Radically

From Kristos Vocabulary Booster

English

Adverb

radically

1. In a radical manner.

Translations

• Finnish: perinpohjin

Related Terms

• radical

Gary McNees wrote:
> To show that Calvinism is false to the core, consider the Scriptural
> example of Cornelius as described in the Book of Acts of the
Apostles.



There are several different forms of Calvinism. I am sure that what
you picture in your mind to be Calvinism is a form of Calvinism that is
"false to the core".

You listed many scriptures that conflict with Calvinism as you
understand Calvinism. Therefore, I am quite sure that you are correct
and what you understand to be Calvinism is bunkum and hogwash.

However, I saw no conflict between the many scriptures you quoted and
Calvinism as I understand Calvinism.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

Matthew Johnson wrote:

>
> True. But please bear in mind that especially over here on
> this side of the Pond, we have a lot of people who cannot
> accept it as "reliable testimony" unless they believe it's
> literal sense is true. As to _how_ it is that we have so
> many people who approach Scripture that way, that would be a
> topic for another (and long) post.
>
No. It's quite simple to answer in a word, the Holy Spirit. Though
there are both internal and external grammatical and historical
evidences, it is the testimony of the Spirit which dispells all notions
otherwise. (Rom 8:16)

One historical, external evidence is fulfilled prophecy. This alone
should "stop every mouth" which contends otherwise to the normative
reading of the Word, i.e. the literal interpretation.
>
> >(3) is testified in the Scriptures and in the creeds--but I
> >doubt that of all statements in the Scriptures and the
> >creeds it is one of particularly "fundamental" ones.
>
> Actually, it is more fundamental than many realize. But it
> is hard to understand how it is so fundamental unless you
> are familiar with the theology of the Cappadocians or of
> St. Maximus the Confessor.

Or that no father of the church spoke of let alone developed the
dependency of the believer on the Spirit. Oh, before you object, dear
Mathew, I know of what Augustine wrote. But because it was so very
brief, a sentence or two, you will be hard pressed to produce even from
this great father, a quote representing anything close to what was
later developed by Calvin concerning the testimony of the Spirit.
There are sporadic assertions by Justin and Chrysostom, again, only a
sentence or two at very most, as to the dependence of the believer on
the inward teaching of the Spirit. Chrysostom only wrote that we "must
be led by the grace from above, and must receve the illuminatin of the
Holy Spirit, to apprach the divine oracles; for it is not human wisdom
but the revelation of the Holy Spirit that is needed for understanding
the Holy Scriptures." But none of this compares to Calvin's development
of the doctrine. It is obvious that it is the distinction
concerning the *understanding* of the Scriptures rather than the
*reception* of them as from God which is in question with both Justin
and your dear Chrysostom.

Auggie laid the stress upon "the Church" and the "means of grace" in
the conference of grace, speaking of the konwledge of God as attainable
only "in the Church." And such, in him as well as his succssors, there
are to be found only such anticipations specifically in reference to
the doctrine of the testimony of the Spirit and the absolute dependence
of man on the Spirit for all knowledge of God and divine things on
grace. The voice of men may hound our ears, Augustine says, for
intstnace, but those remain untaught "to whom that inward unction does
not speak, whom the HS does not inwardly teach": for "He who teaches
the heart has His seat in heaven."
[Tract 3 in Ep Joan. ad Parthos," 2:13; also cp "Confessions" 11:3]

>And indeed, it was the latter who
> explained the most clearly how important this was. For it is
> by being male, yet born of the Virgin, that Christ, in His
> own Person,
>
ahem! A literal translation and fulfilment! ;-)

>unites what could never be so united before,
> virginity and motherhood. By doing this, He unites male and
> female more closely than any other act could do.
>
> But this in turn is the first step in the divine program of
> the restoration of Man to the path that was so rudely
> interrupted by the Fall of Adam. Thanks to what Christ did,
> the whole Church, as "makroanthropos", can now complete what
> Adam could not.
>
Do you really expect the readers to know what you are talking about?
"makroanthropos".

I remember once standing in the hallway of O'Hara airport in Chicago,
waiting for my friend to come back out from powdering her nose. While
waiting their a Krishna came up to me and began talking. I let him
talk a good long while before answering. I remember the look on his
face and the tone in his voice to this very day. He went off on this
boasting that he had ascended to such and such level of spiritual
enlightenement and started bantying about words very much like you here
banty about "makroanthropos". The attitude was, "I know what it means
and you do not therefore," huff, "be gone my little man."
>
> > The longer I think about it, the more I like Matthew's
> >point that the creeds would have been fine to define the
> >fundamentals.
>
> Right you are, Helmut;) But I will be the first to admit,
> that even agreeing to the wording of the Nicene Creed did
> not put an end to differences and quarrels.

That's because the Nicene Creed is not Scripture. It was a systematic
documentation of the doctrine of the Godhead, and true in its
representation, but it was in no way written by the inspiration and
authority of the Spirit as was the canon. It is exactly like the
Westminster Confession in that it was produced by men in their
understanding of what was taught in the Scriptures. Therefore it is
subserviant to Scripture and remains so, having "truthfulness" only to
the degree that it agrees with the Word.

> Yet it achieved
> more than the Niagara Conference ever did or could do.
>
The Niagara Conference was never purposed to such a conclusion as was
the Nicene counsel. Better compared would be the WCF or the Belgic
Confession or even the Heidelberg Catechism.


((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))