Posted on 06/21/2012 8:24:00 AM PDT by fishtank
Are lions and tigers and bears perfect? No? They must be depraved creatures. They have no free will either.
Why are they not likewise selected for eternal damnation?
It seems for Calvinism, man is inferior to the basest animal.
He is perfectly willing to give us a good swift kick in the pants to get us to do what He wants us to do-and rightfully should He.
In Calvinism, God gets us to do what He wants by making us incapable of doing otherwise. Declaring elect, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints.
And the corollary, doing evil by damning us to it incapable of choosing otherwise.
Isn't this really what Calvinist mean by sovereignty of God?
And from this error you get the error that follows:
Those who believe they have no choice to sin or not, they need no excuses - for they have no responsibility for sin. Only God does.
I do not believe God “willed” the horror of Hitler or Stalin, or “willed” the AIDS epidemic ...I think the writer was stating God is incapable of sin.
“Everything is under the sovereign will of God. The rule of everything has been given to Christ. God is incapable of sin but that doesn’t mean He doesn’t use our sinfulness to exact His plans. Scripture is very clear about God raising up godless rulers or sending demons to exact His will. And if God sent a tornado tomorrow so that we would return to Him, that isn’t sin on God’s part. One would hope that it would get our attention.”
~ ~ ~
I also said this...except for my first sentence here.
I think we agree, it’s the way we each state it. God doesn’t raise up “godless rulers.” Nor does He send “demons to exact His will”, that would be cooperating with evil and their hate. If you mean God sees all and being divine can bring good out men’s (not always) sinful CHOICES and demon’s always evil intent, yes.
There’s that free will, it’s true.
“In Calvinism, God GETS US TO DO WHAT HE WANTS by MAKING US INCAPABLE OF DOING OTHERWISE. Declaring elect, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints.
And the corollary, doing evil by damning us to it incapable of choosing otherwise.
Isn’t this really what Calvinist mean by sovereignty of God?”
~ ~ ~
It’s hard to change people’s minds. Is this what it
means, is this the definition of Calvin’s “irresistable”
grace?
There’s no love in it, right, we are just play things then.
Free Will, the opposite, is the most wonderful gift.
“What separates Protestants from Catholics is the Protestant notion that Scripture and Holy Tradition are antithetical; that for one to be accepted the other must be rejected.”
That really is a misstatement of the problem. Sola Scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all facts relevant to the Christian faith. See John 21:25. And it does not at all dislodge the Church’s authority to teach doctrine. See 1 Timothy 3:15. Else why would the Holy Spirit give the gift of teaching to living teachers? See 1 Corinthians 12:28.
Instead, it is a claim that the Bible, and only the Bible, is sufficient to serve as the rule of faith for all who are in Christ. Put another way, while there may be much useful information in the world, only Scripture may state the binding requirements of Christian belief.
Implicit in the foregoing definition is that all claims to bind the Christian conscience must be tested against Scripture, as the Bereans were commended for doing. See Acts 17:11. Those where there is no conflict are admitted as valuable. Those that are in conflict must give quarter to Scripture. It is our supreme court.
Therefore, NL’s argument that Sola Scriptura automatically implies rejection of oral traditions is a false dichotomy. No tradition is to be rejected out of hand. But as NL pointed out, in the early church there was great concern for the possibility of forgers assuming apostolic authority. This was happening even during the writing of the New Testament corpus.
But Paul was equally concerned with false oral tradition entering the Church’s stream of thought:
2 Thess 2:1-2 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.
Note Paul covers all three possible vectors of infection with false teaching, the human spirit, a forged letter AND misleading oral tradition. What was his proposed antidote? He writes them a new letter confirming to them what they heard from him in person. He took out the middle man and routed them to direct apostolic authority in written form (enSCRIPTURated).
Therefore, it would seem that any argument for an infallible oral tradition as a viable alternative to written apostolic teaching should have been raised by Paul here. The false oral tradition he was refuting claimed apostolic authority, so mere claims of apostolic authority are not enough. Yet all Paul does is direct them to remember what he originally taught them, and see that it agrees with what he is telling them now, in written form.
It is therefore by agreement of the testimony of the teacher with the written record of apostolic teaching that we know the teaching is true.
To understand what we mean then by this idea of sufficiency as a rule of faith, let’s go back to a passage each side in this debate knows very well:
2Ti 3:16-17 “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
You know the drill, so I’ll get right to the point. Whatever Scripture is, it has certain attributes. It has the highest possible authority because it is inspired by God (theopneustos, God speaking). It provides true doctrine, rebuttal to error, directions for living, and is given to a singular purpose, that a believer may have everything they need to please God. (“complete,” then again as “thoroughly equipped”).
To put it in the negative, if Scripture, whatever it is, is NOT sufficient to the task of fully equipping the Christian to be Christian, then God has failed in his stated purpose in giving Scripture, and that of course can never be.
Therefore, this passage, while it does not explicitly define the canon of Scripture, does explain the self-contained nature of Scripture as the only necessary and preeminently authoritative rule of Christian faith. As that is what is meant by Sola Scriptura, then the Scriptures do indeed teach Sola Scriptura, assuming of course Paul’s writings to be Scripture, which I do not think is being contested here by either side.
Natural Law; He knew before the beginning of time that Mary would cooperate fully and unconditionally. That is why He preserved her sinless.
“Got ANY SCRIPTURE at all to back that up?”
~ ~ ~
Catholics are not trying to argue because of pride.
If you look at the KJV, King James’ awful translators
really added and took away from Genesis 3:15. God knows
everything we will choose. He knew from the beginning
Mary’s fiat. Her choice.
http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2009/12/immaculate-conception-of-mary-three.html
Mary as New Eve Having Enmity with Satan
Gen 3:15
I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel..
In this verse God addresses Satan. The Seed here is Christ. The Woman is His Mother, that is, Mary. Thus Satan has perfect enmity with Christ and with His Mother. The Catholic Church has interpreted this as indicating the sinlessness of Christ and Mary. IF EITHER ACTUALLY COMMITTED SIN, then they would not be at enmity with Satan but actually a cooperator with Satan at times
The KJV was never intended to be a perfect translation, but it really is quite good. The translation committee was composed of many who had studied the Biblical languages from their childhood, and many of their so-called mistranslations have been vindicated over time. You need to do better than just say, “they got it wrong.” What did they get wrong? I can read Hebrew. You can tell me. What exactly did they get wrong in Genesis 3:15?
“In Calvinism, God gets us to do what He wants by making us incapable of doing otherwise. Declaring elect, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints.”
One of the problems in this debate is the freedom non-Calvinists feel to define a belief they do not hold. That has to be counterproductive. If you want to know what a Calvinist believes, ask a Calvinist.
For example, the above caricature is a straw man. It paints God almost as some outsider who has no special role as our Creator. Calvinists only seek to ascribe to God what God ascribes to Himself in Scripture. In some places he woos, in other places he hardens hearts. Those Scriptures give an account of a God who can do things we sometimes don’t like, and many times simply do not understand. That is as it should be. We are in no position to judge God.
What do you make of this Scripture?
Act 4:27-28 “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.”
Judas betrayed Jesus. Pilate condemned Jesus. The Romans killed Jesus. And yet all of it was done under the hand and the purpose of God to bring about salvation through faith in Christ. These people were not straightjacketed into doing something they didn’t want to do. They acted according to their fallen nature, according to their own sunken lusts and desires. And yet their clearly evil acts resulted in the fulfillment of God’s promise to Adam and Eve, that he would crush the head of the serpent.
How can God do this, and still be holy? And yet there it is. The Scriptures remind us that God is not like man. He is our Creator, and like Job, sometimes we can’t come up with adequate explanations for all he does, how it all works, why is he doing it. He gave Satan the power to destroy Job’s children, and he did. Did Job call God a monster? His wife wanted him to. But Job refused to go there. The righteous heart replies as Job did. The Lord gives, the Lord takes away; Blessed be the name of the Lord.
Funny how I keep trying to agree with you to no effect. These posts do not allow for long involved statements of belief that address all possible objections. Love does not insist on its own way.
1. With all due respect, even if your first allegation that Jesus told no one to write anything were not flatly contradicted by Scripture itself, and it is, there would not be any way for you to know such a thing, unless you were omniscient.
2. I can cite twelve instances of Jesus telling someone to write something.
3. Is the allegation that Jesus told no one to write anything part of authoritative Church Tradition, and/or is is just your private interpretation of Church Tradition?
WIth regard to your allegation that there is nothing Scriptural about a New Testament, it should be noted that all of the present N.T. books were written and in circulation in the churches prior to 100 A.D., not 350 years later. Furthermore, in the mid first century Peter himself refers to Paul's letters as Scripture. And Paul quoted the writing of Luke as Scripture.
The facts do not support your claims.
Cordially,
I think your position: “How can God do this, and still be holy?” vindicates a lot of descriptions of Calvinism by non-Calvinists.
And previously, a Calvinist asserting Christ caused Hitler and Stalin.
These aren’t caricatures except to the non-Calvinist.
What I think is when presented with the conclusions, there is a need in Calvinism to soften or excuse; but, the cruel “unholy” conclusions of Calvinism remain and softening does not really change that.
thanks for your reply.
Name that tune!
Nice dodge, but no sale. You’ve put all your eggs in one basket, theodicy, and that basket must be examined. Theodicy is the primary weapon of the atheist. How could a holy God allow the holocaust to occur, at all? The atheist concludes that God is either not holy or not all powerful, and therefore in either case not God.
The problem of how evil can happen in a universe created by a holy God is not exclusively a Calvinist problem. It is a problem for all monotheists. For all your swagger, I am shocked you seem unaware of this.
And this is pragmatic to me personally. I have been an atheist. I am now a Christian. But my wife, whom I love dearly, has been through some very hard struggles, wherein the pleasant imaginations of her youth have been set aside for harder realities. Every day she wonders, with great pain, why God let it all happen. Do you think some unbiblical humanistic philosophy about free-will satisfies her? No, it does not.
There is a book I acquired, I can’t recall the name of it, surveying spiritual life among the Jewish survivors of the holocaust. Modern Judaism is comfortable with the idea of free-will. So how did it help? Not too much. There is a sharp division in the holocaust population. For some there was an increase of faith. But for many others, this problem of “Why, God?” could not be answered with glib platitudes of any kind. The holocaust was a gut-wrenching experience that turned many believing Jews to atheism.
Still, I understand if you don’t want to address it head on. It’s a very hard problem and it is not for the weak-kneed. If you would draw people to your position on emotional rather than logical or theological grounds, you should avoid it. Some of the rest of us will continue to struggle with it because it is in our life and we must deal with it one way or another.
But I must admit I am disappointed you didn’t respond to my Biblical question about Pilate versus Jesus. Is it that you can’t, or that you won’t? Just as a reminder, in case you are interested, the passage is here:
Act 4:27-28 “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.”
The passage applies to our theodicy problem because what Pilate did was clearly evil, yet God clearly meant it for good, the greatest good ever. Your “system” has no explanation for that? It wouldn’t surprise me. But if you wish not to respond, the choice is yours.
To borrow a phrase from Protestant apologists; "Show me in Scripture" where the creation of a Bible is commended or even referenced. And then show me where the contents are prescribed. The truth of the matter is that God's servants chosen to produce, preserve, protect and interpret a Bible were none other than the Catholic Church acting in the capacity of their commanded role as a teaching authority.
That is not to say there were no inspired writings before the Canon of the New testament was set in 380 AD (by the Catholic Church) but there were many, many more fraudulent and errant works circulating contemporaneously. Before the Church acted there was no authority to identify to anyone which writings were and were not authentic.
Compounding the problem, there was no single Jewish Canon other than the Pentateuch which was not actually committed to writing until the Babylonian exile. Even after that there were at least four different Jewish Canons, the most formal and widely accepted is the one rejected by much of Protestantism; the Septuagint (note: in the first century Alexandria had a Jewish population of over one million making it the largest Jewish city and doubling the population of Jerusalem).
"Completely untrue. Protestants do not think of tradition as automatically antithetical to Spriture. Where tradition is upheld by Scripture it must be adhered to. But Scripture is not to be DISCARDED only because someone prefers tradition."
Protestantism demands that Tradition play a subservient role to Scripture and then only within the Protestant interpretation of Scripture. Catholicism teaches that they are coequal and that Scripture must be interpreted in the context of Tradition lest it be hijacked and lead into heresy. When you think that Scripture and Tradition are in conflict or contradiction is an indication that you are in error.
Peace be with you
Gen 3:15 “And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.”
Curiously, the KJV, and every other modern translation outside of Catholic circles, gets this right. So how did it happen that Jerome got it wrong? He probably didn’t. In Latin, the difference between “ipsa” and “ipse” is very minor, and a copyist might well have introduced it by mistake. It further appears that in one of the earliest editions, the “old vulgate,” the pronoun was indeed masculine, and in accord with the traditional belief that the referent is the Seed, who is masculine, and not the woman. Sorry.
Rev. 1:1 "The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John."According to that verse, this is a revelation from Jesus Christ to John. This is what Jesus said to John:
Rev 1:11 Saying, which said: “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.”
Rev 1:19 “Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later.
Rev 2:1 “To the angel[a] of the church in Ephesus write: These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands
Rev 2:8 “To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again.
Rev 2:12 “To the angel of the church in Pergamum write: These are the words of him who has the sharp, double-edged sword.
Rev 2:18 “To the angel of the church in Thyatira write: These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze.
Rev 3:1 “To the angel[a] of the church in Sardis write: These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits[b] of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead.
Rev 3:7 “To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
Rev 3:14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation.
Rev 14:13 Then I heard a voice from heaven say, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” “Yes,” says the Spirit, “they will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them.”
Rev 19:9 Then the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!” And he added, “These are the true words of God.”
Rev 21:5 He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”
Cordially,
The problem of evil is a one religion has to reply to, yes.
The atheist says “God did it.” The Calvinist agrees.
Earlier I said that, IMHO, Calvinism has created more atheists than Christians. This is one of the reasons.
Just so we’re clear on what you say I’m caricaturing:
When you say “God woos” and I say “makes us incapable of doing otherwise,” we’re both talking about elect>irresistible grace>perseverance of the saints.
Is this correct? You call this wooing, I call it making us incapable of doing otherwise.
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.