Posted on 02/28/2010 8:30:39 AM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
John Calvin's 16th century reply to medieval Catholicism's buy-your-way-out-of-purgatory excesses is Evangelicalism's latest success story, complete with an utterly sovereign and micromanaging deity, sinful and puny humanity, and the combination's logical consequence, predestination: the belief that before time's dawn, God decided whom he would save (or not), unaffected by any subsequent human action or decision.
Calvinism, cousin to the Reformation's other pillar, Lutheranism, is a bit less dour than its critics claim: it offers a rock-steady deity who orchestrates absolutely everything, including illness (or home foreclosure!), by a logic we may not understand but don't have to second-guess. Our satisfaction — and our purpose — is fulfilled simply by "glorifying" him. In the 1700s, Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards invested Calvinism with a rapturous near mysticism. Yet it was soon overtaken in the U.S. by movements like Methodism that were more impressed with human will. Calvinist-descended liberal bodies like the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) discovered other emphases, while Evangelicalism's loss of appetite for rigid doctrine — and the triumph of that friendly, fuzzy Jesus — seemed to relegate hard-core Reformed preaching (Reformed operates as a loose synonym for Calvinist) to a few crotchety Southern churches.
No more. Neo-Calvinist ministers and authors don't operate quite on a Rick Warren scale. But, notes Ted Olsen, a managing editor at Christianity Today, "everyone knows where the energy and the passion are in the Evangelical world" — with the pioneering new-Calvinist John Piper of Minneapolis, Seattle's pugnacious Mark Driscoll and Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Seminary of the huge Southern Baptist Convention. The Calvinist-flavored ESV Study Bible sold out its first printing, and Reformed blogs like Between Two Worlds are among cyber-Christendom's hottest links.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
It's Wednesday. At least where I'm sitting. But Friday is coming. On Friday we are all Arminians.
Maybe this thread would be good candidate for a Neener Hijack. That is if it doesn't get yanked first.
“It’s Wednesday.”
Oh, nevermind. Probably the effects of the earthquake. I hear that it did affect the earth’s rotation. Maybe that’s why it felt like Thursday.
“And isn’t that the purpose that he [Peter] is suggesting that they do those good works, i.e., not specifically out of “love” but out of fear?”
I asked my wife if she would prefer doing good works for me out of fear. She chose love. Imagine that! :)
Yes, but when you do stuff for her, like take out the trash, it is probably out of fear.
The fear of the wife is the beginning of wisdom (and the secret to a long marriage).
“The fear of the wife is the beginning of wisdom (and the secret to a long marriage). “
I’m in awe of her power over me.
If looks could kill, we'd all be at home with the Lord.
“And isn’t that the purpose that he [Peter] is suggesting that they do those good works”
Peter should talk. Here Jesus was doing good works in healing Peter’s mother-in-law and how does Peter show his appreciation in a time of need?
Let us cherish the memory of Rumpole of the Bailey. From the dreaded Wiki:
Horace Rumpole [edit] Character sketch While certain biographical details are slightly different in the original TV series and the subsequent book series, Horace Rumpole has a number of definite character traits that are constant. First and foremost, Rumpole loves the courtroom. Despite attempts by his friends and family to get him to move on to a more respectable position for his age, such as a QC or a Circuit Judge (referred to as Queer Customers and Circus Judges by Rumpole), he only enjoys the simple pleasure of defending his clients at The Old Bailey, London's central criminal court: "the honour of being an Old Bailey Hack," as he describes his work. A devotee of Arthur Quiller-Couch's Oxford Book of English Verse, he often quotes Wordsworth and secretly calls his wife Hilda "She Who Must Be Obeyed" (SWMBO), a reference to the novel She by H. Rider Haggard.[1]
Thanks for showing us the icon you pray to but as for me, I’ll chose to pray to the Triune God in heaven...alone.
Now I'll never be on time.
Okay. Now I'm more convinced than ever that the real P-Marlowe is the entertainment committee at a frat house in Westwood.
You're just messing with us, aren't you? 8~)
And all of it, the good and the bad, has been ordained by God for His glory.
Almost impossible to wrap our minds around that fact, but it is a truth that ultimately brings clarity, comfort and Scriptural faithfulness. And gives all the glory to God alone.
It's an interesting question about the good works of a non-believer. Yes, those actions are probably by the Holy Spirit, too, since everything good and righteous comes from God, and this entire universe is sustained by the Holy Spirit. But since anything not of faith is sin, those good works done by non-believers will not save them. They simply exist because it is a fact the rain falls on the just and the unjust.
This is why I really enjoy FR. A question I had never thought of compelled me to return to Scripture to find the answer.
What makes you think one man deserves grace and another man doesn't? It's the same with children. God's grace is His to give to whatever sinner He chooses to give it to -- be they two or 92.
How is this inconsistent? It is perfectly consistent. Infants are saved exactly the same way you and I are saved -- by free, unmerited grace.
Amen.
Dr. E.: The promise is clear. If a person has been given Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ, then that person is obviously among God's children.
Marlowe: Obviously? Really? That would mean that every Catholic who regularly posts on the Religion Forum would be among God's Children.
Not necessarily. Posting on the RF does not prove one has been given Trinitarian faith, whether from a Catholic or otherwise. I am sure that if Christopher Hitchens wanted to punk us, he could come on here and after a short time reasonably convince many of us that he was a Christian.
So why would we be so adamant about confronting Catholic Dogma if the simple act of expressing Trinitarian Faith is sufficient to ensure that we are numbered among the elect?
Dr. E. didn't say expressing faith is sufficient. She said having been given true faith is sufficient. We can only make reasonable guesses as to whether certain actions are true fruit of true faith, or they are actions men would call good, but are actually sinful because they did not come through a believer's heart.
Dr. E.: Every person who calls upon the name of the Lord as God and Savior will be saved. Period.
Marlowe: Again if that is true, then why should we concern ourselves over minutiae on dogma and doctrine? We should just be seeking to make sure that everyone has Trinitarian Faith and calls upon the name of the Lord and if they express that, then we should just praise God and move on.
We can never make absolutely sure that anyone has Trinitiarian faith except for ourselves. Since we both know that Dr. E. is well aware of the "Lord, Lord, ..." passage it is clear that the simple physical act of calling out God's name is meaningless if not backed by true faith. So, Dr. E.'s statement is true, and also unverifiable (by us) as to its application (activity) concerning any particular individual other than ourselves.
Dr. E.: Calvinism, true Christianity teaches that no man can come to Christ unless they are drawn by God.
Marlowe: Even Arminians believe that. So why should we argue about whether Calvinism is true or Arminianism is true. As you [Dr. E.] stated above, the true test is not whether we accept some specific doctrinal position, but whether we have Trinitarian Faith and that we call upon the name of the Lord. Whether that Faith and call saves us or is simply evidence of our Salvation appears to be irrelevant.
We are not arguing that Arminians (or even Catholics :) are not Christians because they are synergists. We are just arguing for correct doctrine. Surely we all agree that learning sound doctrine is a good part of sanctification and brings us closer to God. So naturally, all of us (all sides) want that for all of our Christian brothers and sisters so we feel it is worthy of figh discussion.
Well, somewhere in the world it may have been Thursday instead of Wednesday-except today is now Thursday. So does that mean somewhere it may be Friday but it could be Thursday?
My head is starting to hurt from this.
In other words, a mechanical exercise only for the Reformed.
No, a faithful exercise of love for all believers. How did you get the above from what I said??? :)
The Great Commission was given to only a few by Jesus. Loving your neighbour may involve the preaching of the Gospel, but consider this: do the Beatitudes involve preaching the Gospel? Or are they a list of things that we ought to be doing for our neighbours?
The Great Commission was given to the disciples in a micro sense, but by Biblical extension it was given to all believers. Certainly Catholicism recognizes that Biblical commands apply to us today even though they were not technically given to us since we were not physically present when the command was handed out.
The focus of the Gospel is Christ and what He did. The focus of the Beatitudes is to describe what a faithful Christian looks like. Apprehension and acceptance of the Gospel will result in conformity with the Beatitudes. While witnessing the Gospel to another there would certainly be nothing wrong with bringing up the Beatitudes. A perfectly reasonable question from a newbie would be to ask what will happen to him if he accepts this Jesus guy. The Beatitudes could be part of a good answer.
FK: The Gospel informs us of what our faith is in. Merely believing that there is some kind of God out there does not constitute saving faith. Since this knowledge is needed, in the normal course the elect are predestined to have it.
The indwelling Reformed Holy Spirit is unable to inform the elect of the Faith in an infallible fashion? Sounds like a repudiation of the Reformed Faith.
That doesn't follow. The indwelling Reformed Holy Spirit IS able to inform the elect of the faith infallibly through the Holy Spirit's infallible word, which includes the Gospel. The Holy Bible is not a book of men about God (there are zillions of those), rather it is a unique book of GOD about God. (And I mean that in accordance with what the CCC says about the Bible.)
FK: Well, for sure it does not have saving effect, but that is not to say no positive effect at all. The Gospel message along with the stories surrounding the Gospel serve as excellent moral guides of benefit to both the elect and reprobate. On average, even the reprobate will lead better and happier lives if they are more moral.
I am trying to imagine you, above all, writing this with a straight face.
Why? I wrote it rather matter-of-factly. What is controversial? I mean, the reprobate are the reprobate so while their eternities might be similar, their experiences on earth can vary widely. We both know many very kind, decent, seemingly moral and seemingly very happy people who are going to wind up in hell. Sure, compared to salvation it isn't much, but it is more than nothing.
What is the point of this and all the other Judgment teachings throughout the New Testament? Matthew 25 cannot be ignored. Neither can the Beatitudes or Luke's Sermon on the Plain.
None of them should be ignored, just interpreted correctly. :) We just disagree on whether certain actions are conditions to become saved, or are evidence of already having been saved. When we both see "the meek shall inherit the earth" we both say "true".
I don't think that.
It's the same with children.
Is it really?
There are dozens of verses indicating that God's grace is extended to Children. Jesus says that if we are to enter into the Kingdom of heaven we must become as little children. The implication there is that if we are as little children, then the promise of Heaven is ours. If God takes a little child home, then I have confidence that God will accept him in the same way Christ accepted the little children and said "Suffer the Children to come unto me". In that sense growing old and losing our innocence could be considered a curse.
I think another verse that comforts us is "To whom much is given, much shall be required." Well if that is an axiom from God, then I think we can take comfort in knowing that to whom NOTHING is given, NOTHING shall be required and thus those to whom NOTHING is given would appear to be under the Grace of God. In other words, those with NO ABILITY will not have any RESPONSIBILITY.
God's grace is His to give to whatever sinner He chooses to give it to -- be they two or 92.
True, but knowing God as I do, I believe it is inconsistent with His character to hold the 2 year old to the same standard as the 92 year old. It is also scriptural to note that Jesus held adults to a much higher standard than he held children. He also held smart people and religious leaders to a much higher standard than peasants. Whether you are born smart or stupid, rich or poor, or live a short life or a long life is all because of the Grace of God. The axiom "There but for the Grace of God go I" points to the fact that God graces people with the situations in which they are born and the situations in which they grow up. I think God takes that into consideration in determining who he has chosen for saving grace. In fact, I think God takes everything into consideration. Everything. He leaves no stone unturned in knowing us and in determining who it is that he will spend eternity with. Which is why I am not a Calvinist.
I think we need to assume that no matter how stupid or irrational a poster is that when they profess their theology on this forum that they are doing it in good faith. Also when someone misinterprets our position or misstates what they believe that we believe, that the person making that misrepresentation is doing so out of ignorance and not out of malice.
We are not arguing that Arminians (or even Catholics :) are not Christians because they are synergists. We are just arguing for correct doctrine. Surely we all agree that learning sound doctrine is a good part of sanctification and brings us closer to God. So naturally, all of us (all sides) want that for all of our Christian brothers and sisters so we feel it is worthy of figh discussion.
I agree that we should all strive to learn doctrine correctly. On the other hand, being rigid in our interpretation of esoteric religious points, such as soteriology can produce negative effects. Indeed rigid adherence to soteriology led to massive bloodshed during the years following the reformation. Rather than pounding out these differences in a rational fashion, people took up arms and killed each other over this issue.
In the end, while soteriology can affect your understanding of the nature of God and the nature of salvation, from a Calvinistic standpoint I would think that a person's soteriological, eccesiastical, or eschatological position on theology would be entirely irrelevant, as their position on the subject (from a strictly Calvinistic viewpoint) is the result of either the application or the withholding of God's grace. In other words, I find it quite inconsistent that a Calvinist would ARGUE and try to convince a Non-Calvinist to think differently than they do. One would think a Calvinist would simply state their opinion and let God decide whether or not to change the heart and mind of the person to whom the doctrine was presented.
Curiously, why do you argue at all? Do you think you will change their minds? (FWIW, I do believe that people's minds can be changed through rational argument, but then I am not a Calvinist)
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.