List of chapter officers, meeting information, and contact details.

History, list of chapters, news, and membership application form.

In article <137.16.21.05.183941000@srcbs.org>, Bob Felts says...
>
>Stephen M. Adams wrote:
>
>> wrf3@stablecross.com (Bob Felts) writes:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Stephen M. Adams wrote:
>> >
>> >[...]
>> >
>> >>

>I don't have a lot of time to waste, Steve.

Then why are you wasting your time in Calvinist delusion?

> I'm concerned about the alleged accuracy of someone's analysis of
>Calvinism if their analysis of the Incarnation is incorrect.

You are right to be concerned, but don't over do it. Hick's error is not as
severe as Calvin's.

>It has been my overwhelming experience that denial of the diety of
>Christ automatically leads to all sorts of errors.

This is certainly true. But I cannot help but notice the irony: your
own doctrine is an example of the error that results from denying not
the deity, but the humanity of Christ. And yes, you do deny the full
humanity of Christ, since in effect you deny He took up a fully human
will; we have been over this before.

>Is there not another author who has orthodox Christology who has
>analyzed Calvinism in a manner you find acceptable?

Very good question. I hope Steve answers it.

But if he does not, don't forget that historically, the Orthodox have
often resorted to using Catholic reference materials against
Protestant errors and Protestant against Catholic. This approach is
often criticized these days, but there was a very good reason for
it. And this issue, "the Calvinist God", is a perfect example of it.

For it happens to be the Romans/Arminians who have done some of the best
analysis of the weakness of the Calvinist position. But their own
materials are still somewhat compromised by the evil _precursors_ of
Calvinism that were too long tolerated among the Romans, such as
certain particular interpretation of Aquinas, and (gasp!) the
Dominicans. This is why Steve was trying to steer you away from the
Western way of thinking about (for example) 'original sin'.

Yet since you yourself are still very much attached to Western
philosophical 'presuppositions', you would find those Roman materials
much more accessible than an Eastern analysis of the error. So start with the
Catholic Encyclopedia article on it,

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03198a.htm.

There, for example, you find one of the best summaries of the modern
tragedy, that thanks to Calvin:

Hence the curious situation arises, that, while the Catholic
consent of the East and West finds little or no acknowledgement as
an historical fact among assailants of religion, the views which a
single Reformer enunciated are taken as though representing th