There are many common misconceptions in the world, and I am not immune from acquiring them. A few of those misconceptions deal with Calvinism. Twice now, I have been corrected in my understanding of Calvinism. Most people think that Calvinism is the owner per say of the doctrine "once saved always saved", or: once you believe in God you are given the license to sin. It turns out, however, that this is not a tenant of Calvinism, but is based on misinterpretations of the tenants of Calvinism. Make no mistake - Calvinism is still wrong, but that deserves some explanation.
Here are the five tenants of Calvinism, as given by:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/TULIP/TULIP.htm
1. Total Depravity
2. Unconditional Election
3. Limited Atonement
4. Irresistible Grace
5. Perseverance of the saints
These five tenants (called "TULIP") form the basis of Calvinism and can be described as follows:
1. Total Depravity
gist: Fallen man is completely incapable of thinking good thoughts, thinking of good itself, and wanting to do good. Essentially, man is not good to begin with.
2. Unconditional Election
gist: Predestination - Those who would go to heaven were chosen before the beginning by God, and the rest are doomed for hell. As one Catholic priest jokingly expressed Calvin's belief of the doomed: "God is God and He can do whatever He darn well pleases and He decided to make you a miserable sinner, just like Adam and Eve and if you think it’s bad now you’re going to Hell so what you’re current suffering is a picnic by comparison and who are you to criticize God anyway, you sniveling little worm. Amen."
3. Limited Atonement
gist: God decided not to extend the offer of salvation to anyone. He could have, but He didn't for His own reasons.
4. Irresistible Grace
gist: If you are chosen by God before time to be one of the saved, you cannot resist His grace when He decides it is time to change your heart.
5. Perseverance of the Saints
gist: Once you are saved, you "always reflect that you are saved" so-to-speak. In other words, it is impossible for you to sin.
It is from these that people mistakenly attribute the doctrine of "once saved always saved" (or "OSAS", for short ) to Calvinism. (A better description of the tenants of Calvinism would be: "predestined to be saved, and always saved thereafter".) However, the doctrine of OSAS is nevertheless a doctrine of Protestantism. The errors in this doctrine need to be discussed, but on another post.
meus respondeo ( "my response" )
[ NOTE: A more in-depth explanation of meus respondeo has been excluded for sake of brevity. ]
1. Clearly, there are very good people in the word, including Catholics, whom Calvin would reject. The main difference between these people? - belief. Note that Calvin specifically does not mention a rule that people have to believe in his "gospel" to go to heaven, hence people could believe just about anything in that sense, but undoubtedly, Calvin would say just about all of these people, except the handful of Calvinists (if there are any in that group), are going to hell because they are ideological enemies. How are these people then capable of doing good? Calvin's argument is defeated by real evidence.
2. There is no point in preaching the gospel (or propagating Calvinism for that matter) if this is true, because the elect few (who were chosen to go to heaven) will get the message somehow and go to heaven anyways. So let us simply let Calvinism do its thing, and we will let that silly religion die out.
3. So who is saved? Can people be deceived into thinking they are saved? Calvin would say yes. Why? - because people could decide to go be part of another religion instead of Calvinism. What if they did all kinds of good though? - Oops, Calvin, back to argument 1.
4. It's true that you cannot resist God's grace IF He decides to change your heart, but in reality, He lets you decide if you want His grace or not.
5. There must not be more than 1 person going to heaven ( Calvin himself ) if this were true. I do not know of any sinless people, even those who call themselves Calvinist. Calvin's argument has been defeated by real evidence.
Summary: Calvinism is for those who consider themselves the spiritually elite. Calvin did, hence, he created this religion. As a leader moves about the philosophical realms freely, he is joined by those who think like him.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
The thought escaped me
The thought I had just escaped me.
Technically speaking, this is just a cliche that lacks the proper meaning, especially since no thought can technically "escape" unless "escape" is a word defined in such a way as to incorporate into its meaning the types of events that may involve something becoming non-existent or suppressed in the confines of mental storage. By "non-existent" I mean that the "thought" itself has dissolved, so-to-speak, amongst the psychological processes occurring in a person's mind. Certainly the electrons and metaphysical particles that once composed the "thought" may still be in existence, but their organization is now such that it can no longer be deemed as a whole to generate the same results as the original thought.
Is this important? - That question will be answered much later for sure.
Technically speaking, this is just a cliche that lacks the proper meaning, especially since no thought can technically "escape" unless "escape" is a word defined in such a way as to incorporate into its meaning the types of events that may involve something becoming non-existent or suppressed in the confines of mental storage. By "non-existent" I mean that the "thought" itself has dissolved, so-to-speak, amongst the psychological processes occurring in a person's mind. Certainly the electrons and metaphysical particles that once composed the "thought" may still be in existence, but their organization is now such that it can no longer be deemed as a whole to generate the same results as the original thought.
Is this important? - That question will be answered much later for sure.
The A & Ω of speach
God spoke first. Amen.
God spoke last. Amen.
God knows who first said whatever quote has been said, so there is no need to worry about claiming that you said it. This is especially true since no one will care on Judgment Day. In fact, on that day, many people will wish someone else had said the wrong thing before they said, and that way they are not credited with having been the physical origin of a particular bad word, phrase, or statement.
Thus, in light of the fact that God knows who said what (and that being so, He also knows who said "why"), there is no need for me to claim to be the physical source of any particular profound statement. Nevertheless, someone must still say what needs to be said for the benefit of humanity (though the few that do are often the most persecuted). I am not the absolute origin of the idea behind any statement, lest the statement be of my cramming together opposing ideas in a futile attempt to reconcile good and evil ideas such that they are understandable to the melancholy aspect of my logic and occasionally pleasing to convey with my tongue. In which case, my audience is deprived of some blessed wisdom God might have conveyed through me. I should refrain from saying "oh well". Something must be done. Speaking more may not help.
On the other hand, what I say may be good and pure and of benefit to others. Nevertheless, I should not be given credit for whatever blessing someone else obtains through what I have said. I have merely spoken words that came from ideas placed in my head and said them με δικά μου λόγια, in my own words.
God spoke last. Amen.
God knows who first said whatever quote has been said, so there is no need to worry about claiming that you said it. This is especially true since no one will care on Judgment Day. In fact, on that day, many people will wish someone else had said the wrong thing before they said, and that way they are not credited with having been the physical origin of a particular bad word, phrase, or statement.
Thus, in light of the fact that God knows who said what (and that being so, He also knows who said "why"), there is no need for me to claim to be the physical source of any particular profound statement. Nevertheless, someone must still say what needs to be said for the benefit of humanity (though the few that do are often the most persecuted). I am not the absolute origin of the idea behind any statement, lest the statement be of my cramming together opposing ideas in a futile attempt to reconcile good and evil ideas such that they are understandable to the melancholy aspect of my logic and occasionally pleasing to convey with my tongue. In which case, my audience is deprived of some blessed wisdom God might have conveyed through me. I should refrain from saying "oh well". Something must be done. Speaking more may not help.
On the other hand, what I say may be good and pure and of benefit to others. Nevertheless, I should not be given credit for whatever blessing someone else obtains through what I have said. I have merely spoken words that came from ideas placed in my head and said them με δικά μου λόγια, in my own words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)