Posted on 02/28/2010 8:30:39 AM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
John Calvin's 16th century reply to medieval Catholicism's buy-your-way-out-of-purgatory excesses is Evangelicalism's latest success story, complete with an utterly sovereign and micromanaging deity, sinful and puny humanity, and the combination's logical consequence, predestination: the belief that before time's dawn, God decided whom he would save (or not), unaffected by any subsequent human action or decision.
Calvinism, cousin to the Reformation's other pillar, Lutheranism, is a bit less dour than its critics claim: it offers a rock-steady deity who orchestrates absolutely everything, including illness (or home foreclosure!), by a logic we may not understand but don't have to second-guess. Our satisfaction — and our purpose — is fulfilled simply by "glorifying" him. In the 1700s, Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards invested Calvinism with a rapturous near mysticism. Yet it was soon overtaken in the U.S. by movements like Methodism that were more impressed with human will. Calvinist-descended liberal bodies like the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) discovered other emphases, while Evangelicalism's loss of appetite for rigid doctrine — and the triumph of that friendly, fuzzy Jesus — seemed to relegate hard-core Reformed preaching (Reformed operates as a loose synonym for Calvinist) to a few crotchety Southern churches.
No more. Neo-Calvinist ministers and authors don't operate quite on a Rick Warren scale. But, notes Ted Olsen, a managing editor at Christianity Today, "everyone knows where the energy and the passion are in the Evangelical world" — with the pioneering new-Calvinist John Piper of Minneapolis, Seattle's pugnacious Mark Driscoll and Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Seminary of the huge Southern Baptist Convention. The Calvinist-flavored ESV Study Bible sold out its first printing, and Reformed blogs like Between Two Worlds are among cyber-Christendom's hottest links.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Hmmmmmm . . .
Evidently this story is where that admonition came from way back on that other expunged thread ??
I think that response pretty much answers the question.
Thanks.
Because I was and because I am baptized as such for what it's worth. One day I asked my self "what is God" and realized that I had no clue what I believed it. Do you? Honestly, I don't know what God is. That's not the same as denying him. I am also not dissuading anyone to believe. I just ask the question.
I’m inclined to believe your self-report.
I have no great reason to disblieve it wholesale.
However, it DOES PERSISTENTLY APPEAR that you are not all that consistent with your own precepts
nor all that honest with yourself.
You persistently appear to base your convictions and perspectives on
. . . essentially . . .
chaos.
And then to exact the most prissy of rigid pseudo-logical pontifications and pseudo-super-rationalist pretend-scientific house of cards built on that chaos.
And, then, to more or less rail at others for not subscribing to and submitting to your arbitrarily narrow and rigid application of your arbitrary definitions of “logical” and “evidence.”
I don’t think it takes more than an arm’s length perspective to see that as grossly contradictory, absurd to the max and horrifically inconsistent—as well as out of touch with the realities most of us hereon take as foundationally solid and REAL.
I keep asking myself . . . what is God perceived to have done or not done that was so horrible that the result was this convoluted hodge-podge of rationalized avoidance???
Whence cometh this seemingly haughty, super-lofty perspective that acts so freely authoritative and justified in taking God to task for running things contrary to the holder of the perspective’s sensibilities?
In my experience, pseudo-super-rationalists tend to be chronically, bone-marrowly angry at the God they deny the existence of
and/or
reared in such a way that they end up having monumental chips on their shoulders egging them on to jousting with God as though they were God’s equals.
I’ve read your protestations to the contrary . . . about how benignly wonderful you are in ‘REAL LIFE’ etc.
Yet the evidence on our screens seems to be all on the other side, in terms of the above observations.
At least, occasionally, it is mildly interesting.
But to believe they presented EVIDENCE of personal eyewitnesses. Paul in 1 Cor was basically telling them that if you don't believe me, there are hundreds of other witnesses. Furthermore the strength of Paul's statment (remember written no more than 30 years after the event) that IF Jesus had not risen - then EVERYTHING was in vain. 30 years is TOO short a period to develope a 'legend', that is less than one generation.
While the gospels may have a evangelistic component - you'll have to do better than that as far as DISPROVING the facts on that account. Otherwise you accuse the writers and the rest of the Apostles of lying - hardly the moral standard Jesus taught them.
The '500' are allegations made by Paul without any reference of corroboration. No other author (all of whom write after Paul) mentions it. But you will say it's an argument from silence.
Arguement within context - no other passage is a full out presentation of the resurrection. Where else is this level of presentation needed within the NT? Paul also speaks as he knows most of them.
The 1917 Fatima "miracle"
Is ONE event with an entirely different context from the resurrection encounters. Paul list the appearances to the disciples, himself, James the brother of Jesus, the gospels record the appearances to the women, the believers on the road to Emmaus, and finally Jesus' appearance to Paul. Each was situated in a different context and location.
Here is an expert opinion on group hallucinations
"The same hallucination may be experienced by two or more persons. If the event is entirely subjective, as all hallucinations are, how do two or 200 people manage to coordinate and synchronize their subjective lives? Recall our discussion of the role of expectation and misperception in the preceding chapter. It is expectation that plays the coordinating role in collective hallucination. Although the subject matter of individual hallucinations has virtually no limits, the topics of collective hallucinations are limited to certain categories. These categories are determined, first, by the kinds of ideas that a group of people may get excited about as a group, for emotional excitement is a prerequisite of collective hallucinations. The most common causes of emotional excitement in groups are religious, and, indeed, phenomena related to religion are most often the subject of collective hallucinations. Second, the categories are limited by the fact that all participants in the hallucination must be informed beforehand, at least concerning the broad outlines of the phenomenon that will constitute the collective hallucination. This may take the form of a publicly announced prophecy, for example, or someone suddenly looking up and saying, "Lo, in the sky!" or words to that effect. Things in the sky, or at least overhead, are the most commonly seen collective hallucinations: radiant crosses, saints, religious symbols, flying objects, sometimes all these in combination. Once the general type of hallucination is established, it is easy to harmonize individual differences in the accounts. This may take place during the hallucination or in subsequent conversations. "(Zusne & Jones 1982; "Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Extraordinary Phenomena of Behavior and Experience", 135, emphasis added])
Catagorically, from the above three things are needed to produce 'mass' hallucinations.
1) expectation,
2) emotional excitement, and
3) being informed beforehand are factors that must be present for a collective hallucination to take place.
Gospel narratives show clearly that the Disciples and followers were NOT expecting a resurrected Jesus (John 20:9; Matt 16:21; Mark 9:9; Mark 9:31; Luke 18:33)
Their excitement (if you could call it that) was directed away from a resurrection, not in looking forward to it.
The factors were not laid out before hand, as seen in #1 above,they NEITHER understood NOR expected the resurrection, and couldn't initially process what had occured.
Visions (especially in a state of trance) are mentioned in the Bible and are treated as "real" phenomena.
A 'vision' has not tactile component. In the account by the women, the travelers to Emmaus, and the appearance to the Disciples - tactile evidence is present - the women were able to 'hold' onto Jesus, the travelers to Emmaus spoke for hours and saw Jesus pick up real bread and break it, to the disciples he had them touch Him, and ate.
Because of that they probably came to believe that Jesus did resurrect. And when two or more confessed to similar 'visions' they became convinced that they all saw real resurrected Jesus.
Does not track with the gospels, who record other incidents such as Jesus cooking by the lake - those were real fish the diciples ate at that time, or later history kosta. James the brother of Jesus would not have accepted that as he was opposed to Jesus.
Same with Paul, who was actively seeking Christians to persecute. If there was no resurrection, the Jewish leadership could have produced the body - and ended ALL questions then. They didn't and is tacit approval of the tomb being empty, and as Jewish sources, they would be very unlikely to even concieve of a resurrection as the cause - so the early polemics make up an excuse for the empty tomb.
VERY WELL PUT.
THX.
Not on purpose perhaps, but clearly you are sowing seeds of doubt.
What is your goal in posting here?
Is it merely to state your opinion or is it to encourage others to think like you; to doubt everything and believe nothing?
Kosta, Galatians is viewed as Paul's earliest letter, and Gal 1:1 mentions the resurrection from the dead.
From the end of chapter 5 through the end of 6, Paul references crucifixion, death, and new life throughout.
He died to the world that he might live to Christ.
Death, burial, resurrection.
The empty tomb with the stone rolled away was a witness to the rest of the world.
INDEED.
Or is there some Mensa headband that gets notches for such things?
Or maybe the smugness chips get higher with gold gilding on such shoulders.
It is also a literal fulfillment of Isaiah 8:14f cf Ro 9:33
And of course, the prophecy that he'd be buried in a rich man's tomb. (Is 53)
Lazarus' tomb also had a stone. It was a practical thing given the cave-like nature of tombs.
Jesus' stone, of course, was sealed by Pilate against entry by official proclamation.
Probably not much good at all. As Calvin said, if God has not given a man ears to hear and eyes to see, then the words of Scripture are just ink on a page and not "spirit and life."
But do you know what's in a man's heart? I don't. And I don't know what will be in his heart tomorrow, either. So we are commanded to preach to all men, while remaining confident that those men in whom the word becomes more than ink will, at a time of God's choosing, repent, obey, believe and confidently know their salvation has been won for them by Christ risen from the cross.
"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." -- Isaiah 55:11
I was simply inquiring into the Calvinist theology, not biblical veracity.
One and the same. Scripture is the truth; Calvinism is a systematic understanding of that truth.
Tangential to this is the reason why I admire Calvin. As B.B. Warfield wrote in his great essay, JOHN CALVIN THE THEOLOGICAN, Calvin understood the work and purpose of the Holy Spirit, particularly in making the words of God come alive in us.
It has been common to say that Calvin's entire theological work may be summed up in this--that he emancipated the soul from the tyranny of human authority and delivered it from the uncertainties of human intermediation in religious things: that he brought the soul into the immediate presence of God and cast it for its spiritual health upon the free grace of God alone. Where the Romanist placed the Church, it is said, Calvin set the Deity. The saying is true, and perhaps, when rightly understood and filled with its appropriate content, it may sufficiently characterise the effect of his theological teaching. But it is expressed too generally to be adequate. What Calvin did was, specifically, to replace the doctrine of the Church as sole source of assured knowledge of God and sole institute of salvation, by the Holy Spirit. Previously, men had looked to the Church for all the trustworthy knowledge of God obtainable, and as well for all the communications of grace accessible. Calvin taught them that neither function has been committed to the Church, but God the Holy Spirit has retained both in His own hands and confers both knowledge of God and communion with God on whom He will..." Now of course, a theology which commits everything to the operations of that Spirit of God who "worketh when and where and how He pleases," hangs everything on the sovereign good pleasure of God. Calvin's theology is therefore, predestination to the core, and he does not fail, in faithfulness to the teachings of Scripture and with clear-eyed systematizing genius, to develop its predestinarianism with fullness and with emphasis; to see in all that comes to pass the will of God fulfilling itself, and to vindicate to God the glory that is His due as the Lord and disposer of all things. But this is not the peculiarity of his theology. Augustine had taught all this a thousand years before him. Luther and Zwingli and Martin Butzer, his own teacher in these high mysteries, were teaching it all while he was learning it. The whole body of the leaders of the Reformation movement were teaching it along with him. What is special to himself is the clearness and emphasis of his reference of all that God brings to pass, especially in the processes of the new creation, to God the Holy Spirit, and the development from this point of view of a rich and full doctrine of the work of the Holy Spirit...""...It is probable however that Calvin's greatest contribution to theological science lies in the rich development which he gives--and which he was the first to give--to the doctrine of the work of the Holy Spirit. No doubt, from the origin of Christianity, everyone who has been even slightly imbued with the Christian spirit has believed in the Holy Spirit as the author and giver of life, and has attributed all that is good in the world, and particularly in himself, to His holy offices. And, of course, in treating of grace, Augustine worked out the doctrine of salvation as a subjective experience with great vividness and in great detail, and the whole course of this salvation was fully understood, no doubt, to be the work of the Holy Spirit. But in the same sense in which we may say that the doctrine of sin and grace dates from Augustine, the doctrine of satisfaction from Anselm, the doctrine of justification by faith from Luther,--we must say that the doctrine of the work of the Holy Spirit is a gift from Calvin to the Church. It was he who first related the whole experience of salvation specifically to the working of the Holy Spirit, worked it out into its details, and contemplated its several steps and stages in orderly progress as the product of the Holy Spirit's specific work in applying salvation to the soul. Thus he gave systematic and adequate expression to the whole doctrine of the Holy Spirit and made it the assured possession of the Church of God.
And since the Holy Spirit is a spirit and thus invisible, we must look with new eyes on the very real and tangible fruits of the Holy Spirit.
And we either see those fruits, or we don't.
"...the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God" -- Ephesians 6:17
lol
INDEED.
WELL PUT.
You've perhaps spent too much time in a faith that extols mysticism over a rational God.
While Christianity is a supernatural faith, it is not a mystical faith. We have good and sound reasons for our belief in Christ, some of which is the evidence of first-hand reports, historical data and empirical results.
That, coupled with the good fruits of the Holy Spirit, witnessed, experienced and understood to be valid when submitted to the scrutiny of the Scriptures, all contribute to making the Christian faith more than "fables and the commandments of men that turn from the truth."
The "good news" is real.
"Rejoice, because your names are written in heaven." -- Luke 10:20
Amen. Ping to the above comments.
Not to change the subject or anything, but there is a certain internal inconsistency to the Calvinist theology. Admittedly there is internal inconsistency in Arminian theology as well, probably even more so than Calvinism, but nevertheless both systems suffer from a degree of internal inconsistency.
Arminians seem to make the claim that they save themselves by their choices while at the same time denying that they really have anything to do with their salvation. Calvinists, OTOH, make the claim that while their salvation was determined at the foundation of the earth entirely independent of anything the person does or thinks during their lifetime, that their destiny is not the result of fatalistic determinism.
Just saying.
Asking questions isn't wrong unless you never find the answer. Then it's just sad.
Life is more than speculation.
Have some kids, Kosta. Then you'll see Him.
1000 - Claiming it for all God’s children.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.