Hypocrisy Of Calvinism Huxters' Talk Of Efficacy

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
They're mistaken.
You're supposed to italicize the 'sic.'


Those who presently "subscribe" to reformed theology (which, as you implied, has not yet been "utterly discredited") are not "wonton [sic [sic]] fools", but are "mistaken"? And, how will you come to decide when reformed theology has been "utterly discredited"?
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Exactly how is referring to the Vatican's teachings and practices as "Romanism" to be understood as a barb? People who conscientiously use the term "Romanism", as opposed to the terms "Roman Catholicism" and "Catholicism", are saying, in it, that

1. the teachings and practices to which they are referring, by it, proceed from the Vatican, in Rome, the city of the Roman(s) (hence, "Roman-ism"), and that

2. those teachings and practices are not rightly to be called 'catholic' (let alone with a capital C).

You consider their stating their honest disagreement with a certain manner of using the word, 'catholic', to be a barb? To whom do you consider it to be a barb, and why?

Since, obviously, the terms "Roman Catholicism" and "Catholicism" are out of the question for them (as these terms are freighted with implication in direct conflict with what they believe), exactly what term would you recommend they use, instead of 'Romanism', whereby they need not pretend to approve of a usage of the word 'catholic' which they honestly do not accept, and whereby they will not be considered as guilty of laying a barb by those who consider the term 'Romanism' to be a barb?
'Catholic' is absolutely not out of the question. Nobody ever uses the word to mean anything other than Catholicism, which Protestants see as 'a denomination' anyway, unless and only unless they are reciting or reading the creeds. Otherwise they use 'whole Church,' to mean the whole Church, and not 'the catholic Church,' which nobody uses, ever.

Except the Orthodox. Are you Orthodox?

And, this is either a big deal, or it isn't a big deal, and I can't tell which one you're arguing for. I don't think my barb is a big deal, nor 'papist' or 'popish' or 'Romish.' If others are going to employ these words, then I'll employ words that reflect those words. For me, the official names are preferred, but if people want to sling around mild slurs then let's do that, by all means. Heck, I'm comfortable with all kinds of profanity, but this isn't the discussion board for that.

And what are you again?
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Those who presently "subscribe" to reformed theology (which, as you implied, has not yet been "utterly discredited") are not "wonton [sic [sic]] fools", but are "mistaken"?
Flat earthers weren't always 'wonton [sic [sic] ('[sic ('[sic]')) [sic]] fools.' You have to alternate brackets and parentheses.
And, how will you come to decide when reformed theology has been "utterly discredited"?
It's already been, for me. When was flat earth discredited? What if flat earthers continued believing, even though it's been discredited? Would we think it discredited, if most people went on believing it anyway?
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Would it be just that any ELECT person should be punished on earth (in his/her blindness of mind, reprobate sense, strong delusions, hardness of heart, horror of conscience, vile affections, and all the evils that befall the ELECT in their bodies, names, estates, relations, employments, and in death, itself)--would it be just that any ELECT person should be punished in suffering one or more of these things for the sins for which Christ was punished on earth?

It is wonderful that you have taken up some of the standards to study. It would also help if you could avail yourself of some decent commentaries on the Westminster Standards (WCF, WLC, WSC). They are ancient documents written in the style of their time and the grammar and phraseology particular to that time. This will avoid anachronistically reading error into them based upon your attempt to just "wing it" as in assigning "punishment" where it is not actually intended.

WLC
28. What are the punishments of sin in this world?
A. The punishments of sin in this world, are either inward, as blindness of mind, a reprobate sense, strong delusions, hardness of heart, horror of conscience, and vile affections: or outward, as the curse of God upon the creatures for our sake; and all other evils that befall us in our bodies, names, estates, relations, and employments; together with death itself.

Scripture proofs supplied for this question that should not be overlooked:

• Eph. 4:18
• Rom. 1:28
• 2 Thess. 2:11
• Rom. 2:5
• Isa. 33:14; Gen. 4:13; Matt. 27:4
• Rom. 1:26
• Gen. 3:17
• Deut. 28:15-68

The whole world of nature is under a curse of God, as we learn from Genesis 3:17-19 as well as other places in Scripture.

In what sense is the curse upon the world of nature a punishment for sin? In the case of unsaved sinners, the curse upon nature is strictly and simply a punishment for sin. In the case of Christian people, the curse upon nature is not strictly a penalty for sin, for they have been delivered from that by Christ's atonement. Rather, in their case, the curse upon nature is to be regarded as a consequence of sin and a part of God's fatherly chastening or discipline by which he prepares us for the lice eternal.

In what sense is physical death itself a punishment for sin? Death is called "the wages of sin" (Rom. 6:23). Wages means "that which we have earned'' or "what we deserve." In the case of the unsaved person, death is simply the wages of sin, a judicial penalty. In the case of the Christian, however, Christ has already suffered death as his substitute. The Christian still has to die, of course, but in the case of the Christian, death is no longer a penalty. It remains an enemy, but it is not a Judicial penalty. Rather, to the Christian, death is a change by which God transfers him to the region and the condition of perfect holiness. Thus physical death, to the Christian, is part of God's fatherly discipline. It proceeds not from God's wrath, but from his love in the ease of the Christian.

The question and answer in the WLC rightly stirs up the Christian, as children so stirred up by their Fathers, such that they do not immediately flee to the fifth petal, perseverance (or OSAS for the non-Calvinist). ;)

R. Haldane's commentary on Romans is well worth reading. I hope you continue to read and learn from it.

I also suggest you start with the WSC and this wonderful exposition of the same:
https://reformed.org/documents/fish...reformed.org/documents/fisher/index_fish.html

AMR
 

meshak

BANNED
Banned
Obviously. And I'm now on record as saying it. I'm not being subtle in stealing 'Clavin' from St. John W. He invented it, and I blatantly plagiarize him, in his honor. I never thought that it wasn't very clear what I mean by 'Clavin:' John "Cliff/Cliffy" Clavin.

Ok, thank you.

John W is so good at inventing the words.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
In what sense is the curse upon the world of nature a punishment for sin? In the case of unsaved sinners, the curse upon nature is strictly and simply a punishment for sin. In the case of Christian people, the curse upon nature is not strictly a penalty for sin, for they have been delivered from that by Christ's atonement. Rather, in their case, the curse upon nature is to be regarded as a consequence of sin and a part of God's fatherly chastening or discipline by which he prepares us for the lice eternal.

In what sense is physical death itself a punishment for sin? Death is called "the wages of sin" (Rom. 6:23). Wages means "that which we have earned'' or "what we deserve." In the case of the unsaved person, death is simply the wages of sin, a judicial penalty. In the case of the Christian, however, Christ has already suffered death as his substitute. The Christian still has to die, of course, but in the case of the Christian, death is no longer a penalty. It remains an enemy, but it is not a Judicial penalty. Rather, to the Christian, death is a change by which God transfers him to the region and the condition of perfect holiness. Thus physical death, to the Christian, is part of God's fatherly discipline. It proceeds not from God's wrath, but from his love in the ease of the Christian.

Calvinism's problem does not go away one iota with these statements.

"In the case of unsaved sinners, the curse upon nature is strictly and simply a punishment for sin."

Calvinism's inexorable problem, here, is that every elect person, before he/she has been saved, has spent some period as an unsaved sinner--an elect, unsaved sinner--and thus, will have, for the duration of that period, suffered, to some extent, that "punishment for sin" referred to by the Westminster divines. That is, every elect, unsaved sinner (just like the non-elect) will have been punished, to some extent, for his/her sin. The Westminster divines clearly did not say "In the case of [non-elect, to the exclusion of all elect,] unsaved sinners...."

"The Christian still has to die, of course, but in the case of the Christian, death is no longer a penalty. It remains an enemy, but it is not a Judicial penalty."

One Calvinism-damning failure, here, is that the divines are flat-out contradicting where they, in another place, have clearly stated that "death itself" is one of the "punishments of sin in this world...that befall US in OUR bodies", which is nothing but an unguarded admission that they ("US"), as Christians, suffer PUNISHMENT in their ("OUR") bodies. Is the reader supposed to think that they meant that they suffer punishment, while, somehow, not suffering penalty? Any divine who comes to a point where he has to appeal to his audience to just please bear with him while he (in, perhaps, some 500-page scholastic excursus) endeavours to distinguish between punishment, on the one hand, and penalty, on the other, as though one thing is signified by the one word, whereas another thing, different from the former, is signified by the other--in such a case, any patient, reasonable hearer will, at that point (if no sooner) come rightly to suspect casuistry and imposture.

One may notice, also, that in the first sentence, the divines wrote the phrase, "a penalty", and in the second, they wrote, "a Judicial penalty". This makes me wonder whether they held that the class of all penalty is divisible into sub-classes: Judicial penalty and non-Judicial penalty. Or, did they consider all penalty to be Judicial, so that the word 'Judicial' in the phrase "Judicial penalty" is redundant, and does not really modify the word 'penalty'?
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Sigh. So we have to qualify that we're here talking about Christian documents?

And I wonder why a Protestant wouldn't like Ignatius's epistles. :think:

But, who is obligated to assume that the epistles to which you refer are of Christian authorship?

And I wonder why an anti-Protestant would like the epistles to which you refer. :think:
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
But, who is obligated to assume that the epistles to which you refer are of Christian authorship?
People who aren't conspiratorialists.
And I wonder why an anti-Protestant would like the epistles to which you refer. :think:
I don't like them. Well, OK I like them, but I don't like them because of the light shed on Church organization at such an early point; I like them because Ignatius was an authentic Church pastor, and he wrote letters to other dioceses, and his words belie a man who thinks just as deeply about the Christian faith as we do here on TOL, the main difference being that he happened to have lived just very briefly after this all occurred! His thoughts on everything that he shared with us are all fascinating because of when he lived, and who he was (he was third bishop of Antioch, Peter himself being the first bishop of Antioch). It doesn't matter if you're Catholic or Antiprotestant like me, or Protestant; Ignatius's letters are a precious peak right into the mind of one of my older brothers, a fellow Christian, and a much more mature Christian than I could ever be, since he's been a Christian now around 1,900 years, and I've only been a Christian for a small fraction of that.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
What would Ignatius do? WWID?

Do you know that 'INRI' means 'Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jewish people?' 'Jesus' in Latin starts with an I. 'Rex' is Latin for 'king,' and like with 'Jesus' in Latin, 'Jew' in Latin also starts with an I. INRI.
 
Top