The Institutes Book 1, Chapter 14

The Institutes of the Christian Religion ^ | 1500's | John Calvin

[Jean Chauvin]

A simple "Yes" would do, x.

You were utilizing that passage, I think, in an attempt to show Biblical support for "Free-Willism".

However, Calvinism also testifies that the individual "receives" Christ. That is not something that is exclusive to Arminianism.

The problem I was showing you was that this passage only shows what happens to an individual in the event that that individual "receives" Christ.

The problem for you is that this passage does not speak to or inform us of just ~HOW~ one "receives" Christ. It simply and only tells us that those who "received" were given the power to become the sons of God.

Therefore, in the attempt to support the "Free-Will" philosophical paradigm, you are once again guilty of an eisegetical interpretation of a Biblical passage.

Jean

[Jean Chauvin]

"Which comes first, receive or believe?"

Irrelevant to my point.

Jean

[Cvengr]

The link still works. If having difficulty, run a Google search on hypostatic union and Calvin,..that brought up the web site. Upon closer inspection though, I find it to be dubious at best. lookup the Conv. with Calvin by Whitehead or Duckworth at the bottom of the page.

I had never heard of Swedenborg before, but the more I read, the Rev George Bush of 1830s apparantly studied the New Church of Jerusalem theology quite a bit, but I also see it is associated with Mesmer, so I tend to lump it with New Age occultic stuff, yet I'm surprised by the early date associated with the studies.

Had you ever heard of them? I don't respect them initially, but it's the first I had bumped into it.

[drstevej]

Yep, Emmanuel Swedenborg is a fruitcake.

[Cvengr]

Source was
http://www.theheavenlydoctrines.org/static/d6991/2.htm

I referenced the index page. I was trying to verify the sources when it bumped into the Rev George Bush link.

Ever hear of this group? Swedenborg/New Church

Their statement of faith is explained a bit here

http://www.theheavenlydoctrines.org/doctover.htm

Interesting study in discernment.

[Cvengr]

But on what position?

[Cvengr]

Calvinism holds steadfast to the Biblical truth that one must first be "Born Again" in order to even see the Kingdom of Heaven.Is the Great White Judgment Seat held in the Kingdom of heaven or elsewhere?

[Cvengr]

Sorry for the poor formatting,......I must be reading too many posts from the Institutes!

[drstevej]

Swedenborgianism

Definition: Founded by Emmanuel Swedenborg (1688-1771), Swedenborgianism was an important vehicle for the transmission of paranormal and occult beliefs in America during the 19th century. Swedenborg would probably today still be famous for his scientific accomplishments if it had not been for his abandoning science in favor of mysticism. Among his early discoveries were the functioning of the brain's pituitary gland and he even created plans for a submarine.

Swedenborg followed a Platonic philosophy of idealism in which the spiritual realm was more "real" than the physical world. There, is, however, a corresondence between everything in the spiritual and physical realms - he called this his "law of correspondences". Thus, when a person dies, they travel to some spiritual level which corresponds to whatever level of moral development they achieved while alive. The goal of life, then, is to simply reach as high of a moral level as possible. These beliefs were later adopted by most New Age philosophies.

After his death, followers created the Church of New Jerusalem around his teachings, even though while alive he professed that he didn't want to found a new religion. Today we can find Swedenborgian congregations all around the world and his writings have been translated into many languages

[xzins]

I did say "yes" regarding its interpretation under a calvinist paradigm.

However, the nature of the word "receive" makes me wonder if its meaning isn't more purely preserved in a paradigm wherein one must "choose."

"Irresistible receiving" and "simple receiving" really are different. The definition of receive it seems to me is to permit someone to enter, or to welcome them to enter as in a "receiving room."

I don't think it's eisegetical at all. It operates under a more pure definition of "receive."

The bottom line is really this, Jean. We have 2 contenders for the understanding of salvation.

1. The person is moved all the way through regeneration by a specific act of God.

2. The person is enlightened by God and expected to make a choice to believe.

3. Little elves carry ideas in the shape of little lincoln logs into the person's brain and construct their doctrines into a salvation house.

The real issue is which seems to align better with scripture.

[Jean Chauvin]

"I don't think it's eisegetical at all. It operates under a more pure definition of "receive."

The bottom line is really this, Jean. We have 2 contenders for the understanding of salvation.

1. The person is moved all the way through regeneration by a specific act of God.

2. The person is enlightened by God and expected to make a choice to believe.

3. Little elves carry ideas in the shape of little lincoln logs into the person's brain and construct their doctrines into a salvation house.

The real issue is which seems to align better with scripture."

Then maybe it would help if you posted more of the passage you quoted:

John 1
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

x, the "will" is not the impetus. Salvation is ~ALL~ of God!

Jean

[xzins]

Jean, that is why there are 2 major contenders for the prize. I'm not going to write on this board that calvinism does not have its point.

Nor would I say that arminianism does not have its point.

To your credit, the verse "nor of the will of...man...but of God..." does provide some support for your position.

You must admit, though, that the arminians will be able to fit that scripture within their paradigm. They will emphasize the ordo: (1) received (choice) and then (2) "He gave power to BECOME..."

They will say that the choice inititates the "regeneration" and that that miraculous working of power is all of God.

That is what makes this an enduring controversy. There seems to be no verse that each camp cannot fit within their paradigm.

I'll be honest, though, I'm leaning strongly toward a syncretism of DrSteveJ's "unlimited atonement" and P-Marlowe's "God in eternity and outside of time."

The predestination issue no longer concerns me because there is little difference in the culpability that arises from a preplanned predestination and a foreknowledge-based predestination. You must see that if you accept any variety of "predestining" that you necessarily are going to affect the issue of "irresistibility" of the call. One is a preplanned irresistibility and the other a certainty-based irresistibility, but nonetheless, you have an element of irresistibility there.

I am clearly no longer any kind of pure arminian if they'd accept me as an arminian at all.

[Jean Chauvin]

"You must admit, though, that the arminians will be able to fit that scripture within their paradigm. They will emphasize the ordo: (1) received (choice) and then (2) "He gave power to BECOME..." "

No I don't admit that. I have already pointed out to you that "received" does not mean "choice". That is not the point of the passage.

Furthermore, as I have also pointed out, the very next verse tells us that this has nothing to do with the "will" of the man.

For you to understand "received" as "choice" is pure eisegesis.

All we need to do is look at several of the other passages where John uses the term "recieved" (Lambono):

John 3
27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

"A man can [choose] nothing except it be given him from heaven."??? I don't think so.

Joh 3
32 And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony.

"...no man [chooseth] his testimony"??? I don't think so.

John 4
36 And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together.

"And he that reapeth [chooseth] wages..."??? I don't think so.

John 5
41 I receive not honour from men.

"I [choose] not honour from men."??? I don't think so.

John 19
30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

"When Jesus therefore had [chosen] the vinegar..."??? I don't think so.

John 20
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

"...and saith unto them, [Choose] ye the Holy Ghost:"??? I don't think so.

It seems, xzins, rather than understanding "recieved" to be defined as "choose", that you instead want to add the words "choose to" in front of "received" in John 1:12.

Your rendering then would be:

John 1
12 But as many as [chose to] receive him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

The problem is that there is no foundation to do so other than your eisegetical intentions.

Jean

[drstevej]

Read Jean's post carefully and take another giant step toward Calvinism. It's predestined.

[xzins]

Jean, you're simply wrong about the definition of the word receive. It is a word that implies volition. As I've already said, "The definition of receive it seems to me is to permit someone to enter, or to welcome them to enter as in a "receiving room."


You're also simply wrong about whether arminians can fit this neatly and completely into their paradigm. They can. Fight against it all you want. They just can.

This is my 3rd and final post on this subject. Feel free to have the final word. We're just at the point of repeating ourselves.

[drstevej]

You are wrong about receive. It may involve volition or it may not. That point is irrelevant to the meaning. The root meaning is that something is transfered to you.

Xzins, you will RECEIVE thirty lashes for your error, whether you want them or not!

:-)

[Jean Chauvin]

"Jean, you're simply wrong about the definition of the word receive. It is a word that implies volition."

The Fighting Illini received a beating from the Wolverines last Saturday. Are you suggesting that the Fighting Illini chose to be defeated so badly?

Or is it more accurate to say that they received this beating against their desires?

When I was a youngster, I received spankings from my parents. Are you suggesting that I chose to be spanked?

Or is it more accurate to say that I received a spanking against my desires?

I also, on numerous occasions, have received germs which have caused me to become sick. Are you suggesting that I chose those germs?

Or is it more accurate to say that I received these germs against my desires?

Jean

[xzins]

The word receive means "permit entrance." It's volitional. It's invitational.

There is no scripture mentioned by Jean Chauvin that can't be fit into an arminian paradigm.

Those kind of arguments simply are not what has turned my head on this subject. It is the issue of predestination and time.

[drstevej]

Make that fourty lashes RECEIVED.

***Those kind of arguments simply are not what has turned my head on this subject. It is the issue of predestination and time.***

Keep turning, you're not done yet.

[RnMomof7]

My two cents. Not official

God created Satan good .(and the army to follow him in rebellion)

In order to give men or people a "free will" they had to have something to choose. If I imprison you and only give you green jello to eat every day, your free will is useless.

So God created rebellion and sin (same thing) as potential choices that free will would have real meaning and choice would be a real choice .

Before God ever created the ability to exercise the choices , God knew what the choices would be under certain circumstances.

God in that way foreordained the fall of Satan and man.

But we must remember that as all things were perfect at creation it was a perfect free will that made the choices (unlike our bound will). Yet even today man is not "forced " to sin, it is a choice man makes. God does not force men to sin, neither does He restrain any man from coming to Him

I think we need to remember that man is not the center of creation. The purpose of creation is to glorify God. We have a hard time understanding that the fall glorifies God' righteousness and holiness and justice and mercy.

Without the fall We would not know them or praise God for them.