Posted on 03/16/2006 7:42:26 AM PST by Gamecock
You are not a serious contender of the Faith.
It is obvious that you have not read "The Institutes of the Christian Religion" by John Calvin.
You make slanderous accusations (rumors) without documentary evidence.
Read the "Institutes" and debate like an educated scholar.
Respectfully, Doc, there's nothing in your Calvin citation which particularly endorses Supralapsarianism. Neither the Supralapsarian nor the Infralapsarian denies the reality of God's Reprobational "decretum horribile"; classically, the question is simply one of Logical Order:
As Dabney says in his Lecture #21, the latter (Infralapsarian) schematic is the more Scriptural of the two.
But the real beauty of Dabney's lecture is found in that he turns the classical argument on it's head, re-framing the question not as one of Logical Order, but rather one of Logical Reference.
Dabney establishes that:
And, having correctly re-framed the question as one of Logical Reference, rather than Logical Order, Dabney proceeds to prove that Supralapsarianism is not only logically wrong, it is in fact logically impossible:
The very foundation of Supralapsarian belief, that God establishes the Reprobation without reference to the Fall, CAN'T be True; ergo, the ONLY possibility with which we are left MUST be unitary cotemporaneous Infralapsarianism.
Best, OP
He was a slave owner.
Has it never occurred to you that he may be the single worst Presbyterian theologian of the 19th Century?
How could he not have looked into the future and seen that Slavery was a doomed institution?
Could the Civil War have been avoided?
Of course! Presbyterian ministers like Robert Dabney played directly into the hands of the Northern Abolitionists by not lookng into the future and renouncing slavery.
Can you imagine how more Christ-like it would have been if Dabney had had the spiritual courage to stand up in his Sunday pulpit and preached a vision of the gradual elimination of the peculiar institution?
Instead, what did he do? He defended slavery with the power of his Presbyterian authority. And we know what happened next.
He encouraged the Southern hot-heads and by his wretched preaching brought down upon the Confederacy the destruction of the Northern Armies.
No, there is not much to learn from Robert Dabney except how not to allow one's own economic circumstances to color your theology.
Robert Dabney was a slave owner and a terrible fool.
I don't think so. The Fall precedes from God's originating awareness of His creative actions. God creates every being with the perfect causative knowledge of that creature's end, albeit reprobation or salvation.
"The view from which it starts, that the ultimate end must be first in design, and then the intermediate means, is of force only with reference to a finite mind."
Again, I disagree. The "ultimate end" of anything God creates is accomplished from before the moment of creation.
It seems you have the same hesitation our Arminian friends voice so often -- that God is limited by His creation of both good and evil. Dabney and you seem to be saying that God merely permitted the Fall, when in actuality every step was planned and executed exactly according to His divine wisdom. God is not passive in any respect.
Calvin was right. It is a reality that is terrifying in its scope, its finality, its power.
And then comes our awareness that we are saved by the blood of Christ.
Or does God first decree that Mankind will Fall, and then Reprobate Men to Damnation on the basis of that Decree?
I've always found this a strange way for a Calvinist to think. Is there a possibility that God could have decreed that mankind would fall, and yet He wouldn't reprobate men to damnation based on that decree?
Of course not. Just like Adam, we were created to fall. Some were created to be redeemed. Some not. Vessels of wrath. Vessels of mercy.
The problem with Infralapsarianism is that it implies there is a smidgen of time when God is a reactor and not the Creator, as if God is waiting to see how the Fall plays out.
"God's decree has no succession; and to Him nonsuccessive order of parts; because it is a cotemporaneous unit, comprehended altogether, by one infinite intuition."
Well, duh. Who disagrees with that? When a man offers this line of reasoning to settle the infra/supra debate, he's lost it already.
My, my...not very objective for a "historian" are you? It use to be scientists and historians were a tad bit more objective of their analysis of history. But this is the 21st century, right?
The scriptures state we are to judge people's attitude with regards to the church. Any misbehaving people are to be thrown out as it reflects poorly on the mission of the church. You let me know when the Catholics throw Ted Kennedy out and then perhaps your judging others might hold a little more water.
I'm not impress by your quotes of various authors. I have learned quite a while back that many Catholics on this site play very loose with their quotes (especially the early church fathers) twisting and distorting what the author has to say. Some of the names you have thrown out as reputed authors such as Pierre Cavard and Lawrence Goldstone are bias authors with an agenda. If you would like to point me to some authors who may be more objective whose articles are published on the Internet I'll research their points. However I've been around the block on this one with people telling me person X stated this or that when, in fact, they hadn't or their belief is a bunch of loose innuendos strung together.
You dismiss the references claiming Calvin was a "heretic" and yet the Church worked within the legal system? This after we have all stated that all this was done according to the laws of Geneva. In many countries the Catholic Church own the legal system. This is the best you can do?
I would point out Pope Honorius (625AD) was officially condemned by the Church as a heretic. Since he reigned for 13 years a case could be made that many decrees came from the Chair of Peter from him, a classified and bona fide heretic. This, by the way, is about the same time Catholic doctrine was being corrupted.
Servetus was accused of 38 charges (all drawn up for the court by Calvin of course). How many were about sedition?
Few if any.
The difficulty is that Servetus disagreed with Calvin, and calvinism was the basis of everything in Calvin's Geneva. Servetus therefore disagreed with the very existence of what Geneva had become.
Sedition? No.
Persecution
My post #261 is coherent. Even you know it or you would at least have attempted to show with quotes where it wasn't coherent.
I am a serious contender for the Faith. I am just not a serious contender for calvinism because that is something else.
Since the Institutes only cover Calvin's religious innovations and beliefs, while I am discussing his actions and behavior, whether I have read it or not is completely immaterial.
I repeated an oft repeated and never destroyed accusation against Calvin for which there is documentary evidence, but I don't have it. Deal with it. Are you crying over it? Can you be a man about it?
I have no interest in reading the Institutes at this time. I read some of it before, but decided fiction was rather frivolous at that time. I am an educated scholar. I just feel no compunction whatsoever at not proving it to you or anyone else. Don't like that? Too bad for you.
You are the one that PRAYED to one and that calls one "saint" the onus is on you to show that indeed God intended for you to have them pray for you.
The fact that one asks for proof that "God does everything " is a bit troubling. What can he NOT do?
Does He use people and angels, but where does it say that angels are to be a prayer intermediary?
I am just looking for something beyond superstition
Actually what you believe you believe on Faith alone.You have no evidence except that taught to you as truth.
Jesus came not to judge the FIRST time, when he comes again HE WILL BE THE JUDGE.
God has mercy on whom he will have mercy. That is HIS word not mans
You wrote: "My, my...not very objective for a "historian" are you? It use to be scientists and historians were a tad bit more objective of their analysis of history. But this is the 21st century, right?"
Whether or not it is the 21st century it has nothing to do with objectivity.
"The scriptures state we are to judge people's attitude with regards to the church. Any misbehaving people are to be thrown out as it reflects poorly on the mission of the church. You let me know when the Catholics throw Ted Kennedy out and then perhaps your judging others might hold a little more water."
So you have so little to go on on Calvin you try to bring in Ted Kennedy? That's the best you can do? LOL!
"I'm not impress by your quotes of various authors. I have learned quite a while back that many Catholics on this site play very loose with their quotes (especially the early church fathers) twisting and distorting what the author has to say. Some of the names you have thrown out as reputed authors such as Pierre Cavard and Lawrence Goldstone are bias authors with an agenda."
Whether or not they had an agenda, and all authors who write books have an agenda of some sort because they have to go SOMEWHERE with what they're talking about, is irrelevant as to whether or not those works present valid information. Most people who write books about Servetus today are in fact biased toward him. The odd thing is that that was also the case in regard to his execution 450 years ago as well. Can you explain exactly why Pierre Cavard should not be used as a source?
"If you would like to point me to some authors who may be more objective whose articles are published on the Internet I'll research their points."
No. Go read a book. I use the internet as well, but every scholar knows that books are still better because they are still vetted. Again, what evidence do you have against Cavard?
"However I've been around the block on this one with people telling me person X stated this or that when, in fact, they hadn't or their belief is a bunch of loose innuendos strung together."
Fine. Now exactly what evidence do you have against Cavard?
"You dismiss the references claiming Calvin was a "heretic" and yet the Church worked within the legal system?"
What? Calvin was a heretic. And the Church did work within the legal system. That is merely fact.
"This after we have all stated that all this was done according to the laws of Geneva."
Yes, laws vetted by Calvin. Laws which Geneva had no right to enforce since it too was heretical.
"In many countries the Catholic Church own the legal system."
You can't own what isn't yours. If a country had a secular law code (and what country didn't other than perhaps the papal states from a certain point of view) then it had a legal system not "owned" by the Catholic Church. Please get away from silly stereotypes of the Middle Ages and Early Modern period. You're just embarrassing yourself.
"This is the best you can do?"
No, it isn't. This does not require my best. This is too easy for that. I just let you keep talking and embarrass yourself. I barely have to do anything. I know the information and you don't.
"I would point out Pope Honorius (625AD) was officially condemned by the Church as a heretic."
Honorius was not Calvin and Calvin was not Honorius. Whatever happened to Honorius is completely irrelevant to this discussion since it is about Calvin's actions. You do realize that don't you?
"Since he reigned for 13 years a case could be made that many decrees came from the Chair of Peter from him, a classified and bona fide heretic."
And this made him Calvin? No.
"This, by the way, is about the same time Catholic doctrine was being corrupted."
And we still didn't get Calvin from it so it is still irrelevant.
You are so desperate to avoid talking about Calvin's actions you felt compelled to bring up a pope already dead 900 years before Calvin? You really can't put together any argument can you?
As far as Pierre Cavard, as you’ve pointed out I know very little of the gentleman. I will say that those who know me on this site who have asked me if I have read document X knows that I will go out and read document X if I have the time and if I can find it on the Internet. I’ve searched for Pierre Cavard’s works but I haven’t found them. According to all that I can find, all I can tell is that he wrote in French and I don't read French.
BTW-I frequently embarrass myself. Why should this be anything different?
Duly excused, dear Harley. Though truth be told, I've let expletives fly like Mussolini from the balcony(1), uh, a time or two.
This post shows what a Christian you are, through and through. It makes me proud on your behalf. God bless you! You possess what I so admire in people; a thick skin and a soft heart.
Now, where did I put that wonderful commentary on Genesis by Calvin -one of the greatest biblical scholars that ever lived! Oh, I think it lies among the other 50 or so commentaries that he completed in his lifetime, interrupted only by death, God rest his immensely intelligent mind, and his indefatigable soul, and may God impart one-tenth of the lack of desire for riches, pomp and pagentry to his present day ministers.
Calvin's life reminds one both of David and Christ. David, because he was fearless, and Christ because he lived the type of life that Christ intended for those who truly carry His Standard of Humility and for those who would speak in His Name, to those of us who were destined to receive instruction by them.
"Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head."
(1)G. Costanza, Seinfeld.
Scripture and Seinfeld in one post.
Sublime. 8~)
At the risk of bringing the dreaded "H" word into any debate, I'm waiting for Rome to excommunicate Adolph Hitler.
Waiting...waiting...waiting...
"The Fall precedes from God's originating awareness of His creative actions."
Make that, "The Fall proceeds from..."
Felled by a prefix. Drat.
Bingo!
The bible never puts bandages over the warts of Gods men.
Jesus did not come for the righteous but for sinners, as scripture tells us those that are forgiven much love much, those that are forgiven little love little .
God has always used "cracked" pots so His light will shine through the cracks.Those that think their worth to God rests in their own righteousness and not Gods grace and mercy have not yet heard the good news.
I suspect that the "information" on Calvin was written by a papist with an ax to grind. Slander does not speak to the truth of the doctrine of Grace, God himself is witness to that !
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.