# If You're a Serious Calvinist, to be Consistent, You Must Also Be



## JM (Jan 24, 2009)

By: Jay Dyer

NOTE: Readers of this post can see the arguments fleshed out here and here.
You can also read a primer on the classical Biblical, Catholic and dogmatic views of the Trinity and Incarnation here.

1) Nestorian, in that the Logos cannot assume a fallen human nature.
2) Manichaean, in that nature is inherently evil.
3) A Monothelite, in that in conversion, the divine will supplants the human will. And this would go for Christ's divine will as well.
4) A tri-theist, because God the Father cuts off His own Son in the crucifixion (and maybe the Holy Spirit as well?): but Jesus, in all orthodox Trinitarianism, shares the same divine will as His Father.
5) A gnostic iconoclast, because the Logos cannot be imaged.
6) A pagan, in that the Father can damn the Son of His love in wrath, splitting the Trinity: something more akin to Zeus.
7) A Pelagian, in that you have the same view of pre-lapsarian man as Pelagius, and what must be lost is human nature, because nature is grace.
8) An ecclesiastical relativist, because there is no authoritative Church.
9) Un-deified, since the Logos' holy Flesh is not your food, because there was no true henotic union.
10) A liberal higher critic, since Luther can slice up the canon, it follows so might anyone.
11) An agnostic, in that human reason is so damaged by the fall and total depravity, it cannot accurately reason about God and ever attain certainty.​
Nicene Truth: If You're a Serious Calvinist, to be Consistent, You Must Also Be:

Responses will be posted by TurretinFan :
Alpha and Omega Ministries, The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White


----------



## Neogillist (Jan 24, 2009)

Funny how papists don't understand anything about Reformed theology.


----------



## Zenas (Jan 24, 2009)

Wow. Never seen anyone crank out 11 straw men like that. 

Hope he has a lot of corn fields to guard.


----------



## Spinningplates2 (Jan 24, 2009)

Sadly many Christians feel that Rome is no longer to be feared.


----------



## Zenas (Jan 24, 2009)

I think they're emasculated. They're madmen screaming into the wind; fools cursing the sun. The world mocks them and so do I.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 24, 2009)

They do not fear Rome for two reasons:

1) Their denominations, leaders, and Pastors tell them not to worry about Rome. The warnings of the Reformation leaders were just "historical novelties" and "part of their time". 

2) They share the same doctrine as Rome.


----------



## Marrow Man (Jan 24, 2009)

Zenas said:


> Wow. Never seen anyone crank out 11 straw men like that.
> 
> Hope he has a lot of corn fields to guard.



I think Dagon was a grain god. Perhaps he can get the headless/handless one to assist him. The false gospel of Rome is just as useless -- and deceptive.


----------



## Whitefield (Jan 24, 2009)

Zenas said:


> Wow. Never seen anyone crank out 11 straw men like that.
> 
> Hope he has a lot of corn fields to guard.



Lemme see .. the scarecrow (strawman) was in search of a ... brain.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 24, 2009)

So many straw men that this tune came to mind:

if I only had a brain - Google Video


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Jan 24, 2009)

*Jude 8-13*

8 Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. 9 But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you." 10 But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively. 11 Woe to them! For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error and perished in Korah's rebellion. 12 These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, looking after themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.
ESV


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 24, 2009)

I cannot wait to preach through Jude in August...


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Jan 24, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I cannot wait to preach through Jude in August...



Can you post a link to an audio? I love Jude and would enjoy hearing your sermons.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 24, 2009)

Will do. I'll have to talk with the webmaster.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jan 24, 2009)

Strawmen built by a Clown!  The sad thing is some people actually believe this junk.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 24, 2009)

> I was a Protestant Seminary student: I've read Calvin's 1536 & 1556 Institutes in their entirety. I've read probably 700-1000 pages of Luther, including the major treatises (To the Nobility, Xian Liberty, etc.), along with several of his commentaries (Romans, Jude, 1 adn 2 Peter). I have Calvin's 22 volume commentaries. I've read the systematics: Berkhof, Hodge, Dabney, Grudem, and so on. I've dialogued with Dr. John Frame, Douglas Jones and Douglas Wilson. I have one shelf of Van Til. Ive read Bahnsen's "Van Til's Apologetic" in its entirety, as well as owning several shelves of Reconstuctionist materials; Rushdoony, North, Chilton, Jordan, Gentry, etc.
> 
> I know the Confessions and 3 forms of unity well.
> 
> I understand Protestant thought. I have been in your shoes, brother. You are missing out, not knowing patristics, liturgics, dogamtics and proper biblicial theology.



How does someone misread so drastically? It's all well and good to read Calvin, Berkhof, Luther and Dabney (I do not mention the others he referred to), but it obviously does little good to read when you only misunderstand.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 24, 2009)

py3ak said:


> > I was a Protestant Seminary student: I've read Calvin's 1536 & 1556 Institutes in their entirety. I've read probably 700-1000 pages of Luther, including the major treatises (To the Nobility, Xian Liberty, etc.), along with several of his commentaries (Romans, Jude, 1 adn 2 Peter). I have Calvin's 22 volume commentaries. I've read the systematics: Berkhof, Hodge, Dabney, Grudem, and so on. I've dialogued with Dr. John Frame, Douglas Jones and Douglas Wilson. I have one shelf of Van Til. Ive read Bahnsen's "Van Til's Apologetic" in its entirety, as well as owning several shelves of Reconstuctionist materials; Rushdoony, North, Chilton, Jordan, Gentry, etc.
> >
> > I know the Confessions and 3 forms of unity well.
> >
> ...



Agreed. I honestly think some people are better at parroting others thoughts more than thinking things through.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Jan 25, 2009)

py3ak said:


> > I was a Protestant Seminary student: I've read Calvin's 1536 & 1556 Institutes in their entirety. I've read probably 700-1000 pages of Luther, including the major treatises (To the Nobility, Xian Liberty, etc.), along with several of his commentaries (Romans, Jude, 1 adn 2 Peter). I have Calvin's 22 volume commentaries. I've read the systematics: Berkhof, Hodge, Dabney, Grudem, and so on. I've dialogued with Dr. John Frame, Douglas Jones and Douglas Wilson. I have one shelf of Van Til. Ive read Bahnsen's "Van Til's Apologetic" in its entirety, as well as owning several shelves of Reconstuctionist materials; Rushdoony, North, Chilton, Jordan, Gentry, etc.
> >
> > I know the Confessions and 3 forms of unity well.
> >
> ...



Yeah, I'd hate to see his "Reading Comprehension" score on the SAT...


----------



## DTK (Jan 25, 2009)

> 1) Nestorian, in that the Logos cannot assume a fallen human nature.


Just a comment on the first item from his list...This is not simply a bad analysis of history, but theologically inept. The eternal Logos never assumed a _fallen_ human nature. The human nature that the 2nd person of the Trinity assumed was a sinless human nature. Not even his own communion believes that the 2nd person of the Trinity assumed a _fallen_ human nature.

Hebrews 7:26 _For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners_...

DTK


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Jan 25, 2009)

py3ak said:


> > I was a Protestant Seminary student: I've read Calvin's 1536 & 1556 Institutes in their entirety. I've read probably 700-1000 pages of Luther, including the major treatises (To the Nobility, Xian Liberty, etc.), along with several of his commentaries (Romans, Jude, 1 adn 2 Peter). I have Calvin's 22 volume commentaries. I've read the systematics: Berkhof, Hodge, Dabney, Grudem, and so on. I've dialogued with Dr. John Frame, Douglas Jones and Douglas Wilson. I have one shelf of Van Til. Ive read Bahnsen's "Van Til's Apologetic" in its entirety, as well as owning several shelves of Reconstuctionist materials; Rushdoony, North, Chilton, Jordan, Gentry, etc.
> >
> > I know the Confessions and 3 forms of unity well.
> >
> ...


*1 Corinthians 2:14*

14The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.


----------



## Rich Koster (Jan 25, 2009)

Jacobus Arminius studied under Iohannes Calvinus, agreed at first with him and then took the path Paul de Tarsus warned the Ephesian Elders about in Acts 20: wolves will rise up FROM AMONG YOU and distort the truth to draw followers after themselves. Nothing new under the sun.


----------



## Matthew1034 (Jan 25, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> They do not fear Rome for two reasons:
> 
> 1) Their denominations, leaders, and Pastors tell them not to worry about Rome. The warnings of the Reformation leaders were just "historical novelties" and "part of their time".
> 
> 2) They share the same doctrine as Rome.



Benjamin,

I'm interested, would you please point me to some literature of the reformer's warnings about the RC?


----------



## py3ak (Jan 25, 2009)

Rich Koster said:


> Jacobus Arminius studied under Iohannes Calvinus, agreed at first with him and then took the path Paul de Tarsus warned the Ephesian Elders about in Acts 20: wolves will rise up FROM AMONG YOU and distort the truth to draw followers after themselves. Nothing new under the sun.



Since Arminius was about 4 years old when Calvin died, it is not accurate to say that he studied under Calvin directly.


----------



## Rich Koster (Jan 25, 2009)

I stand corrected, but the cause and effect remain the same. Beza was Calvin's successor and he probably studied under him, 2nd generation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 25, 2009)

Rich Koster said:


> I stand corrected, but the cause and effect remain the same. Beza was Calvin's successor and he probably studied under him, 2nd generation.



Yes, Beza studied under Calvin but was orthodox. I don't understand...


----------



## Rich Koster (Jan 25, 2009)

Arminius and Beza being contemporaries. 

Anyway, my drift was that someone trained in pure doctrine (by Calvin or Beza)goes out from among them and starts spewing his own brand.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 26, 2009)

Matthew1034 said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > They do not fear Rome for two reasons:
> ...



The problem would be finding Reformers who _did not_ warn about the dangers of the Roman See. 

But here are a couple citations from John Calvin:

Calvin writing against the Council of Trent

Here starting in the 4th Book, 5th Chapter through the 19th Chapter of the Institutes Calvin lays out a detailed examination of the dangers of Roman Catholicism.


----------



## Classical Presbyterian (Jan 26, 2009)

There's no way this guy we're responding to actually read all he claimed to read. ALL of Calvin's commentaries?? Sure, buddy! 

This is just another case of a person who claims to once have been as Reformed as any so that he can give more ammo to the other side. As I trained my 8 year-old to respond to inane criticism, so I will respond: Whatever.


----------



## PresbyDane (Jan 26, 2009)

yep a lot of straw is what that was!


----------

