Ahhhhh, the canards that come from the tough guy internet Calvinists. Today I have a fun one.
 |
| Canard: John Calvin's face. |
Don't fall for it. It's a canard. What they are implying is that we (meaning everyone who isn't a Calvinist) have a God that tries His best but is unable to do anything about the situation. What they are indirectly implying is that only they have an Almighty, Sovereign God, and we have a weak beggar who is impotent to accomplish His will. Hence, limited atonement and so on. They are trying to pigeonhole you into an Arminian, Pelagian, or Open Theistic conception of God. Don't fall for it. We actually have a concept of God that is closer to Calvinism than those other things just mentioned. Of course, in their limited theological mind, anything that is not Calvinism does fall into those categories. But it just is not true.
These are the categories in which the militant tough guy internet Calvinist operates. So, why should we reject this question and/or charge?
Well, first of all, it betrays the inability of this sort of Calvinist to think in terms outside of absolute predestination and autonomous free will. It fails to recognize that all theology does not fall into one of two categories - Calvinism/Determinism or Arminianism/Pelagianism/Libertarianism. In fact, those systems of thought (I am referring specifically to Calvinism and Arminianism here) are Johnny-come-latelies in the theological arena. Before the Reformed Church erupted into this dichotomy with the Remonstrants, hardly any theological system started and ended all discussion based on this paradigm. In fact, Calvinism as well as Arminianism are radical departures from catholic Christianity. They are not a Reforming of the church - they are a completely new branch. The modern internet Calvinist wants to relegate everything to the doctrine of election, thereby placing the Sacraments and other super-duper important things on a secondary status.
Second, it's a backwards question. It likewise betrays the willingness of the internet Calvinist to start and base his whole theology off of God's hidden will (election in eternity past) and not in God's revealed will (Christ Incarnate, crucified, and risen for us). This makes Christ crucified an outworking of election.
Third, it gets the internet Calvinist into some pretty deep water regarding the work of the Spirit in saving sinners. This is why Calvinism has distinguished between the inward call (regeneration) and the outward call (preaching of the Word). The inward call is a special call the elect alone receive whereby they are made partakers of Christ and born again. This happens when the Gospel is preached, but it is the Spirit alone who regenerates, and only in the elect. How then can they affirm that the preaching of the Gospel is pure grace when it is heard by the hearers? Well, they cannot, because the Spirit refuses to give the inward call to the non-elect. Hence, it traverses awfully close to the slippery slope of separation of the spiritual from the natural means of grace.
It is far simpler, and more biblical, to simply say that the Spirit is at work in the preaching of the Gospel 100% of the time to 100% of the hearers. If they reject it, it's because they rejected it, not because there was no inward call involved. If they receive it, it is because the Holy Spirit gave it. Thus, grace received is 100% a gift of God, plus nothing. Whereas, grace rejected is 100% the work of man, nothing of God.
This whole idea of God trying and getting what He wants with 100% certainty is the reason why these internet Calvinists have to come up with novel interpretations of numerous plain and clear passages in Scripture. To name a few, 1 Tim 2:4-6, 2 Pet 3:9, 1 Tim 4:10, 1 John 2:2, and 2 Pet 2:1.
Instead, we are far better off Scripturally starting with and sticking to - God's revealed will given to us in Christ Jesus alone, and not trying to cram the revealed will into the hidden will that ends up with doctrines like limited atonement and rejects doctrines like baptismal regeneration. Worse yet, they have to reject some clear Scriptures to hold to what they do.
This is a canard. Moreover, it's a bad case of philosophical systematics trumping the revealed Word of Christ.
+Pax+
What they don’t see is that they are fundamentally on the same synergistic pole, the other end, driven by reason, Platonism and Gnosticism as Arminianism. They are the north to arminianisms south, but both are on the same religious bar. And make no mistake about it is another religion and another gospel period.
ReplyDeleteThey think they like Luther in Bondage of the Will (BOW) and that Luther agrees with them, despite BOW being as much against the bondage of human reason (what traps Calvinist) and Luther himself said of all his writings two were worth keeping expressing in absolute unity his theology. Those two? BOW and the catechism. And the catechism is crystal clear about the sacraments, that they save, regenerate, is the true and very body and blood of Christ and “this sacrament is the Gospel” to name a few. This is in perfect concord with BOW. However, no Calvinist would adhere to the catechism, it’s why we will never commune with them, thus they do not even realize the Luther of the BOW is in reality their adversary because BOW and the catechism are in unity. They can no more adhere to the catechism than can the arminian, reason, they are really one and the same religion of synergy. Tagging the “spirit” onto “conversion” in Calvinistic election does not make it not synergism. They don’t realize the Luther at Wittenberg was the same Luther at Marburg, and Luther would have never given Calvin the right hand of fellowship and call him a brother in the faith for the same reason he did not Zwingli. I know it sounds harsh, but heterodoxy is merely tolerated by God, not accepted.
The two draw the line of synergism differently.
The Arminian is overt, using the will to act, and the works are, well overt works and actions. E.g. if I show enough X fruit, then I’m saved, if not, I’m not. The sacraments, often ordinances to better match the scheme, are merely badges of the inward reality per se.
The Calvinist is cryptic, using reason (Calvin’s own conversion account was that his MIND was made more teachable), and the works are, generally, speculative. E.g. How do I know I commune with Christ in Calvin/Zwingli’s supper? Variously I must somehow ascend, speculatively, into the “heavenly place” (as Calvin put it), there and there alone, having found the speculative way and somehow traversed it I’m there some how I know this. The earthly element is little more than magic link. This is why an unbeliever in Calvin’s theology does not partake in reality of Christ’s “spirit”, he’s locked down there on earth sans the speculative work-way. This is their “don’t confound the sign with the thing signified (Platonism, Aristotle, Gnosticism and the repeat of original sint) lingo.
Now the speculative way is hard and undefined, so in reality much of their laity dabble in de facto arminianism to make the patch into “how I know I’m elect” and they become fruit inspectors as well. This is why fundamentally they are on the same religious pole that in practice, both Arminians and Calvinist, swish back and forth between the two systems as a matter of practicality. The best merger of this is found in the Baptist world where they take a dab of Arminianism and a dab of Calvinism and formulate the “middle way”.
To add: Ultimately their assurance language, Arminian and Calvinist is exactly the same which also points to their mutual synergistic theology and religion. How do you know you are truly- (the both love the adjectives in front of everything) saved, converted, elect, born again, regenerate? "My" fruits of the faith, or faith itself is detected, or "I just believe" or a thousand other possibilities both tangible and speculative works. But never, never ever "I am (present tense)baptized", "God absolved me (where there is forgiveness of sins, there IS life and salvation - Luther sm. cat. speaking of the sacrament of Christ's body and blood that is the incarnate Word of absolution) or that I ate the actual flesh and blood of God."
ReplyDeleteLuther said in his large catechism on the first commandment about what is a God/god true or false that it is that to which one places all trust and assurance and calls upon in all trouble and trial. The catechism cannot be studied enough in a lifetime. So, who or what is their God? Look to where they find assurance, and THERE is ultimately their god because that's what it means to have a God/god true or false where you look for your assurance and certitude.
Thus, when we say, "I am baptized" or "by the sacrament of the Altar" I'm assured we literally mean THERE is my God, His true body and blood, we bow at, and where His name is He cannot vacate it, nor when the pastor breath the Holy Spirit on me/you absolving us (the Keys) for the Spirit is God too. There and there alone is the located-ness of God for you. Thus we bow at it, one is to not bow at anything but God.
When theologies say water, bread and wine and words absolving are not God for real, they are tripping up on the incarnation just as they did in Christ's time, "only God can forgive sin" they told Jesus. Same thing ultimately.
Excellent. Thank you.
ReplyDelete