John Calvin said this....

[Shasta]

Actually the key aspect of Reformed theology is the view that Scripture plainly teaches the sovereignty of God. Everything else about Reformed theology follows from that starting point. Wherever differences between the Reformed view and non-Reformed views emerge, it can invariably be traced back to a dilution of this key point.

For example, with the open theists—a minority movement—you have the Survivor God, outwitting, outlasting, and outplaying His apparently autonomous moral agents as He learns more and more by learning what they do, for God cannot truly know what they will do until the do it (the future is unknown). God can only predict their choices—of course with ivory soap level percentages, ninety-nine, and forty-four over one hundred percent—since God is really, really smart. For these folks, the God of Moses truly knows less than God today as God is continually accreting knowledge and adjusting His plan A, B, etc., while He keeps up with the billions of contingencies developing each moment by the so-called free will choices of His autonomous moral agents.

With all others—e.g., the soteriological synergists of Arminianism and Romanism—God is merely peeking ahead in time before actualizing creation to see what His so-called autonomous moral agents will do when presented with the Good News. God then effectively "rubber stamps" their decision, thus making God a contingent debtor based upon the decisions of those He created.

Both groups dilute the sovereignty of God with all manner of rationalization that is nothing more than placing Him in the Dock for cross-examination according to what His pitiful finite creatures think He should be like and act like, creating more theological dilemmas than they think they are solving with these peculiar views.

The Reformed would rather be as was the Prophet who lamented upon a mere glimpse of He who reigns with sceptre in hand disposing of His creation as He sees fit, "Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts."

AMR

I was speaking historically from the standpoint of Augustine's journey. His interest in explaining the universality and dominance of evil was a personal dilemma which lead him, first into Manichaeism then to Christianity. In Christian theology mere determinism was transfigured into the more august concept of sovereignty but Augustine retained the idea of total inability throughout his experience.

None of the ECF before Augustine advocated any part of what we now call Reformed Doctrine. Not only did they not affirm it they renounced such ideas as "pre-determinism" and "inability." Without going to philosophical depth, the ECF said that God's prophecies were not meant to imply that God necessitated people to do evil but only that He knew what they would do. Ideas like inability and pre-determinism were universally considered pagan and Gnostic by orthodox believers until Augustine.

I have no doubt that what you say is a fair description of Reformed doctrine today. I have no grounds to argue otherwise since I have never been a member of a Reformed Church. I do, however, read Calvin. Personally I have taken the Molinist view which I think affirms God's omniscience while at the same time allowing freewill (which the ECF affirmed). Because God knows the choices moral agents will freely make in a given situation He is able to providentially arrange circumstances so as to bring about His will. Thus God is neither a programmer or a gambler.

 

[Clete]

I am under no compulsion to follow calvin where he is not in line with what God's word, the bible, teaches. I know of literally nobody that follows calvin substantially who think they should follow him and not God where the two differ.




Yes, God is bigger than sin, and turns it to morally good ends.

Shockingly, God doesn't fit the human-centered box we all want to stuff him in.

Golly, you could have done better by digging up the luther quotes on the topic.



Just a repetition of the same topic of the first quote. Same answer.

----

Are amos 3:6, Isaiah 45:7, Lamentations 3:38, and Micah 1:12 not in the bible? Or do you simply not believe the bible is true, or use principals that require you treat the bible as if it was not true?

If God had not have created, there could have been no evil; do you think God is not creator? If God had not have made the angels, there would be no lucifer. If God had not made adam, there would have been no fall. Did God create neither lucifer or Adam? Did God not know there would be evil? If he didn't know, how could have have been right to have created? If God knows everything that can be known, and created, than the discussion doesn't evaporate.

One either is bible believing and must deal with the language in a Godly way or introduce positions and principals on the topic that destroy the truth of the bible.

God is not responsible for evil for the same reason creation happened and we exist: because he is the definer of WHAT IS. God says he is not responsible; therefore he is not responsible; because he has said he is not. By his very nature he cannot be wrong. God is the definer, man is not. God says we are responsible for the evil we do; for the mere reason that he has said we are responsible, we are responsible, and deserving of punishment.

God has also told us that he is not evil: therefore, he is not evil. Psalm 136:1 and etc.

The Bible teaches that God has not only decreed evil, and that all evil happens exactly according to his plan, but that had God not created, there *could be no evil.*

Without created moral agents there could be no evil.

Or do you prefer that evil be bigger than God, that it be ultimately pointless and random, that it not serve the ultimate good? Should the murder of millions and millions by governments and societies be ultimately just random out of control not for any ultimate good events, that a nigh-hopeless God is incapable of turning to the ultimate good?



That God chooses who will be saved and who will be damned NOT according to the merits of the ones so chosen is purely biblical; Romans 9:11-18.

Or would you prefer that your loved ones who die unsaved die unsaved because they had a bad pizza just before they had the gospel shared with them? Do you want to be responsible for not sharing the gospel with them in a convincing enough manner? Do you want God to play favorites and pick people because of some merits in them, when God has clearly indicated that all in adam (romans 5) are by nature sinners (romans 1-3)?

One major down side to starting such threads as this is giving opportunity for posts such as the one quoted above that is literally one blasphemous statement after another.

Since I started the thread, I wonder if all you Calvinists would agree with moparguy and accuse me of "creating" the blasphemy contained in moparguy's post, since without my thread his blasphemy wouldn't exist?

My bet is the answer to that question is "yes" except of course that they wouldn't consider his post blasphemy. In fact, I have no doubt that they would all consider it wisdom that only the "spiritually minded" can comprehend.

I'll bet that none of them would be willing to give me the credit for what they call wisdom though!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Actually the key aspect of Reformed theology is the view that Scripture plainly teaches the sovereignty of God. Everything else about Reformed theology follows from that starting point. Wherever differences between the Reformed view and non-Reformed views emerge, it can invariably be traced back to a dilution of this key point.

For example, with the open theists—a minority movement—you have the Survivor God, outwitting, outlasting, and outplaying His apparently autonomous moral agents as He learns more and more by learning what they do, for God cannot truly know what they will do until the do it (the future is unknown). God can only predict their choices—of course with ivory soap level percentages, ninety-nine, and forty-four over one hundred percent—since God is really, really smart. For these folks, the God of Moses truly knows less than God today as God is continually accreting knowledge and adjusting His plan A, B, etc., while He keeps up with the billions of contingencies developing each moment by the so-called free will choices of His autonomous moral agents.

With all others—e.g., the soteriological synergists of Arminianism and Romanism—God is merely peeking ahead in time before actualizing creation to see what His so-called autonomous moral agents will do when presented with the Good News. God then effectively "rubber stamps" their decision, thus making God a contingent debtor based upon the decisions of those He created.

Both groups dilute the sovereignty of God with all manner of rationalization that is nothing more than placing Him in the Dock for cross-examination according to what His pitiful finite creatures think He should be like and act like, creating more theological dilemmas than they think they are solving with these peculiar views.

The Reformed would rather be as was the Prophet who lamented upon a mere glimpse of He who reigns with sceptre in hand disposing of His creation as He sees fit, "Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts."

AMR

What? A post from AMR that wasn't simply a link to a previous post?

I suspect foul play!

Who are you and what have you done with AMR??!!!

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

1. You claim that the "wolves" were immediately at the door and entered into the Church as soon as the Apostles died In fact, orthodox catholicism did not spring into existence immediately after the death of Paul and Peter. It developed slowly over many centuries. This scenario simply does not meet the demands of this passage.

Let's see, the Holy Spirit said it would be the Catholics.

1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.
3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.


Paul said they'd be comin' quickly.



Acts 20:29 KJV

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.


Clement the bishop at Rome confirms it.

In Clement's letter he says he was surprised and disappointed that so soon after Paul and Peter's demise the Corinthians had kicked out the elders and began the seditious and detestable emulation of our faith.


Now as far as the breath of fresh air I spoke of.

I simply meant that during those perilous times somebody figgered out God was sovereign.

Color me stupid, lol.


What in the world is anti- trinitarianism?

Is there some established club with creeds that they use upon joining.

I reckon not. :wave2:

 

[Shasta]

[1Mind1Spirit;4441469]Let's see, the Holy Spirit said it would be the Catholics.

1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.
3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

The one who started the doctrine of infant baptism so that their "original sin" might be removed (so they would not be damned) was Augustine. He was also the first Christian to incite the Government to persecute other Christians and to coherse ministers into preaching the Church's view of the scriptures. Many have called Augustine the (doctrinal) father of the Catholic Church... and he passed his doctrines on to Calvin and Luther.

Paul said they'd be comin' quickly.

Acts 20:29 KJV

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

Clement the bishop at Rome confirms it.In Clement's letter he says he was surprised and disappointed that so soon after Paul and Peter's demise the Corinthians had kicked out the elders and began the seditious and detestable emulation of our faith.

With regard to Clement's letter, I do not know why the younger elders kicked out the older ones in the Corinthian Church. I do not read anything about doctrinal errors. However, what I read a lot about in Clement's letter was envy. Because of this, I believe the cause of the Church splits were ego. As examples of the people causing the trouble Clement offers Korah and Cain who envied their brethren and desired their position and blessings.

Now as far as the breath of fresh air I spoke of.

I simply meant that during those perilous times somebody figgered out God was sovereign.

Color me stupid, lol.

Sorry, I thought you meant Augustine's doctrine as a whole was a breath of fresh air. He was a brilliant man but, obviously, I am no fan of his

What in the world is anti- trinitarianism?

nm just another ISM

Is there some established club with creeds that they use upon joining.

I reckon not. :wave2:

Around here there are some big groups of people who happen to agree on certain broad points. Then there are smaller numbers of individuals like me who do not seem to fit into those categories.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Around here there are some big groups of people who happen to agree on certain broad points. Then there are smaller numbers of individuals like me who do not seem to fit into those categories.

Okay.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

None of the ECF before Augustine advocated any part of what we now call Reformed Doctrine...

...I do, however, read Calvin.

Then read him carefully.

"Moreover, they (i.e., the Romanists) unjustly set the ancient fathers against us (I mean the ancient writers of a better age of the church) as if in them they had supporters of their own impiety. If the contest were to be determined by patristic authority, the tide of victory—to put it very modestly—would turn to our side."

Src: John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), Vol. 1, p. 18.


Furthermore...

"The substance of the matter is this: The apostolical fathers generally use the language of the Scriptures upon these subjects, while they scarcely make any statements which afford us materials for deciding in what precise sense they understood them. They leave the matter very much where Scripture leaves it, and where, but for the rise of errors needing to be contradicted and opposed, it might still have been left. He who sees Augustinian or Calvinistic doctrines clearly and explicitly taught in the Bible, will have no difficulty in seeing also plain traces of them at least in the works of the apostolic fathers; and he who can pervert the statements of Scripture into an anti-Calvinistic sense, may, by the same process, and with equal ease, distort the apostolic fathers."

Src: William Cunningham, Historical Theology, Volume 1, p.180

Lastly some required reading as relates to the ECF:
http://www.christianbook.com/scripture-ground-pillar-faith-vols-1/william-webster/pd/4678?event=CFN


AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Sir Robert Anderson writes, "As the Westminster Divines express it, 'We are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good.' This theology obviously impugns the righteousness of God in punishing men for their sins. In fact, it represents Him as a tyrant who punishes the lame for limping and the blind for losing their way" (Anderson, Misundersood Texts of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1991], 75).

Sigh. You turn to an odd ultra-dispensationalist for sources?

But not unexpected given your heresy:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4361568#post4361568

AMR

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

All of Calvin's statements are utterly ridiculous! As if God's holiness, and love, and mercy are a choice God makes, not who He is. God despises evil; He does not propagate it. All Calvin does is attempt to diminish God who is love. Sorry Satan impossible!

 

[meshak]

All of Calvin's statements are utterly ridiculous! As if God's holiness, and love, and mercy are a choice God makes, not who He is. God despises evil; He does not propagate it. All Calvin does is attempt to diminish God who is love. Sorry Satan impossible!

amen!

 

[meshak]

Originally Posted by Shasta View Post
Around here there are some big groups of people who happen to agree on certain broad points. Then there are smaller numbers of individuals like me who do not seem to fit into those categories.

You are not alone.

 

[Clete]

Another quote....

“But since he foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place, they vainly raise a quarrel over foreknowledge, when it is clear that all things take place rather by his determination and bidding.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)​

 

[Shasta]

Then read him carefully.

"Moreover, they (i.e., the Romanists) unjustly set the ancient fathers against us (I mean the ancient writers of a better age of the church) as if in them they had supporters of their own impiety. If the contest were to be determined by patristic authority, the tide of victory—to put it very modestly—would turn to our side."

Src: John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), Vol. 1, p. 18.


Furthermore...

"The substance of the matter is this: The apostolical fathers generally use the language of the Scriptures upon these subjects, while they scarcely make any statements which afford us materials for deciding in what precise sense they understood them. They leave the matter very much where Scripture leaves it, and where, but for the rise of errors needing to be contradicted and opposed, it might still have been left. He who sees Augustinian or Calvinistic doctrines clearly and explicitly taught in the Bible, will have no difficulty in seeing also plain traces of them at least in the works of the apostolic fathers; and he who can pervert the statements of Scripture into an anti-Calvinistic sense, may, by the same process, and with equal ease, distort the apostolic fathers."

Src: William Cunningham, Historical Theology, Volume 1, p.180

Lastly some required reading as relates to the ECF:
http://www.christianbook.com/scripture-ground-pillar-faith-vols-1/william-webster/pd/4678?event=CFN


AMR

Calvin's theology came directly from Augustine. While he rarely quoted other Church Father's in his writings in the Institutes he cites Augustine over 400 times. When it came to studying the scriptures Calvin did consult John Chysostom because he was a great Bible expositor. Augustine was a sloppy exegesis who tended to use the allegorical method. Another reason was tjat he was unable read the scriptures in the original Greek. Augustine was more philosopher than Bible teacher and this imbalance led him adopt serious doctrinal errors respecting original sin, infant baptism and infant damnation.

I believe Calvin would have had a more Biblical theology had he dispensed with Augustine altogether and studied the Bible. For a sense of history and doctrine he would have benefited from studying the writings of the earlier generations of ECF. His focus on Augustine gave him tunnel vision.

Calvin's comment about the ECF which you quoted that they: generally use the language of the Scriptures upon these subjects, while they scarcely make any statements which afford us materials for deciding in what precise sense they understood them. They leave the matter very much where Scripture leaves it, and where is not accurate. They did leave the matters as the scriptures stated them but the "precise sense" Calvin wanted was not that. He wanted them to arrive at the philosophical presuppositions of Augustine.

As I look at the theology of the ECFs I see great differences to thethe theology of Augustine and Calvin. In fact, it becomes apparent that Augustine's views represented a radical departure from the message which had been transmitted through an unbroken chain of custody from the days of Apostles. The following quotes show that the ECF's views were precise, logical and based upon scripture.

Polycarp (69-155 AD)
Epistle to the Philippians 2
2 Now He that raised Him from the dead will raise us also; if we do His will and walk in His commandments and love the things which He loved, abstaining from all unrighteousness, covetousness, love of money, evil speaking, false witness; not rendering evil for evil or railing for railing or blow for blow or cursing for cursing; 3 but remembering the words which the Lord spake, as He taught; Judge not that ye be not judged. Forgive, and it shall be forgiven to you. Have mercy that ye may receive mercy.

Clement of Rome (AD 30-100)
"On account of his hospitality and godliness, Lot was saved out of Sodom when all the country round was punished by means of fire and brimstone, the Lord thus making it manifest that He does not forsake those that hope in Him, but gives up such as depart from Him to punishment and torture.

Ignatius (AD 30-107)
"Seeing, then, all things have an end, and there is set before us life upon our observance [of God’s precepts], but death as the result of disobedience, and every one, according to the choice he makes, shall go to his own place, let us flee from death, and make choice of life.

Epistle of Barnabas (AD 100)
"The Lord will judge the world without respect of persons. Each will receive as he has done: if he is righteous, his righteousness will precede him; if he is wicked, the reward of wickedness is before him. Take heed, lest resting at our ease, as those who are the called [of God], we should fall asleep in our sins, and the wicked prince, acquiring power over us, should thrust us away from the kingdom of the Lord.

Justin Martyr (AD 110-165)
"But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate.

Irenaeus (AD 120-202)
"This expression [of our Lord], “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,” set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves.

This is a very small sample of what was the unanimous teaching of early orthodox Christianity before Augustine. I will venture to say that these do not represent reformed doctrine.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I avoid quote mining the ECF as it leads to the anachronistic interpretative views you tout. As I said previously, required reading:

http://www.christianbook.com/scripture-ground-pillar-faith-vols-1/william-webster/pd/4678?event=CFN

Do this and you will avoid the error of reading modern views into ancient texts and the infelicitous raising of the genetic fallacy in your "Augustine!" canard.

AMR

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I avoid quote mining the ECF as it leads to the anachronistic interpretative views you tout. As I said previously, required reading:

http://www.christianbook.com/scripture-ground-pillar-faith-vols-1/william-webster/pd/4678?event=CFN

Do this and you will avoid the error of reading modern views into ancient texts and the infelicitous raising of the genetic fallacy in your "Augustine!" canard.

AMR

:thumb:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

You are not alone.

The reason you don't fit in is, you only believe in Matthew,
Mark, and Luke and reject the rest of the Bible.

 

[Dialogos]

The reason you don't fit in is, you only believe in Matthew,
Mark, and Luke and reject the rest of the Bible.

That's a problem to be sure.

 

[Poly]

In that I take scripture for what it says...

How about these scriptures. Do you believe them?

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life."

John 10:9 "I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved..."

Acts 2:21 "And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be saved."

Romans 10:13 "...whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

1 Timothy 2:4 "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of our savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

 

[Dialogos]

How about these scriptures. Do you believe them?

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life."

Yes, does "world" in that passage have to mean, every single person in the world who has ever lived or ever will live, without exception? Or can it mean, which it often does, the world in general without distinction?

What do you make of the fact that the word translated "so" is really best translated (in this way).

John 3:16 tells us that the way God loved the world was to send the Son.

John 10:9 "I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved..."

No challenge to Calvinism whatsoever, I am find with the notion that every single person who enters by Jesus will be saved.

Acts 2:21 "And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be saved."

Romans 10:13 "...whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

Again, no problems here. Every single person who calls on the Name of the Lord will be saved. Every Calvinists believes this.

1 Timothy 2:4 "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of our savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

Context helps this verse a ton.

Paul is instructing Timothy to pray for all people. So is Paul telling Timothy that he must pray for every single person on the planet, without exception?
:dizzy:

What a project that would be.

No, Paul qualifies his statements.

"(1 Timothy 2:1-4 ESV) First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."​

Paul wants Timothy to pray for kings and all who are in high positions because Gods wants all kinds of people, kings and those in high positions, slaves and those in low positions alike, to be saved.

If we rip verses from their context we can make them say whatever we want. If we read them in context their meaning is often clarified rather easily.

 

[dreadknought]

I'm not sure you read the quote!

If Satan asked permission then according to John Calvin, he did so because God predestined that he would ask permission and God, according to John Calvin, does not merely allow anything, He commands it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Easy to apply Scripture for redeeming men via predestination/election to the heavenly realm when it serves a purpose other than God's.

"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."