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 ...
What Can The Dead in Sin Do?
Submitted by Ben Henshaw on Thu, 08/14/2008 - 9:27am
Calvinists love to point out that we are dead in sin. That we are dead in sin prior to conversion cannot be denied (Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13); the question has to do with what it means to be dead in sin.
Calvinist are fond of comparing spiritual death to physical death. This gives them the framework with which to press their theological conviction that regeneration precedes faith. If being dead in sin means that we are as helpless as physical corpses then we are told that we certainly can no more “hear” the gospel or “see” our need for Christ than a physical corpse can hear or see. But is there any justification for such a strict parallel between the spiritual and the physical?
Nowhere in Scripture is such a strict parallel drawn. To be dead in sins means that we are cut off from the relationship with God that is necessary for spiritual life. Our sin separates us from a holy God and causes spiritual death. This is both actual and potential. The sinner is presently “dead” because, in the absence of faith, he is not enjoying life giving union with Christ. The sinner is potentially dead because if he continues in this state he will be forever cut off from the presence of the Lord in Hell (2 Thess. 1:9). [9They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might”-ESV]
Calvinists often mock Arminians by saying that it is as useless to expect the dead in sin to respond to the gospel as it is to expect a bunch of corpses in the morgue to respond to the gospel. The only way that corpses could hear such preaching is for them to first be given life. In like manner, we are told, the only way that someone who is “dead” in sin could respond to the gospel would be if they are first raised to spiritual life. This supposedly proves the need for regeneration before faith.
But this leads to absurdities and demonstrates that pressing this parallel between those who are spiritually dead and physically dead is unwise and without Scriptural support. If the analogy is accurate then spiritually dead people should not be able to do anything more than corpses can do, which is plainly absurd. A single example will suffice.
The Bible plainly teaches that those who are dead in sin resist the Holy Spirit. Now have you ever seen a corpse resist something? Of course not. So if we adopt the implications of the Calvinistic definition of “dead in sin” then we must deny that anyone who is dead in sin can resist the Holy Spirit or reject the gospel (Acts 7:51; 2 Thess. 2:10; 1 John 4:10; Rom. 10:21). [ 51 “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.—ESV][10and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.—ESV] [10In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.—??? Not sure how this applies] [ 21But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.”] Corpses can’t resist or reject anything any more than they can see or hear anything. This, of course, should tell us something about the Cavinistic understanding of dead in sin. It is not Biblical.
“You’re pushing it too far” says the Calvinist. Really? And how is it that you determine how far the analogy should be pressed? We are either as spiritually useless as a physical corpse or we need to abandon the parallel. You can’t just draw from the illustration what suits your fancy and ignore the rest. That is special pleading.
Now it is important to remember that Arminians do not deny the need for God’s gracious enabling before a sinner can believe and embrace the gospel. Without divine initiative and enabling no one would ever come to God in faith. We are confident, however, that God is powerful enough to overcome our depravity and there is no need for the priority of regeneration since there is no strict parallel between the inability of a physical corpse and the inability of those dead in sin. We can therefore accept the Biblical teaching of depravity and God’s prevenient grace without needing to turn the Bible on its ear in an effort to put spiritual life before faith.
http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/178
I'm sure you have a perfectly clear scripture to back up that statement.
The Bible isn't a dictionary that defines terms. We can certainly infer these relations in way the Bible speaks. A law in this sense is that a consequence will result from some conditions that are enacted. There must be some initial cause that moves it through the conditions that result in the consequences.
BTW "through faith" is a condition... unless that verse is just fluff.
The "through" describes the position of faith in the chain. Faith is a condition as an instrumental cause. As JI Packer quoting M Stibbs says:
The faith of the individual must be seen as having no value in itself, but as discovering value wholly and solely through movement towards and committal to Christ. It must be seen as simply a means of finding all one's hope outside oneself in the person and work of another; and not in any sense an originating cause or objective ground of justification. For true faith is active only in the man who is wholly occupied with Christ; its practice means that every blessing is received from another. For this reason faith is exclusive and intolerant of company; it is only truly present when any and every contribution towards his salvation on the part of the believer or on the part of the Church is absolutely and unequivocally shut out. Justification must be seen and received as a blessing dependent wholly and exclusively on Christ alone, on what he is and what he has done—a blessing enjoyed simply through being joined directly to him, through finding one's all in him, through drawing one's all from him, without the interposition of any other mediator or mediating channel whatever.
INDEED.
The word ha satan (the accuser) is a title in the OT. Christians, however, made it into a personaled evil whose name is "Satan." Just another another example how Judaic concepts were twisted and reinterpreted for doctrinal purposes. Anointed one is the word Christ (Greek christos, which means the anointed). The correct useage of the term is Jesus the Christ, or better yet Jesus the Anointed, but Paul made it into a personal name.
Calvin’s basic premise is that God controls everything and that whether man does good or bad, he does not have free will.
Tha means that God is causing the sin, therefore, God is sinning.
Personally, I have lately become a connoisseur of exotic vinegars. I dip my strawberries in it, pour it over vegetables, fish, dip my bread in it, pour it on salads. If given the opportunity to choose between a bottle of sweet wine or aged balsamic vinegar, I will choose the vinegar.
I guess that means "no". Why can't you just say "no" when you mean "no"?
Love is a name (noun), not action (verb). Love by itself implies no specific action. One can be "in love" and do nothing.
We have the two greatest Commandments, to love God and to love one's neighbor. How can we respond to these commandments without doing anything? I think the clear intent here is to show action. Jesus talked about feeding and clothing Him, etc. and it seems clear to me that He was equating these with the action of loving. When a loved one asks you to do something that you don't want to do, and you do it anyway, you are actively loving that person.
Further, we could just say that "loving" is the verb if you want and everything is still the same. No matter the form of the word, the Biblical concept of love involves action. If God loving us involved no action, wouldn't we all be doomed? :)
Wasn't it Kerry's wife who soaked raisins in gin? ... Or was it vodka? I tried soaking white raisins in chocolate vodka, when used in cooking the chocoloate flavor was nearly undetectable, so I stopped wasting the vodka.
There is only one time is scripture that believing is called a 'work'. It is in John 6, and Jesus, asked what works (plural) man must do to gain God's approval, rather sarcastically replies that there is one work - believing in Jesus.
Further, we ARE told we are saved by the law of faith:
21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith." - Romans 3
Please note that nowhere in that passage is faith a gift given by God to those on a list of names, but something we have. Grace is a gift received by faith, not a gift received along with faith (24-25).
Are you saying that God, or God's Word, is not logical?
Not at all. God and His word are perfectly logical, even if we don't always understand the logic. My point was that some things called "logical implications" are really false because they rely on a misreading of scripture (or in this case a misunderstanding of Calvinism). For example, some say it is a logical implication/extension of Calvinism that witnessing is a waste of time because the elect are already chosen. I am saying that kind of logic relies on the faulty assumption that Calvinism holds that it trumps scripture. It does not. Scripture holds that all believers are to witness, therefore it is correct to witness and cannot be a waste. Therefore refusing to witness is NOT a logical implication of Calvinism. That is, certain "logical implications" are not fine when and because they are false.
“to love” is a verb. Verbs involve action. Agape is the noun, agapan is the verb, according to my books.
What's the difference? God's word is inspired, infallible and perfect for its intended use. We rely on Holy Spirit to help us with correct interpretation of His perfect word. It should be expected that Holy Spirit would use His own words to communicate with us. Scripture interprets Scripture.
What is its intended use for a) the Reformed elect, and b) the Reformed reprobate? Is there a difference for the two identified groups? I believe that there is substantial difference between the groups; therefore there is substantial difference between the intent of the Gospels between the two groups, correct?
In your previous argument, you stated that temporal happiness was related to knowledge of the Gospel. I still challenge you to provide evidence that Reformed reprobates led happier lives on earth knowing the Gospel.
I don't think I said it that strongly. I believe that temporal happiness can certainly be enhanced by living a comparatively moral life.
Perhaps the emphasis is mine. At any rate, can you indicate that the Reformed reprobate live enhanced happier lives by a) reading the Gospels or b) by living comparatively moral lives? Do you have any evidence?
I base this on common sense.
I would prefer that since this is a Reformed versus Catholic discussion, that arguments would rather be based upon a theological basis.
For example, do you believe that on average morally depraved individuals are generally happier people than those who lead moral lives?
I do not.
If the Reformed Holy Spirit transfers all required knowledge to the newly transformed believer, then there is no point to any printed matter, since the believer will have all that he requires.
OK, now we have something to work with. :) The grace that the elect receive does not take the form of a "docu-dump" of knowledge.
What form does it take? Many of the Reformed posting on here are sure of their salvation, which surely includes certain knowledge.
It takes the form of having eyes and ears opened. At that point, the printed matter then, for the first time, becomes believABLE to the person, who may well have read it many times before but not believing. Faith comes by hearing the word, but one must have opened ears for it to work. That is why we still need the Gospel, whether in written form or orally, in the normal course to come to faith after we have been touched by the Spirit.
Let me see if I have this straight. The Reformed Holy Spirit touches the predestined individual. Then the individual must hear the Gospel. Then he will believe. Then he will be saved. If that is correct, if anything in this chain is broken, the individual will not be saved. Sounds like a fascinating process. It can't be taunting since neither party has any idea if the listener is reprobate or not.
Are you saying that the listener may be elect at some point in the future, but current listeners in the status of elect know?
Preaching the Gospel to someone who turns out to be reprobate is still done in good faith and in obedience to God.
We are taught not to throw pearls before swine, and that the seed that falls on rocky ground is wasted. Thus, a mechanical exercise for the most part.
As to whether it is "worse than useless" to the reprobate I have already made my point that I think it is better than useless temporally, although nothing in comparison to eternity.
You know that I find this a very unChristian and cruel theology, more worthy of, as Kosta says, the pagan and vicious child gods of Scandinavia or Greece. I find that this message of disposal of humanity to be completely alien to my reading of the Gospels, which is of a God of infinite love, and who sent His Son to die in cruel pain so that we would not have suffer in cruel pain forevermore.
No, the Law never saved anyone, period. God alone is mankind's Savior and the bible is clear on that throughout. The Law was just like any law, a means of behavior, a cultural way of acting. The Israelites got confused thinking the Law saved when it did not. Just like people today are confused thinking everyone and thing but the Lord saves.
Please do not deny the obvious: “The Law is contrasted with faith as a means of salvation.”
“15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” - Gal 2
Yes, my statement is correct. The Law and faith are contrasted.
I'll compare Calvin's Systematic Theology to Arminian's any day. Oops....Arminian doesn't have one. Well then perhaps some other Arminian's detailed systematic theology. Oops, there are no detailed Arminian systematic theology. There are hodge-podge bits but nothing as exhaustive as Calvin's. In fact, one complaint Calvinists often get on many Arminian websites is that we "have all the answers".
Well, our deep dark secret in our responses is that God is ultimately directly or indirectly responsible for everything. There, the cat is out of the bag. I've spilled the beans. There goes our Calvinist smugness. I can feel the Calvinists stones being hurled at me.
I've read your postings on faith. There are very few Christians either Calvinist OR Arminian who feel comfortable with saying that faith is not a gift from God. I know of no commentator who would agree with your position. That doesn't make your position wrong but it certainly should give you pause that you are outside of orthodox Christianity.
You may wish to examine this in a spiritual context. If you feel comfortable with going before the throne of God thanking Him that you've exercised your faith to choosed His Son, then have at it. I would seriously compare this to going before the throne thanking Him for helping us to see His gift through the faith He has given us.
Early in this thread I posted a0quote showing calvin did believe in free will. Ikd look it up but am on blkbry at the moment
don't worry x, I don't think anybody noticed.
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.