Question for Calvinists

[sandusky]

Contarini:

Because you are uncomfortable with the paradox of the Thomistic position: that God genuinely offers grace to those whom He has eternally ordained will be damned on account of their sins. I don’t like this paradox either, but it’s not because I find it illogical (I can see the logic of it), but because I find it too coldblooded.

I was admittedly trying to push some buttons, because more typically Calvinists accuse Thomists of being rationalists. My point is that you are exalting a rather simplistic kind of logic over against an attempt to be faithful to the paradoxes of Scripture.

I don’t see a paradox concerning God’s dealing with the reprobate: “What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires” (Rom 9:14-18)I find nothing cryptic in that statement that would lead me to view it as paradoxical.

I find scripture clearly states God’s dealings with the reprobate. Obviously, you don’t; where do find a paradox?

 

[Reformed]

I don’t see a paradox concerning God’s dealing with the reprobate: "What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (Rom 9:14-18)I find nothing cryptic in that statement that would lead me to view it as paradoxical.

I find scripture clearly states God’s dealings with the reprobate. Obviously, you don’t; where do find a paradox?

I think the Roman Catholic Christian should really consider the Scriptures to change their thinking and beliefs. It seems quite apparent to me that they come to the Scriptures with not that particular goal in mind. They only will come to the Scriptures to find the Catholic Church’s understanding of them. However, it seems to me that most Roman Catholics do not know the Sacred Tradition deposit of faith; therefore they are not sure what the official understanding and interpretations are when going through the Scriptures with Protestant Christians …IMO.

Romans 12

A Living Sacrifice

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

Joshua 1:8
This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.

Psalm 1
Blessed is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
but his delight is in the law of the Lord,
and on his law he meditates day and night.

He is like a tree
planted by streams of water
that yields its fruit in its season,
and its leaf does not wither.
In all that he does, he prospers.
The wicked are not so,
but are like chaff that the wind drives away.

 

[Pier]

Bowing to a statue is worship, you worship Mary.

Do you carry around pictures of loved ones in your wallet?

 

[Contarini]

I don’t see a paradox concerning God’s dealing with the reprobate: "What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (Rom 9:14-18)I find nothing cryptic in that statement that would lead me to view it as paradoxical.

I find scripture clearly states God’s dealings with the reprobate. Obviously, you don’t; where do find a paradox?

Because of the many passages stating that God “loves the world,” desires all to come to repentance, etc. You can of course explain these passages away as referring only to the elect. That is what I mean by “rationalism”–the creation of a coherent and logical system based on some passages of Scripture and certain assumptions about what God must be like, and the use of those passages and assumptions as a Procrustes’ bed into which everything else in the Christian faith is forced, whatever mutilation is necessary in order to do that.

Edwin

 

[Pwrlftr]

Do you carry around pictures of loved ones in your wallet?

I bet sandusky doesn’t use a picture of a family memeber in any way that resembles what the catholic church does with icons.

Apples and oranges.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

No, it’s not like that at all. Because if my hands are tied I may want to brush my teeth, but will be prevented from doing so.

If you are incapable of seeking God, then it is because he has tied your hands. Got created you.

Again, let me emphasize that I think the common Calvinist way of talking about this is too crude and simplistic (even though in fact it’s fairly complex, compared with the popular “Arminian” approach in both its Protestant and Catholic forms–and no, this is not quite the same as Molinism, which is why I use the inappropriate Protestant word). I’m much more interested in debating the Thomist position, which I do not yet fully understand but which I take far more seriously. But however many problems I have with the Calvinist way of putting it, the fact is that the Reformers and (as far as I know) the later Calvinists all insist that “coercion” is the wrong word. Call it semantics if you like. The first step in understanding a religious tradition not your own is to try to understand why they engage in what seem to you like meaningless semantic distinctions. If you’re unwilling to do this, it’s because you don’t want to understand at all. You only want to caricature and attack.

 

[Contarini]

If you are incapable of seeking God, then it is because he has tied your hands

But this is a bad metaphor, because hands are not the will.

Got created you.

But God did not create us sinful. We got into that mess ourselves. (And yes, I think one huge problem with Calvinism–or Augustinianism–appears when you ask “did God predestine Adam and Eve to sin?”)

Your position is unbelievable because you simultaneously deny and defend Calvinist dogma. Sandusky doesn’t argue with me about the meaning of the Calvinst dogma, but about it’s veracity.

That’s false–Sandusky has repeatedly agreed with my interpretations of Calvinism over against yours.

As for why I would deny and “defend” something at the same time, see above–it’s called fairness. As a historian of Christian theology, it’s my job to seek and promote a fair and accurate understanding of various theologies, whether I agree with them or not.

I have a problem with some of the positions of both Augustine and Aquinas when it comes to matters of grace and predestination. However, the Catholic Church has left much of this debate open to questioning so I am well within the bounds of Catholic Doctrine.

That’s fine, but the problem is that you blaze away at Calvinism for being “heretical” without distinguishing between those issues where Calvinism is heretical by Catholic standards, and those where it just agrees with a very important strand of Catholic theology over against the one you happen to prefer.

I find Fr. Most’s views on predestination intriguing, and probably by default I wind up more or less agreeing with him. But he is too cavalier in his treatment of Christian tradition, and too confident that he has solved one of the most difficult questions in Christian theology. (Or rather, he was too confident–may he rest in peace, I’m sure he is confident with very good reason now!)

Edwin

 

[sandusky]

Do you carry around pictures of loved ones in your wallet?

What I posted was to make a point to CHESTERTON, which I think he got, as he’s not reponded to the post.

However, to answer your question, I don’t carry around pictures in my wallet, but if I were to do so, it would not be in a religious context.

 

[sandusky]

Because of the many passages stating that God “loves the world,” desires all to come to repentance, etc. You can of course explain these passages away as referring only to the elect. That is what I mean by “rationalism”–the creation of a coherent and logical system based on some passages of Scripture and certain assumptions about what God must be like, and the use of those passages and assumptions as a Procrustes’ bed into which everything else in the Christian faith is forced, whatever mutilation is necessary in order to do that.

Edwin

ISTM that you’re opposed to exclusivity of the Gospel that’s being preached by Calvinists?

 

[sandusky]

That’s false–Sandusky has repeatedly agreed with my interpretations of Calvinism over against yours.

As for why I would deny and “defend” something at the same time, see above–it’s called fairness. As a historian of Christian theology, it’s my job to seek and promote a fair and accurate understanding of various theologies, whether I agree with them or not.

 

[Pier]

I bet sandusky doesn’t use a picture of a family memeber in any way that resembles what the catholic church does with icons.

Apples and oranges.

Not really…

Pictures of family members are carried to remind us of our loved ones. Statues are made in honor of people who have given great honor & glory to God - the same way statues are erected to war heroes & presidents (haven’t many of our presidents been Protestant? ). They are not worshiped or bowed down to as idols.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Not really…

Pictures of family members are carried to remind us of our loved ones. Statues are made in honor of people who have given great honor & glory to God - the same way statues are erected to war heroes & presidents (haven’t many of our presidents been Protestant? ). They are not worshiped or bowed down to as idols.

Yeah really…

I don’t have a picture of my son which I kneel in front of and say prayers in front of. Apples and oranges.

Nor does my church make it a habit to lay flowers at the feet of a statute, etc., etc.

There reall is no comparison.

 

[Pier]

Yeah really…

I don’t have a picture of my son which I kneel in front of and say prayers in front of. Apples and oranges.

Nor does my church make it a habit to lay flowers at the feet of a statute, etc., etc.

There reall is no comparison.

Grand monuments & statues placed where (much heralded!) unveilings & gatherings are held, including respectful & reflective moments of silence, surrounded by lovely gardens…

Not the same thing?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Grand monuments & statues placed where (much heralded!) unveilings & gatherings are held, including respectful & reflective moments of silence, surrounded by lovely gardens…

Not the same thing?

I am unaware of any statues, pictures, or icons being used the same way in which your church uses them in the general public so as far as I can tell it’s apples to oranges.

Nobody is unveiling a statue of Washington and saying something like…“Haily Holy First President, Father of our country, our liberty, sweetness and hope…”

Completely different context.

 

[Pier]

I am unaware of any statues, pictures, or icons being used the same way in which your church uses them in the general public so as far as I can tell it’s apples to oranges.

Nobody is unveiling a statue of Washington and saying something like…“Haily Holy First President, Father of our country, our liberty, sweetness and hope…”

Completely different context.

Oh, you mean the Hail Mary, taken directly from the Bible? Some of which are words spoken by the angel Gabriel when he relayed to her the message from God?

Isn’t it interesting, too, that God would use a messenger, when He could have asked Mary Himself, directly? Kind of, intercessory, isn’t it?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Oh, you mean the Hail Mary, taken directly from the Bible? Some of which are words spoken by the angel Gabriel when he relayed to her the message from God?

Isn’t it interesting, too, that God would use a messenger, when He could have asked Mary Himself, directly? Kind of, intercessory, isn’t it?

Actually I was thinking of the Hail Holy Queen. You do know that prayer don’t you?

Anyway the point was that none of the statues that we have in our parks were unveiled in a religious ceremony where people knelt down in front of them and offered prayers to the person that they represented.

To say that the use of icons by your church is the same as carrying around a picture of you family in a wallet is at best a vast oversimplification of what your church does. It may be a convenient way to explain iconography and get someone to be more comfortable with it but it is a false analogy.

 

[Truthstalker]

…And yes, I think one huge problem with Calvinism–or Augustinianism–appears when you ask “did God predestine Adam and Eve to sin?”

Interesting and intriguing. I don’t see it as any huge problem, but that may be because I haven’t thought it through. Calvinists deny that God is the author of evil - your question suggests they believe He is. How do you answer the question, given that predestination exists? That the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world? What is a non-Augustinian approach to predestination, given that both Calvinism and modern Catholicism stem from Augustine, and hence also Wesleyanism and Anglicanism (if those are words)?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Interesting and intriguing. I don’t see it as any huge problem, but that may be because I haven’t thought it through. Calvinists deny that God is the author of evil - your question suggests they believe He is. How do you answer the question, given that predestination exists? That the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world? What is a non-Augustinian approach to predestination, given that both Calvinism and modern Catholicism stem from Augustine, and hence also Wesleyanism and Anglicanism (if those are words)?

Catholicism does not come down on one side or the other, although five points Calvinism is considered heresy.

The Catholic Church has wisely, in my opinion, declared this a mystery beyond human comprehension.

Two primary schools of thought, Thomism(leaning Calvinistic) and Molinism(less Calvinistic), are both acceptable for faithful Catholics.(and probably many others as well)

 

[po18guy]

The apostles DIDN’T understand.
You say the explanation was in v63.
It was AFTER this explanation that people left (v66)

AFTER THAT, he turns to the still-confused apostles.

John 6:67-69
[67] Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
[68] Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
[69] and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

They don’t understand Jesus, but know that he is THE way.
They trust him, even if they don’t understand what he meant by eating his flesh and drinking his blood, which offended the crowd (v61).

They didn’t get clarification until the last supper when Jesus said ‘this is’.

michel

Amen! And, this exact supper is celebrated to this day. And will be until His return. How can so many be lead astray by false prophets and demons to twist even Jesus’ own words? The Word made Flesh?

Think of this: if Paul’s words were hard to understand, and were twisted by the ignorant an unstable, how much more difficult for man to understand the Word made Flesh, Christ Himself? And, how much more twisted were his words? Jesus revealed the meaning behind His words through His actions at the last supper.

Just before His death for us, he did not say “believe”, He said “Take, eat” and “Take, drink”. The demon confuses and divides. The Holy Spirit reveals and unites.

 

[po18guy]

I think the Roman Catholic Christian should really consider the Scriptures to change their thinking and beliefs. It seems quite apparent to me that they come to the Scriptures with not that particular goal in mind…

The demon has lead you, and many others astray. It is really that simple. Your faith is the product of disagreement and division, the certain fruits of the demon.

The church which gave the bible to the world is the only authority which can properly interpret it. “A house divided cannot stand”. The Catholic Church is 100% biblical, as we have tried too inform you. You are the victim of the demon’s leading away from truth. Face that, and you will know the truth.