Why Calvinists Need Man-Made Creeds

WHY CALVINISTS NEED MAN-MADE CREEDS  Reason #1

In the third century AD, Mani announced that a gigantic angel had told him that he needed to merge the best of all religions into a new superior religion?Manichaeism, which became one of the world?s great religions, and survives today as Reformed Theology. The angel  taught Mani, among other things, the doctrine of unconditional election.

Correctly understanding that unconditional election is a pagan doctrine, Mani?s new religion made it a part of the rejection of Christianity.

A century and a half later, the Manichaean philosopher St. Augustine, forced to convert to Catholicism (he never converted to Christianity) wrote a fairy tale account of his conversion and went on to became the greatest of the Manichaean philosophers. Believing  that Christianity is an inferior religion, St. Augustine sought to merge the best parts of various religions into a new and better religion?Catholicism.

Augustine understood that statue worship, prayer to dead spirits, unconditional election, a powerful priesthood, and other errors are pagan doctrines, and he sought to blend them  with Christianity. While rejecting unconditional election, Catholicism kept many of Augustine?s other pagan beliefs, making him a ?Doctor of the Church.? His defense of murder as a tool of evangelism is so brilliant that the Catholic Church used it to justify the Inquisition.

The first reason why Calvinists need man-made creeds?Because unconditional election is a pagan doctrine, Calvinists cannot accept the Bible as their only creed.
 
So people are finally discussing the merits of Vince's history, and he's ignoring them.

This isn't your personal blog, Vince.
 
Vince Massi said:
A century and a half later, the Manichaean philosopher St. Augustine, forced to convert to Catholicism (he never converted to Christianity) wrote a fairy tale account of his conversion and went on to became the greatest of the Manichaean philosophers. Believing  that Christianity is an inferior religion, St. Augustine sought to merge the best parts of various religions into a new and better religion?Catholicism.
Click to expand...

I'd like you to document this, Vince. We have a right to know why we should believe you.
 
FSSL said:
The earliest Baptists did not immerse.
Click to expand...

That's not what the Gospels and Acts tell us.

But  you might be referring to some Baptist groups that appeared after the Reformation. There were new Christians at that time who understood that baptism was only for converts, but they did not understand that the Greek word "baptize" means "immerse."  These groups later blended into various Baptist groups, blended with each other, and eventually got the doctrine straight.
 
Apparently you don't know your Baptist history. That is the problem with the "trail of Blooders," they know more about their "trail" than they know about actual Baptist History.

How do I know this? Been there.... done that.
 
Actually, FSSL, nobody knows their Baptist history--the Catholic Church destroyed, falsified, and preserved records in such a way that history is distorted. And communication, literacy, and transportation were not well enough developed to keep good records anyway.

The first time I saw The Trail of Blood, I realized that the statements made could not be proved. I have never believed in The Trail of Blood, and I am aware that God never promised an unbroken line of Baptists. But I also believe that there are not enough historical records to prove it either way.

But the New Testament clearly proves that the first Christians were Baptists and were not Calvinist, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.
 
Vince Massi said:
Actually, FSSL, nobody knows their Baptist history--the Catholic Church destroyed, falsified, and preserved records in such a way that history is distorted.
Click to expand...

But somehow you've come into possession of an undistorted, reliable version?
 
... while ignoring the obvious, intact history of the 1600s detailing the beginnings in England.
 
WHY CALVINISTS NEED MAN-MADE CREEDS  Reason #2

In blending the pagan doctrine of unconditional  election into Christianity, St. Augustine needed to destroy several verses that teach that God calls all men, enlightens all men, draws all men, etc. 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.

But Arminius, a Dutch Reformed pastor, discovered a philosophical flaw in this system. If God designed men so that they cannot respond to Him, when God gives grace to the elect, they cannot respond. Period. Calvinism doesn't work. Period. That's it. It's over.

As a result of this discovery, revival broke loose in the Dutch Reformed Church. Adherents who could only hope that they were lucky enough to be elect learned that they were allowed to come to Christ, that God wanted them to be saved, that God was sincere when He called them, and that they were allowed to respond to God's call. Large numbers of Calvinists turned to Christ while their leaders fought the revival through legal persecution.

And around the year 1605, someone invented irresistible grace in order to plug the fatal flaw in Calvin's philosophy. Irresistible grace is not a doctrine--it is not based on Scripture nor on a misunderstanding of Scripture. It is a philosophical plug, designed to patch a philosophical flaw in Calvin's philosophical system.

"Charis," the Greek word for "grace," is the root of other Greek words referring to "kindness." It cannot possibly refer to an irresistible force. Nowhere in secular Greek literature nor the Bible is "charis" used for an irresistible force.

No Church Father, Doctor of the Church,  Pope, Church Council, Protestant Reformer, heretic, or denomination had ever believed in irresistible grace, nor had they opposed it--they had never heard of it. The Orthodox and Coptic Churches had never heard of it. When the Catholic Council of Trent condemned Protestant doctrines, it never mentioned irresistible grace--neither the Catholics nor the Protestants had ever heard of it.

John Calvin didn't believe in irresistible grace, nor did any Calvinist statement of faith. Even the Dutch Reformed Church, which invented irresistible grace, didn't believe in irresistible grace.

The second reason why Calvinists need man-made creeds--Because Calvinism collapses without the 17th Century philosophy of irresistible grace, Calvinists need man-made creeds to teach irresistible grace.
 
This grace, therefore, which is hiddenly bestowed in human hearts by the Divine gift, is rejected by no hard heart, because it is given for the sake of first taking away the hardness of the heart. When, therefore, the Father is heard within, and teaches, so that a man comes to the Son, He takes away the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh, as in the declaration of the prophet He has promised. Because He thus makes them children and vessels of mercy which He has prepared for glory.  - Saint Augustine of Hippo
 
"No movement of the free will necessarily obtains grace because such movement is the result of grace.  However, if God intends to move a person?s free will to obtain grace, it will necessarily happen, since God?s intentions cannot fail." - Thomas Aquinas
 
A problem here, rsc2a, is that St. Augustine taught that unsaved man cannot accept that grace.
 
Vince Massi said:
A problem here, rsc2a, is that St. Augustine taught that unsaved man cannot accept that grace.
Click to expand...
i.e. unconditional election.

Again your history is badly wrong, and three seconds on Google would have shown this.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
WHY CALVINISTS NEED MAN-MADE CREEDS  Reason #3

Faced with the Arminian revival and the need of inventing irresistible grace, the Dutch Reformed Church called for a Church Council. Rigged from the beginning, the Synod of Dort only permitted Calvinist judges. The Calvinists agreed in advance that they would allow Arminians to present one verse at a time showing the error of Calvinism. Then the judges would reject the verse, claiming that "The Whole of Scripture" taught Calvinism (which it does not). The Guilty verdict and the death sentence were finalized before the trial began.

But then the Calvinists learned the Arminian strategy. Instead of presenting one verse at a time, the Arminians would reject all theology (including their own) except the Bible. Then they would build up Biblical doctrine from the Bible only. Since unconditional election is a pagan doctrine not found in Scripture, the Calvinists wouldn't be able to start. And since the trials were open to the public, murdering the Arminians after people saw them win would cause problems

So the Calvinists barred Arminians from participating. The attacks on Calvinism consisted of a Calvinist reading one verse at a time that refuted Calvinism. The judges then rejected the verse on the basis of "The Whole of Scripture," and the Calvinists "won."

Reason #3--Because Calvinism's strongest defense against the Word of God is "The Whole of Scripture," and since the whole of Scripture does not really teach Calvinism, Calvinists need man-made creeds to teach "The Whole of Scripture."
 
Vince Massi said:
...the Arminians would reject all theology (including their own) except the Bible. Then they would build up Biblical doctrine from the Bible only...
Click to expand...

A fundamentally impossible thing.
 
Too bad Vince can't deal with Bible-based criticism of his revisionist history.  Nope, best to ignore it and blog on, pretending no one is actually reading with his brain turned on.
 
rsc2a said:
Vince Massi said:
...the Arminians would reject all theology (including their own) except the Bible. Then they would build up Biblical doctrine from the Bible only...
Click to expand...

A fundamentally impossible thing.

Hey, Man, you've impressed me with some of your intelligent research. But it is possible for a person to say that "I believe the Bible and nothing else," and then develop theology from there.
Click to expand...
 
What Bible? <~~ a question of theology
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top