Hymn To The Pope

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Oct 1 2004, 02:43 PM'] To be fair, not all Calvinists are hard determinists. Most define free will as the ability to act according to one's desires. One's desires are determined by how God has created the will and what objects He places before the will. Thus they reconcile the existence of secondary causes with determinism.

Martin Luther, however, did hold the hard determinist view. [/quote]
Precisely. The Reformed hold a compatibilistic view of Free Will - that is, our actions are free, in that we do whatever we will to do, but our will is, ultimately, predestined by God to do what it does.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 2 2004, 03:37 PM'] Precisely. The Reformed hold a compatibilistic view of Free Will - that is, our actions are free, in that we do whatever we will to do, but our will is, ultimately, predestined by God to do what it does. [/quote]
Precisely, and that is why I said that the Calvinists hold a position that is nearly identical to that taught by Islam. It is a form of fatalism with the veneer of freedom.

[notthe9]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Oct 1 2004, 11:34 AM'] ICTHUS,

You have an avatar of Martin Luther.. Does that mean you worship him? How lewd! [/quote]
We are not told to make images of God (in fact we are commanded quite the opposite), so his having an image of Luther does not show he gives Luther a position belonging only to God.

If indeed we ought to direct our praises (in a religious sense) to God alone, the only ruler over space and time, then saying singing these things are idolatrous.

So the real question, then, is whether God is the sole Ruler over Time and Space, the only one worthy of our praise.


That being said, I believe it is inappropriate to apply these titles to those other than God. The explanations here have stripped “praise,” “throne,” and “rule” of their natural meanings there. That being said, I recognize that the interpretations found here is what is pertinent to the discussion in this thread.

[notthe9]

[quote name='Hananiah']To be fair, not all Calvinists are hard determinists.  Most define free will as the ability to act according to one's desires.  One's desires are determined by how God has created the will and what objects He places before the will.  Thus they reconcile the existence of secondary causes with determinism.[/quote]
To be accurate, no Calvinists are hard determinists. Calvinism is a compatibilistic system. If someone affirms any indeterminstic system, that is a disaffirmation of calvinism.

[quote name='Hananiah']Martin Luther, however, did hold the hard determinist view.[/quote]
Can you support this. In his [i]Table Talk[/i] and [i]The Bondage of the Will[/i] he seemed to say quite the opposite.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='notthe9' date='Oct 2 2004, 04:46 PM'] We are not told to make images of God (in fact we are commanded quite the opposite), so his having an image of Luther does not show he gives Luther a position belonging only to God.

If indeed we ought to direct our praises (in a religious sense) to God alone, the only ruler over space and time, then saying singing these things are idolatrous.

So the real question, then, is whether God is the sole Ruler over Time and Space, the only one worthy of our praise.


That being said, I believe it is inappropriate to apply these titles to those other than God. The explanations here have stripped “praise,” “throne,” and “rule” of their natural meanings there. That being said, I recognize that the interpretations found here is what is pertinent to the discussion in this thread. [/quote]
Of course the incarnation opens a dispensation of images, because the invisible God has become visible. Protestants always fail to recognize the consequences of the incarnation.

God is the sole ruler of time and space and He has seen fit to share this power with those redeemed in Christ, and particularly with the hierarchy of the Church founded by the Lord Himself during His earthly ministry.

Christ is the Church, for the Head and the Body are one man.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='notthe9' date='Oct 2 2004, 04:50 PM'] To be accurate, no Calvinists are hard determinists. Calvinism is a compatibilistic system. If someone affirms any indeterminstic system, that is a disaffirmation of calvinism.
[/quote]
Calvinists are fatalists, because they deny that man has free will with their doctrine of "compatibilism," for the entire compatibilist system is merely a rehashing of the views of Al-Ashari and his inane theory of the acquisition of acts. If the will is eternally predetermined by God, it follows of necessity that it is not free.

[Apotheoun]

Calvinism is nothing more than an anthropological form of the Monothelite heresy.

[Brother Adam]

I don't know what books you read Apotheoun, but I"ve got to get my hands on them. In some circles, I can come across as "educated" but you put me to shame everytime.

[notthe9]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Oct 1 2004, 02:50 PM'] Similarly in Islam Al-Ashari developed a theory of acquisition of acts that tried to allow for secondary causes, but both his theory and Calvin's theory are evasions of the real question, for they still do not accept the fact that man can be a true cause; instead, they make man a puppet subject to divine interventions which only appear to be true choices. [/quote]
You evaluate a foreign worldview from yours, of course you'll come out with negative conclusions.

Shall I evaluate your worldview from mine?

[Guest Aluigi]

amen brother adam. me as well!

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='notthe9' date='Oct 2 2004, 06:10 PM'] You evaluate a foreign worldview from yours, of course you'll come out with negative conclusions.

Shall I evaluate your worldview from mine? [/quote]
Showing the Islamic influence in Protestantism is not drawing conclusions from a foreign paradigm; instead, it is simply the recognition that both Islam and Calvinism deny the freedom of the will in the natural order and in the process both systems fall into the error of fatalism. Calvinist compatibilism and Islamic acquisitionalism are two sides of the same coin.

The Calvinist denial of free will has repercussions throughout theology, for it leads to various Christological heresies, including Monophysitism and Monothelitism, both of which destroyed the true humanity of Christ. It is a theological truth that the man justified by grace mirrors iconically the incarnate Logos, who had both a divine and a human nature, a divine will and a human will, and divine energies and human energies. The same holds for the man justified by grace, for his actions are truly [i]theandric[/i], and the process of salvation is something that transforms him from within; in other words, it is not merely extrinsic to his being. I doubt you have given much thought to any of this, because most Protestants fail to recognize the awesome power of the incarnation, and tend to fall into a form of gnosticism, which ultimately denies the goodness of the material world. The purpose of the incarnation of the eternal Son of God is the deification of man.

God bless,
Todd

[notthe9]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Oct 2 2004, 06:58 PM'] Calvinists are fatalists, because they deny that man has free will with their doctrine of "compatibilism," for the entire compatibilist system is merely a rehashing of the views of Al-Ashari and his inane theory of the acquisition of acts. If the will is eternally predetermined by God, it follows of necessity that it is not free. [/quote]
Compatibilism, by definition, does not deny free will. Yes, it denies free will in the sense of lack of foreordination, but that is a far cry from your accusations.

Although the compatibilistic and Muslim often use the same kiund of terminology, they in stark contrast. The most obviously resemblance is the teaching that all things are by the will of God. The problem is, the views have very different ideas of what this "will of God" is. In the Muslim view, God cares only for submissions, and the only part man has is to obey His decrees. The Islamic view is mute on sin and human moreal responsibility, with sin being a totally different concept than the Biblical view. Lacking God as Father, God is represented as having arbitrarily divided groups, unlike the Biblical, Calvinistic view where we are elected in Christ, which goes along with out redemption through His blood. There is no effectual, redeeming, saving grace or Fatherly preservation and perseverance. No, the focus of the views seem to be like night and day.

Perhaps I am simply misinformed. Please show how compatibilism is derived from Al-Asharian views.

[notthe9]

[quote name='Apotheoun']Of course the incarnation opens a dispensation of images, because the invisible God has become visible.  Protestants always fail to recognize the consequences of the incarnation.[/quote]
I considered clarifying myself, but decided to assume you were not going to pull something like this. I was not trying to say anything against creating images of the incarnate Christ, the Holy Ghost as a Dove, Christ as slain lamb in Revelation, etc. Shall we create images of the Father?

[quote name='Apotheoun']God is the sole ruler of time and space and He has seen fit to share this power with those redeemed in Christ, and particularly with the hierarchy of the Church founded by the Lord Himself during His earthly ministry.[/quote]
This is off topic. I recgnized and respected your views, then commented on what the topic at hand was.

[quote name='Apotheoun']Christ is the Church, for the Head and the Body are one man.[/quote]

If indeed Christ is the [i]head[/i] of the Body of Christ, it does not make sense that He is the Body. If the Head is the Fullness of Christ, the rest of the Body must be something different. Though the head is in union with the Body, I do not know that we can say that the Head and the Body are the same thing, when Scripture talks about each signifying a different things.

[notthe9]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Oct 2 2004, 07:00 PM'] Calvinism is nothing more than an anthropological form of the Monothelite heresy. [/quote]
Can you substantiate this? I do not even understand the accusation. Are you saying that Calvinism holds that man has one will and nature, and that this is heretical?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='notthe9' date='Oct 2 2004, 06:25 PM'] Compatibilism, by definition, does not deny free will.  Yes, it denies free will in the sense of lack of foreordination, but that is a far cry from your accusations.

Although the compatibilistic and Muslim often use the same kiund of terminology, they in stark contrast.  The most obviously resemblance is the teaching that all things are by the will of God.  The problem is, the views have very different ideas of what this "will of God" is.  In the Muslim view, God cares only for submissions, and the only part man has is to obey His decrees.  The Islamic view is mute on sin and human moreal responsibility, with sin being a totally different concept than the Biblical view.  Lacking God as Father, God is represented as having arbitrarily divided groups, unlike the Biblical, Calvinistic view where we are elected in Christ, which goes along with out redemption through His blood.  There is no effectual, redeeming, saving grace or Fatherly preservation and perseverance.  No, the focus of the views seem to be like night and day.

Perhaps I am simply misinformed.  Please show how compatibilism is derived from Al-Asharian views. [/quote]
No matter how often you say that it is not, the Calvinist system is a determinist system. Now if you admit contingency in human affairs, that is something altogether different, but your friend ICTHUS has indicated that that is not what he means by compatibilism. I have no problem accepting divine foreknowledge of the acts of man, but if by this you mean that the acts are predestined to happen, then you are falling into fatalism.

The problem with Calvinism is that it does the same thing as Al-Ashari in order to try and come up with a theory of human responsibility, which means that it actually holds that our "free" acts are predetermined by God, but if they are predetermined by God and not simly foreseen by Him, it follows that they are not free acts but are acts done under compulsion, and this leads to a form of Manichaean dualism, where God becomes the source and origin of sin and evil.

Al-Ashari, like Calvin, held that human acts are "free," although he then went on to say that they are foreknown and predestined by God, but in saying this he was indicating two things that cannot exist simultaneously. For if God predestines the acts of man, including sin, it follows that man is not the cause of his own acts, and as a consequence, that he is not responsible for them either. This means that God is the cause of both good and evil human actions, and that He has from all eternity willed these good and evil deeds and the consequences flowing from them. That is why both Al-Ashari and Calvin hold that the eternal destiny of each man is predetermined by a decree of God, and that He creates some men for glory, while He also positively wills and creates other men for damnation. This view of predestination and free will is contrary to teaching of the Church Fathers and scripture, for God never positively wills evil or damnation.

Speaking of the arbitrary will of God, Calvin's doctrine of salvation is clearly arbitrary for as he himself put it, "By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which He determined with Himself whatever He wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death." [John Calvin, [u]Institutes[/u], Book 3, Chapter 21, no. 5]