Is Calvinism a heresy?

[QvQ]

There is definetely a resemblance to Adam in modern man, just as there is a definite resemblance to the Garden of Eden in modern East of Eden
Man's flesh is corrupted although we see the handiwork and glory of God.
Man is a pale image of perfection

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

And Genesis 9:6, and 1 Corinthians 11:7, and James 3:9, and ...

Was one verse insufficient?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Was one verse insufficient?

I suspected it might be. You quoted Genesis 1:26-27 in response to someone who (a) already stipulated that Adam and Eve were image-bearers and (b) potentially believes Genesis 1 is about Adam and Eve. So, I chimed in to include biblical references to man as the image of God well after the fall.

 

[Dan1988]

Genesis 1:
26 And God said, Let us make man, wearing our own image and likeness; let us put him in command of the fishes in the sea, and all that flies through the air, and the cattle, and the whole earth, and all the creeping things that move on earth.
27 So God made man in his own image, made him in the image of God. Man and woman both, he created them.

Man may still retain a vague resemblance to the image of God, ie. man resembles the Lord Jesus Christ who is Jehovah God in the flesh. So we know that God looks like a Man and He is seated at the right of the Father right now as a Man with the scars on His hands, feet and side.

The difference between us and Adam before the fall, is great. Adam didn't bare the image of God in the same way after the fall as he did before he fell into sin and rebellion against God. He became an enemy of God, so even though he resembled God in a physical sense, as the Bible states "let Us make him in our likeness.

In Genesis 5:3 we read that Adam's son Seth was born in Adams image, this was obviously after the fall. I haven't studied the word "image" to see if there are different applications of the word, but it does appear in the book of revelation where it describes people worshiping the Beast and His image.

Jesus called the religious Phrases, "Children of the Devil", there's no way a child of the Devil can bare the image of God. There is no hope of salvation for the fallen Angels, Demons, Devils. They are eternally damned to the lake of fire, where they will be tormented forever. The lake of fire was not created for men but many will be cast into it, because they chose to worship the Devil.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Man may still retain a vague resemblance to the image of God, ie. man resembles the Lord Jesus Christ who is Jehovah God in the flesh. So we know that God looks like a Man and He is seated at the right of the Father right now as a Man with the scars on His hands, feet and side.

The difference between us and Adam before the fall, is great. Adam didn't bare the image of God in the same way after the fall as he did before he fell into sin and rebellion against God. He became an enemy of God, so even though he resembled God in a physical sense, as the Bible states "let Us make him in our likeness.

In Genesis 5:3 we read that Adam's son Seth was born in Adams image, this was obviously after the fall. I haven't studied the word "image" to see if there are different applications of the word, but it does appear in the book of revelation where it describes people worshiping the Beast and His image.

Jesus called the religious Phrases, "Children of the Devil", there's no way a child of the Devil can bare the image of God. There is no hope of salvation for the fallen Angels, Demons, Devils. They are eternally damned to the lake of fire, where they will be tormented forever. The lake of fire was not created for men but many will be cast into it, because they chose to worship the Devil.

And I would say that the majority of individuals who will be cast into the lake of fire will not be cast because they chose to worship the Devil, but, rather, that their names were not written in the Lamb's book of life.

 

[QvQ]

This thread has been interesting because to find a heretic, I first have to define heresy.
I don't think theological difference, which there aren't. Calvin and St. Thomas Aquinas both agreed on predestination and election.

Free will is really the issue. Aquinas admits man's will is limited by circumstance beyond his control (providence). He admits to Romans and to (Jeremiah 10:23): "The way of a man is not his: neither is it in a man to walk." However, Aquinas seems to be saying the man's will is subject to cognitive power, or conscience.

JMHO (I amended this to limit its scope. What I first posted was too broad with too many side issues)

 

[bbbbbbb]

This thread has been interesting because to find a heretic, I first have to define heresy.
I don't think theological difference, which there aren't. Calvin and St. Thomas Aquinas both agreed on predestination and election.

Free will is really the issue. Aquinas admits man's will is limited by circumstance beyond his control (providence). He admits to Romans and to (Jeremiah 10:23): "The way of a man is not his: neither is it in a man to walk." However, Aquinas seems to be saying the man's will is subject to cognitive power, or conscience so the will is subject to reason. We can know good and evil through reason when it is guided by the Holy Spirit but we don't, alone, have the power to enforce our will. Reason alone can also lead us astray, as we are fallible. And there is a difference between "natural will" which is unregenerate and the regenerated will, infomed of the Holy Spirit.

However there is heresy,
Just my short list:
1) The devil made me do it. I am a helpless victim
2) I had to attack and/or kill that person because he had a devil or he was a heretic. I am saving the world or him or something

Both of those are anathemas 1) The devil can seduce but the devil cannot compel 2) That is self evident why it is an anathema. We should not commit the sin of hurting or murdering anyone to save the world or other people from what we declare are "bad ideas"

JMHO

I agree entirely that this entire thread hangs on the definition of heresy. By any standard definition, neither monergism (aka Calvinism) nor synergism qualifies.

 

[FireDragon76]

In actual classical Reformed theology, reprobation is passive, not active. That's not far from traditional Lutheranism, or the conclusions of the Council of Orange. It was only later that certain "Calvinist" theologians started emphasizing that God has a list of not only the "elect", but also the "reprobate", whom he supposedly chose to condemn before the world was even created. And even then, it was mostly restricted to the speculations of English and American Puritans.

 

[FireDragon76]

Picking a nit:

Calvinism was not developed by John Calvin (who did not personally embrace Limited atonement as a biblical dogma). The Synod of Dort, where the 5 articles of the Remonstrances were responded to, would be a better claimant for the ‘source’ of so-called “5-point Calvinism”.

Even then, it's mostly been a cause taken up by the "Neo-Reformed", typically Baptists. The actual conclusions of the Synod of Dort are more nuanced, more local in effect, and subject to interpretation.

 

[QvQ]

In actual classical Reformed theology, reprobation is passive, not active. That's not far from traditional Lutheranism, or the conclusions of the Council of Orange. It was only later that certain "Calvinist" theologians started emphasizing that God has a list of not only the "elect", but also the "reprobate", whom he supposedly chose to condemn before the world was even created.

I searched Calvin's Institutes on predestination and election. Maybe I missed something but what little I could find was not much. Mostly he called it a mystery and referred back to Augustine.

Election and Predestination are also in Aquinas.

I am suspecting that as Calvin had taken on the Church, he hesitated to alter what were not very controversial doctrines "election" and "predestination" because of such well established Authority as the Divine RIght of kings.

A King was born a king, chosen before birth therefore elected. Everyone at that time was born into a station in life, basically predetermined before birth.
I'll bet Calvin, Luther and Aquiinas would be puzzled by this uproar. Election, God choosing the king, as the king was born king and everyone being predestined to their place and portion in the heirarchy was taken as a given in their time and society.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Calvin and St. Thomas Aquinas both agreed on predestination and election.

Nope, they didn't agree. They never met, of course, because Aquinas was dead before Calvin was born. Aquinas was Catholic right the way through while John Calvin was Lawyer through and through. Their beliefs differed on all sorts of things. Not least being the meaning of Baptism and the Holy Eucharist. Predestination in Calvin's theology has all sorts of implications that a Lawyer would worry about and want to define, Aquinas took a more philosophical perspective and was content to leave undefined the things that were fundamentally mysteries.

 

[QvQ]

Which one wrote this?
The predestination of some to salvation means that God wills their salvation. This is where special and chosen loving come in. Special, because God wills this blessing of eternal salvation to some, for, as we have seen, loving is willing a person good, chosen loving because he wills this to some and not to others, for, as we have seen, some he rejects.

That is St. Thomas Aquinas

And double predestination
whether God reprobates any man, Aquinas answered God does reprobate some. He cited Malachi 1:2-3 as proof; God loved Jacob, but Esau, He hated. In this, Aquinas reasoned if Jacob is ordained to eternal life, then Esau must be equally ordained to everlasting death. Moreover, if God worked His will in Jacob to produce good things, then He must have permitted Esau to fall into reprobation. Thus, Aquinas concluded predestination is so-called double predestination, because some are ordained to life, and others to death.

This is St Thomas

I can't find any sorts of implications in Calvin other than it was a mystery and referred back to Augustine
Perhaps you could post chapter and verse, not the entire chapter, but where in the Institutes Calvin wrote about predestination, reprobates in any way different than Aquinas

 

[QvQ]

St Thomas also wrote:
“The reason for the predestination of some and reprobation of others (praedestinationis aliquorum, et reprobationis aliorum) must be sought for in the divine goodness.... God wills to manifest his goodness in those whom he predestines, by means of the mercy with which he spares them; and in respect of others whom he reprobates, by means of the justice with which he punishes them. This is the reason why God chooses some (quosdam eligit) and reprobates others (quosdam reprobat).... Yet why he chooses some for glory and reprobates others has no reason except the divine will (non habet rationem nisi divinam voluntatem).”

Limited Atonement
St. Thomas seemed to believe that Christ's atonement was sufficient for all but not efficacious for all.

 

[John Mullally]

That is a foreign god.

That and similar are terms used by Calvinists to describe just about any Christian belief that does not conform to their TULIP. Yet none of the points in that acronym is directly supported by scripture. At some point you should fear God for misrepresenting Him.

What I am saying is evidenced by the fact that almost all the internet explanatory resources (like Got Questions) and "Discernment ministries" that trash other Christian ministries by name are Calvinist, even though Calvinism represents less than 10% of those who claim to be Christian.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That and similar are arrogant terms used by Calvinists to describe just about any Christian belief that does not conform to their TULIP. Yet none of the points in that acronym is directly supported by scripture. At some point you should fear God for misrepresenting Him.

What I am saying is evidenced by the fact that almost all the internet explanatory resources (like Got Questions) and "Discernment ministries" that trash other Christian ministries by name are Calvinist, even though Calvinism represents less than 10% of those who claim to be Christian. Put the gun down.

Actually, far less than 10% of Christians are self-identifying Calvinists. The vast majority, by far, are Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Neither of these branches embrace Calvinism, nor Arminianism, for that matter. The Roman Catholics rejected the monergism of St. Augustine as well as Molinism.

 

[John Mullally]

Actually, far less than 10% of Christians are self-identifying Calvinists. The vast majority, by far, are Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Neither of these branches embrace Calvinism, nor Arminianism, for that matter. The Roman Catholics rejected the monergism of St. Augustine as well as Molinism.

There is also a large number of Christians in the third world and China that claim to speak in tongues.

Yes, Calvinists probably represent less than 10% just among Protestants - but quite vocal and extremely judgmental. I was raised Catholic, obviously differ on doctrine, but respect them for their love.

 

[bbbbbbb]

There is also a large number of Christians in the third world and China that claim to speak in tongues.

Yes, Calvinists probably represent less than 10% just among Protestants - but quite vocal and extremely judgmental. I was raised Catholic, obviously differ on doctrine, but respect them for their love.

I was raised Protestant in a staunchly Catholic city. There was very little love between the groups of my childhood. I think it is absolutely vital that all Christians respect each other, not to mention non-Christians.

 

[QvQ]

I don't have a dog in this fight. I am non-denominational as far as I can determine.
I see many threads on Calvin Bad, ("Is Calvin a Heretic" just to mention one of many)
I read the Institutes and I read Summa Theologica. I also read Augustine but as a teenager. I didn't care for him, being focused on his adolescent trials so I may have missed the theology
As we have been perking along, bashing Calvin, I suddenly realized that much of what is attributed to Calvin is actually Augustine and Aquinas.
My perception is that Calvinist are much more bashed than bashing, at least from the number of "Calvin Bad" threads and the mob that turns out to "correct" anyone who is suspected of "Calvinist Heresy."

 

[John Mullally]

And I would say that the majority of individuals who will be cast into the lake of fire will not be cast because they chose to worship the Devil, but, rather, that their names were not written in the Lamb's book of life.

I believe everyone's name was originally written in the Lamb's book of life as God is love per the definition in 1 Corinthians 13. If one's name does not appear in the book of life, it was blotted out (Psalm 69:28 and Revelations 3:5).

 

[bbbbbbb]

I believe everyone's name was originally written in the Lamb's book of life as God is love per the definition in 1 Corinthians 13. If one's name does not appear in the book of life, it was blotted out (Psalm 69:28 and Revelations 3:5).

The question then, is who blotted it out? Did God do it (and, if so, when) or did man do it (and, if so, when)?