| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 05/26/2018 9:25:39 PM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish, personal, and attacks |
Posted on 05/26/2018 7:00:33 AM PDT by tiredofallofit
Well I finally got around to it – I am reading through some of the Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin. I say “some” because the complete work spans more than 1500 pages and deals with some of the most weighty and complex theological issues known to mankind. I have chosen for now to plod my way through the most controversial aspects of Calvin’s writings; the topics of predestination and election.
Most of my friends who call themselves Calvinists are eager to disassociate themselves from the doctrine of “double predestination”. They state that God has predestined some to eternal life, but they assure me that He would never send people to hell. People get there on their own, I am told. And what did Calvin teach? I ask. Usually, I receive some sort of vague answer – like how Calvin’s writings are difficult to understand or how misunderstood he is by other denominations. Ok, I get that. He was an intellectual giant – but what did he say about double predestination and if you don’t know exactly, then why do you call yourself a Calvinist?
So I decided to have a look for myself. Surprisingly, The Institutes of the Christian Religion are not so difficult to read or comprehend, despite the complexity of the topics discussed.
Calvin begins his discourse on the doctrine of predestination and election in Chapter 21 of Book 3 of his Institutes. If one just reads the title of this chapter and nothing else, he or she quickly ascertains Calvin’s view on double predestination – for the chapter is titled “OF THE ETERNAL ELECTION, BY WHICH GOD HAS PREDESTINATED SOME TO SALVATION, AND OTHERS TO DESTRUCTION.” That’s pretty clear, is it not?
But in case you still doubt his position, allow me to share with you this excerpt from Section 5 in Chapter 21:
"All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death."
He goes on to address the “arrogant” and “blasphemous” objections which are leveled at his view of predestination. And there are plenty of such objections. In typical Calvin style, he does not back down nor does he attempt to soften his message. God ordains some people to heaven and some people to hell, end of story.
“If that is what Calvin truly taught,” a Calvinist friend told me recently, “then I shouldn’t call myself a Calvinist. That’s not what I believe.”
There is no doubt that Calvin fully subscribed to the doctrine of double predestination. He invented it! Maybe it’s time for some Calvinists to revisit these Institutes of his and reevaluate their desire to affix this label on themselves.
Reference:
Calvin, John. Institutes of Christian religion. Trans. Henry Beveridge, Esq. 1599. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Nov. 1999. 20 Sept. 2001
God is awesome. Everything else isn’t. Oh sure, some things are great, wonderful, or the best ever. But only God is awesome.
The term “predestine” is not the correct word for the idea or at least our understanding of it’s meaning.
The “idea” of predestination” is really quite simple, and easy to understand.
God is all knowing.
He KNOWS, before you are born, whether you are going to heaven or hell.
He does not CAUSE (determine) it, you do.
Catholic, Protestant, or Calvinist, it doesn’t matter. God knows EVERYTHING.
“Fate” is a concept that only God really understands.
https://www.allaboutgod.com/omniscience-of-god.htm
“As believers our future is secure. Not because we know what lies ahead, but because God knows.”
Excellent site!
Thank you!
“God hated Esau, even before he was born.”
Comes from Malachi, not Genesis. References the descendents of Esau, not Esau himself. God knew what Esau would become before he was born, and He knew Esau would not have much of a heart for God. Doesn’t mean God forced him to become that way.
Might want to think about corporate predestination:
While Luther argued in favor of free will, Calvin always said that was nonsense
Just because a man says something about God doesn’t make it so
“But there are some of you that believe not: for Jesus knew from the beginning, which they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of my Father. “
It means *esteem less*.
Here, in the Greek
http://biblehub.com/romans/9-13.htm
http://biblehub.com/greek/3404.htm
miseó: to hate
Original Word: μισέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: miseó
Phonetic Spelling: (mis-eh'-o)
Short Definition: I hate, detest
Definition: I hate, detest, love less, esteem less.
HELPS Word-studies
3404 miséō – properly, to detest (on a comparative basis); hence, denounce; to love someone or something less than someone (something) else, i.e. to renounce one choice in favor of another.
Lk 14:26: "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate (3404 /miséō, 'love less' than the Lord) his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple" (NASU).
[Note the comparative meaning of 3404 (miséō) which centers in moral choice, elevating one value over another.]
The verses that say that some are predestined to be saved can also mean that those God foreknew would believe and accept His offer of salvation when offered to them, He decided to save instead of sending to hell for their sin as they rightly deserve.
There are too many passages in Scripture where God tells us to choose.
Too many places where God commands or calls unbelievers and rebellious to repent and come to Him.
Places where it says that His will is that ALL come to repentance.
Love is not love if it compelled and foreordained and we are just puppets playing out the bit piece that God in His sovereignty ordained for us to do.
Do I believe in FREE will?
No. We have a will but it is not totally free. We are either slaves to sin or salves to God. We cannot come to Him unless He draws us, for sure, but if God MADE people to believe, then it is not love freely given.
I think He allows many to be born and die knowing that they will never be saved, but I do not believe for a minute that He created them just for that purpose.
Oh, the irony of that statement.
Catholicism is just as much a man made religion as any other.
But that aside, the believer does NOT follow a RELIGION, but a person.
Believers follow Jesus, not a organization or set of rules and regulations and practices that supposedly make them right before God.
FORGIVENESS and being clothed with the righteous life of Christ is the only way that one is deemed worthy to stand in God's presence.
The verse doesn’t mean that “God hated Esau, even before he was born.”
The literal rendering, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated,” suggests an attitude of divine hostility that is not implied in Paul’s statement. In Semitic usage “hate” means to love less; cf. Lk 14:26 with Mt 10:37. Israel’s unbelief reflects the mystery of the divine election that is always operative within it. Mere natural descent from Abraham does not ensure the full possession of the divine gifts; it is God’s sovereign prerogative to bestow this fullness upon, or to withhold it from, whomsoever he wishes; cf. Mt 3:9; Jn 8:39. The choice of Jacob over Esau is a case in point.
God also knew in advance which one would be the one who would choose to follow Him and submit and would be the correct instrument for the line of the Messiah.
So, yes, God chose Jacob, but it was not with the arbitrariness the Calvinist position implies.
I realize that since you are an inactive Catholic, you express your personal opinions without any facts or understanding of teachings of Jesus and His Church. May you find the Truth.
Jesus established a visible and hierarchical church
We know from elsewhere in Scripture Jesus clearly intends his church to be visible with a hierarchical structure. Take for example Matthew 16:18-19: Jesus promises to make Peter the rock upon which he will build his church, which indicates Jesus’ intention for Peter to be the visible foundation for the Church of Christ on Earth—a visible marker that identifies Jesus’ true church. Wherever the foundation is, there is the true church.
Jesus also gives Peter the keys of the kingdom (Matt. 16:19). In the Jewish tradition, the image of the keys signifies a governing role in the Davidic kingdom known as the royal steward (see Isa. 22:15-22). If Peter is a governor, then there must be a society to govern. Sounds like a visible and hierarchical church to me.
In another passage in Matthew, Jesus makes it clear the church, and not the individual, is the final court of appeal when it comes to settling disputes among Christians:
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:15-18)
If Jesus doesn’t intend for there to be a visible and hierarchical governing body of officials, and the church were merely an invisible community of believers, then what sense can be made of him saying, “Take it to the church”? Furthermore, since Gentiles and tax collectors were considered outcasts, Jesus’ use of these terms for those that disobey the church signifies visible boundaries for church membership.
The language of “binding and losing” in Matthew 18:18 also signifies Jesus’ intention to constitute his church as a visible and hierarchical society. This language is familiar terminology in the Jewish tradition. It signifies both doctrinal and juridical authority. Biblical scholar Edward Sri writes:
Binding and loosing sometimes denotes teaching authority. Rabbis, for instance, were said to bind and loose when they made authoritative rulings on what was lawful and unlawful behavior and what was acceptable and unacceptable doctrine. The expression can also refer to juridical authority. By this is meant the power to accept or forbid a person’s fellowship in the community of faith, which includes the authority to excommunicate and the authority to restore to membership (Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture: The Gospel of Matthew, 210).
Notice embedded in the meaning of “binding and losing” is the idea of hierarchy and the idea of a community of believers with distinct boundaries of membership. Since Christ uses this language with reference to his apostles, it follows that Christ intends his church to be a visible society with a hierarchical structure.
So, if Jesus is not teaching in Luke 9:49-50 the invisible church doctrine common among Protestants, then what is he teaching?
Jesus established one church, the Catholic Church, and constituted it as visible and hierarchical. And because he desires all men to become members of that church, he works in the lives of those outside the Church’s visible boundaries in order to draw them into the unity his Church possesses.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/does-being-catholic-matter
God Bless you.
>>There is nothing you can do about it.
Its not about what you can do about it. It is about what you can do WITH it. The bible, church, etc is not an insurance policy, a Get Out Of Hell Free card. Your mindset is unworshipful. It is the mindset of “OK God. I did what you want. You owe me!”
>>The moral code given by God is useless.
Again, if a moral code has to give YOU something then you are morally bankrupt.
>>If God predestined you to hell, no amount of righteous living will save you.
>>If God predestined you to heaven, no amount of sin will condemn you.
He didn’t predestine you to hell. He just gave you a set of rules and you broke them. You break them every day. Jesus told you that.
>>Pure, true Calvinism is theologically bankrupt. And I don’t know why you would even argue that, because it won’t matter.
When I was a Methodist, we had classes on why Calvinism is wrong. the pastor would preach at least once a year on the evils of TULIP. The “theologically bankrupt” charge was common, yet when I began to question it and their proofs, I was told to just accept it and know that they are right because it is all part of the “mystery” (the very definition of theological bankruptcy). When I went to a Calvinist for answers, he gladly explained (with scripture) where Arminianism is wrong and then proved (again, with scripture and not just a few out of context proofs) why Jesus, Paul, and Calvin were right.
>>So then, nothing really matters, as you said.
Everything matters. If you seek after God, then God chose you. Your theology does not matter to him. Only HIS theology matters to him.
>>Comforting, that.
It should be, but I sense that you want to be the master of your destiny and you feel that God needs to obey your wishes to choose him and then he needs to reward you for your efforts, even though he told you that they are sewage to him. Take comfort in the fact that God is a better God than you are, even though you hate that.
Yup.
And most Christians in the circles I move in know exactly what the Calvinist take on predestination is. It comes up every time the second chapter of Ephesians is taught.
>>The point was that God allows us to make the decision whether to Love God and follow His commandments.
Adam and Eve did not have a corrupt heart as you and I do. You should not presume to think that you are the same as them before the Fall. They walked and talked with God, an act that would destroy you.
>>Why do some follow a man-made religion instead of being part of the Church founded by Jesus Christ?
You mean Jehovah’s Witnesses and Unitarians? I do not know.
Absolutely not.
Jesus is the Rock on which His church is being built.
He never said to Peter, YOU are the rock on which I will build my church, nor did He say to the other disciples, HE is the rock on which I will build my church.
One does not build on a pebble, but on bedrock.
http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/10-4.htm
Paul himself here identifies just who the petra, that the church is built on, and it's JESUS, NOT Peter.
1 Corinthians 10:1-4 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock (petra) that followed them, and the Rock (petra) was Christ.
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.