quote:

---

Mrs Stoker and I have always been involved in churches with Calvanistic foundations. Our current church is very much that way and the pastor is a fierce calvanist. (see other posts for how we nearly left over the summer).

However, as life rolls on and we and people we know experience "real life" with all its ups and downs, it seems to me that Calvanism in some form doesn't work - did God ordain us to have a serious car crash that was unavoidable on our part?, has God chosen my neighbour to go to hell even though he was never going to have chance to obey the command to repent? How does a baby murdered by its mother (recently in the UK news) ever bring glory to God?

Looking at it apart from technical, cold doctrine it appears to misrepresent the character, love and justice of the God revealed in the Bible.

Do shipmates have a view on this or how they have manged this moment of 'revelation'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stoker:

Looking at it apart from technical, cold doctrine it appears to misrepresent the character, love and justice of the God revealed in the Bible.

Do shipmates have a view on this or how they have manged this moment of 'revelation'?
{title spello]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I have no idea why babies dying, car crashes, and people dying without hearing the Gospel is being laid at the feet of Calvin here. Every theology has to explain that sort of thing, and I can't see how Calvin is any worse at it than others.

---

Calvinists, ISTM, have to explain why God wills babies dying, car crashes, and people dying without hearing the Gospel. Non-Calvinists have to explain something else, I agree; usually some version of how / why did God apparently let this (from our perspective) horror happen, given that he's supposed to be all-powerful and totally good. Maybe a separate thread for the latter point?
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I have no idea why babies dying, car crashes, and people dying without hearing the Gospel is being laid at the feet of Calvin here. Every theology has to explain that sort of thing, and I can't see how Calvin is any worse at it than others.

---

Calvinists, ISTM, have to explain why God wills babies dying, car crashes, and people dying without hearing the Gospel. Non-Calvinists have to explain something else, I agree; usually some version of how / why did God apparently let this (from our perspective) horror happen, given that he's supposed to be all-powerful and totally good. Maybe a separate thread for the latter point?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Do babies not die arbitrary deaths all the time in the non-Calvinist world?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Do babies not die arbitrary deaths all the time in the non-Calvinist world?

---

Of course they do. But non-Calvinists don't have to explain how this happening is God's will, as certainly some Calvinists believe. The task of the non-Calvinists is different, but still difficult I grant you!

---

quote:

---

... the pastor is a fierce calvanist. (see other posts for how we nearly left over the summer).

---

quote:

---

However, as life rolls on and we and people we know experience "real life" with all its ups and downs,

---

quote:

---

it seems to me that Calvanism in some form doesn't work - did God ordain us to have a serious car crash that was unavoidable on our part?,

---

quote:

---

has God chosen my neighbour to go to hell even though he was never going to have chance to obey the command to repent?

---

quote:

---

How does a baby murdered by its mother (recently in the UK news) ever bring glory to God?

---

quote:

---

Looking at it apart from technical, cold doctrine it appears to misrepresent the character, love and justice of the God revealed in the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Do shipmates have a view on this or how they have manged this moment of 'revelation'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
Well, piling on calvinism is generally very popular - and this could turn into a debate about it's merits very easily.

Suffice to say that some people find a (warm rather than cold) comfort in Calvinism. Predestination is supposed to be the answer to the problem of not knowing whether or not you are saved, not an as an answer to the problem of theodicy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
So long as non-Calvinists believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly benevolent, they actually do have to explain why it's God's will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
So long as non-Calvinists believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly benevolent, they actually do have to explain why it's God's will.

---

I disagree. I think you've begged the question as to what omnipotent and / or omniscient mean.

---

quote:

---

This is why I suggested a new thread for the non-Calvinist perspective, because Stoker wanted to talk about the apparent contradiction at the heart of Calvinism. We could easily get into a discussion of Arminianism and open theism, but that's not what Stoker's OP was about as such.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
God doesn't give us what we can handle, God helps us handle what we are given.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
My thoughts exactly. I find it interesting that some of my sharpest disagreements and biggest 'Huh?' moments with other Christians have been with strong Calvinists who believe everything that happens is directly willed by God. Such a belief just seems utterly at odds with the character of God, as revealed by Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
Agree. Why would Jesus have asked us to pray "your will be done" if there was no possibility it wouldn't be?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
If a baby dies of the flu, which happens all the time, and is not the result of the free will of anyone involved, God was either unable or unwilling to prevent it. Do you know of other possibilities?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
If a baby dies of the flu, which happens all the time, and is not the result of the free will of anyone involved, God was either unable or unwilling to prevent it. Do you know of other possibilities?

---

This is getting into the territory of the "Devil and all His Works" thread also ongoing at the mo. I guess I would go for God has created space for this universe to exist in such a way that we have genuine free will - for this to be the case the universe must itself be free (or uncontrolled directly by God) enough that our free will is meaningful and real. The consequence of this is that bad stuff happens and is not God's will or desire.

---

Babies dying of the flu, or earthquakes or droughts and all that, have nothing to do with free will.

So, do answer the question without taking the free will cop out. Do famines happen because God can't stop them, or because God does not will to stop them? For my part, I would rather there be providence behind disaster than chaos, but once again, this question has nothing to do with the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate.

Not that I don't expect the usual suspects on the ship to kick Calvin's corpse at every opportunity.

[ 06. November 2013, 18:38: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
Agree. Why would Jesus have asked us to pray "your will be done" if there was no possibility it wouldn't be?

---

Exactly so. We have to allow for the possibility that things happen that are against God's will in some sense. Which Calvinists deny.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
Agree. Why would Jesus have asked us to pray "your will be done" if there was no possibility it wouldn't be?

---

Exactly so. We have to allow for the possibility that things happen that are against God's will in some sense. Which Calvinists deny.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
So, do answer the question without taking the free will cop out. Do famines happen because God can't stop them, or because God does not will to stop them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
Agree. Why would Jesus have asked us to pray "your will be done" if there was no possibility it wouldn't be?

---

Exactly so. We have to allow for the possibility that things happen that are against God's will in some sense. Which Calvinists deny.

---

Actually, most Calvinists I know would distinguish God's moral will and God's sovereign will, and would allow for the possibility of things happening against the former.
So they do allow, exactly, for things that happen against God's will "in some sense".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I think I've heard that distinction. It sounds like desperation though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:


Suffice to say that some people find a (warm rather than cold) comfort in Calvinism. Predestination is supposed to be the answer to the problem of not knowing whether or not you are saved, not an as an answer to the problem of theodicy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
Agree. Why would Jesus have asked us to pray "your will be done" if there was no possibility it wouldn't be?

---

Exactly so. We have to allow for the possibility that things happen that are against God's will in some sense. Which Calvinists deny.

---

Actually, most Calvinists I know would distinguish God's moral will and God's sovereign will, and would allow for the possibility of things happening against the former.
So they do allow, exactly, for things that happen against God's will "in some sense".

---

I think I've heard that distinction. It sounds like desperation though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Disclaimer: I know relatively nothing about Calvinism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:


Suffice to say that some people find a (warm rather than cold) comfort in Calvinism. Predestination is supposed to be the answer to the problem of not knowing whether or not you are saved, not an as an answer to the problem of theodicy.

---

It is not an answer at all.

A Calvinist or (Beza-ist, anyway)might be sure that the elect will be saved, but cannot be sure that they are one of the elect.

---

This is just what I was thinking (apart from the reference to Beza, who I've just looked up as I hadn't heard of him before!). For a Calvinist, is it the height of arrogance to presume one is among the elect, or can there be some kind of assurance of right standing with God?
 

---

Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 
I was brought up in a hyper Calvinist very TULIP* church. The point when I realised it was ardent nonsense was when I read a book about theo-detrminism and the author said something like, 'I have just lifted up my arm, God must have preordained that. When I have an itch and scratch it, it is God that decided that I do so etc etc'. My initial thought was that surely God has better things to do with his time.

It took many years and a lot of thinking, reading and praying until eventually I ended up a Catholic because I discovered in Catholic doctrine and practice an understanding of the existence and extent of God's love and I realised that I no longer had to believe in a terrifying stalker of a God.

* I did find total depravity useful as a strapline on a profile on a bdsm website when I was involved in such things so Calvinism isn't all bad.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
No, Calvinism isn't all bad, any more than Arminianism is all fine and dandy or any other 'ism' for that matter.

I'd draw a distinction between Calvinism and Calvinists. It's with the latter than the problems start ...

And I agree with Kaplan Corday that what most of us think of as Calvinism is in fact Beza-ism.

That said, not all Beza-ites fall into the stereotype either.

I think one of the problems that Calvinists and Reformed have to contend with is being tarred with the same brush as a particular form of neo-Calvinistic fundamentalist mindset which, dare I see it, seems more common across the Pond than over here - although you can encounter it here too, of course.

I've heard Calvinists joke about when they fall downstairs they thank God that it's over afterwards, but I don't seriously think I've ever come across a Calvinist who believes it's foreordained if he picks his nose or scratches his backside at 3.45pm one Thursday afternoon ...
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Around the ship, you're usually one of the people holding the brush, Gamaliel.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, but I'm not tarring with it now ... unless you want the cap to fit, Zach82 ... to mix and mangle the metaphor.

I'm also trying to make amends for some rather over-the-top tarring I'd done in the past.

I genuinely believe that Calvinism isn't all bad and that we shouldn't tar all Calvinists with the same brush.

But sometimes they stick their heads over the picket fence when we're applying the tar ...

That can't be helped. Perhaps they should have ordained themselves to be somewhere else when the tar-brush is slopping about ...
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
"If civilized Chinese people get in the way of me tarring savage Chinamen, that's their own fault."
 

---

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
I'm seeing a lack of distinction in two separate "Calvinist" positions--predestination vs. double predestination. The latter seems to be the sticking point, and holds that not only are there the Elect, but there are also those that cannot be saved, no matter what.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Zach82 ... heh heh heh ...

More seriously, yes, I have splashed the tar around rather indiscriminately in the past and I am genuinely trying to remedy that.

That said, I think that Calvinism taken to its logical conclusion does paint itself into a corner using its own brush ...

Roman Catholicism does the same over different issues.

Arguably, any 'closed' system does and Calvinism - or at least hyper-Calvinism - is nothing if not a 'closed' system.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
If you say so.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
It ain't just me ... lots of people say so.

Think about it.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Threads about Catholicism on the internet tend to attract people who can't stop pitching tantrums about how Catholics worship Mary and try to buy their way into heaven with indulgences. Why shouldn't Calvinism attract a similar breed?
 

---

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
One advantage I can imagine of a firm double predestination - you don't need to try. You are safe or you are hosed, can't change it by what you think or do or believe, neither good works or bad will change God's mind. So, don't worry, don't fret, don't bother striving to be good or to improve as a person or to take the time to know God better, it doesn't matter anyway.

I don't see the point of bothering with the (time and money expense of) church if none of it makes any difference.

Or am I totally not understanding double predestination?
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

Belle Ringer: I don't see the point of bothering with the (time and money expense of) church if none of it makes any difference.

Or am I totally not understanding double predestination?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Siegfried:
I'm seeing a lack of distinction in two separate "Calvinist" positions--predestination vs. double predestination. The latter seems to be the sticking point, and holds that not only are there the Elect, but there are also those that cannot be saved, no matter what.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Siegfried:
I'm seeing a lack of distinction in two separate "Calvinist" positions--predestination vs. double predestination. The latter seems to be the sticking point, and holds that not only are there the Elect, but there are also those that cannot be saved, no matter what.

---

'Single' predestination still rather sticks in my throat, I've got to say. God chooses some people to spend eternity with him, and leaves everyone else at the mercy of both their own decision-making processes, and other people's effectiveness (or lack of) at communicating God's existence and his love. Still pretty harsh, IMO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
The problem of double-predestination is only part of the question of soteriology, and despite what these threads seem to think, Calvin's primary concern with predestination was to comfort his congregation with the fact that salvation was in the hands of a merciful God. He hardly ever mentioned predestination to reprobation unless his opponents brought it up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
For a Calvinist, is it the height of arrogance to presume one is among the elect, or can there be some kind of assurance of right standing with God?

---

quote:

---

Hence, those whom God has adopted as sons, he is said to have elected, not in themselves, but in Christ Jesus (Eph. 1:4); because he could love them only in him, and only as being previously made partakers with him, honor them with the inheritance of his kingdom. But if we are elected in him, we cannot find the certainty of our election in ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we look at him apart from the Son. Christ, then, is the mirror in which we ought, and in which, without deception, we may contemplate our election. For since it is into his body that the Father has decreed to ingraft those whom from eternity he wished to be his, that he may regard as sons all whom he acknowledges to be his members, if we are in communion with Christ, we have proof sufficiently clear and strong that we are written in the Book of Life.

---

quote:

---

Another confirmation tending to establish our confidence is, that our election is connected with our calling. For those whom Christ enlightens with the knowledge of his name, and admits into the bosom of his Church, he is said to take under his guardianship and protection. All whom he thus receives are said to be committed and entrusted to him by the Father, that they may be kept unto life eternal. What would we have? Christ proclaims aloud that all whom the Father is pleased to save he has delivered into his protection (John 6:37-39, 17:6, 12). Therefore, if we would know whether God cares for our salvation, let us ask whether he has committed us to Christ, whom he has appointed to be the only Savior of all his people. Then, if we doubt whether we are received into the protection of Christ, he obviates the doubt when he spontaneously offers himself as our Shepherd, and declares that we are of the number of his sheep if we hear his voice (John 10:3, 16).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Personally, I'm far more interested in modern-day Calvinism than in the views and concerns of Calvin himself, at least as far as this thread goes. And I think the teaching of Calvinism that says God has chosen some to spend eternity with him and not chosen others cannot be reconciled with a God who desires all to be saved and who 'is love'.

Never mind whether Calvin addressed his congregation or reprobation; I care about what the viewpoint that now bears his name says about the nature of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
So, according to Calvin, if we are in communion with Christ and respond to his call, we can be assured of our salvation. We don't have to worry if we've done enough or need to do more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The problem is that there is no such thing as a single modern-day Calvinism. There are a spectrum of "Calvinisms" out there and a variety of viewpoints that bear Calvin's name, some forms of which are closer to what Calvin actually taught and and some of which are further away, or which take some ideas to such extremes as to distort them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:


Suffice to say that some people find a (warm rather than cold) comfort in Calvinism. Predestination is supposed to be the answer to the problem of not knowing whether or not you are saved, not an as an answer to the problem of theodicy.

---

It is not an answer at all.

A Calvinist or (Beza-ist, anyway)might be sure that the elect will be saved, but cannot be sure that they are one of the elect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Alright, thanks for this and the excerpts from Calvin's Institutes. So people can have an assurance of their own salvation, their status as one of the elect?

---

quote:

---

Oh sure, I realise this. I suppose what I'm saying is that I care more about what those who identify as Calvinists claim and believe than about what Calvin himself actually said. Whether a particular Calvinist person / church / denomination reflects accurately Calvin's own views is important, I agree, but is - ISTM - mainly an issue for those within the camp (so to speak).

---

Thanks for the clarification. I guess in many ways it is an issue mainly for those within the camp, but I don't think it is completely.

If you ask about what "those who identify as Calvinists claim and believe," be prepared for a variety of answers—Karl Barth and John Piper, for example, are going to have some very different responses. Ditto Ian Paisley and Alan Boesak.

And if a question is framed in such a way as to suggest that there is a single set of things that those who identify as Calvinists claim and believe, I'm afraid you have to be prepared for the discussion to be sidetracked by questions of what form of Calvinism you're talking about, or whether you're accurately characterizing Calvinism (as opposed to a particular form of Calvinism).

[ 07. November 2013, 16:37: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
South Coast Kevin

Please realise the United Reformed Church is also Calvinist.

Now you have just picked yourself off the floor. Calvinism is far more like being a rugby player than it is like playing for Saracens or St Helens. We are recognisably playing a recognisably similar game but sometimes you would not even see us on the same pitch.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I've got no dog in this fight really, although I will acknowledge that I've wielded a very broad brush on this issue aboard Ship at times ... but that's only been in keeping with the 'unrestful' ethos of these boards. In real life, why, some of my best friends are Calvinists ...



No, I mean that seriously. Some of the Christians I've most admired in real-life have come from the Reformed camp so if I do occasionally rib and tease Calvinists here it's only in the same way that I will rib and tease the inveterately Arminian Mudfrog ... it's done as a friendly nudge in the ribs rather than a punch in the face ...

It also happens to be the case that some of the Christian ministers who have most impressed me in my time have been URC.

So, I know it might be difficult when I'm swashing tar in your eyes, but I'd like the Calvinists here to hear the other side - and recognise that I'm not swiping a broad brush of tar and gunk at them all the time.

I'm sure Zach82's right that some of those who carp on about Calvinism are similar to those who might carp on about Roman Catholicism for other reasons ... but then I'd say that both are similar systems in many ways and share more in common than they might like to acknowledge ...

By the same token, some of the most Calvinistic people I've met have also had a lot of time for Catholics. As Jengie Jon and Nick Tamen say, there's a broad range of views within Calvinism just as there is in any other Christian 'ism'.

Calvinism gets a bad name from some of its proponents just as other Christian 'systems' get a bad name from theirs ... that's true of Catholics, charismatics, Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals and everyone else.
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:


Suffice to say that some people find a (warm rather than cold) comfort in Calvinism. Predestination is supposed to be the answer to the problem of not knowing whether or not you are saved, not an as an answer to the problem of theodicy.

---

It is not an answer at all.

A Calvinist or (Beza-ist, anyway)might be sure that the elect will be saved, but cannot be sure that they are one of the elect.

---

Then, you have failed to read Calvin's exposition of predestination in its context (the institutes situates it in much the same context as Romans 8).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
We see, as Zach noted, painting with brushes so broad that we don't recognize the Calvinism being described as the Calvinism we have been taught and have experienced, or we see the Calvinism described as something of a caricature. For many of us within the Reformed tradition, understanding Calvinism apart from what Calvin himself taught is simply impossible.

---

Yes. I got "saved" from this tendency after a Shipmate challenged me to read the Institutes. There are emetic and non-emetic expressions of Calvin's theology, and if we're not careful to explore in depth, we can gut-react to the language, e.g total depravity.

I think the real issue has always been the abuse of doctrine for purposes of human control by various leaders. Some people are led to believe they are "worms" and behave accordingly.

My considered reflection on Calvin after reading a lot of his stuff is that he was too pessimistic about the effect of the Fall on the image of God in human beings. These days I try to hold "image of God" and "fallen" in tension, recognising that the church has always taught both of these and should not attempt to resolve the underlying paradoxes associated with considering them together. Christianity holds both a very high view and a very low view of human nature, and needs therefore to avoid the dangers of adhering too much to either of these and ignoring the other.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Dare I say it, Barnabas62, but isn't this the view that our Orthodox friends would hold? Or something close to it?

@Kaplan, I don't doubt for a moment that Calvin was acting with the best motives and with pastoral concern when he wrote those passages in Institutes that cause the most vexation in this regard.

I've heard it said that he noticed that some among his flock responded more attentively to the preaching of the word and the means of grace and this, in part, led him to wonder why this might be ...

He was a lawyer, don't forget, so he was always going to explore things in juridical and somewhat legalistic terms. That doesn't mean that he was a cold, callous, heartless individual.

But look at the context. Effectively, what he was doing was channelling earlier medieval Scholastic and even earlier Anselmic and Augustinian ideas into addressing 16th century - and specifically Western Christian - issues.

I know it's a work of fiction and, like all analogies, imperfect, but it reminds me of Brother Juniper in Thornton Wilder's 'The Bridge of San Luis Rey' where the good Franciscan brother sets out to establish theology as one of the 'exact sciences' by a forensic examination of why certain people happened to fall to their deaths when a bridge collapsed.

We later learn that he has compiled charts and tables with scores against the names of villagers who've died in a pestilence with ratings on goodness, piety, usefulness etc to see whether any pattern emerges ...



Now, Calvinism isn't all about theodicy, of course, but it strikes me that in its own way it sets out to do what Brother Juniper tried to do (and you can read the novel to see what happens to him in the end) ... it seeks to find patterns and meanings - for very good reasons, for comfort and reassurance - but ends up raising more problems than it actually solves.

Arminianism doesn't solve any of the problems any more satisfactorily either. Which is one reason why I find myself increasingly drawn to the Orthodox view on this one - without necessarily crossing the Bosphorus - as it's a non-issue to them. They don't know what all the fuss is about.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Dare I say it, Barnabas62, but isn't this the view that our Orthodox friends would hold? Or something close to it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

Suffice to say that some people find a (warm rather than cold) comfort in Calvinism. Predestination is supposed to be the answer to the problem of not knowing whether or not you are saved, not an as an answer to the problem of theodicy.

---

That's why Wesleyan theology has the doctrine of assurance. This is my belief as a Salvationist too. It is, sadly, rejected by both Calvinists and Roman Catholics.

Basically this doctrine says that if God has saved you he's going to let you know

See HERE
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

Suffice to say that some people find a (warm rather than cold) comfort in Calvinism. Predestination is supposed to be the answer to the problem of not knowing whether or not you are saved, not an as an answer to the problem of theodicy.

---

That's why Wesleyan theology has the doctrine of assurance. This is my belief as a Salvationist too. It is, sadly, rejected by both Calvinists and Roman Catholics.

Basically this doctrine says that if God has saved you he's going to let you know

See HERE

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frankenstein:
In the "eyes" of God all people are equal.
But as in "Animal Farm", some people are more equal than others.
I.e. Some are saved, others are not, or so it seems from Calvin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My considered reflection on Calvin after reading a lot of his stuff is that he was too pessimistic about the effect of the Fall on the image of God in human beings. These days I try to hold "image of God" and "fallen" in tension, recognising that the church has always taught both of these and should not attempt to resolve the underlying paradoxes associated with considering them together. Christianity holds both a very high view and a very low view of human nature, and needs therefore to avoid the dangers of adhering too much to either of these and ignoring the other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The mileage will vary, of course, but I get the impression that intense morbidity and soul-struggling about one's eternal destiny ... 'conviction of sin' and so on, call it what you will - is a particularly Western thing and fed/nurtured by certain Western evangelistic practices.

The sinner is taken through a process that involves crisis and release.

So the sense of assurance that comes with that is only to be expected as it's built into the programme as it were ...it's part of the architecture of the system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


Basically this doctrine says that if God has saved you he's going to let you know

See HERE

---

The implication of your last paragraph Muddy is however that since he evidently doesn't let Catholics and Calvinists know, they must all be for the eternal fricassé.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

The concern that some Calvinists have with the 'assurance' thing of course is that it is possible to be mistaken and to confuse nice warm, fuzzy feelings with what Mudfrog would call 'assurance of salvation.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
Why do babies die if we have an omnipotent God?

I remember one funeral I assisted in where the preacher dealt with that question. He pointed out that God also grieves when innocents die. He went on to say that it is not God's will that people die. That comes about because we are what we are, imperfect and sinners. God gave humans free will and we chose death. The consequences continues through the ages. However, this is where grace comes in. God, acting in grace sent His only Son into the world that we can have life.

We can get into a discussion of how the world is still groaning as in child birth, but eventually perfection will be obtained.

I personally reject dual predestination. It blames God for everything. What about human responsibility? I am more of a universalist myself when it comes to God wanting all humans to be saved.

Just saw a meme this morning:

God doesn't give us what we can handle, God helps us handle what we are given.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
For me there is only one determinism. Love wins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Not at all - Any Calvinist or Catholic who knows God and lives 'in Christ' will know and be assured; the problem is that Rome would tell that 'assured' catholic that he is being presumptuous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I don't recognise this assessment of Calvinism at all. It's the Arminians who struggle for assurance of salvation because they con't accept that scripture teaches eternal security. They therefore have to look elsewhere for their sense of assurance, usually in one of two directions: subjective feelings of 'being saved' and/or other evidences of grace (i.e. good works, second blessings, entire sanctification etc.).

Calvinists look primarily to what scripture says for their assurance of salvation.

---

Not at all. I've just this second finished a sermon on this very subject. It's one of the 4 Methodist 'Alls' - 'All may know themselves saved.' It's based entirely on the witness of God himself and of the Holy Spirit within who testifies that we are children of God.

Read
1 John 5 v 1 - 13
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
This charismatic calvinist is happy to believe that scripture teaches eternal security and that scripture also teaches that believers should expect the Holy Spirit to grant them experiential evidence of that eternal security in precisely the form that you are talking about.

[ 08. November 2013, 19:36: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 

---

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
I do think Calvinists in the Puritan tradition have a specific problem with assurance, which paradoxically is caused by their doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Typically those who prefer the term eternal security are in a different variant of Calvinism.

The issue is caused by people who show every sign of conversion, but later turn completely from the faith. Spurgeon discusses at length someone he knew who followed this path, and he was in no doubt that the person died in an unsaved state.

The difference between him and, I imagine Mudfrog, is that an arminian would not doubt the conversion experience but would say that salvation can be thrown away. The Calvinist would however, have to believe that the person never ever was saved, since all the saints persevere.

Which raises the issue that given the intense nature of some of these pseudo-conversions, what experience could you have that you could rely on as meaning you were saved?

In practice the many of the calvinists I knew, and I myself approached this more or less exactly as an arminian might. I believed the saints would persevere but never deduced from that, that I could not fall away.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think Anteater has nailed it.

As for daronmedway, I'm not at least surprised at his position because it's exactly what I'd expect him to say ... not because he's inveterately predictable (his post was pre-ordained ... ) but because what he's describing is the standard view among evangelicals with a Calvinist approach.

Not all Calvinists are evangelicals, though.

So a non-evangelical Calvinist would take a different tack to the one daronmedway has.

The thing is, though, that all of this stuff is messy and none of it is clear-cut - which is exactly as it should be. There's no such thing as a 'simple verse' on any of this.

Sometimes Wesley could sound quite Calvinistic in emphasis ... even though he would have repudiated such a suggestion. Many of his brother's hymns can be happily sung by Calvinists too ...

What I like about Wesley is that he embodies a whole range of emphases - as well as some quirks of his own - so he can appeal to Anglo-Catholics, to Pentecostals, to evangelicals and to Reformed ...

I s'pose that's one of the strengths of the Anglican tradition ...

I must admit, though, that I do find it amusing that both Calvinists and Arminians are accusing one another of the self-same things but from different directions ...

'Calvinists don't stress assurance of salvation ...'
'Arminians don't stress assurance of salvation ...'



Is it any wonder that I gave up on the Calvinism/Arminian debate years ago? It really is a non-issue. It only becomes an issue if we want it to be.

It has to be one of the most fruitless issues of debate in the entire history of theology.

Get over it already.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
But I'm neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian; I'm a Wesleyan (i.e. like a Calvinist I believe in total depravity).
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure, and that's a fine distinction to make, Mudfrog ... but arguably it's a position that draws on the worst of both worlds ...



Seriously, though, I think that aspects of Wesley's theology drew from both ... although correct me if I'm wrong I thought that Arminians believed in total depravity too ... at least, Arminians aren't saying that we are saved by our own efforts but through God's grace.

The difference is that there's a difference in how this is seen to work out in practice.

I still think that this whole area doesn't lend itself to any neat or formulaic answer ... whether Calvinist, Arminian, Wesleyan or anything else.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Is it any wonder that I gave up on the Calvinism/Arminian debate years ago? It really is a non-issue. It only becomes an issue if we want it to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, yes, there is that ... but Calvinists would argue that Arminianism is the crueller system as at least with Calvinism there's an assurance that some will ultimately be saved ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Most Calvinists, though, don't seem to regard God as a monster nor do they act as if he is ... at least those here tend not to ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
At it's core, though, I think that Calvinism is a genuinely well-meaning attempt to protect something that Calvinists feel is important - and which I'm sure we'd all believe to be important - namely God's honour and God's sovereignty.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Most Calvinists, though, don't seem to regard God as a monster nor do they act as if he is ... at least those here tend not to ...

---

I'm sorry to be critical but I wonder if those Calvinists, then, are ducking the implications of their own theology. We shouldn't hold to a certain belief and ignore what that belief then suggests about other things, such as the nature of God.

Having said that, of course there'll be issues where we have to admit we don't know the answers and can't really even speculate with any confidence. But still, there's a strong drive in me to strive for a consistent theological framework...

---

Hahaha - that must be the first time Calvinists have been accused of ducking the implications of their theology. Normally we are accused of the opposite - of following things rather too doggedly through to their logical conclusion! And as for a consistent theological framework ... isn't that precisely the problem you are railing against? A bit of mystery never hurt anyone.

Others have made the arguments better than I could - thanks especially to Nick Tamen, who is a patient man. But as one of those 'near universalist' Calvinists mentioned upthread, I'd like to explain why I stick with Calvin - why I love him - despite his undoubted shortcomings.

1) He's a pastor, through and through. I'm a pastor too. And it is my experience also, that assurance of salvation is vital to a pastoral ministry, whatever doctrine it is couched in. People need to know that God forgives them unconditionally, and that they are chosen and beloved. I need to know that. It is at the centre of my faith, my ministry, and my life. I proclaim that assurance every time I declare absolution: each and every soul in my congregation is a beloved child of God, and nothing they can do can change that. Oh, and that applies to everyone, of any faith and none.

2) If a person loses their faith, only a very shabby Calvinist would say that they were never really a Christian at all. Rather, the point is that even though they have lost their faith, nevertheless they are not lost. That's what assurance is for us: that even though we may let go of God, yet God does not let go of us. So when a person loses their faith, I would not doubt the sincerity either of their one-time faith, nor of their current lack of it. I would simply continue to trust that somehow, someday, even in the next world, they will meet God again and be reconciled. Because, you know, they are still that beloved child, and God's love is not conditional, not even on them loving him back.

3) The emphasis on grace. No doubt it can lead to pride and smugness: any point of belief can be distorted. But my word, what is God, what is Christ, if not full of grace and truth? It is the best antidote I know to my pride and self-reliance. I rely utterly on that grace. I rely utterly on God to save me. Without it, I am sunk.

4) The emphasis on God's initiative. Everything has its beginning and foundation in God, including my existence and my salvation. Everything I do that is worth anything is in response to that. That response is no legalistic demand on God's part, but is an outpouring of love in return for God's outpouring of love on us. At the heart of Calvin's theology is a God-human relationship of mutual adoration.

5) The kindness. There is a deep compassion in Calvin's theology. He gets that we can't help but mess up. The whole free will thing is just a way of admitting that for all our self-delusions, we are not really in control, and most certainly not of our own destiny. There is a kind of freedom in admitting that. It should be noted too that the real limiter to our freedom is not God, but sin.

6) And again, freedom. People think his is a closed system - God trapped in his own box, as Gamaliel put it. But actually, Calvin is all about freedom - God's freedom and ours. God will do what God will do; God will be what God is. And in Christ, the promise is that we too will be what we are, and will do what we do free from sin.

7) The mystery. The beautiful mystery of God. And of human beings. Freedom is tied up with that as well.

I'm not trying to give a point-by-point answer here, and nor am I trying to defend what many have made of calvinism, much of which pretty much horrifies me. But it would be nice if we in the Reformed tradition - of whom there are many superb representatives here - could be credited with understanding the implications of our own theology. For not only do we understand them, but where these implications have been worrying, the mainstream tradition has adjusted its beliefs and moved on. And where we hold to that theology, it is because the implications are by-and-large wonderful.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
The difference between a Wesleyan and an Arminian is that a Wesleyan does not believe that a person can become a Christian by choice or simple decision: it's all through grace. However, prevenient grace is not the Calvinists' sovereign or irresistable grace.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cottontail:
2) If a person loses their faith, only a very shabby Calvinist would say that they were never really a Christian at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
The differences, ISTM, are over the backstage mechanics: how the actors are directed, who is in ultimate control of the production, why the drama has particular emphases, how the audience is expected and prompted to respond.

---

quote:

---

If a person loses their faith, only a very shabby Calvinist would say that they were never really a Christian at all.

---

quote:

---

Many thanks, Cottontail. But I'm still stuck with being unable to see how a God who only chooses some for eternal salvation is not a capricious fiend. I'm sorry, but I can't get beyond this point at the moment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I don't agree that the argument between the three interpretations is just backstage mechanics. As far as evangelism and mission is concerned, the fact that the atonement is unlimited and that Christ died for the world and not just the elect, is what drives us to take the Gospel to all people.

---

quote:

---

One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: ‘Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent. For I am with you, and no one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city.’ So Paul stayed in Corinth for a year and a half, teaching them the word of God.

---

quote:

---

Acts 13:48
When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honoured the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

---

quote:

---

The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Many thanks, Cottontail. But I'm still stuck with being unable to see how a God who only chooses some for eternal salvation is not a capricious fiend. I'm sorry, but I can't get beyond this point at the moment.

---

Then why not just let it be, and forget about it? But admit that you do not understand Calvinists, and don't attack what you do not understand?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
Calvinists beliefs about the character of God are centred around Christ. Admittedly, they are left with many things that cannot be explained, but we are all in the same boat. Or maybe you've got it all sussed?

---

I've certainly not got it all sussed, goodness no. If someone wants to start a discussion on the weaknesses of extreme Arminianism and / or open theism then I'll certainly join in. But this thread is about Calvinism and, in particular, what it says about God's character. And AIUI the doctrine of predestination cannot avoid saying things about God's character which are definitely not 'centred around Christ'. You therefore believe I've misunderstood Calvinism; please do help me see what I am missing.
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin: What am I missing regarding the apparent fickleness of a God who would choose some to spend eternity with him and others to either (a) take their chances with their own decision-making processes and the quality of witness from those Christians around them, or (b) spend eternity in torment without God?

---

quote:

---

If I don't understand Calvinists, then please help me to do so!

---

quote:

---

The view that Christians need not witness to their faith because God is sovereign and will always lead people to himself without human agency is the error commonly known as hyper-Calvinism. Yes, God is able to lead people to himself without human agency, but it is not the norm.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Those who try to defend limited atonement and predestination by appealing to mystery and human ignorance, are guilty of a fudge. If the ways of God are really such a mystery, then logically we have no right to affirm anything about God, including predestination. You cannot have it both ways! Anyone can affirm anything, and then when challenged plead "oh, but it's all such a mystery!". A classic case of special pleading.

---

quote:

---

To say that the doctrine of predestination (as it pertains to the choice of who will be saved and who will be "passed over") is merely "backstage mechanics" is sheer delusion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Daronmedway

quote:

---

The view that Christians need not witness to their faith because God is sovereign and will always lead people to himself without human agency is the error commonly known as hyper-Calvinism. Yes, God is able to lead people to himself without human agency, but it is not the norm.

---

Does that "human agency" have a choice as to whether it evangelises or not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
..........and what if human agency declines?

---

All human agency declines without the quickening work of the Holy Spirit. Humanity doesn't naturally want the one true God. The natural inclination of all people is to decline the one true God. Yes, humanity wants gods, but it doesn't want the god who is revealed in holy scripture. In this sense humanity is free to choose what it wants (idols) but, because of sin, it is not free to choose what it needs (the true God). For that we need the Holy Spirt.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Again, I think Anteater is on the button with his advice to South Coast Kevin.

FWIW, I used to be fairly Calvinist and used to bend my mind through hoops to escape the inevitable conclusion - if things were pushed too far - that God was some kind of capricious monster ...

This may sound contradictory and I make no apologies if it does, but now I would no longer describe myself as a Calvinist - as once I would have done - I also no longer believe that Calvinists believe that God is a monster either.

As Anteater says, they don't attempt to reconcile the apparent contradictions in the self-same way as none of us who are Trinitarian attempt to reconcile the apparent contradictions implicit within such a belief ... or those of us who believe that Christ is 100% God and 100% man at one and the same time attempt to square that particular circle either ...

I maintain my position, though, that Calvinism is a 'closed system' and is essentially self-authenticating for those who sign up to it. And that's not to downplay the very valid point that Cottontail makes that Calvinists are perfectly aware of the implications of their own theology.

Once you're 'inside' it, as it were, it all makes perfect sense and you wonder whether nobody else can see the things that you do.

It only looks inconsistent and incompatible if you are outside the system in some way or use a different system of evaluation.

The same applies to Roman Catholicism, the same applies to Orthodoxy, the same applies to any system of belief where there are particular boundary lines and 'must-haves'.

So, in that respect, whatever we think about Calvinism, it is no more or less of a closed system that others that might be available.

As long as we acknowledge that and the possible provisionality of that, I don't see an issue.

Ultimately, all these things are faith positions. Yes, we can have our convictions, our experiences and so on but ultimately none of us really, really know that we won't wake up dead one day to find that we've been backing the wrong horse and that Graundorlf, The Sticky Bun Monster God from the Planet Zarg was really where it was at ...

Of course, I believe that Christianity is true, that Christ is the way the truth and the life and much else besides ... so please don't misunderstand what I'm trying to say here.

Now, all that said, I do think that there are particular problems and issues that Calvinism doesn't resolve nor can resolve ... but the same could be said for other systems over other issues.

I think that taken to an extreme it can be an almost obscene belief system. My brother knew someone who was convinced that his daughter was 'reprobate' and eternally damned whatever anyone tried to do about it. He was apparently equitable about the whole thing.

On one level, I'd suggest that one has to close down or disassociate part of one's natural humanity to pursue things to a hyper-Calvinist conclusion.

In my cheekier moments, I'd also suggest that those Calvinists who aren't 'shabby' are those who somehow transcend or eschew the tenets of their own closed system ...



But that would be unfair.

On balance, I concur with much of what Cottontail and daronmedway have said - certainly on how Calvinism in an evangelical setting (and let's remind ourselves, not all Calvinists are evangelicals) can provide as much of an impetus for evangelism as Mudfrog's Wesleyanism does.

I still find it increasingly difficult to become exercised about the whole issue though. I'm no more interested these days in whether people are Calvinists, Wesleyans or Arminians than I am in whether they do or don't speak in tongues or whether gentlemen 'dress' to the right or left ...

It's just not an issue I get exercised about.

We all believe that God saves and that if we are ultimately saved at all we will be saved through Christ. It doesn't matter how monergist or synergist we are in our views, that's the bottom line and we can all sign up to it.

If people want to work out their faith in a Calvinistic context, a Wesleyan one, an Arminian one, an RC or Orthodox one or whatever else then that's up to them. I can't work any of it out at all. All I can do is seek to love and serve God wherever I am and to try to train myself to stop giving you guys a hard time ...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
'God did this that men might seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.'

Acts 17:27

Hmmm ... it seems you know better than the Almighty then, daronmedway.

If there wasn't a 'God-shaped gap' (which yes, people can fill with idols and so on) then it seems a bit odd that God would seem to assume here that their natural inclinations might help lead them somewhere further along the line ...

And of course, that doesn't obviate the need for God the Holy Spirit to illumine and quicken ...



You see what I'm saying? You're trying to fit everything into this neat, catch-all schema.
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Gamaliel posted: We all believe that God saves and that if we are ultimately saved at all we will be saved through Christ. It doesn't matter how monergist or synergist we are in our views, that's the bottom line and we can all sign up to it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
'God did this that men might seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.'

Acts 17:27

Hmmm ... it seems you know better than the Almighty then, daronmedway.

If there wasn't a 'God-shaped gap' (which yes, people can fill with idols and so on) then it seems a bit odd that God would seem to assume here that their natural inclinations might help lead them somewhere further along the line ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway
Unless you're talking about something like the Trinity, in which case it's fine?

---

quote:

---

If, on the other hand, you do away with what Scripture says about both predestination and hell then you can happily opt either annihilationism or universalism. However, if you do, then AFAIK, you forfeit the right to quote scripture as an authority for anything else you believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
At it's core, though, I think that Calvinism is a genuinely well-meaning attempt to protect something that Calvinists feel is important - and which I'm sure we'd all believe to be important - namely God's honour and God's sovereignty.

---

Quite ignoring kenosis, ISTM.

---

quote:

---

EtymologicalEvangelical wrote:The doctrine of irresistable grace is false.

---

quote:

---

Heavenly Father, Please open Kevin's heart and mind to your love, but not so much as you impose upon his free will. Please reveal the glory of Jesus to him but not beyond his ability to resist it and exercise his free will by saying no thanks. Amen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway
Interesting though that when we pray for the conversion of non-Christians we intuitively speak as if irresistible grace is true. I've never, ever heard someone pray for a non-Christian friend like this:

quote:

---

Heavenly Father, Please open Kevin's heart and mind to your love, but not so much as you impose upon his free will. Please reveal the glory of Jesus to him but not beyond his ability to resist it and exercise his free will by saying no thanks. Amen.

---

---

Strange. Why bother praying at all, if God is going to save Kevin anyway??

Furthermore, you assume that too much grace will "impose upon his free will". How bizarre. That implies that God's grace is something coercive, and is of such a nature that it cannot respect freedom. In fact, if God's grace is like that, then I would suggest that it would be very difficult indeed not to resist it.

But anyway, if grace is irresistible, then, given that God desires all people to be saved, universalism must be true, because God will not deprive anyone of His grace, which everyone will therefore receive, and thereby be saved.

But if, for some strange reason, you feel a deep need to convince yourself that God deliberately deprives some people of His grace - just for the fun of it (you know, to prove what a Big Powerful Macho Person he is) - then you are worshipping a God who wants some people to be damned to hell. That is not a mere backstage mechanism, but an action that reveals the character of God. Either God is a consistently just and good person (who is not a respecter of persons) or he is a capricious devil. Which is it?
 

---

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
Without going into too much detail, I think anteater and Cottontail are hitting the nails on the head, at least with regard to a Calvinist understanding. (Cottontail may be bit off with assumptions about my patience. )

As for how seemingly-contradictory ideas can be held in tension, I would not simply say "it's a mystery," though it is, but rather would say "it's a paradox." Christianity is full of those, it seems to me, starting, as has been noted, with the Trinity, or with "fully human, fully divine."

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

What about the point that Calvinism (particularly, but not only, the double predestination flavour) says something disturbing about God's character; that he seemingly plays favourites?

---

Then what do you make of Israel being a chosen people?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
2) If a person loses their faith, only a very shabby Calvinist would say that they were never really a Christian at all.

---

Then up until this very moment I have only met shabby Calvinists. I smell a true Scotsman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin
What about the point that Calvinism (particularly, but not only, the double predestination flavour) says something disturbing about God's character; that he seemingly plays favourites?

---

Then what do you make of Israel being a chosen people?

---

quote:

---

Now the Lord had said to Abram:
“Get out of your country,
From your family
And from your father’s house,
To a land that I will show you.
I will make you a great nation;
I will bless you
And make your name great;
And you shall be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
And I will curse him who curses you;
And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway
Interesting though that when we pray for the conversion of non-Christians we intuitively speak as if irresistible grace is true. I've never, ever heard someone pray for a non-Christian friend like this:

quote:

---

Heavenly Father, Please open Kevin's heart and mind to your love, but not so much as you impose upon his free will. Please reveal the glory of Jesus to him but not beyond his ability to resist it and exercise his free will by saying no thanks. Amen.

---

---

Strange. Why bother praying at all, if God is going to save Kevin anyway??

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, you assume that too much grace will "impose upon his free will". How bizarre. That implies that God's grace is something coercive, and is of such a nature that it cannot respect freedom. In fact, if God's grace is like that, then I would suggest that it would be very difficult indeed not to resist it.

---

quote:

---

But anyway, if grace is irresistible, then, given that God desires all people to be saved, universalism must be true, because God will not deprive anyone of His grace, which everyone will therefore receive, and thereby be saved.

---

quote:

---

But if, for some strange reason, you feel a deep need to convince yourself that God deliberately deprives some people of His grace - just for the fun of it (you know, to prove what a Big Powerful Macho Person he is) - then you are worshipping a God who wants some people to be damned to hell. That is not a mere backstage mechanism, but an action that reveals the character of God. Either God is a consistently just and good person (who is not a respecter of persons) or he is a capricious devil. Which is it? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
At it's core, though, I think that Calvinism is a genuinely well-meaning attempt to protect something that Calvinists feel is important - and which I'm sure we'd all believe to be important - namely God's honour and God's sovereignty.

---

Quite ignoring kenosis, ISTM.

---

You're confounding the persons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
At it's core, though, I think that Calvinism is a genuinely well-meaning attempt to protect something that Calvinists feel is important - and which I'm sure we'd all believe to be important - namely God's honour and God's sovereignty.

---

Quite ignoring kenosis, ISTM.

---

You're confounding the persons.

---

The Son never does anything he does not see the Father do.

---

quote:

---

mousethief: The Son never does anything he does not see the Father do.

---

Does the Father take a crap?
 

---

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin
What about the point that Calvinism (particularly, but not only, the double predestination flavour) says something disturbing about God's character; that he seemingly plays favourites?

---

Then what do you make of Israel being a chosen people?

---

But Israel was chosen to be a blessing to all nations:

quote:

---

Now the Lord had said to Abram:
“Get out of your country,
From your family
And from your father’s house,
To a land that I will show you.
I will make you a great nation;
I will bless you
And make your name great;
And you shall be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
And I will curse him who curses you;
And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

---

(Genesis 12:1-3)

Israel was not chosen so that others would be damned, but rather that they should be blessed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Strange. Why bother praying at all, if God is going to save Kevin anyway??

---

Because God in omniscient sovereignty and infinite love has always borne in mind - and in great condescension has always chosen to be affected by - the prayers of the saints, even from before the foundation of the world.

---

quote:

---

On the contrary, you assume that rescuing a prisoner by unlocking the prison door, swinging that door open, entering the dungeon, removing the chains, and leading the prisoner to freedom is coercive simply because it is an act of rescue and not of negotiation. It isn't.

---

quote:

---

Does God always get what he wants? Does God even insist on having what he wants? I don't think he does.

---

quote:

---

I'd prefer it you didn't try to tell me what "deep needs" I feel: firstly, because my "deep needs" (either real or simply imagined) have nothing to do with the theology we're discussing and secondly, because it's quite insulting.

---

quote:

---

As others have already said on this thread, I believe what I believe because that is what I think scripture says and I will allow scripture to tell me what is good and what is evil, rather than you.

---

Well, that's a relief. I would be seriously worried if you believed what I said simply because I said it! I sincerely hope you can think for yourself, although judging by the contradiction in your viewpoint, I do struggle to understand why you hold the position you do. Clearly you have failed to convince me, and, like you, I will make my own judgment based on a coherent understanding of the Bible.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 


Dare I introduce the thing about all of us, any of us, interpreting the scriptures through the lens of whatever tradition we happen to have been influenced by the most?

If you want to you can find evidence for Calvinism, for Wesleyanism, for Arminianism and much else besides from the scriptures ... heck, you could even make out a reasonable case for Arianism if you so chose ...

There is no one single, 'coherent' reading of the Bible - but there are coherent readings ... plural.

I'm sorry, but Sola Scriptura in the nuda Scriptura sense doesn't make any sense. Prima Scriptura perhaps, but even then we have to somehow arrive at a consensus as to what scripture actually teaches ...
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Theologians of every stripe have to come to terms, sooner or later, with the fact that God is always greater. God is good, yes everyone believes that. Yet God is greater than what we would understand to be a good God. God's goodness will be, from time to time, absolutely inexplicable to human understanding.

The Christian God ordered a man to sacrifice his son. The Christian God says "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Why does God predestine some to salvation and not others? Calvin doesn't even pretend to know, and in fact says it's impossible to know. "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." Rom 12:14&15

When God is inscrutable, Calvin with all other Christians can only struggle to say "Thanks be to God."
 

---

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 

quote:

---

I maintain my position, though, that Calvinism is a 'closed system' and is essentially self-authenticating for those who sign up to it

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82
Why does God predestine some to salvation and not others?

---

quote:

---

But the fundamental idea of the Trinity is not a mystery at all.

---

quote:

---

It makes perfect sense to say that if "God is love", then He must exist in the form of relationships, given that love involves both lover and loved.

---

quote:

---

But even if the Trinity is a mystery,

---

quote:

---

my point still stands. If your theology is such a mystery, then on what basis do you believe it to be true?

---

quote:

---

If you say "the Bible", then you must know that there are plenty of verses in the Bible which utterly contradict limited atonement, 1 Timothy 2:4 being one such example. So then, we just get into a fruitless "proof text ping pong", which leads us to no conclusions at all, backstage or otherwise.

---

quote:

---

The Christian God ordered a man to sacrifice his son. The Christian God says "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Zach82

quote:

---

The Christian God ordered a man to sacrifice his son. The Christian God says "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

---

The Christian God ordered no such thing!

---

quote:

---

EtymologicalEvangelical wrote:As for someone holding to a particular theology due to the influence of a deep need, well, given that there is no logic to your position - as I have shown above - then I can only assume that you hold the views you do for reasons other than a logically coherent interpretation of the Bible.

---

quote:

---

It's not meant to serve as a set of proof-texts for some massive edifice of reprobation.

---

Calvinism isn't a "massive edifice of reprobation." Well, outside of the usual caricature.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sorry, what I meant to type was, 'the Rabbis certainly didn't understand the story of Jacob and Esau as saying something deterministic about Esau's final destiny ...'

In Romans 9 Paul is using analogies - Esau and Jacob - the 'hardening of Pharoah's heart' to explain how the covenantal promises are somehow being extended to believing Gentiles.

It's an elaborate and convoluted argument. Sure ther's a 'not by works' element as evidenced from 9:12 but it terms of reprobation and 'objects of wrath' and 'objects of mercy' and so on there are lots of 'what if's and caveats.

'What if ... God did this?' 'What if ... God did that?'

There are conditionals. It's a piece of rhetoric.

Sure, you can use it to support notions of election/reprobation and so on, but only by tearing it completely out of context and applying it more broadly than the context allows.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, Calvinism might not be, but what you're posting conforms to the popular caricature.

If you want to avoid caricature, post in a way which doesn't invite it.

'It's there, it's true, it's in the Bible, so Nurrhhh ..' (which is about the level of sophistication of your argument) conforms to the caricature.

Post in a way that doesn't conform to caricature and I'll take your posts more seriously.

daronmedway's, Cottontail's and Nick Tamen's posts I liked, but Zach82s ...

You can complete the rest ...


 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
If you want to talk about context, I only cited the passage as a mere rhetorical flourish in an argument about the inscrutability of God's goodness.

Sorry, I've been round the block about Calvinism itself with you enough times.

Edit: and I see that I was able to accurately predict your usual turns of conversation, Gamaliel. You won't be able to titillate yourself winding me up this time.

[ 09. November 2013, 16:58: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Does the Father suffer?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Does the Father suffer?

---

The Son's suffering was not something he *did* it was something that was done to him. He was not the agent but the patient.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Strange. Why bother praying at all, if God is going to save Kevin anyway??

---

Because God in omniscient sovereignty and infinite love has always borne in mind - and in great condescension has always chosen to be affected by - the prayers of the saints, even from before the foundation of the world.

---

Even though those prayers are completely superfluous, if your theology is correct.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But the fundamental idea of the Trinity is not a mystery at all.

---

Well your the first thoughtful christian I've heard that from.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

It makes perfect sense to say that if "God is love", then He must exist in the form of relationships, given that love involves both lover and loved.

---

But that doesn't get you even close to the Trinity. Do you think an Arian does not believe that God is relationship with the Son, even though they are neither equal nor consubstantial?

---

quote:

---

So on what basis do you believe the Trinity to be true? It's not explicit in the NT. I agree that there are teachings that are explicit, which the trinity can explain, but the process is a subtle one, and the real truth is that if you believe the trinity, it is because you accept that the Ecumenical Councils were guided by the Holy Spirit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway
Then you should keep your assumptions about my emotional needs to yourself, because they have no place on a discussion forum for theological debate. Your questions are searching enough to stand for themselves, you don't need the addition of ad hominems to make your point.

I've asked you once. If it happens again I will call you to hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Strange. Why bother praying at all, if God is going to save Kevin anyway??

---

Because God in omniscient sovereignty and infinite love has always borne in mind - and in great condescension has always chosen to be affected by - the prayers of the saints, even from before the foundation of the world.

---

Even though those prayers are completely superfluous, if your theology is correct.

quote:

---

On the contrary, you assume that rescuing a prisoner by unlocking the prison door, swinging that door open, entering the dungeon, removing the chains, and leading the prisoner to freedom is coercive simply because it is an act of rescue and not of negotiation. It isn't.

---

Good. Then everyone will be saved. Because God will rescue all, and no one will resist that rescue, because He desires all people to be saved, as He has expressly stated in His Word. If this is not so, then either this rescue can be resisted, or God has deliberately decided to keep some people in prison forever (people who have no choice but to be there, given that they were imprisoned by "original sin" from conception onwards).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
...for Christians who limit the scope of atonement to the membership of their particular denomination or church...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
...for Christians who limit the scope of atonement to the membership of their particular denomination or church...

---

Who would that be?

---

Hypocrites, mousethief, hypocrites.

It seems odd that a God who limits atonement on the basis of his sovereign choice is to be deemed monster but if he does it on the basis of the liturgy he prefers, he's in the clear.

[ 09. November 2013, 21:06: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
...for Christians who limit the scope of atonement to the membership of their particular denomination or church...

---

Who would that be?

---

Hypocrites, mousethief, hypocrites.

---

quote:

---

The challenge is to accept the revelation that God does indeed desire that all be saved, that Christ's death was in some senses for the whole world but is, nevertheless, in some way especially effectual for a particular group of people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I can't think of any non-restorationist churches that limit the scope of atonement to the membership of their particular denomination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Daronmedway

quote:

---

The challenge is to accept the revelation that God does indeed desire that all be saved, that Christ's death was in some senses for the whole world but is, nevertheless, in some way especially effectual for a particular group of people.

---

If by "desire" you mean it's God's sovereign will that all be saved, then from a Calvinistic standpoint that's that. Amen. It's difficult to see, therefore, what is meant by "especially effectual for a particular group of people", at least in terms of ultimate treatment...

---

quote:

---

That is why we labour and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Saviour of all people, and especially of those who believe.1 Timothy 4:10

---

quote:

---

quote:That is why we labour and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Saviour of all people, and especially of those who believe.1 Timothy 4:10

Apparently God is the Saviour of all people, but somehow especially of those who believe. Make of that what you will, but there's one one thing about this verse of which I'm sure: it doesn't teach universalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
Cottontail:


In fact one way in which parents gain comfort from this is to get their children to make a decision for Christ at an early age

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It is Calvinist parents are in an impossible situation.

All they can say to their kid is, “We have no idea whether or not you are one of the elect, so we will teach you Christian truth, but it won’t have the slightest effect unless and until God chooses to regenerate you. If he doesn’t, because he has used us to create you as one of the reprobate, then we look forward to watching you suffer to His glory for all eternity”.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
O for a trumpet voice,
On all the world to call!
To bid their hearts rejoice
In Him who died for all;
For all my Lord was crucified,
For all, for all my Saviour died!

---

Great stuff, Muddy!

And then there is also Charles’s:-

O that the world might taste and see
The riches of his grace;
The arms of love that compass me
Would all mankind embrace.

Charles’s The Horrible Decree is also worth reading.

Here are two of its verses:-

Sinners, abhor the Fiend,
His other gospel hear:
The God of truth did not intend
The Thing his Words declare,
He offers Grace to All,
Which most cannot embrace
Mock’d with an ineffectual Call
And insufficient grace.

The righteous God consign’d
Them over to their Doom
And sent the Saviour of Mankind
To damn them from the Womb;
To damn for falling short
Of what they could not do,
For not believing the Report
Of that which was not true.

He seems to have been as fond of arbitrary capital letters as was Queen Victoria.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
And so it rumbles on ...

Both sides missing the point ... which is that however we view it - in RC, Orthodox, Reformed, Wesleyan, Arminian or whatever else terms the point is that it is God who saves - through Christ. How that works out on the ground and into eternity isn't our call.

I'm with daronmedway on this being behind-the-scenes stage-mechanics but I wouldn't be as prescriptive as he seems to be at second-guessing what those mechanics appear to involve.

He believes that his prayers for Kevin will have been allowed by God in the infathomable counsels of Heaven to influence his eternal decree ...

Presumably, those who invoke Mary and the Saints believe something similar. Daronmedway would say that they were wrong, they would say that he's missing something ...

And so it all goes on and on, people citing this hymn and that verse ...

And meanwhile I wind Zach82 up ...

Mind you, if he'd read my posts properly here he'll have seen that I've been far more accommodating and conciliatory towards Calvinism than I have on previous threads. I've not written it all off ... I don't think I ever have done in fairness.

At the core of it, I believe, is a genuine attempt to interpret certain scriptural emphases which are undoubtedly there - even if they do add 2 + 2 together and end up with 46 ...



Meanwhile, we all continue to misunderstand one another. Daronmedway seems to be implying that the Orthodox - from his descriptions or arcane liturgies and so on he seems to be referring to them - restrict salvation to the boundaries of their own Church.

This is certainly not the case and simply proves that daronmedway ought to pay more attention to what others say on these boards, get out more and fellowship more eirenically than he might do at present - although I'm sure he does to a large extent, already - he can't possibly avoid it as an Anglican priest (sorry, minister) ...

There's too much jumping to conclusions going on and I can be as guilty of that as anyone else.

You can make out a case for any of these views from scripture. But only if you immerse yourself in one or t'other of the various options and traditions and put on their specs.

I'd read 'Jacob I loved and Esau I hated' and the stuff about hardening Pharoah's heart loads of times before I learned to adopt a Calvinistic interpretation of them.

Note that: 'I learned to adopt ...'

All the positions outlined here are learned. We've absorbed them from our contexts and from other people. How could it be otherwise?

I don't know about you, but I suspect that implies a certain provisionality and whilst there's room for conviction, certainly, it ill behoves any of us to make an idol or a rigid rallying post around any of our respective positions on this issue.

That's how I see it anyway - so help me ...
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
As I understand it, only a minority of Calvinists believe that some people are explicitly destined not to turn to Christ.

---

quote:

---

Most merely believe God has predestined some to follow Christ, leaving everyone else to make their own mind up.

---

quote:

---

I just cannot understand the mentality of people who are comfortable with (or even reluctantly believe) this concept of God's judgment. They don't seem to possess a proper sense of justice, in which punishment takes into account diminished responsibility and mitigating circumstances. All I can say is that there is nothing in my entire being - spiritual, intellectual, psychological or genetic - that could enable me to appreciate this concept of divine justice. It's not that I refuse to believe it; I simply cannot believe it, and therefore I can't understand how any person of goodwill and intelligence can believe it. Perhaps that is why I assume that someone who does seem to believe it, must have some kind of personal problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater
Well I appreciate your problem, and am interested in whether you are in fact a Universalist, which seems to be the only position that could fit you mindset.

---

quote:

---

But I would advise you to beware of letting your attitude prejudice you against other christians, as it is in this sort of failure to understand, that sectarianism arises.

---

quote:

---

You start by not understanding how someone who believes in X can possibly be a person of "of intelligence and goodwill" and end up by concluding that they probably are not. Probably also that they are not indwelt by the Spirit of Christ. How could they be and believe something which you see as hugely defamatory of God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
Both sides missing the point ... which is that however we view it - in RC, Orthodox, Reformed, Wesleyan, Arminian or whatever else terms the point is that it is God who saves - through Christ. How that works out on the ground and into eternity isn't our call.

I'm with daronmedway on this being behind-the-scenes stage-mechanics but I wouldn't be as prescriptive as he seems to be at second-guessing what those mechanics appear to involve.

---

I would say that the question of what God is like is about as fundamental as one can imagine. God's character is the main act on the stage; it's the lead role. If it were hidden backstage, then the play would be a total nonsense. Let's call it the theatre of the absurd, shall we?

How is it possible to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength" when you believe that he is actually a deeply capricious and malicious person (which is what he would be if he created some people for absolutely no other reason than to damn them to the everlasting pit of burning sulphur)?

I find it hard to believe that the "I'm alright, Jack, sod everyone else" attitude is consistent with living in the love of God. This is what Calvinism (or perhaps hyper-Calvinism) seems to be saying: "As long as precious little me is saved by the grace of God, having been chosen by him, then frankly I don't give a monkeys about the fate of those whom God has passed over. If my heavenly Dad is an abuser, I don't care, as long as he treats *me* well."

Me. Me. Me. That's what it's all about.

Of course, we know it's a load of bollocks, because Christ, in deepest agony on the cross, proclaimed that God does indeed take diminished responsibility into account in his dealings with man, hence: "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do".

Therefore it is impossible for God to condemn someone who could not help being sinful.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I can see what you are getting at here, EE.

I suspect the answer - and you may appreciate this as someone who likes to cite logic and so on (and I don't mean that facetiously) - is that the internal logic of their rather closed position leads them to conclusions that those outside that closed position find reprehensible.

They probably do themselves - Calvin himself referred to the assumptions that lead to later developments of the doctrine of Double-Predestination as, 'that dread decree.'

But what they do is allow the interior logic to over-ride their natural inclinations. Allied to a very pessimistic view of human nature, 'Who am I, a poor vile sinner, to talk back to God?', you can see how it can lead in a coldly logical progression, to the kind of hyper-Calvinism that most of us deplore.

Ok, so there are staging posts along that route and most Calvinists, as you acknowledge, stop off at various points along that continuum.

The same applies with any other doctrine or system we could mention.

Arminians and Wesleyans have sometimes been accused of preaching salvation by works, for instance, some Orthodox are accused of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism (although they themselves would mostly reject these epithets).

My own take is that many Calvinists generally take the 'Jacob I loved, Esau I hated' and the hardening of Pharoah's heart thing rather too literally and apply it beyond the context of Paul's discussion of the Jew/Gentile thing into some kind of universal principle.

Some appear able to cope with the hints of a 'wider hope' that we might find within Romans 2 - those Gentiles who have, as it were, 'the law written on their hearts' etc - but others give the impression that they've torn these verses out of their Bibles completely whilst continuing to rant on about Sola Scriptura ...

That's a caricature, of course, and I'm certainly - contra Zach82 - out to tar all Calvinists with the same broad brush.

Ultimately, there are pains in the neck and elsewhere within any Christian confession.

For my own part, I believe that most Calvinists stop short of believing in a Molech-like deity but others come perilously close.

The problem isn't confined to Calvinists, of course.

Daronmedway has already apparently conflated the Orthodox belief that their Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church with the belief that only those within that Church can be saved - which isn't what the Orthodox (officially at least) actually believe ...

I would suggest that a similar thing is happening in reverse, that some here (and perhaps myself at times) are projecting onto Calvinists beliefs that they don't actually hold.

That said, I agree with Anteater that there are a lot of mental gymnastics and glosses, wriggling and ducking and diving going on within Calvinism (even in its broadest sense) to make certain verses fit their particular schema.

That shows how Scholastic and Medieval it all is.


 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
Cottontail:


In fact one way in which parents gain comfort from this is to get their children to make a decision for Christ at an early age

---

It is Calvinist parents are in an impossible situation.

All they can say to their kid is, “We have no idea whether or not you are one of the elect, so we will teach you Christian truth, but it won’t have the slightest effect unless and until God chooses to regenerate you. If he doesn’t, because he has used us to create you as one of the reprobate, then we look forward to watching you suffer to His glory for all eternity”.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway
I wouldn't do it because it would rob them of the wonder of the story. The gospel is the story with which I want them to be enchanted and entranced. If, at some point in the future, after having believed they take an interest in the backstage mechanics of the drama then fine, but not until they've experienced the wonder of what is being openly displayed for their wonder and pleasure.

---

quote:

---

And meanwhile I wind Zach82 up ...

Mind you, if he'd read my posts properly here he'll have seen that I've been far more accommodating and conciliatory towards Calvinism than I have on previous threads. I've not written it all off ... I don't think I ever have done in fairness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, fair call. But what I was prodding you about was your tendency to post sweeping comments along the lines of, 'It's in the Bible, so that settles it ...'

It was this apparently simplistic approach that I was getting at. I know you are capable of better than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
...a standard Calvinistic evangelical response to your objection, of course, is that what is so supremely wonderful about the Gospel is that anyone is saved at all given the enormity of the offence our sins have given to a just and holy God.

---

quote:

---

Suppose a brilliant doctor deliberately took his newly pregnant wife to live in the shadow of Chernobyl shortly after the disaster, and she gave birth to a seriously ill and deformed child. Then they moved away from there, and the doctor performed some amazing surgery on the child (after allowing the poor soul to suffer pain and humiliation for years) and demanded praise for so doing. Furthermore, he claimed to have 'saved' his child from the agony that he (the child) justly deserved, for committing the sin of having been born in the shadow of the nuclear reactor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway
I wouldn't do it because it would rob them of the wonder of the story. The gospel is the story with which I want them to be enchanted and entranced. If, at some point in the future, after having believed they take an interest in the backstage mechanics of the drama then fine, but not until they've experienced the wonder of what is being openly displayed for their wonder and pleasure.

---

The wonder of the story? What is so wonderful about the idea of a God who does not love everyone, and has it in for some people? How can anyone in their right mind be enchanted by that?

---

quote:

---

And why shouldn't the love of God for all people be openly displayed? Is it just too embarrassing, or something? Should we really be encouraging our children to be entranced by a capricious sadist? What sort of moral lesson is that giving them, do you think?

---

quote:

---

Is such a doctor 'wonderful'? Is the message of this boy's healing a glorious one?

I think not.

But try getting that idea through to a Calvinist (or even some Arminians)...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway
As I said before, non-Calvinists who believe in hell must answer the same question.

---

quote:

---

I'm not embarrassed by the love of God. I'm embarrassed by Christians who refuse to allow that love to over-rule their little fiefdoms. However, I do have problems with teaching my kids that they are saved because they've made a wiser choice than their unbelieving friends. I do have a problem with teaching my kids that their salvation can ultimately be subscribed to exercise of their own good sense, the sense that their benighted pagan neighbours just don't have. I can't imagine ever teaching my kids such a ridiculously piddling clever-clogs half-gospel without fear of producing a bunch of presumptuous and arrogant little work-saints.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82
How do you explain it then? I mean, God just murdered hundreds of people in the Philippines with a typhoon. God is good, isn't he?

---

God does not condemn anyone simply on the basis of original sin. "When sin is full grown, it brings forth death..." (look it up).

As for the typhoon... what, are you saying that you believe that God is not good? Do you believe that he did actually murder those people? If so, then you are worshipping a devil. I prefer Christianity to Satanism myself...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
As opposed to a bunch of presumptuous and arrogant little Calvinists, Daron?



You see what's happening, don't you?

And much as I've clashed with EE in the past and don't always admire the tone he's taking on this one, I'm with him on how mechanistic and deterministic the whole Calvinist thing can sound - particularly when it's dispensed through an evangelical filter.

Either they believe they are unconditionally elected or else they turn into arrogant works-righteousness gits.

Can you see how binary that is?

I was once very, very rude to Calvinists on these boards by asking whether the propensity towards highly deterministic and binary views (such as the one above) were allied to the autism scale.

Of course, I was roundly 'called' on it, and rightly so - it was highly provocative.

But on one level, as much as I regret the offence I caused, I was over-stating my case to make a point.

And the point is this, sooner or later in trying to reconcile the inherent contradictions and paradoxes within their system (and yes, these do exist elsewhere, it's not an exclusivity contest) Calvinists will end up defending the indefensible.

The way around this, of course, is to say, 'ah, but your ways are not my ways, saith the Lord ...'

Well yes, of course they aren't.

I s'pose, to take daronmedway's excellent theatre-stage analogy, I see it something like this:

Zach82, daronmedway, Mudfrog, EE, Kaplan Corday, Mousethief and myself go to the theatre together ... (and I'm sure we'd enjoy it and get along fine)

We watch the play.

As the action's taking place, Zach and daronmedway sit there thinking, 'ah, yes, of course, things work out that way for that character because of God's immutable will in Election ... '

Mudfrog and Kaplan sip their Kiora-bottles (making a trumpet-like brass-note in Mudfrog's case) and think, 'Oho, yes, I see ... the reason things work out as they do for that character is because of prevenient grace, but they are given the assurance they did to stick with it to the end ...'

EE will be sitting there thinking, 'Ok, it's logical how things have worked out and by God's grace the character responded to God's initiative through his free will ...'

Mousethief, being Orthodox and awkward, will see things differently to all the others but will be closer to both EE in some respects and to Mudfrog and Kaplan on other points.

Me? I'll be sitting there reserving judgement until it all pans out ... or at least trying to ...



At the end of the performance, the curtain closes, the applause dies down and the Producer invites us back-stage to show us how it's all been done ...

And, you've guessed it, it's not actually been in exactly the same way as any of us anticipated, although it bears resemblance at some points to them all ...

FWIW that's how I see it ... flawed as it undoubtedly is.

Meanwhile, getting back to Zach82 - yes, fair points, I stand corrected. I was too snarky to you over your recent posts.
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway
As I said before, non-Calvinists who believe in hell must answer the same question.

---

As indeed they can. It's got something to do with something called "free will".

quote:

---

I'm not embarrassed by the love of God. I'm embarrassed by Christians who refuse to allow that love to over-rule their little fiefdoms. However, I do have problems with teaching my kids that they are saved because they've made a wiser choice than their unbelieving friends. I do have a problem with teaching my kids that their salvation can ultimately be subscribed to exercise of their own good sense, the sense that their benighted pagan neighbours just don't have. I can't imagine ever teaching my kids such a ridiculously piddling clever-clogs half-gospel without fear of producing a bunch of presumptuous and arrogant little work-saints.

---

But it's not about making a "wiser choice". It's about responding to the grace of God. There are not just two alternatives: your mechanistic and deterministic understanding of God's grace, on the one hand, and good works, on the other. We are saved by grace, but this gift can be declined. The acceptance of a gift is not equivalent to earning a wage. Therefore there is nothing to boast about.

---

quote:

---

Gamaliel said: At the end of the performance, the curtain closes, the applause dies down and the Producer invites us back-stage to show us how it's all been done ...

And, you've guessed it, it's not actually been in exactly the same way as any of us anticipated, although it bears resemblance at some points to them all ...

FWIW that's how I see it ... flawed as it undoubtedly is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
And much as I've clashed with EE in the past and don't always admire the tone he's taking on this one...

---

quote:

---

As a Christian am I really supposed to think like this: "Well, God loves me, and I'm saved. I know he doesn't love everyone and doesn't want to save everyone, and I know that some people have been marked for everlasting torture in the eternal Auschwitz from the moment of their conception - and they can do nothing about it - but I am quite relaxed about that. Because as long as I'm OK, that's all that matters. God can be a complete bastard to other people, as long as he is nice to me, thank you very much..." ?

To quote the late Mrs T. out of context: NO NO NO!!!

---

Amen, bro.

[ 10. November 2013, 16:09: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
So, you want me to believe that the ability to reject God's offer of salvation is evidence of freedom and something that God has given us? No way!

I utterly reject this perverse understanding of "freedom" and "free will". I can do without that kind of "freedom", thank you very much.

No. The only explanation for any person's ability, and certainly anyone's desire, to say no to the living God is a deep, deep enslavement to Satan, sin and death. Saying 'no' to God is an act of rebellion that can only come from a deep enslavement to Satan. It is most categorically not an act of freedom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway
So, you want me to believe that the ability to reject God's offer of salvation is evidence of freedom and something that God has given us? No way!

I utterly reject this perverse understanding of "freedom" and "free will". I can do without that kind of "freedom", thank you very much.

No. The only explanation for any person's ability, and certainly anyone's desire, to say no to the living God is a deep, deep enslavement to Satan, sin and death. Saying 'no' to God is an act of rebellion that can only come from a deep enslavement to Satan. It is most categorically not an act of freedom.

To ascribe such a grotesque act rebellion against God as an act of "freedom" is utterly perverse and alien to any biblical definition of freedom. It's a choice, yes, but an act of free will? Never. Saying no to God is the act of a slave, and nothing more.

---

quote:

---

I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;

---

quote:

---

Now let me sing to my Well-beloved
A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard:
My Well-beloved has a vineyard
On a very fruitful hill.
He dug it up and cleared out its stones,
And planted it with the choicest vine.
He built a tower in its midst,
And also made a winepress in it;
So He expected it to bring forth good grapes,
But it brought forth wild grapes.
“And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah,
Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard.
What more could have been done to My vineyard
That I have not done in it?
Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes,
Did it bring forth wild grapes?
And now, please let Me tell you what I will do to My vineyard:
I will take away its hedge, and it shall be burned;
And break down its wall, and it shall be trampled down.
I will lay it waste;
It shall not be pruned or dug,
But there shall come up briers and thorns.
I will also command the clouds
That they rain no rain on it.”
For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel,
And the men of Judah are His pleasant plant.
He looked for justice, but behold, oppression;
For righteousness, but behold, a cry for help.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As for the typhoon... what, are you saying that you believe that God is not good? Do you believe that he did actually murder those people? If so, then you are worshipping a devil. I prefer Christianity to Satanism myself...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
This sounds a hell of a lot like the Grand Inquisitor. Freedom to reject or accept God is too much for us. Far better that God makes us into little automotons.

---

quote:

---

The most free person in existence is Jesus Christ, and he has never said no to God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Daronmedway

quote:

---

The most free person in existence is Jesus Christ, and he has never said no to God.

---

..........but what is so great about freedom? Why do we seem to assume that God has freedom? IMO he does not have the freedom to do evil, it is not his nature. What sort of choice did Jesus have? Is it conceivable that he could have made decisions other than he given his divine nature?

ISTM that freedom is a characteristic of human beings because they have a knowledge of what is good and evil, but unlike God (or the Devil), are sometimes inclined to do one and at other times the other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82
The typhoon happened and people died. Either God didn't will to stop it or he couldn't stop it. Take your pick—I take providence over chaos.

---

quote:

---

So did God choose us to be born in Christian lands because he likes us more than North Indian farmers? Did we become Christians because we are wiser and better people than our Jewish neighbors?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82
The typhoon happened and people died. Either God didn't will to stop it or he couldn't stop it. Take your pick—I take providence over chaos.

---

So what are you saying? That God hates the people who died in the Philippines? That they are reprobate?

If so, I'll remember that next time 'God' sends a bunch of tornadoes through the Bible Belt of the USA to kill those reprobate evangelicals!

---

quote:

---

Who said that God doesn't like North Indian farmers or Jewish people?

If God is sovereign - as you like to assert - then He has every right to save these people in the way He wants without having to conform to your little scheme of salvation. Perhaps God really is much bigger than your imagination can fathom.

After all... it's supposed to be about God's grace, not conformity to some neat little system, as Bro. Medway has reminded us!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82
In which case, freedom is to be abhorred. Who would choose the ability to be evil over the possibility of being only good?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82
In which case, freedom is to be abhorred. Who would choose the ability to be evil over the possibility of being only good?

---

Funnily enough, God doesn't seem to abhor the idea of giving people freedom to be evil, hence the Scriptures I quoted in this post (which have been conveniently ignored - I wonder why?!).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82
For myself, I ignored it because I thought you missed the point completely, both of the passage and the issue at hand.

---

quote:

---

Of course, universalism is not the only position for someone who affirms the reality of human free will! God's grace can be rejected, and those who do so damn their souls. How is that position equivalent to universalism?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82
For myself, I ignored it because I thought you missed the point completely, both of the passage and the issue at hand.

---

I suppose that's one way of chickening out of facing up to a biblical challenge to your position.

Not very noble of you, I must say!

---

quote:

---

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I can't think of any non-restorationist churches that limit the scope of atonement to the membership of their particular denomination.
The Roman Catholic Church has taught this, although the doctrine appears to have been diluted in recent years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
John T Ward:

quote:

---

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I can't think of any non-restorationist churches that limit the scope of atonement to the membership of their particular denomination.
The Roman Catholic Church has taught this, although the doctrine appears to have been diluted in recent years.

---

I thought I'd pick up on this depressingly ignorant piece of RCC-bashing.

Is it even worth asking for some source to back it up? If you can't you could at least retract it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway
So, you want me to believe that the ability to reject God's offer of salvation is evidence of freedom and something that God has given us? No way!

I utterly reject this perverse understanding of "freedom" and "free will". I can do without that kind of "freedom", thank you very much.

No. The only explanation for any person's ability, and certainly anyone's desire, to say no to the living God is a deep, deep enslavement to Satan, sin and death. Saying 'no' to God is an act of rebellion that can only come from a deep enslavement to Satan. It is most categorically not an act of freedom.

To ascribe such a grotesque act rebellion against God as an act of "freedom" is utterly perverse and alien to any biblical definition of freedom. It's a choice, yes, but an act of free will? Never. Saying no to God is the act of a slave, and nothing more.

---

Deuteronomy 30:19 -

quote:

---

I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;

---

God commanding His people to 'choose' life? How strange, considering that He forces them to receive life.

---

quote:

---

daronmedway: A person who is free will choose life for that is the only logical choice of the truly free.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
So, you want me to believe that the ability to reject God's offer of salvation is evidence of freedom and something that God has given us? No way!

I utterly reject this perverse understanding of "freedom" and "free will". I can do without that kind of "freedom", thank you very much.

No. The only explanation for any person's ability, and certainly anyone's desire, to say no to the living God is a deep, deep enslavement to Satan, sin and death. Saying 'no' to God is an act of rebellion that can only come from a deep enslavement to Satan. It is most categorically not an act of freedom.

---

This sounds a hell of a lot like the Grand Inquisitor. Freedom to reject or accept God is too much for us. Far better that God makes us into little automotons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

daronmedway: A person who is free will choose life for that is the only logical choice of the truly free.

---

This is just plain silly. Freedom includes the possibility of making choices that you or God or anyone else doesn't approve of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
When you say no to God you are making an enslaved choice and giving expression to the bondage of your will.

---

quote:

---

daronmedway: When you say no to God you are making an enslaved choice and giving expression to the bondage of your will.

---

quote:

---

Zach82: Seeing as "free will" doesn't really have a satisfactory meaning, how do you know it isn't compatible with predestination? One is, in light of the vagueness of the concept, quite at liberty to believe in free will and predestination at the same time. I do. Philosophers have even settled on a word for the theory—compatiblism they calls it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
This sounds a hell of a lot like the Grand Inquisitor. Freedom to reject or accept God is too much for us. Far better that God makes us into little automotons.

---

So did God choose us to be born in Christian lands because he likes us more than North Indian farmers? Did we become Christians because we are wiser and better people than our Jewish neighbors?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
The choice put to you is providence or chaos.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
It's not clear to me that you understand at all what I was trying to say. Hopefully MT will figure it out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
If having the freedom to transcend sin by saying yes to God's overtures of intimacy makes a man an automaton then you worship the biggest puppet to have walked the face of this earth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
When you say no to God you are making an enslaved choice and giving expression to the bondage of your will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
So you do believe you chose the right religion because you are smarter than non-Christians? You used your free will to chose the right faith is, it seems, the alternative to the free election of God.

---

quote:

---

This clinches it. EE and I are so far apart in almost every way, that if something you say doesn't make sense to either of us, it's definitely you, not us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

This clinches it. EE and I are so far apart in almost every way, that if something you say doesn't make sense to either of us, it's definitely you, not us.

---

I was saying on one hand that the thing EE was pitching against was actually addressed to you, while thinking you might actually be able to be more engaging about the matter. I had not idea of saying that you and him had anything in common.

---

quote:

---

Are you going to be able to talk about Calvinism sensibly this time MT? You usually get like this when the matter comes up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

This clinches it. EE and I are so far apart in almost every way, that if something you say doesn't make sense to either of us, it's definitely you, not us.

---

I was saying on one hand that the thing EE was pitching against was actually addressed to you, while thinking you might actually be able to be more engaging about the matter. I had not idea of saying that you and him had anything in common.

---

I wasn't saying you were saying we had anything in common. I was saying that the fact that we don't have much in common, and yet neither of us understood what you were saying, was pretty strong evidence that what you tried to say didn't come through. Are you going to address that, and my other points, or just fling insults like this:

quote:

---

Are you going to be able to talk about Calvinism sensibly this time MT? You usually get like this when the matter comes up.

---

(ETA: If by "sensibly" you mean that I have to agree with you, then, no, I shan't discuss it sensibly, since you are wrong about it.)

---

quote:

---

Yes but you inserted the "smarter than" bullshit yourself; it's certainly not something LeRoc or I or anybody else who believes in freedom of the will would put forward. If you could avoid putting such ugly sentiments in our mouths, I for one would appreciate it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

This clinches it. EE and I are so far apart in almost every way, that if something you say doesn't make sense to either of us, it's definitely you, not us.

---

I was saying on one hand that the thing EE was pitching against was actually addressed to you, while thinking you might actually be able to be more engaging about the matter. I had not idea of saying that you and him had anything in common.

---

I wasn't saying you were saying we had anything in common. I was saying that the fact that we don't have much in common, and yet neither of us understood what you were saying, was pretty strong evidence that what you tried to say didn't come through. Are you going to address that, and my other points, or just fling insults like this:

quote:

---

Are you going to be able to talk about Calvinism sensibly this time MT? You usually get like this when the matter comes up.

---

(ETA: If by "sensibly" you mean that I have to agree with you, then, no, I shan't discuss it sensibly, since you are wrong about it.)

---

I meant "sensible" as in "being able to talk about it without becoming overwhelmed with passion and becoming insulting like you usually do."

As least, that's my perception of how you become, which is apparently incontrovertible on the Ship.

---

Pot meet kettle.

You are both pretty capable of being passionate about your opinions, sometimes to the point of being insulting.

But we love you anyway.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
They seem to me the only sensible options.

---

quote:

---

It is possible that one's religion is a matter of no consequence,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I meant "sensible" as in "being able to talk about it without becoming overwhelmed with passion and becoming insulting like you usually do."

---

quote:

---

or that God leaves it entirely to chance whether one hears the Gospel or not, which would mean he's inept or capricious. Both of these options would be automatically dismissed, I should hope.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
By way of triple posting, I am being accused of worshiping Satan because I believe in predestination, MT. Keep that in mind when you feel insulted for what I've said.

---

quote:

---

So the only reason you can think of for someone being a Christian is intelligence? No, really?

---

quote:

---

This always seems to come up in arguments about universalism. I'm surprised to see it in an argument about predestination in which universalism has so far played almost no part.

---

quote:

---

Ah, you mean an insult that should only be uttered in Hell. I wonder if you'll get away with it.

---

quote:

---

No, the equation of chance and caprice is automatically dismissed.

---

quote:

---

Hang on, you're saying you've been called a Satan-worshiper, therefore it's okay for you to insult me. This I believed is the "Two wrongs make a right" fallacy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

So the only reason you can think of for someone being a Christian is intelligence? No, really?

---

Not at all. People could choose the right religion because they are holier or any other number of reasons. The point is the possibility that picking the right religion is a credit to the person that did the picking.

---

quote:

---

I, for one, am not going to defend it.

---

quote:

---

Are you dismissing the idea that God leaves it to chance who hears the Gospel? Or that leaving this to chance makes God capricious?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Hang on, you're saying you've been called a Satan-worshiper, therefore it's okay for you to insult me. This I believed is the "Two wrongs make a right" fallacy.

---

You hardly restrain yourself from drawing awful conclusions from Calvinism, MT.

---

quote:

---

And what if it's not? What if it's a credit to the religion that is picked? *** see below...*** ETA: this is always dragged up when Calvinists talk about a non-predestination view of soteriology. If it wasn't God's random choice who gets saved and who doesn't, then it must be because you think you DESERVE it. No. Non-predestinarians don't think they deserve salvation. They think God offers it, and we are free to accept or reject it as we see fit. Desert has nothing to do with it.

---

quote:

---

The latter. God took a chance by making creatures with free will. He took a chance that some of us might choose to thwart his will. And of course it happened right off the bat, if the Adam and Eve story is right. The whole world we live in is governed by chance. For some reason it seems good to God that this is so. I do not know what this reason is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
It just seems natural that, if a person freely chooses to accept the truth, it is a credit to that person for being holier, smarter, more discerning, or what have you.

---

quote:

---

I am sorry, but I am not sure how you are explaining that it isn't a matter of deserts. A person's choice causes grace to be conferred. It's simply causality.

---

quote:

---

I rather think the testament of the Bible is that the world is governed by God, not chance.

---

quote:

---

In the very least, he lets people go their whole lives without hearing the Gospel. That isn't a matter of choice. It isn't a matter of a 17th century Tibetan peasant's free will that he never heard the Gospel.

---

quote:

---

A lot of things seem natural that aren't true. That's no argument against them. Causality is desert? Since when?

---

quote:

---

But really, God's love causes grace to be conferred. Our choice accepts or receives it. You might as well say light switches create electricity as say we are saved by our choice to accept God's grace.

---

quote:

---

That rather depends on how you define "governed."

---

quote:

---

Yep. No disagreement. This is irrelevant to my point, though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82
By way of triple posting, I am being accused of worshiping Satan because I believe in predestination, MT. Keep that in mind when you feel insulted for what I've said.

---

quote:

---

As for the typhoon... what, are you saying that you believe that God is not good? Do you believe that he did actually murder those people? If so, then you are worshipping a devil. I prefer Christianity to Satanism myself...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
It just seems natural that, if a person freely chooses to accept the truth, it is a credit to that person for being holier, smarter, more discerning, or what have you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I wouldn't do it because it would rob them of the wonder of the story. The gospel is the story with which I want them to be enchanted and entranced. If, at some point in the future, after having believed they take an interest in the backstage mechanics of the drama then fine, but not until they've experienced the wonder of what is being openly displayed for their wonder and pleasure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EE:
I am simply stating moral facts. If you interpret this as an insult that is up to you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
It just seems natural that, if a person freely chooses to accept the truth, it is a credit to that person for being holier, smarter, more discerning, or what have you.

---

In any discussion such as this there inevitably comes a point when Calvinists deliberately conflate Pelagianism and Arminianism.

---

quote:

---

That rather depends on how you define "governed."

---

quote:

---

You and I both know philosophical and theological discussions are in great trouble of absurdity when the definitions of commonplace words are suddenly up for debate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

A lot of things seem natural that aren't true. That's no argument against them. Causality is desert? Since when?

---

On the other hand, "Right choice isn't a credit to the chooser just because it isn't" is not much of an argument for your position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

That rather depends on how you define "governed."

---

You and I both know philosophical and theological discussions are in great trouble of absurdity when the definitions of commonplace words are suddenly up for debate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
It has everything to do with it. God is choosing to let a person go bereft of the consolation of the Gospel when he cold easily stop this situation. Free will can't explain it, because the peasant's choice in that situation is simply not free. It is limited by God's passivity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Salvation becomes not a matter of God offering grace, and people accepting it, but a matter of people getting the random chance to be offered grace, and then either accepting or rejecting it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I wouldn't do it because it would rob them of the wonder of the story. The gospel is the story with which I want them to be enchanted and entranced. If, at some point in the future, after having believed they take an interest in the backstage mechanics of the drama then fine, but not until they've experienced the wonder of what is being openly displayed for their wonder and pleasure.

---

"Enchanted and entranced" by learning that God has possibly created them as one of the reprobate, for the sole purpose of eternally damning them?

I cannot conceive of a Christian's bringing into existence children to whom they cannot say that God loves them and Jesus died for them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I wouldn't do it because it would rob them of the wonder of the story. The gospel is the story with which I want them to be enchanted and entranced. If, at some point in the future, after having believed they take an interest in the backstage mechanics of the drama then fine, but not until they've experienced the wonder of what is being openly displayed for their wonder and pleasure.

---

"Enchanted and entranced" by learning that God has possibly created them as one of the reprobate, for the sole purpose of eternally damning them?

I cannot conceive of a Christian's bringing into existence children to whom they cannot say that God loves them and Jesus died for them.

---

One word: covenants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
It just seems natural that, if a person freely chooses to accept the truth, it is a credit to that person for being holier, smarter, more discerning, or what have you.

---

In any discussion such as this there inevitably comes a point when Calvinists deliberately conflate Pelagianism and Arminianism.

---

Where is said connection there?

---

quote:

---

I cannot conceive of a Christian's bringing into existence children to whom they cannot say that God loves them and Jesus died for them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82
I just don't feel like trying to engage with you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
Bear in mind that predestination is not causality...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
...a corrective of the extreme and rather crass "lottery Arminianism" ("he was saved because the missionary didn't get a flat tyre" kind of thinking)...

---

quote:

---

I think the reason why people dislike Calvinism is that they fail to understand that most Calvinist view day to day life just like anyone else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
South Coast Kevin:
Well in my version of Calvinism is it mistaken to equate predestination with causality, and could lead to the preposterous conclusion that there are people who really want to be saved but God makes sure they can't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
God knows "who done it". Presumably he might intervene if he wishes. He often doesn't as far as we can see. So if he doesn't, does that mean he wants it to happen? That it is the will of God that sin happens? We are back to the question of what being governed by an omnipotent God means. Not an absurd question at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
I'd say that somebody positing a link between two things has the burden of proof, not somebody saying, "No, there is no such link."

---

quote:

---

God is an elected official who is in charge of the day-to-day executive functions of the world, but not the legislative or judicial ones. That's the commonplace definition of govern to a citizen of the United States.

The "commonplace" definition of "govern" doesn't apply to God at all. In one sense, if God "governs" the world, then He is the author of evil. There are other senses. None of the senses that apply to God are commonplace ones. So, yes, it does depend on what you mean by "govern" and your handwaving doesn't get you out of defining your terms.

---

quote:

---

What's the alternative, that he wills that person to go bereft of the consolation of the Gospel? Out of what, cupidity? I don't see how this helps your or anybody's case. God gives us both moral and physical agency, and in a sense steps back and lets us act. If God wanted to evangelize the entire world in an instant, He could do so. He does not choose to do so; he chooses to send us.

---

quote:

---

But truly I never said ANYTHING about somebody not hearing the gospel because they don't will to. That's completely beyond the scope of anything I have said. At no point have I ever said that things that people have no control over are a result of their freewill. I have no idea where you got that from. I have no idea where you are intending to take it. It's a complete non sequitur to anything I have ever said on this or any other thread, ever.

---

quote:

---

What? Uh? "God offering grace and people accepting it" is exactly my position. The Calvinist position is God cherry-picking who will accept grace will or no. I think you are grabbing the "chance" thing and extrapolating an entire world of accidents without causation. That's not what is meant by "free will" by me or anybody else.

The question is, are we free to either accept or refuse God's offer of salvation? The Calvinist says no.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What does happen though - and Zach82 won't like this - is that when faced with challenge, many Calvinists will find themselves forced towards unpalatable views because of the restricted and rather 'closed' nature of their system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Remind me not to send any money to the next relief effort from a natural disaster; I might be thwarting God who caused it because he wanted lots of people to suffer and die.

Nice God you've got there, Zach. And I don't give a shit if he is "the God of the Bible", he's still pretty nasty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
When you say no to God you are making an enslaved choice and giving expression to the bondage of your will.

---

This may be some deeper truth about "freedom" but it's just not what the word means in plain English. If you don't have the ability to choose a thing or its opposite, you don't have freedom in that choice. That's what freedom MEANS when applied to choosing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
When you say no to God you are making an enslaved choice and giving expression to the bondage of your will.

---

This may be some deeper truth about "freedom" but it's just not what the word means in plain English. If you don't have the ability to choose a thing or its opposite, you don't have freedom in that choice. That's what freedom MEANS when applied to choosing.

---

Orthodoxy uses all kinds of "plain english" words in a specific and rarified sense. Heck, Christianity has been inventing new words to explain its theological concepts for centuries. Why do we have to allow this "plain english"(i.e. convenient) definition of freedom to dictate our hermeneutic when speaking about what the bible actually says about the nature freedom, enslavement and human responsibility?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I cannot even imagine how you draw the concept of separation of powers from the Bible.

---

quote:

---

The Calvinist says "God must have willed that the mountain village never heard the Gospel." They say it because they believe God could done something about it, but chose not to.

---

quote:

---

[quote][qb]My point in this whole course of conversation is that it is impossible to say that people really are free in your system. Their situations do not offer them the chance to choose the Gospel,

---

quote:

---

and even if they do, the ability to discern the true Gospel is left to chance.

Again, that's just not what I see when I read the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Refusing to accept the consequences of one's convictions is simply irrational.

---

quote:

---

There is no Christian virtue behind saying humans are responsible for their choices, then refusing to thereby conclude that people who choose rightly chose better than those who choose wrongly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
It's especially strange that MT should use the "plain English" defense for one word, but refuse to let me do so for another.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Why do we have to allow this "plain english"(i.e. convenient) definition of freedom to dictate our hermeneutic when speaking about what the bible actually says about the nature freedom, enslavement and human responsibility?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Orthodoxy uses all kinds of "plain english" words in a specific and rarified sense. Heck, Christianity has been inventing new words to explain its theological concepts for centuries. Why do we have to allow this "plain english"(i.e. convenient) definition of freedom to dictate our hermeneutic when speaking about what the bible actually says about the nature freedom, enslavement and human responsibility?

---

I think there are two different things here. Firstly, I agree that Christianity has always been inventing new words, which is fine. But using words that are already in common use and seeking to change their meaning is problematic, ISMT. A word like 'freedom' already has a well-established meaning and I don't see how it's helpful for Christians (or anyone else) to use the word 'freedom' to mean something outside that meaning. We should find - or invent - another word.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
It's casuistry and it's Orwellian.



It's the binary thinking again.

'Oh shit, my system is beginning to crumble, I'd better shore it up by making words out to mean something different to their original or plain sense. I'll jump through hoops to ensure that those words fit what I mean rather than accommodate my beliefs in the light of the challenge ...'

We all do it to a greater or lesser extent.

Some of us do it in spades.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

I don't. You didn't want to take it from the Bible though, you wanted to take it from ordinary language.

---

quote:

---

Then they make God into a bastard.

---

quote:

---

Freedom doesn't lie in what befalls you, but how you respond to it. You are given a choice, A or Not-A

---

quote:

---

Which is why I didn't say it.

---

quote:

---

Which is why it frustrates non-Calvinists when the Calvinists posit a "god" who is a total bastard, but then fail to own it.

---

quote:

---

Nobody has claimed so. What we reject is the claim that those who choose the Gospel do so out of some intrinsic merit; that they "earn" their salvation in a way that gives Calvinists the shit fits. We are sick and tired of being called Pelagianists. This is the black-and-white thinking that Gamaliel spoke of. "Either God chooses some people and not others by an inscrutable divine lottery, or people earn their salvation." No, sorry, those are not the only possibilities.

---

This is an open discussion, if you see more choices than the ones I think sensible, then just name them. It serves no point to complain about false dichotomies.

So far as I see it, in your system people either choose the right religion for a reason, in which case I can see no reason for denying their right to boast in their discernment, or their choice is arbitrary.

I am not arguing about people being responsible for their salvation anyway, so it's not good complaining about it. I am arguing about whether people are responsible for picking the right religion. What faculty of discernment do Christians have that their non-believing neighbors do not?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
None whatsoever. I don't think Mousethief is claiming that Christians have intrinsically better discernment muscles than anyone else.

It's not an issue.

It's only an issue if you make it one and your schema makes it one.

You'll know better than I do, but one of the reasons I've heard for the way that Calvin developed his particular 'take' on things was, alongside legitimate pastoral concerns of course, and the way he inherited late medieval Scholastic ways of thinking, was that he observed that some of his flock were more attentive than others, that some responded to the preaching and means of grace in a more obviously efficacious way than others ...

So that got him thinking ...

And TA-DA ... we know the results.

If he'd been operating within a different frame of reference, an Eastern one, say, then he wouldn't have come to the same conclusions.

The context was addressing issues particular to the 16th century. And, more specifically, to Western Christianity in the 16th century.

Consequently, they are 16th century answers to specifically 16th century problems.

Of course, the issues of theodicy and of freewill and the extent to which that is limited or apparent remain ... but it is possible to address them using different terms of reference.

As for the Tibetan peasant and his choice ... that's covered in Romans 2 anyway, he said simplistically ...


 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I would add, though Karl has disclaimed any interest in the matter, that the Psalms, at least, are perfectly willing to blame God from some of the misfortunes in life, yet all the same cling to him as the author of salvation.

It's a tension I think we ought to take more seriously instead of just explaining it away with lines like "God doesn't do it himself, God just lets it happen!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I would add, though Karl has disclaimed any interest in the matter, that the Psalms, at least, are perfectly willing to blame God from some of the misfortunes in life, yet all the same cling to him as the author of salvation.

It's a tension I think we ought to take more seriously instead of just explaining it away with lines like "God doesn't do it himself, God just lets it happen!"

---

Sounds like Stockholm Syndrome to me - clinging to an abuser because he has convinced you he has your best interests at heart despite his actions.

---

quote:

---

I've just done a quick online search on the meaning of 'predestination' and all the definitions I saw included something about willing or fore-ordaining, i.e. (ISTM) causality. If you mean something else then I think 'predestination' might not be the best choice of word...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82
For myself, I ignored it because I thought you missed the point completely, both of the passage and the issue at hand.

---

I suppose that's one way of chickening out of facing up to a biblical challenge to your position.

Not very noble of you, I must say!

---

A very graceless conclusion from someone who refuses to answer a simple question himself.

---

quote:

---

To be honest, for all the heat this discussion is producing, I don't see much of a difference between the positions on this thread on this particular issue. Both sides are faced with a world containing inexplicable horror, both choose to have faith that God is good after all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Why do we have to allow this "plain english"(i.e. convenient) definition of freedom to dictate our hermeneutic when speaking about what the bible actually says about the nature freedom, enslavement and human responsibility?

---

All I ask is that if you are going to redefine "freedom," you be honest about it, and forthcoming about your definition, when challenged. If you are just going to use the word and refuse to say what exactly you mean by it, you can't then whine when someone takes you to be meaning what the word normally means. If you are going to twist a word to mean something quite different from its normal meaning, then for God's sake admit it, and come clean about what YOU mean by it. That's all I ask.

You appear to think that "freedom" means "being forced to choose what God wants you to." If that's not what you mean, what do you mean? You don't mean it in the ordinary sense. In the ordinary sense, if you are unable to not choose something, then your choice is not free.

---

I don't think I'm twisting the meaning of words when I say that defying God is not an exercise in freedom. I'm not redefining freedom: I'm challenging the idea that defying God is an expression of freedom.

In the context of this debate I think freedom is the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved to sin. Freedom is the absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government (i.e. Satan). Think about it. If you are free from the influence of sin and Satan would you say no to God? I don't think you would. But that doesn't mean that you're being "forced" to obey God; it means that you are being released from your disobedience (i.e. slavery to sin).
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
But many atheists don't think that they are defying God; they just don't perceive one.

I don't think that this is a choice really. My whole family were atheists, and they were just baffled that anybody would be interested in religion, rather like entomology.

I never thought that they could choose to believe in God either.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@EE ... well at least thee and me are talking to each other, so some progress has been made ...


 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
You only reduced Calvinism to vicious caricature like you always do, Gamaliel. If you are really in suspense about where our conversation was going, simply reread every other time we've had a go at discussing Calvinism.

[ 11. November 2013, 16:54: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 

---

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :
 
A question to Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike.
I just heard of the death of a friend, after many years of struggle with breast cancer. She was 45. She leaves behind an 8 year old kid who plays a lot with my daughter. She converted recently to Mormonism and she got a lot of support from them during her illness.
Where is she now according to your belief?
Were her years of suffering foreordained?
This is a sincere question, since it would help
me understand were people really stand.
I am coping with this grief in my own way
and I don't want to hijack the thread on my account. But dealing with concrete examples instead of abstract ones might help highlight both what the two competing positions share and were the real differences lie.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu:
A question to Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike.
I just heard of the death of a friend, after many years of struggle with breast cancer. She was 45. She leaves behind an 8 year old kid who plays a lot with my daughter. She converted recently to Mormonism and she got a lot of support from them during her illness.
Where is she now according to your belief?
Were her years of suffering foreordained?
This is a sincere question, since it would help
me understand were people really stand.
I am coping with this grief in my own way
and I don't want to hijack the thread on my account. But dealing with concrete examples instead of abstract ones might help highlight both what the two competing positions share and were the real differences lie.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

But for now, suffering like your friend's makes no sense to me. I can't explain it, and believing that the God behind it is good is a leap into the abyss.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Which is why I didn't say it.

---

Originally posted by Mousetheif: "The whole world we live in is governed by chance."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
None whatsoever. I don't think Mousethief is claiming that Christians have intrinsically better discernment muscles than anyone else.

It's not an issue.

It's only an issue if you make it one and your schema makes it one.

---

This. Why did I choose to follow Christ? Because the opportunity was presented to me, and it commended itself to me, and I chose to follow through with it. That Zach82 can't see any way to spin this other than works righteousness has nowt to do with me. I refuse to be stuffed into his procrustean bed.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I suppose we'll just leave it at you insisting that the Calvinist conception of God is an evil bastard, and me insisting that your account of salvation is works righteousness.

I might as well move one with my life.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Does your God intentionally cause harm to people or not? If he does not then there is something of the world left to chance. If he does then he's an evil bastard. What am I missing here?

Maybe you would like to address my analogy of the light switch: the switch allows the light to come on, but it is not the source of the power. So our choice allows God to save us, but God's is the power that saves. Would you pay the light switch for the electricity the way you do the power company? No more do you praise the Christian for the salvation that comes from God, merely because they accepted it.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The thing is, of course, that Zach82's response to the tragedy that Ikkyu has informed us of isn't a million miles from what Christians of other persuasions would say.



As to whether I've subjected Calvinism to a vicious caricature, well, I'd like to hear what other Calvinists here say on that one. I've been very even-handed on this thread. I've said more than once that I admire many aspects of the Reformed tradition and said all manner of conciliatory things when some posters have been having a go at their theology.

But that's not good enough for Zach82. Either one has to completely sign-up to his theology or else one is attacking it and subjecting it to vicious caricature.

Again, binary, binary, binary all the way.

Mousethief has nailed it.

'You seem to have a difficult time distinguishing between what I say, and what you derive from it.'

I'll back off from saying anything more as I've been more ad hominem than I intended already.

Suffice to say that I don't think that God is a bastard nor that Zach82 and the other Calvinists here are either.

What I will say is that some - but by no means all - of them allow their theology to back them into some pretty tight corners from which hey have to wriggle very hard to extricate themselves.

The same applies to other doctrines and other theological positions across all Christian traditions. Did you hear that Zach? I said 'other doctrines and other theological positions across all Christian traditions.'

By which I mean traditions other than your own.

So please read what I write and not what you think I'm saying.

Thanks
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
We've done it all before enough times. If you are both going to blame every difficulty on this thread on me, go right ahead. I simply lack the will to put in the effort convince you otherwise.

[ 11. November 2013, 19:48: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I wouldn't do it because it would rob them of the wonder of the story. The gospel is the story with which I want them to be enchanted and entranced. If, at some point in the future, after having believed they take an interest in the backstage mechanics of the drama then fine, but not until they've experienced the wonder of what is being openly displayed for their wonder and pleasure.

---

"Enchanted and entranced" by learning that God has possibly created them as one of the reprobate, for the sole purpose of eternally damning them?

I cannot conceive of a Christian's bringing into existence children to whom they cannot say that God loves them and Jesus died for them.

---

One word: covenants.

---

One word: Irrelevant.

Children of Calvinist parents die unregenerate, covenant or no covenant.

Any NT covenant is between believers and God - unregenerate relations do not come into it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Does your God intentionally cause harm to people or not? If he does not then there is something of the world left to chance. If he does then he's an evil bastard. What am I missing here?

---

This is a classic fallacious argument to absurdity. Calvinist or not, we can ultimately lay all suffering and evil at God's door simply because his creation includes Satan and water in which babies can drown. There is no satisfactory degree of separation which will exonerate God from this responsibility and it isn't just Calvinists who have to answer that objection.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well yes, daronmedway - and for people who aren't either. There are more than these two alternatives.

Or how does that verse in Ecclesiastes go?

'Binary, binary says the Teacher, all is binary ...'



Just to show Zach82 that I'm not blaming him for all the problems on this thread on him but am spreading my lurve and cheekiness to all ...

Unconditionally.


 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sorry, I cross-posted to your response to Mousethief, daronmedway and was replying to your point about covenants.

Pulling your leg aside, I agree that the verse you've quoted holds promise and sweetness for all irrespective of their position on these things.

On your challenge to Mousethief, though, yes, that's a fair point and the issue has been raised and acknowledged several times on this thread that issues of theodicy aren't exclusively a Calvinist problem. I think we're all agreed on that one.

What seems to be the issue here is that the way that Calvinism appears - I said 'appears' - to resolve this particular condundrum raises as many problems as it apparently solves - particularly concerning God's character - which is the issue raised in the OP and which is the issue which EE has consistently stuck to.

I don't think anyone here is pretending that alternatives to Calvinism (and there's more than one as I keep banging on) resolve the issues satisfactorily either. I don't think any schema does - nor can.

But one has to acknowledge, surely, that the more hyper end of the Calvinist spectrum does raise some particularly thorny moral questions. Sure, I know the alternatives do too ... but it does strike me that Calvinism does back itself into a particularly difficult position on this one.

Now, I'm not saying that predestination isn't in the Bible - of course it is. Neither am I saying that I sign up for Open Theism of the Clark Pinnock mode ... I don't. That's a pretty problematic system too.

All I am saying - and yes, at the risk of caricature - is that taken to its logical conclusion - however we cut it - Calvinism can lead to some pretty unacceptable conclusions.

We have to jump through hoops and use all sorts of wriggly logic to avoid those conclusions.

Or else we simply harden our hearts and say, 'Well, that's how it is, if you don't like it, tough ...'

Which seems to be the default position of certain types of Calvinist.

Did you hear that, Zach, I said 'certain types' - not all ...
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
So is there morally no difference between actively doing evil, and creating a world in which evil happens?
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Does your God intentionally cause harm to people or not? If he does not then there is something of the world left to chance. If he does then he's an evil bastard. What am I missing here?

---

This is a classic fallacious argument to absurdity. Calvinist or not, we can ultimately lay all suffering and evil at God's door simply because his creation includes Satan and water in which babies can drown. There is no satisfactory degree of separation which will exonerate God from this responsibility and it isn't just Calvinists who have to answer that objection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
SouthCoastKevin:

quote:

---

I've just done a quick online search on the meaning of 'predestination' and all the definitions I saw included something about willing or fore-ordaining, i.e. (ISTM) causality...

---

Well I'd like to know your sources, but let me assure you that calvinists do not equate predestination with causality. Since they believe that evil acts are predestined but that is would be rank blasphemy to say that God causes evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Acts 2:39
The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off – for all whom the Lord our God will call.

Question. Who is the promise for?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

the covenantal promises, as understood within a Reformed framework, ought to give comfort to Arminian and Calvinist parents alike ... ie. any believing parents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Calvinist or not, we can ultimately lay all suffering and evil at God's door simply because his creation includes Satan and water in which babies can drown. There is no satisfactory degree of separation which will exonerate God from this responsibility and it isn't just Calvinists who have to answer that objection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Calvinist or not, we can ultimately lay all suffering and evil at God's door simply because his creation includes Satan and water in which babies can drown. There is no satisfactory degree of separation which will exonerate God from this responsibility and it isn't just Calvinists who have to answer that objection.

---

What about this - God is responsible for the suffering and evil in the world only in a way that is analogous to the responsibility a parent has for whatever harm their offspring cause. God is responsible for bringing into being Satan, water, wind, tectonic plates, humanity and everything else, but he did so only knowing that they might cause harm, not that they definitely would cause harm.

---

quote:

---

all the definitions I saw included something about willing or fore-ordaining, i.e.. (ISTM) causality..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
I can understand that it is paradoxical to say that God can fore-ordain something without causing it...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
I suppose you believe God caused the death of Christ, so that it may never have happened if God hadn't been there making sure it did. I'd be interested to know. You probably do believe that he fore-ordained it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I guess it depends on whether you'd prefer to put God in the dock for despotism or for incompetence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Acts 2:39
The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off – for all whom the Lord our God will call.

Question. Who is the promise for?

---

Answer: Everyone, of all generations, of all humanity, Jew and Gentile alike.

---

Here's the issue. The answer is in the text. Let's look at it. The promise is for...

1) you ("Yes", say the Christians)
2) your children ("Hurrah", say the Christian parents, especially the paedobaptists and the baptismal regenerationists)
3) all who are far off ("Woo Hoo", say the Arminians)
4) all who the Lord will call ("Yay" say the Calvinists)

[ 12. November 2013, 15:29: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I like that daronmedway.





On the foreknowledge/causality thing ... again, as Anteater says, I'm not sure this is an either/or thing.

It seems to be that there's some inscrutable balance going on that we can't yet fathom until we're invited backstage.

For instance, Peter's Pentecost sermon:

'[This Jesus] ... being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified and put to death ...'

Acts 2:23

How was Jesus delivered/taken?
- By God's 'determined purpose and foreknowledge'. It's not just foreknowledge but 'set purpose' or 'determined purpose' - which sounds like causality to me.

But how was he crucified and put to death?
- By 'lawless hands' or 'by the hands of wicked men' as some translations have it.

Who killed Christ? Men did. Humanity did.

Is their responsibility for that somehow obviated or diminished by the fact that it was by 'God's determined purpose and foreknowledge'?

I don't think so.

Their - and indeed our - culpability remains even though God appears to have engineered and ordained the circumstances in which it took place.

The applies to the Incarnation and all that goes with it as well as the Passion and Resurrection of course - we can't disentangle and fillet individual elements.

So it's both/and, not either/or.

I'm with daronmedway and the other Calvinists on the providential aspects - God mysteriously working in and through the circumstances surrounding these momentous,unprecedented and unparalleled events.

That doesn't necessarily imply a 'wooden' determinism.

The precise mechanics of it all remain a mystery.

I'd stop short, though, of taking things a few stages further and pontificating about how this all works out in terms of election and so on.
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
Is it helpful to distinguish between efficient causality and permissive causality? Also, would a consideration of Amyraldism, or Four Point Calvinism add anything to the debate?
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Is it helpful to distinguish between efficient causality and permissive causality? Also, would a consideration of Amyraldism, or Four Point Calvinism add anything to the debate?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Gamaliel, you are dodging the issue with your sophistication. You can't have it both ways. Either God set-up the crucifixion or it was a plot of diabolical origins.

---

quote:

---

Or it was the predictable outcome of a man doing what He did in the place and time He did it.

---

quote:

---

mousethief: Or it was the predictable outcome of a man doing what He did in the place and time He did it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
mousethief :

quote:

---

Or it was the predictable outcome of a man doing what He did in the place and time He did it.

---

Yo, mousethief! I've no problem with that!

---

quote:

---

The next question is, did God intentionally send him into that place and time, full well knowing that was the inevitable outcome? (Which may or may not turn on the meaning of "the fullness of time.")

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Here's the issue. The answer is in the text. Let's look at it. The promise is for...

1) you ("Yes", say the Christians)
2) your children ("Hurrah", say the Christian parents, especially the paedobaptists and the baptismal regenerationists)
3) all who are far off ("Woo Hoo", say the Arminians)
4) all who the Lord will call ("Yay" say the Calvinists)

---

quote:

---

mousethief: I guess my question is, if God knowingly and willingly sent the Son into a suicide-by-cop situation, with the resurrection in mind (which requires dying before hand), can He wash His hands of Christ's blood?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
My personal take on it is that Christ didn't come to the world in order to die. He came to show us a different way of living in God's light within this world, especially in the way we should treat the weak, the outcast.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I guess my question is, if God knowingly and willingly sent the Son into a suicide-by-cop situation, with the resurrection in mind (which requires dying before hand), can He wash His hands of Christ's blood?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I guess my question is, if God knowingly and willingly sent the Son into a suicide-by-cop situation, with the resurrection in mind (which requires dying before hand), can He wash His hands of Christ's blood?

---

Perhaps the questions that help us answer that are a) what was the alternative? Giving up on creation? and b) was the Son not informed and willing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The question is, did God set the whole thing up? It looks sure as hell he did, but I have a love/hate relationship with the idea. I dunno.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


In my more post-evangelical present, the whole thing seems a bit of a non-issue

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The question is, did God set the whole thing up? It looks sure as hell he did, but I have a love/hate relationship with the idea. I dunno.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The question is, did God set the whole thing up? It looks sure as hell he did, but I have a love/hate relationship with the idea. I dunno.

---

I think the lack of alternative is important. If you identify a coming flood of infected water, and conclude that the only way to save the children is for someone to lift them all up, thus exposing themselves... and your wife says "I'll do that"... then to say that you "set the whole thing up" doesn't seem fair.

It only seems fair if you also caused the flood of infected water in the first place. (And perhaps you could argue about why you don't lift them up rather than your wife, but that's still not "setting it up").

---

I think you're changing the context, backing the frame out to include a lot more. Did God cause the state of the world and of humanity that required Christ's incarnation, death, and resurrection? No, I do not believe so. (Nor did he predetermine it, which means the same thing.) So in that sense, sure, he didn't "set the whole thing up."

But in the more narrow context of the incarnation itself, taking its context as read and as background information, does it make any difference to say "God purposely sent Jesus to die" as opposed to "God sent Jesus into exactly the sort of milieu that he knew would get him killed"?
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I would agree with both of those sentences. The bit I was straining at before was the "set the whole thing up" since "whole thing" to me implies a greater degree of control over the genesis of the scenario, and "set... up" implies an element of whim in the affair, rather than an agonized act borne of necessity.

But if I try to be objective about it I think we are dealing with presentation rather than substance now.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 


@Kaplan, you slight me, sir ...

But I shall not offer pistols at dawn ...

It's a bit like the 'my salvation doesn't imply your damnation' thing. Just because I take a more detached (objective?) approach on these things than perhaps I might have done when I was younger isn't intended as any slight on those who take a different view. Far from it.

If that's a cap you want to fit then wear it.

But it's not one I'm proffering.

I don't think you're a twat or reprehensible in any way for holding the views you do. Why should I?

No, you're quite right, there are serious issues at stake and I don't wish to imply that my ambivalence and agnosticism about some of these means that I don't take the issues seriously.

For instance, Kwesi's challenge upthread on my attempt to unpack the Acts 2 conundrum about 'God's set purpose and foreknowledge' and 'by the hands of wicked men' has raised serious questions for me ... and questions I don't have an immediate or flippant answer for.

Come on, cut me some slack. I do act the clown at times and do lay on some shtick ... but this is meant to be a board for Christian 'unrest' for challenging received wisdom and so forth.

I overdo it at times and have been 'called' and even banned temporarily for doing so inappropriately.

Fine.

But that doesn't mean that I don't take the issues seriously nor feel that people - like your good self - are unsophisticated oiks just because they don't see things the way I do.

Even if they do come from Australia ...


 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I do act the clown at times and do lay on some shtick ... but this is meant to be a board for Christian 'unrest' for challenging received wisdom and so forth.

---

quote:

---

I guess my question is, if God knowingly and willingly sent the Son into a suicide-by-cop situation, with the resurrection in mind (which requires dying before hand), can He wash His hands of Christ's blood? I don't know the answer to that, but it is to me a troublesome question and not one to be lightly tossed aside.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
I would not pose the question in the way you did. Rather I'd place it in the context of God's "calling". The bible is replete with examples of those who exposed themselves to danger and death as a consequence of answering God's call. Jesus significantly links his own treatment to that of the prophets. Do we need to mention the Christian martyrs, starting with Stephen and his declaration; "Was there any prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They killed God's messengers who long ago announced the coming of his righteous Servant and now you have betrayed and murdered him" (Acts 7:52)? Jesus refers to all of this as "taking up ones cross." It would be strange to present this as God having blood on his hands in any commonly understood meaning of the phrase, wouldn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:

As mentioned on previous occasions, the only time Jesus, himself, discussed the topic is in the Parable of the Tenants of the Vineyard, where the death of the son is clearly not the intention of the father. Significantly, this account is included in all three synoptic gospels. Jesus, of course, can foresee what is likely to happen. That is not to say it was what the father desired.

---

quote:

---

For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.

---

quote:

---

He's the Lamb of God, sent into the world expressly to suffer and die.

---

quote:

---

That God planned it does not remove from the people involved the consequences of their actions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
mousethief

quote:

---

He's the Lamb of God, sent into the world expressly to suffer and die.

---

"Expressly to suffer and die." Expressed by who? Where? How does it square with Jesus' own words on his commission: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has chosen me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and the recovery of sight to the blind; to set free the oppressed and announce that the time has come when the Lord will save his people." (Part of Luke 4:16-21)?

---

quote:

---

Returning to the parable of the Tenants of the Vineyard, Jesus' own words on the matter: the father does not send the son to suffer and die but to collect the rent. The death of the son is not willed by the father. It is not the father who has blood on his hands but tenants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Higg's Bosun

quote:

---

That God planned it does not remove from the people involved the consequences of their actions.

---

Why not? I find this mere sophistry!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
mousethief

quote:

---

He's the Lamb of God, sent into the world expressly to suffer and die.

---

"Expressly to suffer and die." Expressed by who? Where?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
mousethief

quote:

---

He's the Lamb of God, sent into the world expressly to suffer and die.

---

The death of the son is not willed by the father.

---

quote:

---

mousethief: He's the Lamb of God, sent into the world expressly to suffer and die.

Kwesi: "Expressly to suffer and die." Expressed by who? Where?

Daronmedway: Jesus himself:
Mark 8:41 Mark 10:45 Mark 14:26-28 Mark 14:36
And St Simeon told Mary the mother of Jesus too Luke 2:34-35
I mean, honestly, this evidence is overwhelming.

---

quote:

---

Mark 8:31 not 41, I think you mean. "The Son of Man will be handed over to those who will kill him. Three days later, however, he will rise to life."

---

quote:

---

Mark 10:45 "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served: he came to serve and to give his life to redeem many people"

---

quote:

---

Mark 14:36."Father," he prayed "My father! All things are possible for you. Take this cup of suffering from me. Yet not what I want, but what you want."

---

quote:

---

Luke 2: 34-35. Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother, "This child is chosen by God for the destruction and salvation of many in Israel. He will be a sign that many speak against" and to reveal their secret thoughts. And sorrow, like a sharp sword, will break your own heart."

---

quote:

---

Returning to the parable of the Tenants of the Vineyard, Jesus' own words on the matter: the father does not send the son to suffer and die but to collect the rent. The death of the son is not willed by the father. It is not the father who has blood on his hands but tenants.

I'd be very careful interpreting every parable as if it were a 1:1 allegory of the life of Christ.

---

quote:

---

Higg's Bosun quote: That God planned it does not remove from the people involved the consequences of their actions.

Kwesi: Why not? I find this mere sophistry!

mousethief: I don't. A person can be held accountable for doing wrong even if it was predictable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Daronmedway:

quote:

---

mousethief: He's the Lamb of God, sent into the world expressly to suffer and die.

Kwesi: "Expressly to suffer and die." Expressed by who? Where?

Daronmedway: Jesus himself:
Mark 8:41 Mark 10:45 Mark 14:26-28 Mark 14:36
And St Simeon told Mary the mother of Jesus too Luke 2:34-35
I mean, honestly, this evidence is overwhelming.

---

Daronmedway, you are to be commended for coming to mousethief's defense, though I would submit your evidence is underwhelming that God intended, nor merely foresaw, the cruel nature of Christ's death.

quote:

---

Mark 8:31 not 41, I think you mean. "The Son of Man will be handed over to those who will kill him. Three days later, however, he will rise to life."

---

There is no hint here of God's intention, is there?

---

quote:

---

44 He said to them, ‘This is what I told you while I was still with you: everything must (Gk. δεῖ) be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.’

45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, ‘This is what is written: the Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day...

---

quote:

---

14 ‘I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me – 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father – and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheepfold. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life – only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.’ John 10:14-18

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
If what [Judas] did was part of a sovereign divine plan then I find it difficult to see how he could be morally culpable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
If what [Judas] did was part of a sovereign divine plan then I find it difficult to see how he could be morally culpable.

---

But that's my point. Was it a sovereign plan? Or just inserting the Son of Man into a situation which predictably led to his death? God hardened Pharaoh's heart; there is no indication he hardened Judas' heart.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
If what [Judas] did was part of a sovereign divine plan then I find it difficult to see how he could be morally culpable.

---

But that's my point. Was it a sovereign plan? Or just inserting the Son of Man into a situation which predictably led to his death? God hardened Pharaoh's heart; there is no indication he hardened Judas' heart.

---

Surely it's essential for God's sovereign plan to involve the timing and the social and geopolitical circumstances of the incarnation? Indeed, a properly sovereign plan would require that kind of consideration.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
He was acting under the enslaving mastery of Satan and the machinations of his own depraved mind so that he did what ought not to be done. He was compelled by evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
He was acting under the enslaving mastery of Satan and the machinations of his own depraved mind so that he did what ought not to be done. He was compelled by evil.

---

Then how can he be responsible for what he did?

---

quote:

---

Kwesi,

quote: 14 ‘I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me – 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father – and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheepfold. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life – only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.’ John 10:14-18

Thoughts?

---

quote:

---

Daronmedway: He was acting under the enslaving mastery of Satan and the machinations of his own depraved mind so that he did what ought not to be done. He was compelled by evil.

Mousethief: Then how can he be responsible for what he did?

Daronmedway: Because he did what he wanted and he wanted to do it. And he didn't just do an evil thing, he was an evil person doing what evil people want to do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Daronmedway

quote:

---

Daronmedway: He was acting under the enslaving mastery of Satan and the machinations of his own depraved mind so that he did what ought not to be done. He was compelled by evil.

Mousethief: Then how can he be responsible for what he did?

Daronmedway: Because he did what he wanted and he wanted to do it. And he didn't just do an evil thing, he was an evil person doing what evil people want to do.

---

I agree with Daronmedway: it is in accord with the Gospel narrative and the understanding of the evangelists; it presents the death of Jesus as a diabolical plot...

---

That doesn't accord with John 10:18 or 1 Corinthians 2:8 or a host of other NT scriptures. And it doesn't sufficiently account for the fact that Jesus said that the OT scriptures spoke of his death and resurrection.
 

---

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Daronmedway, you disagree with me for agreeing with you. I surrender.
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
I took your agreement as playfully disingenuous because you were agreeing with something I hadn't said.
 

---

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Daronmedway

quote:

---

Kwesi,

quote: ... 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheepfold. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. ...’ John 10:14-18

Thoughts?

---

1. In the light of this thread "one flock and one shepherd" might seem a bit too universalist! (Unless, of course, you want to insist Jesus still drew a distinction between sheep and goats).

...

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0