a comparison

[Allan]

Arminianism was tagged as a deviant doctrine.
snip

The classic Arminianism of the Remonstrants had much in common with semi-pelagianism

First - you keep stating Arminianism is this and that. Please define what you mean by Arminian because it apparenlty is not in accordance with it natural and predifined meaning.

Second - it is a dotrine that has been around since the early church was started by Jesus and held to by many of the early church Fathers, even Augustine in his early years.

Thrid - If it was such a "deviant doctrine" why pray tell, did they agree not long thereafter (regarding years) to allow that devient doctrine back in and preached in their providences. They could actaully come back and teach the "devientness" without fear of being put to death.

That is kinda an amazing thing though, to hold to something that is supposed to be a lie in spite of the fact your brother in the Lord would jail you and or could take your life over it.

 

[donnA]

If man is totally depraved, then how can he choose to do whats right in the sigth of God (chose salvation)?

 

[Steven2006]

"It [scripture] speaks in one place of man's free will as though there is no election. In another place, it speaks of election as though there were no free will. Thus it teaches us that we must hold fast to both of these truths alongside each other, even when we cannot understand them or make them harmonize. In the light of eternity, the solution of the mystery will be given. He who grasps both in faith will speedily experience how little they are in conflict. He will see that the stonger his faith is in God's everlasting purpose, the more his courage for work will be strengthened. While on the other hand, the more he works and is blessed, the clearer it will become that all is of God."_______Andrew Murray

 

[johnp.]

If man is totally depraved, then how can he choose to do whats right in the sigth of God (chose salvation)?

Rom 8:6 The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

Man is controlled by the sinful nature and cannot submit to God. Man is totally depraved, there is no 'if' donnA.

Hello Steven.

I don't know who Andrew Murray is but I would not listen to a man that believes we must hold a contradiction as truth, equally believing a 'can' and 'cannot'.

There is no mystery but a refusal to believe God's word. God said, "Man must not reach out his hand and live for ever." Free will was shot in the head at the beginning of the bible.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

He who grasps both in faith will speedily experience how little they are in conflict.

One can reach God and one cannot reach God is just that, an unresolvable conflict. The logic is damaging to the good name of Christianity, it's laughable.

john.

 

[amity]

If man is totally depraved, then how can he choose to do whats right in the sigth of God (chose salvation)?

By grace. That is what grace is. Different theologies formulate it differently, but it is always initially God reaching out to man, not man reaching out to God.

 

[donnA]

By grace. That is what grace is. Different theologies formulate it differently, but it is always initially God reaching out to man, not man reaching out to God.

you did answer the question.

there is no 'if' donnA.

I agree perfectly.

 

[johnp.]

Cool donnA.


Hello Allan.

Second - it is a dotrine that has been around since the early church was started by Jesus and held to by many of the early church Fathers, even Augustine in his early years.

ECC 1:9 What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

Thrid - If it was such a "deviant doctrine" why pray tell, did they agree not long thereafter (regarding years) to allow that devient doctrine back in and preached in their providences. They could actaully come back and teach the "devientness" without fear of being put to death.

Calvinism is tolerant towards others on the whole. The Reformers fought and died so men did not have to believe what they were told to believe. Once secure religious tolerance is a norm for Calvinism. We didn't slaughter the Catholics in England when they fell from power even though we had the means and their addresses.

We still have anti-Catholic laws. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/547220.stm

john.

 

[Rippon]

Thanks Jerome

Years the Commentaries were first published, from F. Bungener's Calvin, sa vie, son oeuvre, et ses écrits:
1540 Romans
1546 I Cor.
1547 II Cor.
1548 Gal., Eph, Phil., Col., I Tim., II Tim.
1549 Titus, Heb.
1550 James, I. Thes., II Thes.
1551 Isaiah, I John, II John, III John, Jude
1552 Acts
1553 Gospels
1554 Genesis
1557 Psalms, Hosea
1559 Minor Prophets
1561 Daniel
1563 Ex,. Lev., Num., Deut., Jeremiah
1564 Joshua

In Calvin's final revision of the Institutes (1559), he repeated his conception of the relationship of the Commentaries to the Instututes:

"I may further observe, that my object in this work has been, so to prepare and train candidates for the sacred office, for the study of the sacred volume, that they may both have an easy introduction to it, and be able to prosecute it with unfaltering step; for, if I mistake not, I have given a summary of religion in all its parts, and digested it in an order which will make it easy for any one, who rightly comprehends it, to ascertain both what he ought chiefly to look for in Scripture, and also to what head he ought to refer whatever is contained in it. Having thus, as it were, paved the way, as it will be unnecessary, in any Commentaries on Scripture which I may afterwards publish, to enter into long discussions of doctrinal points, and enlarge on commonplaces, I will compress them into narrow compass. In this way much trouble and fatigue will be spared to the pious reader, provided he comes prepared with a knowledge of the present work as an indispensable prerequisite. The system here followed being set forth as in a mirror in all my Commentaries, I think it better to let it speak for itself than to give any verbal explanation of it."

This old post by Jerome is intended for POB and Allan as a reminder.It's fitting also that today is the anniversary of John Calvin's birth.

 

[Allan]

This old post by Jerome is intended for POB and Allan as a reminder.It's fitting also that today is the anniversary of John Calvin's birth.

This has nothing to do with me

 

[Rippon]

It was in Calvins 'Institutes' that Limited Atonement is spoken to and that was in the early part of Calvins life.

Later in his life after much reflection and study is when he wrote his 'Commentaries', and it is there we see his view changed toward an Unlimited viewpoint.



He started with 'Limited' and ended (so to speak) with a view the view known as Unlimited Atonement.


The only reason I bring it up is that Amity asked to know when Calvin wrote those and when his view changed.

All of the above are false views. Calvin did not 'change' his beliefs. He did not hold to 'Unlimited Atonement'.

So yes, it does have a bit to do with you Allan.

 

[JDale]

As I was taught Arminianism, the belief is that man's fall was not total, there was still a spark of good left in them so that they could choose good over evil and be saved, where as calvinism teaches that the fall of man was total and man is totally depraved. One can non t be total fallen and totally depraved and still be able to choose God, and good over evil. It has to be one or the other.

Then respectfully, you were taught incorrectly about "Arminianism."

Blessings,

JDale

 

[JDale]

If man is totally depraved, then how can he choose to do whats right in the sigth of God (chose salvation)?

Enabling [prevenient] grace.

JDale

 

[Rippon]

Then respectfully, you were taught incorrectly about "Arminianism."

Blessings,

JDale

Arminianism pays lip service to TD. In actual practice fallen humans still have the native ability to turn to Christ any time they put their will-power to it.

 

[JDale]

Rip:

You and I have covered this ground on other threads in the past. Suffice it to say that we will not agree.

How you [mis]characterize Arminianism, however, remains dead wrong. Instead of fighting Arminianism, which DOES INDEED affirm Total Depravity, you might want to spend more time fighting the very real "semi-pelagianism" that infects almost ALL Evangelical churches these days. It is OFTEN falsely labelled "Arminianism" by those speaking out of ignorance, or else those who have a theological axe to grind and purposefully misrepresent it as such.

By going after the real misunderstandings and misrepresentations of semi-pelagianism, you could do both your Calvinist and Arminian brothers in Christ a huge favor.

Or don't you count Arminians as brothers in Christ?

JDale

 

[Allan]

Originally Posted by amity
So, Jerome, how do you reconcile those statements with the evidence that Calvin's soteriology had seemingly changed quite a bit by the time he wrote his Commentaries, at least as far as atonement?

Those statements, along with the timeline and repeated revision of the Institutes, make clear that his thought is contained in both works in concert, rather than successively, as has been suggested.
It is odd that his revisions of the Institutes apparently do not reflect such a change. His commentary on "limited atonement" passages also needs to be accounted for.

To Rip:
His views on the atonement show a distinctive difference from Institutes to his commentaries on certain passages. This does not discount those passages in which he speaks of a specific or limited view in certain places as well.

I know he advocated Particular atonement but there is a multitude of evidence in his commenataries which show Christ died for all men everywhere as well and in other places he states that Christ died for the elect. It isn't my problem that he wrote it nor is it my problem he was at least willing to show scripture disagreed with his position at times.
Such as shown here is a thread started Jarthur001 about Calvin on John 3:16
One can not get around his statements like these:

..namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish

Before I go on I do state that J.Calvin does believe that faith is a gift given by God and that faith is not given to all men. However, in order for life to be available to all or that he can invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, then something had to be done in order that these kind of statements might be true. Or even statements like God being 'reconciled to the whole world by inviting "all men without exection".
That is here:

And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

Question: What must be done in order for God to be reconciled to a person or people? Is it not the atonement??
How then is God reconciled to the whole world without an atoning sacrifice???

But this is only from John 3:16. I am not and have not stated that John did not believe in particular atonement but it is apparent he also could not deny that God does love the human race and that God being reconciled to the whole world is able to offer life to every person indiscriminately. John contends that only those whom God gives faith to will come to life in Christ but that does not dismiss nor invalidate these statements he sets forth many times in his commentaries.

 

[Jerome]

"In his expositions [John Calvin] is not always what moderns would call Calvinistic; that is to say, where Scripture maintains the doctrine of predestination and grace he flinches in no degree, but inasmuch as some Scriptures bear the impress of human free action and responsibility, he does not shun to expound their meaning in all fairness and integrity. He was no trimmer and primer of texts."
---Charles Spurgeon