Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Calvinism is nothing more than the gospel according ot Calvin. Not a single one of the tenets of TULIP can be found in scripture as it has always been understood. Maybe you can show that predestination as Reformed understand it, has always been taught for the last 2000 years and is a principle doctrine of historical Christianity. The Gospel that has been preserved, unchanged by man over the last 2000 years.
Can you do that?
Actually TULIP did not come from Calvin but from the Canons of Dort. Read them and you will find all the scripture proofs you need there in black and white. The gospel is the same thing as Calvinism - the names are virtually interchangable. One honest look at the scriptures prove it.
So, how come the Apostles never got it right? Where they not inspired to give the Gospel in the beginning?Actually TULIP did not come from Calvin but from the Canons of Dort. Read them and you will find all the scripture proofs you need there in black and white. The gospel is the same thing as Calvinism - the names are virtually interchangable. One honest look at the scriptures prove it.
Ok - for the sake of argument then (and to avoid any more accusations of "Straw Man!!"), I acknowledge that you have proved your point - a point which you have clearly stated - the point being that in order to understand the Calvinist response to objections levied at it, we must read Boettner's book - and if we don't [read Boettner's book] we haven't done our homework and are thus ignorant until we do. Point taken.*sigh*
It's plain to see that you have not read Boettner's book.
He spent the first two sections of the book demonstrating the truth of Calvinism by providing Scripture and exegesis. The point of this particular section is not to prove the truth of Predestination, Archie. The point is to answer objections thrown at Reformed Theology. He already proved the truth of Calvinism in the first two sections.
It's rather sad to see you claim this is "Human philosophies and rationales" when you obviously have not done your homework.
Since most anti-Calvinists like to bring up this "oh, but Calvinism is fatalism" argument, I figured I would post the chapter of Boettner's book which refutes this false claim.
The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Loraine Boettner.
"Objections Commonly Urged Against the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination." Chapter XV, Section III.
"That it is Fatalism."
This is an assertion that isn't necessarily true. Fatalism as a philosophical concept is the idea that all events are inevitable, and that humans actions will not change the course of the future. It also usually includes the idea that human actions are predetermined as well, but not necessarily.Much misunderstanding arises through confusing the Christian Doctrine of Predestination with the heathen doctrine of Fatalism. There is, in reality, only one point of agreement between the two, which is, that both assume the absolute certainty of all future events. The essential difference between them is that Fatalism has no place for a personal God.
"Fatalism excludes the idea of final causes" does not sit well with me. Besides the oddity of the term, even a blind fatalistic force is moving towards some kind of end, if time is finite (which it is, being a construct of our finite universe). If there is only a finite amount of time, there will eventually be some final act. If all causes are predetermined, we should be able to trace everything down to the end. A blind force may not move towards its end with any intelligent plan, but it will move to an end that must be, for it is predetermined that it shall be that way.Predestination holds that events come to pass because an infinitely wise, powerful, and holy God has so appointed them. Fatalism holds that all events come to pass through the working of a blind, unintelligent, impersonal, non-moral force which cannot be distinguished from physical necessity, and which carries us helplessly within its grasp as mighty river carries a piece of wood.
Predestination teaches that from eternity God has had one unified plan or purpose which He is bringing to perfection through this world order of events. It holds that all of His decrees are rational determinations founded on sufficient reason, and that He has fixed one great goal "toward which the whole creation moves." Predestination holds that the ends designed in this plan are first, the glory of God; and second, the good of His people. On the other hand Fatalism excludes the idea of final causes. It snatches the reins of universal empire from the hands of infinite wisdom and love, and gives them into the hands of a blind necessity. It attributes the course of nature and the experiences of mankind to an unknown, irresistible force, against which it is vain to struggle and childish to repine.
This is where the argument actually gets interesting. Apparently, Boettner believes in some kind of limited free will along with predestination. This is a form of compatibilism, which itself is logically sound. The question is, though, is Boettner's form of compatibilism logically sound? Or is it another form of fatalism hidden in the shrouds of language?According to the doctrine of Predestination the freedom and responsibility of man are fully preserved. In the midst of certainty God has ordained human liberty. But Fatalism allows no power of choice, no self-determination. It makes the acts of man to be as utterly beyond his control as are the laws of nature. Fatalism, with its idea of irresistable, impersonal, abstract power, has no room for moral ideas, while Predestination makes these the rule of action for God and man. Fatalism has no place for and offers no incentives to religion, love, mercy, holiness, justice, or wisdom, while Predestination gives these the strongest conceivable basis. And lastly, Fatalism leads to skepticism and despair, while Predestination sets forth the glories of God and of His kingdom in all their splendor and gives an assurance which nothing can shake.
Extreme fatalism can lead to strange things like extreme nihilism. Not eating because of dying today is more indicative of an extreme case of nihilism than fatalism. The second part where the man states, "Nor do I need to eat if I am to live many years yet, for I shall live anyway" does not make sense. It is necessary to eat to live; it's physically impossible to live if you don't eat. Therefore, I say that our fatalist man here would rationalize the second part of his thinking more like so: "If I am to live many years yet, I will need to eat. Even if I do not want to eat, it will be a necessary fact of my continued living that I have eaten, so I will in the future be eating." The fatalist would recognize that his continued living will include the necessity of eating food.No man can be a consistent fatalist. For to be consistent he would have to reason something like this: "If I am to die today, it will do me no good to eat, for I shall die anyway. Nor do I need to eat if I am to live many years yet, for I shall live anyway. Therefore I will not eat." Needless to say, if God has foreordained that a man shall live, He has also foreordained that he shall be kept from the suicidal folly of refusing to eat.
The problem with this is that God is said to not change. This doesn't make God "cold," but it does make him immutable. If the plan was set up before time even started in the creation, then God is indeed immutable and things will happen as they must."This doctrine," says Hamilton, "is only superficially like the pagan 'fate.' The Christian is in the hands not of a cold, immutable determinism, but of a warm, loving heavenly Father, who loved us and gave His Son to die for us on Calvary! The Christian knows that 'all things work together for good to them that love God, even to them that are called according to His purpose.' The Christian can trust God because he knows He is all-wise, loving, just and holy. He sees the end from the beginning, so that there is no reason to become panicky when things seem to be going against us."
In order to make this assertion, Boettner would have to first disprove all other positions that involve varying degrees of free will, or he would have to create a bulletproof argument that shows that Calvinistic predestination is the only possibility in the universe. Perhaps the rest of the book attempts to do this. I wouldn't know, as I haven't read it. There are, of course, many issues that go into showing that Calvinistic predestination is the only acceptable model for causality, the first of which is philosophically proving that God (whose existence needs to be philosophically proven even prior to this) is actually of a Calvinist nature.Since the universe is one systematized unit we must choose between Fatalism, which ultimately does away with mind and purpose, and this biblical doctrine of Predestination, which holds that God created all things, that His providence extends to all His works, and that while free Himself He has also provided that we shall be free within the limits of our natures. Instead of our doctrine of Predestination being the same with the heathen doctrine of Fatalism, it is its absolute opposite and only alternative.
This last quote is actually not from Boettner, of course, but rather the OP. I think there are many similarities between Calvinism and fatalism, and they are not only superficial. There is justification for levying a charge of fatalism against Calvinism. Boettner has only managed to refute a very extreme form of fatalism, not its looser forms. It also appears to me that Calvinism either is one of those looser forms, or comes extremely close to being one.CmRoddy said:There is no longer and excuse. You cannot claim "ignorance" on this one.
Behe's Boy,
So, how come the Apostles never got it right? Where they not inspired to give the Gospel in the beginning?
How come ONLY Calvin and his followers in Dortrecht got it right, 1600 years after the Apostles?
Christianity is a myth until Calvin came along? How do you know they are right and not Joseph Smith? His is a much more modern and much more recent than Calvin?
Can you answer these questions, since you could not answer the other one.
Can you prove either one is wrong or right? If the Arminians got it wrong, you still need to show that Calvinism is right.I never said the apostles got it wrong. They actually had it right. It was the Arminians who got it wrong with their own five points which is why we have the Canons of Dort - to refute Arminianism.
Can you prove either one is wrong or right? If the Arminians got it wrong, you still need to show that Calvinism is right.
Can you do that?
they only refute Arminian theology in deference to Calvinism. Neither one used historical Christianity, the understanding of Scripture that was held for 1600 years before.I don't really need to. All of the scripture proofs refuting Arminianism lie within the Canons of Dort themselves. The scriptures prove Calvinism is right. Not me or anyone else.
Behe's Boy,
they only refute Arminian theology in deference to Calvinism. Neither one used historical Christianity, the understanding of Scripture that was held for 1600 years before.
You don't have any better argument than Joseph Smith and the Mormons. He, they, used scripture as well. You cannot tell a counterfeit by another counterfeit.
Scriptures may prove Calvinism, as it does Mormonism, but does Calvinism show what has always been believed and understood about the scriptures?
To know false teachings one must know and study the Truth. The Gospel that was given by the Holy Spirit to the Apostles. The Gospel given to the early Church and then handed down, Holy Tradition, unchanged to the present time. If one knows the real thing, one can always easily tell a counterfeit.
Quoting scripture or explaining any scripture with the overcast of many suppositions does not make it the Truth. The Truth is what was ONCE given, and preserved by the Holy Spirit within the Body of Christ.
How come there is not a scintilla of evidence to show this. Was Pentacost on May 9, 1619?The gospel given to the apostles is the same one that is presented in the Canons of Dort.
Obviously, he did not present the gospel according to Calvin. He presented a gospel according to Joseph Smith. That is the whole point of the comparison. You need to show that the gospel of Calvin is also and always has been the Gospel of Christ as He gave it to the Apostles who taught it to the early Church. Then handed down from one generation to the next to the present time.Joseph Smith never presented the gospel. His is just another works-based religion. Can't say that about Calvinism. Can't say that about the gospel...
Behe's Boy,
How come there is not a scintilla of evidence to show this. Was Pentacost on May 9, 1619?
Maybe you could enlighten me where I could find this evidence?
Obviously, he did not present the gospel according to Calvin. He presented a gospel according to Joseph Smith. That is the whole point of the comparison. You need to show that the gospel of Calvin is also and always has been the Gospel of Christ as He gave it to the Apostles who taught it to the early Church. Then handed down from one generation to the next to the present time.
That Truth is what has been preserved by the Holy Spirit. History is the witness of the faithfulness of God in time regarding His Truth. It has not changed. So, if Calvinism is that Truth, you have 1600 years of recorded history to support that assertion.
Can you do that?
Never stated that tradition is over scripture. First, scripture IS Tradition. Secondly the authority is Christ. Scripture has no authority in itself.I have done it and it has been ignored and twisted. You have already asserted (elsewhere) that you hold tradition over the authority of scripture so it is no wonder that when I try to support my views with scripture you either ignore it or say it is incorrect. Why? Because it doesn't line up with your tradition.
I have done it and it has been ignored and twisted.
Simply amazing.
Amazing in a very positive way, because it is true according to Scripture.
Well, you used scripture, alright.
Simply amazing.
Behe's Boy,
Scripture has no authority in itself.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?