Is Calvinism a heresy?

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said What verse do you think I quoted wrong? The verse I was referencing (and NOT quoting) was Romans 9:23, which in some versions says 'the objects of his mercy'. I think you would be well advised to go back and edit that, in case some reader that hasn't read it wrong doesn't think I misquoted something for the sake of defending Calvinism. I don't much enjoy being misrepresented

Your words were 'And this, he does, only to those to whom, from the foundation of the world, he chose to show mercy.'

To my mind and especially with the use of that amazingly informative and beautiful phrase 'the foundation of the world' (FOTW) your reference sounded more like Eph 1:4 than Romans 9:25 to me and still does.
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory

Afore does not mean before the FOTW and neither text mentions the word 'only'.either. You appear to be combining two bits of scripture and a third (bit of scripture that I do not know of?) that says He only shows mercy to a certain number- ie only meaning He never shows it to others. However, I absolutely do not want to misquote somebody as that would be disrespectful, so I have altered the text . I suggest, If you are going to mash up different verses you should put both references in. Check it out to see if you are happy with it, but I will most definitely make every attempt not to misrepresent anyone.

To take Biblical principles all together is not the same as to mash up texts. I didn't even put full quotes around anything, at that point, but 'scare-quotes' around 'to whom he chose to show mercy', if I remember right. All Scripture is interpreted by Scripture. Using many different Scriptural principles together is something we all do. Except maybe you? Idk.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That is a new will? This is becoming a semantic discussion, you seem to want to stretch all meanings to suit yourself. If the change to my will is not from me, if it is changed by an extraneous agency to something different it is no longer my own will. If it is obeying a different will than my own it is not my will but a combination- a subservient will to someone else's. If on the other hand I am presented with such a case that changes my position, my thinking then as an act of my own free will I may choose to accept this position but it is still my will that dose this. nothing goes straight through to my will and bypasses my mind/my soul. Nor do i know of any scripture that says it does.

You are the one stretching it. My point was that it is still obviously OUR will, that God has regenerated. If you prefer, don't even say it is the will that is regenerated, but the heart, which affects the will. The POINT is that we have been regenerated. Your act is always an effect of your own 'free' will. Whether obedient or not, your will always, concerning your part in God's plan, accomplishes God's decree.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What do you think 'Elect' means? All those who God chose a path for salvation for and who chose to accept this path to Christ.
Do you see any others that he chose for salvation? Everyone else
There is no scripture that contradicts my stance that I can find or that you have pointed out. I do not recognize this unloving Father of His offspring you portray.
Kat Kerr claims The Holy Spirit in an audible voice said to her 'We choose to be chosen'
Robin D Bullock said '' there is no predestination' which he also says comes directly from God.
Knowledge of the Bible is, I believe, included in Dan 12;4 and that time is, I believe, just starting. @Mark Quayle & @DialecticSkeptic , I plead with you both not to miss the coming Red Sea moment.

Why should I care what Kat Kerr says? Who is Robin D Bullock, that I should listen to her (him?) If you give advice, get advice: It is better to follow Scriptures, than some supposed prophet or revelator. I'm getting off this train here.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

The term Calvinism came about when John Calvin corrected the Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius. Calvin claimed that Arminius was teaching a false gospel and he pointed out the five main errors of Arminius. These became known as the five points of Calvin ...

None of this is true, my friend. When Calvin died, Arminius was only four years old.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

That is a new will? This is becoming a semantic discussion, you seem to want to stretch all meanings to suit yourself. If the change to my will is not from me, if it is changed by an extraneous agency to something different it is no longer my own will.

Said the cripple when Jesus healed him, "If the change to my legs is not from me, if it is changed by an extraneous agency to something different, it is no longer my own legs."

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

If they're saying no we don't say that, that Non Catholics are Christians too then why don't they need to take communion like everyone else? I said need to.

It's because Catholics are not "like everyone else", the truth is that only some are, as you say, "like everyone else". Numerous churches, including many Lutheran churches will not admit non-members to communion. And how can any church have church discipline if strangers off the street receive full communion? Will you just give up on church discipline?

Among protestants the practice of admitting only members to communion is referred to as "closed communion" or "restricted communion." This practice is based on the belief that the Lord's Supper is a sacred meal reserved for those who are members of the church and have made a public profession of faith and who are in good standing.

One of the primary biblical passages cited in support of closed communion is 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, where the apostle Paul writes:

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself."​

This passage suggests that there are serious consequences for partaking of the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner, and that those who partake of the meal should examine themselves beforehand. Proponents of closed communion argue that by limiting participation to members of the church, they can ensure that those who partake are prepared to do so in a worthy manner.

Another passage cited in support of closed communion is 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, where Paul writes:

"The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread."​

This passage emphasizes the unity of the church and the shared participation of believers in the Lord's Supper. Proponents of closed communion argue that limiting participation to members of the church reinforces this unity and helps to maintain the spiritual purity of the church.

I am aware that not all Christians agree with the practice of closed communion, and there are other passages in the Bible that emphasize the openness and inclusivity of the Lord's Supper, such as Matthew 26:26-29 and Luke 22:19-20. Ultimately, the decision to practice closed communion is a matter of church doctrine and the church's interpretation of scripture.

 

[jameslouise]

Said the cripple when Jesus healed him, "If the change to my legs is not from me, if it is changed by an extraneous agency to something different, it is no longer my own legs.

Not a bad attempt at a parallel, but not really that good a one either.
Of course the new will comes 'loaded' with an opinion/position which makes it not the opinion of the owner but the opinion/position the 'installer' wants and hence. loaded.
In your parallel it would be like the legs came loaded with an in built 'walk, gait etc not like the owners or maybe even legs that only walked in the direction the 'installer- Jesus in your parallel' wanted. This would then, indeed, render them not the owners legs, not under the owners control. but subject to an extraneous controller. I don't think Jesus healed the cripple that way and I do not think God can intervene like this in our will either as He follows 'deep and just rules'. I believe the name change of God to LORD God, in Genesis 2 is acknowledging this 'governance' role of God.
That all you got?
At least you have engaged this time which I thank you for, I think this is good progress, but still about 20 questions left for you to answer then?
Good effort though C+

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Of course, the new will comes “loaded” with an opinion/position, which makes it not the opinion of the owner but the opinion/position that the installer wants and, hence, loaded.

In your parallel, it would be like the legs came loaded with an in-built walk or gait not like the owner’s, or maybe even legs that only walked in the direction the installer (Jesus, in your parallel) wanted.

The regenerated person does not have their will replaced, much less by something that comes “preloaded” with some opinions or positions not their own—just as the healed legs of the cripple are not replacement legs, nor do they have a gait not belonging to that person.

At least you have engaged this time, which I thank you for. I think this is good progress …

[… yawn ...]

Good effort though C+

I don’t know if you can, but we certainly can do without the condescending tone.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Does the Christian Reformed Church have open communion?

 

[Bobber]

It's because Catholics are not "like everyone else", the truth is that only some are, as you say, "like everyone else". Numerous churches, including many Lutheran churches will not admit non-members to communion.

And they're wrong too.

And how can any church have church discipline if strangers off the street receive full communion?

So you think those who are members on the church book let's them know who is worth of taking communion?

Will you just give up on church discipline?

Where are you getting this. If I come to your church and am not a member you're saying I need disciplined? Why?

One of the primary biblical passages cited in support of closed communion is 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, where the apostle Paul writes:

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself."​

But hold it now. Look at what it says. It says for the person to examine himself.....NOT YOU or somebody for them.

This passage suggests that there are serious consequences for partaking of the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner, and that those who partake of the meal should examine themselves beforehand.

And I do agree. But remember it says they should examine themselves. Not you or a church religious system.

Proponents of closed communion argue that by limiting participation to members of the church, they can ensure that those who partake are prepared to do so in a worthy manner.

No they can't. A person of their congregation could have that very day committed a great heinous sin and had not repented of. They can't therefore ensure ANYTHING. Thus the instruction in scripture let a man examine himself.

Another passage cited in support of closed communion is 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, where Paul writes:

"The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread."​

That does not support closed communion. Closed communion actually says when one comes to such a church who isn't a member of the institution that we're not willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are a brother or sister. If they are they are and they shouldn't have to proof it to your satisfaction. Remember...it says let the person examine themselves not others.

This passage emphasizes the unity of the church and the shared participation of believers in the Lord's Supper. Proponents of closed communion argue that limiting participation to members of the church reinforces this unity and helps to maintain the spiritual purity of the church.

Doesn't matter what they feel reinforces something. It's NOT their place to hold back communion from one wanting to take it.

Ultimately, the decision to practice closed communion is a matter of church doctrine and the church's interpretation of scripture.

For the reason they're going wrong doesn't mean they have a right to misinterpret the scripture. Sorry but they need called out for not being willing to accept another member of the body of Christ. Ok they might not be a member of their chruch affiliation but they're a member of Christ. They should be given the right hand of fellowship and that includes taking communion.

 

[Bobber]

Said the cripple when Jesus healed him, "If the change to my legs is not from me, if it is changed by an extraneous agency to something different, it is no longer my own legs."

Nonsense. Jesus would even ask crippled people if they wanted to be well, or if they wanted to be healed. And if they came to one of his meetings to have hands laid upon them by their will they were showing they wanted it. Remember scripture says they came to hear AND be healed. Lk 5:18 That's what their will was wanting.

 

[Jeltja]

I consider Calvinistic particulars to be Orthodox in its essence. Obviously, I am not a ('Roman') Catholic. That being said, Calvinistic Reformed theology has many origins and controversies. As a proponent of some of the views of Hoeksema, John Gill and others I've been accused of HyperCalvinism (though if anyone was a HyperCalvinist it was Jean Cauvin). Are HyperCalvinists heretical?
I am a particular Baptist, so it's harder for me to be as ecumenical with the official Catholic view in the other direction. Though if we're discussing Augustinian Catholic theology I'm much more in line.

 

[jameslouise]

The regenerated person does not have their will replaced, much less by something that comes “preloaded” with some opinions or positions not their own

But that is exactly what you are saying, don; t you see that? You are proposing a regenerated will. i.e. the will itself and not our mind. And this regenerated will apparently has a preset default position of accepting Christ. You are not proposing a presentation of an argument or the presence of The Holy Spirit drawing man and then man deciding. You are missing out the man deciding bit and going straight to the will.
This is pivotal.
Still waiting for your answer as to why The Holy Spirit goes to the trouble of presenting Christ to those people who reject Christ in John 12:48( He must have presented Him as they have rejected Him), but He does not seem to want to go the whole hog and regenerate the will?? Or is it that it was man's choice?? The clear obvious meaning of the text. (4th time I have asked this btw)

 

[jameslouise]

I don’t know if you can, but we certainly can do without the condescending tone

I am not sure if you see the irony of your statement but pot . kettle, black anyway.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

And they're wrong too.

Of course, and you are right. How could I not see it?

So you think those who are members on the church book let's them know who is worth of taking communion?

Yes, the church knows the members and they receive spiritual food at communion. But you would have the person who does wrong, is excluded from communion as an act of loving discipline, be admitted to communion at any church they turn up at. Let that person wander down the street to another church and take all the communion want. It doesn't matter, right?

Where are you getting this. If I come to your church and am not a member you're saying I need disciplined? Why?

You're not a member so you're not disciplined, you are kept in the same place that all who are not members of the Church are kept. Treated as a Catechumin who may hear the word preached, then go to learn the full meaning of the gospel, hear of the sacraments, and in due time be admitted to the sacraments when ready and following confession of the faith of the Church.

But hold it now. Look at what it says. It says for the person to examine himself.....NOT YOU or somebody for them.

Until a person knows what the Eucharist is how can self examination be conducted? Honestly, you object to things as if your foot stamping angry words should convince the Church that you can safely partake!

And I do agree. But remember it says they should examine themselves. Not you or a church religious system.

But you say "I will decide when I am ready to do self examination". But why ought the Church believe you, the Church has no assurance that you're not ignorant of the basics of Christianity, you've just come in and now you demand service like the church is a bar and grill handing our free crackers and wine!

No they can't. A person of their congregation could have that very day committed a great heinous sin and had not repented of. They can't therefore ensure ANYTHING. Thus the instruction in scripture let a man examine himself.

Yes they can! They can listen to the confession of faith given by the person, hear the things that are believed and what things are rejected, and so be assured if the person has been properly prepared or not. It is for the safety of the soul of the person who desires to partake. It is not for you to decide what the Church must do for you. It is not your demand that should convince the Church to give the Lord's body and the Lord's blood to you when the Church has no good evidence that you understand the meaning of the Eucharist.

That does not support closed communion. Closed communion actually says when one comes to such a church who isn't a member of the institution that we're not willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are a brother or sister. If they are they are and they shouldn't have to proof it to your satisfaction. Remember...it says let the person examine themselves not others.

The Church does not know that the person demanding communion is a brother or sister. The Church has not had you politely explain your faith to the local priest who you demand serve you. It's shocking bad manners to turn up at the wedding feast of the Lamb of God unprepared, and demand a seat and that you be given the heavenly food. No, the Church is right to say, "Son, may we know you and your faith before you partake? Will you not spend time and discuss these matters with us and take the steps needed so that we can explain what the Eucharist is and then we can both decide if you want to become a Catholic"

Doesn't matter what they feel reinforces something. It's NOT their place to hold back communion from one wanting to take it.

Why? Is it just because you stamp your feet and say "I demand communion!". I think not.

For the reason they're going wrong doesn't mean they have a right to misinterpret the scripture. Sorry but they need called out for not being willing to accept another member of the body of Christ. Ok they might not be a member of their chruch affiliation but they're a member of Christ. They should be given the right hand of fellowship and that includes taking communion.

Since you are so convinced that Catholics have it all wrong then why do you want to go to a Catholic church and receive communion? It's absurd to call Catholic teaching wrong and then demand that a Catholic priest give you communion! Go to a church that you think may be right, find a place that will accept your beliefs.

 

[Dan1988]

None of this is true, my friend. When Calvin died, Arminius was only four years old.

That's entirely irrelevant, I know the two never met in person. Their differing doctrines, is what the whole debate is about. Neither of them invented or discovered the two views which divide the Church. Those views have always been there and are still there to this day, the two men just became famous because they made the best arguments for the two views.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Does the Christian Reformed Church have open communion?

No, the communion table is open only to members in good standing (and certain carefully vetted guests).

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

You are proposing a regenerated will—the will itself, and not our mind—and this regenerated will apparently has a preset default position of accepting Christ.

That is not the view that I am proposing—or even believe, for that matter. And there is no good excuse for that sort of straw man because the beliefs and doctrines of Reformed covenant theology are published in confessional standards accessible anywhere by anyone.

P.S. That is a reliable indication of a straw man argument, when your opponent cannot find anything recognizable in your description or characterization of his views.

Still waiting for your answer as to why the Holy Spirit goes to the trouble of presenting Christ to those people who reject Christ in John 12:48 ...

Sorry, where does it say that the Spirit presented Christ to them? Which version of the Bible are you using?

 

[zippy2006]

Again, it's not as if Calvinism denies human choice. But your will is defined by a biblical context, namely, the works of the flesh and the works of the Spirit. The former comes from you, the latter is of God.

As I understand it, Lutherans and Calvinists agree that unregenerate man is limited to sinful acts, but Luther believed that such a man could freely will sinful acts whereas Calvin did not. That is, Calvin denied libertarian free will in a way that Luther did not. Specifically, Calvin held that all acts of unregenerate man (and probably of regenerate man as well) are necessitated by internal causes, but since they are not coerced by external causes they can still be said to be "free". This is a fairly clear denial of what we now term 'libertarian free will', for an agent whose acts are necessitated cannot be said to possess libertarian free will. Hence, as @jameslouise inferred, on Calvinism I am not able to "make a decision myself." Instead, causes internal to the agent necessitate his acts.

We could of course quibble over definitions of freedom, but the colloquial usage of that term in our own day and age really does map to libertarian freedom.

Please provide a cited quote or two. Thank you.

See Anthony Lane's article, "Bondage and Liberation in Calvin's Treatise against Pighius" (Calvin Studies IX).

 

[Mark Quayle]

on Calvinism I am not able to "make a decision myself." Instead, causes internal to the agent necessitate his acts.

Those causes internal to the moral agent ARE from "yourself". Causation is necessary. Sorry, but it is simple logic. And yes, it all descends logically from God's speaking his creation into existence. There is no escaping it.