Why Calvinists Need Man-Made Creeds

Another question: Why is Vince whining about "Calvinists" needing man-made creeds? The earliest Christian creeds (e.g. the Apostles', Nicene, Athanasian, and Chalcedonian) weren't written by Calvinists, and they are confessed confidently by Christians of every stripe.

Creeds aren't a "Calvinist" problem. They're a cherished Christian tradition.

Vince's historical myopia and revisionism strike again.
 
Next problem: "We have no creed" is in itself a creed.

And even that is a lie. Every church, and I daresay every thinking Christian, has a creed. They hold to a set of standards that define the limits of fellowship, at least in their minds if not on paper. They might claim, "No creed but Christ, no confession but the Bible," but if you say the Bible teaches something other than what they say the Bible teaches, you might be barred from church membership, preaching from their pulpit, or other privileges that are not denied to those who agree with their doctrinal standards.

Those doctrinal standards might be in perfect agreement with the Bible, but they exist in a form external to the Bible. Vince doesn't object to creeds. He just objects to writing them down.
 
There's a story, cited in Mark Noll's The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, Nathan Hatch's The Democratization of American Christianity, and other works, of an argument between Barton W. Stone, one of the original members of the Restoration movement, and two colleagues, Robert Marshall and John Thompson, on some point or other of church order. Another party interrupted with a quotation from John Calvin. He was rebuffed with the reply, "We are not personally acquainted with the writings of John Calvin, nor are we certain how nearly we agree with his views of divine truth; neither do we care."

To digress, this brings me back to my previous point: Stone went on to join with Alexandar Campbell to found the so-called "Churches of Christ," which is notorious for being anti-creed. In that, apparently Vince would be in agreement with them. But I wonder whether Vince would be in agreement with their doctrine of baptismal regeneration? If both parties claim to derive their beliefs solely from the Scripture, then by what standard shall we decide which is right?

What the story really illustrates, though, is the same kind of spirtual myopia that Vince's laughable "history" does. It didn't have to be Calvin that the gentleman quoted. It could have been Wesley, or Luther, or Ignatius. These men had decided that they had the ability to interpret the Bible objectively, accurately, and "in the raw" without the help of the traditions or wise teachers with which God had gifted the church in previous eras (Eph. 4:11-13).

I got me, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit. What do I need those previous generations of Christians, and their insight for? Pfft.

What incredible arrogance.
 
rsc2a said:
What Bible? <~~ a question of theology

Okay, valid question, but too far advanced.

Newly saved out of Catholicism, in my 11th year of Catholic school, I demanded that anything I was to believe had to be first shown me from the Bible. A Godly woman in my church was horrified to see that I was using the Revised Standard Version ( I went to the store, and that's what they had) and she bought me a KJV. But the differences weren't as important as the fact that I still thought I should pray to statues and to dead people.

We do carry our errors and ignorance from our unsaved lives with us. But THE FIRST TIME I was shown these errors from the Bible, I corrected them. When HAC taught me that the size of your bus route was a measure of your spirituality, I rejected it because it was unscriptural. When the Pentecostals showed me five years ago that we are to use our spiritual gifts, I accepted it because it is Scriptural.

I concede that it is difficult in actual practice to believe the Bible and nothing else (theologically), but it can be done.
 
You have no idea what point I was making.
 
rsc2a said:
You have no idea what point I was making.

The one point I was making is that "The Whole of Scripture" does not teach Calvinism. And if you start with the Bible and nothing else, you will not be able to show Calvinism. Both the Arminians and the Calvinists knew this at the Synod of Dort. Therefore, Calvinists need man-made creeds.
 
Vince Massi said:
The one point I was making is that "The Whole of Scripture" does not teach Calvinism.

And you didn't even make that point while you were missing rsc2a's.
 
I was a new Christian when introduced to Calvinism. I started quoting John 3:16 when the Calvinist interrupted me, stating that I was robbing Christ of the glory. Thinking he had misunderstood me, I explained that I was quoting John 3:16. I started quoting John 3:16 again, and he again interrupted me by stating that I was robbing Christ of the glory. Folks, I learned more good Calvinism from that man in thirty seconds than you'll learn in decades of studying pagan philosophy and man-made creeds: Calvinism and the Bible are irreconcilably opposed.

I was introduced to "The Whole of Scripture" from a textbook that used Arthur W. Pink as a example of bad exegesis. Pink explained that in John 3:16, "the world" was the elect. When the Bible says that we are not of the world (same Greek word) it means the lost. He gave about five different definitions of "the world," which in classical Greek and in the Bible only means "the world." I saw then that "The Whole of Scripture" is ridiculous, but that Calvinism cannot withstand the Word of God without it.
 
Vince Massi said:
Folks, I learned more good Calvinism from that man in thirty seconds than you'll learn in decades of studying pagan philosophy and man-made creeds:

That explains the superficiality of your posts. Sound-bite theology for a theological dilettante.
 
Ransom said:
The earliest Christian creeds (e.g. the Apostles', Nicene, Athanasian, and Chalcedonian) weren't written by Calvinists
 
Vince Massi said:
I was a new Christian when introduced to Calvinism. I started quoting John 3:16 when the Calvinist interrupted me, stating that I was robbing Christ of the glory. Thinking he had misunderstood me, I explained that I was quoting John 3:16. I started quoting John 3:16 again, and he again interrupted me by stating that I was robbing Christ of the glory. Folks, I learned more good Calvinism from that man in thirty seconds than you'll learn in decades of studying pagan philosophy and man-made creeds: Calvinism and the Bible are irreconcilably opposed.

I was introduced to "The Whole of Scripture" from a textbook that used Arthur W. Pink as a example of bad exegesis. Pink explained that in John 3:16, "the world" was the elect. When the Bible says that we are not of the world (same Greek word) it means the lost. He gave about five different definitions of "the world," which in classical Greek and in the Bible only means "the world." I saw then that "The Whole of Scripture" is ridiculous, but that Calvinism cannot withstand the Word of God without it.


Is this what you learned?

John 3:16For God so loved the world - Such a love as that which induced God to give his only begotten son to die for the world could not be described: Jesus Christ does not attempt it. He has put an eternity of meaning in the particle ????, so, and left a subject for everlasting contemplation, wonder, and praise, to angels and to men. The same evangelist uses a similar mode of expression, 1Jn 3:1: Behold, What Manner of love, ??????? ??????, the Father hath bestowed upon us.From the subject before him, let the reader attend to the following particulars.First, The world was in a ruinous, condemned state, about to perish everlastingly; and was utterly without power to rescue itself from destruction.Secondly, That God, through the impulse of his eternal love, provided for its rescue and salvation, by giving his Son to die for it.Thirdly, That the sacrifice of Jesus was the only mean by which the redemption of man could be effected, and that it is absolutely sufficient to accomplish this gracious design: for it would have been inconsistent with the wisdom of God, to have appointed a sacrifice greater in itself, or less in its merit, than what the urgent necessities of the case required.Fourthly, That sin must be an indescribable evil, when it required no less a sacrifice, to make atonement for it, than God manifested in the flesh.Fifthly, That no man is saved through this sacrifice, but he that believes, i.e. who credits what God has spoken concerning Christ, his sacrifice, the end for which it was offered, and the way in which it is to be applied in order to become effectual.Sixthly, That those who believe receive a double benefit:1. They are exempted from eternal perdition - that they may not perish.2. They are brought to eternal glory - that they may have everlasting life. These two benefits point out tacitly the state of man: he is guilty, and therefore exposed to punishment: he is impure, and therefore unfit for glory.They point out also the two grand operations of grace, by which the salvation of man is effected.1. Justification, by which the guilt of sin is removed, and consequently the person is no longer obnoxious to perdition.2. Sanctification, or the purification of his nature, by which he is properly fitted for the kingdom of glory.




 
"Is this what you learned?"

No.

I learned that Calvinism collapses on John 3:16.
 
Ransom said:
This thread's title is false advertising. Vince isn't providing reasons why Calvinists need creeds; he's posting yet another monologue of ridiculous arguments against Calvinism.

Vince, maybe if you don't like me calling you a liar, you should stop lying.

Lie of the day:

Vince Massi said:
He invented the doctrine of God's hypocritical call--God designed men so that they cannot possibly respond to Him, calls them to Him, and then condemns them for not answering His call. John Calvin also taught God's hypocritical call.

The sincerity of an offer does not rest on the ability of the offeree to meet the conditions of the offeror. Rather, it rests on the good faith of the offeror to make good on his offer to the offeree.

I may offer a substantial cash reward to anyone who can build a working perpetual-motion machine. Of course, I know my physics, so I am well aware that such a device is an impossiblity. My money was never safer.  But the offer is not hypocritical - even if the main point of the challenge was to prove the impossibility of it.

On the other hand, if some clever inventor managed to exploit a loophole in the laws of thermodynamics that no one knew about before, and presented me with a machine that never ran down, then my sincerity will be tested. Assuming for the sake of argument that the machine is genuine, if I was sincere, then I would say, "Yep, that's a perpetual motion machine all right," and fork over the reward.  If I falsely declared it a fraud, or set so many conditions and qualifications on the claim that it was impossible for the inventor to claim his prize, then I would be a hypocrite.

And, of course, that's the situation. God demands perfection of his followers (Matthew 5:8); he deems one guilty of breaking one statute of the Law to have broken them all, and to be accursed (Deut. 27:26; Gal. 3:10; Jas. 2:10). And, indeed, he is trying to prove a point about  the impossibility of it. The Law is a teacher (3:24); its lesson is that we cannot achieve God's standard of holiness without the alien righteousness of Christ imputed to us. "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved," he says (Rom. 10:9), and yet no one in their natural state steps forward to confess and believe, because they are all his enemies: "the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" (Rom. 8:7).

On what grounds, then, can the offer of the Gospel be accused of hypocrisy? No natural man will come forward to test God's sincerity.

"You were dead in the trespasses and sins," Paul writes (Ephesians 2:1), and "were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind" (2:3). However, "even when we were dead in our trespasses, {God] made us alive together with Christ - by grace you have been saved - and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (2:5-6). No mere man can reverse his own death; it takes the power of God who alone has power to bestow life. And no dead man can resist the power of God to bring him to life; a dead man has no volition. "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (2:8-10).

This is irresistible grace. This is God's work. He takes dead men, and brings them to life. He takes his enemies and makes them his friends. He takes those who are unable and unwilling to take him up on his offer of salvation, and he makes them willing and able.

And then, he makes good on his offer, because his offer is sincere. "For the Scripture says, 'Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame'" (Rom. 10:11).
You left out a factor.
As the offeror, you must punish all those who fail to make the perpetual motion device, even those who never heard of the offer, were too young or mentally unsound to understand the offer, and purposefully mislead those who get close, because you never intended for them to win.

Earnestly Contend

 
rsc2a said:
What Bible? <~~ a question of theology
Yes, this is a very relevant point.

As in 85%+ of all street fights end in grappling, so any good doctrinal debate ends up unsettled due to a versions conflict.

I still kept my fights upright as long as possible, even though I was a champ in wrestling.

And I love the first half of any debate that is sincere, and studied,....but eventually it is going to get bogged down and run out of gas, in the "which Bible" grappling.

Earnestly Contend

 
Vince Massi said:
"Is this what you learned?"

No.

I learned that Calvinism collapses on John 3:16.

Do you see Calvinism in this interpretation?

For God so loved the world,.... The Persic version reads "men": but not every man in the world is here meant, or all the individuals of human nature; for all are not the objects of God's special love, which is here designed, as appears from the instance and evidence of it, the gift of his Son: nor is Christ God's gift to every one; for to whomsoever he gives his Son, he gives all things freely with him; which is not the case of every man. Nor is human nature here intended, in opposition to, and distinction from, the angelic nature; for though God has showed a regard to fallen men, and not to fallen angels, and has provided a Saviour for the one, and not for the other; and Christ has assumed the nature of men, and not angels; yet not for the sake of all men, but the spiritual seed of Abraham; and besides, it will not be easily proved, that human nature is ever called the world: nor is the whole body of the chosen ones, as consisting of Jews and Gentiles, here designed; for though these are called the world, Joh 6:33; and are the objects of God's special love, and to them Christ is given, and they are brought to believe in him, and shall never perish, but shall be saved with an everlasting salvation; yet rather the Gentiles particularly, and God's elect among them, are meant; who are often called "the world", and "the whole world", and "the nations of the world", as distinct from the Jews; see Rom 11:12, compared with Mat 6:32. The Jews had the same distinction we have now, the church and the world; the former they took to themselves, and the latter they gave to all the nations around: hence we often meet with this distinction, Israel, and the nations of the world; on those words,

""let them bring forth their witness", that they may be justified, Isa 43:9 (say (b) the doctors) these are Israel; "or let them hear and say it is truth", these are "the nations of the world".''

And again (c),

"the holy, blessed God said to Israel, when I judge Israel, I do not judge them as "the nations of the world":''

and so in a multitude of places: and it should be observed, that our Lord was now discoursing with a Jewish Rabbi, and that he is opposing a commonly received notion of theirs, that when the Messiah came, the Gentiles should have no benefit or advantage by him, only the Israelites; so far should they be from it, that, according to their sense, the most dreadful judgments, calamities, and curses, should befall them; yea, hell and eternal damnation.

"There is a place (they say (d),) the name of which is "Hadrach", Zec 9:1. This is the King Messiah, who is, ?? ???, "sharp and tender"; sharp to "the nations", and tender to "Israel".''

And so of the "sun of righteousness", in Mal 4:2, they say (e),

"there is healing for the Israelites in it: but the idolatrous nations shall be burnt by it.''

And that (f).

"there is mercy for Israel, but judgment for the rest of the nations.''

And on those words in Isa 21:12, "the morning cometh", and also the night, they observe (g),

"the morning is for the righteous, and the night for the wicked; the morning is for Israel, and the night for "the nations of the world".''

And again (h),

"in the time to come, (the times of the Messiah,) the holy, blessed God will bring "darkness" upon "the nations", and will enlighten Israel, as it is said, Isa 60:2.''

Once more (i),

"in the time to come, the holy, blessed God will bring the nations of the world, and will cast them into the midst of hell under the Israelites, as it is said, Isa 43:3.''

To which may be added that denunciation of theirs (k).

"woe to the nations of the world, who perish, and they know not that they perish: in the time that the sanctuary was standing, the altar atoned for them; but now who shall atone for them?''

Now, in opposition to such a notion, our Lord addresses this Jew; and it is as if he had said, you Rabbins say, that when the Messiah comes, only the Israelites, the peculiar favourites of God, shall share in the blessings that come by, and with him; and that the Gentiles shall reap no advantage by him, being hated of God, and rejected of him: but I tell you, God has so loved the Gentiles, as well as the Jews,

that he gave his only begotten Son; to, and for them, as well as for the Jews; to be a covenant of the people, the Gentiles, the Saviour of them, and a sacrifice for them; a gift which is a sufficient evidence of his love to them; it being a large and comprehensive one, an irreversible and unspeakable one; no other than his own Son by nature, of the same essence, perfections, and glory with him; begotten by him in a way inconceivable and expressible by mortals; and his only begotten one; the object of his love and delight, and in whom he is ever well pleased; and yet, such is his love to the Gentiles, as well as Jews, that he has given him, in human nature, up, into the hands of men, and of justice, and to death itself:

that whosoever believeth in him, whether Jew or Gentile,

should not perish, but have everlasting life; See Gill on Joh 3:15.

(b) T. Bab. Avoda Zara, fol. 2. 1. (c) Ib. fol. 4. 1. Vid. T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 91. 2. & Bereshit Rabba, fol. 11. 3. (d) Shirhashirim Rabba, fol. 24. 1. Jarchi & Kimchi in Zech. ix. 1. (e) Zohar in Gen. fol. 112. 2. (f) Zohar in Exod. fol. 15. 1, 2. (g) T. Hieros. Taaniot, fol. 64. 1. (h) Shemot Rabba, sect. 14. fol. 99. 4. (i) Ib sect. 11. fol. 98. 3. (k) T. Bab. Succa, fol. 55. 2.
 
Okay, Brethren, time to wrap up this thread.

This thread is an accidental offshoot of another thread, where I learned that some of us attach importance to the 17th Century man-made creeds of British Calvinists. I am surprised that we have been running about 100 hits per day (although many people are tuning in more than once), which indicates that these creeds are disturbing more Christians than I had realized.

Those creeds were written to blend the new philosophy of irresistible grace into Calvinism in order to patch a fatal flaw, and to authorize "The Whole of Scripture" to withstand the Word of God. They are failed creeds, written by the failed leaders of a failed religion.  They have no Scriptural authority to exist,  and you don't need to worry about them.

I appreciate all the folks who took the time to follow this thread, and I hope that I was able to help you.





 
prophet said:
As the offeror, you must punish all those who fail to make the perpetual motion device, even those who never heard of the offer, were too young or mentally unsound to understand the offer, and purposefully mislead those who get close, because you never intended for them to win.

That's s is a straw man from beginning to end, since the sole purpose of my analogy was to describe how the offer of the Gospel was sincere rather than hypocritical, as Vince falsely claimed then cowardly claimed the thread was wrapped up (as if he has any say in the matter) without having to deal with anyone's criticisms

But the last point is pure dishonesty. What in Calvinism or the Bible even suggests that God is purposely misleading anyone? Do you suffer from Vince's affliction of pontificating at great lengths on topics you know next to nothing about?
 
Ransom said:
prophet said:
As the offeror, you must punish all those who fail to make the perpetual motion device, even those who never heard of the offer, were too young or mentally unsound to understand the offer, and purposefully mislead those who get close, because you never intended for them to win.

That's s is a straw man from beginning to end, since the sole purpose of my analogy was to describe how the offer of the Gospel was sincere rather than hypocritical, as Vince falsely claimed then cowardly claimed the thread was wrapped up (as if he has any say in the matter) without having to deal with anyone's criticisms

But the last point is pure dishonesty. What in Calvinism or the Bible even suggests that God is purposely misleading anyone? Do you suffer from Vince's affliction of pontificating at great lengths on topics you know next to nothing about?
Yes, it was hypothetical, so this is probably a waste of time.


Earnestly Contend

 
Top