OK. I must admit that I started a firestorm in the comments section at SCP. I called Augustine who was a church official in the 4th century, a dipwad. Now maybe I could have used a better term than dipwad but I think he came up with some knee jerk theology to make his point. Calvin (and Luther) simply resurrected Augustine's old theories.
I am not a scholar but I have studied a bit on the subject and I have issues with the doctrine of predestination as many of you know.
I notice that Christians will give you a virtual bloodbath if you disagree with a doctrine like calvinism but when I make comments or post about things like social injustice they are silent.
I am a Christian so when I say they I guess I am included but I like to think I am a different kind of Christian.
Augustine by the way invented the just war theory to justify Rome conquering the world. Its the same idea that has overrun Churches and people like GW Bush subscribe to.
Ok maybe Augustine wasnt a dipwad, but he sure did a lot of harm to Christianity.
If you want to see the whole nasty string go to http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10782671&postID=7298228405183718164&isPopup=true
Read the comments near the bottom.
I want to thank "The Pete" aka Dufflehead for sticking up for my on SCP.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
glad i could help.
I have said it time and time again, Arminianism is not entirely foolish. But most people today who claim to be Wesleyan Arminian really have absolutely no idea what Wesley and Arminius taught (they have never read any of the works of either and know even less about the volumes of work done by Calvin). These people say “Arminian” but what they are actually espousing are the heresies of Open Theism and Pelagianism.
Election is a Biblical reality. It is not just some random idea and is not an opinion. The word itself appears in the Bible (10 times in the New Testament alone; not to mention being the single most major theme of the Hebrew Bible. “Chosen people” ring a bell anyone). Even Jacobus Arminius admitted election and predestination to be biblical ideas (why then are their follower so dim to this fact). The only difference (Arminius taught) was a matter of timing (when this election of people takes place). So guess what… if you don’t believe in predestination and election you’re not a Arminian… Sorry do you homework next time.
John Calvin and others before him said that people are lost in sin and that God must therefore reach out to us first (that sinful people will never initiate a loving relationship with God first – God must reach out first) Rom. 3:10-11. Arminian on the other hand said that people first reach out to God. Just think about that for a minute – does that sound right to you. People utterly lost in sin reaching out for God. Does that sound like anything else you have ever read in the Bible. My Bible talks about the power of God; not the power of people.
After Calvin, Beza his student took “Calvinism” (misnomer) to a further extreme (more philosophical than biblical/theological). Shortly after, a follower of Beza revolted against Beza’s teachings and took the oppositional work of Arminius a step further. This was Wesely and he spoke of “prevenient grace” (but had no real biblical verses to back this – it has been a main chink in the armor for him)
Strangely what makes me so mad about this whole thing is no so much that you basically called me a heretic (even though it is actually Wesleian Arminianism that was condemned at the Synod of Dort as heresy). It is not even the blatant denial that God is all powerful and in control of all things. It is not even the fact that you don’t really even seem to understand either Calvin or Arminius… it’s that you refuse to learn and yet treat me as if I am a fool.
ha kohen,
question for you:
as a believer in predestination, are you fine with the possibility that you may not be predestined and that others, that may not believe in predestination, may be predestined?
i don't agree with the idea of predestination, but i've never gotten the viewpoint of it from someone who does.
(if this is off the topic, just ignore me or feel free to delete this comment)
Romans 8:30
"And these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified."
how does that answer my question? those dots don't connect for me.
I was all excited that you asked the question. I thought I had the perfect answer. A) Because you said that you “don’t agree with the idea of predestination” and I gave a verse that uses the word you don’t seem to believe in. B) Because it answers your question.
The verse says that those, whom God Choose He also called to faith, declared them innocent and is conforming them to the image of the Son.
All those that believe were predestined to come to faith in Christ (even if they don’t believe that this is how it works).
so there's no way you can't believe if you were predestined or no way you can believe if you weren't predestined?
i know that the word predestined is in the Collection of Books (i believe that the word exists in the english language as well). i still don't agree with it. just like i don't agree with women needing to cover their heads, even though that's in the Collection of Books.
You are assuming that I simply pick and choose the verses I wish to follow and the ones I do not. That is an incorrect assumption. Outside of the fact that simple context in involved; not all verses apply to all people - but that does not make them untrue. For example you can find the words “take you son, whom you love and sacrifice Him to me” in the Bible. But that verse does not apply to me. It has a specific audience but I am not the one being addressed. So does that mean that I reject it as true? Of course not. You allegory is flawed.
Now to answer your question: Your statement is accurate. If you are not called you will not believe and if you are then you will. It’s called “Irresistible Grace” and “Total Depravity”. Again the point is the sovereignty of God. Who after all can thwart the will of God and bend it to his own. What human has power over the LORD.
Should we then be able to boast because we were chosen you might ask… Ephesians 2:8-10 “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”
thanks for the clarification. i find it interesting that you only quote Paul when defending predestination. wouldn't Christ have better spoken of how to get to heaven by saying something to the effect of "no one comes to the father except those that have already been chosen?"
I suppose that is another topic all together. Some times I hear people say things like, “Jesus never said one word about homosexuality”. The problem with that type of thinking is that if God is the author, subject and interpreter of the Bible and so it is all God’s word.
Anyway I am not denying that Jesus Christ is the way to the Father just as he said. I’m saying that he also said that those who believe were known and chosen even before the creation of the world. What “Calvinism” is essentially about is that we don’t choose Jesus. We merely choose him back.
PS This conversation was much better than the previous one.
thanks again for the clarification.
i agree about the civility. i'm all for a rational discussion of viewpoints. disagreement is fine with me, too, obviously, as long as everybody is nice about it and not trying to fix people.
"don't make other people deal with the consequences of your decisions" - the pete
I suppose that is another topic all together. Some times I hear people say things like, “Jesus never said one word about homosexuality”. The problem with that type of thinking is that if God is the author, subject and interpreter of the Bible and so it is all God’s word.
But God is not the author of the Bible; He is the inspiration. Human beings wrote the Bible. He is also not the interpreter, people are. And the Bible is not God's Word, Jesus is. (John 1:14).
Strangely what makes me so mad about this whole thing is no so much that you basically called me a heretic (even though it is actually Wesleian Arminianism that was condemned at the Synod of Dort as heresy). It is not even the blatant denial that God is all powerful and in control of all things. It is not even the fact that you don’t really even seem to understand either Calvin or Arminius… it’s that you refuse to learn and yet treat me as if I am a fool.
Just because someone disagrees with your theology and thinks said theologians are dipwads doesn't mean they consider you a heretic. And just because someone doesn't regard your opinion as highly as you do doesn't mean they think you a fool.
You throw around words like "election" and predestination" as if the fully-fleshed out theologies which those words have come to represent were present in the intent of the authors who originally wrote them; and as if their mere presence in the bible means the theologies those words now represent are completely validated.
All those that believe were predestined to come to faith in Christ (even if they don’t believe that this is how it works).
So...are you saying correct theology is not important, because God is going to choose whomever She wants, regardless of the fact that they may not have sound doctrine?
God is the author II Timothy 3:16
Jesus is the subject Matthew 5:17-18; Luke 24:27
The Holy Spirit is the Interpreter John 16:13, Luke 1:15
I did a bit of studying and Calvin didnt invent Calvinism. It actually originated with Augustine. The same dipwad that came up with just war theology. Augustine is single handedly responsible for more doctrinal corruption than any one person. Before him, people believed much like the anabaptist do. or did.
my source is NOT google. Its a book called will the real heretics please stand up by david bercot.
Spritbear has used that word before in reference to Calvin. Only last time it was Calvin and not Augustine who was responsible for doctrinal corruption.
So...are you saying correct theology is not important, because God is going to choose whomever She wants, regardless of the fact that they may not have sound doctrine?
I’m saying that salvation doesn’t come from understanding every single minute detail. It comes through faith in Jesus Christ who is the way, and that this faith is gift from God.
Oh yes and could you tell me why God needs a vagina and breasts. I don’t think God is literally “a breast feeding mother” and I’m pretty sure God doesn’t need to have sex or need genitals to pee with.
When people say “He” in describing God that is not all that offensive because that is how God is described in the Bible. I always find it funny when people want to refer to God as she though… not because it is anymore limited or inaccurate as calling God “He” but because it just seems like petty, “shock value” (though it’s not really shocking). Why trade one inadequate word only to replace it with another inadequate word? It would be nice if English had a gender neutral word that wasn’t derogatory. But still, why not try that. Why don’t people try saying “It”? At least that would be a more accurate replacement.
I’m saying that salvation doesn’t come from understanding every single minute detail. It comes through faith in Jesus Christ who is the way, and that this faith is gift from God.
Then why do you get so angry when we don't understand every minute detail as thoroughly as you seem to think we ought?
When you quote scripture to justify your position, you need to clarify your interpretation of it, as my (and others') interpretation differs from yours (obviously), and those passages are not as clear-cut in their meaning as you seem to think they are. Also, using a text to justify the validity of said text is a form of circular logic.
Who wrote that letter to Timothy? Was it Paul, or God? Also, Paul did not seem to think He was writing scripture on par with the Old Testament (which is what that verse is referring to, so you can't use it to justify any of the New Testament).
As to your last comment, it sounds like you're just trying to pick a fight, so I won't bother addressing your wrong assumptions about why I occasionally refer to God by the feminine pronoun. I will say this, though, in case you really are honestly curious and just don't know a tactful way to express that:
I don't think God has a breast or vagina any more than She, or He, has a penis. I find it odd that you seem stuck on these physical aspects of femininity and masculinity. I do think God has both masculine and feminine qualities, and that the feminine qualities are often dismissed, overlooked, or downplayed when we continually refer to God with only the masculine pronoun, especially in light of a patriarchal society that has been in place in our culture time out of mind. There are instances in the Bible where God refers to Himself (or Herself) with feminine pronouns, qualities, and analogies (you're a smart and seem to know your Bible well; I'm sure you know what I'm referring to). But I think to call God an "It" makes God less than human, not more. It makes God seem like an object.
I believe what the Bible says.
Why?
Because it is the word of God.
And why do you believe the Bible is the word of God.
Because it says that it is the word of God.
And why do you believe what it says?
Because it is the word of God.
Is this what you are talking about? JJ Don’t worry your not bursting my bubble or telling me something I don’t already know.
Now as far as picking a fight… that is not at all what I’m doing.
I think the exact same thing. My problem is that when people say “He” that is just normal. It’s what the Bible uses. But when people say “She”, many times (not always) it is because they are fixated on the pluming (which they often accuse the other side of).
”It” is by far the most accurate and yet “It” also seems derogatory. This is merely a limitation of our language.
Post a Comment