A question for Calvinists

[Covenant Heart]

folk_rocker_4jc 44 said:

It is interesting to note, however that both Calvin and Luther believed the great commission was fulfilled in the age of the apostles. So they has no problem with predestination conflicting with missionary impulse...they didn't HAVE such an impulse!

"Let me say first of all that your faith in God is becoming known throughout the world" (Rom 1:8 ). "This same Good News that came to you is going out all over the world. It is changing lives everywhere" (Col 1:6). "The word of the Lord is ringing out from you to people everywhere" (1Th 1:8).

Perhaps we should separate the missionary impulse issue from the question of whether or not the gospel has gone into all the world. Otherwise some of us may have to choose between Paul’s competence as a teacher of God’s word, or his commitment to missionary activity. Blessings!

Covenant Heart

 

[CCWoody]

I still waiting for you to explain free agency. And how that is conisistent with Cavlinism?

Perhaps, the fact that we Calvinists have never taught that man was not a free moral agent, but that this is nothing but a Straw Dummy, you are unaware that the SBC's statment of faith is consistent with Calvinism. Now, I'm not accusing you of erecting a Straw Dummy, but I am accusing YOU of perpetuating the Straw Dummy by continuing to believe it and shoot arrows at it, instead of what we Calvinists actually believe.

Now, since you have been pretty nice to me, I will reciprocate a little charity by teaching you a thing or two here about what Calvinism really teaches and what we really believe. This way, you can either....

1. know what the real target is when you shoot your arrows at these poor despised creatures called Calvinists.
2. Put your insturments of war down and figure out that we Calvinists were right all along and we, along with our Predestinarian Lutheran brothers and a few others are the only real Protestants left in this world.

Here is the first straw dummy you need to consider before I address the issue of free agency. The so called TULIP, or 5-Points of Calvinism were not invented to tell people what to believe. The Predestinarian Reformers had always believed these points and about a thousand other points. These points were formulated as a Biblical response to the unBiblical assertions of the Remonstrants, who were spreading their anti-Reformation doctrines. We didn't start the trouble. The Reformation happened without the help of Arminianism and when she finally did enter the church, she brought in a resurrection of doctrines which had already been condemned as heresies about a thousand years before the synod of Dordt conveined to answer these troublers to the Reformation.

Ok, that out of the way, moving on....

Total Depravity​

Straw Dummies:

1. The Bible teaches that all are responsible to believe and repent.
2. The Bible teaches that man is a free moral agent. He is no puppet.
3. Even wicked men perform acts which are "good."

What Calvinism really teaches:

Calvinists believe that the Bible DOES teach that man has a choice and that he acts freely in the exercise of his choices. The issue has NEVER been than Calvinists believe that man is not a free moral agent. The issue is what does the Bible teach that man freely does and has done and will continue to do apart from the regenerating grace of God with his choices.

Calvinists do teach that all men are responsible to God. We have never taught any different. The fact that man is dead in his sins (Ephesians 2 for starters) is irrevelant. God does not lower his standards because man, of his own making, is unable to meet them. The LORD God still requires perfect obedience to the Law even though it is entirely beyond man's ability to meet that requirement. He is still responsible to repent, even though he has no desire to repent of his sins. He likes his sins. This is what it means to be dead in sins.

It is merely the unBiblical presumption by those opposing the Reformers that man, acting out of his native Adamic wants ever performs any God pleasing actions. The Bible is clear on this point, despite what the anti-Reformers have to say about. Man is dead in sin. This doesn't mean that he is not a free moral agent. He is. His problem is that every single choice is a choice to sin. This is what it means to be dead in sin. Every single act of man, even those which appear to be "good" in the eyes of other men are born out of a selfish desire and hatred for God. Man naturally hates God and he hates God's law. He has not desire to live under it.

1. Romans 3: 10-12, 23 -- As it is written, There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one.... for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
2. Romans 7: 18 -- For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.
3. Romans 8: 5 - 8 -- For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
4. 1 Corinthians 2: 14 -- But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

A natural Man, acting by God's Permission, will:
NEVER seek God (because No Man naturally seeks God, Romans 3); NEVER do good (because the Doing of Good is not present in his native Wants, Romans 7); NEVER perform any God-pleasing action whatsoever (Because he never wants to please God, Romans 8); and NEVER even understand what he ought to do (because he cannot even understand the idea of doing anything God-pleasing, 1 Corinthians 2).

These verses SHUT THE DOOR on the idea that a natural Man will ever Will to do any God-pleasing action by God's Permission. The natural Man never, ever Wants to perform any God-pleasing action, and so if he acts by God's permission, he never, ever Will.

When natural Men act by God's PERMISSION, they ONLY PERFORM GOD-OPPOSING ACTIONS. That is all they Want to do, so that is all that they ever Will to do.

Man's problem is not that he isn't free. Calvinists have always taught and believed that man is free. Man's problem is that he is, by nature, evil and only wants to do evil. So, that is what he freely does. A good man out of his heart will bring forth good treasures and an evil man out of his heart will bring forth evil treasure. This is who they are. This is what they want to do. The Bible explicitly delcares that this is how good men and evil men act.

Therefore, the Lord himself teaches us the way He overcomes this problem for spiritually dead man. You remake the tree. Then, the tree will bear the right kind of fruit because that is freely what they want to do.

I'll pause at this point, because I'm sure that you are already screaming to get out the straw dummy of "this makes man a robot." So, I'll address that....

Adam, when he was created, was created in a state of innocency, not holiness. He was created in such a way that he could freely choose between good and evil. He made his choice to rebel against God, and he fell. But, not only him. The entire race of man fell with him. Adam was our Covenant representative just as Christ is our Covenant representative. We were also in Adam when he fell, just as we were in Christ when He was raised. This is why Christ was called the LAST Adam.

When Adam sinned, we sinned with him.
His sin was our sin.
We freely chose to blow our spiritual heads off.
We are dead in our sins.

Man is not a robot; he is a free moral agent. He does exactly what he wants to do. Unfortunately, because he freely chose to blow his spiritual brains out of his head, all he wants to do now is oppose God. Even those things which seem "good" to man, are evil in the sight of the Lord because they are not of faith.

Nevertheless, for the sake of His name and His mercy, He has elected to raise to a new spiritual life out of the fallen dead Adamic race a number to be the vessels of His mercy to the praise of his glorious grace. The rest He will leave to their freedom of rebellion against Him, also for the display of His glory in their destruction.

This ought to get you started in understanding what we Calvinists believe and teach.

 

[rnmomof7]

And if I rememeber correctly, the Korean church is sending missionaries to the countries that first sent missionaries to Korea. So, maybe a revival of the Nederland church will be the result of Korean Presbyterians.

My daughter in law was raised a Korean Presbyterian . The ladies from her moms church rise at 5 am to have an hour of prayer twice a week.
They are devoted Christians and evangelizers

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

These points were formulated as a Biblical response to the unBiblical assertions of the Remonstrants, who were spreading their anti-Reformation doctrines. We didn't start the trouble. The Reformation happened without the help of Arminianism and when she finally did enter the church, she brought in a resurrection of doctrines which had already been condemned as heresies about a thousand years before the synod of Dordt conveined to answer these troublers to the Reformation.

Re the phrase "condemmed about 1,000 years before the synod of Dordt":

PROOF THE CHURCH NEVER REALLY ADOPTED THE AUGUSTINIAN POSITION:

Home > Christianity Today Magazine > Columns > Christian History Corner

Christianity Today, Week of June 24

Christian History Corner: Between Extremes
Church leaders didn't like Pelagius's ideas about free will, but they've never been able to avoid them completely.
By Elesha Coffman | posted 06/28/2002

On July 3, 529, Caesarius of Arles presided over a synod in southern France that was intended to promote the teachings of his favorite theologian, Augustine of Hippo (354-430). Caesarius thought that his fellow church leaders in France had slipped from rigorous Augustinian orthodoxy toward the ideas of Augustine's most bitter enemy, Pelagius. The Synod of Orange was supposed to right the ship and dash Pelagianism once and for all. It didn't.

Augustine was notoriously pessimistic about the human capacity for good. He believed that original sin irreparably tainted all people, so that the only good they could ever do was the good God chose to do through them. He also believed that humans lack the sense or strength to turn to God. Thus it's entirely up to God to save whomever he elects (the doctrine of predestination).

Pelagius didn't like where this thinking led. He particularly objected to Augustine's prayer, "Command what you will, and give what you command." If good will and good action come only from God, Pelagius wondered, are people literally good for nothing? And won't people who are taught that they can't do anything right anyway respond with bad behavior? To preserve morality, and to give humanity some purpose, Pelagius taught that salvation and the Christian life require good use of human free will. He also denied both original sin and predestination.

After 25 years of verbal warfare, Augustine succeeded in getting Pelagianism condemned at the 431 Council of Ephesus. Pelagius, who had never been as "Pelagian" as his followers, had already retreated to a nomad's life in the East. The theology, though, lingered on as "Semi-Pelagianism." As David Allen wrote for Christian History's recent issue on Augustine:

In Provence, an area of southern France, a group of monks who had all spent time in the important monastery on the Isle of Lérins (opposite the modern resort of Cannes) set about correcting what they saw as the extremism of both Pelagius and Augustine.​

John Cassian (360-433), while visiting Egypt to learn spiritual secrets from its famed monks and hermits, heard this from a wizened monk named Chaeremon: 'The grace of God always cooperates with our will for its advantage … and sometimes requires and looks for some effort of good will from it that it may not appear to confer its gifts on the sluggish.'​

This is the earliest expression of what came to be known as Semi-Pelagianism—a view that Cassian embraced and later began to propagate. The key word is cooperation: no one can save himself but, by cooperating with the grace of God, salvation can be appropriated by anyone.​

Other men, notably Vincent of Lérins and Faustus of Riez, took up Cassian's theme. Both of these men were dead by the time Caesarius and other Augustinians fought back at Orange, but Semi-Pelagianism had spread further than Caesarius realized—into the Augustinian camp. Allen notes, "even the synod backed away from some of Augustine's more extreme views: his belief that God's grace cannot be resisted and his severe interpretation of predestination were quietly dropped."




Eventually, more Augustinian objections to Pelagius were quietly dropped. A millennium after Orange, Martin Luther and company accused the entire Roman Catholic Church of going soft on sin and of diluting predestination with emphasis on good works. It seemed to Luther that while Augustine had won every specific battle with Pelagius, he had lost the war for orthodoxy. Whatever your view of Pelagianism, it shows that you just can't keep some ideas down.

Elesha Coffman is managing editor of Christian History magazine.

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

Evrything here is from a discussion I had with Fiskare on the "Calvinism vs. Arminianism" forum:

Asbury Journal article on Augustine


As I promised a few days ago, I hunted up the Asbury Theological Seminary Journal article that talks about some aspects of Augustine not often considered. It can be found in the Fall 1995/Spring 1996 edition, Vol 50, no.2/Vol 51, no 1, a special edition titled SANTIFICATION IN THE BENEDCITINE AND METHODIST TRADTIONS. The spark for this was a World Ecumenical Conference wherein representatives of the Benedictine order of the Catholic Church met with Methodists to discuss what they had come to see as their common theological roots. (The sound of skin crawling you hear is from the staunch Reformed crowd.) The article is on page 45, and is entitled Sacramentum Caritatis as the Foundation of Augustine's Spirituality by Robert Dodaro, OSA who is a Catholic scholar. I won't discuss the article at length, here...but a quote from the closing may prove enlightening:



"The conversion of heart which is key to penetrating the sacrementum caritatis which inclines towards scientia and sapientia require just such open confession of one's sins. The enigmatic, sacramental aspect of love which Augustine encountered in his own study of the scriptures taught him that we love God and neighbor as genuinely as we can only when our decision about what to do proceeds from as honest a self-disclosure as we can muster." (Author’s emphasis) (Author goes on to list several of Augustine's key works where this theme is found.)



"It is not Augustine's fault that this particular emphasis on an open confession of sins as the gateway to self-knowledge and, hence as the starting point for a proper, graced love of god and neighbor, has been lost on his posterity. It would be enlightening to know what impeded the reception in the Middle Ages of this central element of public penance in Augustine's portrait of the emperor in City of God, or why, indeed, the role of memory, intellect and will in fostering conversion through confession has been historically omitted from discussions of his theory of the triadic structure of the image of God within the human soul. Equally curious and regrettable is the cumulative, negative effect of centuries of interpretations of Augustine in regarding him as a pessimist. Clearly, more research is needed on the history of the reception of Augustine within later periods of history." (Author’s emphasis)



The crashing sound you hear is the hopes of Calvinism's attempts at keeping Augustine in their camp.

Anyway, this makes me think that the protests by the Roman Catholic church that Calvin cited only enough of Augustine to support his own agenda must have some serious merit. It would also explain why by the time of the Synod of Orange, Caesarius of Arles didn't find as many sympathizers in the Augstinian camp as he had hoped. It wasn't beause they had been influenced by Pelagius, but because Augustine wasn't as "Augustinian" as his followers.

 

[CCWoody]

Are you sure? The Bible says (as I understand it) that Christ's death, burial and resurrection made it possible for ALL men to be saved, without exception. I see no hint that the cross made any allowance for angels, so I'm not sure why you bring it up.

Because it is an example of a kind of believe which will not save. The Bible is actually full of them. Balaam had a kind of belief which did not save. Judas had a kind of belief which did not save. A lot of the Hebrews which came out of Egypt had a kind of belief which did not save them. The gnostics had a kind of belief which did not save.

Also, James said:

Jam 2:19 You believe that God is One. You do well; even the demons believe and shudder.

All he is saying is that even demons believe "God is one." I see nothing about men or angels believing or disbelieving Christ died, was buried and rose again for their sins. Again, I don't know why you think this is relevant.

Perzackly! The belief that the demons have is a kind of belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit which will not save them. They believe all the things in the Bible. And, they tremble in fear.

There are obviously kinds of belief in God, which will not save anyone.

There will be a vast number of chaff, which will actually believe that they have the cleansing blood of Christ which will not save. They believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Yet, this belief is not a saving kind of belief. All they have is the devil's useless assurance that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. And, because they were actually self-deceived and really trusting in their own works, they will hear the Lord tell them "I NEVER knew you."

Can you show c&v contrasting true faith with false?

I can.

If our Gospell bee then hid, it is hid to them that are lost. In whom the God of this world hath blinded the mindes, that is, of the infidels, that the light of the glorious Gospell of Christ, which is the image of God, should not shine vnto them. For we preach not our selues, but Christ Iesus the Lord, and our selues your seruaunts for Iesus sake. For God that commanded the light to shine out of darknesse, is he which hath shined in our hearts, to giue the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Iesus Christ.
(2Co 4:3-6 GB)
​

Solomon Stoddard once said that Men don't know that they are godly by believing they are godly. Simply believing that one belongs to Christ is nothing more than a PMA (positive mental attitude) assensus to the truth that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. It is a Satanic fraud from the one who has blinded such a man's eyes so that he does not have an accurate portrayal of the glorious Gospel. This is that useless Satanic assurance I have been mentioning. And, sadly, it is the gospel which is preached from a great many pulpits today.

The Lord spoke about such kinds of belief when He said that Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom. They believed in the Lord; they believe they will enter the kingdom. These men and women believe that they are godly when they aren't. They will be shocked.

Unfortunately, todays pulpits don't teach the kind things which will properly equip men to be able to discern these useless beliefs and assurances with a true saving faith. This was lost when the Protestants rejected the historic truths of their Calvinistic roots. During the Great Awakening, Edwards wrestled long and hard with these kinds of things as he observed these false conversions. And, he was not alone. Most of the Puritans and Calvinists of the time were deelply concerned about these kinds of things.

What hey discovered, what is not taught today, is that the basis for their belief is what is defective. A great many people of the Lord's day had an external apprehension of His ministry. Their problem was that they never never had a spiritual apprehension of its beauty. They had an assensus to the truth so they believed. But, their belief was defective. When Peter finally apprehended the truth that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah, it was not merely witnessed by flesh and blood, He had a spiritual apprehension of the truth revealed by the Father. "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."

This is how it works (see my 2 Co 4 cite above):

Unless God performs a work of creation in the soul of the one who is witnessing the truths externally, then he will never have a spiritual taste and apprehension of the truth. "God, who said, 'light shall shine out of darkness,' is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ." Some may apprehend the truth of the gospel when it is preached. But, as Paul tells us, unless there is a special work of God as in the day of creation, we will never see the gospel in any way other than in a way which Satan, who has blinded people to the gospel. wants. They will have nothing more than the devil's worthless assurances. The basis for their belief is defective.

There are a great many people who believe that saving faith is believing that Christ died for me and that this is the first step of faith into a relationship with Christ. The problem is that there is nothing of God in this belief. It is not the PMA security of believing the promises which saves. This does nothing to change a man. He has not tasted the surpassing spiritual beauty which is Christ for he is still spiritually dead. He has not been reborn. And, asking to be reborn will not get you there because it is not born out of the right desires. Such a request is born out of sinful selfish desires. And we know from the scriptures that if I regard iniquity in my heart the Lord will not hear. Such requests will go unanswered.

This is why the sinners prayer, decisions for Christ, altar class are nothing but frauds. A man who is spiritually dead cannot embrace the critical component which is required for faith and belief to be the salvific kind. He can't spiritually taste it. His response, if it is not accompanied with a creation of God, will be a worthless sinners prayer, a useless decision for Christ, or a self-deceiving assurance at the altar. The basis for his belief is defective.

Look, the Bible never tells you how to be born again. This is a conterfeit gospel which has suckered a lot of people into a non-saving assensus to the truth. The Bible simply says that you must be born again. And, unless this creation of God accompanies your confession and actually logically causes your confession, you will still be lost. This is exactly what John teaches us in John 3 and 1 John 5.

"Do not marvel that I said to you ' you must be born again.'"
​

1 John 5:1 says "Whosoever believes.... IS born of God." This verb is crystal clear. You must be born of God or your faith and belief are utterly worthless. The essence of the confession which saves is caused by the new birth.

The problem for today's churches is that they have reduced the new birth to a how-to manual when the Bible never teaches that. The Bible simply teaches the necessity of the new birth. This is the difference between the kind of faith and belief which saves and useless assurances.

If your confession is a result of the already completed action of God of being born of God, then you have saving faith and belief, just exactly and explicitly as John teaches. If the gospel presentation which you first believed is accompanied by a creation of God, Him shining in our hearts, then you will spiritually and correctly see what is really is--"the glory of God in… Christ," or "the glory of Christ… the image of God." You will see it, not merely with fless and blood, but with spiritual eyes so that you will embrace for yourself the true beauty of having Christ for yourself. He will be your all satisfying glorious treasure.

And, it was armed with this kind of belief that the Reformers, Calvinists, have spread the gospel, trusting in God to make dead men live instead of dead men making God honoring decisions, and walked through revival after revival after revival. They cared enough for people to preach the truth. You are dead and unless the Lord acts on your behalf you will remain dead. They were not interested in seeker sensitive junk because they knew man was not inclined to seek for God. They walked through valleys of dry bones, knowing and trusting in the regenerative graces of God.

 

[CCWoody]

Re the phrase "condemmed about 1,000 years before the synod of Dordt":

PROOF THE CHURCH NEVER REALLY ADOPTED THE AUGUSTINIAN POSITION:

Psst! Have you fogotten to answer for your outrageous statements against the Reformes? And, have you figured out that I'm not interested in reading your historical accounts?

1. Please provide doctrinal evidence that Calvinism is not evangelism-friendly.
2. Please provide actual evidence that Calvinists are anti-evangelistic.

If not, then you are pointedly invited to take your anti-Calvinist invectives somewhere else.

 

[CCWoody]

Evrything here is from a discussion I had with Fiskare on the "Calvinism vs. Arminianism" forum:

Asbury Journal article on Augustine

Ahem! Have you forgotten:

1. Please provide doctrinal evidence that Calvinism is not evangelism-friendly.
2. Please provide actual evidence that Calvinists are anti-evangelistic.

If not, then you are pointedly invited to take your anti-Calvinist invectives somewhere else.

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

Semi-Augustinians

A few monks—and eventually most of the church—found both Augustine and Pelagius a little too extreme.

by David Allen


The verbal battle between Augustine and Pelagius raged for a full 25 years before the final condemnation of the latter's views at the Council of Ephesus in 431. Though Augustine's views triumphed, not everyone was happy with the outcome.



In Provence, an area of southern France, a group of monks who had all spent time in the important monastery on the Isle of Lérins (opposite the modern resort of Cannes) set about correcting what they saw as the extremism of both Pelagius and Augustine.



John Cassian (360-433), while visiting Egypt to learn spiritual secrets from its famed monks and hermits, heard this from a wizened monk named Chaeremon: "The grace of God always cooperates with our will for its advantage … and sometimes requires and looks for some effort of good will from it that it may not appear to confer its gifts on the sluggish."



This is the earliest expression of what came to be known as Semi-Pelagianism—a view that Cassian embraced and later began to propagate. The key word is cooperation: no one can save himself but, by cooperating with the grace of God, salvation can be appropriated by anyone.



Cassian clearly felt that Augustine's stress on predestination ruled out any need for human cooperation or consent. Cassian also disagreed with Augustine on the capabilities of the human will, especially after salvation. "When God for any wise reason—discipline, for example—withdraws grace," Cassian wrote, "the will is able to hold on for some time awaiting its restoration."



Cassian's misgivings were shared by Vincent of Lérins (died 450). In his Commonitorium, Vincent catalogued heresies and dangerous theological innovations, and he also listed an "honor roll" of theologians, teachers, and bishops who had, in Vincent's opinion, made significant contributions to the defense and spreading of the Gospel. Augustine's name does not appear on that list.



Furthermore, Vincent makes the point that even "eminent men are sometimes permitted by God to become authors of novelties in the Church." Many scholars interpret the omission of Augustine's name and the reference to "eminent men" as an indication that Vincent disapproved of Augustine's distinctive teaching.



Arguably the greatest of the so-called Semi-Pelagians was Faustus of Riez (died 495), also from Provence. Faustus, a theologian and popular preacher, felt strongly that Pelagius and Augustine had both gotten it wrong. Pelagius stressed human effort and responsibility to the exclusion of God's grace, but Augustine's idea of predestination "jeopardizes God's justice and mercy."



Faustus, in his De Gratia Dei ("Concerning the Grace of God"), argues that though the Fall made all of us weak and sickly of will, we still possess the ability—and responsibility—to turn to God. Once we turn to God, then he steps in and adds the vital and crucial gift of grace. Faustus is thus close to Augustine in regard to the effects of the Fall but nearer to Pelagius in terms of human ability and responsibility.



The views of these Semi-Pelagians—they could just as easily have been labeled Semi-Augustinians—were not appreciated by Augustine's many friends and supporters.



Caesarius of Arles (c. 470-542), a forceful Augustinian who believed all good works begin with God, "no merit of ours preceding," presided over the Synod of Orange (529), which condemned Semi-Pelagianism. However, even the synod backed away from some of Augustine's more extreme views: his belief that God's grace cannot be resisted and his severe interpretation of predestination were quietly dropped.



David Allen is a senior lecturer at Mattersey Hall, an Assemblies of God Bible College in Mattersey, England.

 

[CCWoody]

As I promised a few days ago, ...

Too bad the only thing I have asked you to answer for is your outrageously false statements against the Reformers. If only you felt any conviction to provide proof for your statements, which you have already admitted were made without any evidence that they were true.

In case you have forgotten, here are the questions.

1. Please provide doctrinal evidence that Calvinism is not evangelism-friendly.
2. Please provide actual evidence that Calvinists are anti-evangelistic.

If not, then you are pointedly invited to take your anti-Calvinist invectives somewhere else.

 

[CCWoody]

Hey, RnMomof7, is there anything which can be done about this off topic spam, which this hater of Calvinism seems insistent upon providing?

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

Historically speaking, there are two and only two churches:

1. The Visible Church, composed of the "wheat" and the "tares"
2. The Invisible Church, composed of All the Elect of God from all ages.

Critique of ‘Baptism among the Early Christians’

by Gay Lynn Voth

This response will focus on two basic questions raised by Jon Isaak’s discussion of Baptism among the Early Christians: 1) What distinction does the early church draw between local, visible congregations and the universal, invisible church of Jesus Christ? 2) Into which “body” were early Christian believers incorporated through the ritual of baptism?

Both questions emerge directly from Isaak’s presentation, when (near the end of page 3) he writes: “A common question today is, to which ‘body’ does baptism give entry: to the local or universal church, to the visible or the invisible church?” Isaak believes that the “distinction between visible and invisible would have been inconceivable to Paul in the 1st century” because this is a modern distinction being drawn. I would argue that the distinction is not essentially a “modern” one for two reasons. Gnostic writings of the first centuries CE indicate a strong belief in the distinction between the “material”, earthly reality that is “visible” and the “invisible”, heavenly reality that is essentially “spiritual”. Irenaeus in his refutation of the heresies threatening the early church, argues for the Unity of the Faith of the Church Throughout the Whole World, in light of the fact that numerous ”churches” have been planted or scattered to Germany, Spain, Gaul, the East, Egypt, Libya, and “the central regions of the world” (Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1 Chapter X).

It appears Paul is addressing this unity of ‘the faith’ when he attempts to articulate rules of order for “all churches” under his leadership (1 Corinthians 11:16). Paul is well aware of distinct Christian gatherings (local church congregations) with significant visible differences from one another. This is not a matter of the “modern” personal “I” but rather a matter of unique “local, visible” congregations beginning to quarrel about their differences – “. . . each of you is saying, ‘I am of Paul,’ and ‘I of Apollos’, and ‘I of Cephas,’ and ‘I of Christ’ (1 Cor. 1:11–12). Paul argues that, while distinctions may rightfully exist, they should not destroy the unity of the Church, for Christ cannot be divided. Legitimately, Paul claims, the Church can only be One because there is only one Christ – and one baptism in the name of Christ. If local, visible practices and theological arguments occur in the various church congregations, Paul urges them to work at unity “in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 1:30) through the ministry of the one Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:10–13). The unity of the church is Trinitarian (unity in diversity; diversity in unity) and is not uniformity.

Rather than submitting to an enforced uniformity, the early local congregations were called to practice “humility and gentleness, patience and forbearance to one another in love” as they attempt to preserve the “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace”. This practice reflects the belief that there is only “one body” – the “body of Christ”, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all (Ephesians 4:2–6). Since there are diverse gifts given to individual members of the various church congregations for the practical, historical function of the church, Paul attempts to unify this diversity with a call to be “in Christ” – as the universal, invisible church that has its being throughout the ages because of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ.

The second question then, “Into which ‘body’ were early Christian believers incorporated through baptism?” seems like a moot question. Obviously, Paul argues, there is only one baptism – the baptism of Christ – a baptism into the death of Christ and his resurrection. This baptism unites the believers with Him, in a crucifixion of the “old” and resurrection to the “new” (Romans 6:1–6). This newly formed “body of Christ” was just being established during the first century, however there is no good reason to assume that the significance of this life-giving entity should be diminished with the passing of time. One of the images provided by Jesus in his teachings is that of a small mustard seed growing into a large plant, which may then multiply and spread (Luke 13:18,19). The source of the “many”, however, is the “one Spirit” who births the many from the One.

It is true that our ancestors, the Anabaptists, seemed to be arguing against the idea of the “universal, invisible” Church during the Reformation, in favor of the local, visible congregations. They were not doing so, however, to dismiss the idea of the one “body of Christ”, but rather to call the church to its true identity. The civic church, they argued, was in error since it was divided in its allegiance. As David Epp argued in 1910, the Mennonites sought to restore the “spiritual common body (Gemeine)” according to Luther’s translation (Dueck 124). Epp, as a minister of the Chortizer Mennonite Church, wrote about these matters in a response to H. J. Braun, Minister of the Mennonite Brethren Church in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century in the midst of a new debate about the nature of the “true church”. In both the 16th and 20th century, the question problematically becomes: ‘Which church is the true church’ – the large, seemingly unfaithful church, or the new, local congregations emerging in attempts to be the faithful?

At the time of the Reformation, the Mennonite “brotherhoods” or “brother-churches” were established in response to the moral decay of the Roman Catholic Church. Many Anabaptists attempted to establish congregations that looked very different from the civic church they considered to be “unclean and impure”. Attention was drawn to the symbol of baptism, with a rejection of infant baptism, and the (re)institution of voluntary baptism upon confession of faith. David Epp notes that in the early 20th century, the Mennonite Brethren repeated this pattern in their relationship to the Mennonite churches from which they withdrew. The term “the church” (Kirche) was applied to the Mennonite church, and Epp states that the designation “the church” was not offensive because the Mennonites did not want to be a member of the great invisible Church of Christ on earth made up of all peoples and tongues, nor because he would not want to consider the Mennonite congregations as a small part of that great universal church, but because this designation was intended to set the Mennonite Brethren apart as the antithesis of the Mennonite Church. The problem appeared to be, as Epp states, that the Mennonite Brethren Church thought it alone bore the genuine Christian life. Again the ritual of baptism was used to accentuate the difference – this time baptismal immersion replaced the practice of pouring or sprinkling, as the method with the fullest biblical meaning according to Romans 6 – to be buried and to rise again with Christ unto newness of life (Dueck 123–127).

This brief historical detour is helpful to see that baptism is indeed a “visible act with a spiritual meaning”, as Isaak states in a reference to Beasley-Murray. It can indeed be viewed as a “means of entry into a visible community of God’s people and the body which transcends any one place or time” (3). Problems still arise however. Is it possible to think in terms of particular denominations as being the exclusive “true church” over and against all other Christian congregations throughout the history of the church? Are the various symbolic meanings given to baptism all legitimate when they are consistent with the theological views of each diverse Christian tradition? Could it perhaps be more crucial to discuss the possible theological diversity within the “universal, invisible” church of Jesus Christ for a better understanding of our symbolic practices? Another question (more directly concerning our gathering here) can also rightfully be asked – “What spiritual meaning is (or should be) assigned to the visible act of baptism within the Mennonite Brethren churches today?”

Isaak proposes that the ritual of baptism be moved from “symbolizing personal commitment to symbolizing ordination by the local church – the concluding celebration following a period of examination that marks full engagement in God’s mission through its local expression of the Lord’s risen body”(7). This is very similar to the understanding and practice of baptism outlined by J.B. Toews in Pilgrimage of Faith (35–37). Toews argued that this understanding hardened into a dogmatism, and carried with it elements of legalism. Could Isaak’s proposal lead us in that direction again? Could we see an increase in attitudes of exclusivity and elitism, a new form of clericalism emerging (with those inside church membership as holding special status over those who are not yet members), a reliance on human effort to accomplish spiritual reform before baptism marks entrance into the church? What happens to the idea that the Spirit of God is essential for a spiritual renewal that can occur when one is within the “body of Christ” – being nourished and sustained through the power of God working in us?

I agree with Isaak that membership should not be seen as a matter of entitlement and that the church needs to embrace its commitment to being ‘missional’. Baptismal rites should be preceded with a well-rounded church education, for the purposes of encouraging intentional Christian living. If it is true, however, as Isaak states and as I agree, that “conversion is an ongoing process” – we are saved, but we are also being saved, and one day we will be saved – we must be careful not to isolate those who may be the “weaker” among us, by blessing only the “strong” with church membership. The body of Christ continues to need an emphasis on the conditions for unity within the early Christian Church – humility, patience, forbearance, and love.

Continued...

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

To conclude, I want to suggest one practical reason why baptism may have been delayed at times, with a stronger emphasis on “right” teaching prior to membership into the body of Christ. It seems this practice coincides with the persecution of believers – in the time of Jesus, the 2nd century church, the 16th century church, and the MB church in the late 19th century. In each of these periods, baptism was given a new significance, and the choice to follow the new ideas could result in death for the believer.

1. In the time of Jesus – as Isaak points out (3. d), Jesus uses the language of “baptism” to symbolize the challenge of faithfulness when he asks James and John: “Are you able . . . to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” (Mark 10:38). The final “baptism” facing Jesus was a painful death on the cross, and he wonders if his disciples are willing to identify with him despite the high cost it will demand from them – their very lives.
2. In the 2nd–4th centuries – during this period of extreme persecution, believers went through a three year preparation for baptism. Writing of this period, Eusebius stated that converts needed to be deeply committed to their convictions to endure the horrific martyrdom awaiting them. Becoming a member of the Christian church demanded the believer’s all, and choosing to be baptized could mean an excruciating death (Oden 38–41).
3. In the 16th century reformation – Balthasar Hubmaier, arguing for the rejection of infant baptism, and a “true” baptism that was voluntary and based on a confession of faith in the work of Jesus Christ, noted that there were three baptisms – baptism of the spirit for inner renewal, baptism of water, as an outward symbol of the new inward reality, and a baptism of blood, in the event of martyrdom for choosing rebaptism (Hubmaier 349).
4. The beginning of the MB church in the 19th century – J. B. Toews indicated that the Russian Mennonites who chose to be become Mennonite Brethren were often harshly persecuted for choosing to be rebaptized by immersion. The opposition resulted in bloody floggings with rods, which only served to strengthen the movement’s spiritual convictions (Toews 37).

Each of these movements used baptism as a public confession of faith that Jesus is the Christ as well as a visible act symbolizing other strong inward convictions. In each era, the decision to become baptized pressed the believer to a full exercise of their faith – enduring persecution. Baptism was not taken lightly under these circumstances, and theological positions could harden around the particular distinctions drawn. We may need to keep this dogmatic necessity and/or tendency in mind when we reexamine schismatic periods, like the time of the early church, for application today.

In a final response, then, to Isaak’s concluding question “What is the church anyway?” (8), I find it helpful to reflect on some words of Hubmaier, an Anabaptist forefather:

• The church is sometimes understood to include all the people who are gathered and united in one God, one faith, and one baptism, and have confessed this faith with their mouths, wherever they may be on earth. This then, is the universal Christian corporeal church and fellowship of the saints, assembled only in the Spirit of God . . . At other times the church is understood to mean each separate and outward meeting assembly or parish membership that is under one shepherd or bishop and assembles for instruction, for baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The difference between the two churches is that the particular congregation may err . . . but the universal church cannot err. She is without spot, without wrinkle, is controlled by the Holy Spirit, and Christ is with her until the end of the world (Hubmaier 351–352).

Works cited

• Dueck, Abe J. Moving Beyond Secession: Defining Russian Mennonite Brethren Mission and Identity 1872–1922. Winnipeg: Kindred Press, 1997.
• Hubmaier, Balthasar. Translated and edited by H. Wayne Pipkin and John H. Yoder. Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism. Scottsdale: Herald Press, 1989.
• Irenaeus. Unity of the Faith of the Church Throughout the World World, Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1 Chapter X.
• Oden, Amy, ed. In Her Words. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994.
• Toews, J. B. Pilgrimage of Faith: The Mennonite Brethren Church 1860–1990. Winnipeg: Kindred Press, 1993.

 

[CCWoody]

Critique of ‘Baptism among the Early Christians’

by Gay Lynn Voth

Wake me up when you actually bother answering for your outrageous accusations:

1. Please provide doctrinal evidence that Calvinism is not evangelism-friendly.
2. Please provide actual evidence that Calvinists are anti-evangelistic.

If not, then you are pointedly invited to take your anti-Calvinist invectives somewhere else.

 

[CCWoody]

Hey, "folk rocker," do you suppose I can find the recepie for internet spam in this cookbook:

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

http://http://www.baptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=4700

Jesse Fletcher: Calvinism is longstanding Baptist dispute
Nov 12, 1997
By Dan Martin

AUSTIN, Texas (BP)--The question has given rise to the oldest continuing controversy among Baptists, and particularly during the 150-year history of the Southern Baptist Convention, said Jesse Fletcher:

Did Jesus die for everyone or for only a few?

While enormously important to the future of Texas Baptists, the controversy over Calvinism "has been a relatively genteel one, as Baptist battles go, but is not without its passions," Fletcher, chancellor of Hardin Simmons-University, Abilene, Texas, told the annual meeting of the Texas Baptist Historical Society Nov. 10 in Austin.

He added, "... as is in the case of most such battles, each side has a measure of truth from which to make its case."

Fletcher is the author of "The Southern Baptist Convention: A Sesquicentennial History," published a year before the 1995 SBC celebration by the Baptist Sunday School Board's Broadman & Holman division.
A friend asked why he chose to present a paper to the historical society on such an "esoteric subject" as Texas Baptists and Calvinism, Fletcher recounted. He said he replied that it is becoming more important among Southern and Texas Baptists.

The issue of Calvinism has existed ever since Baptists began in England, he said, and the "fault line between Calvinism and Arminianism ... periodically resurfaces" as a significant controversy.

Fletcher traced Calvinism from its beginnings in the 1530s in Geneva when Frenchman John Calvin developed an exhaustive and "tightly reasoned" system which he wrote as the Institutes of the Christian Religion.
Calvinism has "five high particulars that theological students have memorized for years with the acronym TULIP," Fletcher explained: "total depravity of man, unconditional election of some to salvation, limited atonement, irresistible grace implied by the foregoing, and perseverance of the saints." He said Calvinism originally included a church-controlled state (theocracy) and infant baptism.

While Calvinism was at first "pervasive among English Puritans and Separatists (Baptists)," English Baptists "soon moved away from Calvinism's limited atonement to Joseph Arminius' general atonement concepts," Fletcher said.
General atonement, he said, holds that Jesus died for all, that grace is free to anyone who will receive it and that people have the right to refuse God's grace.

Calvinism had an impact on early American Baptists, but Fletcher said they "tended toward a modified Calvinism or a general atonement framework."
The New Hampshire Confession of Faith adopted by Regular Baptists in 1833, he said, reads that the "blessings of salvation are made free to all by the gospel ... that nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner on earth except his own voluntary refusal ... ."

Southern Baptists, in the course of their 150-year history, "have clearly moved away from Calvinism ... to a free grace, full atonement position that fit their missionary and evangelistic culture," Fletcher said. "Texas Baptists have had a significant part in the development of that missions and evangelism culture."

Two Texas Baptists -- B.H. Carroll and L.R. Scarborough - - were leaders in the effort to turn Baptists toward "a general atonement spirit and a resistible grace evangelism equation," Fletcher said.

Noting Calvinism has re-emerged as a point of contention among Baptists in recent years, Fletcher said, "When the inerrancy movement broke upon Southern Baptists in the late 1970s and marched resolutely toward dominance in 1990, a number of Calvinists were among its leadership because most Calvinists are inerrantists.

"Yet, as became evident, very few inerrantists are Calvinists," Fletcher said, quoting Larry Lewis, former president of the then-Home Mission Board, as saying, "Calvinism can be a death blow to missions and evangelism" and former SBC President Bailey Smith saying he does not believe "God elects anybody to be lost."

Fletcher also quoted former Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary professor R. Cal Guy, whom he called a leader in the conservative resurgence, as saying "God does not send anybody to hell; it is their choice."
Fletcher said a "group of young theologians organized themselves 1972 as the Founders Conference, dedicated to calling Southern Baptists back to Calvinism."

The original group, he said, included Thomas Ascol, Tom Nettles, R. Albert Mohler Jr. and Timothy George.

"Ascol, a Florida pastor, and Nettles, a theological professor, are not well-known names in recent Baptist battles, but Mohler and George are," Fletcher said, explaining Mohler was editor of the Georgia Baptist state newspaper and since has become president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky., and George is a former professor at Southern Seminary and currently dean at Beeson School of Divinity at Samford University, Birmingham, Ala.

Fletcher said Calvinism "has in fact been the theology of choice for a very limited, but elite few who, in turn, find and faithfully disciple other like-minded young theologians."

However, Fletcher added, that may have changed with Mohler's ascension as president of Southern, his bringing in of Calvinists to the faculty, including Nettles, and "his call for a return to Reform theology."

In recent days, two other theologians, W.R. Estep of Southwestern and Fisher Humphreys of Beeson, have "joined the fray," Fletcher said.

He quoted Estep as saying "a continued movement" toward Calvinism "would put Southern Baptists 'on the dunghill' in American society." He quoted Humphreys as saying that the "purpose of the SBC -- missions and evangelism -- is in direct opposition to the Calvinist doctrines of unconditional predestination."

In contrast, Fletcher quoted Mohler as predicting that as "Southern Baptists seek to recover our theological inheritance and the essence of biblical Christianity, I believe we will see a return to a more Calvinistic understanding of the gospel and a recognition of the absolute sovereignty of God."
He added Mohler said the move toward Calvinism would "lead to a blazing recovery of missionary zeal and evangelistic fervor -- and the renewal of the church."

Fletcher, as an unwritten aside, told participants he was "resisting the impulse to say if it did, it would be a historical first."

He credited Texas Baptists with leading in the creation of a culture in which missions and evangelism are key tenets, and said Texas has very few high-profile Calvinists.

"It is my feeling that the paucity of Calvinistic adherents in this state is probably a direct legacy of the missions and evangelism culture which has dominated Texas Baptist history." Fletcher said he is not a five-point Calvinist because he has "reservations about John's Calvin's theocracy and strict election."

"I am deeply committed to religious liberty and feel Christ died not only for me but for all people and that I freely chose to trust him. While I understand the devastation of sin on all persons, I feel God's reconciling work in Christ is efficient and effectual for anyone who responds in repentance and faith.
"My confidence and security as a believer is based upon his promises."

 

[CCWoody]

While Calvinism was at first "pervasive among English Puritans and Separatists (Baptists)," English Baptists "soon moved away from Calvinism's limited atonement to Joseph Arminius' general atonement concepts," Fletcher said.
General atonement, he said, holds that Jesus died for all, that grace is free to anyone who will receive it and that people have the right to refuse God's grace.

You really are getting yourself all worked up to talk about anything and everything but directly answerwing my questions. Before I post them again, I'd like to note the that whereas Calvinists always talk about and make their boast in God, Arminians say silly things like "people have the right" and so forth and so on. In Arminianism, it really is all about man and much ado about nuthin.

Nobody is asking you to reject your anthroprocentric religion. If it feels good for ya, then go with it. We sparked a Reformation without ya and we have patiently endured all the trouble caused by the anti-Reformation crowd when they did show up. The Lord's anointed keepers of His Predestinarian truths are scarcely bothered by it. We know that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory for their sole refrain will be Salvation is of the Lord and His blessing is upon His people.

But, it is interesting that, Arminianism, which was born as a movement opposed to the Reformation spends most of its energy opposing the Reformation. This is hardly a suprise that the thing which gave it birth is that which sustains it. The heavy work of Evangelism marches on with the Reformers.

1. Please provide doctrinal evidence that Calvinism is not evangelism-friendly.
2. Please provide actual evidence that Calvinists are anti-evangelistic.

If not, then you are pointedly invited to take your anti-Calvinist invectives somewhere else.

 

[theseed]

Perhaps, the fact that we Calvinists have never taught that man was not a free moral agent, but that this is nothing but a Straw Dummy, you are unaware that the SBC's statment of faith is consistent with Calvinism. Now, I'm not accusing you of erecting a Straw Dummy, but I am accusing YOU of perpetuating the Straw Dummy by continuing to believe it and shoot arrows at it, instead of what we Calvinists actually believe.

I know what Calvinist believe, you should have just cut to the chase. So your saying that the free agency of man requires grace. The Baptist Faith and Message link I posted did not make this clear. It simply says that election of grace is consistant with the free angency of man. It is too amibigious.

 

[CCWoody]

I know what Calvinist believe, you should have just cut to the chase. So your saying that the free agency of man requires grace. The Baptist Faith and Message link I posted did not make this clear. It simply says that election of grace is consistant with the free angency of man. It is too amibigious.

No, that is not what I'm saying at all. Man is a free moral agent before his conversion and he is a free moral agent after his convesion. There is no special grace required for him to become a free moral agent. There is only the Sovereign act of God which created him in the first place and made him a free moral agent.

The reason that Election is consistent with man's agency is that they are completely separate things which have nothing in common. Whether he is elected or not, a man's free agency is never affected. Before his conversion, he does what he wants and after his conversion he does what he wants. Even the Reprobate does what he wants.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

If you truly believe that - and I'm asking you to be honest here - then surely you can't know 100% that YOU are one of God's elect? It IS possible you might one day fall away for good, proving yourself to have been a reprobate?

Of course i believe that. There is no contradiction. You missed the significance of the quote from the Narnia Chronicles in my previous post. It described what i have been getting at on this particular subject. God Gave to me assurance of my salvation, not yours...Your salvation is none of my business, it is between you and God.

This isn't rocket science...we'd have a better handle on that ...God has given assurance to every believer, or will give at some point in their lives. What He hasn't given me is a sure word about you or anyone else. That is your answer to the old question: "If everything is predestined, why preach the Gospel?" Just because God knows who His people are is no gaurantee that anyone of us do. (and besides that, He commanded us to do so, and a demonstration of one's election is Doing His Will!)

I'm not trying to pin you down with this or make you feel bad- I just know that's the logic of Calvinism, but I've yet to meet even one Calvinist who'll admit the possibility about himself.

No, of course not. However, i am certain that the phenomena is hardly unique to Calvinism. Those who talk of falling from grace always seem to exclude themselves from that possibility, ever notice that? This seems to be especially true of certain television preachers of the 80's who in my opinion ought to be doing something else rather than bring the gospel to shame as their conduct presently does.