Calvinism and Christianity - incompatible?

Thank you and Amen!

Jeff

 

Perhaps someone could provide concise commentary to a few honest questions I've had. First, I understand how a few folks here are vehemently trying to link Calvin's beliefs with the Anglican Church, but in all honesty his system is manifested not in the modern day Anglican church or even the Presbyterian churches, but in Fundamental Baptist circles. Why is this? Secondly, how does Calvin view the actions of Jesus at the Last Supper, loving Judas to the end and even washing his feet, knowing the coming betrayal, or how could Angels in the presence of God in Heaven, rebel and leave for an earthly existence? Too many questions fly in the face of his TULIP theory.

Jeff

 

The only Presbyterian denominations that I know of which reject Calvinism are the liberal ones like the PCUSA, the RCA, and the CRC. Of course, these liberal mainline denominations also accept open homosexuals into membership and ordain open homosexuals of both genders to the ministry.

And "particular" Baptists are not really "Reformed" because they reject the two sacraments, infant baptism, and covenantal theology. Anyone who reads the Reformed blogs online would know this. And even amongst conservative Reformed circles and particular Baptists there is a controversy over the theology of Cornelius Van Til and his dialectical theology versus the proponents of Gordon H. Clark, Carl F. H. Henry and others who taught that Scripture is univocally the special revelation of God in propositional form. Van Til's theology leads to the theonomy and reconstructionist errors as well as the Auburn Avenue/Federal Vision heresy.

But nailing down theology does not seem to be a concern in some communions.

Charlie

 

I know that censorship is necessary to silence those who have something substantial to argue against those who are unable to answer logically from Scripture. Thanks for the feedback, though As I recall only one or two of my comments were not addressed as a reply. I suppose I should learn to make one long post rather than replying every time I have another thought in response to a straw man argument from the other side.

When it comes to debate it is only right that the true position of the other side be presented and then responded to rather than creating straw man and fallacious caricatures of it. It would also be nice if you would equally enforce the rules here. Simply calling Calvinists satanists etc. is just a bare assertion with no logical or rational basis from Scripture, doctrinal statements or otherwise.

I have no used the "report" button because I'm a mature person who can take the heat. But if you're going to be nit picky and use censorship, maybe I need to start reporting abuse?

Sincerely,

Charlie

 

Ah, off to the side while the altar takes center position. Quite unlike the other Anglican church from my photo

 

Jeff, in case you didn't know Reformed denominations have lengthy confessional statements and catechisms that nail down doctrine. Those statements draw their most certain warrant from Holy Scripture, unlike snake handlers, neo-orthodox existentialists, and irrationalists who believe only in feelings and emotions rather than the logical, propositional nature of revelation in Scripture.

I guess anti-intellectualism and implicit faith is what snake handlers and those who place aesthetics above Scriptural truth have in common. Of course, anyone who has a detailed, logical, and prolific response to the anti-intellectual arguments of an irrationalist and an existentialist would have zero effect on those who have had their minds darkened by original sin. (Romans 1:18-32; 8:7).

The vast majority of the criticism against Calvinism in this thread has been a matter of personal opinion. No one from the other side has ventured to argue the case against Calvinism from Scripture. I take that as a concession that you have none.

Of course, my job is to be a messenger. I have no power whatsoever to convert even one soul. Only God can do that. As the saying goes, "When you can't win the discussion, shoot the messenger."

Sincerely,

Charlie

 

No, I understand the use and application of this forum, that it's not my personal blog to publish rheems of cut & paste information that no one else is interested in. By your own admission you've bounced around denominations and theologies over the years, so your current beliefs that you try and shove down our collective throats may once again change in a matter of months or years. The Pharisee's knew their scripture by heart and could also regurgitate to anyone they wished to demean, but Jesus quickly showed they had missed the message of His revelation. Scripture is sharp as a two edged sword, but some prefer to use it as a chainsaw.

Jeff

 

"Is not My word like a fire?" says the LORD, "And like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces? (Jeremiah 23:29 NKJ)


I have not used cut and paste except to quote Scripture. The only other quote I posted was the one from Clark on free will and the problem of evil. And your other complaint is that I'm "verbose". I thank you for the compliment. I have something to say because I've thought deeply about these issues. Also, instead of lengthy cut and paste I put things in my own words and then supplied the reference links to back up my opinion as any good scholar would do.

I dust off my feet

My answer to the title of this thread is that Calvinism is Christianity and the theology of aggrandizement is apostate.

You win.

Charlie

 

I guess the Anglo-catholics got to them too. My we are a prolific cabal.

 

Charlie...

Please do not dust your feet yet--

What is the Auburn Avenue/Federal Vision heresy?

Thank you.
Scottish Monk

 

Scottish Monk, basically the Federal Vision is considered a "heresy" in the conservative Presbyterian denominations. It started out at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian church a couple of decades ago. It's essentially an appropriation of the New Perspective on Paul into a Presbyterian context, but it is not exactly the same thing. The Federal Vision is also a form of Arminianism since it teaches baptismal regeneration of everyone baptized, that election can be lost, and other things totally opposed to the Westminster Standards (Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechism). Rather than clutter the forum I'll simply provide a link to Dr. R. Scott Clark's explanation of what the heresy of FV is: What is the Federal Vision?

 

Well, pelagianism is something all ya'll have in common. Of course it's ok for you if you say so. Morality is relative, don't you know? What's true for you is true for you and what's true for me is true for me. Or just maybe God's truth is all the truth there is and you better learn it from Scripture and get with God's program

"Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 "Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace. 33 "So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple. (Luke 14:31-33 NKJ)

 

Actually, quite the opposite is true. Most here have the ability to intelligently project their opinion/interpretation without being rude and condescending as you have. Oddly enough, it's been the 2 or 3 Calvinists that have caused most of the strife and controversy.:think:

Jeff

edited for continuity
-admin

 

Condescending? That depends on perspective. I thought it was the other way around. Also, when someone disagrees you refer to it as "strife and controversy." You've automatically framed the discussion and assumed beforehand rather than proving your case. Using terms of propaganda to slight the other side without any rational discussion only proves my point. Your forte is ad hominem, not logic or Scripture. Also, it seems fairly apparent that you also view the Anglican Formularies as controversial. Scripture and the Formularies must never be allowed a voice here

 

Charlie, how can the 39 Articles be a response to Trent when many of the key "Romish" doctrines that the Articles expressly rejected weren't even defined by Trent until after the articles were established? Your history isn't adding up.

 

The biggest problem in the thread here, beside me being an idiot at times, is that some place the 39 articles on par with Scripture and try to bind others to them. Now I am not in the TEC or the Anglican Church UK and I do not know how many of those in theses communions view them.

I only view them as maybe a guide but not fast and hard rules, but for me Scripture and Holy Tradition are more important. So to answer the OP I do not believe that Christianity and Calvinism are compatible at all

 

Diddo!

 

I don't undestand why Charlie is being singled out and having part of his posts erased for "excessive quotation."

These quotes were pertinent to the topics addressed.

 

It is you who falsely labeled all of us as pelagians. And it is you who condescendingly said this: "...God's truth is all the truth there is and you better learn it from Scripture and get with God's program".

 

Im trying to see how one can pin pelagianism on the Tractarians, since the former started in the 4th or 5th century and was definitively declared a heresy at the Council of Ephesus, something ACs see a authoritative, and was founded by Pelagius. According to Charlie, Tractarianism was a heresy started by Newman in the nineteenth century. Is it that the Tractarians are responsible for everything that Charlie disagrees with or are Tractarians able to time travel? It's all kind of farcical