Calvinism is…

"It's the way we move, sway and raise our palms to that sexy beat."

“It’s the way we move, sway and raise our palms to that sexy beat.”

By: The Gay Nazi Wizard and His Noxious Nest of Nobodies

Calvinism is dust on a Spurgeon devotional on a hearth with a kettle boiling goat’s milk for a mediocre-looking wife’s offspring, sprung from her privy parts.

Calvinism is an “elect” man in a van down by the river with a huge triple cassette tape deck running nonstop, multiple copies off of a generator about the legal status of living by the river on state property.

Calvinism is a week-long lecture on the Song of Solomon, only to retire every evening with your wife giving you zero nookie.

Calvinism is a debate on the legality of saying “missionary position.”

Calvinism is Wednesday night haircut/bible study in the farm home of the “elders.”

Calvinism is congregational ruling elders delivering your offspring through midwifery on the kitchen island.

Calvinism is debating an unknown person a thousand miles away, furiously slapping at the keyboard for hours on the Sabbath, only to immediately click over to bigblondebutts.com

Calvinism is whizzing in your boxers when you first see Gary North’s luminous crown of white hair emerging over the horizon, walking towards you.

Calvinism is running theonomy.com AND bigblondebutts.com

Calvinism is that *rush* you get at hearing “Rushdoony.”

Calvinism is rejecting lace head coverings for being too similar to lascivious lingerie. Read more of this post

Spenser’s Use of Symbolism in The Visions of Petrarch

I saw a Phoenix in the wood alone...

By: Jay

(c) Copyright, All Rights Reserved.

The Visions of Petrarch, published in 1569 by J. Van der Noordt with woodcuts and titled The Theatre of the Worldlings, is one of the lesser known early works of Elizabethan epic poet, Edmund Spenser (1552-99). Prior to the publication of his masterpiece, The Faerie Queen, Spenser wrote this smaller work titled the Visions of Petrarch wherein he combines elements of Calvinistic and Protestant theology and morality, with classical mythological imagery. The purpose of this paper will be to analyze the seven poems of the Visions, analyzing the allegorical and tropological lessons intended to be gained thereby, as meditations in preparation for death.

The first of the visions concerns a doe attacked by two wild dogs. The poem is as follows:

Being one day at my window all alone,
So many strange things happened me to see,
As much it grieueth me to thinke thereon.
At my right hand a Hynde appear’d to me,
So faire as mote the greatest God delite;
Two eager dogs did her pursue in chace,
Of which the one was black, the other white:
With deadly force so in their cruell race
They pincht the haunches of that gentle beast,
That at the last, and in short time I spide,
Vnder a Rocke where she alas opprest,
Fell to the ground, and there vntimely dide.
Cruell death vanquishing so noble beautie,
Oft makes me waile so hard a destinie.1

 

The first vision shows the poet alone, solitary in contemplation looking out upon the world as if disconnected. The young poetic Spenser appears to view himself as separated from nature, viewing through a window as an allegorical scene drawn from the natural world unfolds before him. While the natural world goes about its usual concourse, fulfilling its laws, the writer or poet is in his own world, acting as a narrator. The event that unfolds is unpleasant; grievous for him to behold: a beautiful young doe is torn to pieces as it seeks shelter from two ravenous dogs.

One of the dogs is black, the other white, which suggests that appearances can be deceptive, inasmuch as white is often associated with purity and black with insidiousness. In the case of the natural world’s rapacity and carnality, such symbolic meanings do not always obtain. Indeed, just as in the natural realm a white dog may be as ravenous as a black, so in the world of men, of which this is a tropological and allegorical image, men may appear to be good, yet have the potentiality to be as ravenous as an openly evil man. If the seven (technically six) visions are loosely affiliated with the tradition of the “seven deadly sins,” we have here a representation of either lust or greed. The power of lust or greed is such that it rules those subject to baser passions. Spenser catalogs those so ruled as a “cruell race.” The delicate hind “dies,” but the death could signal the loss of virginity before due time, as a result of violent sexual encounters, or it might also suggest actual murder on a literal level. Read more of this post

The Failure of the One & Many Argument of Van Til

By: Jay

The so-called argument from the one and the many is a hallmark aspect of classical Van Tillian apologetics. Having studied this school for the last ten years, I am very acquainted with its methodology and published works. However, once one moves into patristics and Catholic and Orthodox theology, and then into other religious philosophies, the argument as constructed in writers like Van Til, Rushdoony and Bahnsen no longer works. This is not to say, however, that the argument has no relevance: on the contrary, in my estimation, it still retains its strength as a powerful signpost pointing to the Personal God of the Bible. However, I don’t think it proves the Trinity. 

There are two reasons the one and many argument doesn’t to prove the Trinity. For one, Van Til wasn’t the first to reason in this regard: many earlier Christian thinkers and church fathers had argued along similar lines, such as Origen, Irenaeus, Basil and the Cappadocian, Maximus the Confessor, and others even in other religions, as we see in the Coomaraswamy article on Vedic Exemplarism. What is interesting in Maximus though, is that from the created one and many we experience, it does not prove or point to a single divine ousia and three Persons, but rather a single rational Principle of God – the Logos, the second Person of the Trinity, in whom all the many logoi, or rational principles/meanings of things are united. So for Maximus, drawing on Origen, the many logoi are one in the one Logos of God. This argument arose historically in the context of Hellenic Christianity borrowing the Logos idea, and was transformed into an argument for the necessity of creation through the Logos. In other words, the one and many argument is an argument centered in divine exemplarism. Read more of this post

There is No Such Thing as Calvinism

John Calvin's Beautiful (Purported) Grave

(Back by popular demand. -Jay  ;)

By M. B.

One thing that amazes me when I read Reformed people’s arguments against Rome is not so much what they say about us, but the gall and arrogance they have to even say anything at all.

The funny thing about the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate is that there is no such thing. What? That’s right. Calvinism does not exist, at least not any more than the Ku Klux Klan does. Oh sure, there are still several groups that run around in rural communities in the South, calling themselves everything from “The Traditional Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan” to the “International Keystone Knights of the Ku Klux Klan”. But everyone knows what Nathan Bedford Forrest started over a century ago after the War Between the States has long since disbanded, only be revitalized by kooks, losers, and provocateurs trying to keep the torch aflame every other decade or so. And the ironic thing is that they’re trying to revitalize some thing that, any student of history knows, would not be blessed by the men who first established it to fight Yankees and carpetbaggers.

And it’s the same with Calvinism, with its “Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly” and “Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States ”. These amounts to little more than malcontent American whites trying to revamp a failed experiment, some thing that has long since been swept away into the dustbin of history. Read more of this post

Response to Turretinfan on the Crucifixion

Part 7 from our old interaction

By: Jay
Turretinfan responded to the accusation that the strict legal imputation view must necessitate a damning, forsaking, cutting-off, or separation (choose whichever term you wish) of the Son from the Father. He writes:
“The Father that spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all, shall also freely give us all things (Romans 8:32). This was no pagan sacrifice, but a fulfilment of the pious type (“type” in the sense of “shadow”) that Abraham provided by offering up Isaac his son (Hebrews 11:17-19). Jesus was stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted (Isaiah 53:4) and it pleased the LORD to bruise him, to put him to grief, and to make him an offering for sin (Isaiah 53:10). Nevertheless, God did not utterly forsake him, but raised him up on the third day when the work to obtain our justification was complete (Romans 4:25).”

Read more of this post

Introduction to Christology

My good friend Jonathan, who at the time was an Anglican seminarian, wrote a great introduction to Christology paper a few years ago. He has since moved into Orthodoxy, but the paper is useful for those who might come by this blog and not be familiar with the terms, early heresies and movements referenced. The file is a word doc. Download here.

As a caveat, I share some of his criticisms made of the Aristotelian language in regard to the Eucharist, but the Catholic view does not demand an Aristotelian framework. That philosophy provides an approximation of the mystery of the Real Presence.

Calvinism…

The Incarnation Versus Calvinists and Lutherans

A Detailed Analysis of the Implications of Reformation Theology

By: Jay Dyer

St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote of the reason for the Incarnation: 
“Sick, our nature demanded to be healed; fallen, to be raised up; dead, to rise again. We had lost the possession of the good; it was necessary for it to be given back to us. Closed in the darkness, it was necessary to bring us the light; captives, we awaited a Savior; prisoners, help; slaves, a liberator. Are these things minor or insignificant? Did they not move God to descend to human nature and visit it, since humanity was in so miserable and unhappy a state?” (Orat. Catech., 15)
 
The Catholic Catechism goes on to say as well of the Incarnation, quoting Ss. Irenaeus and Athanasius:
“The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: ”For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” ”For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” ”The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.” (Par. 460)

In the never-ending debates with Calvinists (and Lutherans), the questions of the proper views of the Trinity, Incarnation and salvation continually arise.  What becomes evident to those weathered in these disputes is he differing theologies that arise from these camps when compared with the Catholic view. As we will see, our Catechism in masterly fashion, explains the Scriptural, patristic and conciliar theology of the first seven centuries in an erudite, pristine fashion.  And, to be sure, most Calvinists and Lutherans are not willfully desiring to be Nestorian or Pelagian, but as I’ve come to see, there’s often a lot of misunderstanding.  In other words, they are these errors without knowing it.   Read more of this post

Paul Washer is a False Prophet

By: Jay Dyer

I was, for several years, a huge fan and follower/disciple of Paul Washer.  I thought he was a godly leader: a real missionary, and a true “reformer.” I had several of his sermons on tape and, in fact, made copies of his tapes and distributed them to my fellow college students who needed to hear the “true Gospel of God’s grace.” I met him and spoke with him on theology several times. However, I was on a Path that Paul Washer was not on.

As I researched biblical theology and Church History more in depth, and in particular, the formation of the biblical canon,  I came to reject common Protestant notions, such as sola scriptura.  The simple reason for this is that it was unheard of until the time of the Reformation.  Prior to Luther and Calvin, the doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura were non-existent.  There is a complete blackout of Protestant theology for 1,500 years of the Church.  Apparently, the Holy Spirit forgot the Church.   But that brings me to an interesting point in regards to Paul Washer… Read more of this post

Monergism = one energy = monothelitism

Response to Turretinfan’s Monothelitism Post
Turretinfan, just as with the single subject issue, doesn’t understand the argument.

A fully human will, with its own natural energy, is part and parcel with orthodox Christology, if one accepts Chalcedon and councils 5 and 6. Will is a property of nature, and hence there are two wills in Christ as the Calvinists will admit, and one will in the Godhead. If they admit a human will in Christ, then absurdquestions arise: will they admit that is raised/deified? Nope. If not, then our wills are not healed/raised/deified. If we no longer have a natural will, then Christ is not consubstantial with us, even if he had two. St. Gregory of Nazianzus stated it perfectly when he said, “what is not assumed [by the Logos], is not deified.”

The Calvinists can’t grasp that they have a faulty anthropology and view of pre-lapsarian man, which inevitably screws up their Christology. They don’t understand that theology begins with Christology, not soteriology. God hammered it out that way in the councils. Every Calvinist who does grasp this has left that heresy (and I know several). Once they stop confusing nature and grace as well as nature and person, they see they light. Read more of this post

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 155 other followers