Scriptur
05-30-2009, 09:58 PM
It would be inconsistent with Calvinism to view evidence and reason as of any value in establishing faith. After all, faith is a gift of God given only to the elect after their regeneration. Indeed, why should a Calvinist be concerned to offer evidence to the ungodly for the existence of God or the truth of every word of God? The totally depraved cannot be swayed by the truth, while the elect don't need such persuasion-since they are sovereignly without any faith regenerated in order to cause them to believe-and evidence has nothing to do with that fact. No wonder Calvin had so little respect or use for evidence and proof:
The prophets and apostles...dwell [not] on reasons; but they appeal to the sacred name of God...our conviction of the truth of Scripture must be derived from a higher source than human conjectures...namely, the secret testimony of the Spirit.... It is preposterous to attempt, by discussion....
Profane men...insist to have it proved by reason that Moses and the prophets were divinely inspired. ...scripture,...designs not to submit to proof and arguments.... We ask not for proofs or probabilities.
Such...convinction which asks not for reasons...This singular privilege God bestows on his elect only, whom he separates from the rest of mankind...if at any time, then, we are troubled at the small number of those who believe (even, the large number of Calvinists), let us...call to mind that none comprehend the mysteries of God save those to whom it is given.
But apparently Calvinists don't understand how God could love everyone, yet at the same time not love the many He bestows just to the elect. So the spirit that must be speaking to them is not the Spirit of Truth, for should not the subjective witness of the Holy Spirit support the objective truth? The Bible is filled with evidence. The prophets, Apostles, and Christ himself applied such proof to persuade unbelievers to believe in God and to strengthen the faith of believers. Surely, solid proof ought to be used in presenting the gospel and in reinforcing the assurance of believers.
But what was the point, if the elect alone are given saving faith and that without any evidence but as a result of sovereign regeneration? Then why did Paul and the apostles, following Christ's example, devote themselves to proving the gospel (Acts 1.3; 9.22, 29; 10.43; 13.26-41; 17.2-3, 17-31; 18.9-11, 28, etc.)?
Muslims could testify to most of what Calvin said about the inner witness of the Spirit. They need no proof, because they have inner conviction that Allah inspired Mohammad. Internal and external evidence, however, reveals that the Qur'an is not true and that Muhammad was a false prophet. Mormons, too, are able to hold fast to their "faith" in spite of the total lack of evidence for the book of Mormon, because its validity was supposedly verified to them by God through a "burning in the bosom." Such is the secret "faith" of every convinced cult member, for which there is no need to test the spirits and prove all things. The DNA vs. the Book of Mormon video proves Mormonism is false just as the two wills of the Calvinism God contradict each other. The inner testimony of a spirit is testifying to an untruth, but it is not the Holy Spirit because it can so easily be disproven.
After belittling proofs, Calvin did go on to try to prove Scripture by saying its majesty of language, sublime truths with prophecies and existence of God are self-validating. However much one might want to use this approach, it still does not detail why the God of Calvinism is the God of the Bible. Therein lies the problem. How do we know all majestic language and sublime words are true and that God doesn't have real solid evidence of His existence and more substantial prophecies fulfilled such as the Messiah?
Paul told Titus that an elder should "be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers" (Titus 1.9).
Apologetics, from the perspective of a Calvinist, can never prove he is one of the elect; nor can a Christian ever convince a Calvinist that Calvinism is false, because once you are sovereignly regenerated (without the choice in the matter) no amount of reason will change your status if you choose to maintain that stance. There is simply no way apologetics could establish the truth of election or non-election for an individual. Realizing this, you begin to appreciate that any system that is setup up with that mentality must be a false one, because it uses this approach to seal itself as unchallengeable and unverifiable.
There is, therefore, a spirit within the Calvinist that locks the Calvinist into the position to argue for what he has already accepted, rather than letting the evidence lead him where it may. Whereas Christians would refuse Christ if you could disprove the resurrection; or we would become Calvinists, if you could reconcile the two contradictory wills of the Calvinism God.
The prophets and apostles...dwell [not] on reasons; but they appeal to the sacred name of God...our conviction of the truth of Scripture must be derived from a higher source than human conjectures...namely, the secret testimony of the Spirit.... It is preposterous to attempt, by discussion....
Profane men...insist to have it proved by reason that Moses and the prophets were divinely inspired. ...scripture,...designs not to submit to proof and arguments.... We ask not for proofs or probabilities.
Such...convinction which asks not for reasons...This singular privilege God bestows on his elect only, whom he separates from the rest of mankind...if at any time, then, we are troubled at the small number of those who believe (even, the large number of Calvinists), let us...call to mind that none comprehend the mysteries of God save those to whom it is given.
But apparently Calvinists don't understand how God could love everyone, yet at the same time not love the many He bestows just to the elect. So the spirit that must be speaking to them is not the Spirit of Truth, for should not the subjective witness of the Holy Spirit support the objective truth? The Bible is filled with evidence. The prophets, Apostles, and Christ himself applied such proof to persuade unbelievers to believe in God and to strengthen the faith of believers. Surely, solid proof ought to be used in presenting the gospel and in reinforcing the assurance of believers.
But what was the point, if the elect alone are given saving faith and that without any evidence but as a result of sovereign regeneration? Then why did Paul and the apostles, following Christ's example, devote themselves to proving the gospel (Acts 1.3; 9.22, 29; 10.43; 13.26-41; 17.2-3, 17-31; 18.9-11, 28, etc.)?
Muslims could testify to most of what Calvin said about the inner witness of the Spirit. They need no proof, because they have inner conviction that Allah inspired Mohammad. Internal and external evidence, however, reveals that the Qur'an is not true and that Muhammad was a false prophet. Mormons, too, are able to hold fast to their "faith" in spite of the total lack of evidence for the book of Mormon, because its validity was supposedly verified to them by God through a "burning in the bosom." Such is the secret "faith" of every convinced cult member, for which there is no need to test the spirits and prove all things. The DNA vs. the Book of Mormon video proves Mormonism is false just as the two wills of the Calvinism God contradict each other. The inner testimony of a spirit is testifying to an untruth, but it is not the Holy Spirit because it can so easily be disproven.
After belittling proofs, Calvin did go on to try to prove Scripture by saying its majesty of language, sublime truths with prophecies and existence of God are self-validating. However much one might want to use this approach, it still does not detail why the God of Calvinism is the God of the Bible. Therein lies the problem. How do we know all majestic language and sublime words are true and that God doesn't have real solid evidence of His existence and more substantial prophecies fulfilled such as the Messiah?
Paul told Titus that an elder should "be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers" (Titus 1.9).
Apologetics, from the perspective of a Calvinist, can never prove he is one of the elect; nor can a Christian ever convince a Calvinist that Calvinism is false, because once you are sovereignly regenerated (without the choice in the matter) no amount of reason will change your status if you choose to maintain that stance. There is simply no way apologetics could establish the truth of election or non-election for an individual. Realizing this, you begin to appreciate that any system that is setup up with that mentality must be a false one, because it uses this approach to seal itself as unchallengeable and unverifiable.
There is, therefore, a spirit within the Calvinist that locks the Calvinist into the position to argue for what he has already accepted, rather than letting the evidence lead him where it may. Whereas Christians would refuse Christ if you could disprove the resurrection; or we would become Calvinists, if you could reconcile the two contradictory wills of the Calvinism God.