The No-Straw-Man Calvinism challenge.

[zippy2006]

The OP isn't about Calvin. And I made a point that you responded to. There's nothing else to add.

The OP is about Calvinism, and you gave Calvin's Institutes as one of the documents to be discussed. I quoted Calvin's Institutes in response to one of your claims about Calvinism, and you stated that you disagree with that part of the Institutes. Therefore you disagree with the Reformed tradition as outlined in the OP. Since the OP is about why people disagree with the Reformed tradition as represented in the given documents, I asked why you disagree. It is perfectly on topic.

Of course you are free to decline answering why you disagree with Calvin and the Reformed tradition outlined in the OP. Perhaps it is too hard a question, despite being perfectly relevant to the thread.

 

[Hammster]

The OP is about Calvinism, and you gave Calvin's Institutes as one of the documents to be discussed. I quoted Calvin's Institutes in response to one of your claims about Calvinism, and you stated that you disagree with that part of the Institutes. Therefore you disagree with the Reformed tradition as outlined in the OP. Since the OP is about why people disagree with the Reformed tradition as represented in the given documents, I asked why you disagree. It is perfectly on topic.

Of course you are free to decline answering why you disagree with Calvin and the Reformed tradition outlined in the OP. Perhaps it is too hard a question, despite being perfectly relevant to the thread.

I don't disagree with the Reformed tradition. I disagree with Calvin on that point.

 

[zippy2006]

I don't disagree with the Reformed tradition. I disagree with Calvin on that point.

Therefore you believe that Calvin deviates from the Reformed tradition, and have at last answered one of the questions I asked here.

So here's the challenge. Below you will find links to some various documents that those who hold to Reformed Theology will agree on, at least soteriologically.

Well, apparently not everyone who claims to hold to Reformed Theology agrees on these documents, since you disagree with parts of the Institutes.

The challenge to to quote from one of them, and then state why you believe it is incorrect. This will hopefully lead to a reasoned discussion.

So we have a quote from one of the documents which you disagree with. Now, as part of the "reasoned discussion," I am curious to know "why you believe it is incorrect." Are you able to tell us why you believe that part of Calvin's Institutes is incorrect? Secondarily and importantly, are you able to tell us how to discern whether a part of the Institutes is correct or incorrect?

 

[Hammster]

Therefore you believe that Calvin deviates from the Reformed tradition, and have at last answered one of the questions I asked here.



Well, apparently not everyone who claims to hold to Reformed Theology agrees on these documents, since you disagree with parts of the Institutes.



So we have a quote from one of the documents which you disagree with. Now, as part of the "reasoned discussion," I am curious to know "why you believe it is incorrect." Are you able to tell us why you believe that part of Calvin's Institutes is incorrect? Secondarily and importantly, are you able to tell us how to discern whether a part of the Institutes is correct or incorrect?

I know you are really trying hard for a gotcha moment. So let me help you out.

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 6. That some receive the gift of faith from God, and others do not receive it, proceeds from God's eternal decree. "For now unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world."8"who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will."9 According to which decree He graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however obstinate, and inclines them to believe; while He leaves the non-elect in His just judgment to their own wickedness and obduracy. And herein is especially displayed the profound, the merciful, and at the same time the righteous discrimination between men equally involved in ruin; or that decree of election and reprobation, revealed in the Word of God, which, though men of perverse, impure, and unstable minds wrest it to their own destruction, yet to holy and pious souls affords unspeakable consolation.

 

[zippy2006]

I know you are really trying hard for a gotcha moment. So let me help you out.

I just want a "Calvinist" who disagrees with Calvin's Institutes--a document he specifically cited as being normative for Calvinists--to tell me why he disagrees with it. Although I don't understand why this is so hard, I have seen you weasel your way out of such obvious and clear questions before. Therefore I am not surprised.

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 6. That some receive the gift of faith from God, and others do not receive it, proceeds from God's eternal decree. "For now unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world."8"who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will."9 According to which decree He graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however obstinate, and inclines them to believe; while He leaves the non-elect in His just judgment to their own wickedness and obduracy. And herein is especially displayed the profound, the merciful, and at the same time the righteous discrimination between men equally involved in ruin; or that decree of election and reprobation, revealed in the Word of God, which, though men of perverse, impure, and unstable minds wrest it to their own destruction, yet to holy and pious souls affords unspeakable consolation.

So you think this contradicts Calvin? If so, why is a Canon of Dordt more authoritative for Calvinists than Calvin's Institutes? Simply quoting a Canon of Dordt is a very poor explanation for why you believe Calvin was mistaken. Let's put them side by side for convenience:

• Many professing a desire to defend the Deity from an individual charge admit the doctrine of election, but deny that any one is reprobated. This they do ignorantly and childishly, since there could be no election without its opposite, reprobation. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)
  
• According to which decree He graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however obstinate, and inclines them to believe; while He leaves the non-elect in His just judgment to their own wickedness and obduracy. (Canons of Dordt, First Head, Article 6)

 

[Hammster]

I just want a "Calvinist" who disagrees with Calvin's Institutes--a document he specifically cited as being normative for Calvinists--to tell me why he disagrees with it. Although I don't understand why this is so hard, I have seen you weasel your way out of such obvious and clear questions before. Therefore I am not surprised.



So you think this contradicts Calvin? If so, why is a Canon of Dordt more authoritative for Calvinists than Calvin's Institutes? Simply quoting a Canon of Dordt is a very poor explanation for why you believe Calvin was mistaken. Let's put them side by side for convenience:

• Many professing a desire to defend the Deity from an individual charge admit the doctrine of election, but deny that any one is reprobated. This they do ignorantly and childishly, since there could be no election without its opposite, reprobation. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)
  
• According to which decree He graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however obstinate, and inclines them to believe; while He leaves the non-elect in His just judgment to their own wickedness and obduracy. (Canons of Dordt, First Head, Article 6)

I don't know why Calvin was mistaken. I just believe that he was. There is room for disagreements within the Reformed tradition, just like in every tradition, even Catholicism. So if you think you've struck the death knell for Reformed Theology, you are sorely mistaken.

However, I do appreciate that you followed the format set up in the OP.

 

[zippy2006]

I don't know why Calvin was mistaken. I just believe that he was.

I'm not asking you why Calvin was mistaken, I'm asking why you disagree. You think God passively passes over those who are not elect rather than actively reprobating them. Why do you believe that? Do you have a Scriptural basis? Do you have a reason to trust in Dordt rather than the Institutes? Do you have a moral problem with active reprobation?

There must be some reason you disagree with Calvin. There must be some reason you believe God passes over rather than reprobates.

However, I do appreciate that you followed the format set up in the OP.

Sure thing.

 

[Hammster]

I'm not asking you why Calvin was mistaken, I'm asking why you disagree. You think God passively passes over those who are not elect rather than actively reprobating them. Why do you believe that? Do you have a Scriptural basis? Do you have a reason to trust in Dordt rather than the Institutes? Do you have a moral problem with active reprobation?

There must be some reason you disagree with Calvin. There must be some reason you believe God passes over rather than reprobates.



Sure thing.

I think that John 3 states that God's wrath remains on unbelievers. Ephesians 2 says unbelievers are by nature children of wrath. So I am not seeing how God needs to do anything further.

 

[dad]

Why would He need to?

Because our choice wouldn't be worth anything or have any reality or weight to it unless He first chose to make the way for us.

 

[dad]

You keep using that word, but I do not think you know what it means.

It means we make a free choice to believe in Jesus. Chose.

 

[dad]

I know that culture has gone a long way from God's design on this subject, but in marriage, men choose women, not the other way around. To say, in the first century that a women chose a man for marriage would be incomprehensible. Even more incomprehensible than your above words.

A woman choses also. She chose to accept or not. She said yes or no. What, you thought the guy used a club?

 

[BobRyan]

So here's the challenge. Below you will find links to some various documents that those who hold to Reformed Theology will agree on, at least soteriologically. The challenge to to quote from one of them, and then state why you believe it is incorrect. This will hopefully lead to a reasoned discussion. Any argument that does not start this way will be considered off topic. You are, however, free to start your own thread on that matter.

Here are your links.

The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (I would have used the Westminster Confession, but I'm Baptist )

Canons of Dordt

Heidelberg Catechism

Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin, Christian Classics Books, Bible Study

I prefer C.H. Spurgeon's update/edit of the Baptist Confession of Faith -- IT is more detailed... less terse - less cryptic.

 

[BobRyan]

I guess the best way to explain it is this. Left alone, we would all be reprobate. God wouldn't need to do anything. .

True -- however then it turns out that the Bible says
"God so loved the WORLD - yes REALLY... no just the FEW of Matt 7"
And it turns out the Bible says
"God is not willing for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance ... yes REALLY... not just the
FEW of Matt 7"

And it turns out that God "DRAWS ALL mankind unto himself .. yes really.. not just the FEW of Matt 7" John 12:32
And it turns out that "God sent His Son to be the savior of the WORLD.. yes REALLY" 1 John 4:14
And it turns out "God is NOT partial... yes REALLY!" Romans 2:11

 

[dad]

Correction -- blind faith evolutionism is "fake news".

with its "a rock dust and gas will sure-enough turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently large and talented pile of rock-dust-case and a sufficiently long period of time filled with just-so stories all the way up to the top of mount-improbable, stories easy enough to tell - but they are not science"

By contrast to evolutionism -- The Bible and science are "the real deal"

While I agree godless evolution is garbage, I am not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand about free choice versus Calvanism?

 

[Hammster]

Because our choice wouldn't be worth anything or have any reality or weight to it unless He first chose to make the way for us.

So "chosen people" means "those whose way was chosen"?

When you play fast and loose with words, it's hard to figure out your meanining.

 

[Hammster]

It means we make a free choice to believe in Jesus. Chose.

Which makes God chosen, not us.

 

[Hammster]

A woman choses also. She chose to accept or not. She said yes or no. What, you thought the guy used a club?

Can Christ's bride choose no?

 

[Hammster]

I prefer C.H. Spurgeon's update/edit of the Baptist Confession of Faith -- IT is more detailed... less terse - less cryptic.

Feel free to use that, then.

 

[Hammster]

True -- however then it turns out that the Bible says
"God so loved the WORLD - yes REALLY... no just the FEW of Matt 7"
And it turns out the Bible says
"God is not willing for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance ... yes REALLY... not just the
FEW of Matt 7"

And it turns out that God "DRAWS ALL mankind unto himself .. yes really.. not just the FEW of Matt 7" John 12:32
And it turns out that "God sent His Son to be the savior of the WORLD.. yes REALLY" 1 John 4:14
And it turns out "God is NOT partial... yes REALLY!" Romans 2:11

And it turns out that you used all of those verses out of context.

 

[dad]

So "chosen people" means "those whose way was chosen"?

When you play fast and loose with words, it's hard to figure out your meanining.

It means people who chose to love Jesus basically. How is that unclear? If they choose, then they also are chosen of God.