Calvinism

[Comm.Arnold]

Lets just say schizophrenia is a common online christian illness,
After a while it become apparent that the handling of scripture by some is not consistent but instead convenient

The solution to the problem by some is to do away with it "scripture". Of course my understanding of this type is that they have no eyes or ears.

Sure

 

[makahiya117]

Predetermined

Laws of Physics
and Spiritual Principles

KJV And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold,
it was very good.
And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
KJV I call heaven and earth to record this day against you,
that I have set before you life and death,
blessing and cursing: therefore choose life,
that both thou and thy seed may live:



Providential

Divine Timing:

KJV At the same time praying also for us, that God would open to us a door
of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds:

KJV If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.



Predestination

Divine Plan:

KJV Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called:
and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified,
them he also glorified.

KJV 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:

 

[aspen]

Calvinism needs to add the gospel to it's theological construct - it is stuck in the OT message of God's sovereignty

 

[ScottAU]

Calvinism needs to add the gospel to it's theological construct - it is stuck in the OT message of God's sovereignty

Calvinism is stuck within the confines of Augustine's fatalism not the OT message of God's soverignty.

God is indeed sovereign but the Reformed Theologian has a perverted view of soverienty. In their mind "God's sovereinty" = "Fatalism." In other words they cannot reconcile the issue that a God whom is sovereign can exist alongside man whom has free agency.

Both Martin Luther and John Calvin were adherrents to Augustinian theology. Thus they viewed that the sin of Adam corrupted the constitution of all Adam's descendents whereby sin itself had an essence which was passed on from father to child. Thus human beings did not sin by choice but as a result of their birth nature. Through this mindset the predestination of Romans 9 is then viewed as applying to individuals as opposed to applying to nations therefore the teaching of how God determined Israel to bring forth the Messiah is then misapplied to God determining who will be saved apart from any conditions having to be met on the part of man due to free agency. For example...

Chapter 14.—He Illustrates His Argument by an Example.
But that what I am saying may be made clear by the exhibition of an example, let us suppose certain twins, born of a certain harlot, and exposed that they might be taken up by others. One of them has expired without baptism; the other is baptized. What can we say was in this case the “fate” or the “fortune,” which are here absolutely nothing? What “acceptance of persons,” when with God there is none, even if there could be any such thing in these cases, seeing that they certainly had nothing for which the one could be preferred to the other, and no merits of their own,—whether good, for which the one might deserve to be baptized; or evil, for which the other might deserve to die without baptism? Were there any merits in their parents, when the father was a fornicator, the mother a harlot? But of whatever kind those merits were, there were certainly not any that were different in those who died in such different conditions, but all were common to both. If, then, neither fate, since no stars made them to differ; nor fortune, since no fortuitous accidents produce these things; nor the diversity of persons nor of merits have done this; what remains, so far as it refers to the baptized child, save the grace of God, which is given freely to vessels made unto honour; but, as it refers to the unbaptized child, the wrath of God, which is repaid to the vessels made for dishonour in respect of the deservings of the lump itself? But in that one which is baptized we constrain you to confess the grace of God, and convince you that no merit of its own preceded; but as to that one which died without baptism, why that sacrament should have been wanting to it, which even you confess to be needful for all ages, and what in that manner may have been punished in him, it is for you to see who will not have it that there is any original sin.

Augustine, A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book 2, Ch. 14

The Church fathers prior to Augustine taught that man had the full capacity to CHOOSE as to whether they would submit to God or not and thus the responsibility for their ruin was upon the individual. Augustine on the other hand taught FATALISM whereby the responsibility rested upon Adam and that all his descendents were born into ruin by necessity. Thus under Augustinian theology sin was necessitated by a "birth nature" instead of being a result of the "free exercise of the will." Those who would be saved were predestined to be saved according to God's grace within the context of how Augustine viewed Romans 9. John Calvin mirrored this in his institutes when he referred to the issue of non-elect babies suffering eternal death...

Scripture proclaims that all were, in the person of one, made liable to eternal death. As this cannot be ascribed to nature, it is plain that it is owing to the wonderful counsel of God. It is very absurd 2232in these worthy defenders of the justice of God to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God? Here the most loquacious tongues must be dumb. The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree. Should any one here inveigh against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and unadvisedly. For why, pray, should it be made a charge against the heavenly Judge, that he was not ignorant of what was to happen? Thus, if there is any just or plausible complaint, it must be directed against predestination. Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it. For as it belongs to his wisdom to foreknow all future events, so it belongs to his power to rule and govern them by his hand. This question, like others, is skillfully explained by Augustine: “Let us confess with the greatest benefit, what we believe with the greatest truth, that the God and Lord of all things who made all things very good, both foreknow that evil was to arise out of good, and knew that it belonged to his most omnipotent goodness to bring good out of evil, rather than not permit evil to be, and so ordained the life of angels and men as to show in it, first, what free-will could do; and, secondly, what the benefit of his grace and his righteous judgment could do,” (August. Enchir. ad Laurent).

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Ch. 23
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.xxiv.html


Here is what Justin Martyr asserted...

Chapter XLIII.—Responsibility asserted.
But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end;1855 nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made.

Justin Martyr First Apology, Ch. 43
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.xliii.html


Here is what Irenaeus taught...

For He who makes the chaff and He who makes the wheat are not different persons, but one and the same, who judges them, that is, separates them. But the wheat and the chaff, being inanimate and irrational, have been made such by nature. But man, being endowed with reason, and in this respect like to God, having been made free in his will, and with power over himself, is himself the cause to himself, that sometimes he becomes wheat, and sometimes chaff. Wherefore also he shall be justly condemned, because, having been created a rational being, he lost the true rationality, and living irrationally, opposed the righteousness of God, giving himself over to every earthly spirit, and serving all lusts; as says the prophet, “Man, being in honour, did not understand: he was assimilated to senseless beasts, and made like to them.”

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4, Ch. 4, S. 3
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.v.html


Julian of Eclenum wrote this about Augustine and his followers...

“Those Manicheans (Julian refers to the non-Pelagians, whose chief theologian has become Augustine, as
Manicheans, a clear intimidation that he has sensed a carry over of Manichean thought from Augustine into the
Christian Church. Augustine was a Manichaean himself for about nine years) say with whom now we do not
communicate,—that is, the whole of them with whom we differ,—that by the sin of the first man, that is, of Adam, free
will perished: and that no one has now the power of living well, but that all are constrained into sin by the necessity of
their flesh.”

Julian of Eclenum, Letter to Rome (Edited By Rev. Daniel R. Jennings)
http://www.seanmultimedia.com/Pie_Julian_Eclanum_Letter_To_Rome.html


Here is what Augustine wrote...

Chapter 34 [XVII.]—The Special Calling of the Elect is Not Because They Have Believed, But in Order that They May Believe.
Let us, then, understand the calling whereby 515they become elected,—not those who are elected because they have believed, but who are elected that they may believe. For the Lord Himself also sufficiently explains this calling when He says, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.”3525 For if they had been elected because they had believed, they themselves would certainly have first chosen Him by believing in Him, so that they should deserve to be elected. But He takes away this supposition altogether when He says, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” And yet they themselves, beyond a doubt, chose Him when they believed on Him. Whence it is not for any other reason that He says, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,” than because they did not choose Him that He should choose them, but He chose them that they might choose Him; because His mercy preceded them according to grace, not according to debt. Therefore He chose them out of the world while He was wearing flesh, but as those who were already chosen in Himself before the foundation of the world. This is the changeless truth concerning predestination and grace. For what is it that the apostle says, “As He hath chosen us in Himself before the foundation of the world”? 3526 And assuredly, if this were said because God foreknew that they would believe, not because He Himself would make them believers, the Son is speaking against such a foreknowledge as that when He says, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you;” when God should rather have foreknown this very thing, that they themselves would have chosen Him, so that they might deserve to be chosen by Him. Therefore they were elected before the foundation of the world with that predestination in which God foreknew what He Himself would do; but they were elected out of the world with that calling whereby God fulfilled that which He predestinated. For whom He predestinated, them He also called, with that calling, to wit, which is according to the purpose. Not others, therefore, but those whom He predestinated, them He also called; nor others, but those whom He so called, them He also justified; nor others, but those whom He predestinated, called, and justified, them He also glorified; assuredly to that end which has no end. Therefore God elected believers; but He chose them that they might be so, not because they were already so.

Augustine, A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints, Ch. 34
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xxi.ii.xxxiv.html




The whole tragedy of Calvinism (and even the fallacies of Wesleyianism) is rooted in the error of Augustine.

Augustine used the Latin Vulgates mistranslation of this verse...

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (KJV)

Augustine read it as...

Rom 5:12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. (Latin Vulgate)
http://www.latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=1&b=6&c=5

That one error of "IN WHOM" in the Latin (instead of "for that" or "because all" in the Greek) was to Augustine the Bliblical prooftext he needed that supported the notion of dualism he had learned from his involvement with Neo-platonism and Manichaeism. Thus with that one error cemented in his mind he then was able to build his theology due to viewing the Scriptures through his FATALISTIC eye glasses.

A little leaven indeed leavens a whole lump. The heresy of Augustine is taught far and wide today and has so very many people deceived into believing that they can be in a justified state before God whilst still engaged in rebellion to God. It is a tragedy of epic proportions.

Do your homework folks. There is no excuse for ignorance because we can examine all this material FOR FREE online IN ENGLISH.

 

[Wormwood]

Well put ScottAU

 

[aspen]

Nice post Scott.

 

[jiggyfly]

Calvinism needs to add the gospel to it's theological construct - it is stuck in the OT message of God's sovereignty

Agreed, but many have a very limited (mis)understanding about the "good news".

 

[In Christ]

Hello ScottAU,

You've mentioned many names of theologians in your last post in which, one or two names I'm not familiar with. Their best works however are still tainted with sin, and therefore, not authoritative So is trying to get information on truths on online websites as you've suggested. We cannot look for truths "out there" (in the world) except in Scripture. The Bible is the ultimate authority if we are to look for truths.

The Bible is:

Written by God
Its own dictionary
Its own interpreter
Defines its own terms

I agree with BiggAndyy's statements which he posted early in this thread, and if I may I would like to add some scripture texts which he missed to mention.

"...and he calleth his own sheep by name..." John 10:3

"I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen..." John 13:18

"Ye have not chosen me but I have chosen you..." John 15:16

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

Calvinism is stuck within the confines of Augustine's fatalism not the OT message of God's soverignty.

God is indeed sovereign but the Reformed Theologian has a perverted view of soverienty. In their mind "God's sovereinty" = "Fatalism." In other words they cannot reconcile the issue that a God whom is sovereign can exist alongside man whom has free agency.

Both Martin Luther and John Calvin were adherrents to Augustinian theology. Thus they viewed that the sin of Adam corrupted the constitution of all Adam's descendents whereby sin itself had an essence which was passed on from father to child. Thus human beings did not sin by choice but as a result of their birth nature. Through this mindset the predestination of Romans 9 is then viewed as applying to individuals as opposed to applying to nations therefore the teaching of how God determined Israel to bring forth the Messiah is then misapplied to God determining who will be saved apart from any conditions having to be met on the part of man due to free agency. For example...





Augustine, A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book 2, Ch. 14

The Church fathers prior to Augustine taught that man had the full capacity to CHOOSE as to whether they would submit to God or not and thus the responsibility for their ruin was upon the individual. Augustine on the other hand taught FATALISM whereby the responsibility rested upon Adam and that all his descendents were born into ruin by necessity. Thus under Augustinian theology sin was necessitated by a "birth nature" instead of being a result of the "free exercise of the will." Those who would be saved were predestined to be saved according to God's grace within the context of how Augustine viewed Romans 9. John Calvin mirrored this in his institutes when he referred to the issue of non-elect babies suffering eternal death...

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Ch. 23
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.xxiv.html


Here is what Justin Martyr asserted...


Justin Martyr First Apology, Ch. 43
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.xliii.html


Here is what Irenaeus taught...


Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4, Ch. 4, S. 3
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.v.html


Julian of Eclenum wrote this about Augustine and his followers...

Julian of Eclenum, Letter to Rome (Edited By Rev. Daniel R. Jennings)
http://www.seanmultimedia.com/Pie_Julian_Eclanum_Letter_To_Rome.html


Here is what Augustine wrote...

Augustine, A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints, Ch. 34
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xxi.ii.xxxiv.html




The whole tragedy of Calvinism (and even the fallacies of Wesleyianism) is rooted in the error of Augustine.

Augustine used the Latin Vulgates mistranslation of this verse...

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (KJV)

Augustine read it as...

Rom 5:12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. (Latin Vulgate)
http://www.latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=1&b=6&c=5

That one error of "IN WHOM" in the Latin (instead of "for that" or "because all" in the Greek) was to Augustine the Bliblical prooftext he needed that supported the notion of dualism he had learned from his involvement with Neo-platonism and Manichaeism. Thus with that one error cemented in his mind he then was able to build his theology due to viewing the Scriptures through his FATALISTIC eye glasses.

A little leaven indeed leavens a whole lump. The heresy of Augustine is taught far and wide today and has so very many people deceived into believing that they can be in a justified state before God whilst still engaged in rebellion to God. It is a tragedy of epic proportions.

Do your homework folks. There is no excuse for ignorance because we can examine all this material FOR FREE online IN ENGLISH.

The silliest notion that you have put forward is that people like Calvin, would follow blindly and ignorantly what others say or do without challenging one-iota what they have said or done!

Has it not occurred to you that this gifted man used all he was given by God to ascertain the truth. Or at least an an approximation of the truth.

Don't you think it's highly likely that you're projecting your own ignorant and biased view on the man, because that's how you really are. Is it possible that you don't have the intellectual and spiritual gifts and are merely reciting or regurgitating someone else's thoughts on the matter, although you call it Holy Writ or the truth.

What are your credentials for speaking, against such individuals? :)

 

[ScottAU]

The silliest notion that you have put forward is that people like Calvin, would follow blindly and ignorantly what others say or do without challenging one-iota what they have said or done!

Has it not occurred to you that this gifted man used all he was given by God to ascertain the truth. Or at least an an approximation of the truth.

Don't you think it's highly likely that you're projecting your own ignorant and biased view on the man, because that's how you really are. Is it possible that you don't have the intellectual and spiritual gifts and are merely reciting or regurgitating someone else's thoughts on the matter, although you call it Holy Writ or the truth.

What are your credentials for speaking, against such individuals? :)

Was it the Spirit of truth that led John Calvin to support the burning alive of Michael Servetus [1]? Or was that a different spirit to the one he relied on for his doctrine?


As for my credentials. I don't have any but God has been good to me for I can read, write, think and I love the truth.



[1] The Story of Civilisation, Vol 6, Will Durant, Ch. 21. Michael Servetes p. 583-593
http://ganyuhlxx.com/tushu/book/book22/2009893371727.pdfex

extract (emphasis added):

Yet even in Calvin's day some voices spoke for Servetus. A Sicilian wrote a long poem, De iniusto Serveti incendio. David Joris of Basel, an Anabaptist, published a protest against the execution,
but under a pseudonymn; after his death his authorship was discovered; his body was exhumed and publicly burned (1566). The political opponents of Calvin naturally condemned his treatment of Servetus, and some of his friends deprecated the severity of the sentence as encouraging the Catholics of France to apply the death penalty to Huguenots. Such criticism must have been widespread, for in February 1554, Calvin issued a Defensio orthodoxaefidei de sacra Trinitate contra prodigiosos errores Michaelis Serveti. If, he argued, we believe in the inspiration of the Bible, then we know the truth, and all who oppose it are enemies and blasphemers of God. Since their offense is immeasurably greater than any other crime, the civil authority must punish heretics as worse than murderers; for murder merely kills the body, while heresy accepted damns the soul to\ everlasting hell. (This was precisely the Catholic position.) Moreover, God Himself has explicitly instructed us to kill heretics, to smite with the sword any city that abandons the worship of the true faith revealed by Him. Calvin quoted the ferocious decrees of Deut.13:5-15, 17:2-5; Exodus 22:20; and Lev. 24:16 , and argued from them with truly burning eloquence:
-
Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime.... There is no question here of man's authority; it is God Who speaks, and it is clear what law He would have kept in the Church even to the end of the world. Wherefore does He demand of us so extreme severity if not to show us that due honor is not paid Him so long as we set not His service above every human consideration, so that we spare not kin nor blood of any, a nd forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory. 062176

Hello ScottAU,

You've mentioned many names of theologians in your last post in which, one or two names I'm not familiar with. Their best works however are still tainted with sin, and therefore, not authoritative So is trying to get information on truths on online websites as you've suggested. We cannot look for truths "out there" (in the world) except in Scripture. The Bible is the ultimate authority if we are to look for truths.

The Bible is:

Written by God
Its own dictionary
Its own interpreter
Defines its own terms

I agree with BiggAndyy's statements which he posted early in this thread, and if I may I would like to add some scripture texts which he missed to mention.

"...and he calleth his own sheep by name..." John 10:3

"I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen..." John 13:18

"Ye have not chosen me but I have chosen you..." John 15:16

We ought not ignore history for it clearly reveals the gradual perversion of the doctrine of Christ.

What is commonly preached as the Gospel today has almost nothing in common with the Gospel that was preached in the first 200 years of the church. They preached a repentance where one forsook evil and walked in holiness. They preached the crucified life where one was dead to the world and alive for God and they did not tolerate ongoing sin. They didn't teach Original Sin or Penal Substitution. Trusting meant giving yourself completely over to God and thus entailed full obedience. They warned about deception and false teachers and refuted heresy.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/


Ante-Nicene Fathers – VOL I – IX: The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325
http://www.holybooks.com/ante-nicene-fathers-vol-i-ix/

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

Was it the Spirit of truth that led John Calvin to support the burning alive of Michael Servetus [1]? Or was that a different spirit to the one he relied on for his doctrine?

I'm the first to be personally appalled by Calvins involvement in such an ordeal. I'm not a bit suspicious of his marriage to the woman of the man he sanctioned death upon. However, thats my point of view and I'm not acquainted with Calvins motives. So he's left to God.

Having said that, I wasn't there when all this took place and what info we may have would still only read in black and white as being there is colour. So the time, circumstances, motives are not in real-time for us. So we are able to judge since were not involved, or so it may seem.

Many great men of God has done and said things that today is considered heresy or brings into question their salvation. But let me remind you, and all who read this the same accusations can be hurled against David in the OT.

Yet because we have a record of what God particularly thinks about him and his situation the problem is solved, or so it seems. Chaps like this(Calvin) don't have the benefit of such an accurate record and view as David in the bible. No, it's left up to sinful men, not under the direct control of his spirit when writing and these men consist of those who support him and those who oppose.

If King David was put on the WITNESS stand like you place Calvin, how do you think he might stand. Since we have so many 'righteous' judges like job's friends, who purport to speak on behalf of God, and wax lyrical when it comes to religious lingalee.

I think by the Grace of God go I. :)

 

[jiggyfly]

We ought not ignore history for it clearly reveals the gradual perversion of the doctrine of Christ.

I agree, but in some instances it has been much more than gradual, even the scriptures have been twisted through translations for centuries. We need to be more like the Bereans in Paul's day.

 

[ScottAU]

I'm the first to be personally appalled by Calvins involvement in such an ordeal. I'm not a bit suspicious of his marriage to the woman of the man he sanctioned death upon. However, thats my point of view and I'm not acquainted with Calvins motives. So he's left to God.

Having said that, I wasn't there when all this took place and what info we may have would still only read in black and white as being there is colour. So the time, circumstances, motives are not in real-time for us. So we are able to judge since were not involved, or so it may seem.

Many great men of God has done and said things that today is considered heresy or brings into question their salvation. But let me remind you, and all who read this the same accusations can be hurled against David in the OT.

Yet because we have a record of what God particularly thinks about him and his situation the problem is solved, or so it seems. Chaps like this(Calvin) don't have the benefit of such an accurate record and view as David in the bible. No, it's left up to sinful men, not under the direct control of his spirit when writing and these men consist of those who support him and those who oppose.

If King David was put on the WITNESS stand like you place Calvin, how do you think he might stand. Since we have so many 'righteous' judges like job's friends, who purport to speak on behalf of God, and wax lyrical when it comes to religious lingalee.

I think by the Grace of God go I. :)

There is a HUGE difference been John Calvin and David.

David understood this...

Psa 18:20 The LORD rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands hath he recompensed me.
Psa 18:21 For I have kept the ways of the LORD, and have not wickedly departed from my God.
Psa 18:22 For all his judgments were before me, and I did not put away his statutes from me.
Psa 18:23 I was also upright before him, and I kept myself from mine iniquity.
Psa 18:24 Therefore hath the LORD recompensed me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in his eyesight.
Psa 18:25 With the merciful thou wilt shew thyself merciful; with an upright man thou wilt shew thyself upright;
Psa 18:26 With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt shew thyself froward.

Psa 24:3 Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place?
Psa 24:4 He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.

Psa 32:1 A Psalm of David, Maschil. Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
Psa 32:2 Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.
Psa 32:3 When I kept silence, my bones waxed old through my roaring all the day long.
Psa 32:4 For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me: my moisture is turned into the drought of summer. Selah.
Psa 32:5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.
Psa 32:6 For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found: surely in the floods of great waters they shall not come nigh unto him.
Psa 32:7 Thou art my hiding place; thou shalt preserve me from trouble; thou shalt compass me about with songs of deliverance. Selah.
Psa 32:8 I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye.
Psa 32:9 Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding: whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest they come near unto thee.
Psa 32:10 Many sorrows shall be to the wicked: but he that trusteth in the LORD, mercy shall compass him about.
Psa 32:11 Be glad in the LORD, and rejoice, ye righteous: and shout for joy, all ye that are upright in heart.


David REPENTED and departed from his iniquity and stood before God without guile. David's heart was made clean by abiding in the Spirit of the Lord.

John Calvin taught the exact opposite...

First, I say, that the best thing which can be produced by them is always tainted and corrupted by the impurity of the flesh, and has, as it were, some mixture of dross in it. Let the holy servant of God, I say, select from the whole course of his life the action which he deems most excellent, and let him ponder it in all its parts; he will doubtless find in it something that savors of the rottenness of the flesh, since our alacrity in well-doing is never what it ought to be, but our course is always retarded by much weakness. Although we see theft the stains by which the works of the righteous are blemished, are by no means unapparent, still, granting that they are the minutest possible, will they give no offense to the eye of God, before which even the stars are not clean? We thus see, that even saints cannot perform one work which, if judged on its own merits, is not deserving of condemnation.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 2, Ch. 15, s. 9
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.xv.html


Thus according to John Calvin Abel's sacrifice to God was deserving of condemnation.

Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

John Calvin's great error was that he set his foundation upon Augustine's notion of Original Sin. Thereby in Calvin's mind the flesh itself necessitated corruption and inability which was only ever partially offset in this life by the grace of God. It was under this paradigm that John Calvin made no distinction between the "works of faith" and the "works of the law" for he put ALL WORKS in the one bundle, stuck the label of Eph 2:9 on it (not of works) and proceeded to throw the whole bundle out the window.

Thus, with man in a perpetual state of wickedness due to a natural inborn corruption, Calvin very easily assented to the notion that righteousness was PURELY forensic in nature hence...

For the righteousness of Christ (as it alone is perfect, so it alone can stand the scrutiny of God) must be sisted for us, and as a surety represent us judicially.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 2, Ch. 15, s. 12
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.xv.html

13. If these things are so, it is certain that our works cannot in themselves make us agreeable and acceptable to God, and even cannot please God, except in so far as being covered with the righteousness of Christ we thereby please him and obtain forgiveness of sins.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 2, Ch. 15, s. 13
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.xv.html

You have here the head and primary source—God has embraced us with free mercy. The next words are, “through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;” this is as it were the material 2086cause by which righteousness is procured for us. “Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith.” Faith is thus the instrumental cause by which righteousness is applied to us. He lastly subjoins the final cause when he says, “To declare at this time his righteousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” And to show by the way that this righteousness consists in reconciliation, he says that Christ was “set forth to be a propitiation.” Thus also, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, he tells us that we are received into the favor of God by mere mercy; that this is done by the intervention of Christ; that it is apprehended by faith; the end of all being that the glory of the divine goodness may be fully displayed. When we see that all the parts of our salvation thus exist without us, what ground can we have for glorying or confiding in our works? Neither as to the efficient nor the final cause can the most sworn enemies of divine grace raise any controversy with us unless they would abjure the whole of Scripture. In regard to the material or formal cause they make a gloss, as if they held that our works divide the merit with faith and the righteousness of Christ. But here also Scripture reclaims, simply affirming that Christ is both righteousness and life, and that the blessing of justification is possessed by faith alone.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 2, Ch. 15, s. 17
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.xv.html

Thus when John Calvin quotes Psalm 32 there is no conception in his mind as to how faith purifies the heart (Act 15:9) which is why his systematic theology omits "in whose spirit is no guile." Instead John Calvin is operating within a paradigm of the "righteousness of Christ" being forensically applied in a judicial manner by "faith alone."

Paul also removes every doubt, when in confirmation of this sentiment he quotes the words of David, “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered 2082,” (Ps. 32:1). It is certain that David is not speaking of the ungodly but of believers such as he himself was, because he was giving utterance to the feelings of his own mind. Therefore we must have this blessedness not once only, but must hold it fast during our whole lives. Moreover, the message of free reconciliation with God is not promulgated for one or two days, but is declared to be perpetual in the Church (2 Cor. 5:18, 19). Hence believers have not even to the end of life any other righteousness than that which is there described.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 2, Ch. 15, s. 17
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.xv.html


Now one is free to buy into the delusion of John Calvin if they want to, but to those who do I think it would be prudent to ask oneself why is it that John Calvin makes no mention whatsoever that it is by a "faith the works by love" that a man is justified. Not the works of the law but a FAITH THAT WORKS BY LOVE.

Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
Gal 5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Paul is so clear in teaching that "salvation by grace through faith" (Eph 2:8) whereby we "have the hope of righteousness" is hinged upon "faith working by love."

John Calvin just could not conceive that the truly righteous IN Christ have had the love of God shed abroad in the hearts (Rom 5:5) by the Spirit of God whereby we have been renewed (Psa 51:10, Act 3:19) and thus the works we do from thence are DONE IN FAITH. Thus the just live by faith (Hab 2:4) wherein the righteousness of God is revealed (Rom 1:17).

John Calvin could not grasp that due to buying into gnostic philosophy of the heretic Augustine. Today we have so many who buy into the heresy of John Calvin and thus do not get it either.

It is a tragedy of epic proportions.

There simply is no "righteousness of Christ" being imputed as a "sin cloak" that overs over the ongoing "depravity of man." It is a myth. It is a hoax. It is a satanic deception.


Jesus Christ came to redeem us from ALL INIQUITY and to make us PURE IN HEART. The vast majority of theology taught today is in total opposition to that premise and thus the vast majority of professing Christian's are workers of iniquity and will be rejected at the judgment.

DON'T BE ONE OF THEM!

Jesus warned us in the strongest possible way. Jesus is speaking of PROFESSING CHRISTIANS.

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

We must be DOERS of the word and it is by DOING that we are made clean. We approach God through repentance and faith whereby we able to yield/abide/walk according to His instruction by the Spirit and in doing we are cleansed of all sin by the blood of Jesus Christ. There is NO INWARD DEFILEMENT in a genuine Christian. NONE! All this false doctrine when examined closely is a theological dressing for ongoing filthiness.




So it is no wonder that John Calvin promoted the persecution of those in opposition of what he taught. John Calvin rested in a forensic imputation of a foreign righteousness instead of abiding in the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ whereby true purity is found. History testifies as to whom John Calvin served and it was not the God of the Bible.

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

There is a HUGE difference been John Calvin and David.

There's no difference between each man. Both were sinners and their behavior has been recorded for all and sundry. As to their salvation you or I are not privileged to look deep into their hearts so are not qualified to judge. You would be better of if you invested your energy in the teaching of Holiness and Godliness and leave the judgement(condemnation) of men to GOD.

Even if there are discrepancies in his teaching and I might add in all of us, then are you willing to apply the same judgement to yourself as you have to Calvin? It may be easy to say you will, but in all reality you won't. Why, because maybe like him and many others you can't but be right, right?

In regards to so-called gnosticism in reformed theology, I have this to say. Over the decades that I've been a Christian a increasing awareness of gnostic belief and behavior in the dispensationalist camp has been increasingly confirmed. You might be surprised at those who may agree with me from said position on the scriptures, are practicing gnostics themselves.

Comingly I have found the mind of the dispensationalist says one thing but their heart and behavior is different. Self imposed blindness I call it. So if the finger is going to be pointed at reformed theology, just remember there are four other fingers pointing back at the dispensationalist.

Moreover, I have found in the dispensationalist camp a desire and practice for worldly philosophy (vain philosophy), to answer their religious culumdrums as they cherry pick the scripture's. This isn't the average dispensationalist christians fault as much as their teachers, who're complete ignoramus. (Clouds without rain) comes to mind.

Truly I think the dispensationalist heart has not caught up with their head, hence the many contradictions in life and word. It's sad but I think many arrest the scripture to their own hurt. I'm sure marcian sincerely believed he was right, but we know he wasn't and I liken dispensationalism along the lines of this heretic, as it has much in common.

In the words of Jesus: If thy light is darkness then how great is that darkness. For surely the eye of the dispensationalist cannot be be single as they mix & match much of what isn't of faith with their faith.

Good luck with that, you'll need it. :)

 

[Wormwood]

ScottAU,

I appreciated your post on Augustine's understanding of the Latin text and how that shaped his theology.

However, as to the rest of your statements about penal substitution and your leanings toward Pelagianism, I will have to back away. The early Christians didn't teach the Trinity either, but that doesn't make it an unscriptural notion. It is one thing to show why someone had a misunderstanding of a biblical text, but it is another thing to suggest any doctrinal emphasis not spelled out in the first or second century is heretical.

Calvinists and Arminians are not evil people who are perpetuating heresy. They are Christians with very different views on certain aspects of Scripture. Why cant we discuss these topics like Christians and avoid the comments about heretics and false teaching? Sigh.

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

Calvinists and Arminians are not evil people who are deliberately perpetuating heresy. They are Christians with very different views on certain aspects of Scripture. Why cant we discuss these topics like Christians and avoid the comments about heretics and false teaching? Sigh.

Agree! You and others who serve the Lord Jesus Christ, will have to pardon my indignant but truthful response to scottie tissues. SHALOM :)

 

[ScottAU]

There's no difference between each man. Both were sinners and their behavior has been recorded for all and sundry. As to their salvation you or I are not privileged to look deep into their hearts so are not qualified to judge. You would be better of if you invested your energy in the teaching of Holiness and Godliness and leave the judgement(condemnation) of men to GOD.

Even if there are discrepancies in his teaching and I might add in all of us, then are you willing to apply the same judgement to yourself as you have to Calvin? It may be easy to say you will, but in all reality you won't. Why, because maybe like him and many others you can't but be right, right?

In regards to so-called gnosticism in reformed theology, I have this to say. Over the decades that I've been a Christian a increasing awareness of gnostic belief and behavior in the dispensationalist camp has been increasingly confirmed. You might be surprised at those who may agree with me from said position on the scriptures, are practicing gnostics themselves.

Comingly I have found the mind of the dispensationalist says one thing but their heart and behavior is different. Self imposed blindness I call it. So if the finger is going to be pointed at reformed theology, just remember there are four other fingers pointing back at the dispensationalist.

Moreover, I have found in the dispensationalist camp a desire and practice for worldly philosophy (vain philosophy), to answer their religious culumdrums as they cherry pick the scripture's. This isn't the average dispensationalist christians fault as much as their teachers, who're complete ignoramus. (Clouds without rain) comes to mind.

Truly I think the dispensationalist heart has not caught up with their head, hence the many contradictions in life and word. It's sad but I think many arrest the scripture to their own hurt. I'm sure marcian sincerely believed he was right, but we know he wasn't and I liken dispensationalism along the lines of this heretic, as it has much in common.

In the words of Jesus: If thy light is darkness then how great is that darkness. For surely the eye of the dispensationalist cannot be be single as they mix & match much of what isn't of faith with their faith.

Good luck with that, you'll need it. :)

Ahh but here is the difference.

David did not teach a doctrine whereby one could be in a justified state whilst engaged in rebellion to God.

John Calvin did.

That is the difference multitudes of people do not want to consider and due to the notion that one can be manifestly evil and yet positionally pure one can dismiss the conduct of John Calvin or anyone else for it has been deemed irrelevant.

ScottAU,

I appreciated your post on Augustine's understanding of the Latin text and how that shaped his theology.

However, as to the rest of your statements about penal substitution and your leanings toward Pelagianism, I will have to back away. The early Christians didn't teach the Trinity either, but that doesn't make it an unscriptural notion. It is one thing to show why someone had a misunderstanding of a biblical text, but it is another thing to suggest any doctrinal emphasis not spelled out in the first or second century is heretical.

Calvinists and Arminians are not evil people who are perpetuating heresy. They are Christians with very different views on certain aspects of Scripture. Why cant we discuss these topics like Christians and avoid the comments about heretics and false teaching? Sigh.

Yet the doctrine of the Trinity doesn't necessitate a conclusion that salvation is a POSITIONAL JUDICIAL CLOAK for an ongoing state of MANIFEST WICKEDNESS.

Penal Substitution does exactly that.


Both Original Sin and Penal Substitution are free floating doctrines which have been cut off from their origin and thus float freely in the minds of those who believe them. As far as many are concerned the history of these doctrines as well as their logical inconsistencies is something to be disgarded because such things are an unsettling intrusion into something already deemed acceptable and comfortable.

Those who uphold evolution as an explanation for the development of life on earth via gradual change from a common ancestor do EXACTLY the same thing.



Jer 4:14 O Jerusalem, wash thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved. How long shall thy vain thoughts lodge within thee?

 

[Wormwood]

I think I have told you 100 times that Penal Substitution is not an excuse for continuing in evil behavior. You need to get your facts straight. Wesley believed so strongly in penal substitution and satisfaction that he doubted one could be a Christian without believing it. Yet he also adamantly taught that a life of holiness was essential for salvation. Maybe in your brain this cant fit together, but assume for a moment that some of Christendom's brightest minds saw no conflict here because their really is none. Maybe?

 

[ScottAU]

I think I have told you 100 times that Penal Substitution is not an excuse for continuing in evil behavior. You need to get your facts straight. Wesley believed so strongly in penal substitution and satisfaction that he doubted one could be a Christian without believing it. Yet he also adamantly taught that a life of holiness was essential for salvation. Maybe in your brain this cant fit together, but assume for a moment that some of Christendom's brightest minds saw no conflict here because their really is none. Maybe?

Many of evolutionists brightest minds ignore the fact that in nature there are no beneficial mutations which lead to an increase of information. The observable fact there is not a single example of a beneifial mutation which leads to an increase of information is absolute concluslive proof that the theory of evolution is fallacious. It completely irrelevant as to how many people believe it or the credentials of such people. A simple truth is able to undermine a massive lie.

Likewise overthrusts in sedimentary rock completely undermine (prove wrong) the geological column as represented by evolutionists. Fancy explanations, misdirection, and appeals to authority are all used as a means to ignore the elephant in the room.

It is no different with Penal Substitution.

One of the premises of Penal Substitution is that an individuals sins must be punished by a Holy God. Penal Substitution teaches that Jesus took upon Himself the sins of others and then sttod condemned in their place and was then punished in their place. The sins were punished not forgiven.

Penal Substitution undermines the notion that God forgives sins. There is no possible way to get around this simple truth. One can be like an evolutionist and ignore it and turn their focus on other data whereby they try and establish the soundness of what they believe but the elephant in the room remains.

If one believe in Penal Substitution then one cannot believe God forgives sins.




The reason Penal Substitution is by NECESSITY an excuse for ongoing wickedness if because the doctrine presents the basis of justification as a forensic judicial book keeping entry.

Thus under Penal Substitution one can preach holiness or that evil behaviour cannot continue all they want but the issue of the FORENSIC CLOAK for ONGOING INIQUITY remains.


When the Bible speaks of the blood of Christ it specifically states that it PURGES THE CONSCIENCE (Heb 9:14). The Bible also states that it is by the blood that we approach God with a true heart whereby we are then washed clean (Heb 10:17-22). I have notices that where Penal Substitition is taught the "purging of the conscience" is usually competely omitted. Why? Because under a judicial legal exchnage being the basis of justification the purging of the conscience is no longer necessary. Satan has pulled a bait and swtich deception and very few want to face the truth that they have been fooled.

The Bible says NOTHING of a forensic judicial exchange ANYWHERE. It is not implied in the Old Testament and it is not taught in the New Testament.

Penal Substitution is a 400 year old doctrine which was invented by the reformers. That is a historical fact. it was NEVER taught before then.

The sin offering of Jesus Christ being an "appeasement offering" is very different to it being a "subtitutionary legal exchange."

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

The Bible says NOTHING of a forensic judicial exchange ANYWHERE. It is not implied in the Old Testament and it is not taught in the New Testament.

An exchange between two parties is the very nature of a blood covenant. The new covenant is a blood covenant. The root of the Greek word translated reconciliation (as well as the word itself) means exchange (see below). Man is reconciled to GOD through an exchange via the blood covenant, i.e., the everlasting covenant that was cut between GOD and Israel in Christ's blood. Christ became sin. Sin was judged on the cross. We become the righteousness of GOD in Christ. It's not that hard to figure out.

Reconciliation
G2643 καταλλαγή katallage
1. an exchange
[from G2644]

G2644 καταλλάσσω katallasso
1. to change mutually
[from G2596 and G236]

G236 ἀλλάσσω allasso
1. to change, transform, make different
[from G243]

G243 ἄλλος allos
1. "else," i.e. different
[a primary word]