# IF.



## ModernPuritan? (Mar 7, 2009)

If Calvinism is true, than why does it seem that these believes as how Calvin understood them seem to skip oh the first 1400 years or so of Christianity? what quantitative proof does anyone have that their interpretation is correct. For no man can with any real authority say "my interpretation is the clsoest to what God wants" or they can, but they couldnt prove such a statement from Scripture, as scripture is infact the issue. making a circular argument????
-------------------

If the phrases:
with great power comes great responsibility
with great freedom, comes great responsibility

are true

than the inverses would also be true also- 
with little power, comes little responsibility, etc..?

if then.

than how can Calvinism be true. for man has no free will unless hes one of the few the proud the marines- err elect, sorry 

If God is perfect, that means he is incapable of being/acting imperfect.
If God is a logical being, than that would mean He is incapable of illogical actions.

Now i know the verse "my ways are not your ways".
Yet i must believe that when David talks about "thy word is a lamp" that clearly, the scriptures are not some nebulous, austere writings no one can really understand. Written by God, for man in a way that man can understand.

what am i missing?


----------



## Zenas (Mar 7, 2009)

I have no idea what just went down here. Sorry brother.


----------



## Grymir (Mar 7, 2009)

After Rome fell, Philosophy died out, and so did great theological idea's that were brandied about by the masses. It wasn't until the enlightenment/Reformation that the masses were once again able to delve into philosophical/theological ideas.


----------



## AThornquist (Mar 7, 2009)

ModernPuritan? said:


> what am i missing?



 I dunno man...I think you got it all there.


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Mar 7, 2009)

but doesnt it disprove calvinism?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Mar 7, 2009)

ModernPuritan? said:


> If Calvinism is true, than why does it seem that these believes as how Calvin understood them seem to skip oh the first 1400 years or so of Christianity? what quantitative proof does anyone have that their interpretation is correct. For no man can with any real authority say "my interpretation is the clsoest to what God wants" or they can, but they couldnt prove such a statement from Scripture, as scripture is infact the issue. making a circular argument????
> -------------------
> 
> If the phrases:
> ...



I would say that the court of appeal should be General revelation. And Calvinism makes sense of General Revelation.

CT


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 7, 2009)

Calvinism is also ancient as well as true. Augustine defended it and the church councils did too, for a time. The church did not skip it for 1500 years....it slowly fell away from the truth until the Reformation returned these doctrines to their place.


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Mar 7, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Calvinism is also ancient as well as true. Augustine defended it and the church councils did too, for a time. The church did not skip it for 1500 years....it slowly fell away from the truth until the Reformation returned these doctrines to their place.



But Augustine beliefs of "Calvinism" are very different from Calvinism??


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 7, 2009)

Doesn't _what_ disprove Calvinism?

Side-note: I think you'll find it interesting when you read the works of the first two generations of reformers (especially up through Vermigli's time), you'll find some intense literary battle between both Protestants and Roman Catholics, and between Reformed and Lutheran over the fathers, and the historical interpretation of scripture by the church. These doctrines simply _weren't_ absent for 1400 years. Many of them were truly distorted and obscured by certain scholastic disputations, but the reformers truly believed themselves to stand in a line of historic interpretation.


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Mar 7, 2009)

Joshua said:


> 1. To whom are you addressing the question?
> 2. To what are you referring with the term _it_?
> 3. Can you please capitalize and punctuate for my sanity?



1) anyone
2) calvinism- depending on context
3) I try, but ive always struggled with that part of english- since i was schooled.


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Mar 7, 2009)

Joshua said:


> ModernPuritan? said:
> 
> 
> > Joshua said:
> ...



depending on context Joshua, I think you missed that


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Mar 7, 2009)

ohhh, thanks for clarifying! 
It, refers to my OP about freedom, power, responsibility, logic, etc.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Mar 7, 2009)

Jeff,
Tell me if this an accurate summary of what you're asking:
_How can God hold man responsible for his actions if man's will is not free?_​


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Mar 7, 2009)

Joshua said:


> ModernPuritan? said:
> 
> 
> > ohhh, thanks for clarifying!
> ...



you just said it. an will enslaved to sin can not be free- its impossible.
if my statements about with great______ comes ____ are true. then if mans will is enslaved, how can man be so responsible for his own actions.

I know very little about medicine. no one in their right mind, would make it my responsibility to head an ICU or perform surgery. I dont have those abilities. I dont see anymore how one can have a responsibility to do something, without actually being able to do it. 

or

if you have/had an child (infant) you can as a parent make it the infants responsibilty to change his/her diaper. but doing so would be foolish wouldnt it? they dont have the abiltiy.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Mar 7, 2009)

Joshua said:


> ModernPuritan? said:
> 
> 
> > ohhh, thanks for clarifying!
> ...



We need to be careful how we related God to logic etc. If we are not, then it is going to be incredible hard to refute false religions, for they just be able to say "your logic cannot be used to critique God".

CT


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 7, 2009)

Rod, 

What you're asking is certainly an important question, and one that the Reformers addressed at great length. For a concise, lucid and yet thorough account of the matter, you might order Calvin's _Bondage and Liberation of the Will_ from your library. 

The answer is that man's depravity is _accidental_ to his character, not _essential._ Man was created upright and able to fulfill the law: thus, in his natural, unfallen state man is perfectly free to be able to do what God commands. It is the fall (_not_ the essential nature of man) which changes this. The fact that man has made himself unable to fulfill the law of God does not change the fact that God created him able to do and responsible for doing so. The fact that we cannot now do so is, in essence, our punishment. God told Adam that if he sinned, death would be brought upon the human race: he sinned, and so death (which involves the inability to perform the law) has come upon humanity. This depraved state wherein we are unable to fulfill God's law is both by our own doing and is part of our punishment itself.

Does this clear anything up for you?

-----Added 3/7/2009 at 01:07:38 EST-----

Here is an analogy: If you are my son, and I tell you that you _must_ take my shirt to the dry cleaner today, you are responsible for this. If, subsequent to my command, you break into my liquor cabinet and get drunk (and are thus unable to drive to the laundromat), your inability (which is caused by your own wrongdoing) certainly doesn't make you any less responsible for doing what I have required of you. You will certainly still get in trouble when I get home for not doing as I commanded (for naturally, you were able: you simply made yourself unable). 

Does that make sense to you?


----------



## Jen (Mar 7, 2009)

Grymir said:


> After Rome fell, Philosophy died out, and so did great theological idea's that were brandied about by the masses. It wasn't until the enlightenment/Reformation that the masses were once again able to delve into philosophical/theological ideas.



I think you mean Renaissance. Did the masses really brandy about theological ideas? Rome wasn't exactly Athens, she being more of a _panem et circi_ type than Athens. The Renaissance brought with it the printing press, and then you could get more of the masses involved, but books were still expensive -- and, of course, you had to be able to read them, which most of the masses couldn't.

You'll also find that in the 9th century they were having quite sophisticated theological debates -- and that was four centuries after Rome fell. Some of those works were reprinted during the Reformation.

As far as the historical questions in the original post -- Calvinism, the system _as we know it_, was fine-tuned in the Reformation, yes; however, the basic tenets were always present in some form or another. Augustine was mentioned previously, but you've also got Prosper of Aquitaine and Gottschalk (the latter of which lived in the 9th century). The greater part of the Church may have forgotten Augustine's theology, but there were remnants who didn't.


----------



## historyb (Mar 7, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Rod,
> 
> What you're asking is certainly an important question, and one that the Reformers addressed at great length. For a concise, lucid and yet thorough account of the matter, you might order Calvin's _Bondage and Liberation of the Will_ from your library.
> 
> ...


But if I may, while your son could do that and was capable he put himself into an incapable position by his free will. We as lost did not put ourselves in that condition but inherited it.


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 7, 2009)

historyb said:


> But if I may, while your son could do that and was capable he put himself into an incapable position by his free will. We as lost did not put ourselves in that condition but inherited it.



Of course. We as individuals inherit it; however, as humanity considered in Adam is concerned, it is our punishment.

I was merely making a loose analogy to help explain.


----------



## Rangerus (Mar 7, 2009)

I like turtles.


----------



## historyb (Mar 7, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Of course. We as individuals inherit it; however, as humanity considered in Adam is concerned, it is our punishment.



I always thought of it as a consequence of Adam's sin, not as punishment.



Prufrock said:


> I was merely making a loose analogy to help explain.



okay, understood


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 7, 2009)

Hey Doug,

Indeed, it can be considered as both, depending upon what relationship you are considering. Not to derail the thread answering Rod's question with a mere quibble over words, I'll just cite one example for you from Augustine, of which Calvin gave approval:

"It was through freedom of choice that man came to be a sinner, but now the corruption which followed as a punishment has turned freedom into necessity" (from Augustine, _Perfection of Righteousness_, as cited in Calvin _BLW_).

-----Added 3/7/2009 at 02:38:45 EST-----

It falls under being "spiritually dead," which is part of the curse.


----------



## PresbyDane (Mar 7, 2009)

ModernPuritan? said:


> If Calvinism is true, than why does it seem that these believes as how Calvin understood them seem to skip oh the first 1400 years or so of Christianity? what quantitative proof does anyone have that their interpretation is correct. For no man can with any real authority say "my interpretation is the clsoest to what God wants" or they can, but they couldnt prove such a statement from Scripture, as scripture is infact the issue. making a circular argument????
> -------------------
> 
> If the phrases:
> ...



Really your deduction sound like the age old question of the finite trying to grasp the infinite ad I know this sounds like the argument you tried to avoid "my ways are not your ways"
But really you are asking God to become so small both in person and in his ways that you might grasp him. and that is a logical impossibility.
+ I do not think Calvin or any other theologen ever claimed to have grasped and explained the "hole" truth because that would mean, that they would claim to do what I have just labled a logical impossibility, namely the finite grasping the infinite.
So actually you are asking God not to be God in order for you to be able to keep up intellectually.
That is trying to claim sovereignty for yourself.
or maybe I am wrong ?


----------



## Grymir (Mar 7, 2009)

Jen said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> > After Rome fell, Philosophy died out, and so did great theological idea's that were brandied about by the masses. It wasn't until the enlightenment/Reformation that the masses were once again able to delve into philosophical/theological ideas.
> ...



Yes, you are quite right in what you say. There were a few in the 1400 years reference to the OP. Studies had died down after Rome and was picked up again in the Renaissance. The OP was going down a track of other reasons for the Calvinsim being supposedly "forgotten" when during those 1400 years, learning in general had declined greatly. Which is the root cause. There were a few bright lights during that time that you mentioned.

Of course I could bring up the Roman Catholic Church...but I won't.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 7, 2009)

I am not getting the objection....sorry.


----------

