be considered the equivalent of taunting them with something that they cannot attain.
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.
I say yes, but only based upon the Judgement.
Not to mince words but you are not saved by faith. You are saved by grace through faith. Grace is the reason you are saved. Faith is the mode of imparting grace and for grace to happen, faith must be given. Faith comes from hearing...
One thing about natural world is that it provides plenty of evidence of itself in EVERYONE'S life, and does not demand that you believe and worship it! It seems to me, contrary to what the scriptures say, that in this case it is God who is partial and not the natural world.
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.