Quoted for Discussion
Posted by Joe on Feb 14th, 2008
2008
Feb 14
“”Calvin, unlike his followers, did not place the docrtrine of predestination at the front of his system, but buried it in the depths of his doctrine on the Holy Spirit.”
~Arnold Come
February 15th, 2008 at 3:21 am
- Rick Frueh, circa 2008
Rick Frueh, circa 2008
Take your pick.
February 15th, 2008 at 6:36 am
Two thoughts:
Point 1 - I like Rick but reject his points. Since they are his opinion, I’ll offer not much more than mine to reject them. I think those espousing either side of this discussion have shared a lot of Scripture and each side thinks they have demonstrated truth. Oh well, one or both are wrong. Statements like Rick’s are outside of that. They are as meaningful as me say all non-Calvinists are about works and therefore the greatest heresy today. I think that would be foolish and on this same basis I reject Rick’s points. On the other hand - you need to know I really like Rick. He brings a lot of good stuff to the table … this just isn’t it.
Point 2 - Many Calvinists like myself only wear the label to make it easier for those that want to pigeon-hole us. I’m technically not a Calvinist - I’m not even sure what that is supposed to mean. I hold to Reformed Theology (all the sola stuff) of which the Doctrine of Election is one of several points. I typically only find myself talking about the Doctrine of Election when I bump into someone preaching “the other” angle or in the normal course of Bible study/discussion. It is not something I find I need to hammer home everywhere at all times.
Net, as a “Calvinist”, the Doctrine of Election is part of a larger doctrine and I am not aware of it being in “front of the system” as the statement charges of Calvin’s followers. Unless of course the definition of a follower of Calvin is one that does this and then of course it is a circular and nonsensical discussion.
February 15th, 2008 at 7:23 am
Hey Rick! My statements here were made to showcase the weaknesses in the orthopraxy of both poistions. I can be, as you know, much meaner (discerning) about Calvinism but in this case - an olive branch.
BTW - I find it very unfair that you guys get an election year like this one but there never is a free will year. That is politics, I guess!
February 15th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Rick - I fell on the floor laughing … thanks. All I can say about the “free will year” is that it wasn’t meant to be.
Seriously, thanks for the reply. I’ll try to be less of a heretic.
February 15th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Rick - and by the way, you caught me, I misread your quotes. I really hate when I expose myself that way. So to all out there, please disregard my “point 1″ (except the part that I like Rick Frueh) … some idiot got ahold of my key board.
In re-reading I am now only claiming point 2.
February 15th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Oh how I hate to enter that room with boldness only to find I’m in the wrong room. Been there many a time!
February 15th, 2008 at 8:18 am
My thoughts in the second sentence were that we who say we hold that Christ died for all and reject limited atonement are observably deficient in demonstarting that doctrine. The Calvinist speaks pridefully of his view of election while we return the pride with our bold view and then we both go about our lives as ifwe just had a discussion while waiting in a MacDonalds line.
Both “camps” have a lot of work to do. It must be the Valentine’s overflow that has made me so gracious to my reformed brothers today.
Also, Rick, you guys with your “I am not really a Calvinist” smoke really kill me. We Arminians will be the judge of who is and whi isn’t a Calvinist!
February 15th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Ok - so now that I’m in the right room , to the point of the quote. If one defines a “follower of Calvin” as one who holds to the tenants of Reformed Theology, then TULIP (or whatever) is not foremost. Certainly it is one of the distinctives, but I wouldn’t say foremost. If the definition of a “follower of Calvin” is one who presses the Doctrine of Election, then yes it’s a true statement but only because that is how it was defined.
Net, I think you Rick are more quotable. Something like, “It is sad how people from all sides of Christendom distort and then promote X to a position of prominence thereby nullifying and even destroying the true faith we so eagerly defend.”
February 15th, 2008 at 9:49 am
“It is sad how people from all sides of Christendom distort and then promote X to a position of prominence thereby nullifying and even destroying the true faith we so eagerly defend.â€
Yea, a good observation. I am writing an article called “Involuntary Transformation” and it is based upon my observation that in our attempt to transform others we can sometimes get transformed ourselves and not in a good way. I have seen it only in others - only in others - I said ONLY IN OTHERS!!
Whew, almost got caught.
February 15th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
where the Holy Spirit is no longer the Spirit of the Father but another God to be worshipped.
February 15th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Um what?
February 15th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Calvin continues the dotrine of the Trinity from the Catholics
February 15th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
And brother Muller throws a hand grenade into the crowd.
Booooom!!!
February 15th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
lol you have a great sense of humour HR! I don’t mind the concept of the Trinity so much when it isn’t entrenched in a system of beliefs.
February 15th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Here is another item of doctrinal interest. I have for one year investigated the nature of the incarnation. Was Jesus Jehovah living inside a human body or did He actually have two natures?
He was human by virtue of His prepared body, but I still need to be convinced He had a divine and a human nature. And if He had a human nature, did it go to heaven when He died?
Where does the Scripture say 100% divine and 100% human? People say He needed to be fully human in order to know what we go through. Really? Our Creator didn’t know what we go through? Did He need to murder to know what a murderer goes through?
Oh well, another hand grenade!! Doctrinal IEDs.
February 16th, 2008 at 12:11 am
I’m reluctant to post this here due to what I know are “wild” views on the matter…but here it goes. My view is that Jesus was fully human and was being glorified. Reasons being that He was conceived, didn’t do His first miracle until later in life and refered to Himself differently at different times. I have troubles with how He could be glorified if 100% God already. 33% maybe
I’ll stress I’m not certain on it at all, but just my thoughts.
February 16th, 2008 at 8:16 am
The humanity of Christ was not established in doctrine as some kind of pastoral trope so that we could feel good about God understanding us.
It flowed out of serious theological/philosophical concerns about preserving the immutable nature of God’s being and yet explaining how God in Christ could make an appearance here on earth–and that appearance not indicating some kind of changeability in God’s perfection.
February 16th, 2008 at 8:40 am
I agree with your word “appearance”. The Scripture says “Wherefore when He comes into the world, He says, Sacrifice and offering you would not, but a body you have prepared me”. (Heb.10:5) My question is not the immutability of God, it is about whether the humanity of Christ was His body while His spirit, nature, essence, being, was Jehovah - the Word. Basically that when you looked at the human Christ you were seeing a human body housing Emmanuel Himself.
I still have a difficult time explaining the duel natures inside that body, Jehovah and Jesus. The temptations He endured were aimed at His body because God cannot be tempted. You point about the immutable nature of God’s being is well taken and that is part of my point, God came to earth but did not change. His nature did not become divine/human which would be a change.
Paul says He was made in the likeness of man, but was He a real man with a human nature? And if so was He of one nature with two elements, or did he have two distinct natures living inside His body? I am inclined to believe, although on limited research (1 year), that Jesus was God in the flesh, not God and man inside human flesh.
I continue to ponder and be moved by the mystery of the incarnation.
February 16th, 2008 at 9:54 am
I think the historic position is two natures, of one being with the Father.