Calvinist Robots

[Albion]

So maybe there are at least some points where we can find a common language

I'd say it's more common thought, often derailed by the use of different languages. But..yes.

So, perhaps, EO ascetic praxis can be understood (in light of your description of 'doing') not as 'works', but as a struggle against the passions, etc. to open us more to hearing Him ?

Maybe, but for us works are more a matter of Christlike mercy and obediance to his call for loving each other, and less about struggling to overcome our own passions for whatever reason.

 

[Albion]

"Are you sure they can?"

sure

Well, if you are, then you are. I would say, though, that when one looks very closely he comes to realize that he can't be that sure.

 

[jckstraw72]

well what about the words of Christ and the Apostles I referenced?

 

[ArcticFox]

Stop reading scripture through the trouble mind of Calvin. Read it yourself!

Chesterton, I have never read the Scriptures "through the mind of Calvin." That is both impossible, and entirely contrary to my entire approach.

Your assumption could not be more false, and could not be more uninformed and, therefore, ignorant of reality.

Your horribly vain attempt to label me has failed so miserably that you are not worth discussing the issue with further.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by chestertonrules Stop reading scripture through the trouble mind of Calvin. Read it yourself!

And read it thru the trouble mind of Rome?

 

[Tzaousios]

Chesterton, I have never read the Scriptures "through the mind of Calvin." That is both impossible, and entirely contrary to my entire approach.

Your assumption could not be more false, and could not be more uninformed and, therefore, ignorant of reality.

Your horribly vain attempt to label me has failed so miserably that you are not worth discussing the issue with further.

ArcticFox, may ask what you think of my assessment of Calvinist assumptions of the human will in post #281?

 

[Albion]

Your horribly vain attempt to label me has failed so miserably that you are not worth discussing the issue with further.

He treats everyone who isn't a member of his "church du jour" with equal disrespect. But you are totally correct that the best approach is to engage those other posters who are here to discuss ideas.

 

[Thekla]

I'd say it's more common thought, often derailed by the use of different languages. But..yes.

Maybe, but for us works are more a matter of Christlike mercy and obediance to his call for loving each other, and less about struggling to overcome our own passions for whatever reason.

The struggle to overcome the passions is typically the realm of the ascetic practices (fasting, self-denial in general). Mercy is an "outcome", in a sense.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

He treats everyone who isn't a member of his "church du jour" with equal disrespect. But you are totally correct that the best approach is to engage those other posters who are here to discuss ideas.

I would give all I have just to see those 2 in a private debate

John 19:11 Answered Jesus "not thou are having authority against Me not-any except it was given to thee from above. Because of this, the one giving Me up to thee greater Sin is having".

 

[Albion]

The struggle to overcome the passions is typically the realm of the ascetic practices (fasting, self-denial in general). Mercy is an "outcome", in a sense.

I was just saying that we do not tend to think in quite those same terms. Still, I have always thought that there is an underlying similarity between reformed theology and Orthodox theology as concerns apprehending the things of God and knowing how to live our lives. We are always accused of being "Western Christians" who can't possibly appreciate the more sophisticated mind of the East, but really, I think the Protestant Reformation counteracted this Scholasticism that had taken control of the Roman Church by Luther and Calvin's time.

 

[A New Dawn]

Stop reading scripture through the trouble mind of Calvin. Read it yourself!

I have never read Calvin. However, I agree with him because of what the scriptures say. It is the scriptures (only) that are my teacher.

 

[ArcticFox]

ArcticFox, may ask what you think of my assessment of Calvinist assumptions of the human will in post #281?

You are spot on. We have to remember that the "right thing" done out of wrong intentions or desires is still sin. I think many people have a simplified understanding of sin merely as "bad behaviors or thoughts." They don't realize that sin encompasses our entire being, that it has consumed us entirely, and that even when we try to do "good things," we do them for all the wrong reasons.

Only God through Jesus Christ can free us from bondage to sin. Remember, before Christ raised us from spiritual death, we were slaved to this world, and therefore, slaves to the prince of this world, Satan. To think that such slaves to evil could do good is foolish, IMO.

Thank you to all those who pointed out Chesterton's tendencies to treat everyone with a lack of respect, since it's nice to know that it isn't just me.

 

[chestertonrules]

Originally Posted by ArcticFox

I'm not too strict a Calvinist on this. The Bible isn't clear in specifically what way he could have died for all without that death applying to all.
​

Then why defend their positions.

My points are directed to Calvinists, not quasi Calvinists.

5 points Calvinism is not a flexible dogma.


Jesus died for all men.

Calvinists deny this. If you don't deny this, then you aren't a Calvinist.

 

[chestertonrules]

Chesterton, I have never read the Scriptures "through the mind of Calvin." That is both impossible, and entirely contrary to my entire approach.

Your assumption could not be more false, and could not be more uninformed and, therefore, ignorant of reality.

Your horribly vain attempt to label me has failed so miserably that you are not worth discussing the issue with further.

I wasn't addressing you.

My point was specific and accurate. It wasn't related to any of your posts, although it might apply.(I'm not going to check at the moment!)

Feel free to read the actual target of the response and explain my error.


For the record, I was addressing A New Dawn, who made this comment when unable to accept the bible as written because it directly contradicted limited atonement:

It depends on the context and what we know to be true.

What we know to be true means: What Calvinist theologians have taught me. IMO.


If it means something else to you, please explain.

 

[Thekla]

To some extent, there is a view that dominant cultural views saturate outlook to the extent that they become "like air, that unnoticed, and that necessary" (with apologies to M. Atwood ) Traces of the 'Calvinist mindset' (or a version of what is thought about Calvinism) seem apparent to those outside of this culture re: thought and conclusions within the culture. For example, though admittedly I don't know much about either, what little I do know about the teaching of 'elect' and 'predestination' seems to have left traces in the secular notion of 'evolution'. And both seem to have trails related to 'individualism' as a cultural phenomenon. And certainly, I do wonder (as indicated before) how much the relatively new idea of "the individual" effects the understanding of scripture in ways unanticipated by earlier readers. It would seem that reading scripture through the lens of one's culture would be a given. Where that culture bears traces of the secular "version" (or degradation) of a theology, the traces become less 'visible', but more prominent. In sum, I do tend to see traces of something like Calvinism in even non-C. readings of verses.

 

[chestertonrules]

He treats everyone who isn't a member of his "church du jour" with equal disrespect. But you are totally correct that the best approach is to engage those other posters who are here to discuss ideas.

Of all people, I can't believe you would post this.

When I ever failed to engage based on scripture, historical writings, or ideas?

Seriously, what are you referring to?

 

[chestertonrules]

Thank you to all those who pointed out Chesterton's tendencies to treat everyone with a lack of respect, since it's nice to know that it isn't just me.[/

quote]



I think you are wrong. I know you Calvinists don't like your Holy Fathers challenged, but get a grip!

I have made my case aggressively. Defend it aggressively. Don't pout!

 

[student ad x]

Then why defend their positions.

My points are directed to Calvinists, not quasi Calvinists.

5 points Calvinism is not a flexible dogma.

Jesus died for all men.

Calvinists deny this. If you don't deny this, then you aren't a Calvinist.

Any time you'd like to brush up on your understanding of the classic - moderate Calvinist position, let alone a high-cal position. Go to calvin and calvinism.com before making unfounded statements like you do. (I can't link yet)
Not all Calvinists are your strawman, something akin to hyper-cal.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Play nice, children.

 

[A New Dawn]

For the record, I was addressing A New Dawn, who made this comment when unable to accept the bible as written because it directly contradicted limited atonement:

It depends on the context and what we know to be true.

What we know to be true means: What Calvinist theologians have taught me. IMO.

What we know to be true is that Adam is man's representative to God, as the Bible is clear about that. The Bible is also clear that only those who believe will be saved. So, knowing those two things, we know that the first all is a concrete definition of everyone, the second all's context is that of believers. Two different meanings from two different contexts.

And we happen to know that from reading the Bible, knowing what the context is, knowing what the words (really) mean, and absolutely nothing to do with anything Calvin said, unless it was coincidental.