Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Study the Word, Calvin, or Aminian??? | John 6:65 | childoftheking | 35258 | ||
Thank you Joe for the welcome and your reply. Interesting choice of verse too by the way :) So from what you say here, and by your profile name, I gather that you're a follower of Calvin? An ism is a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school. From http://www.xenos.org/classes/principles/cpu1w6.htm#a4 Calvinism: This term is actually a misnomer. Calvin did not emphasize predestination in his Institutes (only 4 chapters). Calvin warned against delving too deeply into this subject (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21, section 1). However, it became the controlling principle in Reformed Theology, expressed by the Synod of Dort in 1618-1619. I respect your views and thank you again for your reply. Peace and Joy in the Lord bgg |
||||||
2 | Study the Word, Calvin, or Aminian??? | John 6:65 | Jesusman | 35301 | ||
Hello bgg, Welcome to the forum! Before I start, I must admit that I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian. I am Christian. Paul explained it best in 1 Corinthians 1:10-17;3:1-9. Basically, Paul teaches that we are all to claim to be disciples of Christ alone, and not to any other person. Paul makes the point that all of God's servants have played a part in God's plan. So, due to these two passages, I call myself a Christian, or a man of Jesus as it were. I don't hold to titles such as Calvinist, arminian, or what have you. With that out of the way, let's continue. As far as to which group I adhere closer to, I must admit that I don't really follow either. I agree with Calvinism on a few things, yet disagree with them also. The same is true for Arminianism. Here are a few reasons why. First, when I began my education in religion, I focused in two specific areas: exegesis and hermaneutics. Exegesis is the "bringing out" of the text. Basically, it is the study of the original languages of the Bible. Hermaneutics is slightly broader than exegesis. It is the basic study of a passage. While it includes "exegesis", it goes into the history and culture of the writer and the events being written. When I began to examine Calvinism and Arminianism, the first place I looked into was the history. The argument between Arminianism and Calvinism really goes back further to Augustine and Pelageous in around 200-300 AD. Calvinism is the "updated" version of Augustine's views. There is little change between them. Augustine disagreed with Pelageous, and vise versa. Pelageous taught that Mankind basically saved himself. There was a bitter debate over the two drastically different views, and they began calling each other "heretics". To settle the debate, "Semi-pelageanism" was developed, which eventually lead to Arminianism. Now, forward to the students of Arminius. His students developed what became the foundation of Arminianism, called "The Remanstrance (sp)". When the followers of Calvin's teaching got ahold of it, they got mad, to say the least. They formed a "committee" and developed the five points of Calvinism. They, too, labled the Arminians as "Heretics". The Committee became known as "The Synod of Dort". Now, for a few things I have questions on. First off this debate has been going on for nearly 2000 years, or better. Included with that, has been some hot tempered arguments. I don't know about anyone else, but I have only called one person a "heretic". When I did, I was not concerned with what the Bible "truly" said, but what I wanted to prove. Upon speaking and researching this with other pastors and biblical circumstances, I have found that the term "heretic" has almost always been used during times of extreme emotions, namely: anger. I have yet to find a recorded time when the term was used in a calm and delicate manner. I can only imagine what the Synod of Dort was feeling when they first came across Arminianism. Secondly, I wonder about the resources availiable at the time of the forming of Calvinism and Arminianism. The Alexandrian texts weren't found until the 1800's, and the Dead Sea Scrolls until the early 1900's. The Textus Receptus was barely developed, if it was even finished at all. Even then, it would've been under scrutiny. The primary available texts would've been the Byzintine Texts or Majority text form, the Latin Vulgate, the Septuagint, the Messoritic Text, Luthor's German translation, and various english translations. The Oldest text available for New Testament studies would've been dated some 400 - 500 years after the New Testament Closed. Then you need to address the issue of how readily availiable these texts were, and especially to those who were declared "protestant" by the Catholic Church, which controlled a majority of the texts listed. My personal thinking is that Calvin's teaching may have been different if he had access to today's texts, and availiability. The Third issue concerning these two groups is focused around the points themselves. If you examine closely, the five points of Calvinism is exactly opposite of the Five points of Arminianism, almost to the extreme. This ties into what I said earlier about the term "heretic". I believe that the Five Points of Calvinism was not developed to give the church a concise outline of Biblical Doctrine. Rather, it was developed to combat Arminianism. To "show them up", so to speak. There are other points that I could make, but it would take too much time and space. I believe this starts things pretty well. Before I close, I must point out that I am not refuting Calvin's, Arminius', Augustine's, Pelageous', or any other Biblical Scholar's brilliance and knowledge. I have a high respect for these men, and use their insights on a regular basis. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
3 | Study the Word, Calvin, or Aminian??? | John 6:65 | Reformer Joe | 35351 | ||
Jesusman: You wrote: 'The Third issue concerning these two groups is focused around the points themselves. If you examine closely, the five points of Calvinism is exactly opposite of the Five points of Arminianism, almost to the extreme. This ties into what I said earlier about the term "heretic". I believe that the Five Points of Calvinism was not developed to give the church a concise outline of Biblical Doctrine. Rather, it was developed to combat Arminianism. To "show them up", so to speak.' You are right that this is no accident. The Canons of Dort (one of the "three forms of unity" along with the Beligic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism) were specifically drafted by the synod as a Calvinist response to Arminian teaching. That is not to say that the five points were INVENTED at this point, any more than the Council of Nicaea invented the doctrine of the Trinity in the fourth century. Dort served as a point-by-point refutation of what the synod considered to be biblical error, and from the Canons of Dort we see the five points in their codified form. --Joe! |
||||||
4 | Study the Word, Calvin, or Aminian??? | John 6:65 | Jesusman | 35925 | ||
Hello, I realize that. However, I must ask the question, "Is the Synod's Canon's in accordance completely with the Word of God?" The point I was making is that the Five points of Calvinism as we know them today were developed in order to combat that which was viewed as Heresy. Also, as I pointed out with in my post, the emotions surrounding this topic for centuries has been one of anger. The Synod did not develope these Five points out of compassion or concern to teach the Word of God, but out of anger to refute what was declared as Heresy. That leads me to question the five points of Calvinism. Jesusman |
||||||
5 | Study the Word, Calvin, or Aminian??? | John 6:65 | Reformer Joe | 35950 | ||
Jesusman: The Synod did not considered the Remonstrants to be heretics, just wrong on the points in question. Historically, the Reformed and the Arminian have not seen each other as false brethren, but rather as mistaken brethren. How do you conclude that the Synod of Dort acted out of unrighteous anger rather than concern to teach the word of God? If you take a look at Christian history, almost every document and creed that has been drafted has been in the interest of presenting the truth in the face of error. Even most of the New Testament epistles have at their heart a refutation of errors that were present in that day (from the Judaizer heresy to Gnosticism). The Nicene Creed, the Chalcedonian Creed, the Athanasian Creed, etc., came out as refutations and condemnations of theological error. Certainly you don't think that the Nicene Creed, in its unwavering support of a Trinitarian God, should be questioned because it was motivated by a desire to combat the false teachings against the doctrine! I encourage you to be more careful when you start questioning the motives of individuals who lived 400 years ago before you actually investigate the history surrounding the Synod of Dort. It is very easy to label a group as reactionary and angry when one disagrees with the position it holds. However, I will state again that the bottom line is whether the affirmations and denials found in the Canons of Dort correspond with biblical revelation or not. --Joe! |
||||||