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.
That's an understatement. Logic and consistency hold no sway over him. He's KJV-Only, remember? Your points, however, are right on the money. Unconditional Election is taught in scripture beginning in Exodus 33. Paul quoted the same scripture in Romans 9. What ftD misses is the fact that Predestination wasn't an issue in the early church, it was the accepted belief. Augustine dealt with it in an organized way when it was challenged. Just because something wasn't mentioned before doesn't mean it wasn't believed before. Doctrinal statements historically have been codified and defined in response to heresy, not just to have something to say "we all believe this". Today, the opposite is true. Today it's all about doctrinal statements to differentiate themselves from others, and "mission statements" to proclaim to others what they intend to do. the Early Church didn't operate in that fashion.
That "evil" spirit was a "natural disaster" spirit ala Isaiah 45:7. < /wink >
Jean
I see no real need to speculate as to how God will deal with these individuals even if others do.
Did God want Judas saved?
Depending on which Gospel you read, the evil spirit entered Judas when Jesus handed him the bread at the Last Supper; John 13:27. Only Matthew seems to state that Judas planned his betrayal prior to the Last Supper.
In any event, Judas was certainly confessed his sin of betrayal and then hanged himself; see Mt 27:3-5. His expression of remorse was sufficient enough to leave open the possibility that Judas was saved.
Did God preordain Judas and the crucifixion?
Some of the most faithful people I know who are going through or have gone through tremendous trials are Arminians. Personally, I think it has little to do with whether one is generally Calvinistic or Arminian, but just how much real faith one has in the fact that God is with them though the trials.
But only if man lets him be.
Arminians believe their will can over ride the "Arminian belief "that God wants all men without exception saved
They believe that every man can freely choose to do Gods "perfect will" or His "permissive will" or to do what is contrary to Gods will
So God is only sovereign if man allows it (which makes one wonder who is REALLY sovereign)
Seems obvious to me, but it would totally unreasonable to extrapolate a very specific act of predestination and apply it to the eternal destiny of all men.
When they quit whining about how their precious free will is completely obliterated in Calvinism (it's not) then I wouldn't have to ask questions like that. The real problem is that the free will the Arminians want to hang onto, the free will they claim man must use to receive Christ, is a will that cannot do what they claim for it. It is a "by your bootstraps" idea that has man actually turning the key in the lock. They can claim to believe that God does almost everything in the salvation of the individual, but they still want to reserve that one little thing where man is the one who does something to complete the process, or can completely halt it.
I understand why they believe that, and it's built on a faulty notion of God's Justice, God's Mercy, and their own concept of what's "fair" for God to do or not do. I overstate the free will in order to show the logical inconsistency of it. The Arminian system is a set of interlocking doctrines, each of which may not sound very wrong by themselves, but when fitted together, they create a system where man has a stake in, and a say in, his salvation, based on the idea that God "must" give man a free and unhindered choice for or against Christ, or God is being unfair. It is a well-constructed doctrine, I'll say that, but it's foundations are rotten. At the heart of their foundational belief is the idea that man's will was not damaged in the Fall, that it still retains the ability to choose God, and to choose good. They will admit that man is corrupted, but not totally. They will admit that man is depraved, but not totally. They shy away from the full implications of the Fall of man. That is a fatal flaw in the theology.
All of Calvinism rises or falls on the doctrine of Total Depravity. It is the key doctrine. None of the rest of it holds together if man is not totally depraved. Total Depravity is clearly and convincingly taught in scripture, from Genesis to Revelation.
Man can choose whether or not to sin, and the fact that a man can choose to sin has no effect on the sovereignity of God. After all, the sovereign can impose consequences for disobedience. So you see, man can have a free will and God still be sovereign. God is God, and God is sovereign, and the sovereign does not submit his will to his the will of his kingdom. Quite the contrary, if the people do not submit their will to the sovereign, there is a severe price to be paid.
Contrary to what you may think, most Arminians believe this.
You're the first professing Christian I've come across who puts forth Scriptural support for suicide.
I don't dispute that at all. My concern is for those who have had an emotional experience, or just "went along' with everybody else, and have no real foundation, because they haven't truly made the committment. It's more than just mumbling the "sinner's prayer", or "going forward" at an altar call. I don't believe that one is truly saved until thay have been made (by God) to see their sin, to see their life for what it truly is (an affront to God), and have actually realized that they are certain to burn unless they repent and turn to Him. That is the Efficacious Grace which regenerates the man's heart so he CAN believe savingly. Just saying "I believe" is not enough. The demons believe, and they are not saved. It is the quickening work of the Holy Spirit which causes salvation to take place, not just words mumbled by someone who intelletually realizes that they are a sinner. Personally, I think such things as the "Four Spiritual Laws" have "dumbed down" salvation to just a little formula that, once you go through the motions, say the words, and start going to church, you're saved. It's not a formula, it's not a ritual, it's an encounter with the Lord God Almighty, one on one.
Connect, you say this as if this is an unusual belief that only ~SOME~ Calvinists (and by your inference, only "hyper" Calvinists) hold to this particular belief.
However, as I have shown you over and over and over and over...(hyperbole added for emphasis)...and over and over and over and over...
~ALL~ Calvinists believe that God preordained all sins!I've shown you this fact numerous times from Calvin himself as well as from ~ALL~ the Calvinistic Confessions.
Perhaps drsteve can call up the last post where I documented the various confessions and their profession that God pre-ordains all sin. (I have no time at the moment to look)
Jean
There is no "speculation " on the fate of them . You just do not like the clarity
There is no salvation out Jesus and the cross.
I am the way the truth and the live NO MAN comes to the father but by me" You do not "like "to speculate because it is a HUGE hole in the entire Arminian Theology
In any event, Judas was certainly confessed his sin of betrayal and then hanged himself; see Mt 27:3-5. His expression of remorse was sufficient enough to leave open the possibility that Judas was saved.
CCD you need to read the word
Judas died and went to “his own place”. Jesus says in John 17:12: “While I was with them, I was keeping them in Thy name which Thou has given Me; and I guarded them, and no one of them perished but (or except) the son of perdition, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled.” Bible scholars agree that the “son of perdition” was Judas. The word “perdition” means “eternal death”.
Jesus also uses the word “perished” in referring to Judas, which is the past tense of the SAME word used by Jesus in John 3:16, where Jesus clearly infers that to “perish” means to go to hell.
Judas went to “his own place”, not heaven. In Acts 1:20, Peter quotes Psalm 69 and Psalm 100 which directly predicts Judas’ demise and destiny. In Acts 1:25, Peter, referring to Judas, says, “Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” No where else in Scripture is that phrase, “go to his own place” used to describe anyone going to heave
You must diferentiate here between an unregenerate man and a Believer. Unregenerate man cannot choose not to sin, he can only choose which sin he will commit. The Believer (and only the Believer) can choose not to sin. This is very clear in scripture, and very fuzzy in Arminian theology.
That has no effect on the Sovereignty of God. What does, though, is the idea that a Sovereign God who wants to save man must still, in effect, ask for the man's permission (the man must choose) before God can save him.
I didn't say suicide is supported by Scripture. I merely made an observation that Judas' suicide certainly may have been an idication as to his remorse for his sin of betraying Christ; nothing more nor less.
It obviously escaped you that I was not trying to paint all Calvinists as extremists, but if you insist that all Calvinists believe that God preordained all sins, I will leave it for the other Calvinists to comment on your opinion.
| An Omniscient God can not learn anything. If He learns amything, He wasn't omniscient prior before. This isn't rocket science. |
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.