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

[glfredrick]

I am still early in the book but I have read things that either pleasantly surprised me or I found to be very profound but were at most tangential to TULIP. Of course John Calvin never encountered a TULIP that couldn't be cut and placed in a vase.

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

 

[Skandelon]

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.

: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.

 

[glfredrick]

: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.

 

[Ed B]

That is true...

...... 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.

This is part of what led me to post the question. It seems unfortunate that either the name or reputations of Calvin or Arminius are connected to things that they would likely not endorse. But I'll add that in my youth I knew of no baptist who would have accepted the Arminian label, correctly or incorrectly defined; that was for the campbellites.

 

[glfredrick]

This is part of what led me to post the question. It seems unfortunate that either the name or reputations of Calvin or Arminius are connected to things that they would likely not endorse. But I'll add that in my youth I knew of no baptist who would have accepted the Arminian label, correctly or incorrectly defined; that was for the campbellites.

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!

 

[Skandelon]

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.

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:

 

[glfredrick]

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

Arminius had studied theology under Theodore Beza, Calvin's successor. Beza was one of the stronger proponents of the Reformed doctrine of predestination. But Arminius's theology represented a retreat from this position. In some ways, Arminius's theology was actually a return to the position taken by Roman Catholicism at the Council of Trent. Naturally, Arminianism stirred heated controversy in the Reformed churches.

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

Defenders of Arminianism have raised objections against this use of the term Semi-Pelagianism as a description of their doctrine, but these objections have no more merit than the objections of Roman Catholic writers when Protestants describe the doctrines enforced at the Council of Trent as a species of Semi-Pelagianism. Cf. the Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge, who writes: "It is an undeniable fact of history ... that in the Latin Church, Augustinianism, including all the characteristic doctrines of what is now called Calvinism, was declared to be the true faith by council after council, provincial and general, and by bishops and popes. Soon, however, Augustinianism lost its ascendency. For seven or eight centuries no one form of doctrine concerning sin, grace, and predestination prevailed in the Latin Church. Augustinianism, Semi-Pelagianism, and Mysticism (equally irreconcilable with both), were in constant conflict; and that, too, on questions on which the Church had already pronounced its judgment. It was not until the beginning of the sixteenth century that the Council of Trent, after long conflict within itself, gave its sanction to a modified form of Semi-Pelagianism."

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

Pelagianism and its (largely cosmetic) modifications seems to be a perennial heresy that keeps springing up in different times and places whenever it can find an opening; and, if it is not rooted out, it flourishes and eventually chokes out the biblical teaching on salvation. As it happened in Judaism in ancient times, and in Roman Catholicism during the middle ages, so also it has now happened in the Protestant denominations. The "five points of Calvinism" were designed to suppress it when it recrudesced in Reformed churches during the seventeenth century.

Council of Trent -- Sixth Session:

CHAPTER VI.

The manner of Preparation.

Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, [Page 34] to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.

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

 

[Skandelon]

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.

 

[Aaron]

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).

 

[Skandelon]

Your thinking falls right in line with the Catholicism of the Inquisition.

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..."

If "normative means" may be employed to change a man's will, the rack and the stake would certainly be effective means of evangelism.

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.

 

[Aaron]

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.

Yes. But notice the means God uses to convince, persuade or change man's will.


With Jonah, did God work internally to supernaturally change Jonah's nature and desires so as to make him want to preach in Ninevah? No. He used "normative" or "outward" means so as to allow him to respond and be convinced to do what otherwise he didn't want to do. Same is true of many throughout scripture. I think it is a mistake to presume God is somehow inwardly manipulating the nature and desires of man to casually determine their choices. He could, no doubt, but in scripture He just doesn't work that way.

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.

 

[Iconoclast]

Is not Calvinism a form of rationalism?

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.

 

[glfredrick]

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.

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:

 

[DaChaser1]

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!

 

[DaChaser1]

I might think about it if I had an any idea what you just said.

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!)

 

[Skandelon]

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.

 

[Skandelon]

I don't care at all to "discredit" the views of Arminius.

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...

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!

petitio principii

 

[Skandelon]

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.

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...

 

[DaChaser1]

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.

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

 

[DaChaser1]

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

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