Do Calvinist use “Philosophy” or Not?

[glfredrick]

Genesis 1:28 "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
( But not really, my servant Calvin has decreed that I shall not give man authority to subdue or have dominion)

Proverbs 18:21 "Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof."
(But not really, my servant Calvin has stated that only I have authority, and I shall not give the power of life and death in man's tongue)

Luke 9:1
"Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases."
( But not really, my servant Calvin has decreed that Jesus did not give power or authority to His followers, sickness is to teach people a lesson)

Matthew 18:18
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
(But not really, my servant Calvin says that only I have authority to bind and loose, and I should not of given this power)

The point you miss -- because it is so evident that it is overlooked -- is WHOM granted for humans these various powers?

Answer? GOD

Verily I say unto you...
Then He called His twelve disciples together and gave then power...
And God blessed them and said to them...

 

[Benjamin]

I clearly “established’ at least some Calvinist (one in particular) should be checking the last 5 options, if they were being intellectually honest. Post #56.

Now, I note nothing but drum pounding rather than dealing with the issues. Pertaining to rather or not Calvinist use philosophy it has been shown some will conveniently use the philosophical principles of some church fathers while they deny it as being such. When they are pinned down on that fact rather than dealing with the issues in a philosophical way they resort back to BOOM, BOOM, BOOM.

My conclusion is that they do in fact use it when convenient (calling it something else) and otherwise deny its value. But, I’ll let the readers decide whether Calvinist use philosophy or not, and when they value it and when they don’t.

My job here is done.

Merry Christmas.

 

[Iconoclast]

This Westminster confession is an interesting contradiction.

4.2 After God had made all other creatures, he created human beings, male and female, with reasoning and immortal souls, making them fitted for that life for God for which they were created. They were made in the image of God, with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness.

9.2 In his state of innocence, Adam had freedom and power to will and to do what was good and well-pleasing to God; but he was unstable so that he might fall from this condition.

Definition of UNSTABLE
: not stable : not firm or fixed : not constant
not steady in action or movement :
irregular wavering in purpose or intent :
lacking steadiness : apt to move, sway, or fall
characterized by lack of emotional control

Comparing the two statements, this tells me Adam was created in the image and likeness of God,

with knowledge but is unstable,

who is righteous but is unstable,

is in true holiness but is unstable.

Since Adam was created in God's likeness, it tells me

God is Holy but unstable,

God has all knowledge but is unstable,

and God is righteous but unstable.

If that is not twisted enough, we now are taught that God intended Adam to fall from this "unstable perfection". A perfection that God has placed a built in failure switch to sin. Interesting.

God: "Adam, don't eat from that tree in the midst of the garden. If you do, you will die. I love you and trust you, I let you name the creatures, I want you to multiply and subdue the earth, so I don't want you to die."

Adam: "Ok Lord."

God: "Adam, about that ability I gave you to choose...."

Adam: "Yes Lord?"

God: "Well, you are going to disobey me. You know that tree in the midst?"

Adam:" Yes Lord, I won't eat from it."

God: "Well you are going to eat from it, and there isn't a thing you can do about it. The thing is Adam, there is a serpent in the garden and he is going to lie to you about the tree, and you are going to believe him."

Adam: "But Lord my eyes are on you, and you said the wife and I will die if we eat. Do I still have a choice?"

God: "No son, I can't trust you because of the way I created you. You're unstable. It's for My glory, you'll understand later."

Adam: "What about the children Eve and I will have Lord, you know, to multiply?"

God: "It's going to be tough for them because of your disobedience Adam. Some of them will be saved, but alot of them will reject me and will end up in Hell."

Adam: "But Lord I have not disobeyed you."

God: "Oh you will disobey Adam, I've made you unstable."

Genesis 1
26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: ......" But he will be unstable so he might fall and die.

27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." So they will fall and die.

31 "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good......" Except that he will be unstable so he might fall and die.

Job 8:20 "Behold, God will not cast away a perfect man, neither will he help the evil doers:" Except Adam, who I will cast away, and all his children, on purpose, because I created him unstable. Sorry kids.

Your post is sinful and wicked completely unbiblical.....making light of the word of God...you have an evil view of the biblical God......The only thing unstable here is your post.
Adam was created good...but untested{unstable} he did not pass the test. Neither does your post.

Someone on this thread said that the Westminster confession(philosophy) was good and that Christians would agree with it. It was quite humorous. The cause of Adams poor choice is that he took his eyes off God(freewill to do so), and believed the lie.

Multitudes of very fine presbyterian brethren , christians do find it good. Your condemnation of these brethren is ignorant. You could not begin to stand up to them theologically....especially with this kind of ignorant offering in which you demonstrate no biblical acumen whatsoever.
If you were attempting to joke about spiritual things....you fell way short of anything funny.

 

[Iconoclast]

I clearly “established’ at least some Calvinist (one in particular) should be checking the last 5 options, if they were being intellectually honest. Post #56.

Now, I note nothing but drum pounding rather than dealing with the issues. Pertaining to rather or not Calvinist use philosophy it has been shown some will conveniently use the philosophical principles of some church fathers while they deny it as being such. When they are pinned down on that fact rather than dealing with the issues in a philosophical way they resort back to BOOM, BOOM, BOOM.

My conclusion is that they do in fact use it when convenient (calling it something else) and otherwise deny its value. But, I’ll let the readers decide whether Calvinist use philosophy or not, and when they value it and when they don’t.

My job here is done.

Merry Christmas.

Merry Christmas to you ...but you have tried to be helpful in your sincere attempt in this thread. You have failed to establish anything edifying in your attempts however......so I will leave you to your philosophical games....maybe you can find someone who wants to play.....it will not be me.
If you do want to discuss the bible , scripture, or sound doctrine...I will be available for that:wavey:

 

[plain_n_simple]

"Your post is sinful and wicked completely unbiblical.....making light of the word of God...you have an evil view of the biblical God......The only thing unstable here is your post.
Adam was created good...but untested{unstable} he did not pass the test. Neither does your post."

"Multitudes of very fine presbyterian brethren , christians do find it good. Your condemnation of these brethren is ignorant. You could not begin to stand up to them theologically....especially with this kind of ignorant offering in which you demonstrate no biblical acumen whatsoever.
If you were attempting to joke about spiritual things....you fell way short of anything funny."

Of course I would be considered wicked and sinful for opposing Calvin to a Calvin follower.

Of couse I would be considered to have an evil view of the biblical God if the view is in opposition to Holy Calvin and his disciples.

Of course I could not begin to stand up to a Calvin disciple theologically, I would be laughing so hard, I could not stand, I'd be rolling on the floor.

I understand this is not funny to you, I touched you and your idol.

Have a very Merry Calvinmas.

 

[Dr. Bob]

At the request of the op this thread has "run its course and please close"​