Is Calvinism a heresy?

[Xeno.of.athens]

By the way, what is this document, you referred to as "A little catechesis" I. Freedom and Responsibility? Who wrote it? What position does it hold in Catholic writings? Just some Catholic's thoughts? How important is it?

It is a section from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I suppose you know I don't attribute authority to Sirach as canon nor as by 'plenary verbal inspiration". It is not God's Word. It is man's thinking.

I do know that is the stance of many Protestants. I am a Catholic and I do receive Sirach as inspired holy scripture so I use it as I use all the holy scriptures to teach the truth.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I do know that is the stance of many Protestants. I am a Catholic and I do receive Sirach as inspired holy scripture so I use it as I use all the holy scriptures to teach the truth.

Fair enough. I will accept it as something you submit to as your authority, then, but, sorry. Not mine. And, it does make a difference as to our category of argument. Not the same, thing, of course, but it is like when I argue with many liberals who don't accept the Word of God as authoritative, but just (more or less) inspirational. We have argument from sources "NOT in common". Makes it difficult, or at least, it relegates us argue either to what is in common, or to logic, intuition and good sense.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

it is like when I argue with many liberals who don't accept the Word of God as authoritative, but just (more or less) inspirational

That perspective, kind sir, is rather similar to how I see your view on Sirach. It makes for an interesting dynamic, I think. To me, your religion is quite humanistic and liberal because, in part, it took a turn in the 16th century (or some time after if you're not from one of the denominations that arose in that century) away from God's revealed truth.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That perspective, kind sir, is rather similar to how I see your view on Sirach. It makes for an interesting dynamic, I think. To me, your religion is quite humanistic and liberal because, in part, it took a turn in the 16th century (or some time after if you're not from one of the denominations that arose in that century) away from God's revealed truth.

FWIW, I didn't come to it by way of anyone's teaching it to me. Only the very basic (Omnipotence, creator of all things, the Gospel and all its peripherals, that I got from my childhood, I still hold. The rest, no. So I don't care what happened at the 16th century.

What I found, I found from Bible reading, Bible study, hard experience, agonized prayer, common sense, and plain need, and the desire to understand.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

FWIW, I didn't come to it by way of anyone's teaching it to me. Only the very basic (Omnipotence, creator of all things, the Gospel and all its peripherals, that I got from my childhood, I still hold. The rest, no. So I don't care what happened at the 16th century.

What I found, I found from Bible reading, Bible study, hard experience, agonized prayer, common sense, and plain need, and the desire to understand.

I apologise if my comment was hurtful. It was not intended to be.

In the same spirit I offer this question. Was the bible of your youth, of your study, and of the agonising prayers one with sixty six books in it?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I apologise if my comment was hurtful. It was not intended to be.

In the same spirit I offer this question. Was the bible of your youth, of your study, and of the agonising prayers one with sixty six books in it?

No, not hurtful.

Yes. And I memorized a lot of it when I was a child, KJV. Since then I use many different versions, though I shy away from several, like the paraphrases. When I have questions on any one subject, I look to many versions and the interlinear both Nestle and Wescott-Hort for my studies.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

No, not hurtful.

Yes. And I memorized a lot of it when I was a child, KJV. Since then I use many different versions, though I shy away from several, like the paraphrases. When I have questions on any one subject, I look to many versions and the interlinear both Nestle and Wescott-Hort for my studies.

By having a sixty six book bible you were already being indoctrinated into Protestant views to a degree. Just as you would have been indoctrinated into Catholic views to a degree had you had a seventy three book bible. The process started early.

 

[Mark Quayle]

By having a sixty six book bible you were already being indoctrinated into Protestant views to a degree. Just as you would have been indoctrinated into Catholic views to a degree had you had a seventy three book bible. The process started early.

Of course. I don't deny Protestant indoctrination, and particularly 'arminianistic' 'westleyanistic' Dispensational Fundamentalist indoctrination. But we depended on no catechism nor do I even now submit to any.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Of course. I don't deny Protestant indoctrination, and particularly 'arminianistic' 'westleyanistic' Dispensational Fundamentalist indoctrination. But we depended on no catechism nor do I even now submit to any.

Is that because you perceive yourself as an independent person, free to interpret scripture according to your wits? Therefore you'll have no catechism lord it over your faith, no man, no church, no human system will stand between you and God, is that the thinking behind the statement, "But we depended on no catechism nor do I even now submit to any."

 

[Mark Quayle]

Is that because you perceive yourself as an independent person, free to interpret scripture according to your wits? Therefore you'll have no catechism lord it over your faith, no man, no church, no human system will stand between you and God, is that the thinking behind the statement, "But we depended on no catechism nor do I even now submit to any."

There is a LOT of stuff to make me back up when I head down a trail of thought. And I use many things to help me think. One strong one is simple Orthodoxy, by which I more or less mean Protestant Orthodoxy, and for sure, none of it that I find denies anything in Scripture. Scripture is my authority even beyond subjective "urges" I might otherwise take for "promptings" of the Spirit of God within me. I think I am very skeptical of myself. I don't want to be the one that "changes opinions in mid-paragraph without losing any vehemence".

I don't discard catechism, confessions and dogma —in fact, I use them sometimes, (but not at first, during my upbringing)— but they don't own my conscience nor even my mind. They are not Scripture. There is an awful lot I don't know. And a lot to learn from people who came before me.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

they don't own my conscience

Scripture alone binds the conscience, is that how it is for you?

I type those words with some fondness. I remember saying them, long ago, to a committee of Presbyterian ministers in a small denomination. That was after remarking to them that Christ's resurrection as a man (glorified) was the one assurance that humanity had that human nature can be redeemed and elevated and become a sharer of the divine nature. ... this morning is laced with old memories for me

 

[Mark Quayle]

Scripture alone binds the conscience, is that how it is for you?

I type those words with some fondness. I remember saying them, long ago, to a committee of Presbyterian ministers in a small denomination. That was after remarking to them that Christ's resurrection as a man (glorified) was the one assurance that humanity had that human nature can be redeemed and elevated and become a sharer of the divine nature. ... this morning is laced with old memories for me

Not exactly. God can (and does) whatever he pleases with me, but I can't entirely trust myself, nor anyone nor anything else subjective.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Not exactly. God can (and does) whatever he pleases with me, but I can't entirely trust myself, nor anyone nor anything else subjective.

what brought you to such caution with others?

 

[Mark Quayle]

what brought you to such caution with others?

The false worldview in which I was brought up. Betrayed me.

As you may have heard others say, it wasn't God who did me wrong nor lied to me. It was believers. Took me years to realize they were just trying to figure it out too, and pretending to have it together.

Ha! I remember asking one guy, once I began to realize all this, "Would you tell Hosea that God has a wonderful plan for his marriage?"
"Well, that was an exception!"
"Well, Jack, we are ALL exceptions! God owes us nothing."

To me, the biggest lie of all that I was taught, is the self-deterministic mindset; the notion that we are individuals on some sort of level with God as sentient intelligent beings —that he has his part to do, and we have ours, and that, at least theoretically, we can somehow measure up, and this is called maturity, where we can impress God and he owes us something, (if only gratefulness), for our achievement. Yeah, sorry, a bit sarcastic there.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The false worldview in which I was brought up. Betrayed me.

As you may have heard others say, it wasn't God who did me wrong nor lied to me. It was believers. Took me years to realize they were just trying to figure it out too, and pretending to have it together.

Ha! I remember asking one guy, once I began to realize all this, "Would you tell Hosea that God has a wonderful plan for his marriage?"
"Well, that was an exception!"
"Well, Jack, we are ALL exceptions! God owes us nothing."

To me, the biggest lie of all that I was taught, is the self-deterministic mindset; the notion that we are individuals on some sort of level with God as sentient intelligent beings —that he has his part to do, and we have ours, and that, at least theoretically, we can somehow measure up, and this is called maturity, where we can impress God and he owes us something, (if only gratefulness), for our achievement. Yeah, sorry, a bit sarcastic there.

"the 4 spiritual laws" sort of "wonderful plan for your life"?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

By the way, I bought a Systematic Theology book, probably not a specifically Reformed. I started a thread on "Systematic Theology Books". It's in there.

 

[Mark Quayle]

"the 4 spiritual laws" sort of "wonderful plan for your life"?

Something like that.

Haha, you may have picked up by now that I don't much care for what I call, "Innovative Christianity".

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Something like that.

Haha, you may have picked up by now that I don't much care for what I call, "Innovative Christianity".

Indeed. Nor am I fond of innovations.

 

[jameslouise]

To me it is monstrous that anyone would think, not only that God 'wanting' is like our wanting, but that anyone can frustrate his choice.

I did dearly want to press you on the some of the other things you said in this message but I felt checked to go in a different direction but first Jesus and the Father are one Joh 1:10 and if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him (Joh 14:7) So as Jesus certainly'wanted' things in the plain meaning of the word e.g He wanted not to have the trauma of His crucifixion if at all possible, then I can assume God wants in the same way??
I believe He chose man to have a choice no further than that, no one can stop that, so, we kind of agree there.
I would also note your great reverence to God throughout which is a huge credit to you and impresses and inspires me a lot
Anyway i have two questions that puzzle me about your stance?

We've already been through 1 Timothy 2:4. Your logic depending on your use of it, is useless to convince me of anything.

1. John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day
To reject Christ you have to have been offered him, the only way to be offered Christ is through The Holy Spirit, Joe Bloggs cannot offer Christ to anyone? So. these people who will be judged on the last day did indeed exercise their choice and said no to The Holy Spirit. So. not an irresistible approach for them after all. most definitely a choice? Your comments?
2 Rom 8. the whole of Romans 8 is about what God does for the saved person , as does verse 28-30 where God defines what he will do for those that 'love him' are called' and 'foreknown' followed by those 2 verses that seem to be the cornerstone of Calvinism-verse 29-30.
Rom 8:28-30 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified
Going into more detail: Using what seems to be Calvinist definitions.'This text seems to be about what God does for those that 'love him and are called according to his purpose' (foreknow being a subgroup of or the same as this?) ie for those who said yes- the saved A kind of God's promised to do list. The previous text in the chapter just mainly talks about what God does for the saved with some comparison to the unsaved There is no mention that God did not predestinate something for the non saved or non called or not foreknown too. From this chapter you cannot say what God does for the non saved with regard to predestination, He may predestine them to something also? He may not. we just do not know from this chapter? Do you agree?
predestinate- called- justified- glorified
I suggest verses 28-30 are just dealing with what God does- man might do something along the way, he may not we do not know form this text- the text is about God's role.
I suggest with the whole of verses 28-30 is dealing with just the saved as described in verse 28 , people who have said 'yes', There mat be a whole range of other people who did not say yes, He may have predestined them to something too -like a choice. You cannot infer that God's approach is irresistible because He is only referencing people who have said yes. Do you agree?