Anyone have good arguments against Calvinism.

zoidar · Wednesday at 5:51 AM

Hentenza said:
I disagree. Can the unregenerated be born again on their own?

“Jesus responded and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.””
‭‭John‬ ‭3‬:‭3‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

John 3:3 (NASB2020) - Jesus responded and said to him, “T - Bible App

Jesus responded and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

bible.com

How can an unregenerate person be born of the Spirit if they don’t have the Spirit?

I would counter: How can a person already having the Spirit, be born again to receive the Spirit? If the person has the Spirit he/she is already born again.

Hentenza said:
“Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which has been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which has been born of the Spirit is spirit.”
‭‭John‬ ‭3‬:‭5‬-‭6‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

John 3:5-6 (NASB2020) - Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I sa - Bible App

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which has been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which has been

bible.com

How does a natural person repent on their own when no one seeks God (Rom. 3:11)?

No one can repent on their own. They have to be convicted by the Holy Spirit. To be convicted is not the same as receiving the Spirit.

Hentenza said:
How can a natural man have “faith” in God and prove to himself that God will reward him for repenting??

“And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for the one who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that He proves to be One who rewards those who seek Him.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭11‬:‭6‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Hebrews 11:6 (NASB2020) - And without faith it is impossible - Bible App

And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for the one who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that He proves to be One who rewards those who seek Him.

bible.com

I'm not sure what you mean by "prove to himself" or "reward him for repenting." Hebrews 11:6 simply says that the one who comes to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him. It doesn't say a person must first be regenerated before they can seek Him

Hentenza said:
John 3:16 clearly states that only those who believe in the Son will be saved and have eternal life. In order to have faith God must bestow His free gift of grace and since this is a gift of God no one can get grace on their own. So then the ones that believe in John 3:16 are those that God has given His free grace in order for them to have faith.

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭2‬:‭8‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Ephesians 2:8 (NASB2020) - For by grace you have been saved th - Bible App

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

bible.com

You have quoted quite a few verses. We could discuss them more thoroughly later.

John 3:16 does not say God first regenerates a person before they can believe. It simply says that everyone who believes has eternal life.
You're adding another step to the text: "those who believe are only those who were first regenerated." That may be your theological understanding from other passages, but it isn't what John 3:16 itself says.

We both agree salvation is by God's grace. What we disagree about is the order. I believe God's grace enables people to respond to the gospel, and when they repent and believe, God gives them new life.

Hentenza said:
His conclusion will lead to universalism if you follow his interpretation of the Greek. Unless you believe that all will be saved then the world becomes all people but since the verse itself gives you the limiting condition “of only those who believe” will be saved then the world are those that believe.

That does not follow. John 3:16 has two different groups:

The world - the object of God’s love.

Those who believe - the recipients of eternal life.

If you know something about Bill Mounce, he is a respected Greek scholar, that has been part of the team working on the translations of ESV and NIV. He is not an universalist and he is actually Reformed.

Check out his site! There are tons of well known teachers from different denominations, and it's free to listen. You do however, have to make an account.

Free online Bible classes | World-class professors

BiblicalTraining.org is a team of professors, pastors, and authors who have come together to provide high-quality biblical teaching for Christians worldwide, and its free.

www.biblicaltraining.org

Hentenza said:
God loves absolutely everyone but not everyone is saved. He has known this since before the foundation of the world.

In this we can fully agree!

2PhiloVoid · Wednesday at 6:53 AM

bbbbbbb said:
Curiously, it seems to be the current tone emanating from the Vatican where Protestants are being called members of "ecclesial communities" and are being told that they can be saved, even though the Catholic Church alone contains "the fullness of salvation". What is not being said is the historic message that "there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church". Some would choose to imagine some form of mystical connection with the Catholic Church through baptism so that others, who do not consciously reject Catholicism might be saved. The reality is that unless Protestants, and other heathen, disown their belief system and embrace Catholicism, they will not be saved. That means that Protestants and every one else can be saved, but only if they convert to Catholicism.

Yes, I'm aware of all of that already. But thank you for the reminder. I'm just surprised that @zippy is coming out more boldly about it now.

bbbbbbb · Wednesday at 8:19 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
Yes, I'm aware of all of that already. But thank you for the reminder. I'm just surprised that @zippy is coming out more boldly about it now.

Yes, Zippy has provided a lot of interesting fodder for discussion.

bbbbbbb · Wednesday at 8:32 AM

Our friend Valletta provided a post which seems to have disappeared, in response to my recent post. He wrote, as follows:

Vatican II put out a document on the subject:
https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

I would like to thank Valletta for posting the link to this excellent document. It is a lengthy document, as is typical, but well worth reading.

In the first section one particular paragraph jumped out at me. As you can see the tone of the paragraph, as well as the second as a whole, is to encourage Catholics to be better Catholics so that they would serve to draw in the "separated brethren". The paragraph in question is as follows:

For although the Catholic Church has been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace, yet its members fail to live by them with all the fervor that they should, so that the radiance of the Church's image is less clear in the eyes of our separated brethren and of the world at large, and the growth of God's kingdom is delayed. All Catholics must therefore aim at Christian perfection and, each according to his station, play his part that the Church may daily be more purified and renewed. For the Church must bear in her own body the humility and dying of Jesus, against the day when Christ will present her to Himself in all her glory without spot or wrinkle.

2PhiloVoid · Wednesday at 8:51 AM

bbbbbbb said:
Our friend Valletta provided a post which seems to have disappeared, in response to my recent post. He wrote, as follows:

Vatican II put out a document on the subject:
https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

I would like to thank Valletta for posting the link to this excellent document. It is a lengthy document, as is typical, but well worth reading.

In the first section one particular paragraph jumped out at me. As you can see the tone of the paragraph, as well as the second as a whole, is to encourage Catholics to be better Catholics so that they would serve to draw in the "separated brethren". The paragraph in question is as follows:

For although the Catholic Church has been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace, yet its members fail to live by them with all the fervor that they should, so that the radiance of the Church's image is less clear in the eyes of our separated brethren and of the world at large, and the growth of God's kingdom is delayed. All Catholics must therefore aim at Christian perfection and, each according to his station, play his part that the Church may daily be more purified and renewed. For the Church must bear in her own body the humility and dying of Jesus, against the day when Christ will present her to Himself in all her glory without spot or wrinkle.

While that's all commendable on some level, I've never measured the truth claims made among fellow Trinitarian brethren merely and only by their behavior.

My response to the document is to say that although I appreciate the basic intention of the Vatican's general statement about this, I'm going to remain the Copernican Controvert in response to it like I do everyone and everything else, including both the Lutheran and Calvinistic modes of theologizing.

Hentenza · Wednesday at 9:08 AM

zoidar said:
I would counter: How can a person already having the Spirit, be born again to receive the Spirit? If the person has the Spirit he/she is already born again.

If the person has the Spirit then they have been regenerated unless you are suggesting that the unregenerated have the Spirit.

zoidar said:
No one can repent on their own. They have to be convicted by the Holy Spirit. To be convicted is not the same as receiving the Spirit.

Correct. The action begins with God not with man.

zoidar said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "prove to himself" or "reward him for repenting." Hebrews 11:6 simply says that the one who comes to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him. It doesn't say a person must first be regenerated before they can seek Him

“There is no one who understands, There is no one who seeks out God;”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭3‬:‭11‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Romans 3:11 (NASB2020) - There is no one who understands, Th - Bible App

There is no one who understands, There is no one who seeks out God;

bible.com

So if there is no one that seeks God then how does the unregenerated seek God?

zoidar said:
You have quoted quite a few verses. We could discuss them more thoroughly later.

John 3:16 does not say God first regenerates a person before they can believe. It simply says that everyone who believes has eternal life.
You're adding another step to the text: "those who believe are only those who were first regenerated." That may be your theological understanding from other passages, but it isn't what John 3:16 itself says.

We both agree salvation is by God's grace. What we disagree about is the order. I believe God's grace enables people to respond to the gospel, and when they repent and believe, God gives them new life.

Interesting because we are saying the same thing. God’s grace does indeed enables people to respond to the gospel but God’s grace is a gift from God given by only God so the natural man cannot get grace apart from God. This is the basis on monetarism. No one can repent and believe without God’s gift of grace.

I’m not adding a step to John 3:16 but merely stating the obvious. Belief always starts with God’s grace.

zoidar said:
That does not follow. John 3:16 has two different groups:

The world - the object of God’s love.

Those who believe - the recipients of eternal life.

Yep. And, as you stated above, God’s grace is what enables people to respond to the gospel then the opposite is equally true. No God’s grace equals no response to the gospel. God does indeed loves the world but not all of the world will have faith. If not all of the world will have faith then there are some to which God will not give His free gift of grace.

“What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? Far from it! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I have mercy, and I will show compassion to whomever I show compassion.” So then, it does not depend on the person who wants it nor the one who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very reason I raised you up, in order to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭9‬:‭14‬-‭18‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Romans 9:14-18 (NASB2020) - What shall we say then? There is no - Bible App

What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? Far from it! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I have mercy, and I will show compassion to whomever I show compassi

bible.com

zoidar said:
If you know something about Bill Mounce, he is a respected Greek scholar, that has been part of the team working on the translations of ESV and NIV. He is not an universalist and he is actually Reformed.

I know.

zoidar said:
Check out his site! There are tons of well known teachers from different denominations, and it's free to listen. You do however, have to make an account.

Free online Bible classes | World-class professors

BiblicalTraining.org is a team of professors, pastors, and authors who have come together to provide high-quality biblical teaching for Christians worldwide, and its free.

www.biblicaltraining.org

Thanks.

zoidar said:
In this we can fully agree!

Great.

2PhiloVoid · Wednesday at 9:28 AM

Hentenza said:
“What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? Far from it! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I have mercy, and I will show compassion to whomever I show compassion.” So then, it does not depend on the person who wants it nor the one who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very reason I raised you up, in order to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭9‬:‭14‬-‭18‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Romans 9:14-18 (NASB2020) - What shall we say then? There is no - Bible App

What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? Far from it! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I have mercy, and I will show compassion to whomever I show compassi

bible.com

Yes, but the semantic problem here is that when we look at the overall context of the passage in Exodus involving Pharaoh, we find that there was more to his process of hardening of heart than what Paul himself actually cites and explicates.

So, either (1) Paul is exaggerating his point for rhetorical emphasis on the importance of God's Will in his distribution of Mercy among people, or (2) he is mistakenly overstating his case because he assumes too much and is causing grief to his readers and to many who will later want to make heads or tails of God's Providential Sovereignty and the arbitration of His Mercy through predestination.

Or (3) we're all at a loss today to understand this passage in Romans because we are missing too many needed details for additional context(s) that without which, and due to the spread of time since Paul's writing, we've lost.

I know which of these three hermeneutical and exegetical vantage points I'm going to lean in on after applying both Synchronic and Diachronic studies of the pertinent passages. And, what's more, I'm not leaving it up to Luther, Calvin or the Vatican to tell me the 'right interpretation.'

Hentenza · Wednesday at 10:04 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
Yes, but the semantic problem here is that when we look at the overall context of the passage in Exodus involving Pharaoh, we find that there was more to his process of hardening of heart than what Paul himself actually cites and explicates.

So, either (1) Paul is exaggerating his point for rhetorical emphasis on the importance on God's Will in his distribution of Mercy among people, or (2) he is mistakenly overstating his case because he assumes to much and is causing grief to his readers and many who have later want to make heads or tails of God's Providential Sovereignty and the arbitration of His Mercy through predestination.

Or (3) we're all at a loss today to understand the passage in Romans because we are missing too many needed details for additional context(s) that without which, and due to the spread of time since Paul's writing, we've lost.

I know which of these three hermeneutical and exegetical vantage points I'm going to lean in on after applying both Synchronic and Diachronic studies of the pertinent passages.

I don’t think that either one of the approaches change Paul’s rendition. You could follow the story in Exodus from either view and still arrive at the fact that Pharaoh had a hardened heart, God didn’t give Him grace, God used him for His plan, and God attained the result that He wanted. Secondly, it brings up the question of whether Pharaoh could have actually become a believer.

A synchronic study would merely reveal the daily life, culture, and social structures of the Egyptians at the time which would explain the polytheistic culture and God-like self image of the Pharaoh. Or you can do a diachronic study and find out how the Egyptians got there. Neither one of these approaches is going to give you a theological picture to judge Paul’s conclusions.

BTW- number 2 above is a result of people’s various beliefs. His words might cause grief to synergists while it supports monergism.

Your number 3 above misses the theological point. No finite being can fully explain an infinite being but we still attempt to categorize soteriology primarily on two systems. So if we were to factor in what we don’t know then what does the soteriological picture actually look like?

zippy2006 · Wednesday at 10:55 AM

Hentenza said:
But then anyone that is reformed or a Calvinist is a heretic so no chance for salvation, right? Or do you believe that heretics can be saved?

I don't know whether a heretic is saved. In The Last Battle C. S. Lewis basically claims that someone who worships Satan himself can be saved in certain rare circumstances. At the very least it would be much more difficult for the heretic to be saved. And keeping to our topic, I do not think heretics are Christians in the proper, normative sense. I thought Fr. Stephen De Young's formal position was more or less correct in his recent discussion with Gavin Ortlund (link)—though I think the position is given more precision in the Catholic context.

2PhiloVoid said:
Seriously? Is this a new reinforced position you're taking now, or have you always been sliding that judgment by in silence all of these years?

I don't think I've ever written a single post on CF that said or implied such a thing.

bbbbbbb said:
Curiously, it seems to be the current tone emanating from the Vatican where Protestants are being called members of "ecclesial communities" and are being told that they can be saved, even though the Catholic Church alone contains "the fullness of salvation". What is not being said is the historic message that "there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church". Some would choose to imagine some form of mystical connection with the Catholic Church through baptism so that others, who do not consciously reject Catholicism might be saved. The reality is that unless Protestants, and other heathen, disown their belief system and embrace Catholicism, they will not be saved. That means that Protestants and every one else can be saved, but only if they convert to Catholicism.

This is an area where there is an admixture of doctrine and theological opinion. I'm not convinced that the Catholic Church has ever said the equivalent of, "Everyone who is outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church will be damned." I reject the Protestant premise which says that the Church has backpedaled on precisely this point. But there are many issues and controversies apart from that specific point.

zippy2006 · Wednesday at 11:46 AM

Hentenza said:
"So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.”

‭‭Romans‬ ‭9‬:‭14‬-‭18‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

2PhiloVoid said:
So, either (1) Paul is exaggerating his point for rhetorical emphasis on the importance of God's Will in his distribution of Mercy among people, or (2) he is mistakenly overstating his case because he assumes too much and is causing grief to his readers and to many who will later want to make heads or tails of God's Providential Sovereignty and the arbitration of His Mercy through predestination.

Or (3) we're all at a loss today to understand this passage in Romans because we are missing too many needed details for additional context(s) that without which, and due to the spread of time since Paul's writing, we've lost.

But what is St. Paul's point? What is the argument he is making? That's the question. Only once that question is answered can the decontextualized verse be understood. I would again recommend the exegesis of Fr. Stephen De Young, who was a former Dutch Reformed pastor. See this episode of Lord of Spirits on the notion of election, from 2:08-2:15.

A problem with Protestantism that anyone should be able to recognize is this. Protestants think the early Church just failed to understand Paul. For example:

Note also the example of Martin Chemnitz, “the best informed and equipped student of patristics that Lutheranism has ever known,” who is straightforward in identifying the early church fathers’ understanding of works in relation to justification as “exceedingly unfortunate”; cf. Beckwith 2004, 283; De Loco Iustificationis, 225a (Preus, 471).

(Matthew Thomas, Paul's "Works of the Law" in the Perspective of Second Century Reception, p. 220, footnote 10)

Chemnitz is just following and expanding upon the attitude of the Reformers themselves. The obvious problem with this attitude is one that C. S. Lewis points out felicitously:

“The idea that any man or writer should be opaque to those who lived in the same culture, spoke the same language, shared the same habitual imagery and unconscious assumptions, and yet be transparent to those who have none of these advantages, is in my opinion preposterous. There is an a priori improbability in it which almost no argument and no evidence could counterbalance.”

(C.S. Lewis, “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism” (or “Fern Seed and Elephants”))

The Protestant argument has been, "We, 1500 years later, understand St. Paul better than his contemporaries." A priori, that's a wildly irrational claim, and the more we come to know about the differences between the Second Temple period and the Reformation period, the more we recognize—a posteriori—that the claim is completely false. In light of this, current-day Protestants who follow the early Reformers are more and more forced to say that even though the Reformers' exegetical basis for their entire theology is hopelessly faulty, the theology itself is still correct. Thus the inherent tension between "sola scriptura" and naive exegesis becomes more and more problematic. The train that begins its journey in this way is a train that goes nowhere, namely the train that begins by elevating textual authority above all else and simultaneously claiming that its flimsy exegetical methods achieve a superior understanding to St. Paul's contemporaries who lived in the first and second centuries—proponents and opponents alike!

bbbbbbb · Wednesday at 11:49 AM

zippy2006 said:
This is an area where there is an admixture of doctrine and theological opinion. I'm not convinced that the Catholic Church has ever said the equivalent of, "Everyone who is outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church will be damned." I reject the Protestant premise which says that the Church has backpedaled on precisely this point. But there are many issues and controversies apart from that specific point.

We can thank our mutual friend, Valletta, for supplying the excellent link - https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html Please see my post 464 for further elaboration. The point is that this document confirms the stance of the Catholic Church as proclaiming itself to have all divinely revealed truth and all means of grace.

For although the Catholic Church has been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace, yet its members fail to live by them with all the fervor that they should, so that the radiance of the Church's image is less clear in the eyes of our separated brethren and of the world at large, and the growth of God's kingdom is delayed. All Catholics must therefore aim at Christian perfection and, each according to his station, play his part that the Church may daily be more purified and renewed. For the Church must bear in her own body the humility and dying of Jesus, against the day when Christ will present her to Himself in all her glory without spot or wrinkle.

bbbbbbb · Wednesday at 11:53 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
While that's all commendable on some level, I've never measured the truth claims made among fellow Trinitarian brethren merely and only by their behavior.

My response to the document is to say that although I appreciate the basic intention of the Vatican's general statement about this, I'm going to remain the Copernican Controvert in response to it like I do everyone and everything else, including both the Lutheran and Calvinistic modes of theologizing.

If behavior was the single means of determining truth, then we could just as easily be Hindus, Muslims, Jains, Sikhs, or any one of the multitudes of religions and non-religions in this world as they all have their saintly individuals. However, human nature, being what it is, certainly cannot be relied upon, especially in determining truth.

zippy2006 · Wednesday at 11:58 AM

bbbbbbb said:
We can thank our mutual friend, Valletta, for supplying the excellent link - https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html Please see my post 464 for further elaboration. The point is that this document confirms the stance of the Catholic Church as proclaiming itself to have all divinely revealed truth and all means of grace.

I am familiar with the document—which is a lower-level "decree" from the Second Vatican Council—and I read your post before writing my own.

bbbbbbb said:
For although the Catholic Church has been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace, yet its members fail to live by them with all the fervor that they should, so that the radiance of the Church's image is less clear in the eyes of our separated brethren and of the world at large, and the growth of God's kingdom is delayed. All Catholics must therefore aim at Christian perfection and, each according to his station, play his part that the Church may daily be more purified and renewed. For the Church must bear in her own body the humility and dying of Jesus, against the day when Christ will present her to Himself in all her glory without spot or wrinkle.

So do you think this quote entails the proposition, "Everyone who is outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church will be damned"?

You are conflating doctrine and theological opinion in a way that is fairly common, even within Catholic circles. For example, you draw the conclusion, "That means that Protestants and every one else can be saved, but only if they convert to Catholicism," which is an invalid conclusion from the evidence you have presented, and yet is nevertheless a permissible theological opinion with Catholicism.

Hentenza · Wednesday at 1:01 PM

zippy2006 said:
I don't know whether a heretic is saved. In The Last Battle C. S. Lewis basically claims that someone who worships Satan himself can be saved in certain rare circumstances. At the very least it would be much more difficult for the heretic to be saved. And keeping to our topic, I do not think heretics are Christians in the proper, normative sense. I thought Fr. Stephen De Young's formal position was more or less correct in his recent discussion with Gavin Ortlund (link)—though I think the position is given more precision in the Catholic context.

The thing is who is responsible to decide who is a heretic and who isn’t. In the case of Calvinist and reformed, for example, there is no “council”, ECF, or declaration determination that monergism is heretical so it boils down to your opinion. There are people that consider the RCC to have heretical practices such as bowing to statutes and other practices but I’m sure you will disagree with them just as I disagree with your opinion of Calvinists and reformed. I am reformed, but not a Calvinist, but I fully believe in the Nicene creed so what, in your opinion, makes me a heretic?

zippy2006 · Wednesday at 1:06 PM

bbbbbbb said:
If behavior was the single means of determining truth, then we could just as easily be Hindus, Muslims, Jains, Sikhs, or any one of the multitudes of religions and non-religions in this world as they all have their saintly individuals. However, human nature, being what it is, certainly cannot be relied upon, especially in determining truth.

This strikes me as another very strange corollary of Protestant theology, namely this idea that there is no behavioral distinction between a Christian and a non-Christian, such that "we could just as easily be Hindus, Muslims, Jains, Sikhs..." This is that notion of forensic justification, where there is no empirical difference between a Christian and a non-Christian. On this view it would seem that Christianity is literally impotent: it does nothing. The only difference it makes to be a Christian is that you have that "get out of jail free card" in the afterlife. Within our present life it does nothing and has no effect.

As above, this has nothing in common with the Old Testament, the New Testament, or the early Church. It is also completely contrary to common sense. If being Christian makes no discernible difference at all, then surely there is no reason to be Christian. It would be hard for me to overestimate the incoherence of Protestantism on these central points. When St. James says that faith without works is dead/profitless/pointless, he is just stating the obvious. Anything which has no effect is otiose, and the same holds of faith.

Hentenza · Wednesday at 1:26 PM

zippy2006 said:
But what is St. Paul's point? What is the argument he is making? That's the question. Only once that question is answered can the decontextualized verse be understood. I would again recommend the exegesis of Fr. Stephen De Young, who was a former Dutch Reformed pastor. See this episode of Lord of Spirits on the notion of election, from 2:08-2:15.

A problem with Protestantism that anyone should be able to recognize is this. Protestants think the early Church just failed to understand Paul. For example:

Chemnitz is just following and expanding upon the attitude of the Reformers themselves. The obvious problem with this attitude is one that C. S. Lewis points out felicitously:

The Protestant argument has been, "We, 1500 years later, understand St. Paul better than his contemporaries." A priori, that's a wildly irrational claim, and the more we come to know about the differences between the Second Temple period and the Reformation period, the more we recognize—a posteriori—that the claim is completely false. In light of this, current-day Protestants who follow the early Reformers are more and more forced to say that even though the Reformers' exegetical basis for their entire theology is hopelessly faulty, the theology itself is still correct. Thus the inherent tension between "sola scriptura" and naive exegesis becomes more and more problematic. The train that begins its journey in this way is a train that goes nowhere, namely the train that begins by elevating textual authority above all else and simultaneously claiming that its flimsy exegetical methods achieve a superior understanding to St. Paul's contemporaries who lived in the first and second centuries—proponents and opponents alike!

Sorry brother but your understanding of sola scriptura and Protestantism is lacking. First, Protestantism is not monolithic today. The mainstream churches generally agree with the basics but there are theological differences of opinion including the RCC. Sola scriptura merely means that scripture is the gold standard by which all doctrine must conform. It does not mean that we only use scripture. Many ECFs recognize the necessity to consider what they called the “Holy Scriptures” as the litmus test. For example, I read the ECFs quite frequently to better understand the historical diachronic context of the church and doctrines. I don’t, of course, agree with big T tradition as no one can even give a list of what they are which opens the door to sectarian behavior.

Secondly, the reformation happened because of excesses and errors by the Catholic Church. These were the 95 theses that Luther nailed to the door. The reformation had been coming for a few centuries so it should not have come as a surprise. In my opinion, the reformation brought the church back to apostolic teaching by attempting to correct errors that had accumulated. Work remains though.

2PhiloVoid · Wednesday at 2:04 PM

Hentenza said:
I don’t think that either one of the approaches change Paul’s rendition. You could follow the story in Exodus from either view and still arrive at the fact that Pharaoh had a hardened heart, God didn’t give Him grace, God used him for His plan, and God attained the result that He wanted. Secondly, it brings up the question of whether Pharaoh could have actually become a believer.

A synchronic study would merely reveal the daily life, culture, and social structures of the Egyptians at the time which would explain the polytheistic culture and God-like self image of the Pharaoh. Or you can do a diachronic study and find out how the Egyptians got there. Neither one of these approaches is going to give you a theological picture to judge Paul’s conclusions.

Just for the record, I'm under no delusions that both synchronic and diachronic study of the Biblical literature is somehow exhaustive in one's overall operative methodology of Hermeneutics. These two considerations are just the beginning point for me, not the total sum.

Hentenza said:
BTW- number 2 above is a result of people’s various beliefs. His words might cause grief to synergists while it supports monergism.

Your number 3 above misses the theological point. No finite being can fully explain an infinite being but we still attempt to categorize soteriology primarily on two systems. So if we were to factor in what we don’t know then what does the soteriological picture actually look like?

What amazes me is that between the 27 books and letters we find in the New Testament, the spectrum of diversity of perspective on the meaning of Old Testament theology represented among the writings of Paul, Peter, John, Luke, Matthew, Mark, the Hebrews author, and even James, seems to be much narrower than what we find representing the modern spectrum of diversity of perspective between denominations on Christian Theology over all.

I'm not surprised, therefore, that all that transpired in the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the16th to 18th centuries Inquisition and especially The Thirty Years War, along with the later outcomes of further splintering and more heretic hunting, has been so pervasive over the passed 500 years. It's a wonder we have any solidarity at all among ourselves with the constant infighting, outfighting and over assurance each denomination seems to have about the whole of Christian Theology.

Arguments over method of interpretations pertaining to Calvinism are just a drop in the historical bucket. I prefer the position of affirming that many things we think we know about our overall Theology are, at times, critically underdetermined, with the nature of God's administration of His own Sovereignty being one of those, I think. That, and the fact that I prefer roses over tulips. :sorry:

2PhiloVoid · Wednesday at 2:07 PM

zippy2006 said:
I don't think I've ever written a single post on CF that said or implied such a thing.

I'm not implying that you have. I'm just attempting to understand your actual position on the extent of Soteriological Inclusion and its exact semantic nuance.

bbbbbbb · Wednesday at 2:08 PM

zippy2006 said:
I am familiar with the document—which is a lower-level "decree" from the Second Vatican Council—and I read your post before writing my own.

So do you think this quote entails the proposition, "Everyone who is outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church will be damned"?

You are conflating doctrine and theological opinion in a way that is fairly common, even within Catholic circles. For example, you draw the conclusion, "That means that Protestants and every one else can be saved, but only if they convert to Catholicism," which is an invalid conclusion from the evidence you have presented, and yet is nevertheless a permissible theological opinion with Catholicism.

Fortunately, for me, I did not need to conflate the statement with the conclusion. Many other folks have done that long before me, including the chaps at the Council of Trent. On a personal level, I grew up as a non-Catholic in a very Catholic city with sincere Catholics who informed me that, indeed, not only has the Catholic Church been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace but, also there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, ergo I am damned along with each and every non-Catholic who does not repent and embrace the Catholic faith.

Now, however, I can bask in the glory that the Catholic Church (according to some of its members) thinks that salvation is possible for me (if I repent and embrace the Catholic faith).

bbbbbbb · Wednesday at 2:22 PM

zippy2006 said:
This strikes me as another very strange corollary of Protestant theology, namely this idea that there is no behavioral distinction between a Christian and a non-Christian, such that "we could just as easily be Hindus, Muslims, Jains, Sikhs..." This is that notion of forensic justification, where there is no empirical difference between a Christian and a non-Christian. On this view it would seem that Christianity is literally impotent: it does nothing. The only difference it makes to be a Christian is that you have that "get out of jail free card" in the afterlife. Within our present life it does nothing and has no effect.

As above, this has nothing in common with the Old Testament, the New Testament, or the early Church. It is also completely contrary to common sense. If being Christian makes no discernible difference at all, then surely there is no reason to be Christian. It would be hard for me to overestimate the incoherence of Protestantism on these central points. When St. James says that faith without works is dead/profitless/pointless, he is just stating the obvious. Anything which has no effect is otiose, and the same holds of faith.

The primary message of the Christian gospel, as most Christians affirm in the various creeds, etc., is that a believer will enter into eternal life in heaven with the Holy Trinity of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit after death, with the exception of those who are alive when Jesus Christ returns to earth in His glory at the end of the age.

Behavioral changes, although important, especially for those engaging in behaviors condemned in scripture, are, indeed, significant, but there are multitudes of unbelievers who are living blameless lives comporting with biblical moral laws. These people may not exist in your world, but I have personally known many. It is sheer hubris for anyone to demand that they repent of their moral sins when, in actual fact, they are not committing any moral sins. They are not fornicators, homosexuals, murderers, liars, sexual perverts, adulterers, wife-beaters, drunkards, addicts of any type at all. They are happily monogamous, loving their children, succeeding life as honest, trustworthy people. They can righteously point at Christians who do not live up to their standards. Mahatma Gandhi famously once said, "I would consider becoming a Christian if I ever met a Christian."

Anyone have good arguments against Calvinism.

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

What goes around comes around!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

What goes around comes around!

I will fear no evil for You are with me

What goes around comes around!

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Dragonsworn

Dragonsworn

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dragonsworn

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Dragonsworn

I will fear no evil for You are with me

What goes around comes around!

What goes around comes around!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads