The New and Improved No-Straw-Man Challenge

[Hammster]

Why are you running away from your own beliefs?


Right here you’re interpreting Romans 8 exactly how I described it. Here’s my description below.


That’s exactly how you interpreted Romans 8 in the quote above. You’re just trying to weasel out of the discussion by making me jump thru a bunch of hoops to hide the fact that you don’t want to answer the questions I’m asking about Romans 2:4-5. Why would God have patience on people and lead them to repentance knowing that they are incapable of repenting? You don’t want to answer this question because you know that it doesn’t make any sense so you’re trying to bog down the discussion with your two & three word replies that don’t amount to any type of explanation and placing restrictions trying to make me have to go hunt down Calvinist doctrines when I’ve already quoted you making these statements yourself. Why are you backpedaling now? If it’s what you believe then own it and provide an answer to my question otherwise admit that you don’t have an answer.

Please, read the OP. The whole premise is that you state what you think Reformed Theology teaches, and then provide the supporting documentation. If you cannot do that, then it’s a straw man.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Please, read the OP. The whole premise is that you state what you think Reformed Theology teaches, and then provide the supporting documentation. If you cannot do that, then it’s a straw man.

I’m quoting you. Are you calling your own theology a strawman?

 

[Hammster]

I’m quoting you. Are you calling your own theology a strawman?

“Using notable doctrines with reform theology, such as the Canons of Dort, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the London Baptist Confession of Faith, or Calvin‘s Institutes of Christian Religion, make your argument on whatever issue you have against Calvinism, but you must be able to quote one of these sources to support your claim. I will allow other sources, but they must be something that is considered an historic document within reformed theology (Heidelberg catechism, for example).”

 

[Hammster]

Here’s the OP again, if anyone is interested.

Let me start by saying that this is a Soteriology thread. The challenge presented will stay within that realm.

I have noticed lately that there have been what I would consider strawman arguments against reformed theology, or if you’d prefer Calvinism. Understandably, when people present these challenges, they think that they are accurately representing what Calvinism teaches. For instance, one of the most recent arguments is that in Calvinism, God forces people to believe. So here is the challenge.

Using notable doctrines with reform theology, such as the Canons of Dort, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the London Baptist Confession of Faith, or Calvin‘s Institutes of Christian Religion, make your argument on whatever issue you have against Calvinism, but you must be able to quote one of these sources to support your claim. I will allow other sources, but they must be something that is considered an historic document within reformed theology (Heidelberg catechism, for example).

Have fun.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT


This thread is closed for staff review and clean up.​

 

[tampasteve]

ADMIN HAT ON
Thread is now open again. Keep it clean, keep it calm, keep it on topic, refrain from Disruptive Behavior.
ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[ladodgers6]

This has nothing to do with your assertion that Calvin is the origin of Calvinism.

Interesting enough, Calvin disliked the Label of Calvinism. He preferred the Doctrines of Grace. It was the Lutherans who coined the nick-name; Calvinism.

 

[ladodgers6]

Are you certain that you know what it means? "Sola scriptura is a Latin phrase that means "by scripture alone" or "scripture alone". It is a key slogan of the Protestant Reformation, which used the phrase against the Roman Catholic church in the 16th century. The phrase means that the Bible is the only authority for Christian faith and practice."

Why is this critical to know. Because the RCC specifically ruled that the Pope is the only authority to translate and interpret scripture. Which in turn spark the slogan "Sola Scriptura" meaning God is the final authority. And everyone must be allowed to read God's word. Which is why Luther & Calvin translated the Bible in the common language of the people. And was a crime in doing so.​

 

[ladodgers6]

Let me start by saying that this is a Soteriology thread. The challenge presented will stay within that realm.

I have noticed lately that there have been what I would consider strawman arguments against reformed theology, or if you’d prefer Calvinism. Understandably, when people present these challenges, they think that they are accurately representing what Calvinism teaches. For instance, one of the most recent arguments is that in Calvinism, God forces people to believe. So here is the challenge.

Using notable doctrines with reform theology, such as the Canons of Dort, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the London Baptist Confession of Faith, or Calvin‘s Institutes of Christian Religion, make your argument on whatever issue you have against Calvinism, but you must be able to quote one of these sources to support your claim. I will allow other sources, but they must be something that is considered an historic document within reformed theology (Heidelberg catechism, for example).

Have fun.

Excellent thread Hammster. People often are confused about Calvinism or just blatantly distort it in an effort to not understand it. I used to be this way, when I was a Classical Arminian. I thought to myself without any biblical resources this cannot be true. It was more my humanistic world-view that matter more. This all happened when my Calvinist friend challenge what I believe and shared the Doctrines of Grace; nick-named Calvinism with me. After refusing to believe it is taught in Scripture and argued with him over several days. He challenged me to disprove it with Scripture. So, I said to myself, let's set out to destroy this anti-biblical heresy called Calvinism.

Over the next few months, I started to understand the Doctrines of Grace, especially Justification by Faith Alone. Which was an eye opener for me. I couldn't get my head around Predestination, so I started and stayed with the milk first. Imputation of Adam's Sin; God's Covenant of Grace (Gospel); Biblical Theology (Christ throughout Scripture from Genesis to Revelation; the unfolding, fulfillment and eschatological consummation of Jesus Christ). After reading, studying, and learning that Redemption is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9), I realized and believe that it's all Monergistic; God Alone in redeeming his people from their sins. Without God's Gracious and Merciful Divine Act toward us, nobody would be saved.

Scripture is Christological in essence and points to God who saves the ungodly in his Son. This is a Trinitarian mission Alone! To suggest that fallen sinner contribute or possess some intrinsically inherent goodness is the lie. Which the devil uses to blind people of this age. Ego or the heart is deceitful above all things, and it comes before the Fall. People refuse to believe they are not only helpless but doomed already. God doesn't force people to believe against wills. God's people hear his voice when the proclamation of the Gospel is heard, they come out of the darkness into his marvelous light and hear him and follow him. They are freed from their bondage to the darkness and receive new minds and hearts, they are regenerated by Holy Spirit and can how see, hear, walk, talk. To say this is done against their wills is not understanding what redeemed means. Redeemed from what is exactly is what they are missing.

Anyways, this is my two wooden cents.





​

 

[Hammster]

Excellent thread Hammster. People often are confused about Calvinism or just blatantly distort it in an effort to not understand it. I used to be this way, when I was a Classical Arminian. I thought to myself without any biblical resources this cannot be true. It was more my humanistic world-view that matter more. This all happened when my Calvinist friend challenge what I believe and shared the Doctrines of Grace; nick-named Calvinism with me. After refusing to believe it is taught in Scripture and argued with him over several days. He challenged me to disprove it with Scripture. So, I said to myself, let's set out to destroy this anti-biblical heresy called Calvinism.

Over the next few months, I started to understand the Doctrines of Grace, especially Justification by Faith Alone. Which was an eye opener for me. I couldn't get my head around Predestination, so I started and stayed with the milk first. Imputation of Adam's Sin; God's Covenant of Grace (Gospel); Biblical Theology (Christ throughout Scripture from Genesis to Revelation; the unfolding, fulfillment and eschatological consummation of Jesus Christ). After reading, studying, and learning that Redemption is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9), I realized and believe that it's all Monergistic; God Alone in redeeming his people from their sins. Without God's Gracious and Merciful Divine Act toward us, nobody would be saved.

Scripture is Christological in essence and points to God who saves the ungodly in his Son. This is a Trinitarian mission Alone! To suggest that fallen sinner contribute or possess some intrinsically inherent goodness is the lie. Which the devil uses to blind people of this age. Ego or the heart is deceitful above all things, and it comes before the Fall. People refuse to believe they are not only helpless but doomed already. God doesn't force people to believe against wills. God's people hear his voice when the proclamation of the Gospel is heard, they come out of the darkness into his marvelous light and hear him and follow him. They are freed from their bondage to the darkness and receive new minds and hearts, they are regenerated by Holy Spirit and can how see, hear, walk, talk. To say this is done against their wills is not understanding what redeemed means. Redeemed from what is exactly is what they are missing.

Anyways, this is my two wooden cents.





​

I started at this forum arguing against Calvinism for about two years. I made a lot of straw man arguments myself.

 

[Valletta]

Why is this critical to know. Because the RCC specifically ruled that the Pope is the only authority to translate and interpret scripture. Which in turn spark the slogan "Sola Scriptura" meaning God is the final authority. And everyone must be allowed to read God's word. Which is why Luther & Calvin translated the Bible in the common language of the people. And was a crime in doing so.​

Marsilius of Padua and William of Ockham were influenced much by the Greeks and Muslims. The idea of a book having full authority was pushed by an Arab theologian they followed, who preached the Quran was the ultimate authority. Marsilius and William came to believe the Bible was the ultimate authority. The Catholic Church maintains that where there is disagreement about interpretation of God's Word that Christ's Church will be the final decision maker, instead of everyone having their own personal interpretation. Remember the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible in a process that spanned centuries, preached the Gospel to the world, and so many times over the centuries translated Biblical text into the common language of the people. After Latin surpassed Greek as the common language of the people in Europe, the Latin Vulgate under the direction of Saint Jerome became by far the standard Bible. "Vulgate" comes from "vulgar" or "common," meaning the common language of the people. At that time in Europe, essentially if you could read and write--you spoke Latin. Eventually Latin morphed into various languages such as Italian, Spanish, and French, and then came more translations by Catholics. There were Catholic translations of Biblical text in French, Bohemian, Danish, Polish, Hungarian, and Norwegian as well. There were English translations of Biblical text long before Tyndale. Disagreement over the meaning of Biblical text occurred at the very beginning of the reformation, with the three leaders disagreeing about the Holy Eucharist, and now there are thousands of Protestant denominations formed over differences about the Bible.

 

[ladodgers6]

I started at this forum arguing against Calvinism for about two years. I made a lot of straw man arguments myself.

I changed the way I present "Calvinism", I now share the Gospel of Justification by Faith Alone; the Proclamation of the Good News. Then after it's understood one can start to learn the rest. God who justifies the ungodly is the most marvelous good news for any sinner to hear, believe and trust. It's the only place a sinner can find refuge, peace of conscience, love, joy, life, reconciliation and Eternal Life with God! As Paul once said, I consider everything else as dung!​

 

[ladodgers6]

Marsilius of Padua and William of Ockham were influenced much by the Greeks and Muslims. The idea of a book having full authority was pushed by an Arab theologian they followed, who preached the Quran was the ultimate authority. Marsilius and William came to believe the Bible was the ultimate authority. The Catholic Church maintains that where there is disagreement about interpretation of God's Word that Christ's Church will be the final decision maker, instead of everyone having their own personal interpretation.

But when you have a corrupt Pope pushing "Indulgences" who is he to challenge him? People who challenge the Pope with Scripture were arrested punished and tortured. The rest of the Holy See did not challenge the Pope on this heresy. This is why God gave his word for all to read, but just the Holy See. That's why we should always be willing to admit mistakes and correct them because we are fallible, but God's is not.

Furthermore, it was Erasmus who laid the egg that Luther hatch in relation to Justification being declared righteous; not make righteous. So, essence it was the Catholic Theologian who helped Luther understand the Latin translation.​

Remember the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible in a process that spanned centuries, preached the Gospel to the world, and so many times over the centuries translated Biblical text into the common language of the people.

Not during those medieval dark ages of the RCC. Many protestants were arrested, punished, tortured and killed. The record is clear that the only authority to translate the Latin Bible was the Pope and himself alone. It's a good thing we had a Reformation, because the Gospel was being obscured and distorted by Rome.​

After Latin surpassed Greek as the common language of the people in Europe, the Latin Vulgate under the direction of Saint Jerome became by far the standard Bible. "Vulgate" comes from "vulgar" or "common," meaning the common language of the people. At that time in Europe, essentially if you could read and write--you spoke Latin. Eventually Latin morphed into various languages such as Italian, Spanish, and French, and then came more translations by Catholics. There were Catholic translations of Biblical text in French, Bohemian, Danish, Polish, Hungarian, and Norwegian as well. There were English translations of Biblical text long before Tyndale. Disagreement over the meaning of Biblical text occurred at the very beginning of the reformation, with the three leaders disagreeing about the Holy Eucharist, and now there are thousands of Protestant denominations formed over differences about the Bible.

Erasmus’s opinion on salvation through good deeds was rather subtle: he considered that if good deeds opened the way to personal salvation, it all relied on the Free will (freedom of choice) of the who achieve them.

Luther considered that thanks to his willpower, as well meaning as that could be, man could certainly act, but that had nothing to do with his personal salvation (bondage); his belief alone in justification through God’s grace in Christ guaranteed this promise. The free commitment (the freedom of the christian) was then the context in which his action (and the ensuing deeds) was totally relevant.​

In other words, it's all Christ and his works that matter in the justification of the ungodly. The good deeds that follow are the effects or cause of being Justified in Christ through Faith Alone apart from the works of the Law (Gal. 2; Romans 4).

Gal. 3:18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

It was the Reformation who against Rome consent started to print the Latin Bible into the common language due to the printing press invention.​

 

[Valletta]

But when you have a corrupt Pope pushing "Indulgences" who is he to challenge him?​

Indulgences are wonderful and we still have them today. Unfortunately in retrospect we can see that indulgences for alms giving could lend itself to abuse. That is, it could be misused as if indulgences could be purchased. A quite fixable problem which was fixed, that does not mean the pope was "corrupt," please try to not judge others.

It was the Reformation who against Rome consent started to print the Latin Bible into the common language due to the printing press invention.​

I just mentioned the many language translations of Biblical text by Catholics, the Church was certainly not against legitimate translations! I named many specific languages. As an example I'll go over some of the English translations. Venerable Bede, a Catholic monk, is perhaps the best known for his translation in the 700s. King Alfred the Great had not finished his translation of Psalms before he died, that would have been in the 800s. Now a lot of Biblical texts by Catholics have been destroyed, remember Protestants in England seized Catholic monasteries and gave the land to wealthy Protestants and much that was Catholic was sold off or destroyed. But some do exist, you can find some of Alfred’s translations in a manuscript dated as around 1050. These are in the English of the Saxons: The Illustrated Psalms of Alfred the Great: The Old English Paris Psalter When the Normans took over the English changed, the paraphrase of Orm is dated around 1150 and is an example of a Catholic translation into Middle English. Eventually a Catholic named Gutenberg introduced the printing press, and, of course, the first book he printed was the Bible in 1455. By the way, much of the NT of the King James Bible came from a hurried Greek translation by a Catholic priest, Desiderius Erasmus in 1516. Catholics had to flee England at one time in order to publish an English version (the Douay Rheims) of the Bible (the New Testament was first published in 1582, reprinted in 1600, 1621, and 1633, and a number of times in later centuries), they did so in France and suffered severe consequences for trying to smuggle English Bibles to the people of England.

 

[ladodgers6]

Let me show you the argument for how God according to Calvin controls us all like puppets - which would include all manner of forcing. Calvin states that God not only governs our movements, but our wills as well - how is that not puppetry?

“We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)​

​

“Creatures are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3)​

The above may be shown to back away from Calvin's roughest edges. The bigger question is why does anyone follow Calvin? This is a link to Calvin's most egregious statements: John Calvin Quotes – The Calvinism of John Calvin – Are Calvinists REALLY “Calvinists”?

Most don't want to view themselves as a puppet, but if God governs your will and actions (as Calvin states), that is happening, I believe that egregious quotes from Calvin such as below pushed many Calvinists to rebrand themselves to the more innocuous Such and Such Presbyterian, Reformed, or Grace church.

“We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)​

If God is controlling events, the method, such as string pulling or non-string pulling, is immaterial - as we cannot do otherwise.

Not even close in understanding this statement. I also am not surprised how selective people are when only quoting what suits them. By your own words you hold to Stoic view, that it's all of fate. That chaos and randomness rule the universe where a deistic god watches as the world goes by and does nothing. That it's ultimately up to fallen sinners to pull themselves up by their boot straps and GitRdone.

Without the Providence of God no one would be saved. It also makes it all of Grace and not man's doing. If it's man's doing then it is no longer grace. Leaving no room for human merit in receiving grace.
​

Since humanity is limited in sin and stays in sin by free choice as a result of the restricted circumstance of Adam’s penalty, free will is incapable of reaching out to God to be transfigured by Him. This is where God’s decree of grace and election comes in. Salvation is not of the human will but of God’s free choice of the dispensation of grace through election. As God is absolutely sovereign, the human will has no power to liberate itself out of sin. The liberation from sin is entirely up to God Alone.

Consider the same aforementioned analogy. In the room of sin postlapsarian humans are completely free to act in the boundaries of sin they find themselves in. They are, therefore, guilty of whatever action they take within the boundaries of sin because they freely choose to do what they do. There is, however, another room unknown to postlapsarian humans, the room of grace. God is the keymaster who opens the door of sin from outside, chooses humans out of the room of sin, and places them into the room of grace. Within the room of grace, humans are free to know and worship God having been regenerated by God’s salvific act of liberation. Thus the regenerated elect have free will within the room of grace but by the act of God’s deliverance. In either condition, room, humans are in, they have a free will within that condition, room. But how did humans escape the condition, room, of sin? God Alone!

Calvin is able to ensure God’s sovereignty in the act of liberation while able to affirm free will in a regenerate state for the human liberated and placed into the state of grace (the room of grace) is freed from sin to know and worship God.

The problem people have with Calvin is that he denies the human possibility of self-liberation to God. Arminians and free-will soteriologies affirm the fallenness of human nature but assert that through their own action—either from God’s enlightenment or from their own power—humans can choose to leave the state of sin (room of sin) and enter the state of grace (room of grace) to find God and know and love God. Since Calvin leaves the act of liberation to God and God alone, his critics misleadingly state he denied free will since free will is the essential component to self-saving or cooperative soteriologies. Cooperative soteriology would be God’s enlightening of the fallen mind to a better reality (the state of grace/room of grace); for instance, God shines his light through the cracks of the door and humans who see it respond to God’s initial act but they are the ones ultimately liberating themselves from the state of sin to enter the state of grace God is calling them to inhabit.

Calvin, as he defines his terms and anthropology, didn’t deny free will—even in the state of total depravity. Humans have free will within their condition of sin. They choose to act the way they do within that condition. Calvin also doesn’t deny free will in the state of grace; in grace, humans freely worship God in perfect knowledge of Him through Christ. What Calvin denies is that the human will can liberate itself from its condition of sin to enter that state of grace. Only God liberates the sinner and takes them into the state of grace.
​

There are scriptural arguments to show that God controlled Exodus and the Crucifixion. But Calvin and his ilk go much further in stating that God decreed every evil that ever happened: such as every cookie jar theft, and all the sick details of every murder and rape. Let the Amen choir say "Sicko".

Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But as these are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes and gives birth to the other. For, in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves; nay, that our very being is nothing else than subsistence in God alone.​

I'll leave you with this, did God coerce those Romans to kill Jesus? Big difference.