From Al Kimel’s combox:
***QUOTE***
14. A Wandering Thomist Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 11:46 am
The point made that Calvinists find Calvinism in the Bible because they read the Bible through the lens of Calvinist confessional documents is spot on. Every Reformed Christian I have talked to does this — the confessional documents stand as the filter they use when reading scripture or the fathers. Everything that doesn’t fit that filter is discarded, either overtly (if a church father is involved) or indirectly (if it is a scripture passage). Context in the text is not looked at — what is critical is finding proof-texts and isolated verses that can be fit into the confessional statement (Westminster, Dort, etc.).
This makes it incredibly difficult to have a productive conversation with Calvinists — unless one can break through the programming. I haven’t been able to do that yet!
***END-QUOTE***
There are several glaring problems with this statement:
1.I don’t doubt that this allegation is true for a certain percentage of Calvinists—especially the cradle Calvinist.
2.And it’s equally true for every other theological tradition.
For example, since the time, say, of the Photian schism, how many Popes have been converts to Catholicism?
Haven’t they all been cradle Catholics?
So, yes, there’s such a thing as Reformed programming, as well as Catholic programming, Orthodox programming, Mormon programming, &c., &c.
An objection likes this proves everything and nothing. The Wandering Thomist is staking out the position that “Everyone is subjective but me!”
But he’s just as susceptible to peer pressure and social conditioning as the rest of us. And so are the members of his particular communion.
3.And it’s hardly applicable to those who’ve converted to Calvinism from another theological tradition.
4.It’s also a very ironic criticism. After all, isn’t a Catholic supposed to read the Bible through the lens of Catholic confessional documents?
5.Finally, the Wandering Thomist” should try to work through, say, Carson’s commentary on John or Schreiner’s commentary on Romans to see if a trained exegete who is also a Calvinist conforms to his caricature.
***QUOTE***
16. Perry Robinson Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Hays is intelligent but uninformed when it comes to Orthodox theology. This is made manifest by his inability to mount anything that looks like an internal critique.
***END-QUOTE***
Åssuming that that this is true, why does Perry accuse his opponents of being uniformed instead of informing them?
Why doesn’t Perry take the opportunity to make his case for Orthodoxy?
***QUOTE***
In any case, Hays is practically a self confessed Nestorian, glossing personhood as an “instance of a nature” and therefore stands condemned under the Confessional standards of the Reformation traditions. He should take care of his own lumber yard first.
***END-QUOTE***
Several more problems:
1.Perry’s standing tactic is proof by labeling.
Instead of attempting to mount a serious argument, he merely attempts to classify his opponent according to some traditional heresy, whether or not it fits.
2.What personhood are we talking about? Divine personhood or human personhood?
A divine person is not an instance of a nature. As I’ve explained many times before, the exemplar/exemplum relation is a Creator/creature relation. It is not internal to the Godhead.
God himself does not exemplify a nature. A divine person is not a property instance of the divine nature. Nature is not prior to person in the Godhead—or vice versa.
3.Assuming, for the sake of argument, that I stand condemned by the Reformed confessions, so what?
Is Perry insinuating that I’m not a true Calvinist? Again, so what?
I’m a Biblicist first, and a Calvinist second. My lumberyard is Scripture.
I call myself a Calvinist because I think that’s what I am, and because almost everyone who reads Triablogue has no difficulty arriving at the same designation.
It’s useful for people who know where you’re coming from. I play with an open deck.
But it’s not as if I first select the label of choice, then conform myself to the label. I’m not attempting to fill out every nook and cranny of the Reformed tradition. To bend to every preexisting contour of the Reformed tradition. Maybe I do, and maybe I don’t.
4.You see, Perry is an Orthodox chauvinist, but I’m not a Reformed chauvinist.
For Perry, salvation is a matter of what lapel pin you wear, what jersey you don, what fraternity you belong to. He who dies with the right brand-name wins. He's a partisan first, last, and always.
5.Kimel and Wandering Thomist think my problem is that I’m too blinkered by my sectarian confessional standards.
But Perry thinks I stand condemned by my sectarian confessional standards.
So I’m both too confessional and too contra-confessional. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
grano1 said, "First of all, I aligned myself with Todd only in the sense that I found his questions non-frivolous. I did not know his history with the blog and was considering the particular questions on that post only."
ReplyDeleteTodd is one of our village militant atheists whom some of us prefer to ignore.
grano1 said, "I still would like to hear from Steve -- does God love Todd? Does He want him to repent and be saved?"
Since Steve and we Calvinists are not God, we must give a united answer: *we don't know*. As Spurgeon said, "If God placed yellow stripes on the backs of the elect, I'd be running around lifting up coat-tails." [The quote is not exact, but accurate enough.] The point is, we don't know who the elect are.
grano1 said, "Above, Shining... says God hates unrepentant sinners who remain in their sins."
Read Psalm 5:5.
grano1 said, "Isn't God's love toward the unbeliever what prompts Him to save him?"
Yes, all the elect were once sinners and enemies of God. The ELECT were loved from eternity past with an everlasting love (Ephesians 1:4-5).
grano1 said, ""For God so loved the world..." right?"
The word 'world', in 1st centuy Jewish culture (which was the context in which Jesus spoke), referred to every "tribe, tongue, and nation" (Rev. 5:9). That is, it referred to men *from* every race and nation, not necessarily every human being (John 11:52).
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/limited_atonement_1.htm
grano1,
ReplyDeleteYou actually ask several questions there, not just one :-)
In any case, I agree pretty much with what Shining said. As how I would reply:
"does God love Todd?"
Enough that He hasn't cast Todd into Hell already.
"Does He want him to repent and be saved?"
First, that's speculative. we don't know the mind of God.
Secondly, it depends on how you define "want." God does not need Todd to repent, so in that sense He is not wanting anything. But I doubt you're asking it in that sense (although I would argue if you're going from the typical Arminian standpoint, it ultimately boils down to the same thing).
"What if he is predestined to repent tomorrow and be saved? Does that mean God didn't love him today?"
God isn't bound by time.
"Isn't God's love toward the unbeliever what prompts Him to save him?"
Again, it depends on what you mean by this. Based on what I assume you mean, I'd say no. But since I am only assuming what you mean, I can't say for sure.
God's love for Himself is what prompts all His actions. God doesn't find anything in US to love. He loves us solely for His own reasons, based on His own character and self.
God's love for us in unconditional in regards to us, but it remains conditional in regards to God. God does not HAVE to love anyone, so He is perfectly free to love some more than others. Whom God decides to love is whom He decides to love; there is nothing in the person that determines it either way. Thus, God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and He will harden whom He will harden.
"'Christ died for us while we were yet sinners,' right?"
Yes, but the "us" is the Elect, not everyone.
"'For God so loved the world...' right?"
God also hated Esau.
"But if I follow this logic it implies that God hates what we would consider his 'enemies.'"
God hates whom HE considers His enemies.
"Yet Christ commands us to love OUR enemies. Isn't God expecting us to do something he himself won't do?"
No, because the enemies of God are not to God as our enemies are to us.
We are all sinners. Our enemies are not offending people who are perfectly righteous. They are offending people who are likewise enemies of God save for the grace of God.
Thus, when God tells us to love our enemies it's because we come from the same stock; we have no justification for hating our enemies because we, too, are enemies.
God, on the other hand, can hate His enemies justly.
"Didn't Christ die for us while we were at enmity with him?"
Indeed. And this why He can tell us not to hate our enemies--He may have died for them too, and we were once one of them. We don't know the secret things of God.
"Does God love Todd and want him to be saved?"
Right now, only God knows.
>The point made that Calvinists find Calvinism in the Bible because they read the Bible through the lens of Calvinist confessional documents is spot on.
ReplyDeleteThis statement is exactly the same thing the dumbest liberals do when confronted by a smart conservative. They say: "You're just repeating everything you hear on [Fox, Rush, fill in the blank]." It really is the last refuge of the confused and cornered.
The point made that Calvinists find Calvinism in the Bible because they read the Bible through the lens of Calvinist confessional documents is spot on.
ReplyDeleteThis statement is exactly the same thing the dumbest liberals do when confronted by a smart conservative. They say: "You're just repeating everything you hear on [Fox, Rush, fill in the blank]." It really is the last refuge of the confused and cornered.
Exactly, and notice that we've all not so indirectly stated to these persons that if this was really the case they should be able to show it to be the case by demonstrating it from the exegesis of the Scriptures the response has been severely lacking. If you want to object to Calvinism, then dispute it from the Scriptures. Calvinism claims its greatest strength lies in the exegesis of the appropriate Scriptures. If it's just the product of our confessional lens superimposed upon the Bible, then shouldn't it be a simple matter to refute it from the Bible? Instead, we get nothing more that posturing and avoidance of any attempt whatsoever to do this.
In fact, Perry Robinson stated: Hays is intelligent but uninformed when it comes to Orthodox theology. This is made manifest by his inability to mount anything that looks like an internal critique.
Uh-huh, but where, pray tell, is the exegetical defense for Orthodoxy? Where, pray tell is his exegetical repudiation of Calvinism? Once again, the best internal critique of Calvinism would come from the counterexegesis of Scripture. Perhaps the problem isn't Steve's intelligence but Perry Robinson's exegetical reluctance at best or incompetence at worst that necessitates his incessant hiding behind his philsophical shield. That, I surmise, is why he likes to pound the gavel and label his opponents as heretics. It's a convenient way for him to avoid engaging the exegesis of Scripture with his opponents. He can't, for whatever reason, hope to gain any ground in that arena, so he tries to redefine the issues to suit him while the challenge to engage the Scriptures themselves is cloaked in the smoke he generates.
GeneMBridges said... "If you want to object to Calvinism, then dispute it from the Scriptures. Calvinism claims its greatest strength lies in the exegesis of the appropriate Scriptures."
ReplyDeleteDoesn't this just beg the question what are the appropriate Scriptures? One of the many fatal flaws with the sola scriptura approach is that the individual exegete may start with the wrong verse, and as error begets error wind up with a totally unbiblical doctrine. That is the problem with groups like the Jehovah Witness, who take verses that speak of Christ's humanity as primary over the ones that speak of his Divinity. I think it is the same thing with double predestination. The strict Calvinist starts with verses that speak of predestination, then the cram everything else into what they take those verses to mean. To wit, God doesn’t love the world in the sense that he loves each individual. No what that means is He loved people from every tongue, tribe on the earth, not his “enemies”. That is why you need Tradition, so you can be on more sure footing as to what the ‘primary,’ verses are, so that you can arrive at the proper interpretation of the more difficult ones. As Grano1 said, the Calvinist starts with the most obscure ones first, but those aren’t the ones that the early Church saw as primary.
grano1 said, "But I never thought meant that we use the more obscure texts to enlighten the plainer ones. So we have to use St. Paul, whom even St. Peter says is sometimes difficult to understand, to interpret the words of Christ, who (only apparently) spoke more plainly and directly."
ReplyDeleteNo, it's the fact that you are looking at Scripture through the lense of Eastern Orthodox tradition that makes these passages obscure. Granted, there are several passages in Paul which are hard to understand, but these clearly are not. If one would read them like they would read a newspaper or a book, the meaning becomes obvious. It is only the fact that the obvious meaning of them runs against the Eastern Orthodox tradition that you declare them to be "obscure".
grano1 said, "Furthermore, you are using an understanding of St. Paul that is a complete novelty in theological history..."
Shall we start talking about the veneration of images, the infallibility of plenary councils, the perspicuity of Scripture, etc.? The vast majority of the church fathers would side against you on those topics.
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/rejection_images_icons_1.htm
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/perspicuity_church_fathers_1.htm
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/councils_early_church.htm
Also, the fact that many of the church fathers would not believe in (what would later be called) Calvinism doesn't surprise me since they were so heavily influenced by pagan Greek philosophy:
“The earlier patristic period represents the age of the exploration of concepts, when the proclamation of the gospel within a pagan culture was accompanied by an exploitation of both Hellenistic culture and pagan philosophy as vehicles for theological advancement…Indeed, by the end of the fourth century, the Greek fathers had formulated a teaching on human free will based upon philosophical rather than biblical foundations. Standing in the great Platonic tradition, heavily influenced by Philo, and reacting against the fatalisms of their day, they taught that man was utterly free in his choice of good or evil…It is quite possible that the curious and disturbing tendency of the early fathers to minimize original sin and emphasize the freedom of fallen man is a consequence of their anti-Gnostic polemic…Justin’s anti-fatalist arguments can be adduced from practically any of the traditional pagan refutations of astral fatalisms, going back to the second century B.C.”
–Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 2nd edition (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, reprinted 1998), pp.17, 19, 20.
grano1 said, "So in effect, Luther claimed to be the first person ever to really understand St. Paul."
Actually, there are several passages in the Apostolic Fathers that clearly teach that the permanent imputation of righteousness is received by faith apart from all works.
grano1 said, "This one's a bit dodgy and you can never quite be sure if he gives a damn about you or not."
Actually, He's quite sure what His plan is for Todd; He just hasn't revealed it.
I wonder how grano1 deals with the plain language of Proverbs 16:4?
Grano1 said "Sorry, don't have a Bible handy (I'm not at home) so can't look up the Proverbs reference. I'll do so later."
ReplyDeleteProverbs 16:4 "The Lord hath made all things for himself: the wicked also for the evil day."
To quote the Hydock commentary on this passage "Day. His obduracy is his own choice, and must serve to set the divine justice in the clearest light."
I don't see in this passage double predestination, nor do I see in it a repudiation of man's free-will. But it is an example of forcing an interpretation onto the text, which I already noted is a big problem with Sola Scriptura.
Bob said:
ReplyDelete---
But it is an example of forcing an interpretation onto the text, which I already noted is a big problem with Sola Scriptura.
---
Um...wouldn't that be the opposite of Sola Scriptura? You know, forcing stuff that isn't in there into it isn't exactly using Scripture ALONE.
But that aside, would you care to demonstrate how your view of free-will is compatible with the fact that God has made the wicked for the day of judgement? I mean, anyone can say, "I don't see it in there" but it's a lot more difficult to actually, you know, like sit down and exegete the passage an' stuff.
I'm pretty sure that Sola Scripture requires you to actually look at Scripture rather than NOT look at it....
grano1 said, "Why didn't Chrysostom or Basil or John Damascene or any of the Gregories think of that! Gosh, what a lot of confusion we'd have avoided!"
ReplyDeleteBecause no large controversy occured in the East on this issue, no systematic theology was ever developed or even looked closely at. It took the Pelagian heresy in the West to bring this issue up and cause the orthodox theologians to systematize this doctrine (which is what Augustine did).
Second of all, if you read Chrysostom's sermon that covered Romans 8:7-8, you can clearly see him struggle to get around the text.
Third, you have people, like Justin Martyr, who derived his doctrine of free-will (and I believe he was the first of the Eastern fathers to use that term) from Philo. In his treatise on free-will, Justin only quotes once from the Scriptures and the rest of his work are arguments derived from Philo and other Platonists.
Fourth, many of the church fathers up until the Pelagian controversy did not believe in Original Sin. For example, Chrysostom, in one of his sermons, stated that children were born free from any taint of sin. In fact, (I believe) Coelestius even cited Chrysostom to reinforce his Pelagian teaching.
grano1 said, "All except Augustine of course, who was formerly a Manichee and a Neo-Platonist...."
I never denied that. However, Calvinists believe in the 5-points because they are Scriptural, not because some big church father believed in them.
grano1 said, "Of course GOD knows what HIS plan is for Todd. That's not the point.
Todd can't know what God's plan is for him."
If he repents as he is commanded to do, then God's plan will have been revealed. One doesn't have to know the secret will of God in order to follow God's commands which the entire human race is obligated to.
bob g said, "I don't see in this passage double predestination, nor do I see in it a repudiation of man's free-will."
First, no one denied that man has a will and that he (man) makes choices freely. Second, this is not a passage on the will or decisions of man. The passage is about how God has willed the existence of evil men in order to bring about a desired result. These evil men freely choose to do their evil deeds, but in God's secret will, he had the intention of using their evil deeds for his own purpose. The Scriptures clearly present the mystery of Divine Foreordination. Also see Genesis 50:20. I don't think it could be more clear.
bob g said, "That is why you need Tradition, so you can be on more sure footing as to what the ‘primary,’ verses are, so that you can arrive at the proper interpretation of the more difficult ones."
The problem with this is that it results either in an infinite regression of required infallible authorities or circular reasoning. Which 'Tradition' do you start with? I can name several things off the top of my head in which the vast majority of the church fathers would disagree with the Roman or Eastern churches on.
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/infallibility_argument.htm
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/perspicuity_private_judgment.htm
This simple
Oops. The fragment in my last comment: "This simple" shouldn't be there.
ReplyDeleteCalvinDude said:
ReplyDelete"Um...wouldn't that be the opposite of Sola Scriptura? You know, forcing stuff that isn't in there into it isn't exactly using Scripture ALONE."
Unfortunately SOLA SCRIPTURA (SS) doesn’t work because the inspired word of God is a text, and a text can be misinterpreted. So what happens in the “real world” is good meaning folks, like yourself, force their preconceived notion onto a text, but are unable to see it because to them it is clear (like reading a newspaper). This is not the biggest problem with SS, however, the biggest problem with SS is that the Scriptures don’t teach SS!
"But that aside, would you care to demonstrate how your view of free-will is compatible with the fact that God has made the wicked for the day of judgement? I mean, anyone can say, "I don't see it in there" but it's a lot more difficult to actually, you know, like sit down and exegete the passage an' stuff."
I have already done so in my previous post - " His obduracy is his own choice, and must serve to set the divine justice in the clearest light." That is to say the wicket are those you don't respond to the Grace that God gives them, thus He is just in serving sentence. God could not be called just if he did not give the wicket the grace the need to repent.
ops... I meant WICKED not wicket.. .there is no assurance of faith that God even plays cricket.
ReplyDeletegrano1 said, "Ok then, let me get this straight. We get the Calvinistic hermeneutical method from Scripture. Then we turn it around and use it to interpret Scripture, which is the source from which we got it. Isn't that er....circular?"
ReplyDeleteNo. We use the *vast* number of explicit texts to interpret the obscure ones (and, if one takes into account the context of the passages, there are very, very few obscure texts). Most objections to Calvinism and non-Calvinistic interpretations of Scripture stem from an *emotional* rejection of Calvinism, not a rational one.
"Face it, Scripture nowhere explicitly teaches sola scriptura. Therefore it can't be a sola scriptura doctrine."
On my website (and no, I don't expect you to go there), I've stated as my chief argument for sola Scriptura that it's true because there aren't any other infallible authorities.
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/sola_scriptura.htm
grano1 said, "And if Scripture did explicitly teach it, it would be an example of vicious circularity and thus invalid."
No, it wouldn't *viciously* circular. First, the Bible is not one book but a collection of dozens of books that can give witness to each other.
Second, such an argument fails when asked to prove the laws of logic. Someone has to use the laws of logic in order to prove the laws of logic. It's circular, but not viciously circular.
Lastly, are you saying that it is impossible for God to give His revelation in a clear manner, without the need of an allegedly infallible interpreter?!
grano1 said, "Now as a former Protestant, I know that there are arguments for it, it can be deduced, etc. I just don't happen to think that the arguments hold water. Used to -- don't anymore."
I've heard just about every argument against it and I'm still convinced of it.
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/infallibility_argument.htm
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/doctrinal_chaos.htm
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/perspicuity_private_judgment.htm
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/other_against_scriptura.htm
grano1 said, "But what if it's an example of 'false repentance,' like Calvin said? What if he repents and thinks he's one of the elect but really isn't? What if God gives him grace then takes it away? What if YOU believe you're one of the elect and you really aren't?"
That is why Scripture gives tests to see if we are in the faith (1 John 1:6, 10, 2:3-6, 9-11, etc.).
grano1 said, "What if God gives him grace then takes it away?"
Calvinists don't hold to Augustine's doctrine of perseverance. We don't believe that God will bring anyone to true repentance without bringing them safely to the end (1 Cor. 1:4-9, Philippians 1:3-6, 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24, 2 Timothy 4:18, 1 Peter 1:3-5, etc.).
grano1 said, "Read James Hogg's classic "Confessions of a Justified Sinner" to see where this type of thinking can lead."
The belief that one can lose their salvation has lead many to live their lives in terror and dread. It is the misuse and ignorance of the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints that lead people to believe weird things.
"but which should be manifest in a theology which as one of its doctrines holds to 'eternal security.'"
I don't hold to the common non-Calvinistic Baptist version of eternal security (aka "easy believism"). I hold to the Calvinistic version called "The Perseverance of the Saints". They are different.
bob g said, "God could not be called just if he did not give the wicket the grace the need to repent."
ReplyDeleteSays who? You? This statement is personal, subjective, and emotive. Nowhere is it stated in Scripture. The only thing that the Scriptures say that mankind *deserves* is eternal conscious punishment for our evil nature.
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/total_depravity.htm
Your statement sounds a lot like what Job said before he got the whilrwind treatment (Job 38:1-42:17). :)
Saint and Sinner said
ReplyDelete"Says who? You? This statement is personal, subjective, and emotive. Nowhere is it stated in Scripture."
Romans 1:18-23 addresses the issue of if God gave them (the wicked) the light they needed to repent. According to St. Paul He did (and does), as a result that have no excuse (v 20), which is pretty much what I have been saying. By their own choice the damned are condemned, not because God has choosen them for damnation.
Of course, this may not be a 'primary,' text for the Calvinist so rather than reading it for what it is worth (and other scriptures like it) they force their understanding on the passage.
This is what people mean when they speak of the lens through which we interpret Scripture, and why the bible alone is untenable.
bob g said, "Romans 1:18-23 addresses the issue of if God gave them (the wicked) the light they needed to repent."
ReplyDeleteNo, that's not what Romans says. It says that the existence and attributes of God are evident from creation which leaves them "without excuse" (v.20). That much is true. However, it also says that they "suppress the truth in unrighteousness", "their foolish heart was darkened", and they were "without understanding". While they have been given enough truth to be held accountable, that does not mean that they have the power to choose repentance. Yes, they freely choose to make the decisions they make, but because they are evil by their fallen nature, they will always freely choose evil and hatred of God. As Paul says later:
"…because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."
-Romans 8:7-8
"By their own choice the damned are condemned, not because God has choosen them for damnation."
Yes, they have chosen their own fate, but that end was foreordained by God from eternity past (Romans 9:21-23). It is a glorious mystery of the faith which I cannot fathom, and with Job, I must "lay my hand on my mouth" and by silent before the incomprehensibility of God's plan (Job 40:5, 42:1-6).
"This is what people mean when they speak of the lens through which we interpret Scripture, and why the bible alone is untenable."
No, it is you, bob, who are making the lens opaque when it needn't be. Is reading the newspaper every morning by yourself without an 'infallible' interpreter "untenable"? It is because you are forcing an interpretation on the text due to your 'Tradition' and comparing your interpretation with mine that you can then declare the Scriptures to be unclear do to our disagreements. That's called circular reasoning.
Oops. The 2nd to last sentence of my last comment should say, "...due to our disagreements."
ReplyDeleteSaint and Sinner said
ReplyDeletebob g said, "Romans 1:18-23 addresses the issue of if God gave them (the wicked) the light they needed to repent."
No, that's not what Romans says. It says that the existence and attributes of God are evident from creation which leaves them "without excuse" (v.20). That much is true. However, it also says that they "suppress the truth in unrighteousness", "their foolish heart was darkened", and they were "without understanding". While they have been given enough truth to be held accountable, that does not mean that they have the power to choose repentance. Yes, they freely choose to make the decisions they make, but because they are evil by their fallen nature, they will always freely choose evil and hatred of God. As Paul says later:
My Comment:
The beginning of the verse that you quoted (v 21) reads “Because that, when they knew God, they did not glorify him as God, nor give thanks: but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened.” Notice why their follow heart was darkened, because they (not God) did not glorify God, nor give thanks whenever they could have, or else it could not be said that they became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. In other words at one point that had sufficient grace to repent, but they did not follow through with it.
Saint and Sinner said:
"…because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."
-Romans 8:7-8
My Comment:
Yes, the mind set on flesh, which we have seen as a result of turning from God.
Saint and Sinner said:
Yes, they have chosen their own fate, but that end was foreordained by God from eternity past (Romans 9:21-23). It is a glorious mystery of the faith which I cannot fathom, and with Job, I must "lay my hand on my mouth" and by silent before the incomprehensibility of God's plan (Job 40:5, 42:1-6).
My Comment:
Yes, it is a mystery, and the secret things belong to God. Yet, we do know from Scripture that God wills that all men be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4).
grano1 said, "Indeed I am! But not because of a lack in God's ability to communicate, but because of our limited understanding and our sinfulness. God loves us and gave the Church his written revelation. He also gave the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth."
ReplyDeleteThen, how could the 'Church' be any more clear than Scripture? [Don't get me wrong. I do believe that God set up the Church community and speaks through it with each generation. However, I deny that it's infallible (Matt. 22:23-29).] If God could not make the infallible Scriptures clear enough so that a man indwelt with the Holy Spirit could read it and glean from it all that is necessary to believe in order to be saved and live the Christian life, then what makes you think that a group of fallible men indwelt with the Holy Spirit are any better?
Also, as I asked bob g, do you need an infallible interpreter to read your daily newspaper? The only difference between the Scriptures and a newspaper is that one would need to glean a little knowledge of the history and literature of inter-testamental Judaism so that you could put certain idioms of Scripture (NT) in context. [For the Old Testament, you'd need a little knowledge of the history and language of OT Judaism.]
grano1 said, "Very early on in church history the Fathers understood that heretics could use the Scriptures too, and twist them to make them fit their own doctrines...they relied on the interpretations passed down from the Apostles (the 'tradition', the 'rule of faith,' the 'mind of the Church') to "judge" their exegesis because they knew that exegesis varies widely from exegete to exegete."
As I noted in a comment on another post:
"Fathers such as Irenaeus only appealed to tradition because the Gnostics were distorting the Scriptures so badly that he could not reason with them on the basis of it (i.e. they interpreted John 1:14 to mean that Jesus did not come in the flesh!). People who distort the Scriptures that badly cannot be taken as proof that Scripture is unclear."
I have also noted that the vast majority of the church fathers believed that the Scriptures were clear enough for the ordinary person to be saved and live the Christian life. I have a number of quotations on my website:
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/perspicuity_church_fathers_1.htm
I also have an article on 'tradition' in the early church:
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/tradition_early_church_1.htm
grano1 said, "If you can take off your Calvinist/Protestant lens off long enough to read the Church Fathers for what they actually said and how they actually did theology this becomes very plain."
Then, you had to use your 'private judgment' in order to choose Eastern Orthodoxy. You had to privately interpret the church fathers, and it was "plain". Secondly, as I pointed out in a comment above, there are several issues which the church fathers are against the Eastern Orthodox tradition.
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/rejection_images_icons_1.htm
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/councils_early_church.htm
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/filioque.htm
Lastly, I have read some of the works of the church fathers and historians who summarize the works and beliefs of them, and I have come to the opposite conclusion. Though the fathers cherished their liturgy and the works of the fathers before them, they most certainly believed that the Scriptures were the only infallible rule of faith for the Church.
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/scripture_early_church.htm
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/material_church_fathers.htm
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/perspicuity_church_fathers_1.htm
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/formal_church_fathers.htm
bob g said, "Notice why their follow heart was darkened, because they (not God) did not glorify God, nor give thanks whenever they could have, or else it could not be said that they became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened."
ReplyDeleteThis is a canard, bob. Calvinism never denies that man has a will and makes choices freely. It does say, however, that after the fall of man into sin, man's nature became evil, and because of that, man will always only choose evil freely. It's like when you put a bowl of lettuce and a bowl of red meat before a dog. The dog will always freely choose the red meat because it is his *nature*. In the same way, the unregenerate man will always choose evil over good because it is his nature (that is, unless God intervenes with His common grace).
bob g said, "In other words at one point that had sufficient grace to repent, but they did not follow through with it."
It never says that they had sufficient grace. It is merely talking about the history of mankind in general. We went from a sinless Adam to a sinful Adam to the murder of Abel to the beginnings of paganism to all the other evils that flow from false religion.
bob g said, "Yes, the mind set on flesh, which we have seen as a result of turning from God."
The passage being discussed (Romans 8:7-8) says that man "does not subject itself to the law of God, *for it is not even able to do so*..." (emphasis mine). This passage clearly states that man is *incapable* of repentance on his own willpower.
bob g said, "Yet, we do know from Scripture that God wills that all men be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4)."
Steve Hays has noted on this blog a couple of times (and cited them) that there are several non-Calvinist commentators who admit that this passage does not speak of a universal salvific will. In its context (starting in verse 1), Paul is speaking about all kinds of men ("for kings and all who are in authority..."). Paul wants Christians to pray, not just for the common everyday people with whom they witness to, but also the governors and the emporer (i.e. Nero) who are persecuting them. For, God desires the salvation of men from all classes and ranks of society.
I have a defense of Particular Redemption at my website:
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/limited_atonement_1.htm
grano1 said, "It wasn't private in the sense that it was invidualistic and without regard to the claims of authorities outside myself."
ReplyDeleteYet there are many authorities making contradictory claims outside of ourselves. How does one know to choose Rome over Constantinople? Ethiopic over Coptic over Armenian (please forgive my ignorance of Orthodox sects if those are essentially the same)? Christianity or Mormonism?
grano1 said, "Again this is true, but you're missing the assumption that the reading would be done in the context of the Church, and not "alone.""
I never said that it would be done alone. As I said in a comment above, Christ did create the church community with teaching as one of its purposes. Furthermore, (as I also said in a post above), I condemn the Christian "go-it alone"ers (a.k.a. "you and your Bible alone in the forest" analogy). However, I deny that the Church is *infallible*.
grano1 said, "Luther realized this near his death, when he talked about the milkmaid thinking she's a theologian. Give ten New Testaments to ten people and put them on ten islands and tell them to come up with a philosophy or point of view based on their reading. I can almost guarantee that they won't all come up with the same thing. Hence the need for a guide."
They may come up with wacky theologies, but they'll be able to come to a saving knowledge of the truth and start on the path of a godly (though perhaps a bit misguided) life. I remember reading a church father (it may have been Augustine) who reported that several have become Christians just by reading the Scriptures without the need of help. [Again, I'm not advocating the "anti-Church", "go-it-alone"ism. I'm just saying that Scripture is perspicuous enough a) to be saved without an interpreter (though that is not preferred) and b) to glean theological knowledge without the need of an *infallible* interpreter.]
Luther may have said that later in his life, but I'll bet he never took back what he said earlier: When asked by the head of his monastery, "What would happen if the Bible was in the hands of the ordinary people?", he replied, "Well, then we might have more Christians, father!"
grano1 said, "We also have hundreds of Protestant denominations that can't even agree with each other on what the basics are, let along agree on the basics!"
ReplyDeleteI have dealt with this argument here:
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/doctrinal_chaos.htm
Second, I dispute that the Protestant denominations don't have the 'basics' down. The Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the full inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, justification by faith apart from works righteousness, the bodily Resurrection of Christ, the bodily resurrection of the dead etc. are the standard of orthodoxy. Beyond this, there may be major doctrinal disputes (i.e. Calvinism, etc.), but they don't decide whether one is 'in the pale of orthodoxy'.
grano1 said, "Who decides the list? Why this partucular list? If some things are within the pale and some without, who decides where the pale lies?"
ReplyDeleteThe clear teachings of the Torah, the Writings, the Prophets, the Apostles, and the evangelists. Passages like John 8:24, Galatians 1:6-9, and 1 John 2:22-23 set standards.
However, I am a Protestant. I do not draw the line of orthodoxy at mere intellectual assent. It is possible that a Modalist could be saved (an ignorant Modalist), but no one who has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit will deny the Trinity after they have been shown clear proof of it from the Holy Scriptures. Intellectual assent to the truth flows from the Holy Spirit.
grano1 said, "What about baptism or the Eucharist?"
They were for Martin Luther, but they weren't for Zwingli and the Reformed. They were content (as am I) with those things listed in Scripture (the above mentioned Scriptures). There is a certain 'mere Christianity' that is the standard (though I would add the standard Paul has in Galatians 1:6-9 to C.S. Lewis' list). Back in the early church, there were things that Christians agreed to disagree on (i.e. when to celebrate Easter, the way baptism was done, etc.).
I don't believe that it was God's intention to exclude some from orthodoxy just because they make the sign of the cross with two fingers when it should be three. [We discussed this issue about the Russian Orthodox Church on this blog a few months back.]
grano1 said, "Keep doing this with all the major doctrines. You'll be surprised with how many variations you come up with, not all of them "orthodox," and a great many of them having irreconcilable differences."
Yes, many do have irreconcilable differences. Calvinism is certainly irreconcilable with Arminianism and especially one of its forms, Molinism. However, that's not where I draw the line. The line is that 'mere Christianity'.
grano1 said, "I'll simply say that any Church that is willing to fight over how one makes the Sign of the Cross isn't going to dump the Virgin Birth or the Deity of Christ anytime soon!"
ReplyDeleteAnd any Church that does so is immediately placed outside the bounds of orthodoxy.
grano1 said, "You will expect me to demonstrate mine from exegesis alone, but since exegesis alone is not where mine derives from, any demonstation thereof will necessarily be unconvincing."
OK. Then, can you provide a reason why I should believe your Church's 'Tradition' above the grammatico-historical method of exegesis?
The church fathers may have kept the faith and made great exegetical points on some topics, but they also said a lot of stupid things about Scriptural passages that even the most ardent (conservative) Roman Catholic or Orthodox would have to say is obviously wrong.
Also, as I have noted in the past, there are several topics such as the veneration of images, the single procession of the Holy Spirit, the infallibility of plenary councils, the mode of confession and penance, and the perspicuity and formal sufficiency of Scripture with which many (if not most) of the church fathers would disagree with your Church on.
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/orthodoxy.htm