OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 30, 2014, 11:49:12 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: My encounter with two radical Protestants  (Read 17552 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
truthstalker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Evangelical Presbyterian
Posts: 166


« Reply #45 on: September 04, 2009, 07:18:45 PM »

I think I need to add to my converstion with these men the dangers of "proof-texting". If anyone has some insight on this matter, I think that might be helpful as well.

There is a flawed concept that the "clear" passages should always interpret the unclear passages of scripture. All you have to do in this regard is just show how subjective this principle is......for the passage that might be clear to you, may not be so clear to them, and the passage they think is clear, may not be clear to you.

So pointing that out should slow things down a little.





ICXC NIKA

It is not a flawed concept.  There are passages that are clear to all (or the Bible is totally unreadable).
This argument will not work.  "Proof-texting" is wrong when a passage is wrenched out of context and used in a totally different sense than you would expect. For example:

Judas went out and hung himself....Go thou and do likewise....what you do, do quickly....

Calvinists, it is to be hoped, are very careful in making sure they understand and use texts correctly.
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #46 on: September 04, 2009, 07:39:41 PM »



The terminology is not original with me (I can cite at least one source, if you would like). 

I have heard the term hyper-Calvinism/Calvinist used as a theological term to mean the Calvinists who believe, that God created evil, God willy nilly and quite arbitrarily decides who goes to heaven and hell, and all the rest Papist reported.

 I have never heard the phrase "radical Calvinist" used as any type of "official" or semi-official theological term. Rather I've only ever heard it used in the lay sense it's being used here, to mean hyper-high/5 point Calvinism. If indeed "radical Calvinism" is an actual theological term within Calvinism thought, I'm sure no one would use it. I just don't think anyone here is aware that it is an actual term. That's the thing I've found about most Calvinists, including your post, that you assume we should KNOW all these different "schools" of thought, even though no one has ever explained any of this to us.

Quote
Apparently you desire to critique and refute Calvinism but have no desire to learn anything about it.

Wrong. He is trying to learn about it, that's what this whole thread is about. You must remember that most non-Calvinists who've been exposed to Calvinism have only been exposed to the hyper-Calvinism which says God created evil, and actually DOES evil things like arbitrarily send people to hell, gives people cancer, and has not given man free will.  Most people are simply not aware of other milder "flavors" of Calvinism, whether it's 4 point, or low 5 point, high 5 point, hyper, or whatever else. (all of which are terms I've heard at one time or another by Calvinists describing themselves...)

The more moderate forms of Calvinism are not really all that different than Catholicism/Orthodoxy's views on these subjects, even though Calvinists would use radically different terminology. However you've got to admit, the most outspoken and visible Calvinists are of the type of people Papist experienced. And so it's no wonder people find "Calvinism" so disagreeable because it appears there is only one form, even if the appearance is not accurate.

Quote
Is your list of who is and who is not a Christian your own concept or is this official Catholic church teaching?

It's obviously his own opinion since he said flat out said "I feel", in refering to the subject.

Quote
Does the Catholic Church teach that Calvinists who believe that God is the direct source of evil are not Christian? If so, cite the Catechism. If not, how dare you say such a thing?

He dare say such a thing because, well he has that right. Smiley

Secondly, I'm sure there are canons, councils or something written in the history of the Apostolic Church somewhere that says something to the effect that anyone who believes God created evil (thus being the source, cause and the one DOING evil) is not a Christian.  I'm sure this was addressed at some point in Church history pre-schism and certainly post schism/post Reformation. And I KNOW the issue of free will was addressed at some ancient Council though I've forgotten which one.

You make a good point that it's important to remember there are many different forms of Calvinism. However instead of explaining that, you implied Papist was either lying, or just didn't know what he was talking about. When in fact I, and many others have been in conversations with people JUST LIKE the guys he was talking to. These types of Calvinists (whichever "brand" one calls them) are not figments of our imagination, they do exist. However as you rightly pointed out, so do many other types of Calvinists, which is easy to forget sometimes. Especially if we've never been exposed to them.



Good post.  One reason I do not call myself a Calvinist is because the term really has little meaning anymore, and the meaning it does have is technical enough that it is confusing.  But all Calvinists, as far as I know, do believe that God sovereignly elects some to go to heaven.  If I look at it closely enough as an issue in the nuanced versions, and compare it to Catholicism, it isn't really all that different. Where it is different is the idea of double predestination, which is the belief that God elects some to go to heaven (the doctrine of election) and deliberately chooses others to go to hell (the doctrine of probation).  The Westminster Confession of Faith, the most widely known Calvinist confession, contains both.  Various Reformed denominations adhere to the WCF in varying degrees, from requiring ministers to subscribe to each single point of it to almost ignoring it.

For me, whether someone is a Christian or not is whether they confess Christ as savior and believe in their heart that God raised Him from the dead.  More narrowly, whether they subscribe to the Nicene creed.  More specifically, whether they are making a sincere effort, given these two restrictions, to obey God.

I find myself in the rather awkward position of attempting to defend something that I admittedly know little about, even if my denomination is technically Calvinistic.  Somehow I am the token practicing Calvinist, albeit a poor one both in ability to defend it or practice Christian charity.  At the same time I am very tired of hearing Calvin, or Calvinism, used as the whipping boy of this forum by people who seem to be almost totally ignorant of it, even those who claim to be former Calvinists.

Calvinism and Orthodoxy and Catholicism are in agreement on many, many issues.

And it seems to be a rule that the most obnoxious people in any denomination, or political party, come to typify that denomination or political party.  I have to remember sometimes that there are some really great posters on this forum.  There are others who sort of even them out, and unfortunately those are the ones I tend to remember.  There is a principle observed more often than it should be in the breach that if you make someone angry, you already lost whatever argument you had with him.

This forum is much like a salad bowl........for you get a little mix of everything. So why are you angry?






ICXC NIKA
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #47 on: September 04, 2009, 08:04:10 PM »

I think I need to add to my converstion with these men the dangers of "proof-texting". If anyone has some insight on this matter, I think that might be helpful as well.

There is a flawed concept that the "clear" passages should always interpret the unclear passages of scripture. All you have to do in this regard is just show how subjective this principle is......for the passage that might be clear to you, may not be so clear to them, and the passage they think is clear, may not be clear to you.

So pointing that out should slow things down a little.

ICXC NIKA

It is not a flawed concept.  There are passages that are clear to all (or the Bible is totally unreadable).
This argument will not work.  "Proof-texting" is wrong when a passage is wrenched out of context and used in a totally different sense than you would expect. For example:

Judas went out and hung himself....Go thou and do likewise....what you do, do quickly....

Calvinists, it is to be hoped, are very careful in making sure they understand and use texts correctly.


It is flawed. To say it is not is to ignore the obvious subjectivity of the principle. To say it is not is to also believe that the obviously flawed principle is "infallbile".

But if you listen to R.C. Sproul on the radio, then you would know...or at least should know as a good practicing Prespyterian......that there is no such thing as an "infallible" hermeneutic.


Truthstalker,

That principle is flawed at it's very foundation, and you know it.

How in the world can you use an "absolute" universal statement such as "There are passages that are clear to all"?

Have you spoke to all 6 billion people on the planet about this? All it takes to prove you wrong in this regard is "one" example.

And I will be that one example for you:


These are the (unquestionable) clear passages that should interprete the unclear passages. Would you agree? If not, then the principle is flawed.

John 1:9
"That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world"

John 12:32
"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Me."

1 Tim 2:3
"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

1 John 2:2
"And He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Romans 5:18
"Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life."

Romans 11:19-23
"You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again."



John 15:1-6
“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.
5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned."



Hebrews 10: 26-35
"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." 31It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

32Remember those earlier days after you had received the light, when you stood your ground in a great contest in the face of suffering. 33Sometimes you were publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated. 34You sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, because you knew that you yourselves had better and lasting possessions.

35So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. 36You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised."



Hebrews chapter 6:1-12
"Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.
3And this we will do, if God permits.
4For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.
7For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God;
8but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned. 9But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way.
10For God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love which you have shown toward His name, in having ministered and in still ministering to the saints.
11And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope until the end,
12so that you will not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises."




Quote
(or the Bible is totally unreadable)


It is not an either or situation. Just because we all know that some scriptures are seen as being clear to some and not to others doesn't mean the Bible is totally unreadable. All it means is we need help with our interpretation of Scripture, and since the Church is our Mother, she is there to help us in the correct understanding.


Quote
"Proof-texting" is wrong when a passage is wrenched out of context and used in a totally different sense than you would expect. For example:

Judas went out and hung himself....Go thou and do likewise....what you do, do quickly....

Calvinists, it is to be hoped, are very careful in making sure they understand and use texts correctly.


So Calvinists are the only ones who are very careful in making sure they understand and use texts correctly? Are you saying Lutherians don't do that? Are you saying high church Anglicans don't do that? Are you saying Weslyian and classical Arminians don't do that? Are you telling me that the Cambellites(churches of christ) don't do that? Are you telling me the Seventhday Adventists don't try and do that? Are you telling me the Calminian Baptists don't do that?

It seems to me that everyone tries to do that but alot of different groups come up with different conclusions when reading a passage. What about Romans 5:12?

What about being born of "water and Spirit" as found in the Gospel of John? What about Eph 2:8? I can go on and on and on.


Truthstalker, the principle is flawed. Just admit it.










ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: September 04, 2009, 08:14:22 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #48 on: September 04, 2009, 08:23:05 PM »

This week a some friends and I were at a restaurant in Albuquerque. My friends noticed that next to us there were two young men (some where int their twenties) reading bibles next to us. My friends being devout Catholics decided to strike up a conversation with these two men. Well, it turns out that they espoused some rather radical beliefs based on their own personal interpretation of the Scriptures. I am curious as to how my EO bretheren would evaluate the belief system of these men. So please do share and if you have some good scripture passages that would aide me in refuting the errors of these young men, I would certainly appreciate the help.
1. They believe that God created some people specifically to be saved and others specifically to condemn to hell. (Radical Calvinism)
Ezekiel 18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?...32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord Jehovah: wherefore turn yourselves, and live....33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Luke 9: 51-6 And it came to pass, when the time was come that He should be received up, He stedfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem,  And sent messengers before His face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for Him.  And they did not receive Him, because His face was as though He would go to Jerusalem. And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt Thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?  But He turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Me.

I Timothy 2:3-4 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Quote
2. They believe that God created evil because it exists and he is sovreign (spelling? lol).
Gen. 1: -2:3 And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.  Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made.

So creation was finished, and the Creator said every thing was good.

God didn't create evil, because evil is a parasite, a deprivation, like darkness is only the absence of light. Hell is not created, it is prepared by creatures turning their backs on their creator.

Quote
3. They believe that humans are completely evil and corrupt and incapable of choosing any good.
Genesis 18:17 And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do;...19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him...27-2 And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the LORD, which am but dust and ashes: Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.

Numbers 12:2-8, 11-4 And they said, Hath the LORD indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the LORD heard it. (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.) And the LORD spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation. And they three came out. And the LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth. And He said, Hear now My words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make Myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all my house (cf. Heb. 3:2, 3:5). With Him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?...And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned...And Moses cried unto the LORD, saying, Heal her now, O God, I beseech thee.  And the LORD said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days? let her be shut out from the camp seven days, and after that let her be received in again.

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil....v. 8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered My servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?....2:3 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered My servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst Me against him, to destroy him without cause....42:7  And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath. 8 Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept: lest I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant Job.

I Kings 3:14 And if thou wilt walk in My ways, to keep My statutes and My commandments, as thy father David did walk, then I will lengthen thy days...11:4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father...15:1 Now in the eighteenth year of king Jeroboam the son of Nebat reigned Abijam over Judah....vv 3-5 And he walked in all the sins of his father, which he had done before him: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father. Nevertheless for David's sake did the LORD his God give him a lamp in Jerusalem, to set up his son after him, and to establish Jerusalem: Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.

Luke 1:5-6 THERE was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Quote
4. They believe that people who have never heard of Christ will certainly go to hell.

Isaiah 50:2 Wherefore, when I came, was there no man? when I called, was there none to answer? Is my hand shortened at all, that it cannot redeem? or have I no power to deliver?

Quote
5. Of course they are the "sola fide" type but such is easy to refute.

Ask them to tell us the Gospel verse that St. Paul quotes in Acts 20:35.

Thank you VERY much. This is great stuff. I have to say you are a wealth of information. I'm going to e mail some of these passages along with comentary to those young men.

Piper deals with most of these passages in the link I referenced earlier. Not great stuff.

Why do you people condemn proof texting but then attempt to use proof texting against people you call Calvinists?

Because it's about the right interpretation. Anyone can deal with a text, but if it's noval, then it really doesn't matter what they say for it's not in keeping with the historic christian Faith, and mind of the Fathers.

"interpretations" all have a history you know, if an interpretation is new then it's most likely false.......well the probability of it being false is high.






ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: September 04, 2009, 08:28:31 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
truthstalker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Evangelical Presbyterian
Posts: 166


« Reply #49 on: September 04, 2009, 08:54:59 PM »



The terminology is not original with me (I can cite at least one source, if you would like). 

I have heard the term hyper-Calvinism/Calvinist used as a theological term to mean the Calvinists who believe, that God created evil, God willy nilly and quite arbitrarily decides who goes to heaven and hell, and all the rest Papist reported.

 I have never heard the phrase "radical Calvinist" used as any type of "official" or semi-official theological term. Rather I've only ever heard it used in the lay sense it's being used here, to mean hyper-high/5 point Calvinism. If indeed "radical Calvinism" is an actual theological term within Calvinism thought, I'm sure no one would use it. I just don't think anyone here is aware that it is an actual term. That's the thing I've found about most Calvinists, including your post, that you assume we should KNOW all these different "schools" of thought, even though no one has ever explained any of this to us.

Quote
Apparently you desire to critique and refute Calvinism but have no desire to learn anything about it.

Wrong. He is trying to learn about it, that's what this whole thread is about. You must remember that most non-Calvinists who've been exposed to Calvinism have only been exposed to the hyper-Calvinism which says God created evil, and actually DOES evil things like arbitrarily send people to hell, gives people cancer, and has not given man free will.  Most people are simply not aware of other milder "flavors" of Calvinism, whether it's 4 point, or low 5 point, high 5 point, hyper, or whatever else. (all of which are terms I've heard at one time or another by Calvinists describing themselves...)

The more moderate forms of Calvinism are not really all that different than Catholicism/Orthodoxy's views on these subjects, even though Calvinists would use radically different terminology. However you've got to admit, the most outspoken and visible Calvinists are of the type of people Papist experienced. And so it's no wonder people find "Calvinism" so disagreeable because it appears there is only one form, even if the appearance is not accurate.

Quote
Is your list of who is and who is not a Christian your own concept or is this official Catholic church teaching?

It's obviously his own opinion since he said flat out said "I feel", in refering to the subject.

Quote
Does the Catholic Church teach that Calvinists who believe that God is the direct source of evil are not Christian? If so, cite the Catechism. If not, how dare you say such a thing?

He dare say such a thing because, well he has that right. Smiley

Secondly, I'm sure there are canons, councils or something written in the history of the Apostolic Church somewhere that says something to the effect that anyone who believes God created evil (thus being the source, cause and the one DOING evil) is not a Christian.  I'm sure this was addressed at some point in Church history pre-schism and certainly post schism/post Reformation. And I KNOW the issue of free will was addressed at some ancient Council though I've forgotten which one.

You make a good point that it's important to remember there are many different forms of Calvinism. However instead of explaining that, you implied Papist was either lying, or just didn't know what he was talking about. When in fact I, and many others have been in conversations with people JUST LIKE the guys he was talking to. These types of Calvinists (whichever "brand" one calls them) are not figments of our imagination, they do exist. However as you rightly pointed out, so do many other types of Calvinists, which is easy to forget sometimes. Especially if we've never been exposed to them.



Good post.  One reason I do not call myself a Calvinist is because the term really has little meaning anymore, and the meaning it does have is technical enough that it is confusing.  But all Calvinists, as far as I know, do believe that God sovereignly elects some to go to heaven.  If I look at it closely enough as an issue in the nuanced versions, and compare it to Catholicism, it isn't really all that different. Where it is different is the idea of double predestination, which is the belief that God elects some to go to heaven (the doctrine of election) and deliberately chooses others to go to hell (the doctrine of probation).  The Westminster Confession of Faith, the most widely known Calvinist confession, contains both.  Various Reformed denominations adhere to the WCF in varying degrees, from requiring ministers to subscribe to each single point of it to almost ignoring it.

For me, whether someone is a Christian or not is whether they confess Christ as savior and believe in their heart that God raised Him from the dead.  More narrowly, whether they subscribe to the Nicene creed.  More specifically, whether they are making a sincere effort, given these two restrictions, to obey God.

I find myself in the rather awkward position of attempting to defend something that I admittedly know little about, even if my denomination is technically Calvinistic.  Somehow I am the token practicing Calvinist, albeit a poor one both in ability to defend it or practice Christian charity.  At the same time I am very tired of hearing Calvin, or Calvinism, used as the whipping boy of this forum by people who seem to be almost totally ignorant of it, even those who claim to be former Calvinists.

Calvinism and Orthodoxy and Catholicism are in agreement on many, many issues.

And it seems to be a rule that the most obnoxious people in any denomination, or political party, come to typify that denomination or political party.  I have to remember sometimes that there are some really great posters on this forum.  There are others who sort of even them out, and unfortunately those are the ones I tend to remember.  There is a principle observed more often than it should be in the breach that if you make someone angry, you already lost whatever argument you had with him.

This forum is much like a salad bowl........for you get a little mix of everything. So why are you angry?






ICXC NIKA

I don't think I'm angry. Do I post like I am? But a lot of obnoxious things have been posted, even on this thread, about Calvinists and Calvinism in general.  I can see that someone talking like that when "witnessing" would simply turn someone off.  Read the thread as if the comments about Calvinists were addressed to you personally and see how you would feel.
Logged
truthstalker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Evangelical Presbyterian
Posts: 166


« Reply #50 on: September 04, 2009, 09:00:06 PM »

Quote
Truthstalker, the principle is flawed. Just admit it.

The principle is intuitively obvious.  We don't need an infallible authority to tell us what every verse means. You argue that the whole Bible is murky and needs a church to interpret it - especially since the church has officially interpreted only very limited parts of it.

How about

Jesus stepped into a boat.


Where is the ambiguity?

The Bible is clear enough that we know what we should do.  There are parts that transcend human understanding, but that doesn't mean the whole thing is meaningless unless a priest tells us what it means.
Logged
truthstalker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Evangelical Presbyterian
Posts: 166


« Reply #51 on: September 04, 2009, 09:10:19 PM »

Quote
So Calvinists are the only ones who are very careful in making sure they understand and use texts correctly? Are you saying Lutherians don't do that? Are you saying high church Anglicans don't do that? Are you saying Weslyian and classical Arminians don't do that? Are you telling me that the Cambellites(churches of christ) don't do that? Are you telling me the Seventhday Adventists don't try and do that? Are you telling me the Calminian Baptists don't do that?

I didn't say Calvinists are the only ones who do so.  Please don't put words in my mouth. I have enough trouble with my own.


Quote
Because it's about the right interpretation. Anyone can deal with a text, but if it's noval, then it really doesn't matter what they say for it's not in keeping with the historic christian Faith, and mind of the Fathers.

"interpretations" all have a history you know, if an interpretation is new then it's most likely false.......well the probability of it being false is high.

And Calvinists do look at how a text has been interpreted historically, with the earliest interpretations being given a higher place.  That may be a surprise to you. One problem is that justification wasn't really an issue in the early church, nor were some of the other issues that divide Protestants, Orthodox and Catholics.  I can't find anything that strongly supports universal primacy of Rome, for example, although some things suggest it, and some speak against it.  Due to the experience of being in what they saw (and often still see) as the compromised and corrupted Catholic Church, Calvinists had a deep suspicion of church authority and its demonstrated inability to pass on the teachings of the Bible or of the early church.  Calvinists regard the early church as being, like the Jews, a "people of the book" - Sola Scriptura being a return to the foundational teachings of the church rather than a novelty.  The Bible speaks more loudly and clearly than any teaching of man.
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,789



« Reply #52 on: September 04, 2009, 10:23:01 PM »

The rust belt is soo boring, nominal, lame, and filled with christians that don't know what they believe or should believe. It's too lame for my taste.......I like the south better. There is more action down there. Up here, we have alot of Roman Catholics and Protestants that are into tarot cards, astrological readings.......ect. I dated a Roman catholic in this area once who thought the devil was God's equal. I dated another Roman Catholic woman who thought it was ok to not tell a priest everything at confession........ect.

Thank you for your response.  I was really surprised by what you had to say, and I'm really going to think about it.  Do I really prefer a tepid, lukewarm evening at the bookstore, or one full of theological debate and passion?  Some things about it might seem irritating, sure.  But do I really want a world where nobody really cares?  Where everyone is just getting along and moving along?

Thanks again, and God bless you!
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #53 on: September 05, 2009, 01:25:18 PM »



The terminology is not original with me (I can cite at least one source, if you would like). 

I have heard the term hyper-Calvinism/Calvinist used as a theological term to mean the Calvinists who believe, that God created evil, God willy nilly and quite arbitrarily decides who goes to heaven and hell, and all the rest Papist reported.

 I have never heard the phrase "radical Calvinist" used as any type of "official" or semi-official theological term. Rather I've only ever heard it used in the lay sense it's being used here, to mean hyper-high/5 point Calvinism. If indeed "radical Calvinism" is an actual theological term within Calvinism thought, I'm sure no one would use it. I just don't think anyone here is aware that it is an actual term. That's the thing I've found about most Calvinists, including your post, that you assume we should KNOW all these different "schools" of thought, even though no one has ever explained any of this to us.

Quote
Apparently you desire to critique and refute Calvinism but have no desire to learn anything about it.

Wrong. He is trying to learn about it, that's what this whole thread is about. You must remember that most non-Calvinists who've been exposed to Calvinism have only been exposed to the hyper-Calvinism which says God created evil, and actually DOES evil things like arbitrarily send people to hell, gives people cancer, and has not given man free will.  Most people are simply not aware of other milder "flavors" of Calvinism, whether it's 4 point, or low 5 point, high 5 point, hyper, or whatever else. (all of which are terms I've heard at one time or another by Calvinists describing themselves...)

The more moderate forms of Calvinism are not really all that different than Catholicism/Orthodoxy's views on these subjects, even though Calvinists would use radically different terminology. However you've got to admit, the most outspoken and visible Calvinists are of the type of people Papist experienced. And so it's no wonder people find "Calvinism" so disagreeable because it appears there is only one form, even if the appearance is not accurate.

Quote
Is your list of who is and who is not a Christian your own concept or is this official Catholic church teaching?

It's obviously his own opinion since he said flat out said "I feel", in refering to the subject.

Quote
Does the Catholic Church teach that Calvinists who believe that God is the direct source of evil are not Christian? If so, cite the Catechism. If not, how dare you say such a thing?

He dare say such a thing because, well he has that right. Smiley

Secondly, I'm sure there are canons, councils or something written in the history of the Apostolic Church somewhere that says something to the effect that anyone who believes God created evil (thus being the source, cause and the one DOING evil) is not a Christian.  I'm sure this was addressed at some point in Church history pre-schism and certainly post schism/post Reformation. And I KNOW the issue of free will was addressed at some ancient Council though I've forgotten which one.

You make a good point that it's important to remember there are many different forms of Calvinism. However instead of explaining that, you implied Papist was either lying, or just didn't know what he was talking about. When in fact I, and many others have been in conversations with people JUST LIKE the guys he was talking to. These types of Calvinists (whichever "brand" one calls them) are not figments of our imagination, they do exist. However as you rightly pointed out, so do many other types of Calvinists, which is easy to forget sometimes. Especially if we've never been exposed to them.



Good post.  One reason I do not call myself a Calvinist is because the term really has little meaning anymore, and the meaning it does have is technical enough that it is confusing.  But all Calvinists, as far as I know, do believe that God sovereignly elects some to go to heaven.  If I look at it closely enough as an issue in the nuanced versions, and compare it to Catholicism, it isn't really all that different. Where it is different is the idea of double predestination, which is the belief that God elects some to go to heaven (the doctrine of election) and deliberately chooses others to go to hell (the doctrine of probation).  The Westminster Confession of Faith, the most widely known Calvinist confession, contains both.  Various Reformed denominations adhere to the WCF in varying degrees, from requiring ministers to subscribe to each single point of it to almost ignoring it.

For me, whether someone is a Christian or not is whether they confess Christ as savior and believe in their heart that God raised Him from the dead.  More narrowly, whether they subscribe to the Nicene creed.  More specifically, whether they are making a sincere effort, given these two restrictions, to obey God.

I find myself in the rather awkward position of attempting to defend something that I admittedly know little about, even if my denomination is technically Calvinistic.  Somehow I am the token practicing Calvinist, albeit a poor one both in ability to defend it or practice Christian charity.  At the same time I am very tired of hearing Calvin, or Calvinism, used as the whipping boy of this forum by people who seem to be almost totally ignorant of it, even those who claim to be former Calvinists.

Calvinism and Orthodoxy and Catholicism are in agreement on many, many issues.

And it seems to be a rule that the most obnoxious people in any denomination, or political party, come to typify that denomination or political party.  I have to remember sometimes that there are some really great posters on this forum.  There are others who sort of even them out, and unfortunately those are the ones I tend to remember.  There is a principle observed more often than it should be in the breach that if you make someone angry, you already lost whatever argument you had with him.

This forum is much like a salad bowl........for you get a little mix of everything. So why are you angry?


ICXC NIKA

I don't think I'm angry. Do I post like I am? But a lot of obnoxious things have been posted, even on this thread, about Calvinists and Calvinism in general.  I can see that someone talking like that when "witnessing" would simply turn someone off.  Read the thread as if the comments about Calvinists were addressed to you personally and see how you would feel.

Calm down, we don't venerate John Calvin so why should we pretend like we do? And no one is treating you bad on these boards, nor is anyone saying things about John Calvin that a good number of Calvinists say about the Pope, Arminianism, Semi-Pelagianism......ect.

You guys are way more harsh. My lay Roman Catholic apologist friend had to put up with this nonsense at a mostly Calvinistic christian rap forum:
http://www.soundclick.com/player/single_player.cfm?songid=1197432&q=hi&newref=1

Now if you were a Roman Catholic at a mostly Calvinistic board, how would you feel if you listened to this song? The calvinist that did this song is someone I have known for 4 years. Now no one on this board ever did this to you, so calm down.

Also, how would you feel if you were an Arminian Protestant, and you had to hear this song:
http://www.holyculture.net/archives/5411

How would you feel? No one on this board is doing this to you, so calm down.

I had friends who were treated real bad on other boards, and you are being treated like a King compared to them, so calm down.

And there is no point in me putting myself in your shoes for I am already a member at a Roman Catholic rap forum as well as a member of  a mostly Calvinistic protestant rap forum. So I already know how it is, and I know that you are not being treated as bad as you may think.








ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: September 05, 2009, 01:34:54 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
truthstalker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Evangelical Presbyterian
Posts: 166


« Reply #54 on: September 05, 2009, 01:51:32 PM »



The terminology is not original with me (I can cite at least one source, if you would like). 

I have heard the term hyper-Calvinism/Calvinist used as a theological term to mean the Calvinists who believe, that God created evil, God willy nilly and quite arbitrarily decides who goes to heaven and hell, and all the rest Papist reported.

 I have never heard the phrase "radical Calvinist" used as any type of "official" or semi-official theological term. Rather I've only ever heard it used in the lay sense it's being used here, to mean hyper-high/5 point Calvinism. If indeed "radical Calvinism" is an actual theological term within Calvinism thought, I'm sure no one would use it. I just don't think anyone here is aware that it is an actual term. That's the thing I've found about most Calvinists, including your post, that you assume we should KNOW all these different "schools" of thought, even though no one has ever explained any of this to us.

Quote
Apparently you desire to critique and refute Calvinism but have no desire to learn anything about it.

Wrong. He is trying to learn about it, that's what this whole thread is about. You must remember that most non-Calvinists who've been exposed to Calvinism have only been exposed to the hyper-Calvinism which says God created evil, and actually DOES evil things like arbitrarily send people to hell, gives people cancer, and has not given man free will.  Most people are simply not aware of other milder "flavors" of Calvinism, whether it's 4 point, or low 5 point, high 5 point, hyper, or whatever else. (all of which are terms I've heard at one time or another by Calvinists describing themselves...)

The more moderate forms of Calvinism are not really all that different than Catholicism/Orthodoxy's views on these subjects, even though Calvinists would use radically different terminology. However you've got to admit, the most outspoken and visible Calvinists are of the type of people Papist experienced. And so it's no wonder people find "Calvinism" so disagreeable because it appears there is only one form, even if the appearance is not accurate.

Quote
Is your list of who is and who is not a Christian your own concept or is this official Catholic church teaching?

It's obviously his own opinion since he said flat out said "I feel", in refering to the subject.

Quote
Does the Catholic Church teach that Calvinists who believe that God is the direct source of evil are not Christian? If so, cite the Catechism. If not, how dare you say such a thing?

He dare say such a thing because, well he has that right. Smiley

Secondly, I'm sure there are canons, councils or something written in the history of the Apostolic Church somewhere that says something to the effect that anyone who believes God created evil (thus being the source, cause and the one DOING evil) is not a Christian.  I'm sure this was addressed at some point in Church history pre-schism and certainly post schism/post Reformation. And I KNOW the issue of free will was addressed at some ancient Council though I've forgotten which one.

You make a good point that it's important to remember there are many different forms of Calvinism. However instead of explaining that, you implied Papist was either lying, or just didn't know what he was talking about. When in fact I, and many others have been in conversations with people JUST LIKE the guys he was talking to. These types of Calvinists (whichever "brand" one calls them) are not figments of our imagination, they do exist. However as you rightly pointed out, so do many other types of Calvinists, which is easy to forget sometimes. Especially if we've never been exposed to them.



Good post.  One reason I do not call myself a Calvinist is because the term really has little meaning anymore, and the meaning it does have is technical enough that it is confusing.  But all Calvinists, as far as I know, do believe that God sovereignly elects some to go to heaven.  If I look at it closely enough as an issue in the nuanced versions, and compare it to Catholicism, it isn't really all that different. Where it is different is the idea of double predestination, which is the belief that God elects some to go to heaven (the doctrine of election) and deliberately chooses others to go to hell (the doctrine of probation).  The Westminster Confession of Faith, the most widely known Calvinist confession, contains both.  Various Reformed denominations adhere to the WCF in varying degrees, from requiring ministers to subscribe to each single point of it to almost ignoring it.

For me, whether someone is a Christian or not is whether they confess Christ as savior and believe in their heart that God raised Him from the dead.  More narrowly, whether they subscribe to the Nicene creed.  More specifically, whether they are making a sincere effort, given these two restrictions, to obey God.

I find myself in the rather awkward position of attempting to defend something that I admittedly know little about, even if my denomination is technically Calvinistic.  Somehow I am the token practicing Calvinist, albeit a poor one both in ability to defend it or practice Christian charity.  At the same time I am very tired of hearing Calvin, or Calvinism, used as the whipping boy of this forum by people who seem to be almost totally ignorant of it, even those who claim to be former Calvinists.

Calvinism and Orthodoxy and Catholicism are in agreement on many, many issues.

And it seems to be a rule that the most obnoxious people in any denomination, or political party, come to typify that denomination or political party.  I have to remember sometimes that there are some really great posters on this forum.  There are others who sort of even them out, and unfortunately those are the ones I tend to remember.  There is a principle observed more often than it should be in the breach that if you make someone angry, you already lost whatever argument you had with him.

This forum is much like a salad bowl........for you get a little mix of everything. So why are you angry?


ICXC NIKA

I don't think I'm angry. Do I post like I am? But a lot of obnoxious things have been posted, even on this thread, about Calvinists and Calvinism in general.  I can see that someone talking like that when "witnessing" would simply turn someone off.  Read the thread as if the comments about Calvinists were addressed to you personally and see how you would feel.

Calm down, we don't venerate John Calvin so why should we pretend like we do? And no one is treating you bad on these boards, nor is anyone saying things about John Calvin that a good number of Calvinists say about the Pope, Arminianism, Semi-Pelagianism......ect.

You guys are way more harsh. My lay Roman Catholic apologist friend had to put up with this nonsense at a mostly Calvinistic christian rap forum:
http://www.soundclick.com/player/single_player.cfm?songid=1197432&q=hi&newref=1

Now if you were a Roman Catholic at a mostly Calvinistic board, how would you feel if you listened to this song? The calvinist that did this song is someone I have known for 4 years. Now no one on this board ever did this to you, so calm down.

Also, how would you feel if you were an Arminian Protestant, and you had to hear this song:
http://www.holyculture.net/archives/5411

How would you feel? No one on this board is doing this to you, so calm down.

I had friends who were treated real bad on other boards, and you are being treated like a King compared to them, so calm down.







ICXC NIKA

I'm not upset.  One of the saddest things I know is how Christians treat other Christians on internet forums, regardless of who is slamming whom.  If the world is to know Christians by our love, what kind of a witness are we giving?  And I'm not saying this is something I have not been guilty of, whether with or without intention.  It is all too easy to say something cutting to a perfect stranger and not realize how much it does or does not hurt.  We are not to be stumbling blocks to each other.

There are several things that do find disturbing, however.  One is that somehow you are convinced I am a Calvinist, despite my denial.  I have some major criticisms of Calvinism that I have not gone into here, and about which I probably won't, because that belongs more on a Reformed forum than here. You are making the error of treating me not as a person but as a member of a group.  You are trying to figure out if I am OPC, PCA, PCUSA, reformed Baptist or something else, and somehow that knowledge will help you discuss things with me.  Not sure why, as there is an overlapping spectrum within each denomination. I see a lot of the criticism of Calvinism here as immature, ignorant, wide of the mark and more a bad reflection of Orthodox apologetics than anything wrong with Calvinism. If you want to hit me you might as well aim at me, not some stereotype born of internet impressions and scanty reading, mainly from your own side, of someone else's beliefs. I am not necessarily representative of any one group. I doubt I am.  A second thing that bothers me is your attempt at excusing the poor behavior here on the basis that "my group" treats others worse.  If you are the true church you should be angels in comparison, not making "us" morally equal. We sinned badly, so you are justified in sinning, because your sin is less? This is moral relevance and God is absolute in His goodness. It is ok to offend me because someone else, who I don't even know, offended someone else, who I don't know? Think clearly.

A Catholic or Orthodox who actually knew Calvinism better than a Calvinism, including its strengths and flaws, would gain a respectful hearing with a Calvinist. One who could care less as to what the language is that they use is in no position to "witness" to them.  Paul became all things to all men.  Compare the contempt displayed towards Calvinists here to the way Paul reached people.
Logged
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #55 on: September 05, 2009, 02:00:27 PM »

about evil : As Darkness is the absence of light , and cold the absence of heat , so is evil the absence of good , or the lack of good.I think it says somewere that He created evil , well he created Lucifer indeed , but in Isaiah 14 or Ezekiel 28 , it says that Lucifer was without blame and rightfull untill inquity was born in him.Also evil is the opposition to good and the contrary of good , evil is destructive.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2009, 02:12:47 PM by Dan-Romania » Logged

This user no longer posts here.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #56 on: September 05, 2009, 02:21:22 PM »

Quote
The principle is intuitively obvious.  We don't need an infallible authority to tell us what every verse means. You argue that the whole Bible is murky and needs a church to interpret it - especially since the church has officially interpreted only very limited parts of it.

I never said the whole Bible was murky. I just said the principle was flawed. The Scriptures I posted above I do see as clear, so it should be obvious that I don't view the whole Bible as murky. I just know that if you want to play the game of interpreting so called "clear" scripture with the "unclear" ones then you would have to leave whatever Prespyterian church you go to, for you can't agree with me when it comes to those scriptures I posted above and still remain a Prespyterian/calvinist in good standing.

You can't. It's that simple.


Quote
How about

Jesus stepped into a boat.


Where is the ambiguity?


I can't speak for the rest of humanity(6 billion people)...as if I can really know the minds of all humans with 100% absolute certainty, and as if all humans have the same level of comprehension, in every age and stages of life.

So no, I will not speak for all humans, and no, I refuse to use "universal absolute" statements, instead I would like to stick with "partial absolute" statements.......for we know in part, and we will keep learning for all eternity......Lord willing.

You see, not only is there a flaw in the principle we are talking about, there is also a flaw in "inductive logic"......... "empiricism".

But just because there is a flaw in something doesn't mean we can't use it. For I still use the flawed method we are talking about. And I still use the flawed method of "inductive logic".

The only difference is, I am willing to admit their limitations, because they are not perfect systems.....so they must be modified.

Now with that said, I will say that with 100% absolute certainty this passage is clear according to us(you and I). For this is what we can know at this point in time with 100% absolute certainty.

But I will not speak for all of humanity(6 billion people).......for that would be speculating about things we really can not know with full 100% absolute certainty.



Quote
The Bible is clear enough that we know what we should do.  There are parts that transcend human understanding, but that doesn't mean the whole thing is meaningless unless a priest tells us what it means.

Once again, you are speaking about things you can not really know with full 100% absolute certainty. You say the Bible is clear enough, if that was so, then why are Lutherians and the Reformed divided over certain Biblical interpretations? If what you say is true, then why are Baptists and Prespyterians divided over certain Biblical interpretations? Well ok, maybe the problem is not the Bible....but if this was the case, then you must agree with me, that there seems to be a human element of "subjectivity" involved.

If there wasn't then we should all automatically agree.....because everything is so clear that it is impossible for anyone to disagree.

I'm sorry Truthstalker, but this isn't realistic.

THE PRINCIPLE:
The "clear" passages should always interpret the unclear passages of scripture"

Truthstalker, I can see the pink Elephant in the room, can you? Are you telling me that there is no hint of subjectivity in that principle?

Are you telling me that every passage I think is clear will always be the same passage you think is clear? Is this what you are telling me? If so, then you must leave Prespyterianism because the verses I posted above don't fly with Calvinism, they go against the very grain of your system..........so you can't use those passages as the clear passages to interpret the ""unclear"" ones. You can't!

You Can't agree with me that those passages should be used as the clear ones to interprete the unclear "calvinistic" proof texts.

So will you now admit to yourself that there is "subjectivity" involved? If you are truely a "STALKER" of "TRUTH", then eventually you must come to terms with this......for this is true.


Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner










ICXC NIKA
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
truthstalker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Evangelical Presbyterian
Posts: 166


« Reply #57 on: September 05, 2009, 02:42:18 PM »

Quote
The principle is intuitively obvious.  We don't need an infallible authority to tell us what every verse means. You argue that the whole Bible is murky and needs a church to interpret it - especially since the church has officially interpreted only very limited parts of it.

I never said the whole Bible was murky. I just said the principle was flawed. The Scriptures I posted above I do see as clear, so it should be obvious that I don't view the whole Bible as murky. I just know that if you want to play the game of interpreting so called "clear" scripture with the "unclear" ones then you would have to leave whatever Prespyterian church you go to, for you can't agree with me when it comes to those scriptures I posted above and still remain a Prespyterian/calvinist in good standing.

You can't. It's that simple.


Quote
How about

Jesus stepped into a boat.


Where is the ambiguity?


I can't speak for the rest of humanity(6 billion people)...as if I can really know the minds of all humans with 100% absolute certainty, and as if all humans have the same level of comprehension, in every age and stages of life.

So no, I will not speak for all humans, and no, I refuse to use "universal absolute" statements, instead I would like to stick with "partial absolute" statements.......for we know in part, and we will keep learning for all eternity......Lord willing.

You see, not only is there a flaw in the principle we are talking about, there is also a flaw in "inductive logic"......... "empiricism".

But just because there is a flaw in something doesn't mean we can't use it. For I still use the flawed method we are talking about. And I still use the flawed method of "inductive logic".

The only difference is, I am willing to admit their limitations, because they are not perfect systems.....so they must be modified.

Now with that said, I will say that with 100% absolute certainty this passage is clear according to us(you and I). For this is what we can know at this point in time with 100% absolute certainty.

But I will not speak for all of humanity(6 billion people).......for that would be speculating about things we really can not know with full 100% absolute certainty.



Quote
The Bible is clear enough that we know what we should do.  There are parts that transcend human understanding, but that doesn't mean the whole thing is meaningless unless a priest tells us what it means.

Once again, you are speaking about things you can not really know with full 100% absolute certainty. You say the Bible is clear enough, if that was so, then why are Lutherians and the Reformed divided over certain Biblical interpretations? If what you say is true, then why are Baptists and Prespyterians divided over certain Biblical interpretations? Well ok, maybe the problem is not the Bible....but if this was the case, then you must agree with me, that there seems to be a human element of "subjectivity" involved.

If there wasn't then we should all automatically agree.....because everything is so clear that it is impossible for anyone to disagree.

I'm sorry Truthstalker, but this isn't realistic.

THE PRINCIPLE:
The "clear" passages should always interpret the unclear passages of scripture"

Truthstalker, I can see the pink Elephant in the room, can you? Are you telling me that there is no hint of subjectivity in that principle?

Are you telling me that every passage I think is clear will always be the same passage you think is clear? Is this what you are telling me? If so, then you must leave Prespyterianism because the verses I posted above don't fly with Calvinism, they go against the very grain of your system..........so you can't use those passages as the clear passages to interpret the ""unclear"" ones. You can't!

You Can't agree with me that those passages should be used as the clear ones to interprete the unclear "calvinistic" proof texts.

So will you now admit to yourself that there is "subjectivity" involved? If you are truely a "STALKER" of "TRUTH", then eventually you must come to terms with this......for this is true.


Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner










ICXC NIKA

None of those Scriptures contradicts Calvinism. You underestimate it.  Did you read the Piper article I linked?

To answer you I would have to dig into the doctrine of perspicuity.  Here is one source more knowledgeable than I: http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj15i.pdf
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #58 on: September 05, 2009, 02:48:26 PM »



The terminology is not original with me (I can cite at least one source, if you would like). 

I have heard the term hyper-Calvinism/Calvinist used as a theological term to mean the Calvinists who believe, that God created evil, God willy nilly and quite arbitrarily decides who goes to heaven and hell, and all the rest Papist reported.

 I have never heard the phrase "radical Calvinist" used as any type of "official" or semi-official theological term. Rather I've only ever heard it used in the lay sense it's being used here, to mean hyper-high/5 point Calvinism. If indeed "radical Calvinism" is an actual theological term within Calvinism thought, I'm sure no one would use it. I just don't think anyone here is aware that it is an actual term. That's the thing I've found about most Calvinists, including your post, that you assume we should KNOW all these different "schools" of thought, even though no one has ever explained any of this to us.

Quote
Apparently you desire to critique and refute Calvinism but have no desire to learn anything about it.

Wrong. He is trying to learn about it, that's what this whole thread is about. You must remember that most non-Calvinists who've been exposed to Calvinism have only been exposed to the hyper-Calvinism which says God created evil, and actually DOES evil things like arbitrarily send people to hell, gives people cancer, and has not given man free will.  Most people are simply not aware of other milder "flavors" of Calvinism, whether it's 4 point, or low 5 point, high 5 point, hyper, or whatever else. (all of which are terms I've heard at one time or another by Calvinists describing themselves...)

The more moderate forms of Calvinism are not really all that different than Catholicism/Orthodoxy's views on these subjects, even though Calvinists would use radically different terminology. However you've got to admit, the most outspoken and visible Calvinists are of the type of people Papist experienced. And so it's no wonder people find "Calvinism" so disagreeable because it appears there is only one form, even if the appearance is not accurate.

Quote
Is your list of who is and who is not a Christian your own concept or is this official Catholic church teaching?

It's obviously his own opinion since he said flat out said "I feel", in refering to the subject.

Quote
Does the Catholic Church teach that Calvinists who believe that God is the direct source of evil are not Christian? If so, cite the Catechism. If not, how dare you say such a thing?

He dare say such a thing because, well he has that right. Smiley

Secondly, I'm sure there are canons, councils or something written in the history of the Apostolic Church somewhere that says something to the effect that anyone who believes God created evil (thus being the source, cause and the one DOING evil) is not a Christian.  I'm sure this was addressed at some point in Church history pre-schism and certainly post schism/post Reformation. And I KNOW the issue of free will was addressed at some ancient Council though I've forgotten which one.

You make a good point that it's important to remember there are many different forms of Calvinism. However instead of explaining that, you implied Papist was either lying, or just didn't know what he was talking about. When in fact I, and many others have been in conversations with people JUST LIKE the guys he was talking to. These types of Calvinists (whichever "brand" one calls them) are not figments of our imagination, they do exist. However as you rightly pointed out, so do many other types of Calvinists, which is easy to forget sometimes. Especially if we've never been exposed to them.



Good post.  One reason I do not call myself a Calvinist is because the term really has little meaning anymore, and the meaning it does have is technical enough that it is confusing.  But all Calvinists, as far as I know, do believe that God sovereignly elects some to go to heaven.  If I look at it closely enough as an issue in the nuanced versions, and compare it to Catholicism, it isn't really all that different. Where it is different is the idea of double predestination, which is the belief that God elects some to go to heaven (the doctrine of election) and deliberately chooses others to go to hell (the doctrine of probation).  The Westminster Confession of Faith, the most widely known Calvinist confession, contains both.  Various Reformed denominations adhere to the WCF in varying degrees, from requiring ministers to subscribe to each single point of it to almost ignoring it.

For me, whether someone is a Christian or not is whether they confess Christ as savior and believe in their heart that God raised Him from the dead.  More narrowly, whether they subscribe to the Nicene creed.  More specifically, whether they are making a sincere effort, given these two restrictions, to obey God.

I find myself in the rather awkward position of attempting to defend something that I admittedly know little about, even if my denomination is technically Calvinistic.  Somehow I am the token practicing Calvinist, albeit a poor one both in ability to defend it or practice Christian charity.  At the same time I am very tired of hearing Calvin, or Calvinism, used as the whipping boy of this forum by people who seem to be almost totally ignorant of it, even those who claim to be former Calvinists.

Calvinism and Orthodoxy and Catholicism are in agreement on many, many issues.

And it seems to be a rule that the most obnoxious people in any denomination, or political party, come to typify that denomination or political party.  I have to remember sometimes that there are some really great posters on this forum.  There are others who sort of even them out, and unfortunately those are the ones I tend to remember.  There is a principle observed more often than it should be in the breach that if you make someone angry, you already lost whatever argument you had with him.

This forum is much like a salad bowl........for you get a little mix of everything. So why are you angry?


ICXC NIKA

I don't think I'm angry. Do I post like I am? But a lot of obnoxious things have been posted, even on this thread, about Calvinists and Calvinism in general.  I can see that someone talking like that when "witnessing" would simply turn someone off.  Read the thread as if the comments about Calvinists were addressed to you personally and see how you would feel.

Calm down, we don't venerate John Calvin so why should we pretend like we do? And no one is treating you bad on these boards, nor is anyone saying things about John Calvin that a good number of Calvinists say about the Pope, Arminianism, Semi-Pelagianism......ect.

You guys are way more harsh. My lay Roman Catholic apologist friend had to put up with this nonsense at a mostly Calvinistic christian rap forum:
http://www.soundclick.com/player/single_player.cfm?songid=1197432&q=hi&newref=1

Now if you were a Roman Catholic at a mostly Calvinistic board, how would you feel if you listened to this song? The calvinist that did this song is someone I have known for 4 years. Now no one on this board ever did this to you, so calm down.

Also, how would you feel if you were an Arminian Protestant, and you had to hear this song:
http://www.holyculture.net/archives/5411

How would you feel? No one on this board is doing this to you, so calm down.

I had friends who were treated real bad on other boards, and you are being treated like a King compared to them, so calm down.



ICXC NIKA

I'm not upset.  One of the saddest things I know is how Christians treat other Christians on internet forums, regardless of who is slamming whom.  If the world is to know Christians by our love, what kind of a witness are we giving?  And I'm not saying this is something I have not been guilty of, whether with or without intention.  It is all too easy to say something cutting to a perfect stranger and not realize how much it does or does not hurt.  We are not to be stumbling blocks to each other.

There are several things that do find disturbing, however.  One is that somehow you are convinced I am a Calvinist, despite my denial.  I have some major criticisms of Calvinism that I have not gone into here, and about which I probably won't, because that belongs more on a Reformed forum than here. You are making the error of treating me not as a person but as a member of a group.  You are trying to figure out if I am OPC, PCA, PCUSA, reformed Baptist or something else, and somehow that knowledge will help you discuss things with me.  Not sure why, as there is an overlapping spectrum within each denomination. I see a lot of the criticism of Calvinism here as immature, ignorant, wide of the mark and more a bad reflection of Orthodox apologetics than anything wrong with Calvinism. If you want to hit me you might as well aim at me, not some stereotype born of internet impressions and scanty reading, mainly from your own side, of someone else's beliefs. I am not necessarily representative of any one group. I doubt I am.  A second thing that bothers me is your attempt at excusing the poor behavior here on the basis that "my group" treats others worse.  If you are the true church you should be angels in comparison, not making "us" morally equal. We sinned badly, so you are justified in sinning, because your sin is less? This is moral relevance and God is absolute in His goodness. It is ok to offend me because someone else, who I don't even know, offended someone else, who I don't know? Think clearly.

A Catholic or Orthodox who actually knew Calvinism better than a Calvinism, including its strengths and flaws, would gain a respectful hearing with a Calvinist. One who could care less as to what the language is that they use is in no position to "witness" to them.  Paul became all things to all men.  Compare the contempt displayed towards Calvinists here to the way Paul reached people.

You are correct, I do want to know what prespyterian denomination you come from because it will help me in my discussions with you. You already know what I am, so why can't I know what group you belong to?

You are also correct in that I am trying to pin down your theology according to the group you belong to. But as an individual, you may differ from the "official" teachings you are suppose to believe in. You mentioned some names like Piper, and a few other people, and that helps me pin down what you "might" believe in. The more you talk, the more I will know......so please, keep talking. Eventually I will know what you believe as an individual member of an evangelical prespyterian group.

You seem unwilling to let me know what you believe vs what you don't believe. So, let me be more direct.

Do you believe in the 5 Solas? Yes or no?

Do you believe in T.U.L.I.P.? Yes or no?

This alone should give me all the information I need.

Oh, why are you still upset with "Papist" using the word "Radical" instead of the word "Hyper"? Why is that such a big deal to you? He is not """Reformed""" so he doesn't have to use the same lingo. He can know that in the Reformed Protestant world, they are called "Hyper", but why can't he still use the word "Radical" if he thinks the word "Radical" is the same as the word "Hyper"?

It has been my experience that a "Hyper" calvinists is any Calvinist to the "right" of another Calvinist........so, it really doesn't matter to me for it's not like a "Hyper-Calvinist" will actualy admit that they are "Hyper" anyway.....I mean, it's a pejorative term and who wants to admit that they are a "pejorative term"? I don't know. You might find someone on the internet that might admit it, but as the norm in real life situations.......not to many people will admit that they are a "pejorative term".

Instead, they will almost likely use the term for someone to the "right" of them.

I don't know......but anyway......




ICXC NIKA
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #59 on: September 05, 2009, 03:01:25 PM »

Quote
The principle is intuitively obvious.  We don't need an infallible authority to tell us what every verse means. You argue that the whole Bible is murky and needs a church to interpret it - especially since the church has officially interpreted only very limited parts of it.

I never said the whole Bible was murky. I just said the principle was flawed. The Scriptures I posted above I do see as clear, so it should be obvious that I don't view the whole Bible as murky. I just know that if you want to play the game of interpreting so called "clear" scripture with the "unclear" ones then you would have to leave whatever Prespyterian church you go to, for you can't agree with me when it comes to those scriptures I posted above and still remain a Prespyterian/calvinist in good standing.

You can't. It's that simple.


Quote
How about

Jesus stepped into a boat.


Where is the ambiguity?


I can't speak for the rest of humanity(6 billion people)...as if I can really know the minds of all humans with 100% absolute certainty, and as if all humans have the same level of comprehension, in every age and stages of life.

So no, I will not speak for all humans, and no, I refuse to use "universal absolute" statements, instead I would like to stick with "partial absolute" statements.......for we know in part, and we will keep learning for all eternity......Lord willing.

You see, not only is there a flaw in the principle we are talking about, there is also a flaw in "inductive logic"......... "empiricism".

But just because there is a flaw in something doesn't mean we can't use it. For I still use the flawed method we are talking about. And I still use the flawed method of "inductive logic".

The only difference is, I am willing to admit their limitations, because they are not perfect systems.....so they must be modified.

Now with that said, I will say that with 100% absolute certainty this passage is clear according to us(you and I). For this is what we can know at this point in time with 100% absolute certainty.

But I will not speak for all of humanity(6 billion people).......for that would be speculating about things we really can not know with full 100% absolute certainty.



Quote
The Bible is clear enough that we know what we should do.  There are parts that transcend human understanding, but that doesn't mean the whole thing is meaningless unless a priest tells us what it means.

Once again, you are speaking about things you can not really know with full 100% absolute certainty. You say the Bible is clear enough, if that was so, then why are Lutherians and the Reformed divided over certain Biblical interpretations? If what you say is true, then why are Baptists and Prespyterians divided over certain Biblical interpretations? Well ok, maybe the problem is not the Bible....but if this was the case, then you must agree with me, that there seems to be a human element of "subjectivity" involved.

If there wasn't then we should all automatically agree.....because everything is so clear that it is impossible for anyone to disagree.

I'm sorry Truthstalker, but this isn't realistic.

THE PRINCIPLE:
The "clear" passages should always interpret the unclear passages of scripture"

Truthstalker, I can see the pink Elephant in the room, can you? Are you telling me that there is no hint of subjectivity in that principle?

Are you telling me that every passage I think is clear will always be the same passage you think is clear? Is this what you are telling me? If so, then you must leave Prespyterianism because the verses I posted above don't fly with Calvinism, they go against the very grain of your system..........so you can't use those passages as the clear passages to interpret the ""unclear"" ones. You can't!

You Can't agree with me that those passages should be used as the clear ones to interprete the unclear "calvinistic" proof texts.

So will you now admit to yourself that there is "subjectivity" involved? If you are truely a "STALKER" of "TRUTH", then eventually you must come to terms with this......for this is true.


Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner










ICXC NIKA

None of those Scriptures contradicts Calvinism. You underestimate it.  Did you read the Piper article I linked?

To answer you I would have to dig into the doctrine of perspicuity.  Here is one source more knowledgeable than I: http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj15i.pdf

I have a book by Piper, and I have alot of friends that are into Piper. Look, I know how different Calvinists try and harmonize the scriptures......alot of different groups do it.
So it's not about that. Arminians do the same with Calvinistic proof texts.......so that wasn't the point Truthstalker. That wasn't the point.

The point is, you can't understand those verses as is at face value in it's common and christian historical patristic ussage and still be a Calvinist. You can't use those passages as the primary passages to interpret the common calvinistic proof texts. You can't do it for you would have to leave Calvinism if you did.

Have you ever read what Martin Luther had to say about some of the passages? His interpretation is different for some of those passages. His interpretation differs from the common Calvinistic interpretations. Hae you ever read alot of the eastern Church fathers when it comes to those passages? The common calvinistic interpretation disagrees with what alot of eastern church fathers had to say about those very same passages.

So it's not about the mental gymnastics that calvinists do to a text.....to make it fit their system of thought......it's not about that. Instead it's about using those scriptures (at face value) to interprete the scriptures that alot of calvinists use.

You don't see calvinists using mental gymnastics when it comes to their proof texts, no! They want people to take their proof texts at face value.....as is. But when it comes to the proof texts of Arminians, they don't want people to look at them at face value. Instead, they want people to follow their mental gymnastics when it comes to those texts.

So no, it is not about that.......instead, it is about taking those scriptures at face value to interprete common Calvinistic proof texts. And this is something you can't do, because you can't see those scriptures as being the "clear" passage to interpret the scriptures that most calvinists cling to as proof texts.

You can't understand those passages the same way I do and still be a Calvinist.


That's the point!






ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: September 05, 2009, 03:11:36 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
truthstalker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Evangelical Presbyterian
Posts: 166


« Reply #60 on: September 05, 2009, 03:06:35 PM »

Quote
You are correct, I do want to know what prespyterian denomination you come from because it will help me in my discussions with you. You already know what I am, so why can't I know what group you belong to?

I don't know what you are.  I don't know much about Antiochean Orthodoxy or how closely one must adhere to the official line to be AO (if that is a term).

Apparently I didn't make myself clear on this thread.  It is not what I believe but what I believe Calvinism to be that I am attempting to explain.

Quote
This alone should give me all the information I need.

For what?  Your little questionnaire suggests unspoken motives and is alarming.

Quote
Oh, why are you still upset with "Papist" using the word "Radical" instead of the word "Hyper"? Why is that such a big deal to you? He is not """Reformed""" so he doesn't have to use the same lingo. He can know that in the Reformed Protestant world, they are called "Hyper", but why can't he still use the word "Radical" if he thinks the word "Radical" is the same as the word "Hyper"?

I think I spoke clearly to this.  I'm disgusted more than upset.  He wants to refute something without bothering to know anything about it.  Calvinism has a lot of terminology and concepts that he should clearly understand if he wants to discuss those concepts with Calvinists.  He won't bother to learn, so the conversation will end in failure.  He is unwilling to see that. Or learn. People make a big deal out of these things. You may recall that one letter once was a big commotion: homoiousion and homoousion.  It is still a big deal.  To communicate with someone you have to learn what they mean when they use a word.
Logged
truthstalker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Evangelical Presbyterian
Posts: 166


« Reply #61 on: September 05, 2009, 03:13:50 PM »

Quote
You can't do it for you would have to leave Calvinism if you did.

"Patiently."  I have explained several times that I am not a Calvinist. 

I haven't read any Piper except for that one article. Really. I've skimmed some stuff on monergism.com but I haven't gotten into it.  One can be Presbyterian without being a Calvinist.  That may be a shock to you.

Your claim that one cannot view those verses as clear and still be a Calvinist is absurd. Flat out absurd.

Different men of good will can come to different conclusions about the reading of a text with a clear conscience.
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #62 on: September 05, 2009, 03:31:39 PM »

Quote
You are correct, I do want to know what prespyterian denomination you come from because it will help me in my discussions with you. You already know what I am, so why can't I know what group you belong to?

I don't know what you are.  I don't know much about Antiochean Orthodoxy or how closely one must adhere to the official line to be AO (if that is a term).

Apparently I didn't make myself clear on this thread.  It is not what I believe but what I believe Calvinism to be that I am attempting to explain.

Quote
This alone should give me all the information I need.

For what?  Your little questionnaire suggests unspoken motives and is alarming.

Quote
Oh, why are you still upset with "Papist" using the word "Radical" instead of the word "Hyper"? Why is that such a big deal to you? He is not """Reformed""" so he doesn't have to use the same lingo. He can know that in the Reformed Protestant world, they are called "Hyper", but why can't he still use the word "Radical" if he thinks the word "Radical" is the same as the word "Hyper"?

I think I spoke clearly to this.  I'm disgusted more than upset.  He wants to refute something without bothering to know anything about it.  Calvinism has a lot of terminology and concepts that he should clearly understand if he wants to discuss those concepts with Calvinists.  He won't bother to learn, so the conversation will end in failure.  He is unwilling to see that. Or learn. People make a big deal out of these things. You may recall that one letter once was a big commotion: homoiousion and homoousion.  It is still a big deal.  To communicate with someone you have to learn what they mean when they use a word.

Those fighting over the words "homoiousion" and "homoousion" were of the Same Church.....they were fighting and arguing.

But Reformed Protestantism is not the same church/group as Roman Catholicism......they are two different animals now. So no, it's not the samething.....they both developed their own vocab.


And about my motives, you can't know my motives for you are not God. I mean what I say, and I say what I mean. I want to know what you believe.....point blank. I am a pretty blunt person......so stop getting all gnostic on me.

I want to know what you believe because I know that not every protestant is the same. If you were an Arminian, then it wouldn't make sense if I spoke to you as if you were a Calvinist. If you were a Mormon, then it wouldn't make sense if I spoke to you as if you were a Seventh Day Adventist.

Do you now understand why I want to know what you are? I also know that not every Calvinist is the same, so if I am speaking with a Calvinist, then I want to know what they are......I want to know if they follow Gordan Clark or Van Till? I want to know if they are Supra or Infra? I want to know if they follow Federal Vision, NPP, Auburn Ave, and Norman Shepard or if they follow the more traditional forms of Reformed Protestantism.

I want to know if they are full/hyper preterists or partial preterists. I want to know if they believe in 4 points or all 5. I want to know if they are Dispy or Covenantal? I want to know if they are Calminian or not.

So do you now understand why it is good to know what someone is and isn't? I see it as common courtesy, so why are you so scared? Why are you chicken?

You know that I'm an Orthodox Christian, and the Antiochians share the same faith as the Greeks and Russians. We are in communion with eachother so I mean come on. You already know what I am, so why are you scared? We know what Liz is, she's Anglican! We know what David is, he's a Baptist from England. And we know that someone else is a Messianic Jew.

We know that Papist is a Roman Catholic......so why are you scared. It makes things alot easier if we know what you are.......if you want us to get you right, then admit what you are.....and go from there.

Gee! Why is this so hard?







ICXC NIKA
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #63 on: September 05, 2009, 03:42:34 PM »

Quote
You can't do it for you would have to leave Calvinism if you did.

"Patiently."  I have explained several times that I am not a Calvinist. 

I haven't read any Piper except for that one article. Really. I've skimmed some stuff on monergism.com but I haven't gotten into it.  One can be Presbyterian without being a Calvinist.  That may be a shock to you.

Your claim that one cannot view those verses as clear and still be a Calvinist is absurd. Flat out absurd.

Different men of good will can come to different conclusions about the reading of a text with a clear conscience.

What country do you live in? Because in America the OPC and PCA are both very strict. I guess they will allow you to join.....maybe. I know when I tried joining the PCA back in 2001 in Alabama I had to go through a class, and the things they tought in that class were things I whole heartedly disagreed with. I was engaged at the time with a calvinist who was PCA and so I tried to join her church back then, but couldn't.....because it was too false!!!! And so we never got married. (sidenote: the people were nice, very very nice, but I couldn't force myself to accept what went against my very being and what I knew to be true....well that as well as her elder and his wife thought it would be a better idea if she marriad another calvinist, so she dumped me. Which was wise for we were unequally yoked...but that's a different story for a different time)

I know of another person who is PCA and she doesn't accept everything she is suppose to and she told me that if you wanted to be in leadership then you would have to accept everything. But the PCA is conservative. But still you won't tell me. So are you PCUSA? They are real liberal so if you belong there, then yeah.......you can pretty much believe anything.

But you still won't tell me what denomination you are from.....so what gives? I mean, how am I suppose to talk to you if you refuse to let me know what you are......ok, so you claim not to be a calvinist.....all right......so what are you then? Please tell......for I really want to know?

What are you?


Quote
Your claim that one cannot view those verses as clear and still be a Calvinist is absurd. Flat out absurd.

It is not absurd, there is no way you can be a calvinist and believe you can fall from grace!

There is no way you can be a calvinist and believe that grace is resistable!

There is no way you can be a Calvinist if you don't believe in the doctrine of Total Inability!

There is no way you can be a Calvinist and believe that election is conditional!

So it is not absurd!!!

What I said is very very very true!!! They can not understand those scriptures as is, in the same way I do as being clear and still be a Calvinist in good standing!

Impossible!!!



Quote
Different men of good will can come to different conclusions about the reading of a text with a clear conscience.

Then the principle is flawed, because the principle is subjective. But you keep fighting this obvious fact.







ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: September 05, 2009, 03:58:59 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #64 on: September 05, 2009, 04:18:52 PM »

The rust belt is soo boring, nominal, lame, and filled with christians that don't know what they believe or should believe. It's too lame for my taste.......I like the south better. There is more action down there. Up here, we have alot of Roman Catholics and Protestants that are into tarot cards, astrological readings.......ect. I dated a Roman catholic in this area once who thought the devil was God's equal. I dated another Roman Catholic woman who thought it was ok to not tell a priest everything at confession........ect.

Thank you for your response.  I was really surprised by what you had to say, and I'm really going to think about it.  Do I really prefer a tepid, lukewarm evening at the bookstore, or one full of theological debate and passion?  Some things about it might seem irritating, sure.  But do I really want a world where nobody really cares?  Where everyone is just getting along and moving along?

Thanks again, and God bless you!

As people we are all wired differently, so what you may like, may not necessarily be what someone else may like.......and vice versa.

You don't have to be like me, and I don't have to be like you. we should just both be ourselves, and try to emulate Jesus and the Saints the best way we can, and as much as possible.

I am a little crazy, so please, don't emulate me in the book stores.  Wink

I don't do it as much any more.......I guess old age slows you down.......as well as more and more bookstores closing down due to the rise of the internet, But I had my theological and historical fights in bookstores many years ago.......especially in Alabama.







ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: September 05, 2009, 04:24:45 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #65 on: September 05, 2009, 04:27:42 PM »

Quote
Truthstalker, the principle is flawed. Just admit it.

The principle is intuitively obvious.  We don't need an infallible authority to tell us what every verse means. You argue that the whole Bible is murky and needs a church to interpret it - especially since the church has officially interpreted only very limited parts of it.

How about

Jesus stepped into a boat.


Where is the ambiguity?

The Bible is clear enough that we know what we should do.  There are parts that transcend human understanding, but that doesn't mean the whole thing is meaningless unless a priest tells us what it means.


I think this discussion is getting a bit heated/off track. Why should it matter if Truthstalker is reluctant to define his beliefs for us? It's quite a private matter for some people. I don't go over everything I believe here either.

To return to something from earlier: I must admit I object on principle to the claim that anything can be 'intuitively obvious'. The phrase is meaningless.

Quote

How about

Jesus stepped into a boat.



Ok then.

1) Jesus stepped into a boat.
The boat is clearly an allusion to the Ark of the Old Testament, and the Ark is usually interpreted as a symbol of the Church.

2) Jesus stepped into a boat. This sentence does not tell us to whom that boat belonged, therefore clearly the Bible is teaching us that all property is theft, and common ownership is right.

3) Jesus stepped into a boat. This indicates that boats during this period were either moored to steps, or had steps inside them. Yet the archaeological evidence disagrees - perhaps the Bible is wrong?!

4) Jesus stepped into a boat. This phrase clearly refutes the doctrine that God is omnipresent, for did clearly Jesus had to 'step' in order to be in the boat.

.... etc.

My examples are absurd, but I hope they show you how there is ALWAYS room for ambiguous readings. None is ever so ridiculous that someone won't think of it, and cling to it.
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #66 on: September 05, 2009, 04:50:58 PM »

Liz,



He claims to be an evangelical prespyterian, but not a calvinist.

Yet, he wants to teach Papist about Calvinism, and he is getting upset about something he shouldn't be upset about. Papist wants to use the term "Radical Calvinists" to talk about the people he met, but Truthstalker wants him to use the term "HyperCalvinists" when talking about them.

Now I agree with the term "Hypercalvinists", but he shouldn't be stuck on that when Papist knows what he means by it. He should just move on and explain to him what he thinks calvinism is and isn't.

Not that I think all calvinists are the same....because there are many different schools of thought when it comes to calvinism........but anyway.

To each his/her own.






ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: September 05, 2009, 04:56:43 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #67 on: September 05, 2009, 05:03:21 PM »

Liz,



He claims to be an evangelical prespyterian, but not a calvinist.

Yet, he wants to teach Papist about Calvinism, and he is getting upset about something he shouldn't be upset about. Papist wants to use the term "Radical Calvinists" to talk about the people he met, but Truthstalker wants him to use the term "HyperCalvinists" when talking about them.

Now I agree with the term "Hypercalvinists", but he shouldn't be stuck on that when Papist knows what he means by that. He should just move on and explain to him what he thinks calvinism is and isn't.

Not that I think all calvinists are the same....because their are many different schools of thought when it comes to calvinism........but anyway.

To each his/her own.




ICXC NIKA

Basically, yes, you're right. But the fact remains that he does seem upset, whether or not that's justified.

I think the onus here is on Papist to use the correct terminology. Radical means 'at root', not 'extreme'. To use a parallel example, it's as if someone decided to call the Orthodox 'anachronistic' or 'superannuated' - terms that imply a negative judgement, and which are not synonyms for the approved term.

If someone used those terms in front of me to refer to the Orthodox, I would get annoyed, so I can understand Truthstalker getting annoyed about incorrect epithets applied to Calvinists, even though he's not one.

Also, it's sometimes very hard to explain what something 'is and isn't' until you've got your terminology all sorted out.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,144


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #68 on: September 05, 2009, 09:39:16 PM »

Ok. They are not radical calvinists. They just adhere to some strange doctrines about God that appear to be contrary to the Christian view of God. Now, I am not so concerned about the termonology here as I am about the souls that could be lost as a result of the doctrine that ascribes evil to God.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #69 on: September 05, 2009, 10:33:46 PM »

   
All very good advice. I remember they began part of their converstation by saying that they "felt bad" for the children in africa who had never heard of Jesus because those people were "going to hell". I was absolutely repulsed by that statement. It reminds of the 700 club episode of south park where the missonary tells the african child, "No, No honey, say it in God's language... English." lol
[/quote]

You should have asked them why they were not therefore preparing immediately to go to Africa to share the gospel with these children

Likely response: if God chooses to turn their hearts of stone to hearts of flesh so that they can come to faith he will provide the messenger to announce the good news to them.

Your next response: how do you know that my question to you about going to Africa yourself isn't God's predestinating will to put a missionary calling into your heart?

Likely response - hemming and hawing (when it comes to becoming a foreign missionary themselves, most protestants (especially modern calvinists*) begin to change the conversation - they see the hypocrisy that they are so sure those who haven't heard the gospel will not be saved, then their professed concern for these folk and finally their total unwillingness to consider foreign missions as a calling for themselves. That's alway something for someone else to do)

*ironic since many missionaries/evangelists of the past such as George Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards, Adonirom Judson and others were calvinists
« Last Edit: September 05, 2009, 10:38:56 PM by BrotherAidan » Logged
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #70 on: September 05, 2009, 10:54:36 PM »


I agree. They think that God creates evil. Such a view is down righty sick and I will not accept that they worship the God of Jesus Christ. The God of Jesus Christ is loving, holy, and merciful. I am nearly certain that radical Calvinists cannot be considered Christian.
I












I knew Calvinists who believed that God ordained the Fall (for the greater glory of revealing His saving grace), but stop short of positing that God created evil and satan's rebellion. They left that question unanswered. The most I ever heard someone of that hard core persuasion go was to say that if God is all sovereign and ordained the Fall, then logic would lead you to conclude .... (don't finish sentence, raise eyebrow, everyone gets uneasy, change subject).

I think these guys were confused, even as hard-core calvinists if they were saying God created evil.

jnorm888, Did Gordon Clark go that far?



Fixed quote tags as requested...  -PtA
« Last Edit: September 05, 2009, 11:06:49 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #71 on: September 05, 2009, 10:57:21 PM »

Dear Moderator
could you please get my reply out of the blue box in the post above (I don't know how I did that)?
thanks!
Logged
truthstalker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Evangelical Presbyterian
Posts: 166


« Reply #72 on: September 05, 2009, 11:03:18 PM »

Papist,

Here are some verses concerning common grace you might consider:

 "The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works" (Ps. 145:9). "He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment. Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" (Deut. 10:18-19). "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 5:44-45).
 God "causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous"
(Matt. 5:45)

I took these off monergism.com.  Logically, God would not command us to do anything that is against His nature.  If He commands us to do good to all men, then He must desire and do good to all men.
Logged
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #73 on: September 05, 2009, 11:15:05 PM »

First off, let's elevate the tone a little, and treat each other as brothers rather than enemies. Ok?

Secondly, you confuse "radical Calvinists" with hyper-Calvinists.  The word radical refers to root: at root, they are Calvinists.  All Christians like to think that we are not superficial, but that the Gospel has made a radical change in us.  We are radically altered by God. So it is a compliment to call someone radical.
But as you were attempting to insult them, I think you meant something else.

Thirdly, I am not particularly a Calvinist.  I am not an expert on Calvinism.  But I think I know a little more than you do, and you would do well to learn something about what you attempting to criticize.

Fourthly, Calvinists do not regard God as the author of evil.  If anything that is a straw-man accusation, but it does apply to hyper-Calvinism (most of what people think of as Calvinism on this forum seems to be hyper-Calvinism).  I could post information on the differences between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism if youlook.

Fourthly, you really do not know where Calvinists are coming from on this issue, and probably many others. In desiring to know more of where these people are coming from, you might read John Piper's article here that discusses God's desire to save all. http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1995/1580_Are_There_Two_Wills_in_God/

I find many of your accusations against Calvinists unfounded.  There are, for example, many wonderful and humble Calvinists.  I am not convinced that the OP accurately reported on what these people said, because I am not sure the OP is aware of some of the subtleties at play here.  Do Orthodox and Catholics not regard themselves as God's elect?


the OP was reporting on what he genuinely recollected from the conversation. Whether accurately ascertained exactly what they believed  or perceived some of it as worse that it actually is held by these fellows, the point is that the OP relates what he got from the conversation/debate regarding his perception of their beliefs and came here asking for responses.

Also, if you look ar what jnorm888 and Nacho have written there is understanding of the various nuances among calvinists. I myself was a mild calvinist (somehow God ordains and we exercise human responsibility - these aren't contradicitons, but mysteries; God didn't ordain the Fall, He allowed it but did ordain redemption to bring good out of it; rejection of double predestination; total inability rather than total depravity (people aren't absolutely wicked because, as a result of common grace they are capable of doing good acts, however they are completely unable to respond to God without Him breathing into them the breath of life, spiritually); strong emphasis on the positive benefits on individuals and societies of common grace; the validity of evidential apologetics (because of common grace the functioning of humankind's reasoning capacity is not totally fallen) etc.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2009, 11:17:23 PM by BrotherAidan » Logged
truthstalker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Evangelical Presbyterian
Posts: 166


« Reply #74 on: September 05, 2009, 11:16:10 PM »

when it comes to becoming a foreign missionary themselves, most protestants (especially modern calvinists*) begin to change the conversation - they see the hypocrisy that they are so sure those who haven't heard the gospel will not be saved, then their professed concern for these folk and finally their total unwillingness to consider foreign missions as a calling for themselves. That's alway something for someone else to do)

*ironic since many missionaries/evangelists of the past such as George Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards, Adonirom Judson and others were calvinists

Utter hogwash.  Absolute, totally ignorant and prejudiced garbage and calumny.  Presbyterian denominations typically have very strong missions programs at the denominational level and in the local church. My wife and I tried to go on the missions field but it didn't work.  Most people do short term missions. In a church of five hundred we support ten to twelve missionaries, mostly from our church. My daughter is on the mission field.  My pastor spent 20 years on the mission field. I know many missionaries.
Where do you get this sort of stuff from? Do you just make it up to slam Protestants?

Was Jim Eliot an Orthodox? He and four friends died at the hands of the Auca in South America. You probably missed the movie "At the End of the Spear" because it wasn't Orthodox. There is a cemetary in Nigeria that is full of the children of missionaries, children who died on the mission field, because their parents were committed to the Gospel and the Great Commission, and were there out of obedience to Christ.  North Korea was more Christian (Presbyterian!) than South Korea is now, from what I have heard, as a result of missions.  We have a long history of martyrs and sacrifice, and no one should sneer at the high cost carried for the sake of the cross by any Christian group.

How would you feel if someone sneered at Orthodox martyrs?
Logged
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #75 on: September 05, 2009, 11:40:31 PM »

when it comes to becoming a foreign missionary themselves, most protestants (especially modern calvinists*) begin to change the conversation - they see the hypocrisy that they are so sure those who haven't heard the gospel will not be saved, then their professed concern for these folk and finally their total unwillingness to consider foreign missions as a calling for themselves. That's alway something for someone else to do)

*ironic since many missionaries/evangelists of the past such as George Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards, Adonirom Judson and others were calvinists

Utter hogwash.  Absolute, totally ignorant and prejudiced garbage and calumny.  Presbyterian denominations typically have very strong missions programs at the denominational level and in the local church. My wife and I tried to go on the missions field but it didn't work.  Most people do short term missions. In a church of five hundred we support ten to twelve missionaries, mostly from our church. My daughter is on the mission field.  My pastor spent 20 years on the mission field. I know many missionaries.
Where do you get this sort of stuff from? Do you just make it up to slam Protestants?

Was Jim Eliot an Orthodox? He and four friends died at the hands of the Auca in South America. You probably missed the movie "At the End of the Spear" because it wasn't Orthodox. There is a cemetary in Nigeria that is full of the children of missionaries, children who died on the mission field, because their parents were committed to the Gospel and the Great Commission, and were there out of obedience to Christ.  North Korea was more Christian (Presbyterian!) than South Korea is now, from what I have heard, as a result of missions.  We have a long history of martyrs and sacrifice, and no one should sneer at the high cost carried for the sake of the cross by any Christian group.

How would you feel if someone sneered at Orthodox martyrs?

Who sneered?
I mentioned calvinistic missionaries in my post. Did you read the whole post or react at the first thing you took issue with?

The fact is MOST protestants or calvinists or evangelicals or Presbyterians have NOT done short term missions. I was a Presbyterian youth pastor. Recruiting kids for fun-filled young life type conferences or retreats was far easier and yeilded far greater numbers than trips to Appalacia to lead vacation Bible school. Maybe 25% of the kids did that type of thing. After college and high school the % who actually leave the work force/career to go on short tem missions is minscule.

The fact that you were willing and that your daughter is serving does NOT mean that the majority are like you. The fact that your pastor was a missionary is an exception to the rule, not the common story of protestant/presbyterian/calvinist pastors.

Granted, Othodox parishes are not the most foreign mission minded places you will find in christendom, so I am not making a comparison, just pointing out what I knew when I was a protestant.

Jim Elliot was not Orthodox? No duh! He was a missionary/linguist/ Bible translator and modern martyr.

The monks who evangelized Alaska were missionaries, linguists, liturgical translators and some of them became martyrs.

Interestingly, Tony Horwitz, who wrote Confederates in the Attic, also wrote the Blue Latitiudes, a travelogue in which he traces the voyages of Capt. James Cook. In his interviews with native populations on south sea islands there was a lot of bitterness about the obliteration of culture by western missionaries but he pointedly notes the positive communal memory of native Alaskans regarding Orthodox missionaries - how they respected the people and their culture and came to their aid and protected them from fur trappers and others who sought to exploit them and their lands.

Western missionary practice and thinking have only in the last 50 years or so become concerned with cultural sensitivity and knowing for example that first you genuinely convert the people THEN you worry about the women covering their breasts (to give one small example that was repeated many times over at the evangelical seminary with a strong foreign missions program that I received a degree from). The Russian monks who evangelized Alaska got it right over 200 years ago (if you are keeping score, as you obviously are based on your reporting the cemetary in Nigeria).

BTW I have heard Elizabeth Elloit speak on more than one occasion and read her book about her husband's martydom (so I didn't have to see the movie).
« Last Edit: September 05, 2009, 11:46:43 PM by BrotherAidan » Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #76 on: September 06, 2009, 12:31:02 AM »


I agree. They think that God creates evil. Such a view is down righty sick and I will not accept that they worship the God of Jesus Christ. The God of Jesus Christ is loving, holy, and merciful. I am nearly certain that radical Calvinists cannot be considered Christian.
I




I knew Calvinists who believed that God ordained the Fall (for the greater glory of revealing His saving grace), but stop short of positing that God created evil and satan's rebellion. They left that question unanswered. The most I ever heard someone of that hard core persuasion go was to say that if God is all sovereign and ordained the Fall, then logic would lead you to conclude .... (don't finish sentence, raise eyebrow, everyone gets uneasy, change subject).

I think these guys were confused, even as hard-core calvinists if they were saying God created evil.

jnorm888, Did Gordon Clark go that far?



Fixed quote tags as requested...  -PtA

Good question, to be honest, I really don't know. All I know is that my two supralapsarian friends are Gordon Clark fans and they both went that far and then some. But just because they went that far doesn't mean Gordon Clark did. I once read a book 9 years ago by Jay Adams called the grand demonstration......or something like that, and he came extremely close to it.....extremely close! I remember throwing the book at the wall......I probably also put it in the garbage can too, I can't really remember. What I do remember is that at that point in time.....I thought he made such and such the author of sin........I don't even wanna say it.

But yeah. I don't know what I will feel if I read the book now.......some 9 years later.






ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: September 06, 2009, 12:36:27 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #77 on: September 06, 2009, 12:40:03 AM »

Hey Papist,


Some good vids to watch! (Satire! But there are nuggets of truth in some Satires)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1ckoCBtXvU (Calvinist Witnessing)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TflYkq-8AMA (Calvinism, Arminianism, and the Atonement)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIXkoMvYPJE (Truth vs. Heresy (Christianity vs. Calvinism)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrqs-aLfjYo (Calvinism, Arminianism, and the Will of God)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tPNdxYFyy4 (Calvinism, Arminianism, and Semi-Pelagianism)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc3Ws-0Yk3I (Calvinist Satire)







ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: September 06, 2009, 01:02:13 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #78 on: September 06, 2009, 01:18:15 AM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWCv_BdZu8o (Calvinist Mumbo Jumbo)









ICXC NIKA
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
truthstalker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Evangelical Presbyterian
Posts: 166


« Reply #79 on: September 06, 2009, 09:02:56 PM »

jn,

From your posting those links, I can see that you are interested in perpetuating lies and misinformation about Calvinism - neither of which will help Papist, or the people he is trying to help, or other Orthodox who have little or no understanding of Protestants and Calvinism.  You pretend to understand Calvinism and sling some of its terminology around, so you could convince the ignorant that you know something about it, but you just don't get it, and you mislead others.  I think you are being cruel here, if not malicious. Shame on you.
Logged
truthstalker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Evangelical Presbyterian
Posts: 166


« Reply #80 on: September 06, 2009, 09:23:16 PM »



Quote
Who sneered?
Have you been reading this thread? Are you asleep? Look at the language used by these people.
Quote
I mentioned calvinistic missionaries in my post. Did you read the whole post or react at the first thing you took issue with?
I read your whole post.

Quote
The fact is MOST protestants or calvinists or evangelicals or Presbyterians have NOT done short term missions. I was a Presbyterian youth pastor. Recruiting kids for fun-filled young life type conferences or retreats was far easier and yeilded far greater numbers than trips to Appalacia to lead vacation Bible school. Maybe 25% of the kids did that type of thing. After college and high school the % who actually leave the work force/career to go on short tem missions is minscule.
In your experience (as you stated later). We have a new youth pastor because the old one just went overseas. And you? Are you considering missions, or just condemning Calvinists who don't consider missions?

Quote
Granted, Othodox parishes are not the most foreign mission minded places you will find in christendom, so I am not making a comparison, just pointing out what I knew when I was a protestant.
Then there is something deeply wrong there.  I am angry here at your hypocrisy: 1) You condemn Calvinists for not being missions-minded (which I have expressed disagreement about) and 2) You have shown that the Orthodox are even less missions-minded.  Your gratuitous sneer is justified only if you express a stronger one towards Orthodoxy. I am waiting. Or are you a hypocrite? Or did you not read what you wrote?
Quote
The monks who evangelized Alaska were missionaries, linguists, liturgical translators and some of them became martyrs.
I know little of this but from what I have heard it was admirable. Particularly the defense of the Aleuts against the commercial interests.

Interestingly, Tony Horwitz, who wrote Confederates in the Attic, also wrote the Blue Latitiudes, a travelogue in which he traces the voyages of Capt. James Cook. In his interviews with native populations on south sea islands there was a lot of bitterness about the obliteration of culture by western missionaries but he pointedly notes the positive communal memory of native Alaskans regarding Orthodox missionaries - how they respected the people and their culture and came to their aid and protected them from fur trappers and others who sought to exploit them and their lands.

Western missionary practice and thinking have only in the last 50 years or so become concerned with cultural sensitivity and knowing for example that first you genuinely convert the people THEN you worry about the women covering their breasts (to give one small example that was repeated many times over at the evangelical seminary with a strong foreign missions program that I received a degree from). The Russian monks who evangelized Alaska got it right over 200 years ago (if you are keeping score, as you obviously are based on your reporting the cemetary in Nigeria).
[/quote]

No score being kept between Presbyterians and Orthodox, at least on my part. What happened in Russia after 1917....in Turkey in 1922.....going further back, many, many more....Eastern Europe under communism was a frequent object of intercession with me, and I still pray for those under persecution, and we do a few things to help I am not free to discuss.  But there are still those willing to risk their lives for the Gospel, and they should be respected. 

The whole concept of cultural integrity is not as simple as it might seem, and is too complex to go into on this thread, even if I were an expert on it.  There was an imposition of Western norms onto native peoples on the part of Protestant missionaries.  We can also point to the enslavement of the native peoples of the Caribbeans, and their destruction, by the Spanish. which led to the importation of black Africans as slaves to the Americas (a far worse crime).  But not every cultural item is good or redeemable (nor is every one wrong).  I enjoyed an Orthodox music video on the web showing Orthodox music in different cultures, and it does look like you hit it right, at least on the surface.  But many cultures need radical transformation as cultures to take on a Christian identity.  Mainstream USA culture comes to mind, with an obsession with money and speed and activity.
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #81 on: September 06, 2009, 09:24:52 PM »

jn,

From your posting those links, I can see that you are interested in perpetuating lies and misinformation about Calvinism - neither of which will help Papist, or the people he is trying to help, or other Orthodox who have little or no understanding of Protestants and Calvinism.  You pretend to understand Calvinism and sling some of its terminology around, so you could convince the ignorant that you know something about it, but you just don't get it, and you mislead others.  I think you are being cruel here, if not malicious. Shame on you.


Do you always walk around with a chip on your shoulder? It's called """SATIRE"""! And there are nuggets of truth in some satire. And why in the world are you offended if you are not a calvinist? I showed these same videos to REAL Calvinists of different stripes and they thought they were funny, but they also turned around and showed me some other ones about Arminianism, and I thought they were funny. Where there is smoke there is fire.

So Lighten up!

Ones done by Calvinists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRExO8FceQw (Arminianism VS Calvinism)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19sFW0oxWec

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LanPPuv8Cds (Perseverance of the Saints Historic Reformed (brief)Overview)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFyCM59cGdg (Is faith according to man's free will?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGJFcC4XGds (Conditional election vs unconditional election)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr6EL8_ABAk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFG19iMkrVs (Arminian Witnessing)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9uc_kudVNg (Discussing Election and Predestination)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg3Dyzj5FEY (Arminian Prayer)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIK84jGfx7Y(Once saved, is saved!)



Happy now








ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: September 06, 2009, 09:56:22 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #82 on: September 06, 2009, 10:02:07 PM »

I'm sorry but Calvinism is a horrible heresy. I'm a former Calvinist myself so I know what I'm talking about. Protestants holding Calvinist views themselves only represent a sliver in all of protestantism. Most protestants even view them out of the mainstream. It's also a very unhealthy, unholistic psychologically damaging approach to faith. Those stuck in the Calvinist mindset will go through periods where they even question whether they are in the 'elect' or not. It's a view of faith that is harsh and merciless that makes unfounded pronouncements against other people's salvation. They think Christ only died for 'his people', diminishing a sacrifice that was for all. I often found most Calvinist to be very arrogant and often sneered down upon others. 'Heretic' is a word the Calvinist like to throw around loosely for those that disagree with them. Calvinist also naturally subscribe to a just world point of view. There is no grace at all in Calvinism.
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #83 on: September 06, 2009, 10:20:09 PM »

I'm sorry but Calvinism is a horrible heresy. I'm a former Calvinist myself so I know what I'm talking about. Protestants holding Calvinist views themselves only represent a sliver in all of protestantism. Most protestants even view them out of the mainstream. It's also a very unhealthy, unholistic psychologically damaging approach to faith. Those stuck in the Calvinist mindset will go through periods where they even question whether they are in the 'elect' or not. It's a view of faith that is harsh and merciless that makes unfounded pronouncements against other people's salvation. They think Christ only died for 'his people', diminishing a sacrifice that was for all. I often found most Calvinist to be very arrogant and often sneered down upon others. 'Heretic' is a word the Calvinist like to throw around loosely for those that disagree with them. Calvinist also naturally subscribe to a just world point of view. There is no grace at all in Calvinism.

Yeah, I remember my ex fiance(7-8 years ago) questioning if she was "elect" a couple times, and she was very depressed then too.










ICXC NIKA
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #84 on: September 06, 2009, 10:35:17 PM »

Satire about Calvinism from a Lutherian perspective.
He talks about the view of the Eastern Fathers in the first set, and how it differs from the Calvinist view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ-46KvDuoM (History of Christology for Calvinists and most  Protestants)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdWim-ekxIo (History of Christology for Calvinists and most  Protestants Part 2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94hTLbTBA-o (History of Christology for Calvinists and most Protestants Part 3)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSWcNut81Cw (Conversation with a Calvinist on the Supper)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CciET46Pmp0 (Matthew 23:37, 1 Timothy 2:4, and Jame's White)


Not Satire:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGJKiU90JHs (Christology - Differences Between Calvinists and Lutherans)











ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: September 06, 2009, 10:42:12 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Pilgrim
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 304



« Reply #85 on: September 07, 2009, 12:14:29 AM »

Has anyone read Dr. Scott Hahn's autobiography. I read it as well as his book on Mary. He was intrumental in leading me out of protestantism.
Logged

Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth help us to walk the way of Life, which is Christ Jesus.

St. Cyril, St. Leo, and St. Severus pray that the Church may be united and one, Eastern and Oriental.St. Issac the Syrian, pray that Assyria would return to the Holy Church. St. Gregory, pray for Rom
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,144


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #86 on: September 07, 2009, 10:53:26 AM »

Hey Papist,


Some good vids to watch! (Satire! But there are nuggets of truth in some Satires)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1ckoCBtXvU (Calvinist Witnessing)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TflYkq-8AMA (Calvinism, Arminianism, and the Atonement)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIXkoMvYPJE (Truth vs. Heresy (Christianity vs. Calvinism)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrqs-aLfjYo (Calvinism, Arminianism, and the Will of God)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tPNdxYFyy4 (Calvinism, Arminianism, and Semi-Pelagianism)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc3Ws-0Yk3I (Calvinist Satire)


ICXC NIKA
Thanks a bunch. These are hilarious.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2009, 10:55:20 AM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #87 on: September 07, 2009, 12:38:05 PM »

The whole concept of cultural integrity is not as simple as it might seem, and is too complex to go into on this thread, even if I were an expert on it.  There was an imposition of Western norms onto native peoples on the part of Protestant missionaries.  We can also point to the enslavement of the native peoples of the Caribbeans, and their destruction, by the Spanish. which led to the importation of black Africans as slaves to the Americas (a far worse crime).  But not every cultural item is good or redeemable (nor is every one wrong).  I enjoyed an Orthodox music video on the web showing Orthodox music in different cultures, and it does look like you hit it right, at least on the surface.  But many cultures need radical transformation as cultures to take on a Christian identity.  Mainstream USA culture comes to mind, with an obsession with money and speed and activity.

Promoted, according to Weber, by the Protestant ethic.

Are you claiming the Calvinists of the OP aren't Calvinist? Seems that they have been picking the T.U.L.I.P.:
http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm
http://www.crivoice.org/tulip.html
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #88 on: September 07, 2009, 12:57:20 PM »

Quote
Truthstalker, the principle is flawed. Just admit it.

The principle is intuitively obvious.  We don't need an infallible authority to tell us what every verse means. You argue that the whole Bible is murky and needs a church to interpret it - especially since the church has officially interpreted only very limited parts of it.

How about

Jesus stepped into a boat.


Where is the ambiguity?

The Bible is clear enough that we know what we should do.  There are parts that transcend human understanding, but that doesn't mean the whole thing is meaningless unless a priest tells us what it means.


You ought to check that out before you write: St. John Chrysostom, Sermon on Matthew IX, 1-2 for instance:
Quote
And again He entered into the ship and passed over, when He might have gone over afoot. For it was His will not to be always doing miracles, that He might not injure the doctrine of His humanity.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.XXIX.html

Not as simple as you thought, is it?

EVERY verse has been evaluated by the Church. Otherwise, the verse wouldn't be there.

Piper deals with most of these passages in the link I referenced earlier. Not great stuff.

Why do you people condemn proof texting but then attempt to use proof texting against people you call Calvinists?

Because St. Peter tells them they should know better. II Peter 3:16.  Those who want to follow the cunning, and late, fables of Calvin ought to I Peter 1:19-21.

We can point to those who interpreteded Scripture the same way we do, in every generation from the time Christ said "I am with you always (lit. every day) unto the end of the Age," until this day.  We can point to communicates of our Church, THE Church, from Pentacost until today.  The Calvinists (nor for that matter, any Protestant) cannot.  Except of course John 6:66, the only Protestants in the Bible.

I third or fourth....Liz's suggestions.  As a former Protestant, I know that their ears are uncircumcized until the Church takes the flint of her scripture to circumsize them (how's that for a bible based (Acts 7:51) image?)
« Last Edit: September 07, 2009, 01:16:31 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #89 on: September 07, 2009, 01:20:18 PM »

Most of the Presbyterians I know grew up Catholic, and testify that they left error for truth. Far more Catholics become Presbyterian than Presbyterians become Catholic.

Care to back that up with some documentation? as I know plenty of Presbyterians who have become Orthodox or opted for the Vatican, but only two who left for the Presbyterians.

This week a some friends and I were at a restaurant in Albuquerque. My friends noticed that next to us there were two young men (some where int their twenties) reading bibles next to us. My friends being devout Catholics decided to strike up a conversation with these two men. Well, it turns out that they espoused some rather radical beliefs based on their own personal interpretation of the Scriptures. I am curious as to how my EO bretheren would evaluate the belief system of these men. So please do share and if you have some good scripture passages that would aide me in refuting the errors of these young men, I would certainly appreciate the help.
1. They believe that God created some people specifically to be saved and others specifically to condemn to hell. (Radical Calvinism)
2. They believe that God created evil because it exists and he is sovreign (spelling? lol).
3. They believe that humans are completely evil and corrupt and incapable of choosing any good.
4. They believe that people who have never heard of Christ will certainly go to hell.
5. Of course they are the "sola fide" type but such is easy to refute.
ETC. ETC. ETC.
The conversation got some what heated because I think that Calvinism is a very dangerous mischaracterization of God and I provide the scripture and arguement that I had available at the moment, but any other help would be much appreciated.

You asked for help from the EO.  I assume then that you are not interested in discussing this with Protestants.  Is that correct?

Why shouldn't he?  Just like grit itself is worthless, it sharpens the knife.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2009, 01:28:15 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags: Calvinism Protestant Christianity 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.253 seconds with 72 queries.