Amen on the post Daniel.

Dan (T&Z)

 

Susan - Contrary to the nomenclature, Calvin is not the father of "Calvinism."

A fellow named Jacubus Arminius, a reformed theologian, in attempting to answer the objections to predestination imposed by one Dirck V. Coornhert, not only failed to defend the doctrine, but in his failure, gave birth to what is commonly called "arminianism" today.

Not that Jacob led the charge, rather his admirers (we'll call them the "remonstrants") formalized his teachings and published them in 1610.

One of the men who rose up to correct this -new- theology was John Calvin. The five points that the Arminian remonstrants stood on, were addressed by John Calvin. Thus the "five points of Calivinsism" are not something that Calvin dreamed up - but rather were originally just the orthodox answer to a teaching that had been condemned previously by the church every time it had come up (see Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism)

I was a "Calvinist" long before I had ever heard of John Calvin or knew that what I believed was currently being labeled as "Calvinism."

My point is that studying Calvin, to understand the doctrines of Grace might be a little over kill, and even a bit misleading.

Christianity has historically been "Calvinistic" long before John Calvin ever was born. The early church used to hold ecumenical councils whenver some heresy would threaten the church - these councils would meet - hundreds of pastors from all over the known world would gather to discuss the new teaching, and see whether it was a correct interpretation of scripture, or flawed. When a teaching was flawed, the universal church rejected it - branding it as heresy. Eventually however, the churh splintered into competing factions, and when a heresy rose that was put down by one faction - the heretics would leave and start their own faction wherein such a heresy was accepted.

This is what happened with Arminiansism - instead of being thwarted and throttled the way it had always been in the past - semi-pelagianism was allowed to grow and grow. Soon, calvinism - the historical teaching of the church - became the minority - and even today it is a small minority.

So if you are interested in learning about Calvinism - you need not restrict yourself to Calvin - read Luther, read, Spurgeon etc. Listen to free sermons preached by men such as John MacArthur, and John Piper.

There is benefit in being taught by godly men - but above all this - search the scriptures yourself, asking God to open your eyes to the truth. God is able to do that. Be a berean, checking the scriptures to see if what these people say is actually true.

My greatest advice: When reading scripture, read the whole book. If you are reading from John - read the whole gospel, beginning to end. You might not be able to read it all in one sitting - but don't go flitting about here and there and everywhere in scripture. Each book in the bible was written front to back - and we should read them that way. More confusion and pain are born of whimsical reading than anything else.

Also - read the whole bible - read it all, cover to cover, and continue to do so for the rest of your life - and believe every word of it. If you are picking and choosing things that you believe and other things that you chalk up to the "ignorance of these cavemen who wrote the bible" you are setting yourself up as the final authority about what is really true and what is not. You will never be convinced by scripture if you doubt any of it - you must accept it all, or you may as well accept none of it.

Don't worry about feeling ignorant, there is a wonderful site on line called The Bible Bulletin Board where you can find hundreds of bible studies, and answers to tough questions - a gold mine that has helped many (though it isn't the prettiest site on the web...)

Like yourself, I am just some person on the internet - and I can be wrong. By that I mean to once again emphasize that it is better to be convinced from scripture than by books or other people. The purpose of our walk is not to have the most knowledge, but to have a relationship with Christ - so filter your pursuit through that lens - how am I pursuing Christ?

Grace and Peace Susan, I am glad to see a teachable spirit.

 

Daniel--
I didn't have time to read your whole post (I'm actually on my way out from work to Greek class), but I will get back to it. I find your posts more like steak, where I need to chew them for awhile.

In any case, re: the faith issue, I wanted to add that faith isn't really faith without some action. If I say "I have faith in my chair," but won't sit in it, that's not real faith, but just faith in name only. It seems to me that's the point on obedience.

Thanks again for your post.

 

Thanks for that post Daniel, you've put that very clearly and helpfully but without the patronising tone so often found in the Christian blogosphere. Having said that, it's true of all your posts so is fairly redundant in a comment on one... but er thanks anyway.

 

Well done, Daniel.

 

Good old Free Grace theology or as I like to call it "expensive works dogma". I like how you used the beating drum analogy. And defended your position/Bibles position very well.

 

Daniel,
I am not a "Free Grace" theology person. In fact, I have never heard of that label until I saw Antonio around the campus. But, I don't really see why you find his teaching so "dangerous". It almost sounds as if you are calling his teaching heretical. I just don't know why you or any of the other reformed people would dismiss him that way. Granted, he dismisses you all in an even more dramatic way, but I think you both make some good points and I don't see why you can't learn from one another.

As far as faith goes and what it means ... It seems to me that you are complicating it. Why? Why would we want to complicate the simple, wonderful grace of God? That is what stabs at my heart. I remember my own conversion. If those witnessing to me would have attached repentance to the message of salvation, I believe I would not have listened. That is why it is so tragic to me to hear of a teaching of faith that requires repentance, because I am sure there are many others like I was. Repentance came for me, but when you are speaking to lost people, they need to hear of what God has done for them, not an obligatory message of what they must DO to be saved, or what it will imply if they turn to Christ. Don't you think that is God's work and their own longing for growth after He makes His home in their life?

I think part of the concern may be because the church is longing for a pure fellowship. We want our church to be filled with people who are walking with the Lord, so maybe we want to fend off those who wouldn't be willing to do that. Doesn't that seem dangerous? What if God is not pleased with this 'fending off' of the Lordship salvation gospel? Does that ever concern you?

 

I think Antonio's exegesis makes perfect sense.

I read his opponents comments, but most of the time all they do is quote Scriptures at him without making any attempt to set them in any kind of context.

There is a consistency, clarity and concern for the Biblical text in Antonio's writing that I just have not seen in any Reformed writers that I have ever read, and I have a few.

I do not visit your blog regularly, so I do not know if your exegesis is better than the guys who regularly visit Antonio's blog, but I have not been impressed so far with anyone who has attempted to refute Antonio's stuff.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

 

If those witnessing to me would have attached repentance to the message of salvation, I believe I would not have listened.

I think it would be better to answer this with a new post...

;-)

 

Please no! Don't make my comment the subject of one of your posts. Daniel, show a little mercy!

 

My apologies Rose - I had already posted by the time I noticed your comment.

If this is a mercy, then it is a small one - I didn't address you, but rather the opinion you have expressed. You are certainly not alone in your opinions, so I am really addressing the idea and not the person.

No sting intended. :-D

 

I still think you should be open to Antonio. He is not like you, but he has something good to "share."

Many members ...

 

Thanks Daniel.

Good stuff.

 

To the readers of Daniel's blog, I request that you read my response to this post of his which I have published on my blog. The link to my response to Daniel is here:

Response to Daniel of Doulogos

Thank you as well, Daniel, for your post, as it is a great forum by which to juxtapose our two theologies.

Antonio

 

Daniel,

What's your definition of grace? Do you see grace as a created quality from God (placed within each person) or as donum gratiae the person of the Holy Spirit (see Rom. 5:5 and the inclusio that follows from Rom 5 through 8).

You do realize that the typical "reformed" position, which you seem to adhere to, anthropologically sees grace as a created quality a la the Thomistic synthesis of Aristotelian categories and medieval theology? The unsettling implication of such an epistemological framework leads to your understandable conclusion that works serve as the touchstone for determining whether a person is one of the elect. Functionally speaking "works" then serve as the basis for your understanding of justification/sanctification.

Going back a bit in salvation history, what did God base Abraham's salvation on (cf. Gen 15:6; Rom 4)simple unconditional/unqualified belief in YHWH's promise. You seem to think that the basis of salvation is rooted in the conditional Mosaic Cov. which, BTW, Jesus fulfilled (cf. Gal 3, etc.). But again this would make sense given your apparent committment to Federal Theology and the Covenant of Works provided by such a theological construct.

Before you make such slip/shot assertions, maybe you should check the informing factors that historically shape your position. Maybe then you wouldn't so carelessly paint someone as a heretic as you do with Antonio.

BTW, your assertions about the carry over of pistis into English from koine Greek, is again misleading and just plain untrue. I'll just make the assertion here since Antonio provides substantion on his site refuting such a non-sensical and misguided claim.

I'll stop now, BTW, which learned teachers have refuted the concepts that Antonio is articulating: again another naked unsupported assertion--this seems to be the pattern and thread that flows through your whole article here. Very un-Christian in my humble opinion.

 

Daniel said to Susan:

"A fellow named Jacubus Arminius, a reformed theologian, in attempting to answer the objections to predestination imposed by one Dirck V. Coornhert, not only failed to defend the doctrine, but in his failure, gave birth to what is commonly called "arminianism" today.

Not that Jacob led the charge, rather his admirers (we'll call them the "remonstrants") formalized his teachings and published them in 1610.

One of the men who rose up to correct this -new- theology was John Calvin. The five points that the Arminian remonstrants stood on, were addressed by John Calvin. Thus the "five points of Calivinsism" are not something that Calvin dreamed up - but rather were originally just the orthodox answer to a teaching that had been condemned previously by the church every time it had come up (see Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism)"

I just read this response by Daniel to Susan: unacceptable Daniel. Again another unfounded, and historically inaccurate assertion. How could Calvin respond to the five pts of Arminius if he was already dead? Calvin lived from 1509 to 1564 and Arminius from 1560 to 1609--just a 4 yr old squirt when Calvin died.

BTW, Luther saw discontinuity between Law and Gospel (i.e. Law vs. Gospel); while Calvin saw continuity (i.e. Law and Gospel).

 

Bobby - good eye, and thanks.

Susan, it wasn't "Calvin" personally who answered the error of Arminius, but it was Calvin's exposition that was used to demonstrate what was wrong with it.

The important point, is that the theology attributed to Arminius was rejected by the church.

 

Bobby - I wish I had more time to interact, but I am off to work.

 

Antonio - It may seem that this post was directed at you personally - and I would like to mention, for your readers and my own - that this was not anything of the sort. Our theologies are at odds with one another, and this post draws that into the light. I am strengthened in seeing that understand the Berean benefit to examining any theology.

 

Daniel said:

"Susan, it wasn't "Calvin" personally who answered the error of Arminius, but it was Calvin's exposition that was used to demonstrate what was wrong with it.

The important point, is that the theology attributed to Arminius was rejected by the church."

Actually Daniel, it was primarily Theodore Beza, Francis Turretin's, and others answer to Arminius rather than Calvin (although you're right some of Calvin's principles were used).

When you say the "church" rejected the Remonstrants points, does this imply that Arminians were outside of the church? It's interesting to me, both Calvinism and Arminianism took shape within the same soteriological construct: and socio/cultural milieu. One just "front loads the gospel with works" (Arminianism); while the other back loads. In other words, works play a central role in proving ones election--what an un-healthy/un-scriptural emphasis.

Notice this summary of Calvin's understanding of works provided by medieval scholar (not a Christian, no theological axe to grind ;):

" “For Calvin, good works did not have the direct bearing on salvation that medieval theology taught (read Roman Catholic theology); they attested divine favor and gave presumptive evidence of election, but they did not put one in a position to expect salvation as condign merit. On the other hand, Calvin’s teaching, like his conduct of the Genevan church, once again made good works and moral behavior the center of religious life and reintroduced religious anxiety over them. In Calvinism the presence or absence of good works came to be taken as a commentary on one’s eternal destiny.” (parenthesis mine) (Quote taken from: Steven Ozment, “The Age of Reform 1250-1550,” 379

Calvinism is'nt that much different than that which it was protesting after all (same with Arminianism).

Conversely, note the difference presented by Martin Luther's understanding of works relative to justification:

"“. . . while he too (Luther) recognized the commandments as a guide to Christian behavior and stressed them as emphatically as any other Protestant leader, he also resisted more firmly than any other the temptation to find either evidence of salvation where good works were present or indications of damnation where they were not.” (parenthesis mine) (Quote taken from: Steven Ozment, “The Age of Reform 1250-1550,” 377)

Luther's understanding seems much closer to our brother Antonio's understanding than your caricature presents, Daniel.

What do you think?

 

sir, my wife is in labor, and I cannot answer you now- forgive my absense - and thank you muchly for your historical foot work here. I myself would do it, but I am, as I hope you can appreciate - not myself at the moment.

Grace.

 

Bobby, where you been man?

 

Hi Marc,

I have a touch of tendonitis in both arms, too much computer time at work, and probably too much blogging in the past too ;). I'm still not totally better, but I had to comment on our brother Daniel's outlandish article here.

I notice that you have my friend, Antonio in your purgatorio blog roll, come on, he's a good student of the word, and our brother in Christ ;-). Give him a break :)!

Doesn't Daniel's equivocation of faith/repentance cause you some pause, Marc? He can posture all he wants, this still makes salvation a process, making justification and sanctification synonymous. There is no difference between this and the Roman Cath. soteriological construction--accept for the assertion that indeed it is somehow distinct.

Anyways, good talking with you, Marc! I'm trying to lay off the blog thing still--it's highly addictive for me--so I'm walking the line right now ;).

 

Bobby Grow,

I hear you on the blog thing. Blessings on you brother