Calvinism

[CharismaticLady]

yes, the blessed person in Psalm one feeds on scripture...not silly rhyming noises.

"The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Keep it up. You are just digging the hole you are sinking in even deeper.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

"The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Keep it up. You are just digging the hole you are sinking in even deeper.

Who is the natural man you are speaking of?

 

[CharismaticLady]

Who is the natural man you are speaking of?

Mockers

 

[CharismaticLady]

Good night.

 

[John Caldwell]

I'm not even a Calvinist and I have the Institutes on my computer. I am in the process of reading it for the third time. So, I know anyone who claims to be one has a copy at their house. (Otherwise, why would you claim to follow teachings you had never read?) All you have to do is open it up and read. (I told you where to look in Post #195)

Frankly, John Calvin reminds me of the "church" guy praying and thanking God he wasn't like that other guy over there who was such a low-life. (Luke 18:9-14)

I'm not anti-Calvin, some of his works (his pastoral writings and writings on prayer are good).

What comes through in the Institutes is that Calvin's philosophy (Calvinism) is a worldly wisdom. Calvin's mindset was as a humanist lawyer (because he was educated as a lawyer). His presuppositions shaped his "theology".

So I can understand Calvin. I am not sure why others are drawn to his philosophies except perhaps that it does speak to our human nature. Calvinism elevates man and places human sin (the sin of the elect) at the center of the God's work of redemption in place of God Himself.

 

[Willie T]

Again, give examples of it so we know what you mean.

Anywhere from page 210 to about 447..... Some especially interesting reading starts about page 270.

 

[Willie T]

For those of you who have never read Calvin (and I suspect that would include many "Calvinists"), I thought you might enjoy an example of the hodge-podge he spreads on the pages of his writings:

1. Enough would seem to have been said on the subject of man’s will, were there not some who endeavor to urge him to his ruin by a false opinion of liberty, and at the same time, in order to support their own opinion, assail ours. First, they gather together some absurd inferences, by which they endeavor to bring odium upon our doctrine, as if it were abhorrent to common sense, and then they oppose it with certain passages of Scripture (infra, sec. 6). Both devices we shall dispose of in their order. If sin, say they, is necessary, it ceases to be sin; if it is voluntary, it may be avoided. Such, too, were the weapons with which Pelagius assailed Augustine. But we are unwilling to crush them by the weight of his name, until we have satisfactorily disposed of the objections themselves. I deny, therefore, that sin ought to be the less imputed because it is necessary; and, on the other hand, I deny the inference, that sin may be avoided because it is voluntary. If anyone will dispute with God, and endeavor to evade his judgment, by pretending that he could not have done otherwise, the answer already given is sufficient, that it is owing not to creation, but the corruption of nature, that man has become the slave of sin, and can will nothing but evil. For whence that impotence of which the wicked so readily avail themselves as an excuse, but just because Adam voluntarily subjected himself to the tyranny of the devil? Hence the corruption by which we are held bound as with chains, originated in the first man’s revolt from his Maker. If all men are justly held guilty of this revolt, let them not think themselves excused by a necessity in which they see the clearest cause of their condemnation. But this I have fully explained above; and in the case of the devil himself, have given an example of one who sins not less voluntarily that he sins necessarily. I have also shown, in the case of the elect angels, that though their will cannot decline from good, it does not therefore cease to be will. This Bernard shrewdly explains when he says (Serm. 81, in Cantica), that we are the more miserable in this, that the necessity is voluntary; and yet this necessity so binds us who are subject to it, that we are the slaves of sin, as we have already observed. The second step in the reasoning is vicious, because it leaps from voluntary to free; whereas we have proved above, that a thing may be done voluntarily, though not subject to free choice.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

For those of you who have never read Calvin (and I suspect that would include many "Calvinists"), I thought you might enjoy an example of the hodge-podge he spreads on the pages of his writings:

1. Enough would seem to have been said on the subject of man’s will, were there not some who endeavor to urge him to his ruin by a false opinion of liberty, and at the same time, in order to support their own opinion, assail ours. First, they gather together some absurd inferences, by which they endeavor to bring odium upon our doctrine, as if it were abhorrent to common sense, and then they oppose it with certain passages of Scripture (infra, sec. 6). Both devices we shall dispose of in their order. If sin, say they, is necessary, it ceases to be sin; if it is voluntary, it may be avoided. Such, too, were the weapons with which Pelagius assailed Augustine. But we are unwilling to crush them by the weight of his name, until we have satisfactorily disposed of the objections themselves. I deny, therefore, that sin ought to be the less imputed because it is necessary; and, on the other hand, I deny the inference, that sin may be avoided because it is voluntary. If anyone will dispute with God, and endeavor to evade his judgment, by pretending that he could not have done otherwise, the answer already given is sufficient, that it is owing not to creation, but the corruption of nature, that man has become the slave of sin, and can will nothing but evil. For whence that impotence of which the wicked so readily avail themselves as an excuse, but just because Adam voluntarily subjected himself to the tyranny of the devil? Hence the corruption by which we are held bound as with chains, originated in the first man’s revolt from his Maker. If all men are justly held guilty of this revolt, let them not think themselves excused by a necessity in which they see the clearest cause of their condemnation. But this I have fully explained above; and in the case of the devil himself, have given an example of one who sins not less voluntarily that he sins necessarily. I have also shown, in the case of the elect angels, that though their will cannot decline from good, it does not therefore cease to be will. This Bernard shrewdly explains when he says (Serm. 81, in Cantica), that we are the more miserable in this, that the necessity is voluntary; and yet this necessity so binds us who are subject to it, that we are the slaves of sin, as we have already observed. The second step in the reasoning is vicious, because it leaps from voluntary to free; whereas we have proved above, that a thing may be done voluntarily, though not subject to free choice.

Thanks Willie, I will interact with you on this, starting on page 270...after church.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Mockers

Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal who offered falsehoods.
To correctly identify error is to speak the truth in love rather than let a person continue in such error.
It would be similar to tell a drug user they are okay the way they are.

 

[Willie T]

Thanks Willie, I will interact with you on this, starting on page 270...after church.

That should be interesting reading. BTW, that long paragraph I just posted is the main beginning of that same section of the Book Second. (page 270 ff)

 

[Willie T]

I have tried to find The Institutes in modern English, so that a reader doesn't first have to translate what Calvin might be saying into something understandable. But all I can find is Book First.

I suspect it would be much clearer if it had not first been translated into French from the Latin (and maybe Swiss and German too... I dunno.) before it was wrestled into the antiquated English we now get to wade through. I think it might be possible that much of the confusion and contradictory implications Calvin seems to project may come from the same complicated way of presenting things that also causes so much distortion in the KJV.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

For those of you who have never read Calvin (and I suspect that would include many "Calvinists"), I thought you might enjoy an example of the hodge-podge he spreads on the pages of his writings:

1. Enough would seem to have been said on the subject of man’s will, were there not some who endeavor to urge him to his ruin by a false opinion of liberty, and at the same time, in order to support their own opinion, assail ours. First, they gather together some absurd inferences, by which they endeavor to bring odium upon our doctrine, as if it were abhorrent to common sense, and then they oppose it with certain passages of Scripture (infra, sec. 6). Both devices we shall dispose of in their order. If sin, say they, is necessary, it ceases to be sin; if it is voluntary, it may be avoided. Such, too, were the weapons with which Pelagius assailed Augustine. But we are unwilling to crush them by the weight of his name, until we have satisfactorily disposed of the objections themselves. I deny, therefore, that sin ought to be the less imputed because it is necessary; and, on the other hand, I deny the inference, that sin may be avoided because it is voluntary. If anyone will dispute with God, and endeavor to evade his judgment, by pretending that he could not have done otherwise, the answer already given is sufficient, that it is owing not to creation, but the corruption of nature, that man has become the slave of sin, and can will nothing but evil. For whence that impotence of which the wicked so readily avail themselves as an excuse, but just because Adam voluntarily subjected himself to the tyranny of the devil? Hence the corruption by which we are held bound as with chains, originated in the first man’s revolt from his Maker. If all men are justly held guilty of this revolt, let them not think themselves excused by a necessity in which they see the clearest cause of their condemnation. But this I have fully explained above; and in the case of the devil himself, have given an example of one who sins not less voluntarily that he sins necessarily. I have also shown, in the case of the elect angels, that though their will cannot decline from good, it does not therefore cease to be will. This Bernard shrewdly explains when he says (Serm. 81, in Cantica), that we are the more miserable in this, that the necessity is voluntary; and yet this necessity so binds us who are subject to it, that we are the slaves of sin, as we have already observed. The second step in the reasoning is vicious, because it leaps from voluntary to free; whereas we have proved above, that a thing may be done voluntarily, though not subject to free choice.

Sounds like Paul's battles with the Jews, his arguments against their lies &c.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal who offered falsehoods.

Are you equating Baal with God???

37 After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all who obeyed him were dispersed. 38 And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; 39 but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.”

You have no fear of the Lord.

 

[CharismaticLady]

For those of you who have never read Calvin (and I suspect that would include many "Calvinists"), I thought you might enjoy an example of the hodge-podge he spreads on the pages of his writings:

1. Enough would seem to have been said on the subject of man’s will, were there not some who endeavor to urge him to his ruin by a false opinion of liberty, and at the same time, in order to support their own opinion, assail ours. First, they gather together some absurd inferences, by which they endeavor to bring odium upon our doctrine, as if it were abhorrent to common sense, and then they oppose it with certain passages of Scripture (infra, sec. 6). Both devices we shall dispose of in their order. If sin, say they, is necessary, it ceases to be sin; if it is voluntary, it may be avoided. Such, too, were the weapons with which Pelagius assailed Augustine. But we are unwilling to crush them by the weight of his name, until we have satisfactorily disposed of the objections themselves. I deny, therefore, that sin ought to be the less imputed because it is necessary; and, on the other hand, I deny the inference, that sin may be avoided because it is voluntary. If anyone will dispute with God, and endeavor to evade his judgment, by pretending that he could not have done otherwise, the answer already given is sufficient, that it is owing not to creation, but the corruption of nature, that man has become the slave of sin, and can will nothing but evil. For whence that impotence of which the wicked so readily avail themselves as an excuse, but just because Adam voluntarily subjected himself to the tyranny of the devil? Hence the corruption by which we are held bound as with chains, originated in the first man’s revolt from his Maker. If all men are justly held guilty of this revolt, let them not think themselves excused by a necessity in which they see the clearest cause of their condemnation. But this I have fully explained above; and in the case of the devil himself, have given an example of one who sins not less voluntarily that he sins necessarily. I have also shown, in the case of the elect angels, that though their will cannot decline from good, it does not therefore cease to be will. This Bernard shrewdly explains when he says (Serm. 81, in Cantica), that we are the more miserable in this, that the necessity is voluntary; and yet this necessity so binds us who are subject to it, that we are the slaves of sin, as we have already observed. The second step in the reasoning is vicious, because it leaps from voluntary to free; whereas we have proved above, that a thing may be done voluntarily, though not subject to free choice.

I looked on ebay for anything regarding the life and teachings of John Wesley. I found one called the life of John Wesley for under $10, free shipping. I was astounded when it arrived; it turned out to be leather bound American first edition, 1832. Boy, was he ever against Calvinism! I also bought his sermons. Wow! The forums would have a field day with these!

 

[John Caldwell]

I looked on ebay for anything regarding the life and teachings of John Wesley. I found one called the life of John Wesley for under $10, free shipping. I was astounded when it arrived; it turned out to be leather bound American first edition, 1832. Boy, was he ever against Calvinism! I also bought his sermons. Wow! The forums would have a field day with these!

Ironically Wesley was one of the greatest supporters of Calvin's atonement theory, but in many ways he was more indebted to Scripture itself than was Calvin.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Ironically Wesley was one of the greatest supporters of Calvin's atonement theory, but in many ways he was more indebted to Scripture itself than was Calvin.

Tell me, so I can watch for it. What was Calvin's

 

[John Caldwell]

Tell me, so I can watch for it. What was Calvin's

Wesley adopted Calvin's atonement theory (Penal Substitution Theory) in how Christ redeemed man. He took the Methodist church in a different direction (it had been Calvinistic prior to Wesley).

IMHO Calvin's error went deeper than the Calvinistic response to the five articles.

 

[John Caldwell]

Sounds like Paul's battles with the Jews, his arguments against their lies &c.

LOL....I agree. Calvin does sound as if he believed himself Paul and traditional Christianity Judiasm.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Wesley adopted Calvin's atonement theory (Penal Substitution Theory) in how Christ redeemed man. He took the Methodist church in a different direction (it had been Calvinistic prior to Wesley).

IMHO Calvin's error went deeper than the Calvinistic response to the five articles.

Explain Calvin's PST

 

[John Caldwell]

Explain Calvin's PST

Our final view of redemption is dependent on where we begin (the “sin problem” that is solved by God through His Christ). If we center this “problem” in Genesis then redemption history is focused on liberating mankind from the bondage of sin and death and God achieving victory over the evil that has held the human family captive. If we view the problem within the context of God’s honor damaged by the act of mankind then we end up with Anselm’s view that Christ regained for God the honor robbed by human failings. If we view the “problem” to be one of worth then we may side with Aquinas and the “treasury of merit”. Should we view sin as strictly a moral issue we could end up with Abelard’s theory (and so forth).

Penal Substitution Theory is the theory articulated by John Calvin as an extension of Anselm’s theory by reforming the theory of Aquinas. Christ died for man, in man’s place, bearing the punishment for man’s sins, fulfilling the penal requirement of divine retributive justice, thereby setting man free from the penal demands of the law.

The reason I refer to Penal Substitution Theory as "Calvin's theory of atonement" is that it did not exist until articulated by John Calvin in the 16th century. It is humanistic and, probably for that reason, a normal part of our culture as the idea of the "sin" problem being a theft of honor was natural to those contemporary to the 11th century.

John Calvin was a humanist lawyer. He was a student of philosophy and law. He published his first edition of the Institutions about five years after his conversion to Christianity. It is no wonder Renaissance humanism and philosophy has played (and continues to play) a strong role in Calvinistic thought.