Many of our Arminian friends make the claim that Calvinism is not found in the Bible, but it instead eisegeted in by the Calvinist. I would humbly ask a question of any Arminian who believes this:
From whence did the belief of Calvinism originate?
That is, suppose for argument that you are correct and that the Bible does not teach Calvinism. Why, then, would anyone who reads Scripture come to a Calvinist understanding of those passages? If Arminianism is true, then why would any man read Scripture and believe Calvinism to be true? What worldly system proffers a view like Calvinism such that a Calvinist believes this false philosophy and imputes it into the text of Scripture? What is that false philosophy? Name it and trace the path between it and the Reformed view. Or barring any actual existent philosophy, name the error of thought that would render a man incapable of reading Arminianism in Scripture and instead coming to the opposite conclusion.
Because the Calvinist can answer this question in reverse. For even Arminians ought to be able to see that if you assume Calvinism is true (for the sake of argument), then we know that man is depraved and wishes to think more importantly of himself than is his due. This will immediately tend to make a person believe he has more power in determining his salvation than he actually does. Hence, if Calvinism is true, Arminians are to be expected.
But how does that work for the Arminian? Even if man is depraved, God supposedly gives grace that makes it possible for all to believe—at least all who hear the Gospel. Why, then, in the presence of this grace, would any man believe Calvinism instead of Arminianism? What are the steps there, Arminian brothers? How does this follow? Have you thought it out at all? Does this not interest you in the least?
The logical answer is that Calvinism is an invention of Satan. This seems especially likely when you consider that the Calvinist god is virtually indistinguishable from the devil—and in fact, being omnipotent, is how the devil would like to be. Calvinism is Satan's ultimate wish-fulfilment fantasy disguised as Christian religion. In that way, it's surely his most insidious and successful attack on God's church in the history of mankind. Again, this is corroborated by the fact that it's a relatively new invention. Only within the last few centuries did Satan finally refine his lies to such an epic level, and only within the last few centuries had the previous groundwork of his minions been laid to achieve success.
ReplyDeleteBonn
ReplyDeleteslicing through the rhetoric, after reading this:
"....Only within the last few centuries did Satan finally refine his lies to such an epic level, and only within the last few centuries had the previous groundwork of his minions been laid to achieve success....".
I was reminded of a true story of a villager on a South Pacific Island who was called to kill a very large snake that had gotten inside his seaside hut.
The old man came quickly enough and sized up the situation, determining that this snake wasn't leaving the house voluntarily.
He then went and got a gun and shot the snake in the head and quickly got out of the hut, closing the door shut. Literally it took about forty minutes for this "dead" hole in the head snake to stop thrashing around inside that hut.
Once it was clear its life was gone out of it, the man came in and sized up the damage. It was a total loss. Everything inside that hut that could be broken was.
One has to wonder what success lies ahead for Satan and his minions or any of God's Elect when thinking through both the question and your answer and this verse of Scripture:::>
Mat 24:22 And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.
I for one find it troubling and sobering to what lengths that are brought to bear on such false philosophy.
One is only brought here by the Grace and Mercy of God:::>
Psa 68:19 Blessed be the Lord, who daily bears us up; God is our salvation. Selah
Psa 68:20 Our God is a God of salvation, and to GOD, the Lord, belong deliverances from death.
Psa 68:21 But God will strike the heads of his enemies, the hairy crown of him who walks in his guilty ways.
Bonn,
ReplyDeleteNice satire. I almost thought you WERE a rank anti-calvinist at first, but your post was just TOO perfect ;). Love it.
In terms of why a person is drawn to Calvinism, you may also ask why a person is drawn to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Both systems have their emotional appeals, which for the Calvinist, is the appeal of Theistic Fatalism.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: “What worldly system proffers a view like Calvinism such that a Calvinist believes this false philosophy and imputes it into the text of Scripture? What is that false philosophy? Name it and trace the path between it and the Reformed view.”
Stoic Fatalism, of which Calvin admits was charged of Augustine.
John Calvin: “Those who want to discredit this doctrine disparage it by comparing it with the Stoic dogma of Fate. The same charge was brought against Augustine. We don’t want to argue about words, but we do not allow the term ‘Fate’, both because it is among those that Paul teaches us to avoid as heathen innovations and also because the obnoxious terms in an attempt to attach stigma to God’s truth.” (The Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Part 4: God’s Providence, Chapter 16, Section 8)
I’m reading a dissertation right now, which discusses the theological influence that Augustine’s former deterministic, Gnostic Manichaeism had on his development of deterministic, Augustinian predestination.
If you are interested in reading it, here is the link:
http://www.dissertation.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581120176
To: Wormwood
ReplyDeleteFrom: Screwtape
Re: Dominic Bnonn Tennant
Comrade,
I've just been informed by the Undersecretary to the Underworld of His Infernal Majesty that we need to neutralize Bnonn. He's leaking far too many state secrets to the "enemy."
We'll arrange from some Omen-style demise, viz., impaled by a church spire struck by lightning.
Richard said:
ReplyDelete"In terms of why a person is drawn to Calvinism, you may also ask why a person is drawn to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Both systems have their emotional appeals, which for the Calvinist, is the appeal of Theistic Fatalism."
I think one would need to expand on this to make the case. What is this supposed emotional appeal of "Theistic Fatalism"? Most converts to Calvinism will tell you that they struggled against this before embracing it as Biblical truth. Until some logical connections are made, the above statement is a completely reversible argument:
"In terms of why a person is drawn to Arminianism, you may also ask why a person is drawn to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Both systems have their emotional appeals, which for the Arminian, is the appeal of Libertarian Free-will."
RICHARD COORDS SAID:
ReplyDelete"In terms of why a person is drawn to Calvinism, you may also ask why a person is drawn to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Both systems have their emotional appeals, which for the Calvinist, is the appeal of Theistic Fatalism."
i) You demonstrate your incompetence by your inability to distinguish between predestination or determinism, on the one hand, and fatalism, on the other. You resort to the word "fatalism" because you want a label with a negative connotation, not because that's an accurate description of Reformed theology.
ii) And, of course, many Arminians find Arminianism emotionally appealing. So your psychoanalysis cuts both ways.
"Stoic Fatalism, of which Calvin admits was charged of Augustine."
And Arminius was accused to being a Catholic spy. If you equate allegations with facts, then that tactic cuts both ways.
Not to mention that you also commit the genetic fallacy. So your performance is pretty shabby all around.
All you've succeeded in demonstrating thus far is that objections to Calvinism are either fallacious or self-defeating.
Richard said:
ReplyDelete---
In terms of why a person is drawn to Calvinism, you may also ask why a person is drawn to the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
---
But I didn't. Not that that question wouldn't be interesting in its own right, but it's quite apparent that people are not drawn to J.W. belief in the same way that they are drawn to Calvinistic belief. For one thing, J.W.s have to use their own alternative version of the Bible whereas Calvinists...use the ESV. Okay, you got us.
Richard said:
---
Both systems have their emotional appeals, which for the Calvinist, is the appeal of Theistic Fatalism.
---
What does "Theistic Fatalism" mean, and why would anyone be drawn to it?
Richard said:
---
Stoic Fatalism, of which Calvin admits was charged of Augustine.
---
It doesn't do well to claim that a position is based on a philosophy specifically refuted by the "originator" of said position. What's next? Are you going to claim that because I've made arguments against Ayn Rand's objectivist position that my view on the objective nature of reality are rooted in her philosophy?
--Both systems have their emotional appeals, which for the Calvinist, is the appeal of Theistic Fatalism.--
ReplyDeleteYou don't seem to understand. Just about every man-made religion detests the theological bent of Calvinism. Not only that, but main-stream Calvinists like R.C. Sproul, Gene Cook Jr., etc. often describe their shift to Calvinism as something with which they had to struggle because they didn't want to believe it.
The question remains unanswerd as to WHY theistic fatalism would be appealing to anyone?
I too would like to know what "emotional appeal" there is for theistic fatalism. I can certainly see and understand the appeal to indeterminism/libertarianism, but I cannot see why anyone would be drawn, from an emotional appeal standpoint, to theistic fatalism.
ReplyDeleteAlso, didn't the later Stoics (Chrysippus, Philopator, etc.) promulgate theories of compatibilism against the earlier theories of fatalism? I still need to read Bobzien's and Salles' work on the subject (the books are rather expensive) but I do recall seeing something along those lines.
Since the question is, "Whence came Calvinism?", it's pretty hard to avoid the 'genetic fallacy' the way you're defining it, Steve, mainly because you're asking as to what the origins of Calvinism are. Richard was not saying, "Calvinism comes from this, therefore it is wrong," he was explaining where it came from, which is answering Peter's question. It's not an irrelevant point in this case. The charges of genetic fallacy are unwarranted.
ReplyDeleteBOSSMANHAM SAID:
ReplyDelete"Richard was not saying, 'Calvinism comes from this, therefore it is wrong.'"
That's exactly what he's trying to do. The standard guilt-by-association tactic.
If you weren't an Arminian respecter of persons, you could see the obvious staring you in the face.
BOSSMANHAM SAID:
ReplyDelete"Richard was not saying, "Calvinism comes from this, therefore it is wrong," he was explaining where it came from, which is answering Peter's question."
His answer is speculation. But it's not even very good speculation since he hasn't explained what exactly the emotional appeal is to what he deems "theistic fatalism". How many people do you know who would find "theistic fatalism" emotionally appealing?
The irony here is that he resorted to emotionally charged pejorative language in describing Calvinism, which undercuts the claim that it is emotionally appealing. If it's so emotionally appealing, why is it that Arminians refuse to even try to get the position correct before attacking it?
If anybody is interested, I discussed some of these issues with Richard Coords in the comments section of a previous thread. We discussed patristic views of predestination and free will in general and the origins of Augustine's views in particular.
ReplyDeleteIt should be noted that Richard has proposed a series of explanations for the alleged historical roots of Calvinism, often with little or no evidence, sometimes even against the evidence. The doctoral dissertation he refers to is something he cited near the end of his discussion with me, without having read that dissertation at the time, after he had proposed a series of other arguments about Calvinism's origins. A few of us asked Richard for further clarification of what the Gnostics allegedly believed on these issues, what Augustine believed, etc., but he largely ignored those requests and eventually acknowledged:
"I don’t know exactly what variety of determinism that the Gnostics taught...Augustine did teach determinism (though how closely it relates to gnostic determinism is unknown)"
I'm glad that Richard is willing to do the work involved in acquiring and reading that doctoral dissertation, and perhaps he'll read it and use it accurately. I don't doubt that Richard is a Christian and is intelligent, and my discussion with him was mostly cordial, but I do think he's been too quick to criticize Calvinism on insufficient grounds. All of us do that sort of thing at times, but Richard's approach toward these issues in the other thread should be taken into account when weighing his claims in this thread.
For what it is worth, I used to be an arminian. My gut reaction was that calvinists were almost heretics.
ReplyDeleteMy transition to calvinism was extremely reluctant. I still, at an emotional level, struggle with it. But I believe calvinism to be the Biblical picture.
Some Calvinists admit that they became Calvinists for non-exegetical reasons.
ReplyDeleteFor example, one Calvinist writes, “I became a ‘full five-point Calvinist’ upon reading the following section [of Edwin Palmer’s The Five Points of Calvinism]: The question that needs a precise answer is this: Did He or didn’t He? Did Christ actually make a substitutionary sacrifice for sins or didn’t He? If He did, then it was not for all the world, for then all the world would be saved. (James R. White, The Sovereign Grace of God, p. 86)
unsophisticated said...
ReplyDelete"Some Calvinists admit that they became Calvinists for non-exegetical reasons.
For example, one Calvinist writes, “I became a ‘full five-point Calvinist’ upon reading the following section [of Edwin Palmer’s The Five Points of Calvinism]: The question that needs a precise answer is this: Did He or didn’t He? Did Christ actually make a substitutionary sacrifice for sins or didn’t He? If He did, then it was not for all the world, for then all the world would be saved. (James R. White, The Sovereign Grace of God, p. 86)"
Just another example of an Arminian who cannot take anything to context. :)
That's exactly what he's trying to do. The standard guilt-by-association tactic.
ReplyDeleteSteve, you guys asked for speculations on why people believe in Calvinism! He gave his. Is that really a genetic fallacy?
BOSSMANHAM SAID:
ReplyDelete"Is that really a genetic fallacy?"
It could hardly be more obvious:
i) Calvinism goes back to Stoic Fatalism.
ii) Stoic Fatalism is a false, pagan system.
iii) Ergo, Calvinism is false.
If he thought the comparison was purely adventitious and innocent, then the comparison would be pointless.
He's attempting to compare the two in order to discredit Calvinism.
Try not to act as if this is so difficult to grasp. It's only because you're another partisan Arminian that you have this team-player reaction. Arminians only love their own.
Why are people drawn to the Jehovah's Witnesses? Because of the colorful drawings in their literature. ;^P
ReplyDeleteFor my fellow Calvnists, how would you answer these questions I've asked myself (and pose for you)?
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/10/worshiping-dr-manhattan.html
A fuller explanation of my concerns at this link...
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/05/scripturalist-metaphysics-of-personhood.html
AMC: "For what it is worth, I used to be an arminian. My gut reaction was that calvinists were almost heretics.
ReplyDeleteMy transition to calvinism was extremely reluctant. I still, at an emotional level, struggle with it. But I believe calvinism to be the Biblical picture."
A preview of what Arminians will experience if/when they get to Heaven!?
AMC became ex-Arminian in this life. Other Armininans will have to wait until Heaven to become ex-Arminian.