OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 17, 2014, 08:12:09 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags CHAT Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Orthodoxy and Calvinism  (Read 12723 times) Average Rating: 5
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,795


« Reply #90 on: May 10, 2011, 08:25:32 AM »

Not to make a side-note, but is Calvinism as hugely apparent in America as posts on this board seem to suggest? I've never truly met a Calvinist in all my life, (I honestly haven" living all of it in Denver, Colorado - though I admit I'm young! My only, one, actual encounter with a Calvinist was when my World Religions teacher in high school invited a Calvinist to speak in our class; he came in to class with his black garments and collar, like an actual priest, walked up to the podium, pointed to the entire class with his finger in a half-circular, sweeping motion from left to right, and said "All of you are going to Hell" and promptly, as if it was part of his spiel, pulled out a cigarette and lit it, leaning forward on the podium. Our teacher very quickly and forcefully "asked" him to leave, needless to say. But my question truly is, is this theology so prevalent in our country? I've never encountered it in an organic way - i.e. in any kind of religious group considering their own doctrine - ever. I've "encountered" protestant Christian groups?! I know what they're all about (Lord have mercy upon their beautiful intentions!), and they all "hate" (not truly "hate," but "REGRET-") Calvinist theology. They've all told me they "hate" ("regret," as they correct themselves), Calvinists, purposely making themselves distinct from it because of its somewhat-gross implications. But, then again, this is just in the locations local to me. Which is the problem - how widespread is this ideology? B/c I have never found it but once in my own enclosed, Orthodox, society - fighting against it. Which is fine (I have the Orthodox interpretation!)
It is prevalent as a mindset that has put the intellect as the interpretor of God's revelation instead of cooperating with the Holy Spirit in understanding the Gospel and elevating the intellectual conclusion as to what constitute's justification in salvation. The breakdown of theology has resulted in anything from fundamentalism, to universalism, to worldly ecumenism etc.
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 303


« Reply #91 on: May 14, 2011, 03:10:28 PM »

1) Most protestants do indeed reject hard-line Sola Fide, because they know it is a logically untenable position. They still often separate faith and works, however, whereas the Orthodox do not separate them. 

  Please distinguish between justification by faith and salvation by faith.  Justification by faith answers the question "How do we know we have peace with God?"  Even Scriptures answers this, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved". (Acts 16:31).    Sanctification, on the other hand, is required for salvation as much as justification.   But one cannot be sanctified without first being justified becaus without justification there's none of the theological virtues, there's no hope because the alienation from God that exists due to sin.  Invariably one will be buy God off with good works rather than accepting oneself as a sinner who has done nothing to merit salvation.  These good works done out of pride, fear, or a desire to manipulate God do not contribute to ones salvation.

  I think Protestant monergist theology is sort of cludgy, on the other hand its wrong to misrepresent it.

Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,511



« Reply #92 on: May 14, 2011, 04:05:57 PM »

I think Protestant monergist theology is sort of cludgy, on the other hand its wrong to misrepresent it.

Monergism and synergism are mutually exclusive and only one can be true. This deals with how we come to and relate to God and our responsibility to serve Him out of love and obedience. Also, seeing how it relates to the role the human will plays, and Christ had a human nature, it becomes a Christological problem too as how you define what it means to be human affects what it means for us for Christ to be truly human. I once read in a Protestant history book, of some reformed tradition I believe, that the great Christological controversies ended in the year 451. This denies the teaching of the last three councils, includiong the sixth that defined Christ's two wills as being fully human and fully divine.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,627


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #93 on: May 14, 2011, 04:18:49 PM »

Please distinguish between justification by faith and salvation by faith.
No. In the story of the pharisee and the publican, do you believe that the publican never returned to repent of his sins again? Of course he would have.

Justification by faith answers the question "How do we know we have peace with God?"  Even Scriptures answers this, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved". (Acts 16:31).    Sanctification, on the other hand, is required for salvation as much as justification.   But one cannot be sanctified without first being justified becaus without justification there's none of the theological virtues, there's no hope because the alienation from God that exists due to sin.  Invariably one will be buy God off with good works rather than accepting oneself as a sinner who has done nothing to merit salvation.  These good works done out of pride, fear, or a desire to manipulate God do not contribute to ones salvation.
I have no idea what you're attempting to argue for or against here.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2011, 04:25:44 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

"...you are the orphan, not the protagonist."

-St. Seraphim of Vyritsa, 'This was from me'
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 303


« Reply #94 on: May 14, 2011, 08:41:15 PM »

Monergism and synergism are mutually exclusive and only one can be true. This deals with how we come to and relate to God and our responsibility to serve Him out of love and obedience. Also, seeing how it relates to the role the human will plays, and Christ had a human nature, it becomes a Christological problem too as how you define what it means to be human affects what it means for us for Christ to be truly human. I once read in a Protestant history book, of some reformed tradition I believe, that the great Christological controversies ended in the year 451. This denies the teaching of the last three councils, includiong the sixth that defined Christ's two wills as being fully human and fully divine.

 Well, it could be argued that the free will some of the Fathers defended is not an adequate paradigm to describe human behavior, open to philosophical critique (I myself deny the validity of libertarian free will).   As far as philosophies go, Stoicism is not dependent on free will for instance, rather than looking for blame, it focuses on insight and compassion.   Plus Jesus tells us not to judge, or we will be judged... so why buy into a philosophy that's all about assigning blame (libertarianism).   What are your thoughts?  I think alot of harm we do throwing around judgements like "good" and "bad" without being honest and admitting a great deal of our moral judegments are emotivist and anthropocentric.
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,511



« Reply #95 on: May 14, 2011, 09:20:39 PM »

Monergism and synergism are mutually exclusive and only one can be true. This deals with how we come to and relate to God and our responsibility to serve Him out of love and obedience. Also, seeing how it relates to the role the human will plays, and Christ had a human nature, it becomes a Christological problem too as how you define what it means to be human affects what it means for us for Christ to be truly human. I once read in a Protestant history book, of some reformed tradition I believe, that the great Christological controversies ended in the year 451. This denies the teaching of the last three councils, includiong the sixth that defined Christ's two wills as being fully human and fully divine.

 Well, it could be argued that the free will some of the Fathers defended is not an adequate paradigm to describe human behavior, open to philosophical critique (I myself deny the validity of libertarian free will).

Jesus dieing on the cross and being raised on the third day was up for philosophical critique when Paul preached in Athens.


Quote
As far as philosophies go, Stoicism is not dependent on free will for instance, rather than looking for blame, it focuses on insight and compassion.

 Huh

Quote
Plus Jesus tells us not to judge, or we will be judged... so why buy into a philosophy that's all about assigning blame (libertarianism).   What are your thoughts?  I think alot of harm we do throwing around judgements like "good" and "bad" without being honest and admitting a great deal of our moral judegments are emotivist and anthropocentric.

I'm not persdonally assigning blame to anyone. We will be held accountable for everything we say and do, but that is God's place to judge us, not ours. Just because God is our judge, doesn't mean that we aren't responsible for our actions. It also doesn't change the fact that we have a responsibility to respond to God out of love.

This is not my personal opinion. This is what the Church teaches as it has received from Christ and preserved.

For we will not admit one natural operation in God and in the creature, as we will not exalt into the divine essence what is created, nor will we bring down the glory of the divine nature to the place suited to the creature.

We recognize the miracles and the sufferings as of one and the same [Person], but of one or of the other nature of which he is and in which he exists, as Cyril admirably says.  Preserving therefore the inconfusedness and indivisibility, we make briefly this whole confession, believing our Lord Jesus Christ to be one of the Trinity and after the incarnation our true God, we say that his two natures shone forth in his one subsistence in which he both performed the miracles and endured the sufferings through the whole of his economic conversation (δἰ ὅλης αὐτοῦ τῆς οἰκονομκῆς ἀναστροφῆς), and that not in appearance only but in very deed, and this by reason of the difference of nature which must be recognized in the same Person, for although joined together yet each nature wills and does the things proper to it and that indivisibly and inconfusedly.  Wherefore we confess two wills and two operations, concurring most fitly in him for the salvation of the human race.

DECREE IV.
We believe the tri-personal God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be the maker of all things visible and invisible; and the invisible are the angelic Powers, rational souls, and demons, — though God made not the demons what they afterwards became by their own choice, — but the visible are heaven and what is under heaven. And because the Maker is good by nature, He made all things very good {cf. Genesis 1:31} whatsoever He hath made, nor can He ever be the maker of evil. But if there be aught evil, that is to say, sin, come about contrarily to the Divine Will, in man or in demon, — for that evil is simply in nature, we do not acknowledge, — it is either of man, or of the devil. For it is a true and infallible rule, that God is in no wise the author of evil, nor can it at all by just reasoning be attributed to God.

DECREE V.
We believe all things that are, whether visible or invisible, to be governed by the providence of God; but although God foreknoweth evils, and permitteth them, yet in that they are evils, He is neither their contriver nor their author. But when such are come about, they may be over-ruled by the Supreme Goodness for something beneficial, not indeed as being their author, but as engrafting thereon something for the better. And we ought to adore, but not curiously pry into, Divine Providence in its ineffable and only partially revealed judgments. {cf. Romans 11:33} Albeit what is revealed to us in Divine Scripture concerning it as being conducive to eternal life, we ought honestly to search out, and then unhesitatingly to interpret the same agreeably to primary notions of God.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 303


« Reply #96 on: May 20, 2011, 05:53:58 PM »

   If things that are evil are against God's will, and they happen, how is this not thwarting his will and making God less than omnipotent?  Keep in mind that Calvinists say God has two wills, a provisional will and a perfect will.  

  I still have problems throwing around "good" and "evil" as if they must mean something in an omniscient perspective.  Is a hurricane or earthquake in itself an evil, or is it merely evil relative to the choices and preferences of human beings?  Does this make sense?  Why must we be constrained to an anthropomorphic vision of good and evil?    Thinking moralisticly about the world like this keeps us away from a detached perspective which can lead to insight (think of what a scientist does, for instance).
« Last Edit: May 20, 2011, 05:55:13 PM by Daedelus1138 » Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #97 on: May 24, 2011, 03:50:50 AM »

Calvinists used these verses to back up their claims about original sin. They say that being “dead in transgressions and sins” means we couldn’t have any free-will or choose in any way to believe in Christ. Dead men can’t choose or act in any way they say. They say
that to believe that man has free-will to accept God’s grace contradicts these scriptures and if one thinks so then one denies salvation by grace alone and adds works.
In other words, God doesn't do all in salvation (semi-Pelagianism) if man has free-will.

I was watching these youtube clips last week. the lecturer is Dr. Phillip Cary
http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/professors/professor_detail.aspx?pid=93

Mostly in regards to the Augustinian view, but it begins with the general Patristic view and then moves on to the Augustinian one.
http://youtu.be/dq-fVwWjByw (Lecture 12: doctrine of Grace)

http://youtu.be/GNJmDhT_Q6s (Lecture 20: Calvin and Reformed Theology)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgWE9XQS0S0&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL (Lecture 21: Protestants on Predestination)

as well as:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eltcEdVIxHc&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL (Lecture 22: Protestant Disagreements)

This isn't from an Orthodox perspective, but it is very informative from an academic perspective.


  
Quote
What is the Orthodox response to this?

I don't know if we have one that focuses solely on the 5 points of Calvinism. I am writing a book about the issue, but there is no telling when I'll be done with that. On the issue of original sin you can buy a number of books.



As well as:






 
Quote
I have read several things by Orthodox writers about orginal sin, but I haven’t seen anyone deal with these specific verses or Calvinists beliefs on them. Does anyone know what the Orthodox Church teaches and responds to
Calvinism on this regard?

I am writing a book at the moment, and so I won't be of much help until I'm done.



 
Quote
Any former Calvinists here have an answer?

P.S.

I was a former Arminian protestant, but I was never a Calvinist protestant.

« Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 03:52:17 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 #98 on: May 24, 2011, 06:38:45 AM »

Dr. Phillip Cary
http://youtu.be/yVuI7ka49J0 (Lecture 14: Eastern Orthodox Theology)
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/
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #99 on: May 24, 2011, 08:46:55 AM »

This would probably be helpful: http://www.lulu.com/product/file-download/reconsidering-tulip/14269986
Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #100 on: May 24, 2011, 09:06:46 AM »

   If things that are evil are against God's will, and they happen, how is this not thwarting his will and making God less than omnipotent?  Keep in mind that Calvinists say God has two wills, a provisional will and a perfect will.   

God is all-powerful because he holds all things in existence. Nothing exists without his continued will that it be so. But God is love by nature, and free-will is a necessary aspect of love. He cannot force people to do his will because it would go against his nature.

I was a Calvinist my whole life before I converted, and I don't remember anything about God having two wills. Can you point me to one of the Calvinist confessions or catechisms that explain this?

  I still have problems throwing around "good" and "evil" as if they must mean something in an omniscient perspective.  Is a hurricane or earthquake in itself an evil, or is it merely evil relative to the choices and preferences of human beings?  Does this make sense?  Why must we be constrained to an anthropomorphic vision of good and evil?    Thinking moralisticly about the world like this keeps us away from a detached perspective which can lead to insight (think of what a scientist does, for instance).

An earthquake itself is morally neutral.

We need not go to the extreme of saying that every "act of God" is a deliberate action on God's part—ie, God is angry at Japan so he sends a tsunami at them (though I think this can happen, but I don't think it is the normative explanation for natural disasters). Neither do we need to go to the other extreme—ie, God set the universe into motion and sits back to watch like the god of deism. A lot of things in Orthodoxy require more nuance than these broad strokes.

A more nuanced, and I think correct, approach would be to say that sin has caused a breakdown in the natural realm. Natural disasters happen because of mankind's rebellion against God, and in some fundamental way that affects nature itself (because we are both noetic and material creatures, and each aspect affects the other). Our sin causes more stress upon nature, more pent-up energy, and as the world drifts further away from God's intent for it, it breaks down into chaos. While at Creation God created order from chaos, sin is changing it back into chaos.

It's like a bridge. When it is in its perfect and new condition, it is very strong and sturdy. But if pieces start to fall off, it gets rusty and cracked, soon it will collapse. This is because it went from the state of order (the creator's intent) to a state of chaos. That is what we see in mankind as well.

That is why, for instance, the holiest of saints can command wild animals and do other supernatural things. In their direct sphere of influence, the Fall is reversed and we get a tiny picture of Paradise once again.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 09:15:24 AM by bogdan » Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,627


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #101 on: May 26, 2011, 12:01:53 AM »

  If things that are evil are against God's will, and they happen, how is this not thwarting his will and making God less than omnipotent?
Nothing happens without God's permission, but God permits humans to make mistakes in freedom. He withdraws the use of His omnipotence while maintaining His omnipotence.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2011, 12:02:30 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

"...you are the orphan, not the protagonist."

-St. Seraphim of Vyritsa, 'This was from me'
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #102 on: January 10, 2014, 05:04:01 PM »

America's most famous Calvinist tweets. I notice he didn't mention double predestination.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 05:05:53 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
xOrthodox4Christx
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 1,926


xOrthodox4Christx
« Reply #103 on: January 10, 2014, 05:26:18 PM »

America's most famous Calvinist tweets. I notice he didn't mention double predestination.


He's America's famous Calvinist? What about the Westboro Baptist Church? Would they be considered infamous and not famous? Perhaps you meant Pastor Mark was the most favoured Calvinist, not the most famous?
Logged

My posting on this forum is currently on hiatus, until mid-June 2014.

Have a nice spring. Smiley
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 669


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #104 on: January 11, 2014, 11:04:19 AM »

America's most famous Calvinist tweets. I notice he didn't mention double predestination.


Its short, flippant statement's like his, and those of his critics, that I don't mess around with Twitter. Forum trolls have no interest in anything but their own voice
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,022


« Reply #105 on: January 16, 2014, 09:09:41 PM »

Somewhere deep in the visceral part of me, I know that I can never love the God of  Calvin. In fact I have a strong aversion to him.

So what do you think?  DO we have the same God as Calvin?

Is it possible that the differences in theology (our conceptualisation of God, the salvation of the elect irrespective of their sins, the damnation of the non-elect, again irrespective of their personal goodness or their sins) and also in anthropology(total depravity, etc.) are so disparate that something utterly new was introduced by Calvin? Can traditional Christianity and Calvinism be reconciled?

Hilaire Belloc, in a fascinating essay, answers in the negative - he says that the God of Calvin is not the Christian God.  I will just reproduce Belloc's more insightful paragraphs:


"......What Calvin did was this. He took what is one of the oldest and
most perilous directives of mankind, the sense of Fate. He isolated it,
and he made it supreme, by fitting it with the kneading of a powerful
mind, into the scheme which Christian men still traditionally associated
with the holiness and authority of their ancestral religion.

"........ God had become Man, and God had become Man to redeem mankind.
That was no part of the old idea of Inevitable Fate. On the contrary, it
was a relief from that pagan nightmare. We of the Faith say that the
Incarnation was intended to release us from such a pagan nightmare.
Well, Calvin accepted the Incarnation, but he forced it to fit in with
the old pagan horror of compulsion: "Ananke." He reintroduced the Inexorable.

"....... Yes, [Calvin teaches that] God had become Man and had died
to save mankind; but only mankind in such numbers and persons as he
had chosen to act for. The idea of the Inexorable remained. The merits
of Christ were imputed, and no more. God was Causation, and Causation
is one immutable whole. A man was damned or saved; and it was not of his doing.
The recognition of evil as equal with good, which rapidly becomes the worship
of evil (the great Manichean heresy, which has roots as old as mankind;
the permanent motive of Fear) was put forward by Calvin in a strange new form.
He did not indeed oppose, as had the Manichean, two equal principles of Good
and of Evil. He put forward only one principle, God. But to that One
Principle he ascribed all our suffering, and, for most of us, necessary
and eternal suffering."



Belloc's essay on Calvin is here and the whole thing is well worth the read:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39eba91950c3.htm

If Belloc is right, then Calvin created a God which is not the Biblical
one, but a return to an older concept of divinity- the God of Fate, the
God of the Inexorable against whom there is no appeal. All is
predetermined, predestined. Fate rules again, as it did in most of the
belief systems of the pagan world.

Fr Ambrose


One of the major problems with Calvinism is that Calvin was a Nestorian. He denied the deification of the human nature of Christ, the communication of attributes, and so emphasized the differences between the human and divine natures of Christ that he fell into Nestorianism. That is why his sacramental theology is so weak and why salvation according to him is all God's doing.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,022


« Reply #106 on: January 16, 2014, 09:21:41 PM »

Linus7 and others,

  Good answer! Thanks for your response! I think you are absolutely correct that Calvinism runs contrary to common sense and the "plain meaning of Scripture". Ironically it is the Calvinism who say that doctrine should be formulated from "the plain meaning of Scripture."

P.S.

There is another very important why Orthodox reject the Calvinist doctrine of original sin. It is based on an incorrect translation of Romans 5:2. Calvin took the doctrine  from Blessed Augustine. Augustine could not read Greek. He developed his doctrine of original sin from an incorrect translation of Romans 5:12. In the Greek Romans 5:12 reads, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned --"  However, the Latin translation reads, "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned." From this Augustine developed the idea that we are all born guilty of Adam's sin. From there it is only a short leap to Calvin's doctrine of total depravity. 

Fr. John W. Morris

« Last Edit: January 16, 2014, 09:22:55 PM by frjohnmorris » Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #107 on: January 16, 2014, 10:37:54 PM »

America's most famous Calvinist tweets. I notice he didn't mention double predestination.


ROFL! He is great.
Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,315


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #108 on: January 17, 2014, 01:07:50 AM »

America's most famous Calvinist tweets. I notice he didn't mention double predestination.


This one is more interesting: https://twitter.com/NotDriscoll


There is quite the hullabaloo about his plagiarism.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #109 on: January 17, 2014, 01:12:07 AM »

America's most famous Calvinist tweets. I notice he didn't mention double predestination.


This one is more interesting: https://twitter.com/NotDriscoll


There is quite the hullabaloo about his plagiarism.

Really, I think Mark is unsatireable. He is the punchline to a joke which no one told. He cracks me up. Sorry you have to live so close, but I laugh mighty heartily from afar.

Really, I feel terrible for his wife. That fiasco was beyond belief.
Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,315


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #110 on: January 17, 2014, 01:16:23 AM »

His wife was a sweet woman, and a loving mother when I knew her. We babysat their kids within a couple days/weeks of the birth of their second child. She had a C-section, then went out on a date with Mark not long after. I watched as she frantically cleaned the house before leaving. We babysat their eldest A. for the evening and brought them dinner. Grace was literally pregnant our breastfeeding for almost a solid decade. All the kids are about 2 years or less apart. And she had a classical incision C-section with every single one. So all Mark's whining about being sexually unfulfilled just ticks me off. Grace was one of those women that looked like she had never had a baby almost immediately after. I get the impression that anything less wouldn't have been OK.



Profanity replaced with something more appropriate for the Public Forum  -PtA
« Last Edit: January 18, 2014, 06:03:32 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #111 on: January 17, 2014, 01:20:34 AM »

His wife was a sweet woman, and a loving mother when I knew her. We babysat their kids within a couple days of the birth of their second child. She had a C-section, then went out on a date with Mark not long after. We babysat their eldest A. for the evening and brought them dinner. Grace was literally pregnant our breastfeeding for almost a solid decade. All the kids are about 2 years or less apart. And she had a classical incision C-section with every single one. So all Mark's whining about being sexually unfulfilled just pisses me off. Grace was one of those women that looked like she had never had a baby almost immediately after. I get the impression that anything less wouldn't have been OK.

So you are not aware of his prophetic vision sent from God of her "infidelity" that he structured a book around? Maybe you can be my proxy. I would love to . . . I guess we are getting off topic and this is public where I don't discuss my less than peaceful desires toward others.
Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,315


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #112 on: January 17, 2014, 01:26:28 AM »

Imagine how "uncharitable" my feelings are, I knew them relatively well. In the end I will say this; Grace doesn't deserve to be blamed for all Mark's problems. And that is precisely what Mark has done every few years. He would make a big announcement about how hard his life was, and that it is better now. Then a few years later say it all over again. I feel very sorry for Grace.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2014, 01:27:13 AM by Quinault » Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,315


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #113 on: January 17, 2014, 01:28:09 AM »

Do a google search for Wenatchee the Hatchet if you want to learn more about the saga. I know Wenatchee well.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 7,817


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #114 on: January 17, 2014, 01:52:20 AM »

Imagine how "uncharitable" my feelings are, I knew them relatively well. In the end I will say this; Grace doesn't deserve to be blamed for all Mark's problems. And that is precisely what Mark has done every few years. He would make a big announcement about how hard his life was, and that it is better now. Then a few years later say it all over again. I feel very sorry for Grace.


How long will it be before Mark Driscoll comes to see the error of "Grace alone"?



Selam
Logged

“Lord, I say too many uncharitable things about people every day. I say them because they make me look clever. Help me to realize how cheap this is. I am stupid, quite as stupid as the people I ridicule. Help me to stop this selfishness, because I love You dear God." ~ FLANNERY O'CONNOR ~
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 669


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #115 on: January 17, 2014, 07:22:38 AM »

America's most famous Calvinist tweets. I notice he didn't mention double predestination.


This one is more interesting: https://twitter.com/NotDriscoll


There is quite the hullabaloo about his plagiarism.

Smart@$$es are rarely if ever funny
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 669


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #116 on: January 17, 2014, 07:25:53 AM »

Imagine how "uncharitable" my feelings are, I knew them relatively well. In the end I will say this; Grace doesn't deserve to be blamed for all Mark's problems. And that is precisely what Mark has done every few years. He would make a big announcement about how hard his life was, and that it is better now. Then a few years later say it all over again. I feel very sorry for Grace.


How long will it be before Mark Driscoll comes to see the error of "Grace alone"?
Selam


Umm, I thought 'Grace Alone' is at its core very Orthodox in thinking
« Last Edit: January 17, 2014, 07:26:24 AM by sprtslvr1973 » Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #117 on: January 17, 2014, 08:41:52 AM »

Imagine how "uncharitable" my feelings are, I knew them relatively well. In the end I will say this; Grace doesn't deserve to be blamed for all Mark's problems. And that is precisely what Mark has done every few years. He would make a big announcement about how hard his life was, and that it is better now. Then a few years later say it all over again. I feel very sorry for Grace.


How long will it be before Mark Driscoll comes to see the error of "Grace alone"?
Selam


Umm, I thought 'Grace Alone' is at its core very Orthodox in thinking

I do believe Gebre is making a joke at Driscoll's expense. I barked at it at least.
Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #118 on: January 17, 2014, 09:13:07 AM »

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,100


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #119 on: January 17, 2014, 09:40:00 AM »



I bet it has nothing but blank pages inside.  Wink
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 7,817


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #120 on: January 17, 2014, 04:15:37 PM »

Imagine how "uncharitable" my feelings are, I knew them relatively well. In the end I will say this; Grace doesn't deserve to be blamed for all Mark's problems. And that is precisely what Mark has done every few years. He would make a big announcement about how hard his life was, and that it is better now. Then a few years later say it all over again. I feel very sorry for Grace.


How long will it be before Mark Driscoll comes to see the error of "Grace alone"?
Selam


Umm, I thought 'Grace Alone' is at its core very Orthodox in thinking

I do believe Gebre is making a joke at Driscoll's expense. I barked at it at least.

You are correct sir. My feeble attempt at humor.


Selam
Logged

“Lord, I say too many uncharitable things about people every day. I say them because they make me look clever. Help me to realize how cheap this is. I am stupid, quite as stupid as the people I ridicule. Help me to stop this selfishness, because I love You dear God." ~ FLANNERY O'CONNOR ~
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #121 on: January 17, 2014, 04:25:36 PM »

Imagine how "uncharitable" my feelings are, I knew them relatively well. In the end I will say this; Grace doesn't deserve to be blamed for all Mark's problems. And that is precisely what Mark has done every few years. He would make a big announcement about how hard his life was, and that it is better now. Then a few years later say it all over again. I feel very sorry for Grace.


How long will it be before Mark Driscoll comes to see the error of "Grace alone"?
Selam


Umm, I thought 'Grace Alone' is at its core very Orthodox in thinking

I do believe Gebre is making a joke at Driscoll's expense. I barked at it at least.

You are correct sir. My feeble attempt at humor.


Selam

I thought it funny, but really Driscoll is odious. His book on marriage went beyond all human decency. And I have found myself explaining to some of his detractors why he is often correct. He is no dummy. He is short, pathetic, plagued by sexual insecurity, egotistical, opportunistic, and other things which aren't so bad as being short.

What is really laughable is his recent reinvention of himself as an "elder" / professor type. He is a small man who needed to have sex earlier in life and get knocked around more in a sport or by a brother or uncle.
Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,315


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #122 on: January 17, 2014, 05:08:01 PM »

He claims that his dad used to wake him up by slugging him. According to Driscoll, that stopped when he slugged his dad back. But he is known for overemphasizing his "manliness" so I would take that claim with a shaker of salt.
Logged
ZealousZeal
Interplanet Janet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,227


I'm the magnificent, marvelous, mad Madam Mim.


« Reply #123 on: January 17, 2014, 06:00:42 PM »

I thought it funny, but really Driscoll is odious. His book on marriage went beyond all human decency. And I have found myself explaining to some of his detractors why he is often correct. He is no dummy. He is short, pathetic, plagued by sexual insecurity, egotistical, opportunistic, and other things which aren't so bad as being short.

What is really laughable is his recent reinvention of himself as an "elder" / professor type. He is a small man who needed to have sex earlier in life and get knocked around more in a sport or by a brother or uncle.

You're never better than when you're right and using words like "odious." He is odious. There really isn't a more fitting word.
Logged

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,022


« Reply #124 on: January 18, 2014, 12:23:40 AM »

I thought it funny, but really Driscoll is odious. His book on marriage went beyond all human decency. And I have found myself explaining to some of his detractors why he is often correct. He is no dummy. He is short, pathetic, plagued by sexual insecurity, egotistical, opportunistic, and other things which aren't so bad as being short.

What is really laughable is his recent reinvention of himself as an "elder" / professor type. He is a small man who needed to have sex earlier in life and get knocked around more in a sport or by a brother or uncle.

Mark Driscoll shows one of the major flaws of Protestantism. Instead of looking to the Holy Tradition which is the Holy Scriptures, the consensus of the Fathers, the 7 Ecumenical Councils, the worship of the Church and, finally, what the Church has taught for 2,000 years, Protestants tend to look to one great preacher for guidance on how to understand the Gospel. Because the emphasis is on preaching rather than the presence of God through the Eucharist, Protestants tend to built personality cults around great preachers. It does not matter what they say, but rather how well they say it. I do not know about Mark Driscoll's preaching, but look at Joel Osteen, who is treated like rock star by the media. Here is a man with  no theological education, not ordained by any recognized denomination, who has built a mega church by telling people what they want to hear. His church is like an Oklahoma river after a thunderstorm,  mile wide and an inch deep. Yet he is treated like a great theologian by the media, partially because he does not represent a threat to the secular culture, but is instead part of the secular culture which has dumbed down Christianity. For example, I read today that he believes that homosexuality is sinful, but chooses not to preach on it. In other words, he keeps his mouth shut on anything that might challenge his audience to real repentance. Men like him are more dangerous than the most militant atheists, because they lull people into a false sense that they are really Christian, without the need for real repentance or the necessity of real struggle to life a Christian life.

Fr. John W. Morris
You're never better than when you're right and using words like "odious." He is odious. There really isn't a more fitting word.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,315


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #125 on: January 18, 2014, 01:44:46 AM »

No, Driscoll does speak out against homosexuality frequently. He also speaks out against anything he think is too "girly" for men to do. He is very much the grunting caveman that thinks women should be barefoot, pregnant, and always sexually available. He even goes so far to say, oddly enough, that if a man masturbates that he is practicing borderline homosexuality.

http://theresurgence.com/books/porn_again_christian
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,022


« Reply #126 on: January 18, 2014, 01:57:47 AM »

No, Driscoll does speak out against homosexuality frequently. He also speaks out against anything he think is too "girly" for men to do. He is very much the grunting caveman that thinks women should be barefoot, pregnant, and always sexually available. He even goes so far to say, oddly enough, that if a man masturbates that he is practicing borderline homosexuality.

http://theresurgence.com/books/porn_again_christian

Orthodoxy also teaches that masturbation is a sin. However, his view of women is hardly respectful. A wife is a helpmeet, not a slave, especially a sexual slave to her husband.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
kyril
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian (Orthodox)
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Canada - OCA
Posts: 239


« Reply #127 on: January 18, 2014, 03:51:38 AM »

just as a matter of interest, I wonder what bearing the responses ##109 ff
have to do with Orthodoxy and Calvinism? Have I missed something here?
Logged

kyril
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,315


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #128 on: January 18, 2014, 04:06:19 AM »

just as a matter of interest, I wonder what bearing the responses ##109 ff
have to do with Orthodoxy and Calvinism? Have I missed something here?

It has just slightly more bearing on the subject than your post asking if it has bearing on the subject. Threads derail all the time.

It has bearing insomuch as many people have incorrect views of Mark Driscoll. For example, the post saying he doesn't teach against homosexuality is incorrect. I heard more about homosexuality in the just one year of decade I attended MH than I have in the last 6 years being Orthodox.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2014, 04:07:57 AM by Quinault » Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,315


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #129 on: January 18, 2014, 04:08:56 AM »

He doesn't tell anyone what they want to hear, unless you are self loathing. His favorite quotes are about how much God hates you.
Logged
kyril
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian (Orthodox)
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Canada - OCA
Posts: 239


« Reply #130 on: January 18, 2014, 04:57:45 AM »

I see. (I think.)
So Holy Scripture is in error.
God did - not - so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son...
well, I'm sure you recognize the true quote from St. John.
I also think that with very little effort one can use the New Testament to
refute TULIP; but not now, it's 1:15 am and I'm about to hit the sack.
Good night and
God bless
Kyril.
Logged

kyril
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #131 on: January 18, 2014, 08:55:41 AM »

No, Driscoll does speak out against homosexuality frequently.
Fr. Morris was referring to Joel Osteen.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Hinterlander
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Protestant congregant, Student of Orthodoxy
Posts: 503



« Reply #132 on: January 18, 2014, 09:34:42 AM »

Here is a good starting place for a refutation of TULIP:

http://orthodoxbridge.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Plucking-the-TULIP4.pdf

A decent blog to for those interested.
Logged
Tags: Calvinism Gnosticism 
Pages: « 1 2 3  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 0.154 seconds with 71 queries.