For the Calvinists: What are Key Points of Calvin's Theology beyond TULIP?

Of course. Calvin did not pen TULIP. That came as a response to the Remonstrants five articles and in some cases "out Calvin(ed)" Calvin.

Read the Institutes here for free:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.toc.html

His commentaries (which are also very well done!) here:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/commentaries.i.html

And just about everyone who wrote in the history of the church here:

http://www.ccel.org/index/title/A

 

:thumbs: Very true. It amazes people when they actually read Calvin's and Arminius' actual writings. If you took off the name and intertwined their quotes you wouldn't be able to tell most of them apart. Both were very much focused on God's love and glory.

 

That is true...

But there were distinctions. Arminius, as a student of Calvin, knew where Calvin stood on the Scriptures but he (Arminius) thought that Calvin's take -- logically argued in a way that Calvin said ought not be done -- made God out to be deterministic, so he sought (in line with current Catholic doctrine of his day) to make man more of a participant in his own culpability.

The distinctions were not as many as most who have never read their works would know. Most of what we see argued around here is other than what either Calvin or Arminius wrote and in fact harkens back to Origen and Pelagius, hence the "no-name" aspect, lest a named doctrine implicate them in an heretical stance. It does anyway, but as long as they disavow the name I guess it doesn't count.

 

Indeed, or General Baptists. I was a pastor of a GB church for a while. They were quite adamant on their Arminian beliefs, and yes they held even to loss of salvation!

 

Maybe that is the way you see it from your perspective. I think Arminius was motivated by the scriptures clear intent, not Catholic doctrine or human logic. When someone fully comes to understand the historical context of Israel's temporary hardening the intent becomes much more clear.

But, you are right about the other part. :thumbs:

 

I've just finished a study on the "bouncing" back and forth of this doctrine within the Catholic and early Protestant churches. We're still bouncing and many of the debate points brought forward are unwittingly word-for-word the arguments made at some point in time or another for one position or another. We have not made much progress on this issue.

Shortly before the time that Arminius began writing the Catholics held the Council of Trent and much of what Arminius argued was a logical return to Trent. The coincidence that his writings would so closely mirror Trent would be shocking if one did not also think that Arminius might have been influenced (as were all theologians of that age) by the teaching of the RCC.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/arminian.htm

Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes, sixth edition (New York, 1931), vol. 1, 516.

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 [New York: Charles Scribner and Co., 1871], 124.

Clearly the language of Trent is encapsulated in the thought of Arminius.

 

You may be right on some levels of influence, but if your desire is to discredit his writings on the basis of Catholic support then I suppose we would need to dismiss all truth supported by Catholic doctrine. Regardless of what you may feel about Catholics, their dissent or support of a biblical truth matters little to me. For support of my point, just look at all of Arminius' references to and exposition of the scriptures.

 

Your thinking falls right in line with the Catholicism of the Inquisition. If "normative means" may be employed to change a man's will, the rack and the stake would certainly be effective means of evangelism.

Let's get creative and sew 'em up in whale stomach's. (animal skins will suffice if Green Peace objects).

 

Really?

The Middle Ages:
"Augustine’s teaching on grace was considered the touchstone of orthodoxy within the western church throughout the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, within an Augustinian context, theologians continued to debate the precise nature of God and man’s participation in salvation, as well as attempting to work out a place for the church’s emerging system of sacraments in the overall scheme of salvation. Thomas Aquinas, the most influential Catholic theologian of the Middle Ages..."

Oh, so if one rejects the concept of irresistible inward means they must accept outward coercive means? Can you spell False Dichotomy? Is it possible for you to not commit a debate fallacy?

Paul speaks of persuasion quite often and even Jesus clearly acknowledged the ability of signs and wonders to convince man's will...yet he never teaches us to use coercive force to ensure professions, though I know it entertains you to paint us as if we would do such things. Your 'Arminian' straw man is getting more and more outrageous daily.

 

Just a sec. I want to get some popcorn. Watchin' you backpeddal on this one is going to one show I don't want to miss.

 

Not at all....it is a comprehensive view of all of scripture...based upon God's revelation of mans great sin,and God's great redemption.

It reconciles all the verses....not just half.

 

I don't care at all to "discredit" the views of Arminius. I am just sharing information. If you find his views discredited because they match the Council of Trent, then it is for you to act accordingly. :thumbs:

 

Don't worry about being blamed for Arminius theology being discredited, as it is the Word of God, the Bible, that actually did that long time ago!

 

just saying that its ironic that "Mr calvinist" "Mr determinism" "Mr heretic" bu his distractors would actually have you read his book on prayer and got something from it, as wouldn't the Will of God be already done deal, why even pray? (saying it as his critics do and would!)

 

I can't remember ever calling Calvin these names. I believe Calvin was much more balanced in his approach to these matters than many who bare his name today. Though obviously I would take issue with a number of his views (as did Arminius and others), that in no way negates our many many common beliefs.

 

I know. That would require you actually engaging in a debate and forming actual arguments that don't resort to fallacies such as the one below from JesusFan...

petitio principii

 

I know it will require to do a little work, something you clearly don't want to do much of here, but you will need to show where the contradiction is in my two quotes which you apparently thinks requires a 'backpeddal?'

Now, we can watch you backpeddal, or more likely ignore and leave...

 

NOT saying that you did! To your credit, you have mentioned that you have at least read his works!

 

Well...
BOTH threologies cannot be right, and would tend to stay with and chose the way that actually keeps God as THE primary source/Agent of the salvation process