Calvinist Curiosities

[jpandmcg]

I’ve made friends with Wikipedia. I am ticked when they don’t accept my helpful suggestions, like when I clarified for them that John Calvin believes that Christ’s grace, not his body and blood, are present in the Eucharist. But I’m nothing if not used to being alone in preferring clarity to nebulosity. Well, enough about Asperger’s.

I was reading the Wikipedia article, and the following questions popped into my head. Perhaps someone out there can riddle me this because I for the life of me can’t comprehend:

…Why arbitrarily cut that Ephesians verse short to include not “apostles” or “prophets” but only “evangelists, pastors and doctors.” Why ignore those first two whom Paul enumerates? I mean if word order is any indication, this sounds a lot like majoring in the minors at best and creating a religion one can manipulate at worst.
…Given his disdain for so-labeled (libeled?) “libertines,” one wonders what Calvin would have said to the prostitute woman who was about to be stoned or the Canaanite woman at the well?
…For a man who purported to believe in separation of church and state, Calvin sure didn’t hesitate to have his rivals executed on the charge of “heresy” (like Servetus)!
…If our efforts always result in the execution of God’s will and judgments and we play no role in our salvation, then are we just created either good or evil and therefore inanimate, ostensibly having no soul to save anyway?
…Which came first: representative democracy, middle class or capitalism?

Also, in a larger sense, why do these born again types prefer the Epistles to the Gospel, citing butchered K.J.V. excerpts from the former way more than the latter? Who orchestrates this? Dave Hunt?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

…If our efforts always result in the execution of God’s will and judgments and we play no role in our salvation, then are we just created either good or evil and therefore inanimate, ostensibly having no soul to save anyway?

The Calvinist argument is that God is complete sovereign over our salvation, and He saves “completely,” ergo He saves the elect completely, whereas those not saved enter into damnation. The idea is that God instills in us the ability to embrace Him, as mankind, through Total Depravity, has no ability to come to God. As we are designated His sheep, we know His voice. One could very well then say that God’s grace comes first, followed by our good will, which was how Calvin and Zwingli often argued (Luther, although he also believed in predestination, believed man’s good will came first followed by grace). One argument I heard was, “I don’t say ‘baa’ because I want to be a sheep, I say ‘baa’ because I am a sheep.”

That’s just the gist of it from what I’ve read in Calvinist sources.

 

[jpandmcg]

Well, first of all, thanks for responding. In answering, I’m just going on the assumption that, in citing these doctrines, you are telling me you’re not sure what’s wrong with them. A word of warning: my style is terrible. You had much better read what Joseph Hilaire Pierre René Belloc has said, exposing Calvin as the great justifier/enabler of modern usury (and consequently slavery), which is historically spot-on. But I’ll try and tackle this theoretically. I’ve been court-ordered to preface this with “Read on at your own emotional risk.”

The Calvinist argument is that God is complete sovereign over our salvation, and He saves “completely,” ergo He saves the elect completely, whereas those not saved enter into damnation.

Right. Well, firstly, the work of salvation is indeed totally God’s - the “heavy-lifting” has been done for us - but we can absolutely choose to accept or reject it. So, again, no orthodox Catholic ever questioned, except in Calvin’s head, whether God saves completely. I think heretics, in their theological one-dimensionality, tend to ignore one key reality, which is gender. The soul is feminine in relation to God as any mystic worth his salt will tell you. Thus, we are indeed passive but must choose to be receptive, open, vulnerable.

Secondly, predestination is Catholic, not Calvinist, doctrine: St. Francis himself taught it. Now, what Calvinists tend to preach is, in reality, predetermination. (From the heretics’ handbook: language abuse is a necessity for any successful heresy, since if the heretic said what they really believe, they’d be laughed out of town every time.) Predestination, properly speaking, is neither predetermination nor mere foreknowledge, but precisely an open invitation! Take the parable of the wedding feast. I mean what do you imagine the point of that or the other parables about the kingdom of God were for if, in the end, God flips some celestial coin to see who gets anointed with it and who gets boiled in it. Honestly.

Moreover, the human heart, if not nurtured by the Word and the Sacraments, is indeed liable to buy into Luther’s, Calvin’s and Zwingli’s shallower theologies (Now, in their defense, the Church had erstwhile done a cruddy job of promoting St. Thomas Aquinas’ later-dubbed Theology of Common Sense) that make us smaller than we are in our role because they lack spiritual imagination. “Humility is truth,” as St. Therese points out, so much so that even though Pope Peter could say “Leave me, Lord, for I am a sinful man” he was disposed to oblige him even in assuming headship of his Church. I hope this helps.

The idea is that God instills in us the ability to embrace Him, as mankind, through Total Depravity, has no ability to come to God. As we are designated His sheep, we know His voice. One could very well then say that God’s grace comes first, followed by our good will, which was how Calvin and Zwingli often argued (Luther, although he also believed in predestination, believed man’s good will came first followed by grace). One argument I heard was, “I don’t say ‘baa’ because I want to be a sheep, I say ‘baa’ because I am a sheep.”

Yes, the old chicken and the egg. Well, once again, you have heretics majoring in the minors, getting us all spinning our wheels when we could be deepening in God. I’m understandably sickened by such cacophony. Quite seriously, it wouldn’t surprise me if they also debated - even hotly debated - how many angels could dance on the head of a pin and then their followers found that slightly too embarrassing to pass down.

Look, if for God there is no time, chronology is nothing in matters of grace, as any fool will instantly note. “Total Depravity” is a doctrine invented and propagated by the Totally Depraved, as best I can tell. Jesus never accused all men of total depravity; Calvin has, in essence, insulted and demeaned us all with not a wisp of Scriptural grounding to back it up. But that we like generalized verbal abuse stand-up comedy is proof positive. Look, what happened was, Calvin had some issues and projected them on others to soothe his conscience. He and his tactically astute cronies give preaching a bad name, long story short, and they have justified the dirty, rotten system of usury and slavery.

So, contrary to the song and dance that was Calvin’s “ministry,” this is no issue of theology, not really, but of ethical philosophy, even of basic human decency, of civilization (not to be confused with imperialism) on quite a basic level. But people who claim to have no free will cannot be reasoned with. This is just like what we have with another heretic whose debasing ideas of God also continue to this day, one Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh. So far those who’ve toyed with heresy haven’t made the world a better place at all (not a better place for people, anyway)…your thoughts?

SEMPER AD LUCEM!

 

[manualman]

I like blunt. Lots of people don’t but once you get used to it, it is refreshing to hear what someone really thinks. It doesn’t always make friends and converts though…

I CAN help with one of your questions. It went 1. Capitalism, 2. middle class, 3. democracy. A nice easy reading way of seeing this in the process are the Pillars of the Earth novels (Ken Follet, I think). Historical fiction, but the setting is well researched as to how society functioned during the rise of the middle (mercantile) class, a time when monarchs ruled by (allegedly) divine right.

Good day.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Just FYI, I do not agree with Calvinism, and I didn’t mean to come across with an attitude of I’m “not sure what’s wrong with” Calvinism. I just believe that if a position is going to be represented, it should be represented accurately, and all too often I find people presenting a cartoon-like version of Calvinism that is bereft on any study of the matter.

Right. Well, firstly, the work of salvation is indeed totally God’s - the “heavy-lifting” has been done for us - but we can absolutely choose to accept or reject it. So, again, no orthodox Catholic ever questioned, except in Calvin’s head, whether God saves completely. I think heretics, in their theological one-dimensionality, tend to ignore one key reality, which is gender. The soul is feminine in relation to God as any mystic worth his salt will tell you. Thus, we are indeed passive but must choose to be receptive, open, vulnerable.

Secondly, predestination is Catholic, not Calvinist, doctrine: St. Francis himself taught it. Now, what Calvinists tend to preach is, in reality, predetermination. (From the heretics’ handbook: language abuse is a necessity for any successful heresy, since if the heretic said what they really believe, they’d be laughed out of town every time.) Predestination, properly speaking, is neither predetermination nor mere foreknowledge, but precisely an open invitation! Take the parable of the wedding feast. I mean what do you imagine the point of that or the other parables about the kingdom of God were for if, in the end, God flips some celestial coin to see who gets anointed with it and who gets boiled in it. Honestly.

I like your separation of predestination and predetermination. It might interest you to read the Conferences of St. John Cassian, who wrote them in part to respond to both the teachings of Pelagianism and the teachings of Augustine regarding predestination, both of which were considered opposite extremes by many in the church. He goes into detail in I believe the 13th chapter about the perfect balance between mankind’s free will and God’s grace. God has control over all things, yes, but He also gives man that freedom to act of his own accord. God is not a fatalist as some Calvinists wrongfully portray this teaching of saying, but He works with our free will for His glory and benefit.

It’s also interesting to note that most of the Reformers, Luther especially, all adored Augustine over the other Fathers. Some Calvinist apologists are fond of using the word “tradition” against non-Calvinists, yet then admit that their belief stems from the teachings of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, the Westminster Confession, all of which…call me crazy, but…sounds like a tradition.

So, contrary to the song and dance that was Calvin’s “ministry,” this is no issue of theology, not really, but of ethical philosophy, even of basic human decency, of civilization (not to be confused with imperialism) on quite a basic level. But people who claim to have no free will cannot be reasoned with. This is just like what we have with another heretic whose debasing ideas of God also continue to this day, one Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh. So far those who’ve toyed with heresy haven’t made the world a better place at all (not a better place for people, anyway)…your thoughts?

I think that one of the problem this stems from is mankind’s lack of conceiving God’s grand omnipotence. We might understand that God knows everything, but we simply cannot, in our human mind, grasp what that means. For the open theists, who think God is a victim of fatalism, we turn God into a human who finds every day to be a new jam like the plot of a bad sitcom. Calvinists cannot comprehend it either, and so must create a form of salvation in which God sets aside a group of people specifically for salvation so that He can’t fail in any way. The truth is God is omnipotent, but He also grants mankind the free will to say no. Why? For the glory of those who say yes. I realize it is common for some Calvinists to turn around and declare this to be a man-centered gospel, but those who say yes are glorified by God and for God because, after all, we were made in God’s image. When we are glorified, it is God who is glorified all the more, not because we are gods but because His image in Creation is restored. This was why the Eternal Word took flesh and died after a perfect life, breaking the bonds of sin and death and restoring mankind to its former glory. When you start playing games of arguing that God has to save a certain number or a certain group just to prove His glory, then you take the Fall and the Resurrection into a judicial matter or a matter of tallying scores.

 

[jpandmcg]

…it should be represented accurately, and all too often I find people presenting a cartoon-like version of Calvinism that is bereft on any study of the matter.

Well, to be honest, I find his actual teachings to be quite cartoon-like, particularly stacked up against, say, Thomas Aquinas. But you’re right: undue characterization, like negative discrimination, only hurts the cause of the already hurting.

I like your separation of predestination and predetermination.

To be fair, I stand on the shoulders of common sense giants: Thomas Aquinas, David Higbee (SIMinistries.org/), etc.

It might interest you to read the Conferences of St. John Cassian, who wrote them in part to respond to both the teachings of Pelagianism and the teachings of Augustine regarding predestination, both of which were considered opposite extremes by many in the church. He goes into detail in I believe the 13th chapter about the perfect balance between mankind’s free will and God’s grace. God has control over all things, yes, but He also gives man that freedom to act of his own accord. God is not a fatalist as some Calvinists wrongfully portray this teaching of saying, but He works with our free will for His glory and benefit.

Thanks for the reference. I’m of the opinion (fact?) that, had we given Desiderus Erasmus a fair shake, we’d be far better for the purgation and much better witnesses against the “reformers” both to the world and before God’s throne. Erasmus tended to emphasize free will more than Augustine or even Paul (miles from denying Divine Providence, mind you!)…that took spunk, and I think he was the genuine article. Anyways.

It’s also interesting to note that most of the Reformers, Luther especially, all adored Augustine over the other Fathers. Some Calvinist apologists are fond of using the word “tradition” against non-Calvinists, yet then admit that their belief stems from the teachings of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, the Westminster Confession, all of which…call me crazy, but…sounds like a tradition.

Right. Yet whence cometh that Total Depravity so irkingly capitalized (no pun intended).

I think that one of the problem this stems from is mankind’s lack of conceiving God’s grand omnipotence. We might understand that God knows everything, but we simply cannot, in our human mind, grasp what that means. For the open theists, who think God is a victim of fatalism, we turn God into a human who finds every day to be a new jam like the plot of a bad sitcom. Calvinists cannot comprehend it either, and so must create a form of salvation in which God sets aside a group of people specifically for salvation so that He can’t fail in any way. The truth is God is omnipotent, but He also grants mankind the free will to say no. Why? For the glory of those who say yes. I realize it is common for some Calvinists to turn around and declare this to be a man-centered gospel, but those who say yes are glorified by God and for God because, after all, we were made in God’s image. When we are glorified, it is God who is glorified all the more, not because we are gods but because His image in Creation is restored. This was why the Eternal Word took flesh and died after a perfect life, breaking the bonds of sin and death and restoring mankind to its former glory. When you start playing games of arguing that God has to save a certain number or a certain group just to prove His glory, then you take the Fall and the Resurrection into a judicial matter or a matter of tallying scores.

So imagine talking to a Calvinist about Mary! “Grace builds on nature, and glory builds on grace” (St. Louis de Montfort, True Devotion to Mary [or else it was *The Secret of the Rosary]). The heretical mind can’t imagine a paradox, since bigotry is that which cannot condider the alternative to a proposition (G. K. Chesterton): it needs everything to be either a machine or a cloud. It’s a kind of spiritual autism, if you will. And remember, Calvin was a lawyer by trade after all. Perhaps he just felt he deserved his turn with the gavel?

This is totally unrelated, but just so as not to end on a sour note, the late Eddie Doherty notably wrote a biography of St. Louis de Montfort (whose devotional formula had changed the whole course of him and Catherine’s Madonna House Apostolate MadonnaHouse.org/]) titled Wisdom’s Fool, which Montfort Publications prints.