Grace

[The Liturgist]

Is hair splitting a favoured pastime with Calvinists?

Having been with a semi-Calvinist in a largely Calvinist denomination, but one dominated by liberal theologians, I would say the correct answer is, “not necessarily,” which admittedly sounds a bit hair-splitty; there are some Calvinists who have engaged in theological controversies which are intense and based on issues I can’t even figure out, for example, the Federal Vision people, so as far as they are concerned, yes, but on the other hand there are Reformed Catholics who are liturgical and who are very nice, also some of the high church Congregationalists, at places like Park Street Church in Boston, which is a lovely church in every respect, or in London there was the King’s Weigh House, which developed a beautiful liturgy under Rev. John Hunter, and his successor tried to make it a meeting place to facilitate ecumenical reconciliation between the Roman Catholics and Protestants; when he retired having failed to accomplish that, he converted to Roman Catholicism, but nonetheless the King’s Weigh House was extremely liturgical and was not a place for hair splitting. Due to demographic changes, namely, the Square Mile of the City of London ceasing to be a major residential neighborhood, its total residential population dropping to under 10,000, concentrated in a few places like the Barbican Centre, instead becoming the center of Britan’s financial industry and insurance industry, home to the large investment banks and Lloyd’s of London, as well as the Inns of Court, it consolidated with another parish that became absorbed into the liberal United Reformed Church, but its building was sold to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church and is the main Ukrainian Catholic cathedral in Greater London, which i would imagine is something you would be happy about; I am happy about it; and I think the last two pastors of it who were both highly liturgical Christians would be happy that it remains a center of a traditional denomination that embraces beautiful liturgy and traditional Christian morality, which is unfortunately no longer the case with the United Reformed Church, which is rather a liberal mainline church much more liberal than the Church of England.

 

[Lukaris]

It seems that there are views that express a human understanding of human interaction within grace is viewed as apart from God. This is incorrect because a person speaking about living by faith in a healthy manner involving matters like alms giving and prayer ( Matthew 6:1-14 etc.) is not talking about a works based salvation.If a person is faithful and not prideful, this involves trials and tribulations and this is upon being justified by faith and rejoicing in the hope of the glory of God ( Romans 5:1-6, per Romans 5:1-21). This is according to St. Paul apostle to the Gentiles ( Romans 1:1 etc.), if we are thinking clearly, there is no other than God determining all of this and it is good for us to have sound understanding ( as best an individual can do).

 

[Clare73]

Precisely!

And therefore, "capriciously saving some people and damning other people brings him glory," . . .both
to his mercy in pardoning his enemies and
to his justice in condemning his enemies.

No it doesn't. It brings no glory. It's a shameful man-made doctrine.

So no one is condemned?

 

[NextLevel]

No it doesn't. It brings no glory. It's a shameful man-made doctrine.

It attempts to turn God into a monster.

And how do they justify it? "My thoughts are not your thoughts . . ."

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Having been with a semi-Calvinist in a largely Calvinist denomination, but one dominated by liberal theologians, I would say the correct answer is, “not necessarily,” which admittedly sounds a bit hair-splitty; there are some Calvinists who have engaged in theological controversies which are intense and based on issues I can’t even figure out, for example, the Federal Vision people, so as far as they are concerned, yes, but on the other hand there are Reformed Catholics who are liturgical and who are very nice, also some of the high church Congregationalists, at places like Park Street Church in Boston, which is a lovely church in every respect, or in London there was the King’s Weigh House, which developed a beautiful liturgy under Rev. John Hunter, and his successor tried to make it a meeting place to facilitate ecumenical reconciliation between the Roman Catholics and Protestants; when he retired having failed to accomplish that, he converted to Roman Catholicism, but nonetheless the King’s Weigh House was extremely liturgical and was not a place for hair splitting. Due to demographic changes, namely, the Square Mile of the City of London ceasing to be a major residential neighborhood, its total residential population dropping to under 10,000, concentrated in a few places like the Barbican Centre, instead becoming the center of Britan’s financial industry and insurance industry, home to the large investment banks and Lloyd’s of London, as well as the Inns of Court, it consolidated with another parish that became absorbed into the liberal United Reformed Church, but its building was sold to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church and is the main Ukrainian Catholic cathedral in Greater London, which i would imagine is something you would be happy about; I am happy about it; and I think the last two pastors of it who were both highly liturgical Christians would be happy that it remains a center of a traditional denomination that embraces beautiful liturgy and traditional Christian morality, which is unfortunately no longer the case with the United Reformed Church, which is rather a liberal mainline church much more liberal than the Church of England.

It makes me laugh when I chat with a Calvinist that words like "all" and "believe" and "faith" and "save" and "world" NEED TO BE DEFINED because they have their own in-house meanings for them all. It takes me back to the days when the local Jehovah's Witnesses had their own meanings for virtually every Christian concept.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It attempts to turn God into a monster.

And how do they justify it? "My thoughts are not your thoughts . . ."

absurd isn't it?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So no one is condemned?

did you forget that you wrote "capriciously"; you use that word of God's judgements. That is what is shameful and man-made in the doctrine. To make God in the image of an emperor who is capricious and acts in bad faith.

 

[The Liturgist]

It makes me laugh when I chat with a Calvinist that words like "all" and "believe" and "faith" and "save" and "world" NEED TO BE DEFINED because they have their own in-house meanings for them all. It takes me back to the days when the local Jehovah's Witnesses had their own meanings for virtually every Christian concept.

It really depends on the Calvinist

 

[linux.poet]

MOD HAT ON​

A cleanup was done to remove some flaming and goading.​

Please remember to address posts and not posters, avoid replies that do not contribute to the discussion of theology and are posted only to provoke/goad, and avoid calling out other members who are debating here.​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Mark Quayle]

Is hair splitting a favoured pastime with Calvinists?

"Achieved" means successfully reaching or accomplishing a goal, task, or desired outcome through effort, skill, or determination. It's that satisfying moment when something you've worked towards becomes reality. Whether it's finishing a tough project, winning a competition, or simply mastering a new skill, achievement is about making progress and turning aspirations into accomplishments.

So you admit that it is worked toward. Hello.

 

[Mark Quayle]

This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

So God is not particular, and is subject to larger fact than himself, then?

 

[Mark Quayle]

no such word.

Now who's splitting hairs?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So you admit that it is worked toward. Hello.

Heaven is worked towards, love works or else it does not exist. Faith too must work to exist. Otherwise it is a fake. An empty verbal flourish.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Now who's splitting hairs?

It's part of the degradation of the English language. Gift becomes a verb by adding an illicit "ing", spending becomes a verb by removing the fully licit "ing". It is a trend to make infantile the language and the mind.

 

[NextLevel]

So God is not particular, and is subject to larger fact than himself, then?

The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

 

[NextLevel]

So you admit that it is worked toward. Hello.

(1) He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

(2) For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

(3) The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

(4) Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

 

[NextLevel]

On the one hand, if God is wiser than we His judgement must differ from ours on many things, and not least on good and evil. What seems to us good may therefore not be good in His eyes, and what seems to us evil may not be evil. On the other hand, if God’s moral judgement differs from ours so that our ‘black’ may be His ‘white’, we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say ‘God is good’, while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say ‘God is we know not what’. And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense) ‘good’ we shall obey, if at all, only through fear—and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend. The doctrine of Total Depravity—when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing—may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship.

- C.S. Lewis / The Problem of Pain

 

[Clare73]

did you forget that you wrote "capriciously"; you use that word of God's judgements. That is what is shameful and man-made in the doctrine. To make God in the image of an emperor who is capricious and acts in bad faith.

Did I write it or did I quote it from someone else, to whom I was replying?

 

[Clare73]

no such word--"gifting"

It's part of the degradation of the English language. Gift becomes a verb by adding an illicit "ing", spending becomes a verb by removing the fully licit "ing". It is a trend to make infantile the language and the mind.

Tell it to the IRS.

 

[NextLevel]

did you forget that you wrote "capriciously"; you use that word of God's judgements. That is what is shameful and man-made in the doctrine. To make God in the image of an emperor who is capricious and acts in bad faith.

Whether or not they use the word “capricious” – their theology makes God a moral monster.

If a father tells his two children not to swim in the ocean, and when they disobey decides to save only John to demonstrate how “merciful” he is; and to let Tom drown to demonstrate how “just” he is; nobody in his right mind would say that this father has been glorified. Everyone knows that he is a monster and acted capriciously to feed his own ego.

Now, contrast that "glory" to the infinite glory that the Father received from the sacrifice that our Lord Jesus offered to Him on the cross, “for the sins of the whole world”.

Sacred Scripture tells us that God is love. How do they reconcile the God that we know, the God that so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, with the monster that results from their theology?

Our Lord also teaches us to love our enemies. How do they reconcile that with a “God” that damns men before creation without hope or possibility of salvation, based on nothing other than “mysterious ways”? Where is the love in that? Perhaps that is why they spend so much time creating special definitions for things. They must redefine “love” to mean “hate” in substance for this theology to hold.