One illustration that I have appreciated regarding salvation has to do with the Grand Canyon. It is said that even the best broadjumper in the world can't clear the chasm. Another one is a joke that goes like this:
A guy gets to the pearly gates, and sure enough, there is Saint Peter.
Peter: "Here's how it works. You need 1,000 points to make it into heaven. You tell me all the good things you've done, and I give you a certain number of points for each item, depending on how good it was. When you reach 1,000 points, you get in."
"Okay," the man said, "I was married to the same woman for 50 years and never cheated on her, even in my heart."
"That's wonderful, that's worth three points!"
"Three points? Well, I attended church all my life and supported its ministry with my tithe and service."
"Terrific!" said Peter, "that's certainly worth a point."
"One point? Wow! How about this: I started a soup kitchen in my city and worked in a shelter for homeless veterans."
"Fantastic, that's good for two more points," Peter said.
"Two points!!" the man cried, "At this rate the only way I will get into heaven is by the grace of God!"
Peter: "Step on in!"
Doctrinally, I don't subscribe to the idea of "getting into heaven," but that's for another thread.
Calvinist theology is a reaction against those who feel that they can be saved by their works. They radically believe that salvation is of faith, and not by works. It follows obviously that faith is not works. But putting this together with the Book of James, "faith without works is dead."
I personally am very sympathetic to Calvinist theology. I think Charles Spurgeon was ordained of God, and spoke for God. And Spurgeon was a staunch Calvinist.
But I agree that something is not right about God not requiring anything of us. Otherwise, many of Jesus' words have no meaning. "Narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (that may be a paraphrase) His words about "counting the cost" would likewise become rather empty.
A man appeared before St. Peter at the Pearly Gates.
"Have you ever done anything of particular merit?" St. Peter asked.
"Well, I can think of one thing," the man offered. "Once, on a trip to the Black Hills out in South Dakota, I came upon a gang of bikers, who were threatening a young woman. I directed them to leave her alone, but they wouldn't listen. So, I approached the largest and most heavily tattooed biker and smacked him in his face, kicked his bike over, ripped out his nose ring, and threw it on the ground."
I yelled, "Now, back off.... Or I'll kick the #### out of all of you!"
Its been a while since we talked here. Regarding your comment , I dont think I am that set in my ways, I have always enjoyed your point or counterpoint. You always used to make me think and sharpen me up. I mean, you should at least scribble something.
AnotherDan: I guess my point was not to focus on the "once saved always saved thiests" because thats not the part that really bugs me. The reason for the buggery in me, is that it would seem dangerous with all the sexual predators and such to have such a theology. I watched an interesting peice on MSNBC in an interview with Jeffery Dahlmer, who cited evolution as the intellectual dogma for his crimes and stated "If there is no consequence for your actions in the afterlife why care about what you do". My problem with this theology is that it is inconsequencial theology because it places all the responsibility on God, none on the person, thus leaving a wide open field for creepy behavior. Certainly not all Calvints approach life like that. The problem is when you provide that type of opportunity for the deranged type. Some actually seize upon it.
Its been a while since we talked here. Regarding your comment , I dont think I am that set in my ways, I have always enjoyed your point or counterpoint. You always used to make me think and sharpen me up. I mean, you should at least scribble something.
AnotherDan: I guess my point was not to focus on the "once saved always saved thiests" because thats not the part that really bugs me. The reason for the buggery in me, is that it would seem dangerous with all the sexual predators and such to have such a theology. I watched an interesting peice on MSNBC in an interview with Jeffery Dahlmer, who cited evolution as the intellectual dogma for his crimes and stated "If there is no consequence for your actions in the afterlife why care about what you do". My problem with this theology is that it is inconsequencial theology because it places all the responsibility on God, none on the person, thus leaving a wide open field for creepy behavior. Certainly not all Calvints approach life like that. The problem is when you provide that type of opportunity for the deranged type. Some actually seize upon it.
The antithesis of Calvinism is a extreme form of what they want to call faith not works. It brings into clear context what works really are. To a Calvinist a work is anything period. Is getting out of bed in the morning a work? Is moving your feet a work? Its sort of like showing up at work in the morning, turning on the lights in the business office and heading home while telling the boss he owes you a check. There isnt a boss on the planet that is going to tell you you have worked. In Calvinism you are not responible to do anything, its Gods job not yours.
Certainly not all Calvints approach life like that.
That would be a pretty safe bet.
I'm glad you wrote that reply so I could see better where you're coming from. I don't think real life Calvinists would argue with personal responsibility. They're not as one dimensional as that. Again, read nearly anything by Spurgeon and you will quickly see that he is quite a fan of personal responsibility. But I'm not here to defend Calvinism, just to discuss it. I don't consider myself a Calvinist, either. If you're interested in investigating further, I would recommend going to the "horse's mouth," i.e. Calvin's writings, rather than a work that discusses Calvin and quotes him, but it would be difficult to say where to begin! A short work that addresses your concerns and could help inform your judgment on TULIP is Arthur Pink's The Sovereignty of God, $11 in paperback at Amazon. Then read Our Accountability to God by the same author.
Where I see the problem (and maybe you do, too) is in the various theories of salvation. Whatever we may reckon that to be, if we regard the Bible as a revelation of God's will and plan, we're also going to have to reckon with verses like the following, as well as a great many other verses throughout the New Testament.
2Cor.5:10: For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad.
Those who call themselves Christian and who water down verses like these with their theories of salvation do it to their own peril.
?
A man who has spent his entire life doing mean, cruel, hurtful acts realizes that he is nearing the end of his life. Fearing divine retribution, he decides to go to church. While there, the collection plate is passed by him and he decides to toss in a dollar bill. That very night, the nasty man dies and finds himself at the Pearly Gates. St. Peter pulls up the man's earthly record. The bad side of the ledger is filled with a lifetime of evil acts which goes on for several pages. However, on the good side of the ledger is a single entry.....he went to church once and contributed a dollar. Now, St. Peter isn't sure how to handle this situation; so he turns to the Supreme Judge for advice. God looks over the ledger entries, turns to St. Peter and says, "Give him back his buck and tell him to go to hell."
Its been a while since we talked here. Regarding your comment , I dont think I am that set in my ways, I have always enjoyed your point or counterpoint. You always used to make me think and sharpen me up. I mean, you should at least scribble something.
AnotherDan: I guess my point was not to focus on the "once saved always saved thiests" because thats not the part that really bugs me. The reason for the buggery in me, is that it would seem dangerous with all the sexual predators and such to have such a theology. I watched an interesting peice on MSNBC in an interview with Jeffery Dahlmer, who cited evolution as the intellectual dogma for his crimes and stated "If there is no consequence for your actions in the afterlife why care about what you do". My problem with this theology is that it is inconsequencial theology because it places all the responsibility on God, none on the person, thus leaving a wide open field for creepy behavior. Certainly not all Calvints approach life like that. The problem is when you provide that type of opportunity for the deranged type. Some actually seize upon it.
Hi Sky, okay I will see if I can offer anything useful. I guess the way your posts here and in The Way Forums read to me, it seemed like you had your mind pretty made up and I didn't want to fight with you. :)
I think in all things there is a balance, a moderation. If one is truly seeking God, it doesn't matter if you believe it is all "grace without works" or "works without grace" because either way you will be actively doing the best you know how to be pleasing unto God and will therefore be doing some good things. Likewise, because we are all human, we will do some bad things along the way too.
Anything can be taken to an extreme. One can say it is all grace and therefore I can do whatever I want to, no matter how evil or hurtful, and I will still go to heaven. Therefore, I'm going to grab all the cookies for myself and it doesn't matter who I have to step on to get them.
One can also say it is all works and no grace and work themselves or those around them into a fear and doubt filled frenzy as they spend a miserable life bending themselves over backwards and twisting themselves in knots to try and please God.
So, rather than trying to figure out if it is all grace or it is all works, I simply do my best to do those things which I believe are good and helpful and I do my best to avoid those things which I think are hurtful and destructive. I trust God to know my human failings and forgive me when I get it wrong.
I am also wondering exactly how you define a cult. That too might be useful in this thread.
Hi Sky, okay I will see if I can offer anything useful. I guess the way your posts here and in The Way Forums read to me, it seemed like you had your mind pretty made up and I didn't want to fight with you. :)
I think in all things there is a balance, a moderation. If one is truly seeking God, it doesn't matter if you believe it is all "grace without works" or "works without grace" because either way you will be actively doing the best you know how to be pleasing unto God and will therefore be doing some good things. Likewise, because we are all human, we will do some bad things along the way too.
Anything can be taken to an extreme. One can say it is all grace and therefore I can do whatever I want to, no matter how evil or hurtful, and I will still go to heaven. Therefore, I'm going to grab all the cookies for myself and it doesn't matter who I have to step on to get them.
One can also say it is all works and no grace and work themselves or those around them into a fear and doubt filled frenzy as they spend a miserable life bending themselves over backwards and twisting themselves in knots to try and please God.
So, rather than trying to figure out if it is all grace or it is all works, I simply do my best to do those things which I believe are good and helpful and I do my best to avoid those things which I think are hurtful and destructive. I trust God to know my human failings and forgive me when I get it wrong.
I am also wondering exactly how you define a cult. That too might be useful in this thread.
Gosh Abi. I usually don't do this but I can't help myself --- Well said!
I am not sure if this is the right thread for this or not, but I thought I would toss this in anyway.
I've been giving a lot of thought to some of Cman's posts regarding being born again and it being a process. I think SirG may have said something along the same lines in the past, but I never really "got it" before.
In TWI we were taught a formula. We do Romans 10:9 and 10 and poof we were magically born again. All the bad was washed away and we started out new and fresh. If we made in mistakes from that point on we simply asked for forgiveness and all was new and fresh again. We could do that over and over and over again. It didn't even really require much thought, introspection, or even self honesty. Nice, easy, and quick.
But is birth quick, easy and simple? Ha, if you have ever given birth to a child, I'm betting you would say NOOOOO!!!
It is a process, it requires effort mentally, physically and emotionally.
It doesn't happen in an instant, it takes time. For humans it takes 9 months. For some animals the gestational period is shorter and for some longer.
So maybe the same is true of becoming born again. Maybe it is a process that occurs over time. It may start with a hunger to know God, it may start with an acceptance of Jesus' teachings, I don't know what the exact point of conception is.
What does this have to do with grace? Well I imagine we require God's grace before we begin the process and throughout the process. I imagine we may very well require God's grace after the birth has taken place too. But I think there is a verse somewhere that talks about using God's grace as an excuse to justify bad behavior. I don't believe that was God's intent in offering us grace. Grace is there to help us through the birthing process, like the ambilical cord that supplies the fetus with nutrients.
Your comments were refreshing and nicely stated. I also dont like arguing and harranging, was I grumpy in the past or something? Tis true that pitting grace against works against faith is rather morbid conversation. Sort of like walking around with one shoe on and saying why cant i do this? In summation I think what you were saying is that sincerity is a bible believers best friend to which i heartily agree. In answer to your cult question see below.
Anotherdan: Thanks for the stuff. I might check out some of the reading material. Maybe I will also check that website, but I personally have only talked about religion mostly on this website for one reason. Ex-Way people are considerably more careful to preface and critique what there views are having been somewhat ravaged in the past. Personally I think this makes there views more well rounded and refined, like Abigail views for instance which are always well thought out and considerate. BTW, I also like Charles Spurgeon. Of course there are many people in different faiths that don't marry the actual doctine. In addition, I agree with what you have to say, expecially the scipture you quoted thanks.
Whats a cult? Heck I dunno know exactly how to define one. I suppose it would have to entail something thats destructive to ones self in general and destructive to what is called in the bible "true faith"
In order to elaborate more fully why I went the cult signature with Calvin, i suppose I ought to have some good reason. And Abigail you do well to broach the subject.
Here is some calving quotation buggery:
Calvin Quotes
walk therein, lest by winging their flight higher than is lawful, they plunge themselves into a labyrinth deeper than they would wish to find themselves in. But as there is none other gate of the kingdom of heaven than faith in Christ, as contained in the promises of the Gospel openly set before us; so it must be the greatest stupidity not to acknowledge that the eyes of our minds are opened of God Himself, for He chose us unto faith in Christ before we were conceived in the womb. And yet, that the object of this filthy and abandoned one was not only to blot out all knowledge of God's election from the minds of men, but to overturn His power also, is clearly manifest from those mad dreams of his, which ye possess in your public records, written with his own hand; wherein he asserts that faith does not depend on election, but that rather election stands in faith, and that none remain in blindness on account of the in-born corruption of nature, seeing that all men are really enlightened of God; and that we do a great injustice to God when we declare that those are passed by of Him whom He deigns not to illumine by His Spirit.
10. The doctrine of free will is always in danger of robbing God of his honor
7. That man is necessarily, but without compulsion, a sinner establishes no doctrine of free will
Back to my comments:
Calvin gets into an arguement (in his day) with someone who disputes his doctrine. Calvin says that "faith stands in election" not the other way around as some guy (some of whom were killed during this period for disputing the issue) What Calvin does is walk into the "foreknowledge of God" pick faith out and say faith is devinely appointed by God. Thus he cheapens faith or pits election against faith. He also states rather uncategorically that mans free will doesnt even matter. You dont have a choice in the matter.
This isnt someone oogling into the foreknowledge of God trying to understand God's plan of salvation. In Calvins view, election and predestination = faith. By negating mans free will, theres basically no need to make decisions on a daily basis either. If Calvins views on this topic cannot hold water in heaven or earth, otherwise God would not have cast down the angels that sinned. Ie (Calvin would have said this was a part of God's foreknowledge and plan)By the way this isnt some side bar issue Calvinits talk about this is in fact the bedrock of Calvinist ideology.
I suppose in examining any doctrine one should ask whats the point? Of course Calvin is the only one I have ever heard who pits election against faith. Whats the point? What is Calvin really saying?
Calvin is saying it really doesn't matter what you do. Its a permissive sort of grace which turns grace into lascivousness. Thats what I think this does and what the purpose of it is.
Lastly, how does one broach the "foreknowlege of God" with a doctrine? The knowlege of God is of unlimited supply, thus dangerous to make doctrines of it.
sky, though you have moderated your opening post you're still misrepresenting Calvinist beliefs. Making everyday choices are certainly accounted for in the Calvinist system.
I do accept the Calvinist notions of irresitable grace, the total depravity of man and pre-destination. I stop short at election (the notion that some are ordained to heaven and some to hell no matter what; citations are pulled from Romans 9).
I'm more concerned with the effects on daily living. One thing I admire about the Calvinists (or Covenant believers, as the nomenclature goes these days) is their ability to accept things that happen. The best of them allow their difficulties to deepen and mature them. since they believe that God organized it, they are looking for the deeper lesson and seek to grow thereby. I find that healthy.
Abigail, as far as
Anything can be taken to an extreme. One can say it is all grace and therefore I can do whatever I want to, no matter how evil or hurtful, and I will still go to heaven. Therefore, I'm going to grab all the cookies for myself and it doesn't matter who I have to step on to get them.
That's the fruit of false grace...the kind taught in Der Weg.
It is not uncommon for many to have seen and think that because another has not then they will never see. This is a sign of immaturity, no matter how clearly God has been seen. one should continue 'in the faith', that would be continuing rather then digressing into what one thinks instead of continuing to let the scales on our eyes fall off. Because it is the work of the Lord to open the eyes, what one has done or doing is to let that work have it's perfect work inside.
Getting past the 'I am and you are not' is the work of grace. Faith has substance, that substance is what is seen and experienced. Be careful that you don't fall into the trap that you think others will not see.
Yes, progression is how it happens, as Abigail said. It's not progression from only one point but from many. As many as there are people. 'It' will be seen by all in their's and the Lord's way, and by the grace will it be seen as one no matter how 'different' things seem to be.
Staying stuck in one way of thinking will stop progression, no matter how 'right' it may be seen as. It is in many ways, but it would be the person stopping this inner ear and eye and not the Lord. We are epistles of the heart known and read by all. This LIVING WORD in Us is what is to progress. It's easier then one might suppose since it is the work of the spirit.
Free will is a joke and guessing game. Most are wrapped up so tight they wouldn't be able to see choice if it slapped 'em upside the head. And it will, that's for sure, cause one day it just may take a SHOUT to wake some people up to what is reality.
Coincidentally, Calvinism and politics intersected today here in Louisiana.
Today the state Dem party rolled out a series of attack ads against Rep. candidate Bobby Jindal, who was raised Hindu (his parents are immigrant Idians) but converted to Catholicism when in high school.
They quoted a paper he wrote when a student at Oxford in England wherein he was expressing aspects of his Catholic choice and making comparisons to other dominant Christian doctrines, including Calvinism.
In the ad, they accuse Bobby of besmirching Protestants by calling them "totally depraved".
HAHAHAHAHA!
How dumb do they think people are??
Um, he was reviewing the 5 points of Calvinism.
Anyway, they ran the ad in (mostly Protestant) north Louisiana. I guess they have other gems for (mostly Catholic) south Louisiana.
But I guess they're desparate, since Bobby is polling upwards of 70% against the entire field of other candidates.
Your thoughts are always as I remembered well thought out and have contructed balance.
I am kind of a technocrat, Evan, and thats probably what fascinated me with way material for a period of about 5 months. I am an Inactive CPA who does "other things" for a living, so I have a rather big curiousity particularily with religious doctrines.
Calvin was a guy who never was verbose, but he was philosphical in using excesses of adjectives to describe his argument. (Luther was verbose and very direct as a result)
Most people in any church when they hear things like faith, grace, predestination, election simply react like "sounds like good stuff to me" My problem with the doctrine isnt by experience of any kind, but one could envision some rather bizare behavior as a result. Its always sad that to really experience the teaching you have to find some nut case who does something wierd with it.
Calvin made some real bizzare statements, such as his commentary on Ephesians 2:8,9 and pretty much says that the Gift of faith, isnt restricted to faith alone. (Thats a card trick not even VPW would have tried) You see Calvin never really believed that salvation comes from faith, rather it comes via predestination or election which is dangerous.
I hear you when you say that there is a moderating form of Calvinism. I think who those people are are the ones who don't understand the underlying message ie (sounds like good stuff to me) People call Calvinists who tip there hat to the underlying message hyper-Calvinists or extreme Calvinists. Thats the boot camp that worrries me.
The other thing is that "the saving grace of God through faith unto salavation" gets absolutely buried by Calvin in Predestination or Election. What is the purpose of doing this? You see , Calvin is never big on the cross. The bedrock of his theology is predestination and election in a way that negates beleiver interaction. Thats how I read Calvin.
Calvinist thought, whether obsessive or passive-with full knowledge or little knowledge is a small part of the bigger picture, as well as Luther or any other. It's the ones that say my way is the only way that should quit thinking of themselves so much and broaden their minds.
Some think to put things into words like a math or english book when his thoughts are higher then our thoughts. Which leaves our thoughts wanting. Didn't we learn about mathematical and scientific precision being DECEIT?
It's a double edged sword, wisdom from above, more then one meaning or meaning.
That can be grasped, the flaming sword that turns EVERY way is within reach.
Man there is so much stuff in this thread!!! You know, I didn't think this would be a thread that would catch my interest overly much, seemed a bit too intellectual/scholarly to me, but now I am interested!!!!!
Sky I will write some responses in bold within your post. BTW, it is nice to see you again! Sorry I was so rude to you earlier.
Abigail:
Your comments were refreshing and nicely stated. I also dont like arguing and harranging, was I grumpy in the past or something?
I don't recall you as being grumpy in the past no. Perhaps I was simply grumpy when I read your opening post. :)
Tis true that pitting grace against works against faith is rather morbid conversation. Sort of like walking around with one shoe on and saying why cant i do this? In summation I think what you were saying is that sincerity is a bible believers best friend to which i heartily agree. In answer to your cult question see below.
Yeah, well, I know we were once taught sincerity is no guarantee for truth and that may be correct in some sense, but I think it is a heck of a good starting point at the very least! If one is sincerely seeking, one will find, yes? On the other hand, all the truth in the world is meaningless and perhaps even harmful in the hands of the insincere.
SNIP
Whats a cult? Heck I dunno know exactly how to define one. I suppose it would have to entail something thats destructive to ones self in general and destructive to what is called in the bible "true faith"
In order to elaborate more fully why I went the cult signature with Calvin, i suppose I ought to have some good reason. And Abigail you do well to broach the subject.
Well, it is difficult to answer a question if one does not fully understand what the question is. :) The word cult can have a variety of meanings and its application to TWI has been hotly debated many times here at the cafe. So, I find it wisest to find out what that particular word means to the person using it.
Here is some calving quotation buggery:
Calvin Quotes
walk therein, lest by winging their flight higher than is lawful, they plunge themselves into a labyrinth deeper than they would wish to find themselves in. But as there is none other gate of the kingdom of heaven than faith in Christ, as contained in the promises of the Gospel openly set before us; so it must be the greatest stupidity not to acknowledge that the eyes of our minds are opened of God Himself, for He chose us unto faith in Christ before we were conceived in the womb. And yet, that the object of this filthy and abandoned one was not only to blot out all knowledge of God's election from the minds of men, but to overturn His power also, is clearly manifest from those mad dreams of his, which ye possess in your public records, written with his own hand; wherein he asserts that faith does not depend on election, but that rather election stands in faith, and that none remain in blindness on account of the in-born corruption of nature, seeing that all men are really enlightened of God; and that we do a great injustice to God when we declare that those are passed by of Him whom He deigns not to illumine by His Spirit.
I have to tell you, by and large I have no clue what the above paragraph is supposed to be saying. This is where I think context would be most useful. With a background understanding of what may have prompted him to say this, I might then understand the point he is trying to make. :)
10. The doctrine of free will is always in danger of robbing God of his honor
7. That man is necessarily, but without compulsion, a sinner establishes no doctrine of free will
More or less the same with these two statements. I think they could be understood a number of different ways, depending on the context within which they were said.
Back to my comments:
Calvin gets into an arguement (in his day) with someone who disputes his doctrine. Calvin says that "faith stands in election" not the other way around as some guy (some of whom were killed during this period for disputing the issue) What Calvin does is walk into the "foreknowledge of God" pick faith out and say faith is devinely appointed by God. Thus he cheapens faith or pits election against faith. He also states rather uncategorically that mans free will doesnt even matter. You dont have a choice in the matter.
This isnt someone oogling into the foreknowledge of God trying to understand God's plan of salvation. In Calvins view, election and predestination = faith. By negating mans free will, theres basically no need to make decisions on a daily basis either. If Calvins views on this topic cannot hold water in heaven or earth, otherwise God would not have cast down the angels that sinned. Ie (Calvin would have said this was a part of God's foreknowledge and plan)By the way this isnt some side bar issue Calvinits talk about this is in fact the bedrock of Calvinist ideology.
And then we get to the real root of my difficulty in understanding this stuff. Terminology. Words like "election", "predestination" and even "faith" can have such vastly different meanings to different people. So when I read these terms that are so often tossed around in various religious writings and groups, I am always left scratching my head and wondering what exactly they mean. They sound nice and religious, but they leave me utterly baffled. To add to the confusion, one group will say "election means thus" and another "no, election means this"
I have re-read this entire thread 3 or 4 times now, there is so much here - - the original question and many possible and wonderful tangents. Cman, I had to re-read your initial post a few times to really get what you were saying, but I think you offered a number of valid points.
1. Sky points out that "pure" (for lack of a better term at the moment) Calvanists (?) believe God "elects" (?) certain people who are then predestined (?) for heaven no matter what they do in this life and others for hell. I think Cman, you were saying this is not so and to think this way is to throw God's grace back in his face?
Like you, I think in the end we will all have our place with God. Even the Hitler's and Jeffrey Dalmers of this world. At the same time, I do think what we do here and now matters as well. Not because (as twi taught) we will get rewards (which would, ironically, require works, no?) but because it is all part of the process of becoming. Becoming what? I don't have an answer to that, but it is something even better than we are now. I don't know how the Htlers and Dalmers of this world will complete the process of getting there (wherever exactly there is), but I'd bet money on it that God does.
I think all of our lives have a purpose, really a multitude of purposes. And the ultimate purpose may be one we aren't even aware of until the next life.
You make an excellent point, partiularily about how words mean different things to different people.
Anyway the text (on free will) I was quoting are positions of John Calvin or basically postulates he says and then he writes to prove. Yeah, Calvin is not just volumous but like an encylopedia so its really hard to know were to start a quote and where to stop it.
I'm a Lutheran with some pentacostal/assemblies overtones, so I dont typically rip Protestant stuff. Yet I really dont have much problem with Babtists/Evangelicals/Catholic doctrinal formats.
You know Abby, your right it is really difficult to put great big theological arguements in a fry pan and say what does this really mean? But before I bore you to death, let my explain why they intrigue me. I happen to think most theological discussions have an end target and usually play themselves out in the following two places: 1) in peoples check books and how they get there and 2) in peoples underwear.
Reading Calvin is like reading philosophy that has no logic. Anyway, he doesnt do the Greek dance but kind of does the Artistle dance with philosphical syntax. If you boil off the big words, its kind a sneeky fun to see what he is really thinking.
Doctrinally, I don't subscribe to the idea of "getting into heaven," but that's for another thread.
Dan, I would love it if you would start that thread someday, when you have the time and inclination. :)
One thing I admire about the Calvinists (or Covenant believers, as the nomenclature goes these days) is their ability to accept things that happen. The best of them allow their difficulties to deepen and mature them. since they believe that God organized it, they are looking for the deeper lesson and seek to grow thereby. I find that healthy.
Me too Evan. It is much better that condemning yourself or twisting yourself in knots to try to be perfect so nothing bad ever happens again. It is also, IMO, better than just blaming God and giving up.
I'm a Lutheran with some pentacostal/assemblies overtones, so I dont typically rip Protestant stuff. Yet I really dont have much problem with Babtists/Evangelicals/Catholic doctrinal formats.
I'm a Jew who went to Catechism (sp?) as a kid, "because all the other kids got to leave school an hour early and go!", spent 10 years with TWI, and checked out various and assundry other Christian churches thoughout various time periods of my life. The termonology within Christianity has always baffled me. I wish people would just use plain old modern day English to say what they mean so I can understand what they are saying. That was one of my difficulties in many of the churches. I often left confused because I only understood half of what they were saying. Now I can go to a temple, sit through a service in Hebrew, and leave knowing I didn't understand ANYTHING that was said. lol ;)
You know Abby, your right it is really difficult to put great big theological arguements in a fry pan and say what does this really mean? But before I bore you to death, let my explain why they intrigue me. I happen to think most theological discussions have an end target and usually play themselves out in the following two places: 1) in peoples check books and how they get there and 2) in peoples underwear.
Ah, someone who is even more cynical than I am! HA!! I think that is often the case with many of the "big names", but I won't lump all in that category. There are many wonderful authors out there who put forth arguments regarding various theological issues who are truly learning as they write or writing because they want to share what they learned (plus they can put food on the table in the process).
Reading Calvin is like reading philosophy that has no logic. Anyway, he doesnt do the Greek dance but kind of does the Artistle dance with philosphical syntax. If you boil off the big words, its kind a sneeky fun to see what he is really thinking.
well, I will have to work my way through the big words somehow I guess. Like I have told DWW (who seems to be absent again) who writes in terms of math - I am a visual thinker. I need imagery, small words, no numbers - lol lol
this is a reprint of my previous post plus I wanted to add one more thing at the bottom:
"Abigail:
You make an excellent point, partiularily about how words mean different things to different people.
Anyway the text (on free will) I was quoting are positions of John Calvin or basically postulates he says and then he writes to prove. Yeah, Calvin is not just volumous but like an encylopedia so its really hard to know were to start a quote and where to stop it.
I'm a Lutheran with some pentacostal/assemblies overtones, so I dont typically rip Protestant stuff. Yet I really dont have much problem with Babtists/Evangelicals/Catholic doctrinal formats.
You know Abby, your right it is really difficult to put great big theological arguements in a fry pan and say what does this really mean? But before I bore you to death, let my explain why they intrigue me. I happen to think most theological discussions have an end target and usually play themselves out in the following two places: 1) in peoples check books and how they get there and 2) in peoples underwear.
Reading Calvin is like reading philosophy that has no logic. Anyway, he doesnt do the Greek dance but kind of does the Artistle dance with philosphical syntax. If you boil off the big words, its kind a sneeky fun to see what he is really thinking."
With that said Abby here let me try: In the middle of the long paragraph I quoted from Calvin is this: wherein he asserts that faith does not depend on election, but that rather election stands in faith
The guy Calvin is agruing with asserts to Calvin that "faith does not depend on election but rather election stands in faith." The guy is simply telling Calvin that faith is greater than election and shouldnt be mixed with this concept. You see, Calvin concludes that election of God, God foreknowledge of our salavation , makes faith irrelevant to ones salvation. (which I said makes it a cult but maybe the better word is heresy.) Incidentally people who made arguements like this to Calvin some were burned at the stake. Its unknown wether Calvin himself was involved in these matters, some have argued that he wasnt involved at all.
Okay, let me see if I am understanding this right.
One side says you cannot be a member of the elect (those "predestined" for "heaven") without faith.
The other side (Calvin) says God has already "predistined" you for "heaven" regardless of whether or not you have faith.
Am I following?
If so, I would say it is a silly argument because God knows whether or not you will have faith anyway, in his foreknowledge, so the point is moot.
But even that is sort of misleading in terms of what I personally believe. I believe one way or another we will all come to know God. I don't know all the ins and outs of how, but I believe that is how it is, even the Hilters and Dalmers of this world.
I don't believe someone wakes up one day and thinks "gee, I think I'll go out and kill millions of people today" or "gee, I'm hungry, perhaps I can find someone to carve up and eat."
I think those people have a sickness. Maybe it is biological, something wrong with their brain or chemistry. Maybe it is emotional, scarring on their hearts and minds because of suffering they endured. Maybe it is spiritual. I don't know. But I believe God can and will heal them in His own way and His own time.
And yet, despite all of that, I also firmly believe it does matter what we do with the gift of life as a human being on this planet.
Man were just moving right along here arent we? I will have to go back and see if we left someone out.
Regarding your comments: yeah i read I read yah.
u said:
And yet, despite all of that, I also firmly believe it does matter what we do with the gift of life as a human being on this planet.
Hey isnt that in the proverbs? well it should be.
Let me just make one final point about the doctrinal disertations being moot.
you know VPW didnt just come out and say, you know, heres my doctrine, I want to be rich and powerful and all you pretty girls make a bee line for my bed post so I can add some notches. Of course if he had, he would have been a tad more honest. Which of course is the reason doctrinal disertations are not simple in the hands of wackos.
With respect to Calvin, there is no earthly reason to make that arguement. You dont need a test tube of election to pour your test tube of faith into to make any cognitive arguement that is helpful. I dont know if John Calvin had VPW like issues, but he sure as heck had VPW like symtoms both with his doctrine and as the Pope of Geneva. If I can find a hyper Calvinist with the agenda i think they have I will be sure to post it to yah.
Great discussion here. I want to chime in but I don't know where to start.
I admire and/or have learned from several reformed (Calvinistic) writers, R. C. Sproul comes to mind,as well as Stott and Spurgeon. I used to subscribe to World magazine which seems to be written from a mainly reformed perspective, which I greatly enjoyed.
We certainly owe much historically in America to the Puritans, who were Calvinists, as well as many of the founding fathers(such as John Adams, I believe). I've read that Presbyterian preachers were responsible in a large part for inspiring the colonists to declare independence from Britain.
I personally don't agree with Calvin on many points(not that I've read all his works). I agree with sky4it that some of his doctrines are disturbing. I have a hard time with historical facts concerning his life, such as his role in the burning at the stake of Michael Servetus, a Unitarian, and his dictatorial leadership style.
Abi, your posts reminded me of this poem:
by Anne Bronte (Charlotte and Emily's sister) entitled:
A Word to the calvinists
You may rejoice to think yourselves secure,
You may be grateful for the gift divine,
That grace unsought which made your black hearts pure
And fits your earthborn souls in Heaven to shine.
But is it sweet to look around and view
Thousands excluded from that happiness,
Which they deserve at least as much as you,
Their faults not greater nor their virtues less?
And wherefore should you love your God the more
Because to you alone his smiles are given,
Because He chose to pass the many o'er
And only bring the favoured few to Heaven?
And wherefore should your hearts more grateful prove
Because for all the Saviour did not die?
Is yours the God of justice and of love
And are your bosoms warm with charity?
Say does your heart expand to all mankind
And would you ever to your neighbour do,
-- The weak, the strong, the enlightened and the blind -
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
74
35
21
32
Popular Days
Aug 24
31
Aug 21
23
Aug 22
23
Mar 17
14
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 74 posts
Abigail 35 posts
GarthP2000 21 posts
Watered Garden 32 posts
Popular Days
Aug 24 2007
31 posts
Aug 21 2007
23 posts
Aug 22 2007
23 posts
Mar 17 2009
14 posts
Popular Posts
GarthP2000
And Calvin and his mindset was the 'Honey Wagon'.
Mark Clarke
God doesn't cause the problems, but He does allow them, because He is God and He is in charge. That is comforting to me, because it assures me that nothing is beyond His control. But He doesn't allo
Cynic
My-my! What wild flailings at the doctrine of unconditional election. You have struck only a few “hyper-Calvinists” (e.g. some Primitive Baptists), who reputedly held election to work salvation in s
Abigail
You seem to have your opinion pretty firmly set, so I'm not sure I see the profit in commenting. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
One illustration that I have appreciated regarding salvation has to do with the Grand Canyon. It is said that even the best broadjumper in the world can't clear the chasm. Another one is a joke that goes like this:
A guy gets to the pearly gates, and sure enough, there is Saint Peter.
Peter: "Here's how it works. You need 1,000 points to make it into heaven. You tell me all the good things you've done, and I give you a certain number of points for each item, depending on how good it was. When you reach 1,000 points, you get in."
"Okay," the man said, "I was married to the same woman for 50 years and never cheated on her, even in my heart."
"That's wonderful, that's worth three points!"
"Three points? Well, I attended church all my life and supported its ministry with my tithe and service."
"Terrific!" said Peter, "that's certainly worth a point."
"One point? Wow! How about this: I started a soup kitchen in my city and worked in a shelter for homeless veterans."
"Fantastic, that's good for two more points," Peter said.
"Two points!!" the man cried, "At this rate the only way I will get into heaven is by the grace of God!"
Peter: "Step on in!"
Doctrinally, I don't subscribe to the idea of "getting into heaven," but that's for another thread.
Calvinist theology is a reaction against those who feel that they can be saved by their works. They radically believe that salvation is of faith, and not by works. It follows obviously that faith is not works. But putting this together with the Book of James, "faith without works is dead."
I personally am very sympathetic to Calvinist theology. I think Charles Spurgeon was ordained of God, and spoke for God. And Spurgeon was a staunch Calvinist.
But I agree that something is not right about God not requiring anything of us. Otherwise, many of Jesus' words have no meaning. "Narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (that may be a paraphrase) His words about "counting the cost" would likewise become rather empty.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Abigail:
Its been a while since we talked here. Regarding your comment , I dont think I am that set in my ways, I have always enjoyed your point or counterpoint. You always used to make me think and sharpen me up. I mean, you should at least scribble something.
AnotherDan: I guess my point was not to focus on the "once saved always saved thiests" because thats not the part that really bugs me. The reason for the buggery in me, is that it would seem dangerous with all the sexual predators and such to have such a theology. I watched an interesting peice on MSNBC in an interview with Jeffery Dahlmer, who cited evolution as the intellectual dogma for his crimes and stated "If there is no consequence for your actions in the afterlife why care about what you do". My problem with this theology is that it is inconsequencial theology because it places all the responsibility on God, none on the person, thus leaving a wide open field for creepy behavior. Certainly not all Calvints approach life like that. The problem is when you provide that type of opportunity for the deranged type. Some actually seize upon it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
The antithesis of Calvinism is a extreme form of what they want to call faith not works. It brings into clear context what works really are. To a Calvinist a work is anything period. Is getting out of bed in the morning a work? Is moving your feet a work? Its sort of like showing up at work in the morning, turning on the lights in the business office and heading home while telling the boss he owes you a check. There isnt a boss on the planet that is going to tell you you have worked. In Calvinism you are not responible to do anything, its Gods job not yours.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
That would be a pretty safe bet.
I'm glad you wrote that reply so I could see better where you're coming from. I don't think real life Calvinists would argue with personal responsibility. They're not as one dimensional as that. Again, read nearly anything by Spurgeon and you will quickly see that he is quite a fan of personal responsibility. But I'm not here to defend Calvinism, just to discuss it. I don't consider myself a Calvinist, either. If you're interested in investigating further, I would recommend going to the "horse's mouth," i.e. Calvin's writings, rather than a work that discusses Calvin and quotes him, but it would be difficult to say where to begin! A short work that addresses your concerns and could help inform your judgment on TULIP is Arthur Pink's The Sovereignty of God, $11 in paperback at Amazon. Then read Our Accountability to God by the same author.
Where I see the problem (and maybe you do, too) is in the various theories of salvation. Whatever we may reckon that to be, if we regard the Bible as a revelation of God's will and plan, we're also going to have to reckon with verses like the following, as well as a great many other verses throughout the New Testament.
2Cor.5:10: For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad.
Those who call themselves Christian and who water down verses like these with their theories of salvation do it to their own peril.
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Hi Sky, okay I will see if I can offer anything useful. I guess the way your posts here and in The Way Forums read to me, it seemed like you had your mind pretty made up and I didn't want to fight with you. :)
I think in all things there is a balance, a moderation. If one is truly seeking God, it doesn't matter if you believe it is all "grace without works" or "works without grace" because either way you will be actively doing the best you know how to be pleasing unto God and will therefore be doing some good things. Likewise, because we are all human, we will do some bad things along the way too.
Anything can be taken to an extreme. One can say it is all grace and therefore I can do whatever I want to, no matter how evil or hurtful, and I will still go to heaven. Therefore, I'm going to grab all the cookies for myself and it doesn't matter who I have to step on to get them.
One can also say it is all works and no grace and work themselves or those around them into a fear and doubt filled frenzy as they spend a miserable life bending themselves over backwards and twisting themselves in knots to try and please God.
So, rather than trying to figure out if it is all grace or it is all works, I simply do my best to do those things which I believe are good and helpful and I do my best to avoid those things which I think are hurtful and destructive. I trust God to know my human failings and forgive me when I get it wrong.
I am also wondering exactly how you define a cult. That too might be useful in this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Gosh Abi. I usually don't do this but I can't help myself --- Well said!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I am not sure if this is the right thread for this or not, but I thought I would toss this in anyway.
I've been giving a lot of thought to some of Cman's posts regarding being born again and it being a process. I think SirG may have said something along the same lines in the past, but I never really "got it" before.
In TWI we were taught a formula. We do Romans 10:9 and 10 and poof we were magically born again. All the bad was washed away and we started out new and fresh. If we made in mistakes from that point on we simply asked for forgiveness and all was new and fresh again. We could do that over and over and over again. It didn't even really require much thought, introspection, or even self honesty. Nice, easy, and quick.
But is birth quick, easy and simple? Ha, if you have ever given birth to a child, I'm betting you would say NOOOOO!!!
It is a process, it requires effort mentally, physically and emotionally.
It doesn't happen in an instant, it takes time. For humans it takes 9 months. For some animals the gestational period is shorter and for some longer.
So maybe the same is true of becoming born again. Maybe it is a process that occurs over time. It may start with a hunger to know God, it may start with an acceptance of Jesus' teachings, I don't know what the exact point of conception is.
What does this have to do with grace? Well I imagine we require God's grace before we begin the process and throughout the process. I imagine we may very well require God's grace after the birth has taken place too. But I think there is a verse somewhere that talks about using God's grace as an excuse to justify bad behavior. I don't believe that was God's intent in offering us grace. Grace is there to help us through the birthing process, like the ambilical cord that supplies the fetus with nutrients.
Something like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Abigail:
Your comments were refreshing and nicely stated. I also dont like arguing and harranging, was I grumpy in the past or something?
Tis true that pitting grace against works against faith is rather morbid conversation. Sort of like walking around with one shoe on and saying why cant i do this? In summation I think what you were saying is that sincerity is a bible believers best friend to which i heartily agree. 
In answer to your cult question see below.
Anotherdan: Thanks for the stuff. I might check out some of the reading material. Maybe I will also check that website, but I personally have only talked about religion mostly on this website for one reason. Ex-Way people are considerably more careful to preface and critique what there views are having been somewhat ravaged in the past. Personally I think this makes there views more well rounded and refined, like Abigail views for instance which are always well thought out and considerate. BTW, I also like Charles Spurgeon. Of course there are many people in different faiths that don't marry the actual doctine. In addition, I agree with what you have to say, expecially the scipture you quoted thanks.
Whats a cult? Heck I dunno know exactly how to define one. I suppose it would have to entail something thats destructive to ones self in general and destructive to what is called in the bible "true faith"
In order to elaborate more fully why I went the cult signature with Calvin, i suppose I ought to have some good reason. And Abigail you do well to broach the subject.
Here is some calving quotation buggery:
Calvin Quotes
walk therein, lest by winging their flight higher than is lawful, they plunge themselves into a labyrinth deeper than they would wish to find themselves in. But as there is none other gate of the kingdom of heaven than faith in Christ, as contained in the promises of the Gospel openly set before us; so it must be the greatest stupidity not to acknowledge that the eyes of our minds are opened of God Himself, for He chose us unto faith in Christ before we were conceived in the womb. And yet, that the object of this filthy and abandoned one was not only to blot out all knowledge of God's election from the minds of men, but to overturn His power also, is clearly manifest from those mad dreams of his, which ye possess in your public records, written with his own hand; wherein he asserts that faith does not depend on election, but that rather election stands in faith, and that none remain in blindness on account of the in-born corruption of nature, seeing that all men are really enlightened of God; and that we do a great injustice to God when we declare that those are passed by of Him whom He deigns not to illumine by His Spirit.
10. The doctrine of free will is always in danger of robbing God of his honor
7. That man is necessarily, but without compulsion, a sinner establishes no doctrine of free will
Back to my comments:
Calvin gets into an arguement (in his day) with someone who disputes his doctrine. Calvin says that "faith stands in election" not the other way around as some guy (some of whom were killed during this period for disputing the issue) What Calvin does is walk into the "foreknowledge of God" pick faith out and say faith is devinely appointed by God. Thus he cheapens faith or pits election against faith. He also states rather uncategorically that mans free will doesnt even matter. You dont have a choice in the matter.
This isnt someone oogling into the foreknowledge of God trying to understand God's plan of salvation. In Calvins view, election and predestination = faith. By negating mans free will, theres basically no need to make decisions on a daily basis either. If Calvins views on this topic cannot hold water in heaven or earth, otherwise God would not have cast down the angels that sinned. Ie (Calvin would have said this was a part of God's foreknowledge and plan)By the way this isnt some side bar issue Calvinits talk about this is in fact the bedrock of Calvinist ideology.
I suppose in examining any doctrine one should ask whats the point? Of course Calvin is the only one I have ever heard who pits election against faith. Whats the point? What is Calvin really saying?
Calvin is saying it really doesn't matter what you do. Its a permissive sort of grace which turns grace into lascivousness. Thats what I think this does and what the purpose of it is.
Lastly, how does one broach the "foreknowlege of God" with a doctrine? The knowlege of God is of unlimited supply, thus dangerous to make doctrines of it.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
sky, though you have moderated your opening post you're still misrepresenting Calvinist beliefs. Making everyday choices are certainly accounted for in the Calvinist system.
I do accept the Calvinist notions of irresitable grace, the total depravity of man and pre-destination. I stop short at election (the notion that some are ordained to heaven and some to hell no matter what; citations are pulled from Romans 9).
I'm more concerned with the effects on daily living. One thing I admire about the Calvinists (or Covenant believers, as the nomenclature goes these days) is their ability to accept things that happen. The best of them allow their difficulties to deepen and mature them. since they believe that God organized it, they are looking for the deeper lesson and seek to grow thereby. I find that healthy.
Abigail, as far as
That's the fruit of false grace...the kind taught in Der Weg.Here's the good stuff:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
It is not uncommon for many to have seen and think that because another has not then they will never see. This is a sign of immaturity, no matter how clearly God has been seen. one should continue 'in the faith', that would be continuing rather then digressing into what one thinks instead of continuing to let the scales on our eyes fall off. Because it is the work of the Lord to open the eyes, what one has done or doing is to let that work have it's perfect work inside.
Getting past the 'I am and you are not' is the work of grace. Faith has substance, that substance is what is seen and experienced. Be careful that you don't fall into the trap that you think others will not see.
Yes, progression is how it happens, as Abigail said. It's not progression from only one point but from many. As many as there are people. 'It' will be seen by all in their's and the Lord's way, and by the grace will it be seen as one no matter how 'different' things seem to be.
Staying stuck in one way of thinking will stop progression, no matter how 'right' it may be seen as. It is in many ways, but it would be the person stopping this inner ear and eye and not the Lord. We are epistles of the heart known and read by all. This LIVING WORD in Us is what is to progress. It's easier then one might suppose since it is the work of the spirit.
Free will is a joke and guessing game. Most are wrapped up so tight they wouldn't be able to see choice if it slapped 'em upside the head. And it will, that's for sure, cause one day it just may take a SHOUT to wake some people up to what is reality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Coincidentally, Calvinism and politics intersected today here in Louisiana.
Today the state Dem party rolled out a series of attack ads against Rep. candidate Bobby Jindal, who was raised Hindu (his parents are immigrant Idians) but converted to Catholicism when in high school.
They quoted a paper he wrote when a student at Oxford in England wherein he was expressing aspects of his Catholic choice and making comparisons to other dominant Christian doctrines, including Calvinism.
In the ad, they accuse Bobby of besmirching Protestants by calling them "totally depraved".
HAHAHAHAHA!
How dumb do they think people are??
Um, he was reviewing the 5 points of Calvinism.
Anyway, they ran the ad in (mostly Protestant) north Louisiana. I guess they have other gems for (mostly Catholic) south Louisiana.
But I guess they're desparate, since Bobby is polling upwards of 70% against the entire field of other candidates.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
You're right, TheEvan! That IS the good stuff. "eaching" should be "teaching"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Evan
Your thoughts are always as I remembered well thought out and have contructed balance.
I am kind of a technocrat, Evan, and thats probably what fascinated me with way material for a period of about 5 months. I am an Inactive CPA who does "other things" for a living, so I have a rather big curiousity particularily with religious doctrines.
Calvin was a guy who never was verbose, but he was philosphical in using excesses of adjectives to describe his argument. (Luther was verbose and very direct as a result)
Most people in any church when they hear things like faith, grace, predestination, election simply react like "sounds like good stuff to me" My problem with the doctrine isnt by experience of any kind, but one could envision some rather bizare behavior as a result. Its always sad that to really experience the teaching you have to find some nut case who does something wierd with it.
Calvin made some real bizzare statements, such as his commentary on Ephesians 2:8,9 and pretty much says that the Gift of faith, isnt restricted to faith alone. (Thats a card trick not even VPW would have tried) You see Calvin never really believed that salvation comes from faith, rather it comes via predestination or election which is dangerous.
I hear you when you say that there is a moderating form of Calvinism. I think who those people are are the ones who don't understand the underlying message ie (sounds like good stuff to me) People call Calvinists who tip there hat to the underlying message hyper-Calvinists or extreme Calvinists. Thats the boot camp that worrries me.
The other thing is that "the saving grace of God through faith unto salavation" gets absolutely buried by Calvin in Predestination or Election. What is the purpose of doing this? You see , Calvin is never big on the cross. The bedrock of his theology is predestination and election in a way that negates beleiver interaction. Thats how I read Calvin.
+
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Calvinist thought, whether obsessive or passive-with full knowledge or little knowledge is a small part of the bigger picture, as well as Luther or any other. It's the ones that say my way is the only way that should quit thinking of themselves so much and broaden their minds.
Some think to put things into words like a math or english book when his thoughts are higher then our thoughts. Which leaves our thoughts wanting. Didn't we learn about mathematical and scientific precision being DECEIT?
It's a double edged sword, wisdom from above, more then one meaning or meaning.
That can be grasped, the flaming sword that turns EVERY way is within reach.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Man there is so much stuff in this thread!!! You know, I didn't think this would be a thread that would catch my interest overly much, seemed a bit too intellectual/scholarly to me, but now I am interested!!!!!
Sky I will write some responses in bold within your post. BTW, it is nice to see you again! Sorry I was so rude to you earlier.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I have re-read this entire thread 3 or 4 times now, there is so much here - - the original question and many possible and wonderful tangents. Cman, I had to re-read your initial post a few times to really get what you were saying, but I think you offered a number of valid points.
1. Sky points out that "pure" (for lack of a better term at the moment) Calvanists (?) believe God "elects" (?) certain people who are then predestined (?) for heaven no matter what they do in this life and others for hell. I think Cman, you were saying this is not so and to think this way is to throw God's grace back in his face?
Like you, I think in the end we will all have our place with God. Even the Hitler's and Jeffrey Dalmers of this world. At the same time, I do think what we do here and now matters as well. Not because (as twi taught) we will get rewards (which would, ironically, require works, no?) but because it is all part of the process of becoming. Becoming what? I don't have an answer to that, but it is something even better than we are now. I don't know how the Htlers and Dalmers of this world will complete the process of getting there (wherever exactly there is), but I'd bet money on it that God does.
I think all of our lives have a purpose, really a multitude of purposes. And the ultimate purpose may be one we aren't even aware of until the next life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Abigail:
You make an excellent point, partiularily about how words mean different things to different people.
Anyway the text (on free will) I was quoting are positions of John Calvin or basically postulates he says and then he writes to prove. Yeah, Calvin is not just volumous but like an encylopedia so its really hard to know were to start a quote and where to stop it.
I'm a Lutheran with some pentacostal/assemblies overtones, so I dont typically rip Protestant stuff. Yet I really dont have much problem with Babtists/Evangelicals/Catholic doctrinal formats.
You know Abby, your right it is really difficult to put great big theological arguements in a fry pan and say what does this really mean? But before I bore you to death, let my explain why they intrigue me. I happen to think most theological discussions have an end target and usually play themselves out in the following two places: 1) in peoples check books and how they get there and 2) in peoples underwear.
Reading Calvin is like reading philosophy that has no logic. Anyway, he doesnt do the Greek dance but kind of does the Artistle dance with philosphical syntax. If you boil off the big words, its kind a sneeky fun to see what he is really thinking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Dan, I would love it if you would start that thread someday, when you have the time and inclination. :)
Me too Evan. It is much better that condemning yourself or twisting yourself in knots to try to be perfect so nothing bad ever happens again. It is also, IMO, better than just blaming God and giving up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Abigail:
this is a reprint of my previous post plus I wanted to add one more thing at the bottom:
"Abigail:
You make an excellent point, partiularily about how words mean different things to different people.
Anyway the text (on free will) I was quoting are positions of John Calvin or basically postulates he says and then he writes to prove. Yeah, Calvin is not just volumous but like an encylopedia so its really hard to know were to start a quote and where to stop it.
I'm a Lutheran with some pentacostal/assemblies overtones, so I dont typically rip Protestant stuff. Yet I really dont have much problem with Babtists/Evangelicals/Catholic doctrinal formats.
You know Abby, your right it is really difficult to put great big theological arguements in a fry pan and say what does this really mean? But before I bore you to death, let my explain why they intrigue me. I happen to think most theological discussions have an end target and usually play themselves out in the following two places: 1) in peoples check books and how they get there and 2) in peoples underwear.
Reading Calvin is like reading philosophy that has no logic. Anyway, he doesnt do the Greek dance but kind of does the Artistle dance with philosphical syntax. If you boil off the big words, its kind a sneeky fun to see what he is really thinking."
With that said Abby here let me try: In the middle of the long paragraph I quoted from Calvin is this: wherein he asserts that faith does not depend on election, but that rather election stands in faith
The guy Calvin is agruing with asserts to Calvin that "faith does not depend on election but rather election stands in faith." The guy is simply telling Calvin that faith is greater than election and shouldnt be mixed with this concept. You see, Calvin concludes that election of God, God foreknowledge of our salavation , makes faith irrelevant to ones salvation. (which I said makes it a cult but maybe the better word is heresy.) Incidentally people who made arguements like this to Calvin some were burned at the stake. Its unknown wether Calvin himself was involved in these matters, some have argued that he wasnt involved at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Okay, let me see if I am understanding this right.
One side says you cannot be a member of the elect (those "predestined" for "heaven") without faith.
The other side (Calvin) says God has already "predistined" you for "heaven" regardless of whether or not you have faith.
Am I following?
If so, I would say it is a silly argument because God knows whether or not you will have faith anyway, in his foreknowledge, so the point is moot.
But even that is sort of misleading in terms of what I personally believe. I believe one way or another we will all come to know God. I don't know all the ins and outs of how, but I believe that is how it is, even the Hilters and Dalmers of this world.
I don't believe someone wakes up one day and thinks "gee, I think I'll go out and kill millions of people today" or "gee, I'm hungry, perhaps I can find someone to carve up and eat."
I think those people have a sickness. Maybe it is biological, something wrong with their brain or chemistry. Maybe it is emotional, scarring on their hearts and minds because of suffering they endured. Maybe it is spiritual. I don't know. But I believe God can and will heal them in His own way and His own time.
And yet, despite all of that, I also firmly believe it does matter what we do with the gift of life as a human being on this planet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Abigail:
Man were just moving right along here arent we? I will have to go back and see if we left someone out.
Regarding your comments: yeah i read I read yah.
u said:
And yet, despite all of that, I also firmly believe it does matter what we do with the gift of life as a human being on this planet.
Hey isnt that in the proverbs? well it should be.
Let me just make one final point about the doctrinal disertations being moot.
you know VPW didnt just come out and say, you know, heres my doctrine, I want to be rich and powerful and all you pretty girls make a bee line for my bed post so I can add some notches. Of course if he had, he would have been a tad more honest. Which of course is the reason doctrinal disertations are not simple in the hands of wackos.
With respect to Calvin, there is no earthly reason to make that arguement. You dont need a test tube of election to pour your test tube of faith into to make any cognitive arguement that is helpful. I dont know if John Calvin had VPW like issues, but he sure as heck had VPW like symtoms both with his doctrine and as the Pope of Geneva. If I can find a hyper Calvinist with the agenda i think they have I will be sure to post it to yah.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wrdsandwrks
Great discussion here. I want to chime in but I don't know where to start.
I admire and/or have learned from several reformed (Calvinistic) writers, R. C. Sproul comes to mind,as well as Stott and Spurgeon. I used to subscribe to World magazine which seems to be written from a mainly reformed perspective, which I greatly enjoyed.
We certainly owe much historically in America to the Puritans, who were Calvinists, as well as many of the founding fathers(such as John Adams, I believe). I've read that Presbyterian preachers were responsible in a large part for inspiring the colonists to declare independence from Britain.
I personally don't agree with Calvin on many points(not that I've read all his works). I agree with sky4it that some of his doctrines are disturbing. I have a hard time with historical facts concerning his life, such as his role in the burning at the stake of Michael Servetus, a Unitarian, and his dictatorial leadership style.
Abi, your posts reminded me of this poem:
by Anne Bronte (Charlotte and Emily's sister) entitled:
A Word to the calvinists
You may rejoice to think yourselves secure,
You may be grateful for the gift divine,
That grace unsought which made your black hearts pure
And fits your earthborn souls in Heaven to shine.
But is it sweet to look around and view
Thousands excluded from that happiness,
Which they deserve at least as much as you,
Their faults not greater nor their virtues less?
And wherefore should you love your God the more
Because to you alone his smiles are given,
Because He chose to pass the many o'er
And only bring the favoured few to Heaven?
And wherefore should your hearts more grateful prove
Because for all the Saviour did not die?
Is yours the God of justice and of love
And are your bosoms warm with charity?
Say does your heart expand to all mankind
And would you ever to your neighbour do,
-- The weak, the strong, the enlightened and the blind -
As you would have your neighbour do to you?
And, when you, looking on your fellow men
Behold them doomed to endless misery,
How can you talk of joy and rapture then?
May God withhold such cruel joy from me!
That none deserve eternal bliss I know:
Unmerited the grace in mercy given,
But none shall sink to everlasting woe
That have not well deserved the wrath of Heaven.
And, O! there lives within my heart
A hope long nursed by me,
(And should its cheering ray depart
How dark my soul would be)
That as in Adam all have died
In Christ shall all men live
And ever round his throne abide
Eternal praise to give;
That even the wicked shall at last
Be fitted for the skies
And when their dreadful doom is past
To life and light arise.
I ask not how remote the day
Nor what the sinner's woe
Before their dross is purged away,
Enough for me to know
That when the cup of wrath is drained,
The metal purified,
They'll cling to what they once disdained,
And live by Him that died.
Edited by wrdsandwrksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.