Early Church Creed rejects the main tenant of Calvinism

civic

civic

Well-known member
The Council of Orange in 529 AD explicitly rejected the idea of double predestination, which is the belief that God chooses some people for salvation and others for damnation:

Explanation: The council stated, "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". The council's views on double predestination are considered "semi-Augustinian"

it also explicitly denied double predestination (of the equal-ultimacy variety), stating, "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."

Why would the modern calvinist believe what the early church creed rejected ?

“Take heed unto thyself and unto doctrine; for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee” 1 Timothy 4: 16

hope this helps !!!
 
civic said:
The Council of Orange in 529 AD explicitly rejected the idea of double predestination, which is the belief that God chooses some people for salvation and others for damnation:

Explanation: The council stated, "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". The council's views on double predestination are considered "semi-Augustinian"

it also explicitly denied double predestination (of the equal-ultimacy variety), stating, "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."

Why would the modern calvinist believe what the early church creed rejected ?

“Take heed unto thyself and unto doctrine; for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee” 1 Timothy 4: 16

hope this helps !!!
Click to expand...
Yep And the council of Jerusalem declared Calvinism a heresy.
 
civic said:
The Council of Orange in 529 AD explicitly rejected the idea of double predestination, which is the belief that God chooses some people for salvation and others for damnation:

Explanation: The council stated, "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". The council's views on double predestination are considered "semi-Augustinian"

it also explicitly denied double predestination (of the equal-ultimacy variety), stating, "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."

Why would the modern calvinist believe what the early church creed rejected ?

“Take heed unto thyself and unto doctrine; for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee” 1 Timothy 4: 16

hope this helps !!!
Click to expand...
Cherry picking. The same council affirms baptismal regeneration. Do they get the final say on that also?
 
Presby02 said:
LOL, quote the saying Calvinism is heresy. 😂
Click to expand...
In 1629, a small book in Latin, attributed to Cyril Lucaris, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and commonly referred to as the Confession of Cyril Lucaris, was published in Latin at Geneva. It contained an eighteen-point summary of beliefs that conformed with Calvinist teaching. French, English and German translations appeared in the same year. A Greek version called Eastern Confession of the Christian Faith appeared in Constantinople in 1631 or 1633.[4][5] Lucaris was accused of adopting in this book Calvinistic views and asserting that Calvinism was in fact the faith of the Eastern Church. His E. Orthodox defenders claim that the book was a forgery. Cyril did not disavow it in writing.[6]

Cyril Lucaris died in 1638.[2]

Lucaris' Confession was condemned by the 1638 Synod of Constantinople and the 1642 Synod of Jassy.[5]

wikipedia
 
Romans 9:22-23
Ephesians 1:5-6
Proverbs 16:4

What does YOUR Bible say in these verses?
I say, forget the Council of Orange, listen to GOD!
 
atpollard said:
Romans 9:22-23
Ephesians 1:5-6
Proverbs 16:4

What does YOUR Bible say in these verses?
I say, forget the Council of Orange, listen to GOD!
Click to expand...
Romans 9:22 (UASV) — 22 What if God, wanting to demonstrate his wrath and to make known his power, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

Nothing at all about an unconditional determined decree to make man a vessel of wrath

"fitted" is a plural, middle / passive, perfect participle that agrees with the term "vessels." The perfect tense shows a current state that began in the past. There is debate whether the verb is intended as middle or passive, both of which have the same ending so that context determines which applies. The context here is Paul's contrast between the vessels of wrath and the vessels of mercy, and the middle voice is the better fit, so that Paul is saying that the vessels of wrath fitted themselves out for destruction, which means Paul is unquestionably not talking about TULIP election but building on the concepts addressed in Romans 1. This fits the example already given of Pharaoh defying God and hardening his heart (to which God later responded both with mercy and hardening) and the fact that Paul does not make any reference to God acting beforehand on the vessels of wrath as he does with the vessels of mercy. To these, God will eventually withhold mercy and show His wrath.
God choosing - god willing concessive use of the participle, although willing, not causal that they are responsible may be seen 1Th 2:15
A.T Robertson Word pictures in the new testament



fitted to destruction - men persistent in evil. it is in the middle voice indicating that the vessels of wrath fitted themselves for destruction. vine’s

Fitted (katērtismena). Perfect passive participle of katartizō, old verb to equip (see Matthew 4:21; 2 Cor. 13:11), state of readiness. Paul does not say here that God did it or that they did it. That they are responsible may be seen from 1 Thes. 2:15-16




Smelley, Hutson. Deconstructing Calvinism: A Biblical Analysis and Refutation (pp. 164-165). Hutson Smelley. Kindle Edition.

Eph 1:5-6 refers to believers

Believers are predestined to adoption

Prov 16:4 just shows he can use the wicked for his own purposes. Not that he made them to be wicked
 
atpollard said:
R.C. Sproul is a “modern Calvinist” and HERE is what he believes (hint: it is not what you are railing against).
Click to expand...
nonsense since election of any group over another by default makes the non elect group damned without ever having a chance or choice to be saved. That RC walking the fence which is nothing but compatibalism. That is the made up philosophy for those who cannot swallow the pill of Calvin. They try and soften theistic determinism.
 
civic said:
nonsense since election of any group over another by default makes the non elect group damned without ever having a chance or choice to be saved. That RC walking the fence which is nothing but compatibalism. That is the made up philosophy for those who cannot swallow the pill of Calvin. They try and soften theistic determinism.
Click to expand...
😂✋👌 … so YOU and not “modern Calvinists” are the final word on what THEY believe. [nuff said]

R.C. Sproul says you have misrepresented HIS position.
The WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH says you have misrepresented its position (and that of Presbyterians around the globe).
The BAPTIST FAITH AND MESSAGE (aka. LONDON CONFESSION) says you have misrepresented its position (and that of Particular Baptists for almost 500 years).
… but what do any of them know about “modern Calvinists”. 😎
 
TomL said:
Nothing at all about an unconditional determined decree to make man a vessel of wrath
Click to expand...
Correct. And there is nothing in “Particular Baptist Theology” that teaches that, either.
So what DOES the Bible teach in all those verses you shrugged off as “irrelevant”?
(see, we didn’t need a council of Orange after all, we had a WORD OF GOD).

Yay SOLA SCRIPTURA!
 
civic said:
....it also explicitly denied double predestination (of the equal-ultimacy variety), stating, "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."
Click to expand...
Yeah that's a pretty strong declaration. If anathema means they're not saved I'm not sure I'd go that far. I will say this though it is a most shocking, deviation from the picture that God give us through Christ as God having a gracious, kind, just and loving character. If saved I think it would be a most embarrassing thing to have to bear.....that on Earth you actually promoted a belief that God actually was as they said. I suggest they will be lamenting, "How could I have been so ....................." To be nice I'll say the word in the blank might be deceived.
 
atpollard said:
Correct. And there is nothing in “Particular Baptist Theology” that teaches that, either.
So what DOES the Bible teach in all those verses you shrugged off as “irrelevant”?
(see, we didn’t need a council of Orange after all, we had a WORD OF GOD).

Yay SOLA SCRIPTURA!
Click to expand...
Is that right?

You disagree with?

GOD from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass

Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851), 26.

John Calvin wrote that “ [God] arranges all things by his sovereign council, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.”1 God predestined some to eternal life and others to eternal judgment because He did not want all saved.
 
TomL said:
Is that right?
Click to expand...
Yup.
TomL said:
You disagree with?

GOD from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass
Click to expand...
Nope. However, I am indifferent towards the WCF (with which I disagree on several points … since I am a Baptist) but I agree with SCRIPTURE and God said:

“There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.” - 1 Corinthians 12:6
“also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,” - Ephesians 1:11

So the question is NOT do I believe the WCF, but do YOU believe God when He says He “works all things in all persons” and He “works all things after the council of His will”?
Does ALL PERSONS mean ALL PERSONS?
Does ALL THINGS mean ALL THINGS?
Does HIS WILL mean HIS WILL?
(Or are you prepared to call God a liar?)

My theology comes from Sola Scriptura, not any human council … certainly not John Calvin or the WCF. It is a BAPITIST thing (that is why we were willing to be murdered in the 1600’s rather than renounce “believer’s baptism” … because GOD’S WORD teaches believer’s baptism while human councils teach infant baptism.). Our commitment to His Word has not wavered.

Sola Scriptura … Scripture is the only FINAL authority that God has given us, not human councils or creeds. It is the “norma normans non normata” (the rule that rules, and has no higher rule).
 

Similar threads

civic
Unraveling the 1689 and WCF Confessions- The Mysteries in Calvinism
Replies
7
Views
354
makesends
makesends
brightfame52
Calvinism is Gospel !
4 5 6
Replies
118
Views
1K
synergy
S
civic
Vocabulary and calvinism
Replies
19
Views
205
Jim
J
civic
Reformation, Calvinism and witch hunters
Replies
16
Views
203
TomL
T
civic
Saying you are a Calvinist is almost as bad as saying you are a Christian
Replies
9
Views
242
Believe
Believe
Back
Top Bottom