The Narrow Path Ministries

>> In the meantime, I would like to inform you about the non-Calvinist teachings of the church before Augustine. As I do not like to make undocumented assertions, I will affix below actual quotations from the fathers of the first four centuries on the matter of free will and predestination (the foundational issues in the controversy).

>> ...

>> So far as I am aware, de, you are the only Calvinist I have had the pleasure of debating, who did not acknowledge the obvious fact that his doctrines began with Augistine. I have debated Calvinist scholars publicly, and rather than claiming that these views were taught before Augustine, they acknowledge (as all informed people do) that they did originate with Augustine, but they claim that the 400 years of church history before Augustine were too short a period of time for the early church to sort these things out because they were preoccuplied with disputes about Christology.

de> Nice cut&paste. Did you put that together yourself, or did you get it from a website?

As for the quotes of individual theologians, I grant that there was much thought in the early church that disagreed with Paul the common faith (as defined by the Church herself). But the doctrine of the Church is not decided by individuals, but by a convocation of bishops - a Council.

And yes, the early church was somewhat disorganized, but she began organising herself using world-wide gatherings of bishops - the Councils. The Councils defined the official theology of the Church. The major work of the early councils was to officially record and affirm the faith handed down from God via the Apostles, and to comprehensively refute heretical teachings that had grown to such a point that they threatened the historic faith of the Church.

The first such council (following Jerusalem, of course), was Nicea, from which came the Nicean Creed. Then came Constantinople 1 & 2 (somewhat disputed), Ephesus (against Nestorius), and the amazing Chalcedon (concerning the Person of Christ & other topics), and then Orange. Obviously the doctrines of Grace were critically important to the early Church.

The doctrines of Grace were announced by Jesus, taught by Paul, worked out in greater detail by Augustine, and held in common by the primitive church. The rise of the heresy of Pelagius threatened the faith so strongly that the Council of Orange was called to condemn Pelagius, and to protect and record the Apostolic faith concerning salvation. Pelagius taught the following heresies:

1) against the doctrine of original sin, wherein the guilt of Adam (as our federal head) is inherited by all men, so that all are born guilty and under the just condemnation of God,
2) against the complete corruption of mankind apart from God,
3) against the doctrine that spiritual death & blindness is the consequence of sin, and
4) for the idea that man is able to choose to do right or to do wrong.
5) for the idea that God predestines nobody, but rather "looks ahead" in time to see who will have faith.

These heretical teachings will seem very familiar to the modern Arminian.

Here is the response of the Church in the first 8 Canons of the Counil of Orange in 529:

CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:16); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).
CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).
CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).
CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).
CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.
CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).
CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).
CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).

As you can see, this is pretty straight Augustine Calvinism, and illustrates that the distinctive doctrines of Calvin were taught by Paul, elucidated by Augustine, accepted by the primitive Church, challenged by the heretic Pelagius, and confirmed by the Council of Orange.

*

>> I ... became intimately acquainted with Calvinism by reading the Puritans, Spurgeon, Packer, Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, Douglas Wilson, and many others. I have studied Calvinism from these authors for over twenty years. I am not sure how long you have studied it, or from whom.

I learned via John Calvin & Martin Luthor of course, along with Charles Hodge, Louis Berkhof, Wayne Grudem (whom Piper often cites), Reymond, Sproul, the Westminister documents, local teaching elders, and many other authors. I began my Xtn life in the Christian Church, a thoroughly Arminian and arrogant bunch that had no inkling of how the whole bible fits together. I then studied Catholic dogma and the systematic theology of the Roman church of r acouple of years. But although there is a huge deposit of wisdom and grace therein, it is fundamentally flawed. I finally happened upon the Reformed faith & threw myself into studying it, reading systematic theologies and less technical treatments. Finally many of the things that didn't make sense became harmonius.

There are also thoughtful Arminians, who have a systematic understanding of the faith, but they are few, mainly because a systematic study of the bible - one that seeks to harmonize the entire council of God - leads most seekers to Calvin.

>> My rejection of Calvinism is connected to my acceptance of sola scriptura as a principle of theological inquiry. I also believe in the Reformation principle of the perpiscuity of scripture, meaning that the average intelligent man can understand the scriptures for himself by studying them. I have read the theologians and commentators, as you apparently have, but I have subjected their claims to the test of the scriptures, so that I have not accepted every word they write.

You have misunderstood these two doctrines, as I can show with a simple reduction: if sola scriptura meant that only the Scriptures were to be studied concerning God, then the doctrine of sola scriptura should be ignored. Likewise, if God only desired us to know Him enough to be saved & live a moderately Godly and somewhat wise life, then the wisdom books would not have been included in the Bible, nor would He have commanded us to love Him with all of our minds. Nor would we have been commanded to discuss His Law, but only to memorise it.

Also note that the Reformers, who coined Sola Scriptura, obviously understood the principle harmoniously with their other teachings, so when you cite SS against them, your point is obviously flawed.

>> You asked why I teach if I believe in sola scriptura and the perpiscuity of scripture (that's not the term you used, but it is the one you meant). My answer is that I teach because, like every gift of the Spirit, the gift of teaching can be helpful. That is also why I read books by and listen to other teachers. To say that a teacher is helpful, however, is not to say that he is infallible. No one can accuse me of claiming infallibility for my views. When we hear a man speak or write, we then have the responsibility of testing all things and holding fast to that which is good (1 Thess.5:21). This is what the Bereans did (Acts 17:11). They are not called "arrogant", but "noble" (KJV) or "fair-minded" (NKJV), because they tested even Paul's preaching by scripture.

This is a strawman. Obviously, nobody claims infallability for Reformed doctrine, and our hope is to be always reforming. But your previously stated rejection of the thought of those that have come before is inconsistent with your supposition that anyone should listen when you teach. Either:
1) The accumulation of understanding by learned men over time is worthless for anyone else than those individuals, or
2) You should teach

Pick one.

As for the quotes of individual theologians, I grant that there was much thought in the early church that disagreed with Paul the common faith (as defined by the Church herself). But the doctrine of the Church is not decided by individuals, but by a convocation of bishops - a Council.

And yes, the early church was somewhat disorganized, but she began organising herself using world-wide gatherings of bishops - the Councils. The Councils defined the official theology of the Church. The major work of the early councils was to officially record and affirm the faith handed down from God via the Apostles, and to comprehensively refute heretical teachings that had grown to such a point that they threatened the historic faith of the Church.

The fact is that nothing even close to Calvinism was taught for the first 400 years of the church.

According to AA Hodge

1. What, in general, was the state of theological thought during the first three centuries?

During the first three hundred years which elapsed after the death of the apostle John the speculative minds of the church were principally engaged in defending the truth of Christianity against unbelievers--in combating the Gnostic heresies generated by the leaven of Oriental philosophy--and in settling definitely the questions which were evolved in the controversies concerning the Persons of the Trinity. It does not appear that any definite and consistent statements were made in that age, as to the origin, nature, and consequences of human sin; nor as to the nature and effects of divine grace; nor of the nature of the redemptive work of Christ, or of the method of its application by the Holy Spirit, or of its appropriation by faith. As a general fact it may be stated, that, as a result of the great influence of Origen, the Fathers of the Greek Church pretty unanimously settled down upon a loose Semipelagianism, denying the guilt of original sin, and maintaining the ability of the sinner to predispose himself for, and to cooperate with divine grace. And this has continued the character of the Greek Anthropology to the present day. The same attributes characterized the speculations of the earliest writers of the Western Church also, but during the third and fourth centuries there appeared a marked tendency among the Latin Fathers to those more correct views afterwards triumphantly vindicated by the great Augustine. This tendency may be traced most clearly in the writings of Tertullian of Carthage, who died circum. 220, and Hilary of Poitiers (368) and Ambrose of Milan (397).

Calvinism was neither the historic faith of the early Church nor the teachings of the Apostles.

Your quote appears to contradict your statement. We have "first 400 years" vs [before] 220, 368, & 397.

Oops .

Can you refute the points that (a) the Councils codified church theology, and (2) the first Council to take up the whole Calvinism issue was Orange, which condemned Pelagius? From these two points, it follows rather clearly that the Church held to Paul/Augustine/Calvin's view of things up to & through the Council of Orange.

Your quote appears to contradict your statement. We have "first 400 years" vs [before] 220, 368, & 397.

Not at all. Hodge said only that there were only "tendencies" towards what Augustine's believed before that.

Can you refute the points that (a) the Councils codified church theology, and (2) the first Council to take up the whole Calvinism issue was Orange, which condemned Pelagius? From these two points, it follows rather clearly that the Church held to Paul/Augustine/Calvin's view of things up to & through the Council of Orange.

The Church did not hold them the first 400 years, period. And why would I or you point to the Councils? Have you read the Councils of Constantinople? I bet there is much in them that neither of us would agree with.

For instance - the Council of Orange states:

"According to the catholic faith we also believe that after
grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons
have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor
faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ
what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of
their soul. We not only do not believe that any are
foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with
utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe
so evil a thing, they are anathema."

James, you said:
>> The fact is that nothing even close to Calvinism was taught for the first 400 years of the church.
But the quoted material says:
>> The same attributes characterized the speculations of the earliest writers of the Western Church also, but during the third and fourth centuries there appeared a marked tendency among the Latin Fathers to those more correct views afterwards triumphantly vindicated by the great Augustine. This tendency may be traced most clearly in the writings of Tertullian of Carthage, who died circum. 220, and Hilary of Poitiers (368) and Ambrose of Milan (397).

The only possible way to harmonise the two statements is to say that these early Fathers did not teach these views in the church, or to say that Calvin taught contrary to Augustine, which is clearly not the opinion of this author.

Steve's pile-o-quotes from the early Fathers is much more compelling, and the reader, confronted with the evidence both of the quotes of those Fathers, and the canons of the Council of Orange, will have to make up his own mind as to which evidence is more compelling.

The only possible way to harmonise the two statements is to say that these early Fathers did not teach these views in the church, or to say that Calvin taught contrary to Augustine, which is clearly not the opinion of this author.

Well first Hodge did not back up his claim with references. But I suspect he is speaking of one issue - total depravity. Not limited atonement nor perservance of the saints. As a matter of fact I can find no church council for the first 1400 years that taught either. Which puts Calvinism outside the historic beliefs of Christianity.


Steve's pile-o-quotes from the early Fathers is much more compelling, and the reader, confronted with the evidence both of the quotes of those Fathers, and the canons of the Council of Orange, will have to make up his own mind as to which evidence is more compelling.

The Council of Orange was written by Catholics. They did not believe in limited atonement nor perservance of the saints. And as my quote showed they believed that man cooperated in his salvation and baptizmal regeneration.

de,
Thanks for getting back to me on some of my points. I have been traveling for over a week, without access to this forum, and I can see there has been a lot of activity here in my absence.

You wondered if I accumulated those quotes from the early church fathers myself or if I cut and pasted from some website. Actually, I have not visited any Arminian websites (too busy to surf the net), and I copied all those quotes from books many years ago. I admit that the books were mostly "secondary" sources—that is, authors quoting the fathers—but, like yourself, I see no harm in benefiting from the researches of others before me.

My impression is that you "cut and pasted" your citation of the Council of Orange from a website, or some similar source, so I am not sure why you question the legitimacy or the strength of evidence obtained in this way.

I would like to address a few of your points (as there were only a few in your lengthy post):

You wrote:

“The Councils defined the official theology of the Church. The major work of the early councils was to officially record and affirm the faith handed down from God via the Apostles...”

In discussing theological differences, it is important that both participants share a common view of what source of authority should be regarded as ultimate. Scholars, councils, visions, dreams, old wives’ tales, etc., may all be consulted, but one of them, or something else, must be the final arbiter and criterion for judging the others. With me, this final authority is the Bible. Therefore, I do not recognize the strength of your contention about councils.

It is true that “The councils defined the official theology of the [official] church” but we have been discussing the theology of the “primitive” church, not that of the “official” (Roman Catholic) church of the sixth century (when the Council of Orange was held).

If you really believe that all the councils “record[ed] and affirm[ed] the faith handed down from God via the Apostles,” then you really should be a Roman Catholic, since that belief is precisely the point at which Catholics and Protestants disagree most vociferously. If we can trust the councils above our own reading of scripture, then on what basis do we reject the decisions of the Councils of Trent or Vaticans I and II? How can we approve Martin Luther’s decision to favor scripture over the “official theology” of the church?

You indicate that there are few Arminians that have “a systematic understanding of the faith.” How do you know this? Have you read or talked to the majority of Arminians? You state that, “a systematic study of the bible - one that seeks to harmonize the entire council of God - leads most seekers to Calvin.” How do you know this? Have you talked to or read the works of “most seekers”? I have not, and I doubt that you have. I could not profess to know what “most seekers” eventually find, but I don’t think that they find Calvinism in the Bible, unless they first read Calvinist authors. “Seekers” are not always wise enough to do their seeking in the best of places. You seem to be saying that you yourself did not find Calvinism by reading the Bible, but by reading Calvinists. You wrote:

“I finally happened upon the Reformed faith & threw myself into studying it, reading systematic theologies and less technical treatments. Finally many of the things that didn't make sense became harmonius.”

I, too, have read the Calvinists, and others besides. However, I still believe the Word of God has greater authority than men. Was the Psalmist being arrogant when he wrote: “I have more understanding than all my teachers, for your testimonies are my meditation” (119:99)?

You think that I have misunderstood the doctrines of sola scriptura and the perpiscuity of scripture, and you think you can demonstrate this. You wrote:

“You have misunderstood these two doctrines, as I can show with a simple reduction: if sola scriptura meant that only the Scriptures were to be studied concerning God, then the doctrine of sola scriptura should be ignored. Likewise, if God only desired us to know Him enough to be saved & live a moderately Godly and somewhat wise life, then the wisdom books would not have been included in the Bible, nor would He have commanded us to love Him with all of our minds. Nor would we have been commanded to discuss His Law, but only to memorise it.”

Now, it is possible that I have not entirely understood what some people mean by these doctrines, but I do not think that this is the case—nor do your points give evidence of this.

You represent the doctrine of sola scriptura as teaching that “only the Scriptures were to be studied concerning God.” Do you believe that this is the meaning of “sola scriptura”? I certainly don’t, and never suggested that I did. Why do you state the matter in these terms? Sola scriptura does not mean that only the scriptures may be consulted in theological studies, but that the scriptures alone are the infallible testimony of God, and thus they trump all other witnesses that may contradict them. This is what I believe the doctrine to mean, and this is my position. It apparently is not yours, or else you would be seeking to show me that your views are scriptural, rather than appealing to the Council of Orange.

You suggest that the doctrine of the perspicuity(clarity to the average reader) of scripture only applies to such portions of scripture as would permit the student to get saved and “live a moderately Godly and somewhat wise life.” Apparently, you do not believe that any but the trained theologians can really understand the really “deep” stuff. Well I am not sure what to say about this. I am not a trained theologian. I am a babe, coming to the Word of God with childlike faith and no agendas. Yet, I am quite satisfied with the clarity of the scriptures and the Holy Spirit’s ability to reveal “the deep things of God” to the trusting follower (1 Cor.2:10).

Since you have learned these doctrines from the trained theologians, you may not have had occasion to find out how clear the scriptures can be to one who simply reads and meditates day and night upon them. There’s no point in my arguing this point with you, since you can always say that those (like myself) who, without the aid of Calvinist teachers, have read the Bible and reached non-Calvinist conclusions, are living proof that ordinary people can’t understand the Bible (read: “can’t reach Calvinistic conclusions”) without the assistance of the commentators.

I agree that a man of average intelligence probably cannot reach Calvinistic conclusions without the assistance of Calvinistic commentators, but I do not trace this to any obscurity of the scriptures themselves.

In my last post to you, I made the following request:

Would you please write back and give me two or three specific scriptures that plainly teach (or even imply) the following doctrines:

1. Babies are born guilty of Adam's sin
2. Christ did not die for all men
3. There are people that God does not want to see saved
4. Election to salvation is unconditional (i.e., does not require prior faith)
5. Because of His meticulous providence, God's will is always done
6. If someone falls away from Christ, we can be sure he was never saved
7. God has predetermined which individuals will believe and which will not

I have not yet seen any exegetical treatment of any scripture in any of your posts, so perhaps we could move the discussion in that direction?

My impression is that you "cut and pasted" your citation of the Council of Orange from a website
de> www.reformed.com - good source of data & links to other sources.

, or some similar source, so I am not sure why you question the legitimacy or the strength of evidence obtained in this way.
de> I didn't. I wanted to know the source.

I would like to address a few of your points (as there were only a few in your lengthy post):
de> Steve, you are beginning to be tiresome with your constant assertions of the idiocy, deliberate blindness, and logical ineptness of Calvinists; none of which does you much credit. Why don't you put your bluster away.

You wrote:

“The Councils defined the official theology of the Church. The major work of the early councils was to officially record and affirm the faith handed down from God via the Apostles...”

In discussing theological differences, it is important that both participants share a common view of what source of authority should be regarded as ultimate. Scholars, councils, visions, dreams, old wives’ tales, etc., may all be consulted, but one of them, or something else, must be the final arbiter and criterion for judging the others. With me, this final authority is the Bible. Therefore, I do not recognize the strength of your contention about councils.

de> Perhaps you will go back and examine the point that we are arguing, in this thread, which is the extent to which the church has been either Calvinist or not, during her history. Obviously, the bible doesn't speak about that except during the time period in which it was written.

It is true that “The councils defined the official theology of the [official] church” but we have been discussing the theology of the “primitive” church, not that of the “official” (Roman Catholic) church of the sixth century (when the Council of Orange was held).
de> Again, go back and read the previous posts carefully.

If you really believe that all the councils “record[ed] and affirm[ed] the faith handed down from God via the Apostles,” then you really should be a Roman Catholic, since that belief is precisely the point at which Catholics and Protestants disagree most vociferously. If we can trust the councils above our own reading of scripture, then on what basis do we reject the decisions of the Councils of Trent or Vaticans I and II? How can we approve Martin Luther’s decision to favor scripture over the “official theology” of the church?
de> Again, that isn't the point. But to answer the question, recognising that the Councils arenot infallible is a far cry from declaring them to be worthless, which is what you seem to be doing. Have you any use for Chalcedon, probably the greatest Christological Council of all time?

You indicate that there are few Arminians that have “a systematic understanding of the faith.” How do you know this? Have you read or talked to the majority of Arminians?
de> I have surveyed the nonCalvinist systematic theologies, and there are few, very few. Care to dispoute that assertion?

You state that, “a systematic study of the bible - one that seeks to harmonize the entire council of God - leads most seekers to Calvin.” How do you know this?
de> It is my assertion; can you refute it? Most nonCalvinist churches are not confessing churches, and have no idea what systematic theology best suits them.


I, too, have read the Calvinists, and others besides. However, I still believe the Word of God has greater authority than men. Was the Psalmist being arrogant when he wrote: “I have more understanding than all my teachers, for your testimonies are my meditation” (119:99)?
de> That isnot the issue. The issue is who understands the scriptures more correctly, the Calvinist or the nonCalvinist.

You think that I have misunderstood the doctrines of sola scriptura and the perpiscuity of scripture, and you think you can demonstrate this. You wrote:

“You have misunderstood these two doctrines, as I can show with a simple reduction: if sola scriptura meant that only the Scriptures were to be studied concerning God, then the doctrine of sola scriptura should be ignored. Likewise, if God only desired us to know Him enough to be saved & live a moderately Godly and somewhat wise life, then the wisdom books would not have been included in the Bible, nor would He have commanded us to love Him with all of our minds. Nor would we have been commanded to discuss His Law, but only to memorise it.”

Now, it is possible that I have not entirely understood what some people mean by these doctrines, but I do not think that this is the case—nor do your points give evidence of this.

You represent the doctrine of sola scriptura as teaching that “only the Scriptures were to be studied concerning God.” Do you believe that this is the meaning of “sola scriptura”? I certainly don’t, and never suggested that I did. Why do you state the matter in these terms? Sola scriptura does not mean that only the scriptures may be consulted in theological studies, but that the scriptures alone are the infallible testimony of God, and thus they trump all other witnesses that may contradict them. This is what I believe the doctrine to mean, and this is my position. It apparently is not yours, or else you would be seeking to show me that your views are scriptural, rather than appealing to the Council of Orange.

de> I suggest a deep breath. Yes, sola scripturaconcerns the primacy of the scriptures. And what you are doing is confusing your interpretation of the scriptures with the scriptures. For example, Calvin says that a passage means one thing, and you say that is means another. But you claim that your interpretation falls under sola scriptura, when in fact it is no more intrinsically valid than the Reformed interpretation.

You suggest that the doctrine of the perspicuity(clarity to the average reader) of scripture only applies to such portions of scripture as would permit the student to get saved and “live a moderately Godly and somewhat wise life.” Apparently, you do not believe that any but the trained theologians can really understand the really “deep” stuff.
de> Yes. Just like rocket science, the science of God takes study. That sould be obvious.

Well I am not sure what to say about this. I am not a trained theologian. I am a babe, coming to the Word of God with childlike faith and no agendas. Yet, I am quite satisfied with the clarity of the scriptures and the Holy Spirit’s ability to reveal “the deep things of God” to the trusting follower (1 Cor.2:10).
de> Not a babe, and with quite an agenda. And if you notice, Paul tells us not to remain as babes, but to grow up, & be done with milk. Child-like is not the same as childish.

In my last post to you, I made the following request:
de> and I made a counter suggestion, and we will probably get some of those places. Meanwhile. perhaps you would like to post a proof text or two from your counter-points.

I have not yet seen any exegetical treatment of any scripture in any of your posts, so perhaps we could move the discussion in that direction?
de> then you havn't been reading carefully. My replies are filled with scriptural references, albeit seldom with the quotes.

Perhaps you will go back and examine the point that we are arguing, in this thread, which is the extent to which the church has been either Calvinist or not, during her history. Obviously, the bible doesn't speak about that except during the time period in which it was written.

Well de, we have seen that the church was not Calvinistic for the first 400 years. And I can not find limited atonement, nor perserverance of the saints in any church council up and to the Reformers. And without these two Calvinism as a system fails. Or show me any church council that taught justification by faith alone in this period. Even your vaunted Council of Orange believed in baptizmal regeneration and the need for cooperation in one's salvation. And Augustine believe that we were justified by both faith and works. So history is clearly against your position.


james

de,
It would seem that your contention that Calvinism reflects the teachings of the primitive church has been thoroughly debunked. You have not yet provided any evidence for Calvinistic teaching in the church prior to Augustine, and you have not even made an effort at refutation of my points or of those that James has presented. You simply resort to sarcasm and ridicule, which weakens your position considerably, I think, in the public perception.

Since the point of the historic view of primitive Christianity has been discussed to death here, and the truth has been established beyond question by quotations from the relevant witnesses, perhaps we could move along to discuss the actual witness of scripture concerning Calvinistic distinctives.

You seem somewhat reluctant to engage us here with actual exegesis of any passages of scripture. In your self-defense, you say that you have peppered your responses with biblical references. That is better than nothing. But better still would be for you to actually discuss the verses you referenced in their context and to show that they actually teach the doctrines you are advocating.

If you imagine that Arminians do not read the same Bible that you read, and that they are unfamiliar with the verses you reference, you are very naive. Why, then, have they not all come over to your side? It is not for lack of awareness of these verses, but because they do not read into those verses the nuances that Calvinists do. The best way to resolve this stalemate is to show from sound exegesis that the verses in question actually teach what Calvinists believe that they teach and not what Arminians believe that they teach. Can this be done? If Calvinism is true, then it should be possible.

If you surf around this forum, you will find that I have attempted to interact directly with every scripture that Calvinists have raised here, and to give my best shot at exegeting of each one. If you believe my exegesis to be flawed, it is in the nature of this kind of forum that you can attempt to provide a more sound treatment of the same texts. I would greatly welcome this.

So far, I have not seen any evidence of your interest in interacting with the scriptures raised by your opponents. If you will re-read your previous posts, you will find that you simply make snide remarks when scriptures are raised whose implications threaten the Calvinist paradigm. You neither acknowledge their relevance, nor refute the Arminian understanding of them.

If biblical exegesis is not your forte, then you may be excused from the contest. You have already demonstrated what you can do in the field in which you have chosen to engage (i.e., the history of Christian doctrine). The fact that you do not seem to recognize that your original contention about the beliefs of the early church has been absolutely demolished, leaves us to wonder whether the problem lies with your basic honesty or with your ability to assess evidence. If you are no more responsible in the field of biblical exegesis than in that of church history, perhaps it is best that you leave the defense of Calvinism to others who feel more comfortable handling the scriptures.

Sorry if I am speaking too directly. Your refusal to engage the evidence is, I confess, "becoming wearisome." God bless.