What do you think?

pawnraider

Member
Nov 22, 2007
930
36
✟24,749.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Since this isn't getting any response at the "Ask a Calvinist" section I thought I would ask it here.

In a review of a DVD about Calvinism one reviewer wrote:

"As the title suggests, Amazing Grace is a lengthy exposition and defense of the theology commonly known as Calvinism. This neatly packaged two disk DVD set is replete with quotes and commentary from history’s most well known Reformed theologians, as well as interviews with today’s leading Calvinistic teachers. A few of those included are Dr. R.C. Sproul, Dr. D. James Kennedy, Dr. Stephen Mansfield, and Dr. George Grant. They, along with the narrator, attempt to answer questions that many Christians struggle with regarding the sovereignty of God, predestination, free will, and other doctrines related to deterministic theology. While many churches walk the line between Calvinism and Arminianism, this video seeks to persuade the audience to adopt all five points of the famous acronym, “TULIP” (T = Total Depravity, U = Unconditional Election, L = Limited Atonement, I = Irresistible Grace, P = Perseverance of the Saints).

The discerning viewer, however, must look beyond the superficial elements of this presentation (such as the hi-tech audio and video production, professional editing, and the parade of intellectual sounding scholars), and honestly examine the evidence. And a good place to start is by asking the right questions. For instance, is the information in this documentary accurate? Secondly, is the information provided complete? In other words, does the video omit significant facts and events from history that may otherwise change how the audience perceives the outcome? Finding the answers to these questions will undoubtedly require time and additional research, but diligence has its rewards. Knowing the facts will help you to either accept the information as true or reject it as false.

And so the reader knows where the reviewer stands from the outset, I believe Calvinism to be a false, man-made religious system that should be avoided. Augustine was its chief architect (which is why it is also known as Augustinianism; see Study Guide page 113), while Luther and Calvin later refined and expounded upon his ideas. Due to the extreme length of this video set an exhaustive written review would be impractical.

Section 1: The History of the Debate

The video begins with an appeal to examine Church History and claims to trace the origins of Calvinism. Here is a quote from the narrator;

“We’ll begin in part one of this presentation with the history of this controversy –the struggle to understand God’s sovereignty and grace in relation to man’s responsibility and free will.” (Study Guide, page 113)

After hearing the above quote, the viewer should reasonably expect this presentation to take the audience through the history of the sovereignty of God / free will controversy from the beginning. However, this is not where the documentary takes us.

The video continues;

“Now some may ask, “Why begin with the historical survey of the debate instead of going right to the testimony of Scripture?” Well, by neglecting the creeds, counsels, and other vital facets of the church’s rich, 2000-year-old history, many Christians have fallen into the trap of having to rediscover what the Bible says.” (Study Guide, page 114)

The comments above give the impression that church history is very important, which it is. It warns that Christians should pay attention to when various false teachings have entered the Church so that we may identify them and steer clear. As great as all of this sounds their warnings prove artificial. The narrator immediately falls into the very same trap as those whom he seeks to show are in error when he uses Arius and the Council of Nicaea as an example. Take a look;

“What many do not know is that 1700 years ago this doctrine, with a few variations, was called Arianism after its chief proponent Arius. As his rationalized version of “Jesus is not God” theology began to spread like a cancer, a group of more than 300 pastors, elders and deacons came together in the city of Nicaea to discuss his views. The conclusion of that meeting or council was the condemnation of Arius and his teaching. Thanks to the tireless labors of great defenders of Biblical faith, most notably Athanasius, within a generation the heresy was largely defeated and contained. And so it remained for many centuries.” (Study Guide, page 114)

I will add to the above quote another thing many Christians do not know (and that the creators of this DVD set do not tell you); that Augustine, the hero of Calvinism, is guilty of precisely the same thing as Arius! Both of these men brought false teachings into the Church. With Arius it was the denial of Christ’s deity, and with Augustine it was the denial of man’s free will and personal responsibility (among numerous other things). Prior to Augustine, the Church uniformly taught free will and rejected predestination. The pagan Roman religions and the pseudo-Christian Gnostic sects are the ones that taught fatalism, or determinism, which the orthodox Church routinely refuted. Why is this not mentioned on the DVD?

Furthermore, the men who participated in the Council of Nicaea, whom the narrator calls “great defenders of Biblical faith,” were hardly Calvinists! Again, like all Christians that lived before Augustine, they believed in free will and taught against things like predestination, total depravity, salvation by faith alone, and eternal security. They would not agree with any of the five points of Calvinism, so how this DVD can refer to them as great defenders of the faith is beyond me.

Continuing on, they offer this quote from R.C. Sproul;

“Although tradition does not rule our interpretation, it does guide it. If, upon reading a particular passage, you have come up with an interpretation that has escaped the notice of every other Christian for two thousand years, or has been championed by universally recognized heretics, chances are pretty good that you had better abandon your interpretation.” ~ Dr. R.C. Sproul The Agony of Deceit, pp. 34, 35 (Study Guide, page 115)

This is just more talk about why we should value and consult church history. On the same page of the Study Guide, Dr. George Grant and Dr. Ascol add similar comments about learning from the Christians who have gone on before us, etc. The question then remains, why do all of these scholars disregard their own advise? Why do they completely ignore what the Church consistently taught and believed for the first three hundred years of it’s existence, and rather choose to uphold a man like Augustine, who, like Arius, tried to change what had been taught as Apostolic doctrine from the beginning?

The Augustinian / Pelagian Controversy
Next, the video leaps into the 5th century controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. But why are we starting our “church history” lesson in the 5th century? What happened to the “rich two thousand-year-old” history mentioned earlier? Is this when the Church first began to think about the issues of predestination vs. free will? What was going on during the four hundred years prior to this? The video leaves the viewer with the false impression that either (1) Augustine was arguing for what the Church held to be orthodox teaching up to that time, while Pelagias was suddenly trying to promote a new heresy, or (2) the Christians prior to this event had no opinion on these issues. However, neither of these could be further from the truth.

There is no need for me, or anyone else who disagrees with Augustine, to defend Pelagius. Whether he was an orthodox Christian or not is irrelevant to this discussion. Disagreeing with Augustine does not by default make a person a “Pelagian.” If you want to find a good representative of the Christian Faith you need to go back further than the 5th century. Ask yourself, why doesn’t this DVD mention any of the faithful Christians who lived closer to the time of the Apostles? Men such as; Ignatius (AD 105), Justin Martyr (AD 160), Tatian (AD 160), Melito (AD 170), Theophilus (AD 180), Irenaeus (AD 180), Tertullian (AD 190), Clement of Alexandria (AD 195), Hippolytus (AD 225), Origen (AD 225), Novatian (AD 235), Cyprian (AD 250), Methodius (AD 290), Lactantius (AD 305), or Arnobius (AD 305)? All of these men (as you can see by clicking on their names) left a written record of their stand on these issues, and they were all against the doctrines that Augustine introduced around the year AD 400. This is compounded by another fact that the video conveniently fails to mention; that Augustine himself was a former Gnostic teacher!

Below are a few selections from History of the Christian Church, by Reformed scholar Philip Schaff, that back up my comments about Augustine’s background. Please keep in mind that the video frequently quotes from this well known work, and that Schaff himself thought very highly of Augustine and mentions him throughout his writings with glowing affirmation. Read this quote carefully;

Philip Schaff
“The anti-Manichaean works date mostly from his earlier life, and in time and matter follow immediately upon his philosophical writings. In them he afterwards found most to retract, because he advocated the freedom of the will against the Manichaean fatalism. … These works treat of the origin of evil; of free will; of the harmony of the Old and New Testaments, and of revelation and nature; of creation out of nothing, in opposition to dualism and hylozoism; of the supremacy of faith over knowledge; of the, authority of the Scriptures and the church; of the true and the false asceticism, and other disputed points; and they are the chief source of our knowledge of the Manichaean Gnosticism and of the arguments against it. Having himself belonged for nine years to this sect, Augustine was the better fitted for the task of refuting it, as Paul was peculiarly prepared for the confutation of the Pharisaic Judaism.”1History of the Christian Church, by Philip Schaff, Volume III, Pages 1012-1013

Here it is openly admitted that Augustine was a Gnostic Manichaean for nine years before becoming a Christian. Once a Christian, however, he accepted what the Church taught on the subject of human free will and wrote against the fatalism of the Manichaeans. Church historian Justo L. Gonzalez, in his book The Story of Christianity, says, “Many of Augustine’s first writings were attempts to refute the Manichees. Since he had helped lead some friends to that religion, he now felt a particular responsibility to refute the teachings that he had supported earlier. Since those were the main points at issue, most of these early works dealt with the authority of Scripture, the origin of evil, and free will.” Gonzalez continues, “The question of the freedom of the will was of particular importance in the polemics against the Manichees. They held that everything was predetermined, and that human beings had no freedom. Against such views, Augustine became the champion of the freedom of the will.”2The Story of Christianity, by Justo L. Gonzalez, Vol. I, Page 213 But several years later Augustine ended up readopting his original Gnostic beliefs about predestination and read them back into the Bible. This is the real basis for Calvinism.

Schaff continues in a later volume from the same set;

Philip Schaff
“The Augustinian system was unknown in the ante-Nicene age, and was never accepted in the in the Eastern Church. This is a strong argument against it. Augustine himself developed it only during the Pelagian controversy; while in his earlier writing he taught freedom of the human will against the fatalism of the Manicheans.”3History of the Christian Church, by Philip Schaff, Volume VIII, Page 542

Did you catch that? The Augustinian system was “unknown” before the Council of Nicea! Mr. Schaff is certainly right when he says this is a strong argument against it. I would go further and say that it completely destroys Calvinism! Schaff admits that Augustine “developed” this system only “during” his debate with Pelagius. Are we really supposed to accept this as the true Christianity? I don’t think so. Instead, we can rightly credit Augustine with polluting the Church with Gnostic beliefs. At least Mr. Schaff was honest enough to mention these little details in his work, which is more than I can say for this DVD set. The accompanying footnote from the above quotation goes on to mention that Calvin recognized Augustine’s change of mind regarding the topic of free will;

Philip Schaff
“Calvin was well aware of Augustine’s change on this point. “Origen, Ambrose, and Jerome,” he says, “believed that God dispenses his grace among men, according to his foreknowledge of the good which every individual will make of it. Augustine was also once of the same sentiment, but when he had made a greater proficiency in scriptural knowledge, he not only retracted, but powerfully confuted it.”4History of the Christian Church, by Philip Schaff, Volume VIII, Page 542
Henry Chadwick, in his book The Early Church, commenting on the origins of Gnostic belief systems says, “The influence of fatalistic ideas drawn from popular astrology and magic became fused with notions derived from Pauline language about predestination to produce a rigidly deterministic scheme. Redemption was from destiny, not from consequence of responsible action, which was granted to a predetermined elect in whom alone was the divine spark.“5The Early Church, by Henry Chadwick, Chapter II, Faith and Order, Gnosticism, Page 38 Wow, that sounds a lot like Calvinism, doesn’t it? Again, this is the real origin of Augustine’s interpretation of Scripture. It did not derive from the Apostles or from the early Christians.

After the Pelagian controversy the documentary takes another wild leap into the Reformation era. So much for the church history lesson! In reality, Calvinism rests upon the shoulders of a former Gnostic teacher of rhetoric from the 5th century and a few reformers from the 16th century. This cannot be considered the Apostolic Faith, but rather a perversion thereof. This video is truly a history of “Calvinsim,” and not a history of “the faith once delivered to the saints.” (Jude 1:3)

Notes
1.History of the Christian Church, by Philip Schaff, Volume III, Pages 1012-1013

2.The Story of Christianity, by Justo L. Gonzalez, Vol. I, Page 213

3.History of the Christian Church, by Philip Schaff, Volume VIII, Page 542

4.History of the Christian Church, by Philip Schaff, Volume VIII, Page 542

5.The Early Church, by Henry Chadwick, Chapter II, Faith and Order, Gnosticism, Page 38."

In case you're interested you can find the review here.
 

jax5434

Member
Nov 27, 2007
630
245
✟31,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Pawn raider

Are you really surprised that no one here has responded to this? Generally speaking Calvinist do not usually think outside their box. Their ten or twelve scripture verses they cling to can not address the issues this article raises. Therefor they will ignore it.

By the way could you cite the reveiwer for me?

God Bless
Jax
 
Upvote 0

AMR

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed
Jun 19, 2009
6,715
912
Chandler, Arizona
Visit site
✟211,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Since this isn't getting any response at the "Ask a Calvinist" section I thought I would ask it here.
You received a response in the other thread. No need to duplicate it here.

AMR
 
Upvote 0

AMR

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed
Jun 19, 2009
6,715
912
Chandler, Arizona
Visit site
✟211,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Actually it failed to answer my question.
The same community of interest is the target of the question posted in duplicate. You will do better to maintain one post on the identical topic.

If you are interested in Reformed doctrines and are not getting the responses you desire, perhaps you would find my CF Blog of interest (see link in my sig below). There you will find doctrinally sound treatments of many Reformed views. :) Few here will take the time to dissect the anti-Calvinist screeds that are so predominant on the internet. These sorts have been answered time and again, as they really have nothing new to discuss, preferring instead to beat the usual drums of the typical anti-Calvinists.

Rather than seek responses to external reviews of this or that, especially where the parties involved are not members here and can defend themselves, just post specific questions in separate threads, and I am confident you will receive answers. We Reformed have an adversion to ninth commandment violations, as such, prefer to discuss the comments of others with the authors themselves, where possible. ;)

AMR
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

pawnraider

Member
Nov 22, 2007
930
36
✟24,749.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Pawn raider

Are you really surprised that no one here has responded to this? Generally speaking Calvinist do not usually think outside their box. Their ten or twelve scripture verses they cling to can not address the issues this article raises. Therefor they will ignore it.
Unexpectedly, and as if on cue, AMR's latest response proves your point rather well!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Pawn raider

Are you really surprised that no one here has responded to this? Generally speaking Calvinist do not usually think outside their box. Their ten or twelve scripture verses they cling to can not address the issues this article raises. Therefor they will ignore it.

By the way could you cite the reveiwer for me?

God Bless
Jax
Aw, good freaking Lord. I saw the posting, it's a tiny, one-sentence thing. Nobody could figure out what the question was.

"Of course jax has mind-reading powers, he knows what all calvinists around the world are thinking, and clings to no verse at all of Scripture to hold his idea of God together!" Welcome to the world of ad-hominem attacks. jax does not debate. He's just an insult -- and not simply to calvinists, to debaters in general.
 
Upvote 0

AMR

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed
Jun 19, 2009
6,715
912
Chandler, Arizona
Visit site
✟211,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Pawn raider

Are you really surprised that no one here has responded to this? Generally speaking Calvinist do not usually think outside their box. Their ten or twelve scripture verses they cling to can not address the issues this article raises. Therefor they will ignore it.

Unexpectedly, and as if on cue, AMR's latest response proves your point rather well!
Er, if we are counting, I actually cling to 31,102 verses. :)

AMR
 
Upvote 0

pawnraider

Member
Nov 22, 2007
930
36
✟24,749.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Er, if we are counting, I actually cling to 31,102 verses. :)

AMR
And what Jax posted is, once again, confirmed! I appealed for specifics and instead receive statistics, or in this case a statistic. Considering what I've been treated to so far I, for one, don't see this thread proceeding substantially any further so I'll take my leave of you all.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And what Jax posted is, once again, confirmed! I appealed for specifics and instead receive statistics, or in this case a statistic. Considering what I've been treated to so far I, for one, don't see this thread proceeding substantially any further so I'll take my leave of you all.
I believe it's AMR who appealed for specifics, and nothing appears to have been forthcoming.

Yes, if you never point out something you want answered, it's not typical to expect it to be answered.

So it's your opinion -- self-admittedly biased, thank you -- that the DVD is biased in the other direction. It's no surprise that for someone as biased "east" as you, the DVD would appear biased "west". Is it? It's not a surprise to me.
 
Upvote 0

jax5434

Member
Nov 27, 2007
630
245
✟31,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Having got the link I requested I did not come back to this thread until I stumbled across it last night.


"
Of course jax has mind-reading powers, he knows what all calvinists around the world are thinking, and clings to no verse at all of Scripture to hold his idea of God together!"
Who exactly are you quoting here Mikey?

welcome to the world of ad-hominem attacks. jax does not debate. He's just an insult -- and not simply to calvinists, to debaters in general.

And you accuse me of ad-hominem attacks?:confused:

In fact Mikey, would you point out to me any time I have attacked you or anyone else personally on these forums? Refusing to frame the debate on your terms is not an attack. It is not my problem if you do not like to play defense.

As the other poster said I too cling to every verse in scripture and believe that God spoke the absolute truth in everyone of them. In our last discourse I clung to Deut.30. So, once againI ask you to exegete that passage, within the only context those people had, in a way that preserves total depravity and does not result in God lying to those people.

God Bless
Jax
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"Generally speaking Calvinist do not usually think outside their box. Their ten or twelve scripture verses they cling to can not address the issues this article raises. Therefor they will ignore it."

Making starting statements like this is a personal affront to everyone who is identified as a Calvinist.

There's no ignoring the OP. But whining about someone not answering instantly is disingenuous. If you make assertions like this, you'll get a reaction -- it'lll be against your prejudice, because there's nothing but prejudice in your assertion.

Who exactly I am quoting, is someone like Jax but an opponent of his position, but using the same methods of attack.

I say let's speak to the issues instead of hearing our own prejudices repeated worldwide.
 
Upvote 0

jax5434

Member
Nov 27, 2007
630
245
✟31,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
"Generally speaking Calvinist do not usually think outside their box. Their ten or twelve scripture verses they cling to can not address the issues this article raises. Therefor they will ignore it."
I will concede that I should have said "in my experience...." other than that I stand by the statement

Making starting statements like this is a personal affront to everyone who is identified as a Calvinist.
It was a general statement that you chose to take personally. I really do regret that, I didn't intend it so.

If you make assertions like this, you'll get a reaction -- it'lll be against your prejudice, because there's nothing but prejudice in your assertion.
I maintain that , while perhaps illy-expressed , generally speaking from my experience there is truth in that assertion.

Who exactly I am quoting, is someone like Jax but an opponent of his position, but using the same methods of attack.
IOW you pretended to quote someone else while actually voicing your own opinion. What is the word I am looking for... ah yes...disingenuos

I say let's speak to the issues instead of hearing our own prejudices repeated worldwide.
I agree, shall we start with deut.30?

God Bless
Jax
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I will concede that I should have said "in my experience...." other than that I stand by the statement
Well, your experience is simply different, now.
Or selective.

It was a general statement that you chose to take personally. I really do regret that, I didn't intend it so.
When you specify people of a certain sort you will draw people who fit that specific.
I maintain that , while perhaps illy-expressed , generally speaking from my experience there is truth in that assertion.
Then describe it better than that.
IOW you pretended to quote someone else while actually voicing your own opinion. What is the word I am looking for... ah yes...disingenuos
No, quite conformed to exactly the way you expressed yourself. If its fealty proves disingenuousness, what does that say about the original expression?

If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
I agree, shall we start with deut.30?
It's not even on the OP. Unless there's some interest in discussing it in relation to predestination, try a new thread.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Kennesaw42

Shepherd's Crook, Roughly Hewn
Jan 5, 2011
86
15
Western USA
✟7,771.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Amen to what Patrick said.
There are a lot of anti-Calvinist screeds gagging up the bandwidth.
We Calvinists don't do the reverse, do we, I mean, we don't go picking fights with our erring Arminian brothers do we? Boy oh boy, I sure hope not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shulamite
Upvote 0

Shulamite

My Bridegroom suffered this for ME
Oct 12, 2007
2,347
121
55
USA
✟18,125.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Amen to what Patrick said.
There are a lot of anti-Calvinist screeds gagging up the bandwidth.
We Calvinists don't do the reverse, do we, I mean, we don't go picking fights with our erring Arminian brothers do we? Boy oh boy, I sure hope not.

Amen...
Mirrors my feelings/thoughts as well.
 
Upvote 0