homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: The background of Calvinism (Page 14)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  11  12  13  14  15  16 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: The background of Calvinism
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No one chooses to become a sinner. But you can choose, once the Spirit convicts, to leave you sin and follow Christ.

So some people are covincted by the Spirit and still choose to reject Christ?

Why would they do this? because they are more evil and determined to reject God that the person who does turn?

Or, I guess the other option is that it is because of things that happened in their lives that make them predisposed not to choose. Things, which I guess we must say, God was sovereign over?

I can see the point you're making, but surely this is a problem for you as well?

Why, in the first instance, did Satan, Adam and Eve reject God? They didn't have original sin - they started it.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is the problem with the Original Sin concept as we tend to understand it.

I'd rather say that the Adam and Eve story is a commentary on human nature. It's not so much "this is why we're like this" as "this is what we're like"

And always have been.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
I maintain that free will is restored by grace but that Christ is irresisible to those with genuine free will.

This literally makes no sense. If we are being created, and any choice is irresistable, the creator has not given us, restored, whatever, 'genuine free will'.
You simply do not understand. True freedom is a not a neutral position between Christ and the lack of Christ. Christ is freedom; freedom is Christ. The 'choice' - for want a better word - that we have is not made from a purely theorietical and morally neutral position between a positive confession of Christ and and negative rejection of Christ. The choice we make is between slavery to sin (i.e. lack of freedom) and slavery to Christ (i.e. true freedom).

Can you not see that Christ is objectively wonderful? Can you not see that it is sin that prevents us from recognising Christ as the treasure hidden in the field? When we have our free will restored by the Holy Spirit we are able to make a completely free decision to embrace Christ for what he really is. God's ability to predict this free will choice isn't based His manipulation of our will; it is based on the objective and irresistible beauty of Christ. A person whose will has be released from the deception of sin is empowered to choose what is rigtht and good and perfect; namely, God in Christ.

To the truly free person God is not a take it or leave it proposition: he is what a free person chooses. I suggest to you that the possibility of rejecting Christ would be good evidence that a person is not free. You will only understand this if you move from an anthropocentric to a Christocentirc conception of freedom. As Paul said: 'To live is Christ; to die is gain'.

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's not that I don't understand. I positively reject your point of view as an unhelpful basis for thinking and talking about God. I don't see value, in fact I think it is potentially misleading and manipulative, to use the words you have in that description for the concepts you're claiming they apply to.

Equating 'Christ' with 'freedom', for example. There's freedom to, and freedom from, but 'freedom in Christ' only has meaning if I accept the rest of your theology. At some point a theology has to be grounded if it's to have any value. Somewhere it has to use words with the same meanings they have outside the system. As you describe it, yours doesn't.
quote:
To the truly free person God is not a take it or leave it proposition: he is what a free person chooses. I suggest to you that the possibility of rejecting Christ would be good evidence that a person is not free. You will only understand this if you move from an anthropocentric to a Christocentirc conception of freedom.
When you demonstrate that you have some real understanding of these things, you could try lecturing me again. Simply explaining your theology in ordinary language would be a start. But for now, probably best to work on recognising your limitations.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not necessarily; in the alternative scheme, Man makes the choice and is therefore at least partially responsible for the consequences

But not for the situation in which the choice was made. Either the "choice" is purely arbitrary, a random hidden variable , or else that choice is affected by our circumstances, our education, our diet, or experience of Christianity, our parents, our frriends, the weather, whatever.

In the first case where is the real difference from God choosing on arbitrary grounds? (Not that Calvinism says he does choose arbitrarily of course, merely that he chooses for his reasons) This would truly be God playing dice with the universe - except that the dice are human souls, and they are sthe stake as well.

If on the other hand the choice is contingent on the history of the chooser then God is open to blame for allowing one person to be in a position where a good choice is likely and other where an evil choice is likely.

I think some people on this thread ought to be clearer about what they mean by "free will".

Anyway, our natural faculties, or minds and bodies and circumstances, are also a product of the grace of God.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of the light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.John 3:19-21

Good. And here's how Paul interprets it.

quote:
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness,"made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
Let me repeat it. The passage says that God himself makes his light to shine in people's hearts so that what? So that people can understand (can know) who Christ is.

And Paul continues in the very next verse by saying:

quote:
But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us.
This power is from God, not us. Even the ability to perceive the value of Christ is from God. A person cannot even consider Christ as notionally valuable without God having revealed it to them.

Now, if even the ability to perceive Christ as valuable comes from God, what about those people who can actual live in a way that pleases him? Where does that ability come from?

Back to John 3.19-21, the last verse.

quote:
But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that [b]what he has done has been done through God.
Again, God takes the priority in this passage!

[ 29. September 2006, 19:02: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
OK. Matt. I'm currently reading an essay by John Piper called Are there two wills in God? Divine Election and God's Desire for All to be Saved. I think it's an attempt to resolve the main objection to Election that has been raised on this thread; which is this: if God can choose to save some from all eternity why does he not save all?

I've not finished it yet. When I have I shall post my findings. Looks quite good, though. At least he's takling the problem head on.

[ 30. September 2006, 07:38: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Either the "choice" is purely arbitrary, a random hidden variable , or else that choice is affected by our circumstances, our education, our diet, or experience of Christianity, our parents, our frriends, the weather, whatever.

In the first case where is the real difference from God choosing on arbitrary grounds? (Not that Calvinism says he does choose arbitrarily of course, merely that he chooses for his reasons) This would truly be God playing dice with the universe - except that the dice are human souls, and they are sthe stake as well.

If on the other hand the choice is contingent on the history of the chooser then God is open to blame for allowing one person to be in a position where a good choice is likely and other where an evil choice is likely.

I think some people on this thread ought to be clearer about what they mean by "free will".

Yes, I think this is the heart of the dispute.

ISTM that you, Leprechaun and m.t_tomb see choice as essentially a deterministic phenomenon - that is, we necessarily choose the strongest motive presented to us, which may come about by God's grace or by external circumstances.

I disagree. (Warning: incoherent attempt to turn existentialism into Christianity follows.) I think there are circumstances where we can really choose either way - for example "Should I act to benefit myself or another?" Leaving aside questions of Heaven and Hell, the only reason to act for another is because you have decided to do so.

(You might argue that I have no right to ignore questions of Heaven and Hell. However, ISTM that most people, when they do good works, are not motivated by thoughts of getting out of Hell - certainly this must be the case for atheists at least.)

You may think this makes choice essentially arbitrary. I would prefer to attempt argue that it is a question of defining the self - that is, we are the sum of our freely-willed decisions. I think this is then consistent with at least some traditional Christian understandings of Heaven and Hell - that the damned are not in Hell because God is meting out some kind of revenge for their disobedience, but because they want to be there.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This is the problem with the Original Sin concept as we tend to understand it.

I'd rather say that the Adam and Eve story is a commentary on human nature. It's not so much "this is why we're like this" as "this is what we're like"

And always have been.

Rest assured I'm not a literalist. TBH I've no idea what to make of the Fall at all.

But it's the Calvinist perspective I'm interested in. ISTM that, on their premises, either God created original / ancestral sin, or else someone else (not necessarily a literal Adam, Eve or Satan) initiated it. The former I understand to be Hyper-Calvinism and regarded as heretical by most Protestants. The latter implies that grace is not irresistible, that people can stand with a knowledge of God unclouded by concupiscence and still reject Him.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ricardus said:
quote:
ISTM that you, Leprechaun and m.t_tomb see choice as essentially a deterministic phenomenon - that is, we necessarily choose the strongest motive presented to us, which may come about by God's grace or by external circumstances.
For my part almost, but not quite. My view is that the glorified Christ is the strongest possible motivator with which humanity can be presented. However, the influence of total depravity (AKA total inability) means that the sinful nature it totally hostile to God. This is not to say that the entire person is hostile to God for his image remains. However, the extend of Total Inability means that humanity, in it's unregenerate state, will always resist Christ at all possible costs.

Regeneration is an act God upon the elect subject by which Total Inability with regard to Christ is supernaturally defeated. This restores the person's will beyond the point of neutrality with regard to Christ so that they make a genuinely free - but from God's perspective a completely predictable - choice to follow Christ. God can predict this because he knows that genuinely free people will choose Him in Christ: no-one turns down treasure if they know it's treasure.

Consequently, the person by an act of will (empowered by the Holy Spirit) repents and ackowledges Christ as their Lord (conversion). The person then 'works out their salvation in fear and trembling'.

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It seems the Calvinist God is a piss-poor designer. He makes humans so frail and weak that one little sin completely obliterates the race's ability to choose good, and wipes out their free will entirely.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I know, I mean kicking them out of Eden completely? How unreasonable! He should have let them have a open return ticket at least. But to place an angel with a flashing sword (the gospel?) in the way? What a drama queen. Honestly!

[ 30. September 2006, 15:34: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
I know, I mean kicking them out of Eden completely? How unreasonable! He should have let them have a open return ticket at least. But to place an angel with a flashing sword (the gospel?) in the way? What a drama queen. Honestly!

Why would the gospel bar the way back to fellowship with God??

--------------------
"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
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
It seems the Calvinist God is a piss-poor designer. He makes humans so frail and weak that one little sin completely obliterates the race's ability to choose good, and wipes out their free will entirely.

I'm not sure God being a piss poor designer gets us very far, as a God who gives us free will but designs us so choosing Him, salvation and eternal life doesn't seem like the best decision to most people also hasn't done a very good job. Especially when what this God really wants is for us to choose Him.

Unless, of course God was designing with another aim in mind altogether.

--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Which was...?

--------------------
"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
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
ISTM that you, Leprechaun and m.t_tomb see choice as essentially a deterministic phenomenon

I don't kow about anyone else, but I don't think determinism is true, or even can be true. There are geuninely unpredictable physical processes that underly the world we see. God's knowledge of the "future" requires neither determinism nor prediction.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of the light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God. John 3:19-21

Good. And here's how Paul interprets it.

quote:
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness,"made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.


Not so much, really. Paul's letter certainly predates the writing of John's gospel, probably by a couple of decades or more. Your substantive point may be valid, but it has to stand on its own, not as an interpretation of John.

John

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There's no reason why Paul cannot be basing his teaching on oral tradition. In fact, as an Apostle, it's highly likely that he would have familiarised himself as much as possible with the teachings of Christ.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Which was...?

Er.. I don't know. I just re-read my post and realised it sounds like I am pointing at some deeper point in a pseudo-clever type of way. I wasn't. Just thinking out loud, or through my fingers. Sorry.

So, I'm thinking about this question, and may post more thoughts later.

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Playing catch-up.

quote:
Originally posted by ken quoting Myrrh:
quote:

the consistent teaching of Calvanists is that good Jews, Muslims, Pagans, secular, do not get into heaven - only open for Christians.

And the consistent teaching is that everyone who is saved is saved in Christ, by grace, through faith. At least some will accept that that group might include people who didn't know they were members of the church.
That's not Calvinism, that's Christianity. It's good to see that some Calvinists might accept it...


quote:

The consistent teaching of Augustinian's over all the centuries of Christianity in the West is that only Christians are saved, the rest are damned.

quote:
Thats been the teaching of the whole church, not just Calvinists.

Including, before this cuddly post-modern world, the Orthodox churches. Some of whom taught that all Roman Catholics were inevitably damned.

No it hasn't been the teaching of the whole church. Christ came to call sinners to repentence not the righteous, but Calvinism (from Augustine) says that there are no righteous who don't believe in Christ (aren't baptised).

The consistent teaching of Calvinism is that all are damned unless they accept Christ, and, that any good they do is not righteous, but damnable. This is Augustine's Original Sin doctrine which is not the Church's teaching. You're the one being post modern cuddly here in attributing to Calvinism what doesn't exist in it. "Some" isn't a reply it's an evasion - I'm arguing against Calvinism here, not what doubters of Calvinism might or might not believe.

Orthodox teaching is that we know where the Holy Spirit is, don't know where She/He/It isn't (Hebrew/Greek/Latin).


quote:

All Luther did was change this from 'membership of the Church', RCC, to 'membership of belief in Christ'.

quote:
Actually that wasn't Luther, that really was Augustine, who made the useful distinction between the visible and the invisble Church.

Although I don't know how he is using it, visible/invisible Church isn't particularly Augustine, but he's clearly not using it in the Christian sense as Paul shows - that even those who don't have the law have it written on their hearts and their conscience judges them, and these will be judged in the end by God. Augustine denies any can do good unless baptised because he says that all are damned sinners unable to do good. Calvinism teaches that any good they do is not righteous, in effect is an illusion which comes from Satan. This is the consistent teaching of Calvinism which necessarily has to reach this conclusion in its inexorable Augustinian logic which has damned all creation as born estranged from God.

Augustinism/Calvinism is not Christianity as taught by the early Church.


quote:

When asked whether he believes heaven will be closed to good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or secular people, though, Graham says: “Those are decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there and who won’t …

quote:
But that is exactly what many Orthodox say. Some on this very Ship. "We know where the Church is, but we don;t know where it isn't" is almost a cliche from some posters.

Again, I'm arguing against Calvinism not Graham, and I was the one who pointed out that this is a change of heart and mind from the Calvinist Graham of old..


quote:

As I'm finding frustrating that no one will engage me in exploring the origin of this doctrine of predestination.

quote:
But we have! The origin of the doctine of predestination is in the authors of the New Testament - particularly the epistles to the Romans and Ephesians, perhaps together with Hebrews; and also in people taking the idea that God is eternal seriously.

Nope, the origin of predestination as taught by Calvin is Augustine, not the Church, Gospels, Epistles.

Coming up with an idea about God and then proof texting to claim it's Gospel it is not the way of the Church, this is private 'revelation' on Augustine's part and Sola Scriptura in general.

Myrrh

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I'm not sure God being a piss poor designer gets us very far, as a God who gives us free will but designs us so choosing Him, salvation and eternal life doesn't seem like the best decision to most people also hasn't done a very good job. Especially when what this God really wants is for us to choose Him.

Unless, of course God was designing with another aim in mind altogether.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Which was...?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Er.. I don't know. I just re-read my post and realised it sounds like I am pointing at some deeper point in a pseudo-clever type of way. I wasn't. Just thinking out loud, or through my fingers. Sorry.

So, I'm thinking about this question, and may post more thoughts later.

Isn't this normally where Piper gets quoted? [Biased]

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
What the Hell am I missing here?

I think the point m.t is making, well but doubtless unintentionally, is that if he described his theology using everyday meanings of words, it would be rejected out of hand.

Although I think Christianity in general has a bit a tendency to rely on special meanings for ordinary words, the God he's actually decribing, as has been noted before, is a diabolical monster. If he didn't assume 'alternative' meanings, he'd be unable to even claim it referred to the Christian God, let alone the God that might conceivably be creator and sustainer of the universe.

And this is our argument against Augustine/Calvinism - that it has created a completely different God, one not taught by Christ.

Somewhere in Irenaeus (against the Gnostics?) he says that he was taught by Polycarp who was taught by John that the Church's God is good, while the Augustine/Calvin God is evil, damning all creation for a sin they didn't commit, etc. Calvinism is a doctrine of Augustine's revelation, who even at the time was judged to be still under the Manichean influence which posits an evil creator of the world.

Myrrh

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Thats been the teaching of the whole church, not just Calvinists.

Including, before this cuddly post-modern world, the Orthodox churches. Some of whom taught that all Roman Catholics were inevitably damned.

No it hasn't been the teaching of the whole church. Christ came to call sinners to repentence not the righteous, but Calvinism (from Augustine) says that there are no righteous who don't believe in Christ (aren't baptised).
[/QB]

An ingenuous evasion of the point. You know perfectly well that the Orthodoc churches have taught that many are damned. And that some (yes, its a good word, but I use it because I mean it - some, more than a tiny minority, but not all) include other Christians such as Roman Catholics in that condemnation.

quote:

Orthodox teaching is that we know where the Holy Spirit is, don't know where She/He/It isn't (Hebrew/Greek/Latin).

Evading the point again. That makes a neat immune system for your denomination, allowing it to disengage from real discussion about what you actually teach. You might even believe it. But its not at all what most of the Fathers taught.


quote:

quote:

All Luther did was change this from 'membership of the Church', RCC, to 'membership of belief in Christ'.

quote:
Actually that wasn't Luther, that really was Augustine, who made the useful distinction between the visible and the invisble Church.

Although I don't know how he is using it, visible/invisible Church isn't particularly Augustine

Isn;t it? It seems entirely characteristic of him to me. He's always banging on about it. Anyway, if it wasn't him, it was older than him (do you have any previous examples?) and therefore must certainly predate Luther by over a thosuand years.


Augustinism/Calvinism is not Christianity as taught by the early Church.

quote:

quote:

When asked whether he believes heaven will be closed to good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or secular people, though, Graham says: “Those are decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there and who won’t …

quote:
But that is exactly what many Orthodox say. Some on this very Ship. "We know where the Church is, but we don;t know where it isn't" is almost a cliche from some posters.

Again, I'm arguing against Calvinism not Graham, and I was the one who pointed out that this is a change of heart and mind from the Calvinist Graham of old..

So you are happy to argue against this straw-man Calvinism that you have invented, or have been warned off by your teachers, but not against the views of someone who actually is a Calvinist?

quote:

Nope, the origin of predestination as taught by Calvin is Augustine, not the Church, Gospels, Epistles.

That is simply untrue. I'm not saying you made it up, but I think you are perhaps uncritically accepting what you were taught.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
I'm really not sure why you find the God that I've described in my posts on this thread to be so monstrous.

I'm pretty certain (and know from experience) that what generally comes back is an ill conceived hotch-potch of second hand objections and pop-theology. I am quite certain that the problem lies in your intellectual laziness and theological intransigence, rather than me worshipping an evil contruct of a diseased mind.

Theology requires care and attention to words and the meaning of words. Anyone even slightly familiar with poetry of T S Eliot or the writings of C S Lewis will instinctively know this. Of course, the ability to string words together does not necessarily mean that they convey truth. However, by the same token, the inability of some to understand a complex concept does not of necessity mean that the concept is diabolical or incorrect.

Telling me that I worship a monster and that love an evil God is offensive, particularly when it comes from someone who is otherwise perfectly happy to condone the worship of an elephant God. Would you be prepared to defend the worship of Kali Dave? I bet you would. And yet Kali is 10 times the monster than the God I supposedly worship.

But, this is precisely the argument against Calvinism, that it teaches an evil God. Augustine found a way to love Him anyway, but that doesn't make Him a loving God by any logic that's reasonable.

As for Kali. A small group have twisted the teaching about Her to justify violence, much as Augustine twisted Christianity by justifying the use of violence against heretics, but the majority of Hindus do not understand Her in this way, but in the traditional form - that She is the destroyer of demons, demonic powers. The idea of Religion as Righteousness comes from the Hindu's teaching (which I was told came to India about 10,000 years ago from the North, in the direction of Russia).

The problem Augustine had is the same problem that a minority group of Kali worshippers had which is the same problem that the Israelites had as shown by the claim the genocide of the Canaanites was ordered by God, they have turned a good God into the demon that the good God teaches is evil..

Anyone can justify their use of violence by claiming it is God's will, but claiming it so doesn't make it so, first choose your God. A God that commands not to murder and then orders the mass murder of others is irrational. Belief in a God that teaches righteousness is ahimsa, non-violence, then orders the destruction of any who don't believe in this God is a failure in our God given capacity to reason, if we know the difference between good and evil.

Christ taught that to kill was evil, to save lives good.

Demons promote evil..


Myrrh

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Isn't this normally where Piper gets quoted? [Biased]

I might be looking at my copy of God's Passion for His Glory to help me think about it yes.
[Razz]

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Mudfrog
You maintain the free will is restored by grace but that Christ is a take it or leave it offer to a person with free will.

i maintain that free will is restored by grace but that Christ is irresisible to those with genuine free will.


And I say free will was never lost...

Myrrh

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
And I say free will was never lost...
You don't have to be a Calvinist to believe that "the law of sin and death", to quote Paul, distorts our free will. That is surely a thoroughly Biblical insight, which, I would have thought was as uncontrovesial amongst Orthodox Christians as amongst those of a Reformed persuasion. Actually, shock, horror, I agree with m-t here:
quote:
i maintain that free will is restored by grace but that Christ is irresisible to those with genuine free will.

The issue is the beauty of Christ. You say that a free person can choose to reject him. I say that a truly free person simply wouldn't.

. There! Never thought I'd say that. Must...go...and...lie...down! [Eek!]

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[QUOTE] And I say free will was never lost...

You don't have to be a Calvinist to believe that "the law of sin and death", to quote Paul, distorts our free will. That is surely a thoroughly Biblical insight, which, I would have thought was as uncontrovesial amongst Orthodox Christians as amongst those of a Reformed persuasion. Actually, shock, horror, I agree with m-t here:
quote:
i maintain that free will is restored by grace but that Christ is irresisible to those with genuine free will.


That free will was lost is a teaching from Augustine and not the Church.

Christ continued to teach obedeience to the commandments, not the traditions of men, do not kill, do not bear false witness, honour mother and father, etc.

Myrrh

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
That free will was lost is a teaching from Augustine and not the Church.

Christ continued to teach obedeience to the commandments, not the traditions of men, do not kill, do not bear false witness, honour mother and father, etc.

The word I used was not "lost" but "distorted", that is, not obliterated but seriously compromised, with the effect that we are, in some sense, less able to, by act of will, follow Christ. Which I stand by. Of course, the degree of that compromise is debatable; I guess, from his posts here, that m-t would put it higher than would I, but I stand by my claim that this is a biblical teaching. Romans 7 springs to mind, but there are lots of other references.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ISTM that this whole extremely long thread boils down to one word with 2 divisions: grace.

Wesleyans believe that total depravity mitigates against someone 'deciding for Christ' because sin is part of our total being. We believe that prevenient grace is what enables the sinner to see first the need and then the possibility of salvation. Once the response is made - and it's not irresistible - saving grace is received and the person is born again of the Spirit.

Calvinists in the guise of Mr Tomb seem to make no distinction. To them, all grace is saving grace and this grace is given by the sovereign choice of God. Once given, the soul is enlightened and can do no other than to choose to repent.

To me that sounds like Shrek II where a potion is given to make the princess fall in love with the prince. No free will, no choice - no love I daresay. Unless of course, along with grace God makes us love him as well. Sounds a bit sad to me - can God not get people to love him for what he is? Instead he has to make us love him - he must be really unlovable in that case!


I think I will love him for myself thank you, seeing that he allowed me to repent and enabled me to respond willingly and freely to his grace.

[ 02. October 2006, 11:44: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

--------------------
"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
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
To me that sounds like Shrek II where a potion is given to make the princess fall in love with the prince. No free will, no choice - no love I daresay. Unless of course, along with grace God makes us love him as well. Sounds a bit sad to me - can God not get people to love him for what he is? Instead he has to make us love him - he must be really unlovable in that case!

Not sure why I'm defending the Calvinist position, but I do think this is a little unfair. It's not that m-t and co see the "potion" as something that makes you do anything. Rather it is a medicine that opens your eyes and allows you to recognise the one with whom we would have always fallen in love, had we but the eyes to see him/her. The response is free will, the grace is the method by which the restoration of that undistorted free will is secured.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
ISTM that this whole extremely long thread boils down to one word with 2 divisions: grace.

Wesleyans believe that total depravity mitigates against someone 'deciding for Christ' because sin is part of our total being. We believe that prevenient grace is what enables the sinner to see first the need and then the possibility of salvation. Once the response is made - and it's not irresistible - saving grace is received and the person is born again of the Spirit.

You can believe that if you like.

quote:
Calvinists in the guise of Mr Tomb seem to make no distinction. To them, all grace is saving grace and this grace is given by the sovereign choice of God. Once given, the soul is enlightened and can do no other than to choose to repent.
No. I fully recognise what is known as common grace. God causes the sun to rise on the righteous and the wicked without distinction. God blesses humanity with the grace of life.

quote:
To me that sounds like Shrek II where a potion is given to make the princess fall in love with the prince. No free will, no choice - no love I daresay. Unless of course, along with grace God makes us love him as well. Sounds a bit sad to me - can God not get people to love him for what he is? Instead he has to make us love him - he must be really unlovable in that case!
Oh for goodness sake! Can't you see it? At least you try to understand my POV even if you then decided to disagree. At the moment you simply have not grasped the concept. Let me say it as simply as I can. Calvinist thinking always starts with God. Arminian thinking tends to start with man. So, here goes.

Proposition: God is beautiful, valuable, utterly free, lovely, perfect etc.
Question: Why have people exchanged this glory for other things?
Answer: Because they are not free. They are slaves to sin.
Implication: A genuinely free person would be able to perceive and therefore value and consequently choose God's glory.

Proposition: A free person will choose God because they perceive his worth.
Question: Does this mean that their free-will has been compromised?
Answer: No, it means that their free will has been restored. Remember: to reject God is a sign that a person is not free. Therefore to accept God is a sign that a person is free.

Proposition: God is able to foreknow the decisions of genuinely free people.
Question: Why?
Answer: Because God is genuinely free. Therefore the decisions of a genuinely free person will be the same as the decisions of God. This is not because God makes the person decide what he wants them to decide. It is because he empowers them to make the decision that he would also make. This is true freedom.

quote:
I think I will love him for myself thank you, seeing that he allowed me to repent and enabled me to respond willingly and freely to his grace.
Now thank God that you are able to do this! If you do you'll be a Calvinist. If you won't acknowledge that your ability to do this has come from God, please answer the following question: where did it come from?

[ 02. October 2006, 12:27: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
To me that sounds like Shrek II where a potion is given to make the princess fall in love with the prince. No free will, no choice - no love I daresay. Unless of course, along with grace God makes us love him as well. Sounds a bit sad to me - can God not get people to love him for what he is? Instead he has to make us love him - he must be really unlovable in that case!

Not sure why I'm defending the Calvinist position, but I do think this is a little unfair. It's not that m-t and co see the "potion" as something that makes you do anything. Rather it is a medicine that opens your eyes and allows you to recognise the one with whom we would have always fallen in love, had we but the eyes to see him/her. The response is free will, the grace is the method by which the restoration of that undistorted free will is secured.
This is exactly what I mean. Thank you Jolly Jape. You don't have to agree but at least you can see where I'm coming from. Perhaps you could tell me why you disagree or what the weaknesses of this position are from your perspective?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
That free will was lost is a teaching from Augustine and not the Church.

Christ continued to teach obedeience to the commandments, not the traditions of men, do not kill, do not bear false witness, honour mother and father, etc.

The word I used was not "lost" but "distorted", that is, not obliterated but seriously compromised, with the effect that we are, in some sense, less able to, by act of will, follow Christ. Which I stand by. Of course, the degree of that compromise is debatable; I guess, from his posts here, that m-t would put it higher than would I, but I stand by my claim that this is a biblical teaching.
The phrase that come to mind in this regard is that we are 'very far gone from original righteousness'. Not completely gone, but far enough that we are not in fact 'free': the human will is very much bent in upon itself. This is where the idea of Total Depravity comes in: not in the sense that each human being is holistically depraved in totality (i.e. totally evil), but in the sense that as holistic beings there is no aspect of our humanity that sin has not seriously tainted.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jason™

Host emeritus
# 9037

 - Posted      Profile for Jason™   Author's homepage   Email Jason™   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
This is exactly what I mean. Thank you Jolly Jape. You don't have to agree but at least you can see where I'm coming from. Perhaps you could tell me why you disagree or what the weaknesses of this position are from your perspective?

Calvinism, for some reason, maintains that the grace that makes men free is only offered to some. That is what makes the doctrine completely unfathomable for a large majority of Christians who cannot get past the question, "Why wouldn't God have offered this grace to all?"

When the answer to that question becomes, "He did, of course," then the position becomes much more realistic.

Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
OK. Matt. I'm currently reading an essay by John Piper called Are there two wills in God? Divine Election and God's Desire for All to be Saved. I think it's an attempt to resolve the main objection to Election that has been raised on this thread; which is this: if God can choose to save some from all eternity why does he not save all?

I've not finished it yet. When I have I shall post my findings. Looks quite good, though. At least he's takling the problem head on.

Would it be this essay? Have briefly read it. I kind of get his argument that the best example of God's Perfect Will -v- His Permissive Will is the crucifixion. However, I find this distinction to be somewhat artificial although I can see where Piper is coming from. A better contrast IMO is between desire and will; desire demands instant gratification whereas will postpones satisfaction to achieve a better result in the long run. A useful analogy here is the concept of Emotional Quotient (EQ). EQ in children is recognised as being as important as IQ by behavioural scientists and child psychologists. The basic idea is that EQ is the measure of our ability to postpone gratification of our desires. The classic way of measuring it is to put a child in a room with a sweet and say that if the child waits an hour without eating the sweet, he or she can have an entire box of sweets. Some children succumb pretty quickly to temptation, others more slowly, and a few ride out the entire hour (apparently they are the ones destined to go far in life because they are able to subordinate their immediate desire to the achievement of a greater long-term goal). In the same way that the child can have one sweet immediately, likewise God could have created us without free will and so avoided suffering – and also any kind of meaningful relationship with us; instead He gave us free will knowing the consequence would be the Fall, evil, sickness, poverty and death but nevertheless permitting all of this so that He could in due course enjoy a perfect relationship based on mutual freedom with at least some of us through the Cross. Thus, going back to Piper, God did not desire the crucifixion, but nevertheless willed it as being essential to His plan of redemption

--------------------
"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
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
That free will was lost is a teaching from Augustine and not the Church.

Christ continued to teach obedeience to the commandments, not the traditions of men, do not kill, do not bear false witness, honour mother and father, etc.

The word I used was not "lost" but "distorted", that is, not obliterated but seriously compromised, with the effect that we are, in some sense, less able to, by act of will, follow Christ. Which I stand by. Of course, the degree of that compromise is debatable; I guess, from his posts here, that m-t would put it higher than would I, but I stand by my claim that this is a biblical teaching. Romans 7 springs to mind, but there are lots of other references.
Actually my use of "lost" was in direct response to the previous post quoting M.T-tomb:

quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
I maintain that free will is restored by grace but that Christ is irresisible to those with genuine free will.

Orthodox do not teach that free will needs to restored - because it was never lost. Grace was not lost. There is no doctrine of Augustine's Original Sin in the Orthodox Church. We do not teach the doctrine of total depravity/total sinful nature unable to do good.

But now you mention it, neither do we teach a distorted human nature/will, we say children are born innocent, not damned to estrangement from God which continues unless they accept Christ/baptism..


Myrrh

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The problem, MTT, is that your claim that a perfectly free person would always choose Christ presupposes something false, namely, that we have a clear and undistorted view of Christ in this life, so that we can see he is perfectly lovely and what the soul actually wants. Scripture and common sense both tell us this is not true.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792

 - Posted      Profile for CrookedCucumber     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
This is exactly what I mean. Thank you Jolly Jape. You don't have to agree but at least you can see where I'm coming from. Perhaps you could tell me why you disagree or what the weaknesses of this position are from your perspective?

Calvinism, for some reason, maintains that the grace that makes men free is only offered to some. That is what makes the doctrine completely unfathomable for a large majority of Christians who cannot get past the question, "Why wouldn't God have offered this grace to all?"

When the answer to that question becomes, "He did, of course," then the position becomes much more realistic.

Quite right.

I have been having this kind of discussion with people holding Calvinist views for twenty odd years, and the question ``"Why wouldn't God have offered this grace to all?'' never gets answered. What thinking Calvinists generally do in response is to attack the (very evident) flaws in everybody else's soteriology. But the fact that there are problems with everybody else's soteriology doesn't make the problems with Calvinism any less trenchant.

Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jason™

Host emeritus
# 9037

 - Posted      Profile for Jason™   Author's homepage   Email Jason™   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
The problem, MTT, is that your claim that a perfectly free person would always choose Christ presupposes something false, namely, that we have a clear and undistorted view of Christ in this life, so that we can see he is perfectly lovely and what the soul actually wants. Scripture and common sense both tell us this is not true.

That's a misunderstanding of the concept, though. What seems to be evident is that some people choose to follow Christ and others don't. This can be explained by claiming that those who have chosen to follow Christ have done so because their view of Christ has become undistorted enough so as to want to freely choose Him. Those who don't choose Christ, in that explanation, don't because they have not had the truth revealed to their heart in the same way.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
your claim that a perfectly free person would always choose Christ presupposes something false, namely, that we have a clear and undistorted view of Christ in this life, so that we can see he is perfectly lovely and what the soul actually wants.

As it is in the power of God to give someone such a clear and undistorted view, the moral problem is the same either way.

And we're still using "free will" in at least four different senses:

  • free will as the opposite of philosophical determinism (i.e. the idea that if you knew everythign about the sate of the universe qt any one point in time you could predict its entire future)
  • freedom from constraint in choice
  • freedom from constraint in action
  • possesion of neccesary information in order to make a choice


--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
quote:Originally posted by m.t-tomb:This is exactly what I mean. Thank you Jolly Jape. You don't have to agree but at least you can see where I'm coming from. Perhaps you could tell me why you disagree or what the weaknesses of this position are from your perspective?
Calvinism, for some reason, maintains that the grace that makes men free is only offered to some. That is what makes the doctrine completely unfathomable for a large majority of Christians who cannot get past the question, "Why wouldn't God have offered this grace to all?"
When the answer to that question becomes, "He did, of course," then the position becomes much more realistic.

Thanks, Digory, couldn't have put it any better myself. Seriously, m-t, I do have considerable sympathy with a high view of God's sovereignty, so on the narrow issue, your understanding of human and divine wills fits pretty well with mine, though I would say that your nuanced view of human free will is not one which I have often seen espoused by your doctrinal fellow travellers. Nor am I quite sure how these views mesh with your, ISTM, strong interpretation of Jesus words about seeing the Kingdom of God.

Where I would part company with you (it won't surprise you to learn) is that I hold a more universalist understanding, and I don't view the atonement in terms of God's wrath.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
No it hasn't been the teaching of the whole church. Christ came to call sinners to repentence not the righteous, but Calvinism (from Augustine) says that there are no righteous who don't believe in Christ (aren't baptised).

An ingenuous evasion of the point. You know perfectly well that the Orthodoc churches have taught that many are damned. And that some (yes, its a good word, but I use it because I mean it - some, more than a tiny minority, but not all) include other Christians such as Roman Catholics in that condemnation.


Shrug. What Orthodox Christians have taught or done does not Orthodox doctrine make. Calvinism is very specific in its doctrine, this is what I'm arguing against, from the standpoint of what we understand to be Christ's teaching, "orthodox" simply means "right thinking", "right worship". The word has always been used to denote true Christian teaching from false, as against the Gnostics for example, it only became seen to be used as this in the Church's title in the arguments between the Orthodox and the RCC, which the Orthodox consider heretical on various counts.


quote:

Orthodox teaching is that we know where the Holy Spirit is, don't know where She/He/It isn't (Hebrew/Greek/Latin).

quote:
Evading the point again. That makes a neat immune system for your denomination, allowing it to disengage from real discussion about what you actually teach. You might even believe it. But its not at all what most of the Fathers taught.

This is the teaching of the early Church which didn't have to define it because it didn't have a doctrine which denied it to non-Christians. It surprised Peter too...


quote:

quote:

All Luther did was change this from 'membership of the Church', RCC, to 'membership of belief in Christ'.

quote:
Actually that wasn't Luther, that really was Augustine, who made the useful distinction between the visible and the invisble Church.

Although I don't know how he is using it, visible/invisible Church isn't particularly Augustine

quote:
Isn;t it? It seems entirely characteristic of him to me. He's always banging on about it. Anyway, if it wasn't him, it was older than him (do you have any previous examples?) and therefore must certainly predate Luther by over a thosuand years.


This is your view, up to you to find support for it. It's simply a fact that Luther rebelled against "the Church" for its claim to control grace, etc. that's how his doctrine evolved, in the arguments against the RCC.




quote:

Again, I'm arguing against Calvinism not Graham, and I was the one who pointed out that this is a change of heart and mind from the Calvinist Graham of old..

quote:
So you are happy to argue against this straw-man Calvinism that you have invented, or have been warned off by your teachers, but not against the views of someone who actually is a Calvinist?


I'm not sure what you are, a very young Calvinist who is being taught something different, perhaps influenced by the changes in such as Billy Graham? I've noticed this phenomenon among young RC who have had Orthodox concepts incorporated into their Catechism over the last few decades, from Pope Paul VI's time and his move to bring in more Orthodox doctrine via the Melkites, and some of these young RC even deny that Augustine's Original Sin doctrine was ever taught by their Church, much to the unhappiness of older pre Vat II members who still believed that their unbaptised children would go to hell if they died. Augustine is still intact, but consigned to the small print in the notes.

However, more honestly, Graham has admitted that his views have changed over the years.

quote:
In 1978, Dr. Graham temporarily came full circle, saying, “I used to believe that pagans in far countries were lost if they did not have the gospel of Christ preached to them. I no longer believe that” (McCall’s, January, 1978). The statement caused such a stir that it was quickly dismissed by Christianity Today (founded by Dr. Graham and his father-in-law) as a misquotation. McCall’s apparently did not misquote.

On a May 31, 1997, Dr. Graham took part in a seven-minute televised interview with Robert Schuller. The following is an exact excerpt of that broadcast: (continued on Billy Graham - What Means This? By Chip Thornton

From which also this:
quote:
The Metamorphosis of Dr. Graham’s Theology


In Evangelicalism Divided (2000), Iain Murray excellently traces one aspect of the metamorphosis of Dr. Graham’s theology, namely, inclusivism (note: much of the following is taken from Murray’s book). Inclusivism is the idea that one religion is best, but salvation is possible in other religions. This idea strikes at the heart of the exclusive atonement of Jesus Christ (John 14:6), thus striking at the very heart of the gospel that Dr. Graham spent the last 60 years proclaiming.

quote:

Nope, the origin of predestination as taught by Calvin is Augustine, not the Church, Gospels, Epistles.

quote:
That is simply untrue. I'm not saying you made it up, but I think you are perhaps uncritically accepting what you were taught.
The early Church did not teach that we're born damned to hell. Even the term Original Sin was unknown to it. If it's true doctrine why didn't Christ teach it? Did he tell anyone that they where damned to hell unable to do good because all humanity was born in Original Sin - or did He continue teaching choice to follow the commandments? Why would God have given us commandments if we didn't have free will to choose to follow them or not? God works from the premise we have free will, are capable of doing good. Augustine's doctrine (Calvinism and the rest) is a figment of his imagination...

Christ's consistent teaching is: "if you would enter into life, keep the commandments".

And this is the Church's consistent teaching.

..where did Christ teach 'wait until I've died for your sins then you'll get back free will and God will give you grace to follow the commandments'?


Myrrh

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Posted by Myrrh:
quote:
We do not teach the doctrine of total depravity/total sinful nature unable to do good.
[brick wall] My goodness! You really don't get it do you?

YOU - DON'T - UNDERSTAND - THE - DOCTRINE - OF - TOTAL - DEPRAVITY.

Look it up before you say anything about it again. Please.

[ 02. October 2006, 15:49: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've found a reference to Calvinism as "systematic Augustinianism":

quote:
John Calvin

John Calvin taught a doctrine called Total Depravity. Calvin defended and refined the Augustinian approach to salvation which involved Total Depravity, Predestination, and Irresistible Grace. Augustine had developed much of his theological position in response to a British Monk named Pelagius. Pelagius rejected the doctrine of original sin and Predestination. Pelagius’ teachings were known as Pelagianism. In the end, Augustine won the long debate and Pelagius’ teachings were condemned as heresy. Calvin came along later and refined the theology of Augustine into a more systematic approach which was often referred to as Systematic Augustinianism .

http://ptdc.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_ptdc_archive.html


Myrrh

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

Nope, the origin of predestination as taught by Calvin is Augustine, not the Church, Gospels, Epistles.

At the risk of flinging proof-texts around Kerygmaniacally, what then do you make of eg: Eph 1: 4-12?
quote:
The early Church did not teach that we're born damned to hell. Even the term Original Sin was unknown to it. If it's true doctrine why didn't Christ teach it?
What then do you make of the first 5 chapters of Romans and in particular 5:12-21?

--------------------
"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
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Posted by Myrrh:
quote:
We do not teach the doctrine of total depravity/total sinful nature unable to do good.
[brick wall] My goodness! You really don't get it do you?

YOU - DON'T - UNDERSTAND - THE - DOCTRINE - OF - TOTAL - DEPRAVITY.

Look it up before you say anything about it again. Please.

You softy, you..


quote:
The Hard View

......

The Calvinistic Heidelberg Catechism asks the question:

Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all wickedness?

Apparently, in agreement with Hanko and Hoeksema, it answers:

Indeed we are; except we are regenerated (born again) by the Spirit of God.[21]
John Calvin also seemed to take the harder view when he said,

...Our nature is not only utterly devoid of goodness, but so prolific in all kinds of evil, that it can never be idle. Those who term it concupiscence use a word not very inappropriate, provided it were added, (this, however, many will by no means concede), that everything which is in man, from the intellect to the will, from the soul even to the flesh, is defiled and pervaded with this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that the whole man is in himself nothing else but concupiscence.

.....

The Inoperable Will of Man

What we cannot do because of Total Depravity, from a Calvinistic Perspective, is of course very important to a Calvinistic definition of Depravity, especially as it is relates to a gospel presentation directed at the unregenerate. That is, Calvinistically speaking, the unregenerate are not only unable to do good (as well as unable to refrain from doing bad) spiritually in a general sense, but more specifically, they are unable to respond to God or the Gospel (to any degree) while in an unregenerate state or before being born again.

According to this view, the will of unregenerate man (in so far as responding to God, the Gospel, etc., is concerned) is dead and therefore inoperable. This idea of an inoperable will is very crucial to a complete understanding of a Calvinistic definition of Total Depravity. THE FIVE POINTS OF CALVINISM George Bryson

Myrrh

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
PROTESTANT REFORMED THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 2002

Volume 35, Number 2


quote:
21. Reformed theologian Anthony A. Hoekema maintains that what Reformed theology has traditionally called “total depravity” means only that “the corruption of original sin extends to every aspect of human nature: to one’s reason and will as well as to one’s appetites and impulses.” It does not mean that “the unregenerate person by nature is unable to do good in any sense of the word. Because of God’s common grace … the development of sin in history and society is restrained. The unregenerate person can still do certain kinds of good and can exercise certain kinds of virtue.” Recognizing that it is a mistake, if not absurd, to call a depravity that is merely partial, “total,” Hoekema proposes a new adjective to describe the depravity of the unregenerated man: “pervasive” (Created in God’s Image, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986, pp. 150-152). Although Hoekema does not notice, this results in a change in the historic acronym describing the Reformed confession of the doctrines of grace: PULIP. Hoekema’s doctrine, which is probably the prevailing opinion in Reformed circles today, is open rejection of the confessionally Reformed doctrine of man’s total, that is, complete, depravity by nature. So open a rejection is it that this new doctrine changes the name of the traditional, confessional doctrine. It is a doctrine of partial depravity. And common grace is the cause. For a critique of the ongoing revision of the Reformed doctrine of total depravity because of the notion of common grace, see my article, “Total, Absolute, or Partial Depravity?” in the Standard Bearer 77, no. 12 (March 15, 2001): 268-270.
“Nothing but a Loathsome Stench”:
Calvin’s Doctrine of the Spiritual Condition of Fallen Man David J. Engelsma


--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
quote:
Calvinists in the guise of Mr Tomb seem to make no distinction. To them, all grace is saving grace and this grace is given by the sovereign choice of God. Once given, the soul is enlightened and can do no other than to choose to repent.
No. I fully recognise what is known as common grace. God causes the sun to rise on the righteous and the wicked without distinction. God blesses humanity with the grace of life.
[/QB]

No.

Common grace is not prevenient grace at all !

Common Grace.
Prevenient Grace.
Saving Grace.

Different things with different characteristics.

--------------------
"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
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

Nope, the origin of predestination as taught by Calvin is Augustine, not the Church, Gospels, Epistles.

At the risk of flinging proof-texts around Kerygmaniacally, what then do you make of eg: Eph 1: 4-12?
quote:
The early Church did not teach that we're born damned to hell. Even the term Original Sin was unknown to it. If it's true doctrine why didn't Christ teach it?
What then do you make of the first 5 chapters of Romans and in particular 5:12-21?

I'll take a look at those later this evening, or tomorrow, but to be going on with:


..perhaps if Paul had reached the fourth heaven he might have explained it a little differently to avoid confusion? Or maybe if reached the third we might be able to understand him better?

quote:
Romans 2:4...

Or despiseth thou the wealth of His kindness and forbearance and long-suffering, not knowing that the kindness of God leadeth thee to repentence? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart thou storest up to thyself wrath in a day of wrath and revelation of a righteous judgment of God, Who will render to each according to his works: to those on the one hand who with patience in good work seek glory and honor and incorruptibility, eternal life; but to those on the other hanbd who are factious and disobey the truth, and suffer themselves to be persuaded to unrighteousness, anger and wrath - affliction and straits upon every soul of man that worketh out evil, both of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory and honor and peace to everyone who worketh good, both to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as did sin without law shall also perish without law; and as many as did sin in the law shall be judged by the law. For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For whenever the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature the things of the law, these, who not the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts... etc.

From The Orthodox New Testament Holy Apostles Convent, Colorado.


Paul continues to teach Christ's teaching of the OT, what is required of you? Micah


Or as Christ put it - "If you love me, keep my commandments."


Myrrh

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  11  12  13  14  15  16 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools