quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I think Calvinism is one of the silliest versions of Christianity.

---

Oh wonderful. A single sentence dismissal of the beliefs of several Shipmates ... maybe you should reaquaint yourself with our 3rd Commandment.

Alan
Purgatory host
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
No, I'm not dismissing anyone's opinion. If you read on you'll see that I think my opinion is questionable. So let's have the discussion.

This is where I start from. Calvinism does seem silly to me, but I know that many Calvinists are far from silly. So enlighten me!
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Alan, may I please write BITE ME?
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
This strikes me as more appropriate for Hell...


 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I think Calvinism is one of the silliest versions of Christianity.
...
There are Calvinists I respect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
How come? Is it possible that hatless is missing a trick here? I've been wrong before, so prove me wrong about Calvinism.

---

It's been done before. Perhaps you would like to lay your theology out and let us pick holes in it.
 

---

Posted by Halcyon Sailor (# 5270) on :
 
Come on, guys, give Hatless a break. If it offends you Calvinists out there, rest assured that you were destined to be offended anyway, so there's nothing Hatless, you, nor anyone can do about it.
 

---

Posted by Singleton (# 3256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I think Calvinism is one of the silliest versions of Christianity.
...
There are Calvinists I respect.

---

Funny way to show respect.

---

Because you can't respect someone as a person and think their beliefs are a load of crap now?!

I live with someone who believes the world was created in 6 days, I think this is daft and tell him so. I still respect him as a person because, well, because he's a person...

[ 16. December 2003, 01:39: Message edited by: Singleton ]
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Oooo, yes please. I agree with duchess in that I think a hell thread on Calvinism would be a jolly good idea.

More seriously, I don't find it easy to agree with the Calvinistic beliefs I was brought up with. But if people can change my mind I will listen.

A question: how can anybody believe that God pre-elects to hell AND that God is worthy to be worshopped?
 

---

Posted by Singleton (# 3256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Oooo, yes please. I agree with duchess in that I think a hell thread on Calvinism would be a jolly good idea.

More seriously, I don't find it easy to agree with the Calvinistic beliefs I was brought up with. But if people can change my mind I will listen.

A question: how can anybody believe that God pre-elects to hell AND that God is worthy to be worshopped?

---

Usually because they think the world was created in 6 days which pretty much necessitated a literal fall. And also (in a more modern sense) because they can't actually live with the humility and agnosticism that is a necessary part of the Christian FAITH. Oh and they like to evangelise VEHEMENTLY - it just FEELS GOOD...

Evangelism = love for fellow human beings. That is the true good news which Christians should distinctively bring to the world. Let's get that right first (I know I'm a long way from even doing that properly).
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Rest assured I will not come to hell with this thread. Shark got it right, basically on SoF this is how it goes for a Calvinist to "discuss" TULIP (especially the L part, everybody's favorite portion).

Fat Spice: "Let's start with the basics. T means blah blah, U means blah blah...and so on and some of the verses I feel support this are as follows [a b c KJV]."
Whine&Cheez: "Well, I just don't LIKE your theology. I can't tell you why except how I FEEL about it, so I think I will take this pin and poke you with it. I don't need to have any verses or theology, except that you are poo-poo meanie. See, I can swear! Woo-hoo, look at my butt in this underwear!"
Fat Spice: "More on argument.."
Moronspice: "Well I am pro-this-and-that and since you are not 100%, I hate you! I spit on you fat girl! It is obvious you hate "certain" people beetch! [insert divisive jerk name famous here]is YOUR BEST FRIEND, isn't he/she?
Fat Spice: "Some of my friends are gay speech..."
ID10T: "Well, gosh golly, look at how the Fat Spice just goes off on a tangent, she don't wanna discuss this cuz she already LOST!"
WesleyJrRational: "Well, Once long ago dear I was a Caliviist but then I threw out that theology cuz I read the bible and it blah blah. [another verbage ladded with 10 verses and 6 camps of theology, with 2 authors cited outside the Holy Bible presented]."
-----Silence as lonely Fat Spice spends spinster Friday night looking up all verses by HERSELF as NONE OF THE OTHER 3 Calvinists on the ship freaking LIFT A FINGER, She blows off visiting family...blows off Karokee...THIS, THIS HERE IS MORE IMPORTANT TO HER-------------------
WeselyJrRational: "Gee, Fat Spice has not posted for a few days, guess I won that one! Confident she will find a new beginning for herself, so sad to see her believe that crap. I win! Join us!"
FINALLY a post from FatSpice...


This is the kind of crap. You get numerous idiots who just slam you for NO PARTICULAR REASON cited. Then you get a few drawing incorrect slanderous conclusions about you....then you get a few real good thoughtful posts against your side and you SO WANT TO research them...but that take TIME. And on your side? People who are too busy/burnt out/whatever to lift a finger and start posting away. You are expected to keep on every post, every thought that comes your way.

After more than a few time of this...this groundhog day gets to you and you just sit there on you nice comfortable chair and drink apple martinis.

SO THERE.

[edited out one cotton-picking thing]

[ 16. December 2003, 03:42: Message edited by: duchess ]
 

---

Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :
 
Well, poo!

I shoulda known. I started a lovely -and respectful- thread on Calvinism a few months ago and it got pruned. Westminster Confession anyone?
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Though, Calvinism: Can It Be Rehabilitated? was saved in Limbo.

PS: Hatless, with the benefit of a nights sleep, I was wrong to highlight that first sentence. It was more the tone of the whole post that struck me as likely to be seen as offensive to Calvinists - admitting you didn't understand Calvinism yet still willingly to state that you considered it silly.

Alan
Purgatory host

[ 16. December 2003, 07:28: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 

---

Posted by psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Hi, Hatless. All these guys seem to be talking mongst themselves. So maybe I can start with your proposition:

quote:

---

I think Calvinism is one of the silliest versions of Christianity.

---

And from a position somewhere within the tradition, let me agree with you. I think that there is an inherent silliness to all Christian positions pressed to the point of logical closure, and Calvinism pressed that far is particularly silly becuase it works so well. That's also what makes it so dangerous.

That's also why I worry about people who embrace it joyfully, rather than being, as I am, stuck with it. Partly by inheritance, partly by my not being able to get up the escape velocity necessary to break free. But partly also because - and I think this is what you're after - there is something at the heart of the tradition that's absolutely indispensable.

And the tradition is one that stretches back from Calvin through Augustine to St. Paul. Let's leave Gottschalk out of this; he was a sad, bullied wee soul, who seems to have done his Augustinianism for all the wrong reasons, like the certainty of a hideous doom for people who had hurt him so badly. Or actually, let's not leave him out - because isn't it close to the truth that the repugnant thing about Calvinism for many people is the inexorable damnation of the reprobate? The second half of election, viz. reprobation?

I think that reprobation is a monstrous doctrine. I think that people who glory in it are likewise to a degree monstrous. When Augustine says that the contemplation of the suffering of the damned increases the bliss of the saved, he's speaking for a deeply sick corner of himself, and not for me. And if I ever found myself in a state of bliss contemplating someone else's pain - I'd know that I was in some sort of hell, not in heaven.

And then, of course, because undeniably people are drawn to religious traditions - and into their ministries - because they resonate with aspects of the tradition (what Max Weber calls 'elective affinity') you get the parody in the pew, and even in the pulpit. (10 out of 10 for alliteration, by the way! Did you see that?!?) And you get the tweaking of the stereotype in a crueller direction.

And you also get the eclipsing of something profoundly important which is actually far more at the heart of the tradition. The sense that God's love is absolutely unconditional, not tied to anything that you do, or achieve, or make of yourself. The sense that whatever you are, however much your life has totalled out, however much you find it impossible to accept aspects of yourself, to live with things that you've done, that none of these things are obstacles to God. In other words, Carl Rogers' unconditional positive regard raised to the nth power, and infused with the warmth of real, suffering love.

But the other thing about classical Calvinism that's very striking is its very cerebrality. God may love us, the elect (I'll come back in a second to the shock that way of putting it generates!) but our response is not gauged with an emotional thermometer. In other words, the issue of 'cold faith' which tends to plague just about any other version of Christianity with the exception of Calvinism's close religious relative (!!!!) ex opere operato Catholic sacramentalism is neither here nor there to Calvinism. Everything is predicated on God's love and grace, nothing on our response. God saves us. And from the lofty heights of sola gratia, everything else is left looking like God's providing us - richly, indeed - with the means to save ourselves.

Now Max Weber's sociological question is very pertinent here. Why is it that an outlook like this doesn't lead straight to fatalism? Like the taxi drivers in Delhi that MArk Tully spoke about on the BBC, who drive madly without caring about traffic lights, because of karma. If it's your day to get it today, then you'll get it, however carefully you drive. And if not, you're OK... Psychologically, Calvinism seems not to have worked like that.

My suggestion is that most practitioners of any belief-syste work only with certain components of that system. Only theologians try to work with it all simultabneously, and they distinguish among more and less important elements. (And a lot of them - us - are nuts anyway ) My suggestion is that Calvinism for many of its adherents isn't fatalistic predestination, but lived unconditional acceptance. And if you're accepted unconditionally, then by definition the way you live afterwards isn't a fulfilling of conditions, but a loving response. And not eros - controversial suggestion coming up, but I believe more and more that emotional forms of religion are to some degree erotized - and I don't mean that disparagingly . But a grateful, loved, accepted, productive living for God as a response to God's sufferring, liberating, enfolding agape is also itself agape.

And lastly - that bit about "we the elect". I think that that must remain as a genuine scandal if we believe that we can know who is elect and who not. And Calvin explicitly condemns that hubris. The tradition I was brought up in, Welsh Independency, specifically condemned a restriction of the elect to within the boundaries of the visble church. God only knows who is saved.

But again - and I don't want to seem like a troll for my postmodern aporetic Calvinism - I believe you really have to go further than that, to expunge electon from human speculation, not by refusing to look at it, but by seeing it everywhere. With Barth and more importantly Paul, I believe that Jesus Christ on the Cross is God's 'Yes!' to the whole of humanity. In other words, I do believe that we ahve to make sense of the faith by believing three statements of which you can only hold two without (human) contradiction:

1) God is omnipotent
2) God is love
3) Loss of salvation is an awful possibility

As I've said before, I'm not a universalist - though it's actually Calvinism that's driven a lot of people that way, and it might be worth discussing the difference between non-Calvinist and (post)-Calvinist universalism on this thread! I believe that we have to juggle these three propositions, and that far too many people relinquish the first too easily. But if one had to go, I know for me it would be the third.

So yes, maybe

quote:

---

Calvinism is one of the silliest versions of Christianity.

---

Excepting all the others.

No, no, no!!!! Only joking.

The trick, surely, is to be a Christian first, and a whatever-ist second.

But I do think you have to be a something-ist second. Whether you want to or not. Generic Cristianity is a myth. To quote Principal Tulloch:

"We have to stand somewhere. We stand here..."
 

---

Posted by psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Alan - I hope it's clear that we cross-posted,a nd no host-directed disrespect was intended. (I didn't intend any disrespect to anyone else either, of course...)
 

---

Posted by Jacques More (# 5157) on :
 
Hi Hatless & all up to Psyduck,

I would like to comment from one of Psyduck's (and many Calvinist's) assumptions:

quote:

---

the tradition is one that stretches back from Calvin through Augustine to St. Paul.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Hatless, with the benefit of a nights sleep, I was wrong to highlight that first sentence. It was more the tone of the whole post that struck me as likely to be seen as offensive to Calvinists - admitting you didn't understand Calvinism yet still willingly to state that you considered it silly.

---

quote:

---

Don't theologies that emphasise our incorporation into the Body also offer a way out of the trap? We are saved because we belong.

---

quote:

---

Another question is, isn't it more loving in the end for God to create a less one-sided relationship with us? Isn't it bigger of God to let us co-operate with grace?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Singleton:
Usually because they think the world was created in 6 days which pretty much necessitated a literal fall.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Calvinists apparently believe that God created many of us expressly for damnation. That you haven't a hope in hell of ending up any way other than God has already decided.

---

quote:

---

If God is eternal than God knows what your final end is even if God doesn't choose that end but defers to your choice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by psyduck:
We aren't Christians so that we shall be saved. We are Christians because we (know that we) have been.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

1) If anyone at all is damned, and if God is omnipotent, then surely you have to be able to say in some sense that God created that person knowing they were damned.

Any other answer is dodging the question.

---

quote:

---

In my opinion Arminianism is equally bad for it makes the slightest slip in faith just before you die worthy of damning you to Hell.

---

quote:

---

The only option is Universalism and that is a form of Predestinarianism.

I have a suspicion that all three are wrong.

---

Aporia! Wonderful! You're as silly (to quote the OP) as the rest of us! Which is the highest praise... I must find out what's in these pills the doctor gave me...
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

quote:

---

Originally posted by psyduck:
We aren't Christians so that we shall be saved. We are Christians because we (know that we) have been.

---

I think it's amusing and appropriate that Calvinism should be defended on pastoral grounds, because the alternatives are too brutal!

---

quote:

---

So why can't we be strong on grace and leave it at that?

---

quote:

---

Who wrote Amazing Grace?

---

quote:

---

I think that reprobation is a monstrous doctrine. I think that people who glory in it are likewise to a degree monstrous. When Augustine says that the contemplation of the suffering of the damned increases the bliss of the saved, he's speaking for a deeply sick corner of himself, and not for me. And if I ever found myself in a state of bliss contemplating someone else's pain - I'd know that I was in some sort of hell, not in heaven.

---

quote:

---

Why press the logic home?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Ken

1) If anyone at all is damned, and if God is omnipotent, then surely you have to be able to say in some sense that God created that person knowing they were damned.

Any other answer is dodging the question

---

quote:

---

I have no quarrel with the belief that, sadly, some people, perhaps some people I have known, cared about, respected etc will in the end find themselves in hell. Indeed, I think it is true. I just don't want to think that it is true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by psyduck:
Papio:

quote:

---

I have no quarrel with the belief that, sadly, some people, perhaps some people I have known, cared about, respected etc will in the end find themselves in hell. Indeed, I think it is true. I just don't want to think that it is true.

---

Whenever my mind moves in these difficult areas, I identify very closely with Abraham in the 'Dutch auction' scene in the second half of Genesis 18. You push and push, but there comes a point... But note, too, that God allows himself to be pushed a long, long way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
I have no quarrel with the belief that, sadly, some people, perhaps some people I have known, cared about, respected etc will in the end find themselves in hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
-----Silence as lonely Fat Spice spends spinster Friday night looking up all verses by HERSELF as NONE OF THE OTHER 3 Calvinists on the ship freaking LIFT A FINGER, ...

---

quote:

---

Universalism is a very nice idea for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

---

I agree.

But would equally say,
Calvinism is a very bad idea for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
Except out of context of course (and mis-translated)...

Regards,

Jacques
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Ken

Calvinism, deism and agnosticism being the only options? You can't be serious!
 

---

Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :
 
If there was any real evidence for any theological standpoint there would be no place for debating it.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Fair enough Psyduck. Your posts often make me think and your posts on this thread are no exception.

will go and have a think then.........
 

---

Posted by Jacques More (# 5157) on :
 
I am of course referring to biblical evidence for it.

Jacques

P.S. I didn't vote for your avatar...
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
If the OP wants specific questions answered, as he has indicated, let the questions be asked - not just a general attack on a whole theological system as being "silly". Read the other thread, and then come with some questions if they haven't been answered there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Ken

Calvinism, deism and agnosticism being the only options? You can't be serious!

---

Did I say that?

"Calvinism" is here a shorthand for a whole bunch of theological traditions, going way back before Calvin, that take the eternity, omniscience, and omnipotence of God seriously.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Believing such things I would rather not be tagged "Calvinist" thank you. It leaves too much unsaid .... and too much disagreed or on a completely different basis. As a return favour, I promise not to call you "Orthodox," (uppercase).
 

---

Posted by psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
And it was all going so well...



 

---

Posted by Jacques More (# 5157) on :
 
Hi Ken,

quote:

---

"Calvinism" is here a shorthand for a whole bunch of theological traditions, going way back before Calvin, that take the eternity, omniscience, and omnipotence of God seriously.

---

It's all very well having these ideas or beliefs about God, but if the bible is a revelation to us of what He is like by His clear inspiration then, sorry I do not read Him in the bible as living outside of time (eternal in that sense), having total knowledge of future events (omniscience which is more than what is knowable) nor do I see His will carried out everywhere (omnipotence such that sin is in His will).

if He would have made Saul king over Israel forever is true, then He did not know the severety of Saul's rebellion ahead of it (1 Samuel 13:13).

Regards,

Jacques
 

---

Posted by Jengie (# 273) on :
 
Ah shucks Fr Gregory and I was just going to encourage you to think of the URC as the ONLY church that has further unity of the body of Christ as part of its reason for existence.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacques More:
I do not read Him in the bible as living outside of time (eternal in that sense), having total knowledge of future events (omniscience which is more than what is knowable) nor do I see His will carried out everywhere (omnipotence such that sin is in His will).

---

quote:

---

I recollect an Arminian brother telling me that he had read the Scriptures through a score or more times, and could never find the doctrine of election in them. He added that he was sure he would have done so if it had been there, for he read the Word on his knees. I said to him, "I think you read the Bible in a very uncomfortable posture, and if you had read it in your easy chair, you would have been more likely to understand it.

---

quote:

---

One week-night, when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the preacher's sermon, for I did not believe it. The thought struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment—I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him.

---

quote:

---

John Newton used to tell a whimsical story, and laugh at it, too, of a good woman who said, in order to prove the doctrine of election, "Ah! sir, the Lord must have loved me before I was born, or else He would not have seen anything in me to love afterwards."

---

quote:

---

I were to declare that man was so free to act that there was no control of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I should declare that God so over-rules all things that man is not free enough to be responsible, I should be driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other. I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
This is the nub of it. Most theologians have seen the Bible as exactly describing such a God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by psyduck:
And it was all going so well...

---

quote:

---

Election is not God showing disfavour on some but rather Him exercising his love and favour by giving salvation to those who do not deserve it.

---

That’s interesting, but it is contrary to scripture:

“With the merciful You will show yourself merciful . . . “ 2 Samuel 22:26

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.” Matthew 5:6-7

That tells me it is those who do these things that reap likewise not those who don’t.

Regards,

Jacques

Unless otherwise stated Bible quotes are from the New King James Version. © copyright Thomas Nelson Inc. 1979,1980,1982.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Oh, goody! A proof-texting! I'll see your two verses, Jacques More, and raise you these:

"and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy. " Exodus 33:19

"he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." Matt 5:45
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
A proof-texting war! This could be purgatory's version of hell's slagging wars.

If we get to pick sides, I'll go with Mousethief.
 

---

Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on :
 
Originally posted by Jeff Featherstone:

The starting point of Calvinism is that without God's intervention no one would be saved. 'All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God'. No one of their own initative would choose to folow God without Him calling them. Election is not God showing disfavour on some but rather Him exercisng his love and favour by giving salvation to those who do not deserve it

I think we'd all agree that without God's intervention no one would be saved. I would agree that God's favour on us gives salvation to those who don't deserve it. But for me, this is the biggest arguement in favour of universalism which has been arrived at by individual Calvinists for the same reason. We have all sinned. None of us deserves God's pardon. But He gives it unconditionally. Some traditions say that what we do is important. I agree it is, but not for salvation. Other traditions say that what we believe is important. No way!

If God saves us, because He is God and loves us, by nature of having created us, we can have no fear in this world or the next. He will save us. Our Redeemer's name in Hebrew is Yahoshua which means "Yah saves". Jesus knew it and he hs taught to us, His followers to know it. God saves, in Jesus.
 

---

Posted by Not Even a Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff Featherstone:
The starting point of Calvinism is that without God's intervention no one would be saved.

---

quote:

---

'All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God'. No one of their own initative would choose to follow God without Him calling them.

---

quote:

---

Election is not God showing disfavour on some but rather Him exercisng his love and favour by giving salvation to those who do not deserve it

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
But most biblical scholars would agree with Jacques More.

---

quote:

---

Election is not God showing disfavour on some but rather Him exercising his love and favour by giving salvation to those who do not deserve it

---

quote:

---

This is the nub of it. Most theologians have seen the Bible as exactly describing such a God.

---

quote:

---

But most biblical scholars would agree with Jacques More

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zwingli:
Why is it only semantics? Surely there is a difference between God choosing some and ignoring others, and God choosing some and actively preventing others who want to from coming?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I assume hatless is refering to the fact that the Biblical witness is actually very weak in reference to God being omnipotent or omniscient

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

<snip!>I can see, reading the discussion so far, that there is a certain amount of Calvinist in me...<snip!>

---

I stopped reading there.
 

---

Posted by psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Hatless:

quote:

---

It's Process Theology, though, that I find the most satisfying approach, because it is the least worst theology when it comes to the problem of evil (at the expense of a traditional view of divine omniscience/potence). I think the Biblical witness fits quite well with a Process God - inextricably involved with creation, and in some ways at risk from creation's independence and human freewill.

---

Now that's realy interesting. I've come back and looked at Process Theology off and on over a long period, and I always start off thinking "Why was I so much against this stuff the last time I looked at it?" and this continues for some time, until sudden;y, once again, I recoil from it. And my recollection is that I recoil from it at a slightly different point, and in slightly different ways, each time.

Could this be worth a thread? Especially since I suspect my problems with PT might be a sort of 'negative' of yours with Calvinism? I'd thought of launching one, but I think it would come better from a PT fan!
 

---

Posted by Jacques More (# 5157) on :
 
Good morning all, (in the UK )

quote:

---

Oh, goody! A proof-texting! I'll see your two verses, Jacques More, and raise you these:

"and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy. " Exodus 33:19

"he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." Matt 5:45

---

I am glad to have a few days away from work this week (which is why normally I am not about in the daytime except weekends).

The Exodus passage is a direct response to Moses request that he be wiped off God's book so that Israel could be spared. God would not do that. He is as per the Samuel passage merciful to the merciful. It does go on to say,

"And with the devious You will show Yourself shrewd" 2 samuel 22:27

So that in context whom God has mercy on is the merciful.

As for the rain and the sun this is not to do with salvation, but shows the heart of God in that His nature shows that "the goodness of God leads you to repentance" Romans 2:4

Regards,

Jacques
 

---

Posted by Not Even a Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Repentence is nowt to do with salvation, then?
 

---

Posted by Jacques More (# 5157) on :
 
Of course it does Mousethief, so if you wish to extend the rain and the sun to be a call to salvation in that sense, I'd have to agree with you.

Jacques
 

---

Posted by Not Even a Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Hey, you made the connection with the repentence verse, not me. Credit where credit is due!
 

---

Posted by Jacques More (# 5157) on :
 
Ah, but you earlier posted that you believe God calls all.

Jacques
 

---

Posted by Jacques More (# 5157) on :
 
One of the favourite Calvinist proof texts is in John 6:65

“. . . no one can come to me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”

[Indeed Augustine used these John 6 portions.]

In the first portion of verse 65 Jesus says "I have said to you that . . ." alluding to a previous mention of the above. The previous mention is in verse 44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day."

Understandably it is used equally force-ably to 'prove' the idea mentioned. The context that is left unspoken however involves primarily verse 45
"It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me".

Here we find Jesus explaining what he has just stated above. God is in the business of teaching about spiritual truths and those who learn these things come to Jesus. Jesus did not say everyone who has heard from the Father come to him, but everyone who has heard and learned come to him. The implication exists therefore that you can hear, but reject and refuse to learn. This is Jesus' own explanation and there is no idea implied of a fixed number of people as taught by God. In fact Jesus' quote says 'they shall allbe taught of God' (my emphasis); hardly a limited number here. The context therefore of the verse in hand does not warrant use for the idea of individual predestination excluding others.

You are right Mousethief God does call all.

Regards,

Jacques

Unless otherwise stated Bible quotes are from the New King James Version. © copyright Thomas Nelson Inc. 1979,1980,1982.
 

---

Posted by Not Even a Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
By raining on them?
 

---

Posted by Jacques More (# 5157) on :
 
What, not smilie?
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Um, Alan, "almighty" and "omnipotent" are two different ways of saying exactly the same thing. Etymologically-wise speaking, both mean "all-powerful."

---

OK, after a nights sleep to allow my brain to function better ... my assessment of the difference between almighty and omnipotent. I think (and I'm really no expert) that the greek and hebrew approaches differed radically.

Greek philosophy (or at least Platonism in its various forms) tended to approach things with a logic that said that the perfect must exist - and then extended this to say that this ultimate perfect is God. So, therefore God must be the most perfect being possible - in power, in knowledge etc. Hence God is omnipotent, capable of doing all things, leaving just a bit of room for debate as to what is included in "all things" (eg: a rock to big to be lifted).

Hebrew theology started from God exists and has revealed himself through his words (including through prophets) and actions. That revelation convinced them that God is more powerful than other forces (eg: the armies and gods of Egypt). The Hebrew God is almighty, but the emphasis is on his being powerful enough to save his people and defeat any other power - this doesn't require God to be the most powerful being possible. That it might be possible to conceive of a more powerful being is irrelevant if such a being doesn't exist.

And, one final point. Far too often we read omnipotent back into the text where the word almighty appears. That the words themselves mean the same thing doesn't mean that the ideas they convey are the same.

Clearer?
 

---

Posted by Not Even a Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Actually the word "almighty", not being a Hebrew word, doesn't occur at all.

Jacques: sorry.
 

---

Posted by Jacques More (# 5157) on :
 
Yes, but it's interesting to note from Alan's contribution that the origin of the idea of the omnis is Greek and not Hebrew (i.e. not the biblical context).

The foundation for Calvinism even in John's Institutes assumes the omniscience of God not revealed in the bible: knowing all things future.


Jacques

P.S. I know how to edit now...

[ 17. December 2003, 08:49: Message edited by: Jacques More ]
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Not Even a Mousethief:
Actually the word "almighty", not being a Hebrew word, doesn't occur at all.

---

quote:

---

If we could have Election without Reprobation...

---

quote:

---

Very few of those who honour Calvin, that I go around with, spend much time worrying of damnation and such. It is treated by most as an interesting historical artefact. The simple reason being that it is a wrong point of focus. To worry about damnation is to worry about a person, if one truly understands Calvinism it is a call to concentrate on God and not that of the person. It is a corrective and much needed challenge to modern Christianity, not to concentrate so much on the needs of man but on the Glory of God.

---

quote:

---

If you want I could cite psalm 139 at you but you would come back with that being poetry no doubt. To persuade me you do not have to show that at times God is portrayed as not knowing the future in the Bible, it is quite obvious to anyone who reads it. What you have to show is that God is never ever portrayed as that and that is always incompatible with every passage in the bible. I would suggest that was impossible but the need for that level of proof that is required.

---

quote:

---

What you have to show is that God is never ever portrayed as that and that is always incompatible with every passage in the bible.

---

This is what I read and believe, I challenge therefore to be given a passage that can only mean He knows everything about the future.

Regards,

Jacques

Unless otherwise stated Bible quotes are from the New King James Version. © copyright Thomas Nelson Inc. 1979,1980,1982.

NIV material is taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 by the International Bible Society
 

---

Posted by Jengie (# 273) on :
 

quote:

---

This is what I read and believe, I challenge therefore to be given a passage that can only mean He knows everything about the future.

---

quote:

---

YOUR READING is formed by YOUR BELIEF as much as the other way around. I know this from my own experience, I hinted at it in a previous post. That is why it I think you will find it impossible to prove to anyones satisfaction here. What you only demonstrate above is that another doctrine is equally compatible with the text, not that what you object to is incompatible.

---

There is in part a sense in which all that is true. But, within such a view if there are no texts of the bible which cannot be reasonably read another way then the limits of that thinking are revealed.

My approach is that indeed the bible is the only sure foundation for all Christian doctrine. If a doctrine does not have any text that can be read otherwise in context, it can be held safely as a belief. However if you find you end up with no passage that can be seen that way, you have a false doctrine. This is the case for 'Calvinism'.

I see the bible as indeed inspired writing to the extent that it is the only source from which to draw evidence from what to believe in regards to the living God. Therefore all ideas of contrary views of God in Scripture point to a misunderstanding and are false.

When He says,
" 'Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?' says the Lord GOD, 'and not that he should turn from his ways and live?' - 'For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,' says the Lord GOD. 'Therefore turn and live!' " Ezekiel 18: 23, 32

It is wholly inconsistent with Calvinism or Calvin's direct teaching. So I find it to be a false doctrine.

Regards,

Jacques

Unless otherwise stated Bible quotes are from the New King James Version. © copyright Thomas Nelson Inc. 1979,1980,1982.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
The classic answer is Ephesians.
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacques More:
When He says,
" 'Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?' says the Lord GOD, 'and not that he should turn from his ways and live?' - 'For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,' says the Lord GOD. 'Therefore turn and live!' " Ezekiel 18: 23, 32

It is wholly inconsistent with Calvinism or Calvin's direct teaching. So I find it to be a false doctrine.

---

quote:

---

The classic answer is Ephesians.

---

A careful read of Ephesians reveals that Paul is throughout making use of the pronouns 'us' and 'we': the group is in view; not a set of picked out individuals.

You choose which group you are (end up) in as testified by your deeds: a life of wickedness or of righteousness (see Romans 2 and John 3). In Romans 8 Paul clarifies how this works. See my commentary on Romans 8:28.

Regards,

Jacques
 

---

Posted by Jacques More (# 5157) on :
 
Hi Sharkshooter,

quote:

---

This is one of the most inaccurate claims against Calvinism that I have seen - and it appears every time the discussion is held.

The passage does not say that God is happy that some will be in hell. In fact, it says the opposite - He will is unhappy that some will be in hell. Likewise, all Calvinists I know are unhappy that some are in hell. Please, stop telling us what we believe - especially when you are wrong.

God says "turn and live". This is why many Calvinists (as well as many non-Calvinist Christians) are evangelical.

---

If Calvin is right and Calvinism true, then there are the elect and those who are not: elect in the sense of picked out to be saved.
If it is true, then none of these elect end up in hell.
Now, if God is true to Himself, it is inconsistent for Him to be grieved about those going to hell if they are unable to turn.
That is the inconsistency with the scripture involved in Calvinism irrespective of evangelism.

Not forgetting that ‘elect’ translated from eklektos does not mean ‘picked out’ but ‘of quality’: it is used in the Septuagint abundantly as such: tall trees, precious silver, quality meat, pleasant land, etc…

Regards,

Jacques
 

---

Posted by Jacques More (# 5157) on :
 
"Commentary on Romans 8:28 "
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacques More:
Now, if God is true to Himself, it is inconsistent for Him to be grieved about those going to hell if they are unable to turn.

---

quote:

---

But, within such a view if there are no texts of the bible which cannot be reasonably read another way then the limits of that thinking are revealed.

---

To be honest, Jacques, this comes across to me as being really quite snooty. "There are some valid criticisms to be made against Calvinism, and there are other valid ways to read the bible - HAH! I WIN!"

Yes, Calvinism has its limitations - I doubt if there are any Calvinists (or Calvinians) round here who would get upset over admitting this, but are you really pretending that your own theology is without limitation?

Perhaps if were able to present and discuss your own theological position (Process Theology, I assume), without the constant resort to Anti-Calvinist Polemic, people might be able to discuss its merits and flaws in a balanced way? (without the need for this silly proof-texting war)

Humblebum

[ 17. December 2003, 15:32: Message edited by: humblebum ]
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Its all very simple.

And I put it to you the way it is (or was 30 years ago) put to young converts.

Can you fall away and somehow become "unsaved"?

No (was the answer) because our salvation is in God's strength, not ours.

And that's all you need to become a Young Calvinist - the rest follows.
 

---

Posted by humblebum (# 4358) on :
 
But then again, Ken, the Calvinist position™ is that some people do fall away, but only because they weren't saved in the first place -isn't it?

Which leaves several Young Calvinists (of my acquaintance) asking themselves strange questions like "what if I'm not really a Christian? How do I know I'm a Christian? How do I tell?"

And I'm sure Mr Calvin, (not to mention Mr Jesus) wouldn't have wanted to encourage that particular line of anxious self-analysis...

Humblebum
 

---

Posted by Jengie (# 273) on :
 
Jacques More:

This has been most illuminating. Normally it is the followers of Calvin who are accused of proof texting and treating scripture simplistically and seeing themselves as beyond correction.

I think you have quite adequately proved here that at least on the Ship some of our opposition are more likely to do it than we are.

I thank you for demonstrating this so clearly. I do not see any need to proof text my theology it is only provisional for to roughly proof text St. Paul "now we see in a glass darkly, then we shall see face to face". Yours seems far more absolute than any Calvinist here (and apologies to Duchess and Presleyterain if they are insulted by that). I can not debate with an absolutist so if you will excuse me I will leave this thread.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Not Even a Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Just call me "chopped liver", Jengie.

[God bless the comma that changes meaning ever so dramatically]

[ 17. December 2003, 19:19: Message edited by: Not Even a Mousethief ]
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Not Even a Mousethief:
Just call me "chopped liver", Jengie.

[God bless the comma that changes meaning ever so dramatically]

---

Yeah, now only Jengie can call you chopped liver. The earlier version (you beat me to it with the edit) would have allowed anyone to call you chopped liver Jengie - which works rather well, IMO.

And you thought you would get away with editing it out.
 

---

Posted by Not Even a Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
If I thought I could get away with it I wouldn't have explained so patently in my edit what the edit was, now would I?
 

---

Posted by psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Missed a comma after 'it'. And arguably another after 'now'...
 

---

Posted by Not Even a Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Let it goooooo, Psyduck, let it goooooooooooooo...
 

---

Posted by psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Sorry, pressed the send button on that last one a bit early. I'd meant to go on to say

Humblebum:

quote:

---

But then again, Ken, the Calvinist position™ is that some people do fall away, but only because they weren't saved in the first place -isn't it?

Which leaves several Young Calvinists (of my acquaintance) asking themselves strange questions like "what if I'm not really a Christian? How do I know I'm a Christian? How do I tell?"

And I'm sure Mr Calvin, (not to mention Mr Jesus) wouldn't have wanted to encourage that particular line of anxious self-analysis...

---

quote:

---

Young Calvinists (of my acquaintance) asking themselves strange questions like "what if I'm not really a Christian? How do I know I'm a Christian? How do I tell?"

---

quote:

---

Ah, but the usual Calvinist reconstruction of somebody who "falls away" leaves open the possibility that you could think you were saved, when all along you really weren't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by psyduck:
He was always explicit that while we can know of our own election

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by psyduck:
An Arminian might ask "Have I done enough to be saved?" It's possible for a Calvinist to ask "Is the way I am living, the faith I profess, sufficient proof that I have been saved?"

---

quote:

---

You seem to have a different understanding to me of Arminianism.

---

No I don't. I expressed myself sloppily. I'm trying to think how to re-express the original thought, but it's suddenly beyond me at this time of night.

And do, please, start a thread on Arminianism. I think it's a necessary complement to what's going on here.
 

---

Posted by Not Even a Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I'd be interested in that too -- I'd like to see how close Arminius was in his soteriology to the Orthodox Way of Seeing It™.
 

---

Posted by psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
NEAM:

quote:

---

Here I'd like to probe more deeply: On what grounds?

---

quote:

---

Can one never be mistaken? I mean, has nobody ever thought they were saved, but been wrong?

---

Well - and note the smilies!! it invites the response "How the hair-oil should I know???" No, I do know what you mean.

quote:

---

If not is the parable of the sheep and the goats meaningless? If so, what use is thinking you know you're saved?

---

quote:

---

The classic answer is Ephesians.

---

quote:

---

A careful read of Ephesians reveals that Paul is throughout making use of the pronouns 'us' and 'we': the group is in view; not a set of picked out individuals.

---

A group with no members? Or one God is ignporant of the membership of?

So what is written in the book of life since before the foundation of the world is "some people whose names we haven't yet decided on"?

An odd reading.

[fixed UBB for quote]

[ 18. December 2003, 10:36: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 

---

Posted by Jacques More (# 5157) on :
 
Hi Ken,

It all depends if you read that all the names are written in the book of Life from the foundation of the world, or if you read that it is the book of Life itself that has existed from then.

Since I read that God would have established Sauls kingdom over Israel forever (1 Samuel 13:13), I am bound not to view God as foreknowing all things future and indeed we read:
[in regards to testing King Hezekiah]

"God withdrew from him, in order to test him, that He might know all that was in his heart." 2 Chronicles 32:31

God testing in order to know something, that He might learn more about Hezekiah's heart.

Since all of 'Calvinism' is based on the assumption God knows everything future, it is sunk when reading such.

Regards,

Jacques

Unless otherwise stated Bible quotes are from the New King James Version. © copyright Thomas Nelson Inc. 1979,1980,1982.
 

---

Posted by humblebum (# 4358) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacques More:
Since all of 'Calvinism' is based on the assumption God knows everything future, it is sunk when reading such.

---

And since your own theological position, Jacques, appears to be based very strongly on two relatively obscure proof texts (1 Samuel 13:13 and 2 Chronicles 32:31) which you keep repeating in this and other threads, I for one remain suspicious of the particular glass house you are throwing stones from.

Humblebum

[ 18. December 2003, 10:54: Message edited by: humblebum ]
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacques More:
Since all of 'Calvinism' is based on the assumption God knows everything future, it is sunk when reading such.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacques More:
Hi Ken,

It all depends if you read that all the names are written in the book of Life from the foundation of the world, or if you read that it is the book of Life itself that has existed from then.

Since I read that God would have established Sauls kingdom over Israel forever (1 Samuel 13:13), I am bound not to view God as foreknowing all things future and indeed we read:
[in regards to testing King Hezekiah]

"God withdrew from him, in order to test him, that He might know all that was in his heart." 2 Chronicles 32:31

God testing in order to know something, that He might learn more about Hezekiah's heart.

Since all of 'Calvinism' is based on the assumption God knows everything future, it is sunk when reading such.

Regards,

Jacques

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff Featherstone:
To say that He does not [know what will happen in the future] is to say that He is not an infinite God and that He is subject to time rather than being the creator of time and sitting over and outside of time. Therefore to say God does not know the future is fundamentally a major heresy.

---

quote:

---

"God withdrew from him, in order to test him, that He might know all that was in his heart." 2 Chronicles 32:31

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff Featherstone:
To say that He does not [know what will happen in the future] is to say that He is not an infinite God and that He is subject to time rather than being the creator of time and sitting over and outside of time. Therefore to say God does not know the future is fundamentally a major heresy.

---

It's only a heresy if you consider that orthodoxy requires a God who sits "over and outside of time"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's only a heresy if you consider that orthodoxy requires a God who sits "over and outside of time"

---

It seems to me that it does. It wasn't until I had that idea explaned to me that Christianity made sense to me. So that notion was the proximate thing leading to my conversion.

Although I believed in God before I became a Christian I was, I suppose, a sort of deist.

But with the eternity and omniscience of God it was all possible to make sense - free will and predestination, both clearly taught in the Bible (though to be fair predestination has a larger claim than free will) are when properly understood not opposed to each other. God's immanence and God's transcendence are not opposed to each other. The Biblical (with a little allowance for poetic language here & there) accounts of creation are not opposed to our scientific observations. Our own accounts of conversion, or experiences of a progressive work of God in our own lives, are not at variance with the idea of election.

Of course it didn't all come at once - I reckon it took a good ten years or so to all make sense. Reading the usual culprits - Augustine prominent among them - but also including Athanasios and Calvin.

It's all in Boethius

quote:

---

Twas grace that taught my heart to fear
And grace my fear relieved
How precious did that grace appear
The hour I first believed

---

quote:

---

A careful read of Ephesians reveals that Paul is throughout making use of the pronouns 'us' and 'we': the group is in view; not a set of picked out individuals.

---

What everyone seems to have forgotten in this flurry of proof-texting and proof-text clay-pidgeon shooting, is just exactly that Paul - or whoever wrote Ephesians - is indeed speaking of a group, is speaking to them in the first person plural, is including everyone who hears or reads his words and is telling them that everything necessary to their salvation has already been accomplished for them. And Paul does the same in Romans.

That's the Biblical beginning and ending of my Calvinism.
 

---

Posted by Jacques More (# 5157) on :
 
P.S. I notice that I am it seems stuck on 45 posts for some time?????

Can someone explain?
Please

Jacques
 

---

Posted by Jacques More (# 5157) on :
 
O, I see they've all changed to 46 now: it's a running thing...

Hmmmmm
 

---

Posted by psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
You're on 47 now, Jacques! I could sit and watch this all day...
 

---

Posted by Jacques More (# 5157) on :
 
Hi Psyduck,

quote:

---

What everyone seems to have forgotten in this flurry of proof-texting and proof-text clay-pidgeon shooting, is just exactly that Paul - or whoever wrote Ephesians - is indeed speaking of a group, is speaking to them in the first person plural, is including everyone who hears or reads his words and is telling them that everything necessary to their salvation has already been accomplished for them. And Paul does the same in Romans.

---

And in Romans Paul clarifies that it is those who show love for God in their hearts that He goes on to call [to be part of that group] (Romans 8:28) and in John we read,

“as many as received Him to them He gave the right to become children of God” John 1:12

So the decision as to which group you are in (or remain) is yours. God has already done His part in provision.

No one has the right to become children of God apart from that reception and prior to it.

Regards,

Jacques

P.S.

quote:

---

You're on 47 now, Jacques! I could sit and watch this all day...

---

Thanks I had to laugh!!!
(I’m just learning how all this works, that’s all)

Unless otherwise stated Bible quotes are from the New King James Version. © copyright Thomas Nelson Inc. 1979,1980,1982.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff Featherstone:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's only a heresy if you consider that orthodoxy requires a God who sits "over and outside of time"

---

But I think its fair to say that that is the standard biblical position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacques More:
My classic question is,

Would God truly have established Saul's kingdom over Israel forever?

---

quote:

---

The 'fat' cows coming out of the Nile in Pharaoh's dream as interpreted by Joseph were 'eklektos' cows - quality meat; 'young men': guys in their prime;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As several have said, the Biblical support for such an idea as God existing outside time and seeing all time as a single instance is fairly weak. Though, granted, it does help in comprehending some aspects of Gods interaction with the world I don't see it as either essential nor indeed generally helpful.

---

quote:

---

More seriously. There is no need to carry on proof-texting quotes from the Bible where God is said to learn something, or to repent of something or to decide something - there are hundreds of them and no-one denies they are there.

The problem is that there are plenty of other quotes from the Bible - and more importantly than any cut-out snippets, there is also the entire thrust of most of Paul's writings, of the Apocalypse, & much of the prophets as well - that talks of God as the timeless and almighty creator of the entire universe,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacques More:
Interesting. It appears you would prefer believing in a contradictory God as revealed in your bible than One who reveals Himself in an inspired set of books that do not contradict themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacques More:
Hi Ken,
[...]

---

Sorry, I only read English. I couldn't make ansy sense of your pst which seemed to be written in some other language.
 

---

Posted by Jacques More (# 5157) on :
 
Hi Alan,

My reference is to the bible being inspired in the original languages to the extent that no doctrine from it's words (in context) can contradict each other.

Does that help?

Regards,

Jacques
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacques More:
My reference is to the bible being inspired in the original languages to the extent that no doctrine from it's words (in context) can contradict each other.

---

Hmm, not really much help. Since I read neither Greek nor Hebrew I have to rely on English translations, and trust that the translators (who do know Greek and Hebrew, I assume) have taken every effort to remain faithful to the original. For translators to get things so wrong that major doctrines about the nature of God can't be correctly taken from the translations is a serious shortcoming that I'm sure isn't the case.

As it is, the Bible I have available (in a number of English translations) contains all sorts of descriptions of God that are simply contradictory. My conclusion, God is a complex personal being who patently can't be described in the simplistic manner that is required for (at least popular conceptions of) Calvinism - or Arminianism as far as I'm concerned.
 

---

Posted by chestertonian (# 5264) on :
 
Reading an interesting book about Judaism ATM that says that many Hebrew texts of the Bible were altered (possibly by Ezra) with the Tikkune Soferim (corrections of the scribes) to make God less anthropomorphic.
Whether this means that God is 'really' even more like a person, or whether Ezra was inspired by God to correct some misconceptions that had crept in, or were intentionally there to serve the jews in the early simple days, I don't know.
Just thought it was relevant.
 

---

Posted by Jacques More (# 5157) on :
 
Hi Alan,

Perhaps if I had not included the words "in the original languages" it might have been more helpful.

My continuing concern is in my knowledge of passages like Romans 8:28 for example which includes words not in the original which are not warranted except as a slant to a particular theology:
"And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose."

Granted as here in the NKJV the word 'His' has been placed in italics to show this is not in the Greek, but the meaning of the passage is violated with this inclusion when the purpose in context points to the intent of the heart of the individual...
Hence the fact that it is placed in apposition to
"to the ones loving God"...

Anyhow I agree with you that Greek thought has crept into theology and, as here, also back into translation. However you are correct that the nature of God is another matter and the translation in relation to that seems unaffected.

My point to Ken is that in reading (a translation) I do not find contradiction of God's nature whilst he appears to and be ok about it.

Regards,

Jacques

Unless otherwise stated Bible quotes are from the New King James Version. © copyright Thomas Nelson Inc. 1979,1980,1982.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Ah, the magic 51st post.

Jaques.

I don't think God's self-revelation in his Word, or in his Works, contradicts itself.

As your private translation & interpretation of Romans 8.28 & other individual verses taken almost at random from Holy Scripture, apparently contradicts the clear sense of the main body of both Scripture and the teachings of the Church, you are almost cerainly wrong.

What you call "Calvinism" - by which I mean not the detailed and overinterpreted TULIPs & other schemes but simply the continual teaching of the prophets and the Church that God, the sovereign creator of the universe loves you and me - is not, frankly, an interpretation ogf the Gospel, it IS the Gospel. We are safe in his hands (spot the metaphor!).

That's all there is to it really. If you want to call that "Calvinism" that's up to you.

If, on the other hand, you want to introduce salvation by works, or the idea of a god who is deficient in knowledge and has to be taught about sin by his creatures - then you are no longer talking about the Gospel.
 

---

Posted by Jacques More (# 5157) on :
 
Hi Ken,

quote:

---

. . . simply the continual teaching of the prophets and the Church that God, the sovereign creator of the universe loves you and me . . . is the gospel

---

I agree with you there.

This is contrary to calvinism though for God is taught within that He does not love all.

Also I do not teach anywhere a salvation by works. That you do misread. But, that those who practise righteousness are born of Him:

"If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practises righteousness is born of Him." 1 John 2:29

There is a difference.

Regards,

Jacques
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacques More:


This is contrary to calvinism though for God is taught within that He does not love all.

---

quote:

---

stop attributing false claims to a brand of theology with which you disagree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacques More:
I think my claim is accurate therefore that ‘Calvinism’ teaches within that God does not love all.

---

quote:

---

by humblebum: Calvinism without Limited Atonement?

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0