Calvinism and Christianity - incompatible?

First of all, predestination and fate are not the same thing. Fate would imply blind predeterminism without any purpose. Since God is a personal being and three persons in that one divine being, it follows that what God does is deliberate and logically reasoned, not "fate". Since God is omniscient and omnipotent, it follows that He has a divine purpose in whatever He does, including when He planned to decree whatsoever comes to pass.

The LORD of hosts has sworn, saying, "Surely, as I have thought, so it shall come to pass, And as I have purposed, so it shall stand: 25 That I will break the Assyrian in My land, And on My mountains tread him underfoot. Then his yoke shall be removed from them, And his burden removed from their shoulders. 26 This is the purpose that is purposed against the whole earth, And this is the hand that is stretched out over all the nations. 27 For the LORD of hosts has purposed, And who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, And who will turn it back?" 28 This is the burden which came in the year that King Ahaz died. (Isaiah 14:24-28 NKJ)

Predestination is taught throughout the OT and the NT.

Do you believe that the cross was merely "fate"? Just asking?

"whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. (Acts 2:24 NKJ)
"For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 "to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. (Acts 4:27-28 NKJ)

 

Actually Charlie I think you really need to lighten up - not everybody believes Calvins interpretation of Scripture and I am afraid you are going to have to live with that... It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it - to others it doesn't make it so.

 

Again, what do you mean by "free will"? If you mean "libertarian" free will, then it is absolutely incompatible with God's sovereignty. If you mean that men are moral agents who make genuine choices, I agree. But if you mean that the will is free from any outside influences, including original sin, environmental and cultural influences, etc. then we would disagree. Do the elect angels have an equal choice between good and evil? Or God or the elect saints in heaven? I think not. They cannot sin Because God is God and because the others are sealed. So "free will" is impossible in heaven

If Jesus shed His blood for those already in hell, did He purpose to save those who were already lost? (Revelation 13:8; John 10:11, 15; Matthew 1:21).

edited for language.
-admin

 

Gordon, I don't know what you mean. I don't recall attacking anyone as a person here. I have simply presented Scripture and a logical argument. If you mean I shouldn't quote Scripture or argue the case for Calvinism then you are essentially telling me not to defend my God or the Scriptural point of view. I could never agree to do that.

 

I should add that your comment cuts both ways. Simply repeating Arminian and semi-pelagian errors does not make them Scriptural. Scripture is logical and speaks for itself. If you believe that the plain text is wrong the onus is on you to show how Scripture is wrong?

 

Particular atonement is not "limited". It is efficacious.

 

I cannot judge if an Arminian is "reprobate" or "elect" since only God knows whom He has unconditionally elected to salvation. But I can say that Arminianism has more in common with Roman Catholicism and Semi-Pelagianism than with the English Reformation or with Scripture. The fact of the matter is that Calvinism/Augustinianism is solidly Scriptural. I would say that Calvinism is the systematic exposition of the Gospel from the Scriptures. Arminianism, otoh, is a rationalistic attempt to make Scripture fit with what man thinks Scripture should say by man's standards of righteousness and justice. God must answer to men? I think not.

 

No, but I know what the logical propositions of Scripture clearly say. Your "experience" does not constitute "special revelation" nor is it binding on anyone else. Scripture, otoh, is the fully inspired, infallible and inerrant Word of God. Scripturalism begins with the axiom that "Scripture is the Word of God."

 

And you're not saying that I am wrong? What am I missing here? It seems like a double standard for you to tell me I'm wrong while not allowing me the same privilege.

 

Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles: "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." http://gavvie.tripod.com/39articles/art1.html#6

 

See the part I bolded: Funny that the EOC doesn't see Augustinian/Calvinist teaching in the scriptures and never has.

 

Semi-Pelagianism is not an indefinite term, it has a precise meaning. Unlike Pelagianism that taught that man could come to God and effect his own salvation by his own free will, in Semi-Pelagianism a distinction is made between the beginning of faith and the increase of faith. It teaches that the latter half is the work of God, while the beginning of faith is an act of free will, with grace supervening only later. This, of course, was also condemned as a heresy by the Second Council of Orange (6th century).

Synergistic theologies inevitably tend towards Semi-Pelagianism precisely because of their unwarranted overtures to man's free will and their inability to grasp the full depravity of fallen man. After many centuries of growing error on this matter, Luther's reformational opus magnum On The Bondage of the Will against Erasmus set the tone to the full recovery of Augustinian and apostolic teaching on grace by the Church.

I created another thread to address such verses precisely because it was too long to post it here. Check the Objections to the Doctrine of Limited Atonement. There are no "verbal games," just sound exegesis that takes not only the immediate context into consideration but the rest of Scripture as well.

The three verses you posted are fully adressed there (1 Timothy 2:1-4; 1 John 2:1-2; 1 Timothy 4:6-10), along with eight more.

 

The EOC believes in justification by faith and works, among other errors, they have a fully synergistic system. It's obvious that they don't accept Augustine or any other theologian that teaches man's absolute dependance on grace. However, the holy bishop of Hypo was the only Church Father of that time to be considered the Doctor of Grace.

 

It's funny: what one man or one church considers error, another considers scriptural and orthodox -- and vice versa.

For me, I consider Roman Catholicism and Calvinism to be error and unscriptural.

As I said, the earliest churches and the EOC did not see Calvinist or Augustinian doctrines in the scriptures. Unfortunately, Augustinian theology affected all of Western Christianity -- Roman Catholic and Protestant.

 

For once you and I are in agreement, Celtic1. Augustinian stoicism & hardness have hurt our ability to think. "Frozen Chosen" mentality comes from this statue-like inability to look at the broad truth of the Scriptures, preferring proof-texts to the "whole scope". Faith is not faith if it is totally predestined; if it is so, we must believe in capricious arbitration.

St. Jerome: Against the Pelagians, Book 3, Paragraph 6:

The drift of your whole argument is this—what the Greeks call αὐτέξουσιον , and we free will, you admit in terms, but in effect destroy. For you make God the author of sin, in asserting that man can of himself do nothing, but that he must have the help of God to Whom is imputed all we do. But we say that, whether a man does good or evil, it is imputed to him on account of the faculty of free choice, inasmuch as he did what he chose, and not to Him Who once for all gave him free choice.

Of course, a Father is not the Scriptures. "Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things". It is certainly a good and just thing to give God all power, honour, and glory in every happenstance. If the five doctrines of grace are true, then "behold the servant of the Lord; let it happen to me according to you word".

 

By the way, an interesting answer by another with regards to God "hating Esau":

Esau DID have a chance to live, despite the fact that God knew who he was from the beginning. Moreover, Esau symbolized a 'national group or nation' as did Jacob. God told Rebekah that the twins she carried in her womb symbolized two different nations, and the older would serve the younger. Maybe God 'hated' what Esau symbolized?

God let Esau live and prosper (it was purely Esau's fault he lost his birthright. When you equal being father of a holy nation of God with a plate of lentil soup, clearly you are not worthy). And yet Esau became father of another great nation.

And Esau showed repentance in the end, when instead of attacking his brother, he embraced him with tears in his eyes.

This view must be anathema to Calvinism, of course.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by EOC? Perhaps you're referring to the CoE? Be that as it may, it can easily be demonstrated that in fact the position of the Church of England during the English Reformation was solidly Augustinian and Calvinist. The Lambeth Articles of 1595 and the Thirty-Nine Articles are evidence enough of this. Also, the collects in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer continually ask for God to "grant" the grace to obey the moral law, to pray, to persevere, etc. The collect for Easter-Day is a good example of that.

lengthy quotations removed.
-admin

 

He was referring to that odd creature called the Eastern Orthodox Church; you know, the ones who deny original sin, divide God into Essence & Energies, ask Mary to save them, and kiss icons for a living?

Here is a very interesting radio podcast detailing the "EOC" view of free will (with which you will violently disagree):

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/predestination

 

Augustine provoked the entire incident with Pelagius by saying, "Lord, command what you will, and grant what you command." The idea that grace is necessary offends Pelagians. Semi-pelagianism reverts back to Pelagianism by saying that prevenient grace nullifies the effect of original sin which would incapacitate the will in regards to obeying God's moral law or accepting the Gospel. Augustine's view won out at the Council of Orange but that was reversed at the Council of Trent. Earlier in his life Augustine advocated "free will". But as time changes perspective, Augustine changed his view and said that free will does not exist. It was Augustine's theology that inspired Luther and Calvin and the other Reformers to challenge the unbiblical traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.