I blaze away at Calvinism because it denies God’s love for humanity.
I was specifically addressing his critique of Augustine.
I’ve always enjoyed the response of A.A. Hodge to your statement in the blue:Q. What is the objection which the Romanists make to this doctrine, on the ground that the church is our only authority for believing that the scriptures are the word of God?
You don’t believe Christ’s mother is holy, or that the mother of the King of kings is the Queen of Heaven? Henry the VIII, that exemplary man of God (okay, that was sarcasm) declared himself the head of the church of England - so, that was okay? But God can’t crown Mary the Queen of Heaven?
That’s like believing (wrongly, of course) that the Pledge of Allegiance is a worshipful prayer to a red, white and blue piece of cloth.
I do disagree with the conservative Calvinist exclusivist position (Barth obviously represents a different way of interpreting Calvinism, and one I’m more open to), but I think it makes a lot more sense than Arminian exclusivism. The main reason I am not a wholehearted Augustinian/Thomist is that I think these positions (and Calvinism even more blatantly) undermine the Scriptural teaching (which I admit I also find written on my own heart) that God is loving and gracious and desires the salvation of all. Arminian exclusivism denies this in practical ways just as much as the Augustinian view does, but it also denies God’s sovereignty by saying that God wants people to be saved but has chosen to leave the matter up to human beings whom He knows will often fall down on the job. It’s the worst of both worlds.
A. A. Hodge (?) appears to be an ignorant, bigoted, demon-lead anti-Catholic. Sorry. Why not listen to Jack Chick or Tony Alamo? Hodge has no more authority to judge anything theological than Elmer Fudd. But, in typical SS style, a few agree with him, so his opinion carries weight. It remains useless, except to Satan.
Hodge is neither ignorant, nor bigoted, and, he knows what he’s talking about in the quote I’ve posted.
It seems the 39 Articles of Faith agrees with Calvinism on predestination and justification by faith alone.
Do you think God is active in His creation, directing it according to His will? Or, do you think God is on the couch watching us like a football game cheering for the saints? Is God ruling and reigning His creation, or is He passive?
A little of both. God does not prevent men from exorcising free will. However, He never allows evil to reach its fullest goal and he always allows Good to come from evil.
When God allows, or permits something from happening…this can be called permissive will, maybe? When God directly and actively causes something to happen, the results are the same as His permissive will…God’s sovereign will is always done. But we might not understand why something was allowed in this lifetime. God always have the power and ability to prevent something from happening; therefore, by not intervening or stopping something, He determines what happens. Do you seem to agree or disagree? God cannot be controling the universe partially.
Suppose you address the arguments instead of demonizing a very prominent 19th-century Presbyterian theologian (though not anywhere near as famous as his son Charles)? How would you like it if you quoted some famous Catholic theologian only to be told “oh, he’s subject to the Whore of Babylon so I don’t have to bother refuting what he says.” This is a discussion-stopper. It’s not a serious argument.
Yes or no question: Did God want Adam and Eve to disobey him and allow the Fall of Man?
I can only go far as what is written. The rest is speculation. Evil is a mystery… but we know God could have destroyed Lucifer and the fallen Angels at the moment of their rebellion. We also know God did not have to test Adam and Eve with the command to not to eat of the tree of knowledge. God knew before the creation of the world, what Adam and Eve would do prior to creating the tree of knowledge. Christ was slain before the foundation of the world. I have concluded to be content that God does all things for His own glory. Whatever God does is glorious worthy of all our praise and worship.
No, GOd did not desire them to eat of the Tree. However, God did not want mindless beings that loved him because they had to. He wanted us to CHOOSE to love him. He gave them a test, knowing that they would fail but also knowing that a greater Good, Jesus, would come from it. Through JEsus, we become more than creatures, we become adopted heirs of God. We are able to partake of the divine Being through Communion. We are closer to God than even Adam.
I think you gave an emotional response, but one based on speculation and personal opinion. Do you think you can support your response with Scirpture references? There is a difference between coming to a conclusion on an issue based on biblical revelation and personal speculation and opinion. The problem with modern day Christianity (Catholics and Protestants alike) is that we approach things through a man-centered perspective. We need to get our theology from a God-centered perspective from divine revelation (Scripture). If you try to get answers from a God-centered perspective through the scirptures, your response would change. Do you think mankind has the ability to love and please God in his fallen sinful condition? Try to answer that based on divine revelaiton.
So did GOd want them to sin? What if Eve had eaten and Adam did not? Your conclusion is that God wanted evil in the world.
He’s very knowledgeable in matters of being wrong. Wilfully salving the ego, rather than seeking the truth is perhaps worse than ignorance.Hodge is neither ignorant, nor bigoted, and, he knows what he’s talking about in the quote I’ve posted.
This ignores the fact that not all scripture is written by apostles and prophets.
This ignores other writings that were considered for inclusion in the canon.
not all NT writers performed miracles… that we know of
not all NT writers gave prophecies… that we know of
now THAT is subjective. hardly a proof point.
again … not all writings are from apostles.
Not all NT writings state who the writer was.
This is historical testimony rendered competent from those within and without the church that say the same for writings that were not included in the canon.
It’s not an assumed fact, it is actually a fact.
Hehehe … this separates the church and the scripture, which is nuts.
Edwin, we deal with demonization constantly. Catholics are the most demonized people, and our Church is the most demonized entity on earth. Why? Who is the original source of the opposition to her? We get sick and tired of the arrogance. Of the error, lies, deceit. In my case, it shows.