Posted on 08/13/2003 6:04:31 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
Introduction: the Anti-Predestinarian Syllogism
In debates between Reformation Protestants and Arminian neo-Protestants, it is common for Arminians to invoke a peculiar and logically-fallacious syllogism in an effort to deflect attention from the evidentiary insurmountability of the Biblical Case for Reformation Protestantism. This syllogism is constructed in the form of a classic ad hominem Guilt-by-Association argument, according to the following general Form:
Needless to say, it makes little impression upon the Arminian neo-Protestant that the Doctrines of Absolute Predestination were believed by Godly Christians for centuries before Calvin (i.e., 10th-15th Century Waldensian CredoBaptists, the 6th-9th Century Presbyters of Iona, the 4th-10th Century Ambrosian Catholics, Saint Augustine, the Apostles, Jesus Christ Himself, etc). What matters is the argumentative usefulness of being able to lay this charge to the particular account of John Calvin, and thus evade the theological defeat of the UnBiblical Arminian systematic heresy by re-framing the debate as a mud-throwing competition directed against one particular Reformer.
Now, before we proceed, we should observe: the Arminian neo-Protestant assertions against Calvin are not borne out by the Facts of History in the first place.
Uncomfortable Facts about Michael Servetus
Michael Servetus was:
In point of History, Michael Servetus was executed as a matter of State Punishment, as sentenced by the Civil Council of Geneva – which itself was controlled at the time by Calvin’s political enemies, the Libertines. In fact, as the Libertine Party itself rejected Calvin’s doctrine of Predestination, it is more historically accurate to say that Servetus was killed by the Anti-Predestinarian “protestants”, than to attribute the deed to Calvin (who at any rate pleaded for a more merciful execution “by the Sword”, rather than the slow burning-to-death on which the vicious Anti-Predestinarians insisted).
Be that as it may, however, it needs be asked – if it is appropriate for Arminian neo-Protestants to employ such a Syllogism against the Reformer John Calvin, is it not equally appropriate to measure by the same standard the heretical Schismatic who, perhaps more than any other single man, was fundamentally responsible for sundering the Godly unity of Reformation Protestantism into a thousand confused and competing sects – James Arminius? To that Question we now turn:
Arminius – his teachings on Politics, Religion, and the Sword of the State
All Authority under Heaven, concerning both Natural and Spiritual matters, is concentrated in the Absolute Power of the State
It is the sole and absolute duty of the State to enforce all Ten Commandments, and to enact all laws both civil and ecclesiastical, and to eradicate all Evil from society.
All Authority over the Christian Church is concentrated in the Absolute Power of the State
The Utter Subjection of all Human life, whether natural or spiritual, to the Dictates of the Absolute State should be “terrified and compelled” by the Power of the Sword:
Phew.... Thank God that America was founded primarily by convinced Calvinists, and not Arminians. Moving along, though, let us now apply the Arminian's Favorite Syllogism -- to Arminius himself.
Arminius at the Bar of the Arminian Syllogism:
Hmmmm. Howzabout that.
Amen to that! The Wesley/Arminian camp has this idea that God thinks like us, and responds like us. They view the Gospel through those glasses, where it's all about "fairness" and giving man the ability to choose God while still unregenerate, all men have an "equal chance", and God wants man to choose Him freely. They shrink away from the God of scripture, because He seems to be very "set in His ways" and they want a "flexible" Gospel.
Wesley may have introduced the emphasis on prevenient grace into Arminianism, but his was hardly a new development -- Wesley largely imported his emphasis on prevenient grace from Molinism.
None of which goes to the heart of the issue. Both Wesley and De Molina proposed that, via the agency of "prevenient grace", an unregenerate Man could confess the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
In other words, contra the Gospel of John 3:3, both Wesley and De Molina proposed that unregenerate Man could come to recognize the Kingship of Jesus without first being Born Again. Importing "prevenient grace" into the mix does nothing to change this wholesale repudiation of John 3:3.
I don't find that idea to be supportable.
Wesley's impact has been enormous in that today there are approximately 70 million members of methodistic bodies worldwide.
More importantly, as mentioned, his addition of the doctrine of prevenient grace led "free will-ism" (arminianism) to numerical superiority in the Christian landscape.
However, Calvins sins have no bearing on what his theology teaches.
Moreover, his unchristian action against Servetus would only mean that Calvin was not saved if one rejected eternal security.
Since most Arminians do reject it, I can see the logic of their argument, but the fact is a saved man can commit any crime an unsaved one can and remain saved.
Okay, let's play "Matthew 11" one more time.
You claim (without any Biblical support) that it's all about "dispensational considerations", I grant your (UnBiblical) "dispensational considerations" only to remind you that God (NOT MAN) is the one who decides all those "dispensational considerations", including who shall be Saved and who shall not, and then you run off with your tail between your legs.
I mean, we can play this number again, but the Song Remains The Same.
However, Calvins sins have no bearing on what his theology teaches. Moreover, his unchristian action against Servetus would only mean that Calvin was not saved if one rejected eternal security. Since most Arminians do reject it, I can see the logic of their argument, but the fact is a saved man can commit any crime an unsaved one can and remain saved.
Exactly. By the same token, if Eternal Security is not true, then the horrific mass-murders perpetrated by virtually all Anti-Predestinarians throughout history would surely count against the satanic Anti-Predestinarian theology (British Arminians murdering Calvinists by the bushel-load, Anti-Predestinarian Catholics murdering Predestinarian Waldensian Baptists by the truck-load, etc....)
But of course, Anti-Predestinarianism fails simply because it is utterly Anti-Christian -- the millions of Predestinarian Christians murdered by satanic "Free-Willers" is just an incidental matter, really.
I actually do know some happy Calvinists. As I have said on many occasions, the are also non-Calvinist churches th at have unBiblical concepts related to enjoying an abundant life, so one cannot reasonably say I am biased against just SOME Calvinists in this respect.
If it's Total Inability/Depravity/Original Sin you challenge, you should know most Protestant faiths, as well as all Catholics, affirm it.
There is no Biblical basis for the position that man is totally depraved.
Calvinists are not alone in the belief that man is fallen, and only God saves.
I believe this as well. One can also believe this without holding the position that God predestined and foreordained each person who would be saved and who would be condemned to Hell.
Are you really so dense as to miss the point of my comments? No rational person would justify Naziism or canabalism based on the nature of the times and circumstances, yet some of you Calvinists are trying to just that by expalining away Calvin's personal involvement that assured the execution of Servetus. You might as well face the fact that Calvin was not perfect. The reason you refuse to accept this possibility is that to do so would also be an implied recognition that at least parts of his theology might be unBiblical. Why are you defending Calvinism and Calvin at all costs.
I think one must be born again before one can truly comprehend the Kingdom of God.
Your opposition to Calvinism boils down to this one, foundational cornerstone -- Calvinists are preaching the Gospel that Jesus Preached (John 3:3). Because you oppose that Gospel, you oppose Calvinism -- not for any other major reason at all.
Now where is that Calvinist who claimed that some Calvinists do not put Calvinism on the same level as the Gospel? Are you passing juidgement on me about whether I am a Christian or not? I do not oppose the Gospel, but you are so emotionally committed to Calvinism that you seem to believe that anyone who is not a Calvinist is opposed to the Gospel. Not even Edwin Palmer would agree with you. In fact, he said Arminians are fellow believers in Christ.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but like some Calvinists, your perfectionist tendencies won't permit you to admit any mistakes in either theology or judgment.
Why, you keep losing!
You claim (without any Biblical support) that it's all about "dispensational considerations", I grant your (UnBiblical) "dispensational considerations" only to remind you that God (NOT MAN) is the one who decides all those "dispensational considerations", including who shall be Saved and who shall not, and then you run off with your tail between your legs.
No, the issue is, did those cities have sufficent revelation to repent, not did they have all the revelation they needed to repent.
In fact, that verse shows that it is the revelation that man is responding to, not the pretemporal election, since Christ would not be rebuking them for rejecting them for what they cannot receive.
Moroever, Christ also states that the punishment of the cities that had less revelation will be judged less harshly.
This is an issue of middle knowledge, God foreknowing what choices would and could have been made under various circumstances.
Thus, those choices were foreknown before they were Decreed to happen, not foreknown because they were Decreed.
Some one may object that Jesus speaks of the unequal opportunities of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, as compared with those of Tyre and Sidon, but to this we reply that God is under no obligation to perform supernatural works among men to induce them to repent, but He did this during the earthly life of Christ for the proof of His Deity, which proof was intended for all generations to come, and the privilege afforded the generation then living was incidental and not an act of partiality.(Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic theology, p.347)
In fact, Christ may have been speaking using a figure a speech (hyperbole), which is what the Calvinist Gill believes.
But lets say it is true that had those cities received the revelation that the Jews were receiving they would have repented (counter-factual knowledge), it does not mean they were predestined to hell by the sovereign election of God, since they still had to reject the revelation that was given to them (Psa.19, Rom.1)
That choice is what damned them.
All men have a sufficent chance to be saved, but God is not bound to give every man an equal chance to be saved.
I am sure many people had extra chances because they had saved people praying for them, which moved God to keep striving with them, long after God would have normally stopped.
I mean, we can play this number again, but the Song Remains The Same.
Yes, the 'song' does remain the same, and Matthew 11 is a knife at the heart of Calvinism.
Augustines 'hammer' couldn't break an egg! LOL!
However, Calvins sins have no bearing on what his theology teaches. Moreover, his unchristian action against Servetus would only mean that Calvin was not saved if one rejected eternal security. Since most Arminians do reject it, I can see the logic of their argument, but the fact is a saved man can commit any crime an unsaved one can and remain saved. Exactly. By the same token, if Eternal Security is not true, then the horrific mass-murders perpetrated by virtually all Anti-Predestinarians throughout history would surely count against the satanic Anti-Predestinarian theology (British Arminians murdering Calvinists by the bushel-load, Anti-Predestinarian Catholics murdering Predestinarian Waldensian Baptists by the truck-load, etc....)
Yes, that would mean that those 'nasty' Arminians are in heaven also.
The Catholics are a different issue since they believe in salvation by works not faith, so are not saved in the first place (if they are consistent with what Rome teaches)
But of course, Anti-Predestinarianism fails simply because it is utterly Anti-Christian -- the millions of Predestinarian Christians murdered by satanic "Free-Willers" is just an incidental matter, really.
I think Rome is responsible for murdering both Arminians and Calvinists and Baptists.
But how does that remove the guilt of Calvin or any other Calvinist.
No one is saying that the Calvinist crimes were not as extensive as that of Romes, only that they were the same in kind (religious attempt to build a kingdom of God on earth without Christ)
I would not be suprised if Wesley, Arminius, Spurgeon, Whitefield, Buynan, Moody, Sunday, Cartright, Calvin are all in heaven right now laughing at the theological differences that divided them when they were alive.
No, that's simply wrong.
This is a Battle which goes back long before Wesley -- indeed, even to the earliest days of Christianity, and even pre-Christian Judaism. The Essenes and the Messianic Pharisees (closest to Christianity in Doctrine -- indeed, many became Christians, as recorded in Acts), were rigidly Absolute Predestinarian, as were Jesus Christ and his Apostles; whereas the Legalist Pharisees and the heretical Sadducees, as has befitted all blasphemers against God at all times, everywhere, were impassioned advocates of Human Free Will.
So it has always been for the Predestinarian Church of God and Christ.
So it has been since the Lie of Eden.
So it ever shall be.
Wesley introduced nothing new to this struggle.... just more of the same.
That is true, Wesley returned to the original teachings of the Church on predestination, the one held for the first three centuries before Augustine invented what would become the lie of Geneva
Oh, really? Here comes the Hammer, FTD...
Yes, let's say just that (since that is what Jesus said, after all) -- it is true that had those cities received the revelation that the Jews were receiving they would have repented.
Alright, then --
Thus GOD ALONE, by His decision that those cities should NOT receive the revelation that the Jews were receiving, created a Reality in which it was absolutely-certain that they would NOT repent -- IN PREFERENCE TO creating a Reality in which it was absolutely-certain that they WOULD Repent.
True, or False?
Admit the Literal Truth of Matthew 11, and it's only a matter of time.
We play, you lose. Here it comes again.
No, that's Constantine, you dilettante. Must I teach you EVERYTHING??
No, Wesley merely re-introduced into Godly Protestantism the same "Free Will" heresy which was preached by Rome after its rejection of Christ and the Apostles, and had been preached by the satanic Sadducees five centuries before.
|
Time Period |
Believers |
Doctrine |
Heretics |
Heresy |
| Pre-Christian |
Essenes & Messianic Pharisees |
Absolute Predestination |
Sadducees & Legalist Pharisees |
Free Will |
| Christian Apostolic |
Jesus Christ & The Apostles |
Absolute Predestination |
Marcionite (Gospel of Love) |
Free Will |
| Christian Patristics |
Ambrose & Augustine |
Absolute Predestination |
Pelagius & Massilians |
Free Will |
| Christian Middle Ages |
Waldensian Baptists & others |
Absolute Predestination |
Medieval Romanism |
Free Will |
| Christian Reformation |
Protestant Reformers |
Absolute Predestination |
Molinist Jesuits |
Free Will |
| Christian Evangelistic explosion |
Charles Spurgeon & William Carey |
Absolute Predestination |
John "High Church" Wesley |
Free Will |
| Modern Christianity |
Calvinist Christians |
Absolute Predestination |
Everybody Else |
Free Will |
So it has ever been.
So it ever shall be.
OP
Not the least but Odd. In case you don't remember, the Roman Church was originally Christian. In fact, I think it's fair to say that Arminians are self-professed "christians" who still disagree with the Apostle Paul's Ninth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans.
And what is more... Not Odd in a second respect. The original word was the Greek hairetikos "able to choose" from the verb hairesthai "to chose". From the very beginning of the Christian Church, even the term HERETIKOS itself has been synonymous with the idea that one is, of one's own Free Will, "able to choose for God or against God".
Free-Willism is not merely "one of" the Heresies which has assailed the Church of God and Christ; Free-Willism is, and has been from the beginning of Christianity, the actual dictionary-definition of Heresy itself according to the Church of God and Christ.
To believe that one is, of one's own Free Will, "able to choose" for God or against God is, by the very definition of the Early Christian Church -- HERETIKOS.
I have spoken to many Christians in my day, probably as a result of being a chaplain in the US Army for 20 years, and these have been from many more denominations than I knew existed prior to entering service.
Most of them ARE familiar with free will doctrines. They question why evil exists in the world. It's a naturally arising question that each Christian must deal with.
I'd agree that most of them cannot talk to you about the term 'prevenient grace,' but they can speak to you about the convicting power of the Holy Spirit on a person prior to that person becoming Christian.
They are doctrinally uneducated but spiritually aware of the great questions of the faith. I think calvinists would find many of them very inquisitive about calvinist predestinarianism IF calvinists approached it with the grace of a DrE or a DrJ and not with a baseball bat.
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.