Calvinism is a cuddly kitten

Discussion in 'Calvinism/Arminianism Debate' started by Inspector Javert, Jun 16, 2014.

  1. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    Calvinism is a Pagan Philosophy?

    Maybe, and maybe not.

    This video purports to demonstrate that "Augustinianism" is a mere re-wording of Gnostic and Manichean paganism and that the extant Theologies of Luther and Calvin (inasmuch as they agree with them)...

    Are simply repeating ancient pagan heresies unknown to the Church until Augustine's rather novel philosophy of the 4th Century....

    Morrell makes a strong case against it here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhLF-llpFX0

    This is a long video...only for those who are committed to reinvestigating pre-conceptions.
     
  2. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    What's the point of saying the same the same old drivel again? We get your terribly flawed premise.
    Care to reword that? It doesn't make any grammatical sense.
    Inspector, you are the one who needs to reevaluate your skewed view of Calvinism. You are off the proverbial beam.
     
  3. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
    Did you watch the case Morell made in the video?
     
  4. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    Since they come form the basis of it being heresy, wouldn't they conclude that he was mistaken ?
     
  5. The Archangel

    The Archangel
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    Most of the problem here is that the presenter's underlying theology, which is well documented in other places, misses the mark of orthodoxy on so many levels. He denies, among other things, the omniscience of God and a penal-substitutionary atonement.

    His "axe" to grind with Augustine and Calvinists is based in a deeply flawed theology, not accusations against Augustine which even many Arminians so clearly refute. And, the presenter's "axe" is really no axe at all. His presentation(s) are nothing more than a Quixotic attempt to defend the indefensible, unorthodox, and, possibly, heretical theology to which he holds.

    The Archangel
     
  6. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    ANY holding to more of an Open Thestic God, and denies substitutionary aspect to atonement would indeed by one NOT teaching "sound doctrines!"
     
  7. The Archangel

    The Archangel
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is very likely true. Not to mention that his expression of the beliefs of Gnosticism do not agree with anything I've read on the matter(s). There is, essentially, an over application of one aspect of a Gnostic belief to be a universal understanding (in this case the sinfulness of the body). In fact, much, if not all, of his argument on this issue is really nothing more than a Strawman.

    The Archangel
     
  8. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's not my premise: it's Morrell's.
     
  9. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    Interesting to me that those against the teachings of original Sin, God all knowing, atonement views, are usually ground in church fathers and philosophy, that while important, were NOT on par with the bible itself!
     
  10. The Archangel

    The Archangel
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    One must remember, however, that doctrine is codified over time. Many of the church fathers simply did not address specific issues of doctrine because those issues were not, as yet, threatened by heresy.

    Doctrine is codified precisely because developed doctrine must be brought to bear against heresies that come up, like Pelagianism, Arianism, etc.

    That doctrines are not widely discussed before certain heresies came about isn't a problem. Problems come when people try to make the early church fathers' writings say something they are not saying. Problems also come because an assumption is made that a lack of writing against an issue (a heresy that would occur years or centuries later) is agreement with those who espoused the heresy. This simply is not the case. Silence is not agreement. Silence is silence.

    I might add... This is why it is of the utmost importance to read the Bible itself. I've read some writings of many people (rarely do I read Calvin, by the way) and it is a problem to take their arguments as "law." At the most, the reformers, the church fathers, or modern preacher/pastor/teacher types can do is point you to Christ through His word. If what they say--no matter the era they are from--doesn't wash with the Bible as a whole, they ought to be discounted on that point or points. So, while the Bible cannot be taken smorgasbord-style, commentators on the Bible, for the most part, must be.

    The Archangel
     
    #10 The Archangel, Jun 16, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 16, 2014
  11. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    The point is :Why present the same old flawed and untruthful premise once more?
     
  12. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    The point is....
    I don't maintain that it is necessarily "flawed" or "untruthful".

    I neither confirm nor deny Morrell's premise....I'm simply presenting the video. My personal opinion is that it contains elements of truth, and that he also is most likely over-stating his case a little. Maybe he's correct, maybe he's not. I don't claim to know exclusively. But this premise is neither "old" nor "flawed" in the sense that it is not exactly true that 55 minute videos exclusively about the Philosophical sources of Augustinianism have been vetted ad nauseum on B.B. They have not.

    This is a resource made available for any who wish to view it. I doubt you actually watched it but perhaps you did.

    It's just there. For anyone who wishes to see one particular side of the issue.
     

Share This Page

Loading...