- Calvinism and women.
- What many Arminians find so reprehensible in Calvinism.
- What is prayer? John Piper answers.
- Do we have free will? Geoff Ashley explains, "Fallen creatures are free to do what they want. All they want is sin."
- Reading Classics Together, with Tim Challies. Next up: Christianity and Liberalism, by J. Gresham Machen.
Friday, May 13, 2011
This Week in Calvinism - May 13, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
The Presbyterian church is now ordaining gay clergy.
Its a natural move considering that Presbyterians are Calvinists. Calvinists and homosexuals have a lot in common: they both think they were “born that way.”
I refer to the moronic doctrine of “total inability.” The Calvinists say they are born unable to do anything but sin, just like homosexuals say they are born unable to do anything but defile their bodies with the same sex. Seriously, then, how could anyone have not seen an alliance between these two coming? They both claim God created them to sin.
Furthermore, it turns out, Calvin was excommunicated from the Catholic church for the crime of Sodomy. The archives of Noyon, Calvin’s birthplace, recorded that he was condemned on that ground, and it was also confirmed by a Catholic named Bolsec. I guess the Presbyterian church thought it was time to imitate their founder who was “born that way” as his doctrine of “total inability” teaches.
http://fascinatingpeople.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/a-tremendous-blasphemy-the-life-of-john-calvin-1509-1564/
First of all, the PCUSA isn't Calvinist or Reformed. Secondly, even Catholics refute the baseless sodomy charge. Thirdly, anonymous commenters are not taken seriously on this blog.
it's unfortunate that the cowardly "anonymous" above is ignorant that calvinists continue to affirm responsibility..."born this way" or not. the PCUSA turned away from Jesus a long time ago.
on a different note, it continues to amuse me that numbskull arminians continue to quote Hab. 1:13 out of context ("The LORD is too pure to even look at sin." - WBB)
habbakuk is (futilely) arguing with God at that point, confused that God claims responsibility for the violence and misery that is headed his way. but arminians cheerfully disregard the rest of the book after they've claimed their proof-text, dismissive of anything the whole book might have to teach them.
too bad.
from a purely human standpoint, i think WBB has a point. if a man with a rottweiler leaves his gate open, thereby "allowing" the rottweiler to injure a child, a human court would hold the man responsible. if a daycare hires a known child molester and he injures a child, a human court would agree that the daycare is responsible for allowing such a thing to happen. if God knows evil is coming and, unlike many instances in the bible where He dismissed human choice to accomplish His purposes (saul's intended persecution of the damascus church to name one), chooses to "allow" evil men to prevail, then a human court must similarly hold God "morally responsible."
mr. birch has great ambition in telling God that He may not simply do as "He pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth." i hope he will keep us posted on how that works out...
-Charles
Post a Comment