Calvinism and Christianity - incompatible?

Off topic, let me applaud Charlie J. Ray. We are an adult, Christian forum here and the cloak of screen names and avatars is somewhat childish. How about we follow this chaps example and use our full name and picture?

Jeff

 

Ah, that's the same church that the 39 Articles identifies as being "in error". Unfortunately, some Van Tilians are now adopting an Eastern Orthodox view of God as essence and energies, namely Dr. Michael Horton of Westminster Seminary, California.

The Thirty-Nine Articles, Article XIX:

Of the Church

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.

Of course, the Church of England is not a part of the Eastern Orthodox "communion" of churches. It was and is a Protestant church.

Charlie

 

I should probably tell you some background about myself. I was at one time ordained as a deacon with the Reformed Episcopal Church: 2002-2004. I resigned because it became apparent to me that the REC no longer agrees with its own reason for being and that it rejects its Declaration of Principles. Later I was a member of Christ Church Longwood. The rector there is David Knox, the son of the late Broughton Knox, former principal of Moore Theological College, Sydney, Australia. So I have been reading a bit of the Sydney Anglican theology along the way as well as being a 5 point Calvinist.

Since there are no Evangelical leaning Episcopal churches here in Wauchula, I normally attend the local Presbyterian church. However, when I feel the need for liturgy and a more "catholic" administration of the sacraments, I attend the local Lutheran church, Missouri Synod.



I am also an advocate for the theology and apologetics method of the late Gordon H. Clark. His view is called "Scripturalism." Reason can never lead to faith. Therefore, Scripturalists, recognizing that all worldviews begin with axioms, begins with the axiom that "Scripture alone is the Word of God." Scripture claims to be the inspired and infallible Word of God and we begin by believing that truth claim or proposition is true. (2 Timothy 3:15-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21; 2 Peter 3:15-16).

Clark, by the way, had connections to the Reformed Episcopal Seminary in Philadelphia in the mid-1940s, which is another reason I became interested in his theology and his philosophical approach to Scripture as consisting of logical propositions.

I do a Reformed blog at Reasonable Christian dot blogspot dot com.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Charlie

 

Dear me! This thread has certainly livened up since yesterday

 

Interesting assertion by Clement of Alexandria, in Stromata book 2 chapter 4, A.D. 198:

"We, who have heard by the Scriptures that self-determining choice and refusal have been given by the Lord to men, rest in the infallible criterion of faith, manifesting a willing spirit, since we have chosen life and believe God through His voice. And he who has believed the Word knows the matter to be true; for the Word is truth. But he who has disbelieved Him that speaks, has disbelieved God."

Clement convinces me that the Sovereignty of God is displayed much more fully when He bestows the gifts of free-will, self-determination, and liberty of action. The power and majesty is more greatly manifest because He gives "destining" power to creatures - who, by nature, are under His predestination. What an awesome mystery.

 

Ok, then, so if semipelagianism is that "the beginning of faith is an act of free will", then it has nothing to do with what I've been advocating.

How specifically would synergistic theology lead me to believe that "the beginning of faith is an act of free will"? I've already stated the importance of prevenient grace to everything that man can subsequently do.

Unfortunately, this apostolic teaching was not taught by the apostolic church. The quotes in favor of free will among the Fathers are legion in number. For example:


Ignatius of Antioch: If any one is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice.

Irenaeus: Man is endowed with the faculty of distinguishing good and evil; so that, without compulsion, he has the power, by his own will and choice, to perform god's commandments, by doing which he avoids the evils prepared for the rebellious.

Justin Martyr: "We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by necessity, then nothing is in our own power. For if it be predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions-whatever they may be.... For neither would a man be worthy of reward or praise if he did not of himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for."

Clement of Alexandria: "Neither praise nor condemnation, neither rewards nor punishments, are right if the soul does not have the power of choice and avoidance, if evil is involuntary."

Scripture:
Psalm 78:67 "Moreover he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim"
Psalm 78:68 "But chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved"
(these are just a tiny portion of the many 'choice' quotes in the Bible, and emphases are mine)

The rest of scripture cannot serve as a grammatical qualifier for a single passage. It's not how language works.

Charlie, your quotes directly contradict one another.

On this question, and many others, you're asking questions that have been already long resolved earlier in the thread. I would recommend that you read the thread from the beginning and many of the issues you raise will have already been answered there.

 

A few Fathers on Free Will:

Clement of Alexandria: Stromata - Book 2, Chapter 4:

We, who have heard by the Scriptures that self-determining choice and refusal have been given by the Lord to men, rest in the infallible criterion of faith, manifesting a willing spirit, since we have chosen life and believe God through His voice. And he who has believed the Word knows the matter to be true; for the Word is truth. But he who has disbelieved Him that speaks, has disbelieved God.

Jerome: Against the Pelagians Book 3, Paragraph 6:

The drift of your whole argument is this—what the Greeks call αὐτέξουσιον , and we free will, you admit in terms, but in effect destroy. For you make God the author of sin, in asserting that man can of himself do nothing, but that he must have the help of God to Whom is imputed all we do. But we say that, whether a man does good or evil, it is imputed to him on account of the faculty of free choice, inasmuch as he did what he chose, and not to Him Who once for all gave him free choice.

A few Fathers on Predestination:

Jerome: Commentary on Ezekiel 2:5

Not because He knew that which is about to come, is it necessary for us to do that which He has foreknown - but He became cognizant of the future because we were about to do it by our own will. For He is God.

Theodoret of Cyrus (major 2nd-generation defender of Augustinian theology) Interpretation of the Epistle to the Romans ~ 8:30

Those whose intentions God foreknew he predestined from the beginning. Those who are predestined, he called, and those who were called, he justified by baptism. Those who were justified, he glorified, calling them children. To all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become the children of God. Let no one say that God’s foreknowledge was the unilateral cause of these things. For it was not foreknowledge which justified people, but God knew what would happen to them, because he is God.

John of Damascus: Dialogue against the Manichees (approx. A.D. 700) :

It is clear that foreknowledge was not in the least a cause of the devil’s becoming evil. For a physician, when he foresees a future illness, does not cause that illness. To the contrary, the real cause of the illness consists of a perverse and immoderate way of life. For it’s part, the physician’s foreknowledge is a sign of his erudition, whereas the cause of the foreknowledge is the fact that things were going to turn out that way.

 

That's because it's not in Scripture

 

Just because EOC does not believe it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Sola Scriptura anyone?

 

Heavens no.

 

I think we need to direct this conversation to what is free will? I think we might not be agreeing on its meaning so the conversation is futile right now...

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/what-free-will/

This article might be a good place to start.

 

Pot meet kettle. Calvinists reject the overwhelming amount of scripture evidence that Jesus is the savior of ALL people in favor of the sixteenth century philosophical supposition known as limited atonement.

 

Oh, so everyone is going to heaven? I didn't know universalism was the predominant theology here. The fact is the same number of people will be saved--unless you're saying that God is ignorant of the future and who will be saved?

My Bible says that there will be a multitude of the elect in heaven But Jesus indicated that there would be a host of the wicked who would be lost as well:

"Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 "Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matthew 7:13-14 NKJ)
"For many are called, but few are chosen." (Matthew 22:14 NKJ)
"All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 "And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. (Matthew 25:32-33 NKJ)


And should I point out that in the Old Testament only Israel was chosen for salvation while the other nations were all reprobate?

"And who is like Your people, like Israel, the one nation on the earth whom God went to redeem for Himself as a people, to make for Himself a name-- and to do for Yourself great and awesome deeds for Your land-- before Your people whom You redeemed for Yourself from Egypt, the nations, and their gods? (2 Samuel 7:23 NKJ)

Looks like salvation is particular to God's elect, not to the reprobate. Salvation comes only through the church even in the New Testament, not just everyone in general:

And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. (Galatians 6:16 NKJ)

 

In synergistic theology man is the ultimate reponsible for his salvation, since the grace of God cannot act without man accepting it out of his own free will. God wants to save man but man's will can frustrate God's intentions. This is the logical outcome of synergims and it undermines the very gospel of Christ. No man can even say yes to the grace of God unless God compells him to do so.

The Fathers of the first centuries diverged from one another in many topics, some erred even in matters of doctrine, and only a minority wrote on the specific nature of grace and free will. In fact, Augustine was the only Father of the Ancient Church that tackled this difficult topic with renowned mastery, against Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, and that's why he came to be considered to this day the "Doctor of Grace." No other Father did so. When dealing with matters of grace, Augustine ranks first among the ancient writers. Only Scripture outranks him.

His own choice proceeds from his fallen nature. Choices are conditioned by our fallen nature that revels in sin.

Assuming this quote is correct, this is just pure pelagianism. It is heresy. Man has no power to perform God's commandments by his own will and choice.

No man chose to be born with original sin and at enmity with God. But still, they are born thus. And they are not compelled to sin, they freely chose to sin because their will is corrupted. Justin's considerations on this topic fail to grasp the gravity of our fallen condition.

Again, when humans commit evil, it is not involuntary. They chose to commit the evil that damns them because they're corrupted at heart. When a man sins, no-one forces him to sin. He sins because he chooses the perverted inclinations of his will over God's will. One can say that each and every sin is first and foremost a violation of the First Commandment which obliges us to put God in first place at every moment of our lives. But why does a man chose evil over God? Because his nature is corrupted and wicked. It is divine grace alone that can save him from this destitute existence. He himself can do no other because he will do no other. This does not exonerate him: his choice is rational, he assents to it, he is guilty of it.

If you're not willing to read a Reformed exegesis on those verses, then all this discussion is just a waste of time.

 

Wrong! Calvinist by the Grace of God

Though those t-shirts are pretty funny

 

I am temped to and would like to and may do it yet. The reason I hesitate is that I was threatened by a nut in Washington state some years ago who found me on the web. Prior to that, I was oblivious to the reality that such could happen. Now I am more careful.

 

The vast majority of the Collects in the English BCP's were not composed at the Reformation but are of ancient sources, namely the Sacramentaries of Leo, Gelasius and Gregory the Great. They were translated by the English reformers from the Sarum Use. The Collect for Easter day in the 1662 BCP is from the Sacramentary of Gelasius. Collects newly composed by the reformers were those for the majority of Saints Days in order that invocation and requests for intercession were omitted.

 

Charlie,

I wonder what you think of Stephen against the priests & pharisees in Acts 7:51 "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers, so ye." How does a creature resist the Holy Ghost? Does God give anti-grace to the reprobate to reject His own Spirit?

2 Corinthians 6:1 says "We then, workers together, beseech also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain". How can we exhort men not to receive Sovereign Grace emptily? How can the grace of Calvinism, which fills all by monergistic power, be vain or empty in a man? Arminianism seems to provide the answer.

By the way, Lowly Layman does not speak for me. Universalism is plainly contrary to the Scriptures.