Why should Calvinists Care about Evangelization?

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Bucer and Calvin did not think that the Gospel contradicted the Law as found int he Old Testament.

Do you find the idea of executing adulterers more contrary to the Gospel than that of executing heretics? Why?

Edwin

Jesus gave us very explicit instructions regarding the execution of adultresses.

It’s no wonder Calvin got so much wrong given his blatant disregard for the teachings of Jesus.

 

[Contarini]

Jesus gave us very explicit instructions regarding the execution of adultresses.

It’s no wonder Calvin got so much wrong given his blatant disregard for the teachings of Jesus.

Catholic interpreters of the sixteenth century generally agreed with the Reformed that Jesus was not dictating penal legislation in John 8. It’s not at all clear to me that Jesus’ words apply to adultery alone–logically the same argument would apply to other crimes as well. Are you suggesting that this passage is a general argument against the death penalty? (I think it should certainly give Christians pause in advocating the death penalty, by the way.)

I don’t agree with the way the sixteenth-century commentators make John 8 irrelevant to questions of how criminals should be treated, but I can’t deny that they have a somewhat plausible case in saying that Jesus’ purpose appears to be something other than reform of penal law codes.

The principle the early Reformed followed in passages such as this one was that the Son does not contradict the Father. I don’t agree with how they applied this principle in many cases, but you can’t deny that the argument has some weight! Marcionism is a heresy, after all. Perhaps even a worse one than Calvinism!

Edwin

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Catholic interpreters of the sixteenth century generally agreed with the Reformed that Jesus was not dictating penal legislation in John 8. It’s not at all clear to me that Jesus’ words apply to adultery alone–logically the same argument would apply to other crimes as well. Are you suggesting that this passage is a general argument against the death penalty? (I think it should certainly give Christians pause in advocating the death penalty, by the way.)

I don’t agree with the way the sixteenth-century commentators make John 8 irrelevant to questions of how criminals should be treated, but I can’t deny that they have a somewhat plausible case in saying that Jesus’ purpose appears to be something other than reform of penal law codes.

The principle the early Reformed followed in passages such as this one was that the Son does not contradict the Father. I don’t agree with how they applied this principle in many cases, but you can’t deny that the argument has some weight! Marcionism is a heresy, after all. Perhaps even a worse one than Calvinism!

Edwin

Perhaps…

It is interesting to me that Calvin would be so concerned about personal behavior given his belief in double predestination.

It doesn’t add up.

 

[Contarini]

Perhaps…

It is interesting to me that Calvin would be so concerned about personal behavior given his belief in double predestination.

No, it isn’t interesting to you at all. If you were interested, you would have paid attention to what I and a number of other posters are telling you, and you would have begun to understand by now.

When you are really interested in understanding Calvinism, drop me a line.

Edwin

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

No, it isn’t interesting to you at all. If you were interested, you would have paid attention to what I and a number of other posters are telling you, and you would have begun to understand by now.

When you are really interested in understanding Calvinism, drop me a line.

Edwin

I understand it quite well.

What is interesting is your refusal to accept the ramifications of Calvinism.

You have a self induced blind spot.

 

[Contarini]

I understand it quite well.

Bunk. Your remark about Calvin’s emphasis on morality being “interesting” indicates that there’s an obvious tension between the facts of what Calvinists believe and your ideological interpretation of the implications of Calvinism. In an extremely arrogant and intellectually lazy manner, you assume that this tension exists within Calvinism rather than being the result of your flawed understanding of Calvinism.

Isn’t the latter far more reasonable than that thousands of intelligent people have ignored a contradiction so obvious?

Edwin

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Bunk. Your remark about Calvin’s emphasis on morality being “interesting” indicates that there’s an obvious tension between the facts of what Calvinists believe and your ideological interpretation of the implications of Calvinism. In an extremely arrogant and intellectually lazy manner, you assume that this tension exists within Calvinism rather than being the result of your flawed understanding of Calvinism.

Isn’t the latter far more reasonable than that thousands of intelligent people have ignored a contradiction so obvious?

Edwin

Intelligent people believe many contradictions. Our president Obama is proof.

Calvinism contradicts logic and scripture. I don’t claim that all Calvinists lack intelligence.

You refuse to accept the words of Calvinist doctrine. Your inability to conform Calvinism to your personal beliefs does not change Calvinism.

Unconditional Election

"God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will. His choice of particular sinners was not based on any foreseen response of obedience on their part, such as faith, repentance, etc. On the contrary, God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected. These acts are the result, not the cause of God’s choice. Election therefore was not determined by or conditioned upon any virtuous quality or act foreseen in man.

Calvin thought he knew better than God, apparently.

 

[Eggnotz]

No, he’s not. He was a reporter and not a professional historian. He never received a Ph.D., although according to wikipedia he did teach history as an adjunct at Wesleyan University. Most of his books concern modern history. I have not read A World Lit Only by Fire, but from what I’ve seen and heard of it it appears to be a typical secularist hatchet job uninformed by good modern scholarship.

Manchester was a history professor emeritus at Wesleyan University. He probably wasn’t the village idiot. “Secularist hatchet jobs” notwithstanding, I think we can say that Calvin was probably not a very nice guy if you transgressed.

The central issue that Calvinists do not like to address is the problem of a loving God creating people and breathing life into them knowing that He will consign them to hell by default. Created for destruction? Seems weird.

 

[Badaliyyah]

The central issue that Calvinists do not like to address is the problem of a loving God creating people and breathing life into them knowing that He will consign them to hell by default. Created for destruction? Seems weird.

Contarini did a good job of summarizing the issue as it appears in the Augustinian tradition toward the end of his post #59. And I think you would probably get some fairly broad agreement that the Augustinian description of why God must damn some persons is not very convincing (and such a criticism would include within it persons like Thomas and Calvin).

There is certainly a recognition of and responses to this problem within the Reformed tradition: Schleiermacher and Karl Barth are good examples. In both cases God remains Absolute. In the case of Barth, to stick with the one I know better, Christ is the object of election and all are chosen in Christ (Barth’s treatment of election is beautiful really).

salaam.

 

[Eggnotz]

Contarini did a good job of summarizing the issue as it appears in the Augustinian tradition toward the end of his post #59. And I think you would probably get some fairly broad agreement that the Augustinian description of why God must damn some persons is not very convincing (and such a criticism would include within it persons like Thomas and Calvin).

This why I initially bypassed Roman Catholicism and landed in Eastern Orthodoxy. Augustine keeps me awake at night. I get the Augustine/Calvin thing.

There is certainly a recognition of and responses to this problem within the Reformed tradition: Schleiermacher and Karl Barth are good examples. In both cases God remains Absolute. In the case of Barth, to stick with the one I know better, Christ is the object of election and all are chosen in Christ (Barth’s treatment of election is beautiful really).

If election is contingent, it does violence to the notion of Unconditional Election. Even when I was a Calvinist I never saw “beauty” in election. It has always smelled of rationalization to me.

 

[SyCarl]

Intelligent people believe many contradictions. Our president Obama is proof.

Calvinism contradicts logic and scripture.

Unconditional Election

"God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will. His choice of particular sinners was not based on any foreseen response of obedience on their part, such as faith, repentance, etc. On the contrary, God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected. These acts are the result, not the cause of God’s choice. Election therefore was not determined by or conditioned upon any virtuous quality or act foreseen in man.

The Apostle says: “Not by works of justice which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us.” But as He saved us, so He predestined that we should be saved. Therefore, foreknowledge of merits is not the cause or reason of predestination…Thus, it is impossible that the whole of the effect of predestination in general should have any cause as coming from us; because whatsoever is in man disposing him towards salvation, is all included under the effect of predestination; even the preparation for grace. For neither does this happen otherwise than by divine help, according to the prophet Jeremias: “convert us, O Lord, to Thee, and we shall be converted.”

God does reprobate some. For it was said above that predestination is a part of providence. To providence, however, it belongs to permit certain defects in those things which are subject to providence, as was said above. Thus, as men are ordained to eternal life through the providence of God, it likewise is part of that providence to permit some to fall away from that end; this is called reprobation…Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin.

But nothing is directed towards an end unless the will for that end already exists. Whence the predestination of some to eternal salvation presupposes, in the order of reason, that God wills their salvation; and to this belong both election and love:—love, inasmuch as He wills them this particular good of eternal salvation; since to love is to wish well to anyone, as stated above:—election, inasmuch as He wills this good to some in preference to others; since He reprobates some, as stated above.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

SyCarl:
m

b

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

SyCarl:
Catholic Catechism:

1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:

*When God touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight.42 *

2002 God’s free initiative demands man’s free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man. He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy. The promises of “eternal life” respond, beyond all hope, to this desire:

2005 Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved.56 However, according to the Lord’s words "Thus you will know them by their fruits"57 - reflection on God’s blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty.

*A pleasing illustration of this attitude is found in the reply of St. Joan of Arc to a question posed as a trap by her ecclesiastical judges: "Asked if she knew that she was in God’s grace, she replied: ‘If I am not, may it please God to put me in it; if I am, may it please God to keep me there.’"58 *

 

[SyCarl]

Catholic Catechism:

1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:

*When God touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight.42 *

2002 God’s free initiative demands man’s free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man. He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy. The promises of “eternal life” respond, beyond all hope, to this desire:

2005 Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved.56 However, according to the Lord’s words "Thus you will know them by their fruits"57 - reflection on God’s blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty.

*A pleasing illustration of this attitude is found in the reply of St. Joan of Arc to a question posed as a trap by her ecclesiastical judges: "Asked if she knew that she was in God’s grace, she replied: ‘If I am not, may it please God to put me in it; if I am, may it please God to keep me there.’"58 *

So does Aquinas contradict Scripture and logic? Was the Church wrong in naming him a saint and doctor of the church?

 

[Badaliyyah]

If election is contingent, it does violence to the notion of Unconditional Election. Even when I was a Calvinist I never saw “beauty” in election. It has always smelled of rationalization to me.

Nothing contingent about it in Barth. Election has complete unconditional priority.

In Schleiermacher, much like in Calvin or Thomas, it just an extension of providence.

salaam.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

So does Aquinas contradict Scripture and logic? Was the Church wrong in naming him a saint and doctor of the church?

Not everything a doctor of the Church writes is doctrine.

Aquinas is probably the greatest theologian in history.

Here’s something for you to consider:

“I cannot”: Thomas Aquinas replied to an anxious inquiry about why he had abruptly ceased writing and dictating his Summa heologiae. His companion and confessor, Reginald of Piperno, afraid that overzealous study had induced insanity, insisted that he continue. “I cannot,” repeated Aquinas, “because everything that I have written seems to me chaffy.” Reginald was stunned. Within the month Aquinas decided to visit a sister but upon arrival remained withdrawn and taciturn. “Why,” asked his sister, “is he stupefied and hardly speaking to me?” Reginald explained the case: “From about the feast of St. Nicholas he has been in this state, and since then he has composed nothing.” Reginald importuned Aquinas to tell him why he refused to write and why he was stunned. After many interrogations Aquinas answered, “I adjure you by the living almighty God, and by the faith you have in our order, and by charity that you strictly promise me you will never reveal in my lifetime what I tell you. Everything that I have written seems to me chaffy in respect to those things that I have seen and have been revealed to me.”

 

[Badaliyyah]

Not everything a doctor of the Church writes is doctrine.

Aquinas is probably the greatest theologian in history.

Here’s something for you to consider:

“I cannot”: Thomas Aquinas replied to an anxious inquiry about why he had abruptly ceased writing and dictating his Summa heologiae. His companion and confessor, Reginald of Piperno, afraid that overzealous study had induced insanity, insisted that he continue. “I cannot,” repeated Aquinas, “because everything that I have written seems to me chaffy.” Reginald was stunned. Within the month Aquinas decided to visit a sister but upon arrival remained withdrawn and taciturn. “Why,” asked his sister, “is he stupefied and hardly speaking to me?” Reginald explained the case: “From about the feast of St. Nicholas he has been in this state, and since then he has composed nothing.” Reginald importuned Aquinas to tell him why he refused to write and why he was stunned. After many interrogations Aquinas answered, “I adjure you by the living almighty God, and by the faith you have in our order, and by charity that you strictly promise me you will never reveal in my lifetime what I tell you. Everything that I have written seems to me chaffy in respect to those things that I have seen and have been revealed to me.”

So your conclusion from that is…what? It is basically just off point.

The point here is: for you to be right about Calvin, the entire Augustinian tradition on grace and election would have to be heresy as well…This would include Thomas Aquinas. Thomas’ teaching on election would have to be CONTRARY to the teachings of the Church.

I don’t really like arguing from authority, because…well it isn’t much of an argument. But actually talking about what Calvin and Thomas, etc. hold seems to be pretty pointless; you seem in no state to listen. But that is the bottom line. Every time you make these baseless claims against Calvin you are simultaneously claiming that Thomas and Augustine are teaching something contrary to the Catholic faith. On this topic, at least, that is simply an absurd claim.

salaam.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

With regard to heaven and hell, according to Calvinist theology, what difference does it make?

Evangelization is a work, as are the other things Jesus commanded us to do.

That it’s a work, is BTW. That it is not a work said to be meritorious, is a very different matter. Christ’s works are done by Christians not to gain merit - but because good works are the fruit proper to the grace bestowed on the elect; they are what a Christian should produce almost spontaneously. There is no ground for merit here - but that does not take away the duty of obedience to the God Who has prepared these works for them to do. For Calvin, God is more important than man.​

What is your answer to this question:

According to Calvinist doctrine, can ANY human activity change who ends up in heaven and hell?

Of course not. What of it ? ​

 

[Eggnotz]

Nothing contingent about it in Barth. Election has complete unconditional priority.

In Schleiermacher, much like in Calvin or Thomas, it just an extension of providence.

salaam.

Does election presuppose a God who, as He is creating people, knows He will consign them to hell by default and the outcome is beyond their control?

 

[Badaliyyah]

Does election presuppose a God who, as He is creating people, knows He will consign them to hell by default and the outcome is beyond their control?

Not in either Schleiermacher or Barth. The issue of persons being reprobated is not so much an issue of the unconditioned nature of election (which Schleiermacher and Barth both affirm), but of the limited nature of atonement (which Scheliermacher and Barth both deny).

salaam.