Reformed theology, Logos, and the rest of us.
Comments
-
Gary Osborne said:
I simply inquired about what I saw as a recent slant and imbalance toward more Calvinistic resources as compared to non-Calvinistic ones.
Here is a breakdown of all Logos resources from their website:
"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
0 -
Paul Golder said:
Here is a breakdown of all Logos resources from their website:
Thanks for that! The perception of a recent reformed bias is really just Logos catching up.
I, for one, welcome the lovely influx of reformed resources. Keep them coming!
0 -
Wow, I see it the exact opposite, Dave. The list demonstrates the high and uneven ratio of Calvinistic or at least semi-Calvinistic material as compared to Arminian/Wesleyan/Pentecostal material. First off, the "Reformed" section alone is 3x's larger than the three sections combined that I mentioned. But the key is that when one considers that at least some measure of Calvinism can be found in Baptist, Lutheran, Puritan, Fundamentalism, and certainly Presbyterian material the ratio is seriously out of whack. Sorry, but I think Logos is very unbalanced in this particular area. They need to do some serious catching up if they want to truly be fair and balanced in the Christian community.
0 -
0
-
Shmuel Birnbaum said:
I have been thoroughly enjoying the Logos program and resources. Little by little, I have been noticing the slant of the program is toward the Reformed-Calvinist theological postion. Is this true?
I am a spirit filled Jewish believer in my Messiah and have recently redicated myself to ardent study.
While I am interest in all areas of theological and biblical studies, I have no intention at the age of 60 in becoming a Calvinist.
Does Logos offer a balanced theological menu or is the balance weighed heavily in the TULIP direction?
I am of the Arminian persuassion but I do suspect that the slant is due more to availabilty of material. Calvinism and Arminianism are not so far apart that a commentary written by a Calvinist has no value to an Arminian. I am eagerly awaiting the completion of the Spurgeon collection. We ought to have a variety of viewpoints reflected in our library.
I did notice an interesting product page which I posted here: [View:http://community.logos.com/forums/t/52070.aspx:550:0]
0 -
I'll bet that if I independently quizzed each of the posters in this thread as to their definition of 'Calvinist', I would get widely divergent responses. And, without a mutually agreed upon definition of terms, discussions such as this are totally pointless.
Instead of Artificial Intelligence, I prefer to continue to rely on Divine Intelligence instructing my Natural Dullness (Ps 32:8, John 16:13a)
0 -
0
-
Seriously! Why is there so much Bible stuff on this site?[:P]
0 -
Evan Boardman said:
Seriously! Why is there so much Bible stuff on this site?
http://www.logos.com/product/16532/the-sacred-books-of-the-east
0 -
Gary Osborne said:
Wow, I see it the exact opposite, Dave. The list demonstrates the high and uneven ratio of Calvinistic or at least semi-Calvinistic material as compared to Arminian/Wesleyan/Pentecostal material. First off, the "Reformed" section alone is 3x's larger than the three sections combined that I mentioned.
That list is fairly worthless for comparisons. Logos now has something like 20,000 resources. Even if we leave aside everything that isn't 'confessional' in any way, it's pretty clear that lots of resources simply aren't tagged for Christian Group. Just as an example, the Book of Common Prayer Collection (17 vols.) isn't tagged as either Anglican or Episcopalian. It doesn't get much more Anglican than that... So take the list with at least a bucketful of salt.
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
I'll say it one more time (and then I'll stop since this is apparently a touchy issue for people). There has, in my opinion, been a very heavy output of Calvinism material as opposed to Arminian/Wesleyan/Pentecostal material since I joined up with Logos about a year and a half ago. Even when I joined I saw what I'd call a big gap in non-Calvinistic standards like Adam Clarke's Commentary, a complete Wesley collection, and many conservative Pentecostal materials from groups like the Assemblies of God (Gospel Publishing House and the like). I'm just making an observation. That's all. I do realize that the following factors have undoubtedly played into the decisions to release more Calvinistic material than non-Calvinistic material:
1) The sheer abundance of Calvinistic material out there.
2) The Logos buying base almost assuredly being more Calvinistic as a whole than non-Calvinistic. If that's not true I'll eat my hat.
3) The rise in what I'll call aggressive Calvinism and strong Calvinistic voices in the Christian community over the past decade.
With point one there is nothing you can say. It is what it is. Point two is also just going to be a fact that everyone will have to live with. What the majority want the majority will get. Point three I'd hope would NOT play a part in the decision making process, and as far as I know there's no evidence to say it has. But regardless of all three points, it's clear to me that what is offered slants far more toward the Calvinistic side of the theological pond than toward an Arminian side. I'm not sure how anyone in good faith could argue otherwise - lists withstanding. Whether one agree with a guy like Charles Finney's theology or not, I think it's a shame more of his material is not at least offered. Likewise for many of the Wesleyan/Holiness group, and the Pentecostal persuasion (as two examples that would matter to me). That's all I'm saying. It's great that we are finally seeing the likes of Adam Clarke, Charles Wesley, and John Fletcher finally being offered. But I honestly thought those would have been in Logos 4 before now, and certainly before things like the John Piper or Timothy Keller collections were offered. And this doesn't even take into account other long-standing non-Calvinistic materials that aren't even apparently on the Logos radar yet (materials in the Holiness tradition or Pentecostal tradition). I'm not trying to rile anyone, but it's that kind of stuff that has me scratching my head and wondering if there isn't a slant. That's all I'm saying.
Peace, everyone. No offense intended.
0 -
Gary Osborne said:
I'm not trying to rile anyone, but it's that kind of stuff that has me scratching my head and wondering if there isn't a slant.
Yes, Gary! There's a slant! Stay far, far away from any Logos software! Sell what you have and run for your life! All that harmful Calvinism in Logos resources will end up converting you to a six- or seven-point Calvinist...it is irresistible!
You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile!
[6]
Eating a steady diet of government cheese, and living in a van down by the river.
0 -
Gary Osborne said:
1) The sheer abundance of Calvinistic material out there.
Agreed
Gary Osborne said:2) The Logos buying base almost assuredly being more Calvinistic as a whole than non-Calvinistic. If that's not true I'll eat my hat.
We should definitely be encouraging our congregations to be more theologically minded. It is one of the strengths of Calvinists from which we can learn.Gary Osborne said:3) The rise in what I'll call aggressive Calvinism and strong Calvinistic voices in the Christian community over the past decade.
Same as two.
Gary Osborne said:Whether one agree with a guy like Charles Finney's theology or not
Why does everyone keep holding up Finney as an example of Arminian theology. He was NOT a classical Arminian but a semi-palagian. This is part of the problem.
0 -
Gary Osborne said:
Wow, I see it the exact opposite, Dave. The list demonstrates the high and uneven ratio of Calvinistic or at least semi-Calvinistic material
OK, let's do the math. I put a red arrow next to non-calvinistic groups and a green arrow next to reformed (mostly calvinistic, but not exclusively, like Lutherns, etc.).
The groups with the red arrows gives me 2036 resources. The groups with the green arrows gives me 663 resources. Now, not all the 'Evangelical' resources are non-Calvinistic, but a large majority of them are. Probably 80% or more of the 'Baptist' works are non-Calvinistic. So you can slide these numbers a bit to reflect your biases as needed...you'll still not get to anywhere near a 50/50 split. (I was able to pull 282 works out of the 'Evangelical' group based on the author; I was only able to cull 34 Baptist works as reformed, by author, and some of those would argue they aren't Calvinists, but reformed Baptists....I doubt the distinction matters to the anti-Calvinists, however.) But I didn't count the Catholic works, which are certainly not Calvinistic in any regard.
Taking these out, that leaves 1720 Evangelical non-Calvinistic resources, and adding those to the Reformed brings that number up to 979 resources. Again, these are not necessarily Calvinist, but also again, I doubt that distinction matters to the plaintiff. Throw in the 214 Catholic non-Calvinistic works, and you almost push the first number back to 2000...almost a wash.
Here's the pic-
So where exactly is that Calvinistic bias in Logos? I'm just not seeing it from this list.
Eating a steady diet of government cheese, and living in a van down by the river.
0 -
I'm with you wholeheartedly on the first two points. I'd slightly disagree on point 3, choosing to view it differently - but not wanting to go any further with it here. And all I'll say about point #4 is that I know it's the popular thing to call Finney a semi-pelagian (especially if one is Reformed - but you've stated you are not), but I'm not as comfortable with throwing him under that bus as others are. He believed STRONGLY in prayer being the key to move of God, and I think that's often overlooked by critics. But this is a long discussion and not one I'm really up to. Suffice it to say I'm a live and let live guy when it comes to people's opinion of Finney.
0 -
Shmuel Birnbaum said:
ittle by little, I have been noticing the slant of the program is toward the Reformed-Calvinist theological postion.
Maybe it's God's providence.[:)]
0 -
Doc B said:
So where exactly is that Calvinistic bias in Logos? I'm just not seeing it from this list.
He-he. Let's just say I'm not ready to agree with your assessment of what is and isn't Calvinistic. First off, if we want to be fair let's just eliminate the "Evangelicals" group entirely because if you want to say most aren't strictly Calvinists I can also say most aren't going to be of the Arminian/Wesleyan/Pentecostal heritage either. I guarantee you there's more of a Calvinist representation in that group than there is an Arminian one. So let's throw that one out for the sake of argument. We can do the same with the Catholic grouping. We could have the same argument, to a lesser degree, about the Baptist and Fundamentalist categories. Once more I'd just about guarantee that there's more Calvinistic leaning material in those groups than Arminian leaning. But here's the kicker. The "Reformed" section alone has 3 times as much material as the Arminian-Wesleyan and Pentecostal groups do. So tell me again how Calvinism material doesn't far outweigh Arminian material in Logos. [:D]
In spite of all I've written, I want Logos to know I love V.4 and will continue to learn and use it abundantly in my study. I bet I'll even be able to use it to tear down the TULIP from time to time. LOL, just kidding.
Take care, everyone. Blessings!
0 -
Doc B said:
I put a red arrow next to non-calvinistic groups and a green arrow next to reformed (mostly calvinistic, but not exclusively, like Lutherns, etc.).
How in the world to you view us Lutherans as "mostly calvinistic"? Besides the fact that Luther came first, if I assume you are talking of the so-called 5 points, we Lutherans universally reject Limited Atonement. We admittedly would accept "total depravity", but would want different definitions of the rest of the terms because of our understanding of the Means of Grace.
SDG
Ken McGuire
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
Gary Osborne said:
I'm with you wholeheartedly on the first two points. I'd slightly disagree on point 3, choosing to view it differently - but not wanting to go any further with it here. And all I'll say about point #4 is that I know it's the popular thing to call Finney a semi-pelagian (especially if one is Reformed - but you've stated you are not), but I'm not as comfortable with throwing him under that bus as others are. He believed STRONGLY in prayer being the key to move of God, and I think that's often overlooked by critics. But this is a long discussion and not one I'm really up to. Suffice it to say I'm a live and let live guy when it comes to people's opinion of Finney.
No one is throwing Finney under a bus. But it could be that Arminians are being thrown under a bus in the name of Finney. I am simply saying that he was a semi-pelagian by definition. Arminians like Calvinists, believe that man is unable to respond to salvation apart from the grace of God. Finney did not believe this but believed that man was able of his own natural free will, to respond to salvation. That is what he believed and that is, by definition, semi-pelagian. It is not pejorative to say what someone is according to what they say they believe. If someone says they believe in TULIP and I say that they are a five point Calvinist then that is neither a postive or a negative statement. It is merely a statement of fact.
My problem with Finney being held up as an Arminian is not Finney but the misrepresentation of Arminians on account of him. Many Calvinist, for example, reason like this:
1. Finney's beliefs are semi-pelagian
2. Finney was an Arminian
Therefore;
3. Arminian = Semi-Pelagian
Suddenly I open a book on Christian foundations and I read "Arminianism, also known as semi-pelagianism". You see the problem?
0 -
Kenneth McGuire said:
How in the world to you view us Lutherans as "mostly calvinistic"?
He's right. Lutherans don't follow Luther. Just read his work on the Bondage of the Will.
0 -
Kenneth McGuire said:Doc B said:
I put a red arrow next to non-calvinistic groups and a green arrow next to reformed (mostly calvinistic, but not exclusively, like Lutherns, etc.).
How in the world to you view us Lutherans as "mostly calvinistic"? Besides the fact that Luther came first, if I assume you are talking of the so-called 5 points, we Lutherans universally reject Limited Atonement. We admittedly would accept "total depravity", but would want different definitions of the rest of the terms because of our understanding of the Means of Grace.
SDG
Ken McGuire
You had better read that again. He excluded Lutherans
0 -
Evan Boardman said:Kenneth McGuire said:
How in the world to you view us Lutherans as "mostly calvinistic"?
He's right. Lutherans don't follow Luther. Just read his work on the Bondage of the Will.
There are admittedly better Luther scholars out there, but I am not aware of him EVER (including in that great work of his) that Atonement is limited.
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
Kenneth McGuire said:Evan Boardman said:Kenneth McGuire said:
How in the world to you view us Lutherans as "mostly calvinistic"?
He's right. Lutherans don't follow Luther. Just read his work on the Bondage of the Will.
There are admittedly better Luther scholars out there, but I am not aware of him EVER (including in that great work of his) that Atonement is limited.
Like I said. He said reformed are mostly Calvinistic EXCLUDING groups like Lutherans
0 -
Okay, I think we need to step back and put this thread in perspective:
1. Logos is clearly biased in favor of Indo-European and Afroasiatic languages - even to the point of favoring Germanic and Latin branches of Indo-European and the Semitic branch of Afroasiatic over other branches.
2. Logos is clearly biased in favor of written languages, especially languages using an alphabet over unwritten or non-alphabetic languages.
3. Logos is clearly biased against the Oriental branch of Christianity with only a small amount of Coptic and Syriac resources. They also appear to be biased, although less strongly, against the Byzantine branch of Christianity.
4. Logos is clearly biased in favor of the North American continental and British Isles church as compared especially to the Eastern European church.
5. Logos is clearly biased towards the most recent 25% of the church's life although they are making some effort to fill some gaps.
6. Logos is clearly biased towards resources to which they can either obtain legal rights or prove to be in public domain.
7. Logos is clearly biased against my desired resources evidence -- the length of my "wish it was in Logos" vs. my "wish I could afford it now" list.
While my list is intentionally statistically accurate but irrelevant I think there are several elements we should genuinely consider:
- If Logos is truly Bible study software, I would expect more Bible study resources than theological resources especially within the "sola scriptura" segment.
- If Logos is truly a research tool, I would expect more influential works to be provided before less influential works. (Think Hus, Luther, Calvin before Driscoll and Swaggart).
- If Logos wants to reach a broad market, I would expect the distribution of resources to be broadly parallel to the distribution of customers i.e. not equal across all theologies but rather broadly parallel to the current distribution of believers within the English-Spanish speaking world that also have reasonable access to computers, electricity and internet connections.
I'm not saying that Logos resources map perfectly to my three criteria, merely that I would expect market forces to be pushing them towards the results of these criteria.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Doc B said:
OK, let's do the math.
I guess no one read my post.... Let me try again:
- There are so many untagged resources that those numbers are essentially useless for comparisons. If it says 50 that can mean that the real number is 52, or it can mean that the real number is 583.
- One resource can be one book, or it can be a 35-book collection. So if it says Group A (20) and Group B (5) the reality can be that there are 20 Group A books but 100 Group B. Yet your maths would show a strong 'bias' in favour of Group A.
- Many resources have several tags, i e Rick Brannan's Historic Creeds and Confessions is tagged as Reformed, Presbyterian, Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox.
Maths never gets any better than the numbers it's based on!
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
A quote from the book.Kenneth McGuire said:There are admittedly better Luther scholars out there, but I am not aware of him EVER (including in that great work of his) that Atonement is limited.
"All things whatsoever arise from, and depend upon, the Divine appointments, whereby it was preordained who should receive the Word of Life, and who should disbelieve it, who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them, who should be justified and who should be condemned. This is the very truth which razes the doctrine of freewill from its foundations, to wit, that God's eternal love of some men and hatred of others is immutable and cannot be reversed."
0 -
Evan Boardman said:
A quote from the book.Kenneth McGuire said:There are admittedly better Luther scholars out there, but I am not aware of him EVER (including in that great work of his) that Atonement is limited.
"All things whatsoever arise from, and depend upon, the Divine appointments, whereby it was preordained who should receive the Word of Life, and who should disbelieve it, who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them, who should be justified and who should be condemned. This is the very truth which razes the doctrine of freewill from its foundations, to wit, that God's eternal love of some men and hatred of others is immutable and cannot be reversed."
Peace, Evan! I celebrated this Sunday past the 50th Anniversary of my Ordination as a Lutheran Pastor.
Never before today have I read such a quote! Weird and fuzzy ! Luther? What's he really saying? Where does this quote come from - I don't remember anything like this ever in his works of which I have almost 60 volumes -- strange ...
Sure doesn't sound like Luther to me. If one dissects the quote into its various components, one still cannot for sure understand it.
The New Encyclopedia of Christian Quotations, from which you quoted this quote, has come up with something I've never heard before and would be contrary to my understanding of the Holy Scriptures, taken at face value...............
Where on earth did the author ever find such a quote????
Evan, a very dangerous quote indeed since it casts aspersions upon the teachings of Scripture as understood within the Lutheran Church.
Am writing this in a hurry since I have to go out this evening.
Hopefully when I return tomorrow morning you will have spoken to this issue, at least to "nail down" the source of the mis-quote! And I will carefully re-read and study this quote........
I do enjoy the forums, even some of the threads where we see things from a different perspective; however,
Logos is probably correct to say "no theological discussions." It can lead and has led to various kinds of rancor....
Again, Peace! and ........ Always Joy in the Lord! *smile*
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
The book I and Kenneth McGuire were talking about and which the quote comes from is Luther's Bondage of the Will. I wish I could give you the pg number but I the resource I used didnt give me a pg. number.
I'll leave the searching to you.
0 -
nice thread folks, I think I will add my relevant comments here:
I like pie. mincemeat is my favorite, warmed a bit with a scoop of vanilla bean ice cream (with a dash of cinnamon). pumpkin comes in close second, as long as it isn't ruined with whipped topping on top.
...And for further research enjoyment: I searched for God in my whole library of 6,967 resources; and while I found 4,430,955 results in 32 and a half seconds and 86 results in less than a second of my own content (I have a 3 year old computer)[all while it was downloading 15 more resources and began indexing] - I did not Find God there.
0 -
Pooh. I lost my long reply to you, Sean. Must have been God's sovereign will so I'll only say I agree with you concern about Finney and Arminianism. But I believe if people get past his worst work - "Finney's Systematic Theology" (where he fails miserably to clearly explain what he really believes, imho) - and actually examine the emphasis he put on prayer both before, during and after any revival meetings, along with his constant call for the work of the Holy Spirit being essential in the endeavor of seeing souls saved, then one might not be quite as apt to just categorize him as a heretic. And yes, I do believe straight pelagianism, and true semi-pelagianism, is heretical. I just think Finney falls just on the other side of that line. But if not then God knows and I'm content to leave it in His hands.
0 -
Evan Boardman said:
The book I and Kenneth McGuire were talking about and which the quote comes from is Luther's Bondage of the Will
Why, on the web, can I find Pink quoting Luther but can't find Luther himself? Even the CCEL translation leads me to believe that if I were to find the quote it might well be setting out the logical conclusion of a position rather than presenting Luther's position. I'm suspicious I'll want the original language
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I found Pink's quote of Luther after the fact. Whether it's a misquote, I do not know. But what I do know is many people became a Calvinist after reading Luther's book on the Will. People I know and Im sure many more.
0 -
Gary Osborne said:
Pooh. I lost my long reply to you, Sean. Must have been God's sovereign will so I'll only say I agree with you concern about Finney and Arminianism. But I believe if people get past his worst work - "Finney's Systematic Theology" (where he fails miserably to clearly explain what he really believes, imho) - and actually examine the emphasis he put on prayer both before, during and after any revival meetings, along with his constant call for the work of the Holy Spirit being essential in the endeavor of seeing souls saved, then one might not be quite as apt to just categorize him as a heretic. And yes, I do believe straight pelagianism, and true semi-pelagianism, is heretical. I just think Finney falls just on the other side of that line. But if not then God knows and I'm content to leave it in His hands.
Thanks. Actually there is much to admire in Finney and I will certainly not be surprised to see him on that day (how orthodox must one be to be saved). He was absolutely committed to seeing people trust God for their salvation, which was why he believed what he did. The Arminian emphasis on free will (of course as a result of previent grace) comes from a desire to see God glorified as a good and loving God and I am sure that Finney's emphasis was not intended to glorify man but God.
Finney trusted in God alone to save him from his depravity, even if he misunderstood the extent of that depravity and it's effects on free will. I am sure that he would not count his understanding of a free will choice as having contributed to his salvation any more than turning up at a soup kitchen makes me the cook (pr 19:24). Actually, hyper Calvinism probably had some responsibility for Finney's theology in that his aversion for it made him run a little too far in the other direction.
Perhaps he was Arminian on some points but he held some views that were clearly not. None of this matters in relation to my point which is that holding him up as the poster boy of Arminian theology does great harm to the Calvinist/Arminian debate.
0 -
I would expect 3 things:
- That they improve the Essential Reference Bundle - for example throw
out some dated works on Church History and lessen the amount of Bible
dictionaries. I don't think this particular bundle fools anyone - the
total price is a bit above what most people want to invest in Logos, and
many of the authors are not all that reputable. I'm really not
going to buy any such bundle before they make major improvements. Even
after they improve it I'm not among the most likely customers to buy it
because currently I find extremely few offers that I desire. - That they release the 1989 Revised English Bible with Apocrypha.
I've heard an explanation from fgh: that Logos hasn't contracted anything from Oxford
for years. Before Logos wants to and accomplishes this, it seems to me that Logos is very biased against British Bibles. - That they lower the price of Catholic Practicum. It doesn't even say
clearly that the video guides through the Apostolic Fathers and Early
Church Fathers and the Catechism, so is it really going to be worth it?
I don't know what to expect of the video! In addition to that I find it funny that they say that the minimum
library required is the Catholic Foundations as it doesn't sound likely
that it's sufficient. No I am no way gonna upgrade - one reason being that I avoid Raymond E.
Brown at any cost.
Well I'm somewhat content as is regarding the distribution of influential works and less influential ones.
MJ. Smith said:- If Logos is truly Bible study software, I would expect more Bible study resources than theological resources especially within the "sola scriptura" segment.
- If Logos is truly a research tool, I would expect more influential works to be provided before less influential works. (Think Hus, Luther, Calvin before Driscoll and Swaggart).
Disclosure!
trulyergonomic.com
48G AMD octacore V9.2 Acc 120 - That they improve the Essential Reference Bundle - for example throw
-
MJ. Smith said:
Why, on the web, can I find Pink quoting Luther but can't find Luther himself?
I had just come to the same conclusion after a Google search. Where did Pink find the quote, and why is he the only person who has found it?
0 -
Milford ... congratulations on your 50th anniversary (if I understand right; I think you might have been a little unusually miffed in your post).
In the few words of your statement, one imagines all the dreams and trials that you must have experienced. It's impressive and of course you have only the One to thank!
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
JRS said:
I'll bet that if I independently quizzed each of the posters in this thread as to their definition of 'Calvinist', I would get widely divergent responses. And, without a mutually agreed upon definition of terms, discussions such as this are totally pointless.
quod erat demonstrandum
Instead of Artificial Intelligence, I prefer to continue to rely on Divine Intelligence instructing my Natural Dullness (Ps 32:8, John 16:13a)
0 -
Evan Boardman said:
A quote from the book.Kenneth McGuire said:There are admittedly better Luther scholars out there, but I am not aware of him EVER (including in that great work of his) that Atonement is limited.
"All things whatsoever arise from, and depend upon, the Divine appointments, whereby it was preordained who should receive the Word of Life, and who should disbelieve it, who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them, who should be justified and who should be condemned. This is the very truth which razes the doctrine of freewill from its foundations, to wit, that God's eternal love of some men and hatred of others is immutable and cannot be reversed."
Trying to keep this topical - I searched in Logos for many of the above phrases and cannot find the quote in the American Edition of Luther's Works, vol. 33. It is true that Early Luther and Early Calvin are pretty close, viewing this issue in the context of Christology - probably closer than either side wants to admit.
But "Lutheranism" is not defined by what Luther said and believed. Our rule and norm is the Bible. Our confession of the faith we find in the Bible is the Augsburg Confession and the other writings in the Book of Concord. For details on the what the confessions say on this, please look up Augsburg Confession 18 where we affirm a LIMITED freedom of the will that does not apply to what is above us, like what Jesus has done for us and Augsburg Confession 19 where we say Sin is our fault - not God's, as well as the explanation to the 3rd article of the creed which is a confession that we CAN'T believe in Jesus, but the Holy Spirit works on us to make it happen, and finally the Formula of Concord 11 (and to a certain extent 1 and 2). We specifically condemn views of Predestination that view it as "a military muster". (SD 11, par 9) which is what we hear in Calvinism. It is, admittedly a valid question of if Calvin actually thought that, but we Lutherans have heard Calvin as saying that.
Historically, Lutherans viewed themselves as condemned by the Synod of Dort. From the 17th to late 19th century, the standard view was that Lutherans view this as happening "in view of faith". See, for example, the Hutter Compend I released as a personal book, or the 19th century summary of Schmid which I also so released.
In the late 19th Century some Lutherans came to realize that the phrase "in view of faith" was insufficient to describe the fulness of what the Bible and our Confessions say on the matter. After all, Jesus saves sinners. I myself am of this view personally.
As Robert Preus put it in his book _Getting into the Theology of Concord_, what we Lutherans confess is "Predestination simply means that everything God has done in time to save us and make us His children and preserve us in the faith, He determined in Christ to do for us in eternity. So my salvation is not the result of any whimsical actions or reactions of God, but of His eternal purpose for me." (pg. 82)
Eerdmans has published some wonderful books from the Lutheran Quarterly Books series that I wish were available in Logos. Relevant would be Bayer's short _Living by Faith_ and Wengert's chapter on Predestination in _A Formula for Parish Practice_, but especially the Forde's book _The Captivation of the Will_ on the debate between Luther and Erasmus and Kolb's detailed study _Bound Choice, Election, and Wittenberg Theological Method_ which discusses how this was received into the Formula of Concord.
I close with a quote from Luther's Bondage of the Will:
Let us take it that there are three lights—the light of nature, the light of grace, and the light of glory, to use the common and valid distinction. By the light of nature it is an insoluble problem how it can be just that a good man should suffer and a bad man prosper; but this problem is solved by the light of grace. By the light of grace it is an insoluble problem how God can damn one who is unable by any power of his own to do anything but sin and be guilty. Here both the light of nature and the light of grace tell us that it is not the fault of the unhappy man, but of an unjust God; for they cannot judge otherwise of a God who crowns one ungodly man freely and apart from merits, yet damns another who may well be less, or at least not more, ungodly. But the light of glory tells us differently, and it will show us hereafter that the God whose judgment here is one of incomprehensible righteousness is a God of most perfect and manifest righteousness. In the meantime, we can only believe this, being admonished and confirmed by the example of the light of grace, which performs a similar miracle in relation to the light of nature.
Luther, M. (1999). Vol. 33: Luther's works, vol. 33: Career of the Reformer III (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.) (292). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.We Lutherans generally view Calvin as having tried to solve this problem which is "insolvable" until the "light of glory" comes with the coming of the Kingdom in its fullness now, by logic. I admit that whether Calvin actually THOUGHT this is historically debatable. But we historically have heard this in the mature Calvinism of Dort. So to describe us Lutherans as being "almost Calvinist" comes across to us as inaccurately describing our position as viewing Finney as a spokesperson for Arminianism.
SDG,
Ken McGuire
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
1. One can readily be Catholic without being Roman Catholic - around 17 million people are united under the Vatican but not Roman Catholic.
MJ - I appreciate your posts both regarding Logos and Catholicism. I understood your other points, but could you explain this one to me?
Thanks in advance!Jerry
Macbook Air (2024), Apple M2, 16gb Ram, Mac Sequoia, 1TB storage
0 -
Jerry Bush said:MJ. Smith said:
1. One can readily be Catholic without being Roman Catholic - around 17 million people are united under the Vatican but not Roman Catholic.
MJ - I appreciate your posts both regarding Logos and Catholicism. I understood your other points, but could you explain this one to me?
Not MJ, but take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches.
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
Jerry Bush said:MJ. Smith said:
1. One can readily be Catholic without being Roman Catholic - around 17 million people are united under the Vatican but not Roman Catholic.
MJ - I appreciate your posts both regarding Logos and Catholicism. I understood your other points, but could you explain this one to me?
The "Roman" in "Roman Catholic a.k.a. Latin Catholic" refers to the family of rites (ways of "saying Mass") that derive from the Western Church. However, there are Catholics who "say the Divine Liturgy" in other ways usually paralleling one of the Orthodox churches. In Seattle, I know we have Maronite, Byzantine and Ruthenian Catholic Churches. These report up a different chain of command although their top Patriarch reports to the Bishop/Patriarch of Rome better known as Pope Benedict XVI. Some of these rites are groups that stayed with Rome in the Great Schism of 1054, others are groups that reunited with Rome after the schism. As the different rites often reflect different cultures, they may publish their own catechisms etc. that reflect their liturgical and theological history. We all believe "the same thing" but express it differently or with different emphases.
from Logos:
"THE LITURGICAL TRADITIONS
In 395 the Roman Empire was divided into Eastern and Western halves, the consolidation of a process begun in 293 with the partition of the empire into four prefectures. The Eastern half of the empire contained four cities which were to become the centers of the Eastern patriarchates: Antioch, center of the civil diocese of Orient; Alexandria, center of the civil diocese of Egypt; Constantinople and Jerusalem, raised to the level of patriarchal seat in 381 and 451, respectively. During the 4th and 5th centuries, the liturgical usages of the cities, towns and villages surrounding these ecclesiastical centers unified more and more around the usages of the patriarchates.
Some liturgical traditions, however, developed partially or entirely outside the jurisdiction of the Roman Empire. The Chaldean, or East Syrian eucharistic rite developed primarily within the Persian Empire, and the Armenian rite grew up against the backdrop of constant power struggles between the two “super-powers” of late antiquity, the Roman and Persian Empires.
The result of this process of liturgical unification is the group of four basic Eastern liturgical traditions known today: 1. Syrian (East Syrian, West Syrian, and Maronite); 2. Byzantine; 3. Armenian; and 4. Alexandrian (Coptic and Ethiopian).
The eucharistic liturgies of the East are today celebrated by both Orthodox and Catholic churches (with the sole exception of the Maronite rite, which is celebrated only by Eastern rite Catholics). These liturgies are celebrated in a wide variety of languages, both classical and modern: from Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Slavonic, and Armenian to Arabic, various modern European languages, Chinese, Japanese, Malayalam, various Siberian and North American Indian languages, and English. While originally these rites were restricted to specific geographical locales, they are now found worldwide, the result both of missionary activity and of the Eastern Christian diaspora.
Peter E. Fink, The New Dictionary of Sacramental Worship, electronic ed., 411 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000).""Uniat Churches. The Churches of E. Christendom in communion with Rome, which yet retain their respective languages, rites, and canon law in accordance with the terms of their union; these last in most cases provide for *Communion in both kinds, *Baptism by *immersion, and marriage of the clergy. In 1972 a commission was set up to prepare a code of canon law for all Uniat Churches; this was promulgated in 1990 and came into force in 1991. The term ‘Uniat’ (Lat. Unio, so Polish Unia) was first used by the opponents of the Union of *Brest-Litovsk (1595), and has been consistently disowned by the Churches concerned. The main groups covered by the designation are the *Maronites (united 1182), the *Syrians under the Patriarch of *Antioch, and the *Malankarese (1930), all of the Antiochene rite; the *Armenians under the Patriarch of Cilicia (united 1198–1291 and 1741); the *Chaldeans (1551 and 1830) and the *Malabarese (before 1599) of the Chaldean rite; the *Copts (1741) and *Ethiopians (1839), both of the Alexandrian rite; and of the Byzantine rite the Polish Ruthenians (now called *Ukrainians; 1595), the *Hungarians (1595), the Serbs in Croatia (1611), the Podcarpathian Ruthenians (1646), the *Romanians (1701), the Melkites (1724), and certain Bulgars (1860) and *Greeks (1860). Of these the largest body is the Ukrainians. The term is also applied to the Italo-Greek-Albanian community of S. Italy which, although never separated from Rome, is permitted to follow similar practices. In 1946 the Uniat Church in the Ukraine, and in 1948 that in Romania, were suppressed and their faithful forced to join the *Russian and Romanian Orthodox Churches respectively. They continued an underground existence and were legalized in 1989 and 1990. The total number of Uniats or Eastern Rite Catholics is prob. some 15 million. See also under separate groups.
F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. rev., 1669 (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005)."If that seems "clear as mud" that's about how clear it is to most Catholics[:)]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
[Y][Y][Y][Y][Y][Y][Y][Y][Y][Y][Y][Y][Y]Kenneth McGuire said:Evan Boardman said:
A quote from the book.Kenneth McGuire said:There are admittedly better Luther scholars out there, but I am not aware of him EVER (including in that great work of his) that Atonement is limited.
"All things whatsoever arise from, and depend upon, the Divine appointments, whereby it was preordained who should receive the Word of Life, and who should disbelieve it, who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them, who should be justified and who should be condemned. This is the very truth which razes the doctrine of freewill from its foundations, to wit, that God's eternal love of some men and hatred of others is immutable and cannot be reversed."
Trying to keep this topical - I searched in Logos for many of the above phrases and cannot find the quote in the American Edition of Luther's Works, vol. 33. It is true that Early Luther and Early Calvin are pretty close, viewing this issue in the context of Christology - probably closer than either side wants to admit.
But "Lutheranism" is not defined by what Luther said and believed. Our rule and norm is the Bible. Our confession of the faith we find in the Bible is the Augsburg Confession and the other writings in the Book of Concord. For details on the what the confessions say on this, please look up Augsburg Confession 18 where we affirm a LIMITED freedom of the will that does not apply to what is above us, like what Jesus has done for us and Augsburg Confession 19 where we say Sin is our fault - not God's, as well as the explanation to the 3rd article of the creed which is a confession that we CAN'T believe in Jesus, but the Holy Spirit works on us to make it happen, and finally the Formula of Concord 11 (and to a certain extent 1 and 2). We specifically condemn views of Predestination that view it as "a military muster". (SD 11, par 9) which is what we hear in Calvinism. It is, admittedly a valid question of if Calvin actually thought that, but we Lutherans have heard Calvin as saying that.
Historically, Lutherans viewed themselves as condemned by the Synod of Dort. From the 17th to late 19th century, the standard view was that Lutherans view this as happening "in view of faith". See, for example, the Hutter Compend I released as a personal book, or the 19th century summary of Schmid which I also so released.
In the late 19th Century some Lutherans came to realize that the phrase "in view of faith" was insufficient to describe the fulness of what the Bible and our Confessions say on the matter. After all, Jesus saves sinners. I myself am of this view personally.
As Robert Preus put it in his book _Getting into the Theology of Concord_, what we Lutherans confess is "Predestination simply means that everything God has done in time to save us and make us His children and preserve us in the faith, He determined in Christ to do for us in eternity. So my salvation is not the result of any whimsical actions or reactions of God, but of His eternal purpose for me." (pg. 82)
Eerdmans has published some wonderful books from the Lutheran Quarterly Books series that I wish were available in Logos. Relevant would be Bayer's short _Living by Faith_ and Wengert's chapter on Predestination in _A Formula for Parish Practice_, but especially the Forde's book _The Captivation of the Will_ on the debate between Luther and Erasmus and Kolb's detailed study _Bound Choice, Election, and Wittenberg Theological Method_ which discusses how this was received into the Formula of Concord.
I close with a quote from Luther's Bondage of the Will:
Let us take it that there are three lights—the light of nature, the light of grace, and the light of glory, to use the common and valid distinction. By the light of nature it is an insoluble problem how it can be just that a good man should suffer and a bad man prosper; but this problem is solved by the light of grace. By the light of grace it is an insoluble problem how God can damn one who is unable by any power of his own to do anything but sin and be guilty. Here both the light of nature and the light of grace tell us that it is not the fault of the unhappy man, but of an unjust God; for they cannot judge otherwise of a God who crowns one ungodly man freely and apart from merits, yet damns another who may well be less, or at least not more, ungodly. But the light of glory tells us differently, and it will show us hereafter that the God whose judgment here is one of incomprehensible righteousness is a God of most perfect and manifest righteousness. In the meantime, we can only believe this, being admonished and confirmed by the example of the light of grace, which performs a similar miracle in relation to the light of nature.
Luther, M. (1999). Vol. 33: Luther's works, vol. 33: Career of the Reformer III (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.) (292). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.We Lutherans generally view Calvin as having tried to solve this problem which is "insolvable" until the "light of glory" comes with the coming of the Kingdom in its fullness now, by logic. I admit that whether Calvin actually THOUGHT this is historically debatable. But we historically have heard this in the mature Calvinism of Dort. So to describe us Lutherans as being "almost Calvinist" comes across to us as inaccurately describing our position as viewing Finney as a spokesperson for Arminianism.
SDG,
Ken McGuire
0 -
MJ and others,
Thank you! Good info. I am pretty well versed in Protestant church history, but my Catholic history knowledge is limited.
I learned much from this discussion.
Thanks again!
Jerry
Macbook Air (2024), Apple M2, 16gb Ram, Mac Sequoia, 1TB storage
0 -
Peace to you, Ken! *smile* Peace to all! and Always Joy in the Lord!
Thank you so very much indeed for your post. Extremely helpful! For sure! *smile*
Also, I thought perhaps you and maybe others would be interested in a profile of Martin Luther from the C.S. Lewis Institute ...
http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/webfm_send/617
Kenneth McGuire said:Evan Boardman said:
A quote from the book.Kenneth McGuire said:There are admittedly better Luther scholars out there, but I am not aware of him EVER (including in that great work of his) that Atonement is limited.
"All things whatsoever arise from, and depend upon, the Divine appointments, whereby it was preordained who should receive the Word of Life, and who should disbelieve it, who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them, who should be justified and who should be condemned. This is the very truth which razes the doctrine of freewill from its foundations, to wit, that God's eternal love of some men and hatred of others is immutable and cannot be reversed."
Trying to keep this topical - I searched in Logos for many of the above phrases and cannot find the quote in the American Edition of Luther's Works, vol. 33. It is true that Early Luther and Early Calvin are pretty close, viewing this issue in the context of Christology - probably closer than either side wants to admit.
But "Lutheranism" is not defined by what Luther said and believed. Our rule and norm is the Bible. Our confession of the faith we find in the Bible is the Augsburg Confession and the other writings in the Book of Concord. For details on the what the confessions say on this, please look up Augsburg Confession 18 where we affirm a LIMITED freedom of the will that does not apply to what is above us, like what Jesus has done for us and Augsburg Confession 19 where we say Sin is our fault - not God's, as well as the explanation to the 3rd article of the creed which is a confession that we CAN'T believe in Jesus, but the Holy Spirit works on us to make it happen, and finally the Formula of Concord 11 (and to a certain extent 1 and 2). We specifically condemn views of Predestination that view it as "a military muster". (SD 11, par 9) which is what we hear in Calvinism. It is, admittedly a valid question of if Calvin actually thought that, but we Lutherans have heard Calvin as saying that.
Historically, Lutherans viewed themselves as condemned by the Synod of Dort. From the 17th to late 19th century, the standard view was that Lutherans view this as happening "in view of faith". See, for example, the Hutter Compend I released as a personal book, or the 19th century summary of Schmid which I also so released.
In the late 19th Century some Lutherans came to realize that the phrase "in view of faith" was insufficient to describe the fulness of what the Bible and our Confessions say on the matter. After all, Jesus saves sinners. I myself am of this view personally.
As Robert Preus put it in his book _Getting into the Theology of Concord_, what we Lutherans confess is "Predestination simply means that everything God has done in time to save us and make us His children and preserve us in the faith, He determined in Christ to do for us in eternity. So my salvation is not the result of any whimsical actions or reactions of God, but of His eternal purpose for me." (pg. 82)
Eerdmans has published some wonderful books from the Lutheran Quarterly Books series that I wish were available in Logos. Relevant would be Bayer's short _Living by Faith_ and Wengert's chapter on Predestination in _A Formula for Parish Practice_, but especially the Forde's book _The Captivation of the Will_ on the debate between Luther and Erasmus and Kolb's detailed study _Bound Choice, Election, and Wittenberg Theological Method_ which discusses how this was received into the Formula of Concord.
I close with a quote from Luther's Bondage of the Will:
Let us take it that there are three lights—the light of nature, the light of grace, and the light of glory, to use the common and valid distinction. By the light of nature it is an insoluble problem how it can be just that a good man should suffer and a bad man prosper; but this problem is solved by the light of grace. By the light of grace it is an insoluble problem how God can damn one who is unable by any power of his own to do anything but sin and be guilty. Here both the light of nature and the light of grace tell us that it is not the fault of the unhappy man, but of an unjust God; for they cannot judge otherwise of a God who crowns one ungodly man freely and apart from merits, yet damns another who may well be less, or at least not more, ungodly. But the light of glory tells us differently, and it will show us hereafter that the God whose judgment here is one of incomprehensible righteousness is a God of most perfect and manifest righteousness. In the meantime, we can only believe this, being admonished and confirmed by the example of the light of grace, which performs a similar miracle in relation to the light of nature.
Luther, M. (1999). Vol. 33: Luther's works, vol. 33: Career of the Reformer III (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.) (292). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.We Lutherans generally view Calvin as having tried to solve this problem which is "insolvable" until the "light of glory" comes with the coming of the Kingdom in its fullness now, by logic. I admit that whether Calvin actually THOUGHT this is historically debatable. But we historically have heard this in the mature Calvinism of Dort. So to describe us Lutherans as being "almost Calvinist" comes across to us as inaccurately describing our position as viewing Finney as a spokesperson for Arminianism.
SDG,
Ken McGuire
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Kenneth McGuire said:
How in the world to you view us Lutherans as "mostly calvinistic"?
Because, Ken, I was trying to give Gary the benefit of the doubt, even to an extreme in his favor. Didn't matter, he sees what he wants to see anyway, in spite of the facts.
Eating a steady diet of government cheese, and living in a van down by the river.
0 -
Gary Osborne said:
let's just eliminate the "Evangelicals" group entirely because if you want to say most aren't strictly Calvinists I can also say most aren't going to be of the Arminian/Wesleyan/Pentecostal heritage either.
Because, Gary, your claim was one of 'Calvinistic bias', not non-Arminian bias. You can't change the definition as it suits you and claim you've won an objective argument.
You can't throw out the Catholics either. If there's a Calvinistic bias in Logos, they would systematically reduce or eliminate the number of Catholic resources as these are most assuredly NOT Calvinistic (remember your complaint?).
I'll bet my lunch money that if we go through either the Baptist or Fundamentalist lists, we'd find about an 80-20 ration of non-Calvinistic to Calvinistic authors. This mirrors the ratio of non-Calvinists to Calvinists in both groups, with allowances for more prodigious/less prodigious authors in each group.
Again, this argument isn't about which theology is more popular, is more biblical, or more correct: it is about your complaint that there is a Calvinistic bias in Logos, when in fact there is NO empirical evidence of such a bias.
Eating a steady diet of government cheese, and living in a van down by the river.
0 -
Not arguing any more, Doc. Feel free to have the last word, just try not to burn me at the stake - thankfully we aren't in Geneva any more. [H]
0 -
Doc B said:
Because, Gary, your claim was one of 'Calvinistic bias', not non-Arminian bias. You can't change the definition as it suits you and claim you've won an objective argument.
Before I give you the last word, one addendum:
Actually, Doc, I've framed my personal comments in exactly that light. I H-A-V-E specifically stated that a big part of my frustration is the ratio of Calvinist works to Arminian/Pentecostal works. So on this point you are 100% wrong.
That is all. [:D]
0 -
Alan Charles Gielczyk said:
Your "warning" to me was an unwarranted assumption. I am in seminary pursuing an MDiv. in Biblical Languages and have come to my conclusions through careful exegesis of the languages.hi Alan.
my original post, and reply probably were not well explained. I respect your efforts. I too know what it means to study at University level, and what it means to study something thoroughly. my original post did not give much merit to itself since it is not thorough, but the simple answer excluding all reasoning, and research. I did this with the intention to save the original poster some time on the subject. I realize very well that the subject of calvin's TULIP, and Arminianism is taught in seminaries as something that will not be resolved (in most universities) so as not to step on anyones feet. This was what i was pointing toward as i have seen many able students get side tracked down the debate of bad theories and laughed at by professors because they think if they cant work something out, then no one can.
in addition i sympathize with you because doing any Christian study usually requires you to study things but only so far as to please the course content.
my apology for placing you in that basket.
I am certain that you'd agree with me in regards to the 'status unresolved' that most universities will require this subject to end with. My efforts were not trivial however and required analysis and application of all OT xrefs at the date they were written to understand their application in romans 8-9, in addition to many many hours understanding the subject area, and taking all quotes used by both sides in context to eliminate the out of context ones, and categorize the other ones in terms to their possibility for application. The subject area is much larger than romans of course . the book of Hebrews is my pet favourite for contextualizing (which has a partial application here since it is used in the argument for Arminianism.) (i dont endorse Arminianism or calvinism becuase that means endorsing the means and the end of either theory - both of which are flawed.)
anyway. It was no problem to have listened to you. sorry again. may God bless you too regardless of anyone who criticizes you in your life.
Tex.
0 -
Gary Osborne said:
Not arguing any more, Doc. Feel free to have the last word, just try not to burn me at the stake - thankfully we aren't in Geneva any more.
The tone of this post is highly inappropriate, consider removing brother.
0
