|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The background of Calvinism
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Can anyone explain to me, or point me to books that will explain, why Calvin formulated his doctrine of predestination? I realize there is a biblical basis for the idea, but most people of his day did not take the idea to the length that he did.
What specific situations was he dealing with?
I will be grateful for any information.
Moo
[ 02. January 2007, 19:44: Message edited by: RuthW ]
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Can anyone explain to me, or point me to books that will explain, why Calvin formulated his doctrine of predestination? I realize there is a biblical basis for the idea, but most people of his day did not take the idea to the length that he did.
What specific situations was he dealing with?
I will be grateful for any information.
Moo
It's Augustine's doctrine.
quote:
The Spirit only regenerates those that God predestined to be saved. The others are, of course, in no way forced into unbelief, they are simply passed over and left in their natural state, which is just naturally a state of rebellion and unbelief. The early church met in 529 a.d. at the Second Council of Orange to debate the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. Augustine's view was officially upheld and Pelagius was condemned as a heretic.
The viewpoint of Augustine, which was, in reality, simply the Calvinistic viewpoint, was known as Augustinianism during medieval times. history of Calvinists
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
On a psychological level, I think Calvinism is very appealing to those who believe they are predestined. To those who are a little more aware of those around them (who they suspect are not predestined) it is a terrifying doctrine.
Of course those who aren't convinced there is any good reason to be confident that they are predestined themselves it is also a traumatising doctrine.
I guess how you view it, depends on what type of person you are.
Luigi
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
On a psychological level, I think Calvinism is very appealing to those who believe they are predestined. To those who are a little more aware of those around them (who they suspect are not predestined) it is a terrifying doctrine.
Of course those who aren't convinced there is any good reason to be confident that they are predestined themselves it is also a traumatising doctrine.
I guess how you view it, depends on what type of person you are.
Luigi
Or, to those of us who are Arminian, it's a doctrine that is neither terrifying nor traumatising because we just don't believe it!
Prevenient grace, even if we are totally depraved, is a wonderful thing.
Whosoever will may be saved.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I don't know how apocryphal the story is, but I heard that Lord Byron lived as such a rake because he believed he wasn't among the Elect. Of course it was probably drawn from this conversation Byron had with a Dr. Kennedy, who was trying to convert Byron, while Byron was stringing him along:
quote:
“Predestination appears to me just; from my own reflection and experience, I am influenced in a way which is incomprehensible, and am led to do things which I never intended; and if there is, as we all admit, a Supreme Ruler of the universe; and if, as you say, he has the actions of the devils, [they'd had a discussion on "the Book of Job" and Satan's part in it] as well as of his own angels, completely at his command, then those influences, or those arrangements of circumstances, which lead us to do things against our will, or with ill-will, must be also under his directions. But I have never entered into the depths of the subject; I have contented myself with believing that there is a predestination of events, and that predestination depends on the will of God.” from The Life of Byron by John Galt
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I don't know how apocryphal the story is, but I heard that Lord Byron lived as such a rake because he believed he wasn't among the Elect.
Or, of course, because he believed he was - as in Confessions of a Justified Sinner. While Hogg didn't publish until the year of Byron's death, the idea of the Elect sinning was there in Burns (Holy Willie's Prayer).
I know the argument that anyone experiencing grace would not fall into this logic - but, nevertheless, the logic is there. And it was a decisive moment for me, in moving (very far) away from Calvinism, when I heard a sermon on 'Shall there be evil in the city, and the Lord not have done it'.
All the God is Utterly Holy/us so utterly unholy - prompted me to the thought that if there were so little common ground, then how could we talk about attibutes such as 'goodness'?
Read some of the Puritan divines on the subject, and the option of being a random speck of sentience amid the vast, indifferent forces of the universe, is frankly cosy in comparison.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
What I really want to know is what were the specific circumstances of his time which led Calvin to embrace this doctrine.
I have been reading one of George Macdonald's Scottish novels, and he makes a passing remark to the effect that those who currently embraced and enlarged the doctrine had no understanding of how and why Calvin arrived at it.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I have been reading one of George Macdonald's Scottish novels, and he makes a passing remark to the effect that those who currently embraced and enlarged the doctrine had no understanding of how and why Calvin arrived at it.
Let me quote a bit of Alister McGrath, which may shed some light on this off-hand remark: "Calvin is often regarded as making the doctrine of predestination the center of his theological system. A close reading of his Institutes does not, however, bear out this often-repeated judgment...The very location of Calvin's discussion of predestination in the... Institues is significant in itself. It follows his exposition of the doctrine of grace... Logically, predestination ought to precede such an analysis...Calvin's analysis of predestination begins from observable facts. Some believe the gospel. Some do not. the primary function of the doctrine of predestination is to explain why some individuals respond to the gospel, and others do not...Belief in predestination is not an article of faith in its own right, but is the final outcome of scripturally informed reflection on the effects of grace upon individuals in the light of the enigmas of experience..." (Christian Theology: An Introduction, p. 467). McGrath goes on to show how those who followed in Calvin's theological footsteps placed predestination at the center of Calvinism as they further systematized the theology. fWIW
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
What I really want to know is what were the specific circumstances of his time which led Calvin to embrace this doctrine.
I have been reading one of George Macdonald's Scottish novels, and he makes a passing remark to the effect that those who currently embraced and enlarged the doctrine had no understanding of how and why Calvin arrived at it.
Moo
It seems part of the Reformation package begun by Luther, an Augustinian monk, much taken with the predestination doctrine and Calvin built on this - in this piece it says the Reformation was "essentially a revival of Augustinianism".
2.Reformation
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Let me quote a bit of Alister McGrath, which may shed some light on this off-hand remark: "Calvin is often regarded as making the doctrine of predestination the center of his theological system. A close reading of his Institutes does not, however, bear out this often-repeated judgment..." (Christian Theology: An Introduction, p. 467). McGrath goes on to show how those who followed in Calvin's theological footsteps placed predestination at the center of Calvinism as they further systematized the theology.
Thanks, Tom. That's the kind of information I wanted. I would still like to know a lot more about the context. What kind of relationship did Calvin have with Luther? with Zwingli? What was the situation in Genevea? These are the questions in my mind. If you can point me to any helpful books, I would be grateful.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Mudfrog said: quote:
Whosoever will may be saved.
This statement does not contradict Calvinism in any way. Think about it.
"Whosoever will...". That's right, those that will are elect; those that don't aren't. Simple. Look around you; it's everywhere. Some will; some don't. The statement you've made says precisely nothing to suggest that we are saved by an act of free will. It simply that states that those whoever wills to be saved is saved. If you will to be saved, you're elect. if you don't will to saved you aren't.
John 3.16 - if read explicitly - says nothing to contradict the doctrine of election. An Arminian reading of John 3.16 is a reading that requires eisegesis an on a massive scale. The assumption is basically this: Arminians think that belief is a muscle to be exercised in potential by whoever; Calvinists think that belief is a gift to be received, and whoever God grants belief to is saved.
[ 18. September 2006, 12:59: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
So why doesn't God grant this gift to everyone?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
Hi, Moo.
I'm a Wesleyan myself, and really haven't read up on Calvin. Just about everything of any possible value I can add to the conversation was in the quote from McGrath. Sorry.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Mudfrog said: quote:
Whosoever will may be saved.
This statement does not contradict Calvinism in any way. Think about it.
"Whosoever will...". That's right, those that will are elect; those that don't aren't. Simple. Look around you; it's everywhere. Some will; some don't. The statement you've made says precisely nothing to suggest that we are saved by an act of free will. It simply that states that those whoever wills to be saved is saved. If you will to be saved, you're elect. if you don't will to saved you aren't.
John 3.16 - if read explicitly - says nothing to contradict the doctrine of election. An Arminian reading of John 3.16 is a reading that requires eisegesis an on a massive scale. The assumption is basically this: Arminians think that belief is a muscle to be exercised in potential by whoever; Calvinists think that belief is a gift to be received, and whoever God grants belief to is saved.
Whosever will = whoseoever wants to.
We believe in unlimited atonement.
Christ did not die for the church, he died for the world.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
To try to at least partially reply to the OP, I think that, within the Reformation context, monergist soteriology originated with Luther's reading of Augustine, which was subsequently imported into Calvinism. I'll try to remember the specific Augustinian text which was so influential on Luther, but for the moment would recommend The Reformation by Diarmuid McCulloch (sp.?) - a weighty tome but very readable - as 'further reading'.
[ 18. September 2006, 14:31: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Mudfrog said: quote:
Whosoever will may be saved.
This statement does not contradict Calvinism in any way. Think about it.
"Whosoever will...". That's right, those that will are elect; those that don't aren't. Simple. Look around you; it's everywhere. Some will; some don't. The statement you've made says precisely nothing to suggest that we are saved by an act of free will. It simply that states that those whoever wills to be saved is saved. If you will to be saved, you're elect. if you don't will to saved you aren't.
John 3.16 - if read explicitly - says nothing to contradict the doctrine of election. An Arminian reading of John 3.16 is a reading that requires eisegesis an on a massive scale. The assumption is basically this: Arminians think that belief is a muscle to be exercised in potential by whoever; Calvinists think that belief is a gift to be received, and whoever God grants belief to is saved.
Whosever will = whoseoever wants to.
We believe in unlimited atonement.
Christ did not die for the church, he died for the world.
You still don't get it Mudfrog. "Whoever wants to" does not equal "whoever chooses to of their own free will."
The "whoever wills" - indeed even the 'whoever wants to" - is a statement of observable fact, not a statement of soteriological methodology.
[ 18. September 2006, 14:35: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So why doesn't God grant this gift to everyone?
Because the free gift is not the same as the tresspass.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
And yet those who trespass were predestined to trespass so in what way is punishing them for it just?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
And yet those who trespass were predestined to trespass so in what way is punishing them for it just?
I listened to GW explain why, when we torture people, it is not at all comparable to when them bad terrorists torture people. I didn't exactly follow the explanation, but I suspect that it may be the answer to your question, too...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
And yet those who trespass were predestined to trespass so in what way is punishing them for it just?
One of the most problematic verses of Scripture for the Calvinist is Romans 5.18 which reads: quote:
Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
My question is this: if universal condemnation is unfair - as you seem to suggest - why is univesal salvation deemed to be more 'fair'? Is it not the case that we are judging the "fairness" of the outcome on the basis of our eschatological preferance? You will no doubt say, "No, we judge the fairness of the outcome on the basis of God's character as loving." Which is good. However, what it fails to account for is that God is also just.
And then around we go...
[ 18. September 2006, 15:46: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
However, what it fails to account for is that God is also just.
Except my complaint is that it's NOT just. Not that it's not loving.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
koheleth
Shipmate
# 3327
|
Posted
Just to put this interesting discussion in its historical and Protestant context: the starting point for Luther’s, Calvin’s and the other Reformers’ soteriological reflections was that it is God and not the Church who decides who is saved.
--------------------
See Ecclesiastes 12.11-14.
Posts: 96 | From: Psalm 40 v3 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by koheleth:
Just to put this interesting discussion in its historical and Protestant context: the starting point for Luther’s, Calvin’s and the other Reformers’ soteriological reflections was that it is God and not the Church who decides who is saved.
Thanks for that ... much clearer now.
Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
However, what it fails to account for is that God is also just.
Except my complaint is that it's NOT just. Not that it's not loving.
Incidentally.
Slightly off topic, but ...
Romans 11 33-36 does suggest, to me anyway, that the question will be resolved by God in a manner both loving AND just, but because God is a lot cleverer than theologians, theologians cannot explain exactly how. I don't expect this to be a popular viewpoint, however, especially not among theologians. It does however enable me to maintain a slightly detached viewpoint to what would otherwise be a perplexing and distressing issue.
And now, back to the topic ...
Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
However, what it fails to account for is that God is also just.
Except my complaint is that it's NOT just. Not that it's not loving.
I know, and this is just one point on which we differ.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
However, what it fails to account for is that God is also just.
Except my complaint is that it's NOT just. Not that it's not loving.
Free grace, freely given and freely recieved. What's not loving about that? What's unjust about that?
The Pelagian self-flagellating rack of desperatly trying to be holier than your neighbour in order to deserve God's love - now that's harsh.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It's Augustine's doctrine.
Predestination is Augustine's doctrine. But then its Paul's doctrine as well, and the doctrine of the early church.
If there's something distinctive about Calvinism it would have to be be in the other petals of the TULIP.
Limited Atonement (which some people want to call "Definite Atonement" or "Personal Atonement" but it messes up the TULIP) might have been Augustine's belief (I'm not sure) seems to have been a common idea among the later Fathers. Prosper of Aquitaine often gets mentioned. The idea of of double predestination to reprobation as well as to salvation (which boils dopwn to the same thing in the end as limited atonement I think), was around in the middle ages. Gottschalk was condemned for it in the 9th century.
Bradwardine (briefly Archbishop of Canterbury, and the founder of modern mechanics!) taught it in England in the 14th,m and Wycliffe a little later, & after him Hus. So It was something at least current in the church before the Reformation, it was part of the Reformation from its British and Bohemian beginings, before Luther.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
OK, can someone clarify for me what we are meaning by 'Calvinism' here. Are we just talking about soteriology and, if so, do we mean full-blown TULIP or a more nuanced form of monergism (and if so what and how?)? Or are we talking also about presbyterian ecclesiology?
[ETA - I'm assuming it's just the former, but I think it's worth pointing out that there's more to Calvin than his soteriology]
[ 18. September 2006, 19:06: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Some questions.
a) How can people who hold that God predestines to heaven, but not to hell, logically hold that position? The arguments seems logically very tenous indeed to me because I simply don't see a significant difference between *being predestined to hell* and *not predestined to heaven where the only alternative is hell". To argue that there is a significant difference strikes me as arguing semantics while souls burn.
b) For those who believe that God prestines to hell: why do you then wish to worship such a god?
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It's Augustine's doctrine.
Predestination is Augustine's doctrine. But then its Paul's doctrine as well, and the doctrine of the early church.
The early church believed all sorts of stuff that most people now believe it perfectly reasonable to reject and some stuff that has been proven to be incorrect.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Causation, I guess: it is not God who predestines to Hell in the Calvinist system but rather the innate sinfulness of human beings which so determines their fate; what God does is predestine certain individuals to be saved from that fate through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus.
My objection to the above, however, is that it is tantamount to seeing two small boys drowning because in their stupidity they've been larking about in the river, having the ability to save both but only choosing to save one of them.
[reply to Papio's first post]
[ 18. September 2006, 19:11: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
My objection to the above, however, is that it is tantamount to seeing two small boys drowning because in their stupidity they've been larking about in the river, having the ability to save both but only choosing to save one of them.
My objection as well.
It is neither fully loving nor fully just, and thus makes a shallow mockery of both love and justice.
[ 18. September 2006, 19:13: Message edited by: Papio ]
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...My objection to the above, however, is that it is tantamount to seeing two small boys drowning because in their stupidity they've been larking about in the river, having the ability to save both but only choosing to save one of them.
...
If you throw each of them a rope and only one takes a hold of it, whose fault is it if the other drowns?
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
But that's not Calvinism - as I understand it. That's why I'm asking for a definition of this term for the purposes of this thread
[ 18. September 2006, 20:18: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Papio asks: quote:
a) How can people who hold that God predestines to heaven, but not to hell, logically hold that position? The arguments seems logically very tenous indeed to me because I simply don't see a significant difference between *being predestined to hell* and *not predestined to heaven where the only alternative is hell". To argue that there is a significant difference strikes me as arguing semantics while souls burn.
This being the difference between (classical) "single" predestination and double predestination.
The point being that all will be judged. Those who find themselves believing when hearing the gospel are proleptically already part of the kingdom, which through Christ is breaking through into the present. Or to put it another way, those who believe are showing evidence of already having been judged righteous. It says nothing whatever about those who have not heard the gospel, or don't believe it. God will judge them fairly on the basis of the light given to them.
The church has historically always taught the tension of the kingdom being here and in other senses not yet here. This is part of the "here" side of the equation.
Ian
[ 18. September 2006, 20:23: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Did Christ die for the Church or for the world?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Did Christ die for the Church or for the world?
That's the nub of the "limited atonement" idea.
Though it precedes Calvin by a long way, and plenty of people who call themselves Calvinists don't hold it.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Did Christ die for the Church or for the world?
Does the blood of Christ keep us in eternal life or is it faith in that blood that saves us? What is soteriologically effecatious: Christ's death or the faith that we put in that death? If you have no faith in Christ's blood you are not saved. However, that does not mean that a person's faith saves a person: no, Jesus saves the person through his shed blood. The blood saves: faith merely appropriates the promised salvation. How does the believer appropriate the promise? By being given faith.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Or to put it another way, those who believe are showing evidence of already having been judged righteous. It says nothing whatever about those who have not heard the gospel, or don't believe it. God will judge them fairly on the basis of the light given to them.
Isn't the problem with this answer that, by proclaiming that those who hear and believe and are predestined to heaven, having been judged righteous - you are saying that they have heard and believed because they were predestined to Heaven.
Therefore, it is reasonable to surmise that those who have not heard, or have heard but not believed, have not done so because they were not predestined. Therefore, one would assume that however "fairly" God judges them, and no matter what criteria are used, they will all go to Hell?
So the problem with your answer is that it is not an answer!
[ 18. September 2006, 21:19: Message edited by: Papio ]
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
MattV
Shipmate
# 11314
|
Posted
predestination...ick!
Posts: 350 | From: New England | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I can't see why you say that, Papio. That would only be true if their non-belief were in some sense also pre-indicative of final judgment and that is a step you are making, not me. In a sense I agree with you about the nature of double predestination, but I reject your logically equating single with double predestination.
But maybe we are trespassing on something of a tangent here, which may be better explored elsewhere.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It's Augustine's doctrine.
Predestination is Augustine's doctrine. But then its Paul's doctrine as well, and the doctrine of the early church.
Predestination is not the doctrine of the early Church, it comes from Augustine. The Church has never taught that God predestines some to salvation or damnation. The Church has always taught that God so loved the world, all of it, every person, and calls all to salvation - in free will. The Church has always taught that we have free will.
Matthew 23:37
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Double predestination, is simply the flip side of unconditional election. Just as God chooses whom He will save without regard to any distinctives in the person (Ephesians 1:5-6; Acts 13:48; Revelation 17:8), so also he decides whom He will not save without regard to any distinctives in the individual (John 10:26; 12:37-40; Romans 9:11-18; 1 Peter 2:7-8). By definition, the decision to elect some individuals to salvation necessarily implies the decision not to save those that were not chosen. God ordains not only that some will be rescued from his judgment, but that others will undergo that judgment. This does not mean that someone might really want to be saved but then be rejected because they are on the wrong list. Rather, we are all dead in sin and unwilling to seek God on our own. A true, genuine desire for salvation in Christ is in fact a mark of election, and therefore none who truly come to Christ for salvation will be turned away (John 6:37-40).
So just as God doesn't choose to save certain people because they are better than others (unconditional election), neither does he choose not to save certain people because they are worse than others (unconditional reprobation, or double predestination). Rather, everybody is lost in sin and no one has anything to recommend them to God above anyone else. And so from this mass of fallen humanity, God chooses to redeem some and leave others. John Piper's explanation of Double Predestination My emphasis.
[ 18. September 2006, 21:41: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Myrrh asserts that; quote:
The Church has always taught that we have free will.
Not if you're willing to go back as far as the authors of the O & NT scriptures it hasn't.
[ 18. September 2006, 21:44: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
God chooses to redeem some and leave others.
And that is where I have an ethical problem, because to choose some and not others, based in no way whatsoever upon the merits of the individual, seems to be unjust, capricious, arbitary, unloving and, to be frank, downright stupid.
And to attribute those failings to God would be blasphemy. And the only ways I can see to avoid making those conclusions about God is either that all are saved, or that John Calvin was wrong.
And universallism is not something I tend to associate with John Calvin, frankly.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Papio said: quote:
And that is where I have an ethical problem, because to choose some and not others, based in no way whatsoever upon the merits of the individual, seems to be unjust, capricious, arbitary, unloving and, to be frank, downright stupid.
And it would be fair if it was based in some way on the merits of the individual?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I think it quite credible that Augustine enterred into his later morbid phase (aka predx2) when he witnessed the beginning of the end in North Africa. Two cities, two kingdoms, two states .... you cannot separate the man from the doctrine. Calvin? Well he was a lawyer. Everything nice and tidy in the courtroom of God. Gloom, gloom and thrice gloom.
As to why they still have fan clubs today ... well, it is the confidence that comes from claiming that one is standing on the side of God precisely because God has put you there. Is that arrogance or humility? ... you decide.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Rather, everybody is lost in sin and no one has anything to recommend them to God above anyone else. And so from this mass of fallen humanity, God chooses to redeem some and leave others.
How is this unfair?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Moo
I will answer the original question. For an easy introduction to Calvin and his thought then try Calvin for Armchair Theologians by Christopher Elwood and Ron Hill. To put it in context then try The Reformation for Armchair Theologians by Glen S. Sunshine and Ron Hill. If you want more idea of his character maybe the introduction to John Calvin : Writings on Patoral Piety from The Classics of Western Spirituality. Its too late tonight to go into the other issues raised by this thread.
If you want something more academic, then I will ask my father.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Rather, everybody is lost in sin and no one has anything to recommend them to God above anyone else. And so from this mass of fallen humanity, God chooses to redeem some and leave others.
How is this unfair?
Are you serious?
Look, God is leaving some people to rot in hell, who are no worse then the ones he has chosen.
Or, if you look at it the other way, God is saving people who totally deserve to burn in hell but leaving others.
I honestly don't understand why you don't find that unfair.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
