smeagle

3. His "sweeping" generalizations would be bad...if they were very far from the mark. They're not, in my experience very far off at all. In fact, read dm's post thoroughly.

That is some powerful refutation. Thanks. You must have vast amounts of experience with Calvinism the bible and many other religious topics. Tell me, can I pick up some material you have written on the matter? Would you be willing to teach me Hebrew and Greek so I can understand the material in the bible better? Where are you lecturing on the reformation next? I would like to attend.

I have not stated anything about where I fall in relation to the topic. I am trying to point out that Mnkby is correct in his statement about teaching from a state of ignorance. No offense, but without a credible argument other than your experience which is nearly 500 years removed from Geneva I am not swayed to disagree with Mnkby's point. His tone is another matter all together. If someone will craft an argument that uses the writings of Calvin in conjunction with a contextual framework other than Mnkby I may regard their argument as credible. What I am hearing you say is that we may guess from ignorance, and as long as it is close to the accepted bar, then so be it, it is a good argument. Please tell me from your experience what is he/she not very far off from. Everything? Some things? One thing? Anything?

Wiploc

Pretty cute. That's one place you can come out if you accept the doctrine that the reprobates cannot be virtuous and the elect cannot sin.

There were those on both sides of the Catholic/protestant schism who thought that was the logical result of predestination. One church, I forget the name, believed that once you were saved you could do anything you wanted. They believed, for instance, that it was wrong for others to fornicate, but not for them. "Join the church so you can steal, murder, and have orgies without tainting your soul," kind of thing. They were big on the orgies. They even believed that laws shouldn't be enforced against the elect: the police, they thought should be restricted to keeping the hellbound in line.
crc

mnkbdky

I did not confess to ignorance. I merely said I was no scholar. This does not mean I am ignorant. I have had considerable training in this area. I know Hebrew, Greek, Latin, have studied the Bible extensively, have read Calvin's Institutes and several Calvinistic systematic theology books, and have been taught by one of the best Calvinist theologians today, John S. Feinberg. However, this does not make me a Calvin scholar. I am not boasting or bragging. This is factual information about my creditials.

Thanks,

--mnkbkdy

p.s. From my typos and grammatical mistakes in my posts, though, one may question whether or not I know English.

mnkbdky

My tone!? Goodness gracious!

Luiseach

I'm glad you liked it! And yes, definitely, that is the point about which my student was extremely uncomfortable; the implications of Predestination within the framework of the novel are more than a little disturbing.

Thanks for pointing this out. Now, this problem of morality/immorality is the sort of thing that Muriel Spark takes issue with when it comes to the doctrine of predestination and the Elect...her calvinistic character (i.e. Jean Brodie) thinks she is one of the Elect already, and that as a result nothing she does or does not do will change the trajectory of her Heaven-bound life.

I thought your analysis of the Calvinist theme I raised in my OP was very well done, very insightful...again, thank you for your help. I greatly appreciate it.

smeagle

If you had only had that course on Western Humanities, then what could we say in our defense? You would certainly not be speaking from ignorance then. Here is my point in a nutshell. I don't know how my digestive system works, but I can still take a dump. That is what everyone here is arguing other than Mnkby. Mnkby is saying he knows the function of the digestive system (in this analogy). Now I get it and I stand corrected.

How many of you stayed at a Holiday Inn last night? Sadly this is how these arguments are going. Many of you are admitting to next to nothing in study, however you are killing to get your point across.

Again my posts are generated to say Mnkby is right. And no, he is not just stating he stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.

mnkbdky

While my comments may be blunt and a little cold, they certainly are not meant to denigrate people--as you certainly are intending to do. Perhaps, you should not be on my side.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

Wiploc

What, you think I should have said, "relative ignorance?"

Okay, you can blow hot and cold with the best of them.

No blame attaches. Reading my own internet messages is a continual exercise in humility.
crc

smeagle

Mnkby you misunderstand my posts. They are harsh due to the fact that people believe that taking a course, reading a poem, knowing someones name makes them an expert. Some of these people teach our children. They are required to get a BA or BS and then they have achieved a level of expertise to comment on anything. I disagree. I have met informed people with no education (formally) and met imbicils with much education (formally). My intent is for those that are educating our children to make informed comments or to lead those seeking a drink to the proper pasture. This is one of many issues with education, the inability to admit we don't know. The result are ideas that are grounded in "experience" without logic or history playing a role. Experience is only good to a certain point.

Wiploc

Thanks. It was fun to revisit material from a class filled with epiphanies.

Quote:

And yes, definitely, that is the point about which my student was extremely uncomfortable; the implications of Predestination within the framework of the novel are more than a little disturbing.

She needn't be too disturbed. Those aren't necessary implications of predestination; that's just one way you can go. Luther, for instance, said when god taps you, you become filled with zeal to do good works. One could conclude then that anyone doing bad works isn't really one of the elect.

Quote:

Thanks for pointing this out. Now, this problem of morality/immorality is the sort of thing that Muriel Spark takes issue with when it comes to the doctrine of predestination and the Elect...her calvinistic character (i.e. Jean Brodie) thinks she is one of the Elect already, and that as a result nothing she does or does not do will change the trajectory of her Heaven-bound life.

As for the, "one of the Elect already" part, I think I have to agree. If she is ever going to be one of the elect, then she is already --- and has been from the beginning of time. This is true for Catholic and Protestant both. (However, I've met some, uh, I'll call them neoChristians on the net who say god can't know the future, and I assume they would differ on this point.)

As for the "nothing she does or does not do will change the trajectory" part, this has always caused division of opinion. Some people believe it and like it; some believe it and hate it; some don't believe it. There are both Catholics and Protestants in all camps.

Calvin was greatness itself when dealing with those who didn't like what they saw as the implications of his religion: He said if you didn't agree with him, that just proved you were going to hell. God "darkens the counsels" of reprobates, so if it seems to you that Calvin doesn't make sense, you must be a reprobate!
crc