| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 05/26/2018 9:25:39 PM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish, personal, and attacks |
Posted on 05/26/2018 7:00:33 AM PDT by tiredofallofit
Well I finally got around to it – I am reading through some of the Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin. I say “some” because the complete work spans more than 1500 pages and deals with some of the most weighty and complex theological issues known to mankind. I have chosen for now to plod my way through the most controversial aspects of Calvin’s writings; the topics of predestination and election.
Most of my friends who call themselves Calvinists are eager to disassociate themselves from the doctrine of “double predestination”. They state that God has predestined some to eternal life, but they assure me that He would never send people to hell. People get there on their own, I am told. And what did Calvin teach? I ask. Usually, I receive some sort of vague answer – like how Calvin’s writings are difficult to understand or how misunderstood he is by other denominations. Ok, I get that. He was an intellectual giant – but what did he say about double predestination and if you don’t know exactly, then why do you call yourself a Calvinist?
So I decided to have a look for myself. Surprisingly, The Institutes of the Christian Religion are not so difficult to read or comprehend, despite the complexity of the topics discussed.
Calvin begins his discourse on the doctrine of predestination and election in Chapter 21 of Book 3 of his Institutes. If one just reads the title of this chapter and nothing else, he or she quickly ascertains Calvin’s view on double predestination – for the chapter is titled “OF THE ETERNAL ELECTION, BY WHICH GOD HAS PREDESTINATED SOME TO SALVATION, AND OTHERS TO DESTRUCTION.” That’s pretty clear, is it not?
But in case you still doubt his position, allow me to share with you this excerpt from Section 5 in Chapter 21:
"All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death."
He goes on to address the “arrogant” and “blasphemous” objections which are leveled at his view of predestination. And there are plenty of such objections. In typical Calvin style, he does not back down nor does he attempt to soften his message. God ordains some people to heaven and some people to hell, end of story.
“If that is what Calvin truly taught,” a Calvinist friend told me recently, “then I shouldn’t call myself a Calvinist. That’s not what I believe.”
There is no doubt that Calvin fully subscribed to the doctrine of double predestination. He invented it! Maybe it’s time for some Calvinists to revisit these Institutes of his and reevaluate their desire to affix this label on themselves.
Reference:
Calvin, John. Institutes of Christian religion. Trans. Henry Beveridge, Esq. 1599. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Nov. 1999. 20 Sept. 2001
Those who had only seen an acorn might not recognize the oak tree it became.
Agreed.
It’s not semantics.
Drawing someone implies leading them to the place where they choose to go along with you, gently.
Compelling is force. You WILL comply. End of story.
Most of the NT churches met in homes.
>>Because He wants SONS, not SLAVES?
If making this into a false dichotomy makes you feel better, then stick with it. AS I said earlier, no Calvinist says that you have to be Calvinist to be saved. We say that God does not care what your theology is because it is his choice to save.
So, it is always strange that non-Calvinists get so riled up that we have our beliefs that do not affect you at all. A Methodist told me that it because they want to bring us back into the Christian church. We still baptize, take communion, have worship, evangelize, teach, sing songs, repent of sins, and even require a credible testimony of faith where we ask for Jesus Christ to be our Lord and Savior—so if your beliefs are right that we have to choose God, then we are covered.
To be honest, we (Anglicans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists who were all Calvinist) founded America. If the Presbyterians hadn’t ceded the early frontier in the beginning of the 19th century to the Methodist Circuit Riders, this would be a Calvinist nation and the state of Christianity in this nation would be a lot stronger for it.
Πέτρος masculine.
Πέτρα feminine.
Κηφας masculine.
כיפא masculine.
When Paul refers to Peter in Galatians and 1 Corinthians he uses Cephas.
John 1:42 says Petros is a translation of Cephas.
It might be that the distinction between Petros and Petra is intended, and in any case Catholic teaching is not that Peter is Jesus' equal.
But if the error is "blatant", the blatancy is not lexicographic.
>>Compelling is force. You WILL comply. End of story.
If you do not choose God, you burn in hell. Right? Isn’t that the ultimate force?
So, we have all-knowing, all-powerful God who will burn you for eternity if you do not comply. But he will not compel you because he’s a nice guy.
He leaves the duty of compulsion up to you, the Church Lady, who will tell everyone that SAY-TAN will take them if they do not comply because all that waits for them is the ETERNALLLLL FY-YURRSSSS of HAY-ULLLLL.
He puts the Holy Spirit in everyone to give them the nudge to listen and obey Church Lady because she knows what is good for you!!
And then he gave his only son to die on a cross so Church Lady can have some guy can utter a 10 second prayer to give their soul to him.
That is your Christianity?
Again, you make false statements about the teaching of the Catholic church.
I presume that you know the Greek was the translation from the Aramaic the language that Jesus and Simon spoke. There was no distinction between petros and petra. False teachers trying to sell their product.
Why dis Jesus give the keys to the kingdom to Peter?
Why did Jesus give the power to bind and loosen?
Go back to the Truth to show your faith in Jesus.
God having knowledge does not inhibit one’s decision.
If I know the truth about something beforehand, and someone lies doesn’t make it predetermined. The action is completed when the person actually lies.
God didn’t affect the decision, He only knew about it beforehand.
What, in your opinion, is the significance of that?
“So, it is always strange that non-Calvinists get so riled up that we have our beliefs that do not affect you at all.”
Who is riled up?
If you aren’t trying to promote Calvinism, don’t. If you are, then I have a right to point out an opposing view. I’m not trying to convince you and I doubt you’ll convince me. But others reading here might want to see BOTH sides.
I think scripture is pretty clear. I’ve never met anyone who came to Calvinist beliefs simply by reading the Bible. But...I don’t think anyone loses their salvation over it, either. One thing is certain - no where in scripture do we find, “Score 85% or higher on a theology exam and you shall be saved...”!
In your dreams........
A church building is not necessary.
Nor is attendance once a week.
Jesus told us that where two or three are gathered together in His name, He is there in the midst.
He didn’t tell people they had to go to church or a certain location to meet with Him or each other.
Quite honestly, I never met anyone who came to Christ by a Calvinist witnessing o them either.
The Calvinists I knew and worked with were very stand offish and aloof and did NOT share their faith. The disdain and contempt with which they treated others was very obvious and quite a turn off to the unsaved.
I only realized they were Calvinists after I got saved and realized what Calvinism was and connected it with the church they attended.
I find the way they portray God to be too much like the image of God I had from Catholicism, harsh, severe, capricious, and reluctant to save.
I knew a nice guy who was a Calvinist. When he told me God made people sin, we parted company.
I left one church after not getting a good answer to the question:
Can I wear a T-shirt that says “Jesus loves you”?
Or do I need one that says, “Jesus probably doesn’t love you, but just in case He does...’?”
I think a church building is useful. Clearly it is not necessary.
Agreed! Just because Almighty God knows all things (omniscience) before even one thing happens, it doesn't mean He forces anyone to choose or reject Him. I guess someone could say because He knew beforehand that a person would go to hell when he died but created him anyway, that somehow proves God "chooses" who will be saved and who will be damned and that He is "unfair". That is so wrong not only because, who are we to judge God, but why do we even think for a moment that we can comprehend the infinite? We can't. It is why there ARE volumes and volumes of theological writings from great thinkers who try to do that. In the end we must simply accept that God is good and everything He does is righteous altogether. He HAS provided a way of redemption.
Sturgeon was a great Calvinist preacher. He didn’t believe in double predestination. Calvin also believes in common grace.
Calvinists who believe in double predestination are rightfully called hyper-Calvinists. IOW, they out Calvin Calvin.
The way I can understand this is this illustration I learned in Bible college:
Imagine a door into heaven and the sign on the front reads, “Whosoever will..”. Once you enter, the sign on the inside of that door reads, “Chosen in Him before the foundation of the world.”
They do not out Calvin Calvin. They believe exactly what Calvin taught - Hyper-Calvinists are the real Calvinists. Everyone else is misusing the label.
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.