Thread: Bloody calvinists Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029942
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on
:
why are you so sure of yourselves? With your off pat, nicely packaged, systematic answers.
Most weeks we host the bible study (written centrally by the pastor) the type where you have to get the right answer. It seems that everyone except Mrs stoker and I are able to reel off the answers (which are a rehash of the sermon). Last night it was about Pharohs hard heart and of course they're all so sure of what it means, culminating in one of the 20 somethings confidently summing up by reminding us that God creates some poor folk to be destined to hell for his own glory and that it's really good. I guess those are the ones he doesn't love or something......
CAN I GET AN AMEN!
Do they even think about what they're saying or are they so intent on explaining 'the system' it has become abstract to them?
If it wasn't in my own home I would have left.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
AMEN!
Preach it brother!
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
A friend of mine used to go and hide in the bedroom when that happened.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Do they really say that? I mean, that poor people going to hell are created for the glory of God?
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on
:
Oh yes, with bells on!
It glorifys God that he saves some people and not others because....or...something...
In fact, one of the questions was just that "Why is it good that God hardens people?"
Eh?
We are going to a different Church on Sunday....
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
O Thou, that in the heavens does dwell,
As it pleases best Thysel',
Sends aen to Heaven an' ten to Hell,
For Thy glory,
And no for onie guid or ill
They've done afore Thee!
I bless and praise Thy matchless might,
When thousands Thou hast left in night,
That I am here afore Thy sight,
For gifts an' grace
A burning and a shining light
To a' this place.
You could offer to read this in its entirety as your contribution to the study...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
*sigh* -they could be right of course. In which case my inability to cope with a God like that means I'm one of the reprobate. So I might as well ignore it and try to enjoy my three score and ten, four score if I'm spared, since I've been destined for the Pit since the beginning of time.
It's a bit pointless, innit?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
O Thou, that in the heavens does dwell,
As it pleases best Thysel',
Sends aen to Heaven an' ten to Hell,
For Thy glory,
And no for onie guid or ill
They've done afore Thee!
I bless and praise Thy matchless might,
When thousands Thou hast left in night,
That I am here afore Thy sight,
For gifts an' grace
A burning and a shining light
To a' this place.
You could offer to read this in its entirety as your contribution to the study...
Arf - 'pish'd' - arf
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
To be fair, there are Calvinists around who are rather more nuanced than this ... but the whole thing does depend on particular assumptions and an internal logic that begins to unravel when you start to pick at it ...
I often think that Calvinists are forced into a corner by the inexorable internal logic of their own position ... in a similar way that the RCs have painted themselves into a corner with their doctrine of Papal Infallibility.
Our Eastern Orthodox friends, of course, would see both as symptomatic of a kind of inherent over-defining tendency within Western Christianity as a whole.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
When you greet them at your door prior to next week's bible study, perhaps do it wearing this.
If nothing else, it will be interesting to note reactions. Should separate the sheep from the goats ...
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: Do they really say that? I mean, that poor people going to hell are created for the glory of God?
I'll try to burn extra brightly.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I suppose a reasonable explanation might be that God hardens the hearts of those who are already about to reject him. So they have become hard already, and God hardens them a bit more.
But to go beyond this, and argue that God arbitrarily hardens some people's hearts, seems, well, arbitrary.
It would also render any judgment rather odd as well, I suppose, also arbitrary.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Actually, it reminds me of Stockholm syndrome, that is identifying with your kidnapper or torturer. In fact, there is a wider phenomenon often called identification with the aggressor, which includes Stockholm, but also refers to people praising or getting close to their tormentor.
A common example is people marrying someone who despises them or dislikes them, but it happens all over the place, and apparently, also with God!
I forgot to say that Donald Trump also seems to illustrate this - I mean, that he is a bully, and people want to get close to him because of this.
[ 04. February 2016, 15:07: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I'm impressed that they know this stuff. I would put good money on very few / none of my current fellow congregants knowing anything about predestination.
I'm a cradle Calvinist, so lets say I've heard a minimum of 40 sermons a year for the last 35 years, (counhts on fingers, gives up, uses pen and paper) say at least 1400 sermons, and I don't think I've heard a single sermon on predestination. If I have, it's been hedged round with enough waffle for me to miss it.
I would love to hear predestination explained from the pulpit. In fact, I raised the topic in my pre-membership classes when I was 17, and my minister basically told me not to worry my pretty little head about it.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Aren't there lots of stuff that is ignored? How many Christians talk about childbirth being a punishment for women? Well, a few.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
*sigh* -they could be right of course. In which case my inability to cope with a God like that means I'm one of the reprobate. So I might as well ignore it and try to enjoy my three score and ten, four score if I'm spared, since I've been destined for the Pit since the beginning of time.
It's a bit pointless, innit?
Quite. If you can't affect the result, why does it matter how you play the game?
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
In fact, one of the questions was just that "Why is it good that God hardens people?"
Oh, that's just too easy.
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose a reasonable explanation might be that God hardens the hearts of those who are already about to reject him. So they have become hard already, and God hardens them a bit more.
Honest, naive, if somewhat 3-year-old like question: Why? Why should God harden someone's heart more than it is already? (I'm not a calvinist or I guess I'd know this stuff.)
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Stoker: I mean DAMN! what are you doing, going to this church and inviting these nut jobs into your home? Hell, yes, go to a different church and dis-invite the obnoxious bastards from all your cancelled future study nights. Immediately.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose a reasonable explanation might be that God hardens the hearts of those who are already about to reject him. So they have become hard already, and God hardens them a bit more.
Honest, naive, if somewhat 3-year-old like question: Why? Why should God harden someone's heart more than it is already? (I'm not a calvinist or I guess I'd know this stuff.)
I'm not either, but I quite enjoy the logic of these things. I thought that it was reasonable that if you turned your back on God, then God would punish you by hardening your heart even further. Then again, it's not very redemptive!
I suppose this also ends up as 'some will burn, so that others will yearn', or something. I mean, it's educational for us to see people in hell. (I don't really believe that, I'm just supposing).
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose a reasonable explanation might be that God hardens the hearts of those who are already about to reject him. So they have become hard already, and God hardens them a bit more.
Honest, naive, if somewhat 3-year-old like question: Why? Why should God harden someone's heart more than it is already? (I'm not a calvinist or I guess I'd know this stuff.)
I'm not either, but I quite enjoy the logic of these things. I thought that it was reasonable that if you turned your back on God, then God would punish you by hardening your heart even further. Then again, it's not very redemptive!
Continuing to channel the inner three-year-old, I would have thought that a wicked person might well enjoy being wicked and therefore God hardening their heart to enable them to be MORE wicked might actually be viewed as a reward (at least in the short term before the flames and devils get going). And if you're going to get flames and devils anyway, you might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb. (There's got to be some very convoluted theological pun in there somewhere.)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
An odd thing about this stuff, is that it sounds to me more like karma than Christian grace. I mean, that if you become hardened, then karmically you may well become more hardened, since it all rebounds on you. (There is also the idea of already karma, meaning that the bad person is already punished).
Strangely enough, Freud had a similar idea when he reasoned that criminals are not guilty because they commit crime, but commit crime because they feel guilty (or worthless). Opinion varies on this!
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on
:
Romans 1 certainly takes this view, people don't think it's worth living in a Godly way so he gives them over to their ungodly ways..
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, the punishment is the crime. A further complexity (talking about it now in a secular way), is that some people want to be punished, so again, one might surmise that some criminals want to be caught and punished. There is then an interesting sequence of guilt, leading to crime, leading to punishment, which was desired from the beginning. This is not in fact exotic at all, but quite common, (in my view).
Going back to a Christian view, it has one odd result that those who are hardened by God, may actually desire that very thing. As to why God desires it, I suppose to show his sovereignty?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Or of course the whole predestination to damnation stuff could just be pernicious bollocks .
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The strange thing is that it works in a psychological way, but I can't see how it works in a grace-based religion, which emphasizes mercy not sacrifice.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The strange thing is that it works in a psychological way
To justify poor treatment of others? How else?
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Do they really say that? I mean, that poor people going to hell are created for the glory of God?
Some people, I think, really enjoy worshipping a god who would do such a thing (as if such a god actually existed). Often well disguised, of course. You know the kind of person.
The sort who'll talk ruefully and regretfully of how important it is to accept the 'full picture' of God, not just the warm fuzzy stuff. Yes, he's a God of love and mercy - but *sigh* (sad eyes to the floor) he's also a judge and demands justice for all those naughty little sins that get up his nose - him being so holy and all. So *coy giggle* (deprecating little smile) you can't have all that lovely free gifty salvation stuff without eternal torture and endless torment in hell, can you? Oh, if only it could be otherwise! But *sympathetic click of the tongue* it can't. So unless you've been 'saved' in precisely the way we think you should be saved you're going to fry for ever. Shame - but there it is. For some reason it really is necessary for God's peace of mind and sense of righteousness that countless millions burn eternally without hope. *batting eyelids with sad shake of the head*
Religion for psychopaths.
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
Oh dear. Another cradle calvinist here. I remember arguing predestination with my Bible Study leader as a teenager, contending strongly that it wasn't fair, and that God wouldn't be unfair. It's a position I still hold.
We have our loony fringe, I'm afraid. It seems that Stoker's pastor may be hovering around that end of things. But I remind you that calvinist denominations are also among of the most liberal in the world, and if we are all so awful, you might wonder how we managed that. Predestination was never central to Calvin himself, and his theology as a whole has been sorely misrepresented (and misunderstood) by some of his successors. But not only is belief in predestination extremely rare in my denomination now, but it is actively rejected by most of us. Even among the conservatives it is a rare thing in this hard form, as it doesn't fit at all well with mission or evangelism. And like NEQ, I have never heard a sermon about it. In other words, most of us share your outrage at this very bad theology, and we would be happy to give you your AMEN.
With the help of Karl Barth, we really did rethink all this in the first half of the 20th century, and found then that we could be calvinist without being predestination-ist. There is a whole lot more to Calvin than that - a whole lot more grace and kindness and near-univeralism. Please, please, in your grace, grant us a NALT card before condemning us all in one breath.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
It has occurred to me, on occasion, that in order for the adherents of these beliefs to feel really comfortable in heaven, then, even if there is no hell, or it is in fact, empty, someone will have to fashion a facsimile that they can look upon and consider God glorified. Until they work it out and get better.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
*sigh* -they could be right of course. In which case my inability to cope with a God like that means I'm one of the reprobate. So I might as well ignore it and try to enjoy my three score and ten, four score if I'm spared, since I've been destined for the Pit since the beginning of time.
It's a bit pointless, innit?
I thought you were what you said on your tin?
Of course the feckless morons aren't RIGHT!
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose a reasonable explanation might be that God hardens the hearts of those who are already about to reject him. So they have become hard already, and God hardens them a bit more.
But to go beyond this, and argue that God arbitrarily hardens some people's hearts, seems, well, arbitrary.
It would also render any judgment rather odd as well, I suppose, also arbitrary.
Reasonable?! FUCKING REASONABLE?! By what criteria (PLURAL) of reason?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Or of course the whole predestination to damnation stuff could just be pernicious bollocks .
Am I being Aspy literal here? (It has been said). I hope you're being arch.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
With the help of Karl Barth, we really did rethink all this in the first half of the 20th century, and found then that we could be calvinist without being predestination-ist. There is a whole lot more to Calvin than that - a whole lot more grace and kindness and near-univeralism. Please, please, in your grace, grant us a NALT card before condemning us all in one breath.
Here's another cradle Calvinist. (Although there's a reason the Reformed have rarely used the Calvinist moniker themselves; Calvin may loom very large, but there's more to the Reformed tradition than him.)
Predestination is still talked about in the PC(USA), but only in the positive sense—that faith and salvation are gifts from God to which we respond with gratitude—and with Barthian overtones. It's hardly central, and functions much as it did for Calvin (as I understand it), to free us from worry over whether we've done enough or believed hard enough. Double predestination is explicitly rejected; I know of no one who believes it. Many come to something near universalism as a result of predestination.
Yes, there are the fringe Presbyterian and Reformed groups. But it always strikes me as odd that the most ardent hyper-Calvinists often seem to found outside the denominations traditionally considered Calvinist.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I'm officially a member of the Dutch Reformed Church (it merged some years ago with a couple of other churches to form the Protestant Church in the Netherlands). This church has Calvinist roots of course, but this doesn't work through much in practice.
My late grandfather was a rather conservative member of this church. Once, I told him about double predestination. His eyes went wide: what kind of nonsense is this?? I said that this was the basis of our church. Whaaat???
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose a reasonable explanation might be that God hardens the hearts of those who are already about to reject him. So they have become hard already, and God hardens them a bit more.
Honest, naive, if somewhat 3-year-old like question: Why? Why should God harden someone's heart more than it is already? (I'm not a calvinist or I guess I'd know this stuff.)
Well, one (Arminian) possibility is that in order for the free will thing to work, God has to give us the capacity to resist Him.
(Not sure if I find this convincing or not.)
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
quote:
With the help of Karl Barth, we really did rethink all this in the first half of the 20th century, and found then that we could be calvinist without being predestination-ist.
Why didn't I know this? (Hugs Cottontail in manner entirely unsuitable for Hell.) Why didn't my minister tell me that in 1981?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Given that this is, you know, hell 'n all, are we permitted to invite footwasher to the party?
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
What should I believe, a straight idea from the Bible, part of an entire framework of solid, bullet proof Calvinistic theology or the politically correct, idealistic hopes of a dreamer?
(from the "is power the essence of sin" thread in Purgatory)
[ 04. February 2016, 22:07: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
If you can find him. Hopefully nothing externally bad has happened to him in Hong Kong, and I don't mean by the authorities, just circumstantial. And if it's internal ... a change for the good. But I fear not. The Mouth swallowed itself. Peace and healing regardless.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Our Eastern Orthodox friends, of course, would see both as symptomatic of a kind of inherent over-defining tendency within Western Christianity as a whole.
We would?
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: Do they really say that? I mean, that poor people going to hell are created for the glory of God?
I'll try to burn extra brightly.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But to go beyond this, and argue that God arbitrarily hardens some people's hearts, seems, well, arbitrary.
But as I understand it (which admittedly is not perfectly), it's the very arbitrariness that is a positive good. God is no respecter of persons. He rolls a die, and if you get a 6, you go to heaven. Otherwise it would be justification by works and we can't have that. (bit of a black-or-white fallacy but hey, it's Christianity, right?)
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not either, but I quite enjoy the logic of these things. I thought that it was reasonable that if you turned your back on God, then God would punish you by hardening your heart even further. Then again, it's not very redemptive!
But he is not willing that any should perish. Why wouldn't he instead soften their hearts?
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
(There's got to be some very convoluted theological pun in there somewhere.)
Well, if you're hung, you might as well be hard.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
As to why God desires it, I suppose to show his sovereignty?
This is the answer I'm always given. To which my response is: kenosis. God isn't nearly so jealous about his sovereignty as Calvinists are.
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Well, one (Arminian) possibility is that in order for the free will thing to work, God has to give us the capacity to resist Him.
(Not sure if I find this convincing or not.)
I find it convincing. I also think God can outwait us. See Lilith by George MacDonald.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Given that this is, you know, hell 'n all, are we permitted to invite footwasher to the party?
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
What should I believe, a straight idea from the Bible, part of an entire framework of solid, bullet proof Calvinistic theology or the politically correct, idealistic hopes of a dreamer?
(from the "is power the essence of sin" thread in Purgatory)
For what it's worth, footwasher, there is another alternative--a single predestination position that is not calvinist but Lutheran. That one does not believe in predestination to hell (well, maybe to the Ship's Hell!) but only to salvation, and it simply thumbs its nose at the people who call this illogical.
As for God's sovereignty, I know a lot of people for whom this is a major favorite theme, but I don't get the impression that God himself is all that concerned about proving it to anybody. Once in a while it comes up in Scripture, but not nearly as often as mercy and love.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Universal predestination.
Introduce them to Rob Bell's book, "Love Wins"; or Maria Boulding's "The Coming Of God"--the last line of which is "We are unconditionally, irrevocably loved".
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mousethief: I also think God can outwait us.
I like this.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
But Calvin is not a classical predestinarian. In reading his institutes, it feels as if it is the best way he can find to express God's salvific intention as a creature within time when speaking of a God outside of time.
Basically, what Calvin knew was that it spoke wrongly of the nature of God's causality. Our notion of causality is shaped by the fact we can only move forward in time. However as God is not so constrained his understanding is very different. Thus, predestination speaks as of future of what is fact closer to God to the historic present. It is not that God prejudges but for God the moment of creation, salvation and judgement day are one and the same and it is within that we are ourselves.
Now Calvin is very deliberately making his writings persuasive and is using all his lawyer skills to do this. The aim is to get a person to entertain the ideas that he is putting forward. In doing he at times glosses over real difficulties and simplifies. He is also structured and appears highly reasoned. It is almost certain he knew he was doing this. In intention this is good but it has unforeseen consequences.
These are that people mistook the imposed style for the message and have ever since been trying to make Calvin into a great systematic theologian, or surpass him in the systematic approach. They do not see the wily politician and the hard working pastor at work as well (he almost certainly worked himself into an early grave through trying to meet the pastoral needs of Geneva and the wider world). Calvin is all these things. Calvin is neither a modern systematic theologian nor a medieval scholastic theologian but is on the cusp between the two. As such he is almost certainly most interesting when he is struggling towards insight than in those parts where he is transparent.
A good Calvinist should not end up with a tidy theology, but a sense of the overwhelming awesomeness of God. That is not in a position of judgement and pride, but in one of worship and humility.
Jengie
[ 05. February 2016, 08:36: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Ah, one can only be 'elect' if someone else is 'non-elect'.
It rather reminds me of the people who assert that their marriages will be utterly ruined if queers are allowed to be married. If everyone gets it, it won't be special any more.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Yes it is insecurity that often drives this. People play at being more theologically correct than anyone else so that they cannot be seen as outside the Church. It is, of course, nonsense; but a legacy of the intellectualisation of Belief in the West. Emotionally we need to belong, but we seek to do that by being better at getting the answers to intellectual puzzles. Thus, by being fluent in these skills, we can show other people that we are in more than they are.
Jengie
[ 05. February 2016, 09:35: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm glad Jengie's turned up ... but it's made the thread more Purgatorial rather than Hellish ...
@Mousethief, I'm only going on what Orthodox clergy have said to me.
You may very well have a different 'take'. I wouldn't think of you as any the less Orthodox for that.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
but it's made the thread more Purgatorial rather than Hellish ...
In Purgatory, there is an obligation not to be Hellish.
In Hell, there is no obligation to not be Purgatorial.
But throw in a swear word or two if it makes you feel better.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I've never met a calvinist - from what I've read on here I don't want to.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Perhaps you were predestined not to. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Boogie: I've never met a calvinist - from what I've read on here I don't want to.
quote:
Baptist Trainfan: Perhaps you were predestined not to.
(Bloody page break)
[ 05. February 2016, 11:46: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
You've probably met a few, Boogie, but without noticing. Not all Calvinists go around with 'I'm a Calvinist' badge on nor do they all interrogate everyone they meet as to where they stand on TULIP ...
Calvinists can be very nice.
I've known some lovely Calvinists.
Somehow, believing in a somewhat capricious system and schema where the logic unravels if you push it to its logical conclusion, doesn't necessarily make you a complete and utter bastard.
I'm with Jengie on the thing about 'good Calvinists' having a sense of mystery and wonder at the whole thing and not a kind of join-the-dots, painting by numbers guide to who is 'in' and who is 'out' and how you can tell who is Elect or not ...
I've been mildly Calvinistic in the past ... but it's not an issue I get exercised about these days. I don't see the point.
I've been influenced by the Orthodox to an extent. The whole Calvinist/Arminian debate - and I agree with Jengie that Arminianism is itself a subset of Reformed theology (or perhaps reformed with a small r?) - is completely irrelevant as far as the Orthodox are concerned as they are operating with a different and less Augustinian paradigm.
Sure, you'll meet Calvinists who are utter twats - see, I'm taking Orfeo's advice - but then it's possible to meet pricks and pillocks from all Christian traditions.
My brother knew a bloke who was convinced that his own daughter was Reprobate, for instance, and had no possible chance whatsover of being saved.
Bizarrely, he seemed to take some kind of grim satisfaction at the prospect.
What a bastard.
Now, of course, there was probably a whole host of other things going on in his head ... and for all we know he might have had certain paranoid or mental health issues ... an almost psychotic personality disorder perhaps. Who knows?
I'd rather judge any Christian tradition by its best and most admirable representatives rather than its twats.
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on
:
Ah yes, the old single/ double predestination debate. This is another one that frustrates me. If you take the logical conclusion of the arguments for God’s sovereignty in hardening hearts, the only result has to be double:
If I have a load of people, and I have placed them all (through willing the fall of man) to enter a box called ‘fallen’ which has a trap door which will open and drop them into hell, by lifting some of the people out of the box into the other box called ‘saved’, I have
a) caused all the people to enter the ‘fallen/ hell box’.
And
b) chosen some to be saved.
Therefore, I have been an active agent in the fate of both groups.
I think that Calvinists try to minimise the activeness of God in their belief that he has created some with the knowledge that he is sending them to hell. This is where the indefeatble logic of the system breaks down in misrepresenting God’s character and so they have to ‘defend’ their God – “oh no, he hasn’t created them to be sent to hell – he just hasn’t saved them”.
But don’t you see the system, he sent them to hell in the first place.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, that struck me, that the logic is irresistible. If you save some, you have unsaved others. I mean, terms and conditions are laid down by God, aren't they?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
A good Calvinist should not end up with a tidy theology, but a sense of the overwhelming awesomeness of God. That is not in a position of judgement and pride, but in one of worship and humility.
Yes!! As a life-long Presbyterians, raised on the various Reformed confessions and catechisms, this is much, much closer to my experience and to the teaching I received than most if not all of the other stuff mentioned here. The hardening of heart of the reprobate and the like are totally foreign to my experience.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
The novelist Marilynne Robinson describes herself as a Calvinist. The late Ken of this address was also a Calvinist (and defended predestination on these boards).
So that's two people who are Calvinists and otherwise wise and decent.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The novelist Marilynne Robinson describes herself as a Calvinist. The late Ken of this address was also a Calvinist (and defended predestination on these boards).
So that's two people who are Calvinists and otherwise wise and decent.
That boggles the mind. ken was indeed intelligent and decent.
But predestination is anti-Jesus. Without any question.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But predestination is anti-Jesus. Without any question.
Some understandings of predestination, yes. But not all. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas both taught forms of predestination. And as cottontail, noted, there's Barth.
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The novelist Marilynne Robinson describes herself as a Calvinist. The late Ken of this address was also a Calvinist (and defended predestination on these boards).
So that's two people who are Calvinists and otherwise wise and decent.
That boggles the mind. ken was indeed intelligent and decent.
But predestination is anti-Jesus. Without any question.
If you read the thread, lilBuddha, you'll notice that North East Quine, Nick Tamen, Jengie Jon, and myself have all identified as calvinists. And we have all said that calvinism does not equate to double predestination. Nick Tamen gives a very good explanation of what the doctrine is really about, and Jengie Jon fills in some of the more cosmic, philosophical side. No one believes that God sends people to hell for the ... um ... hell of it, and we have also indicated that calvinism can very easily lead to a belief in universal salvation, which is pretty much where it's taken me.
Btw, I've met Marilynne Robinson, and she is amazing. If you haven't read Gilead, do! - apart from its other considerable qualities, it also give you a very good idea of what a deeply calvinist spirituality can be like.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
This is why I did not say Calvinism is anti-Jesus. Dafyd stated that ken defended predestination. And predestination is what I am challenging.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
To be sung to Festal Song (of course):
Sit down, O saints of God,
There's nothing you can do.
It's all predestined, all arranged:
What Calvin said was true!
(Further verses welcomed)
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This is why I did not say Calvinism is anti-Jesus. Dafyd stated that ken defended predestination. And predestination is what I am challenging.
Fair enough as far as it goes. But as I said, there are numerous understandings of predestination. Some of them are pretty mainstream Christianity and some are not. Some can fairly be described as "anti-Jesus" and some cannot be.
So which understanding of predestination are you challenging? The one taught by the Catholic Church? The one taught in Eastern Orthodoxy? The one posited by Calvin himself? The one held by some (but not all) of Calvin's spiritual descendants? The one presented in the 39 Articles? The one put forward by Karl Barth? The one found in more mainstream Reformed churches today? Another one?
And is the understanding you're challenging the one that ken defended?
[ 05. February 2016, 17:22: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I remember Ken's defences of predestination. They were similar to the line I would have trotted out in my more full-on evangelical days. Although these were spent in largely Arminian settings, being the kind of reactionary and awkward bugger that I am, I reacted against some of the 'altar-call' and 'sinner's prayer' type conversion-tactics and the more 'manipulative' aspects of revivalist evangelicalism by moving towards a more Calvinist position - as I understood it at the time.
I always baulked at the Big L in TULIP though ... so if I were ever properly Calvinist (and I have no idea whether I ever really was) then I'd have been a TU IP Calvinists with one of the petals missing.
I'd always heard it said, though, that if you remove one petal the whole of the TULIP head collapses ...
From memory, I thought Ken put up a redoubtable defence - even if it all becomes a circular argument eventually. His argument was that it's Arminianism that is the crueller system of the two as it makes it possible for salvation to be lost ...
I've heard that argument before ... but these days it isn't something I tend to worry my little head about. I'm more than happy to leave the exact mechanics of soteriology to the Almighty.
'Will not the judge of all the earth do right?'
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
A Calvinist and an Arminian fall down stairs.
The Arminian says "I'll have to be more careful next time".
The Calvinist says "I'm glad that's over".
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
I am not a Calvinist but in my simple way I've always thought that if God is omniscient and also outside of time He knows what will happen in the future. In that sense God knows who is destined for Heaven and who might be destined for elsewhere.
We, however, do not know.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Nick Tamen,
I am arguing that the Christian God, as described by Jesus, would not predetermine a person's fate.
IMO, the various sectarian permutations of predestination are people trying to come to grips with the contradiction that a loving, omniscient being would create the world we live in.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
You have to get your head around the classic doctrine of the God being outside time. Then you begin to realise that time does not work for God like it does for us. It might be worth thinking of God's time as initiating with the Christological event and rippling out through history from that both towards creation and towards judgement day*. This does not make things less determined but does give a completely different focus. This means at times God is moving and thinking of time in totally different ways to what we are.
Oh by the way anyone who is Universalist is predestinarian. They just believe everyone is predestined to be saved!
Jengie
*Too human-centric for me, this is just another way God views time, there are many.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
A good Calvinist should not end up with a tidy theology, but a sense of the overwhelming awesomeness of God. That is not in a position of judgement and pride, but in one of worship and humility.
Yes!! As a life-long Presbyterians, raised on the various Reformed confessions and catechisms, this is much, much closer to my experience and to the teaching I received than most if not all of the other stuff mentioned here. The hardening of heart of the reprobate and the like are totally foreign to my experience.
Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner!!!
Hi, I'm SPK, and I'm a cradle Calvinist. A previous minister of mine was a single-predestination guy. And wound up at the same "awesomeness of God" point that I did. Nick Tamen's post describes my minister's and my own position perfectly.
Anyway, this dratted thread again. ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
I was born into a clergy family in the first church that ever pulled off a Calvinist/Arminian merger, two generations before I was born. The whole Presbyterian/Methodist antagonism? Never heard of it before I boarded the Ship. It's irrelevant in Canada.
It's disgusting that Shipmates here can post in the most enlightening way about the Real Presence but then turn around and believe the most appalling strawmen about Reformed theology. It's just like describing a Roman Catholic as a "Papist" in conversation and just as dumb.
Good grief, when did the waters of Lake Geneva turn toxic?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The novelist Marilynne Robinson describes herself as a Calvinist. The late Ken of this address was also a Calvinist (and defended predestination on these boards).
So that's two people who are Calvinists and otherwise wise and decent.
That boggles the mind. ken was indeed intelligent and decent.
But predestination is anti-Jesus. Without any question.
ken was indeed intelligent and decent. But I would hope that, on this point, he knows better now.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Nick Tamen,
I am arguing that the Christian God, as described by Jesus, would not predetermine a person's fate.
IMO, the various sectarian permutations of predestination are people trying to come to grips with the contradiction that a loving, omniscient being would create the world we live in.
Or trying to account for St Paul's remarks in Romans about the potter's clay and the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The novelist Marilynne Robinson describes herself as a Calvinist. The late Ken of this address was also a Calvinist (and defended predestination on these boards).
So that's two people who are Calvinists and otherwise wise and decent.
That boggles the mind. ken was indeed intelligent and decent.
But predestination is anti-Jesus. Without any question.
IIRC, ken's starting point was that the main argument against predestination (that God chooses people to be damned) is actually a problem for any Christian system in which some people are lost. All (non-Universalist) Christian theologies have a God who could save everyone (he's omnipotent), but for some reason doesn't (not all are saved). ken also made the point that others have made here - Universalism is (or can be) a sub-set of Calvinism, one that simply broadens the scope of election to include everyone. Calvinists can hope that God will choose to save everyone, because if he does, everyone gets saved - Arminians have to hope that everyone will eventually choose to accept salvation offered.
I think those were and are all good arguments, but I also think that ken was rather missing the point that a God who positively chooses some people to suffer for ever raises a distinct, and harder, moral problem to that of a God who allows us to make eternally self-destructive choices. Both are problematic - both are terrifying - but not quite in the same way. Though neither is a problem to which a tu quoque response is at all satisfying.
Posted by molopata (# 9933) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I would love to hear predestination explained from the pulpit. In fact, I raised the topic in my pre-membership classes when I was 17, and my minister basically told me not to worry my pretty little head about it.
Apparently, that pretty much sums it up. The medieval contemporaries of Calvin (and generations before) were constantly concerned with prospect of dying and going to hell (or at least purgatory). As I'm given to understand that Calvin designed his teaching of predestination to be a release from the relentless worry and spiritual strain. The starting point was that if you were trying to be saved you probably were.
Of course, in our modern day mind we expect to be saved, regardless. Starting on that premise, predestination doesn't look quite as nice.
I think that if we take Calvin as a child of his time, we discover that he wasn't as bad a chap as he is made out to be.
[ 05. February 2016, 22:16: Message edited by: molopata ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
I think that if we take Calvin as a child of his time, we discover that he wasn't as bad a chap as he is made out to be.
Or as bad a chap as Synod of Dort made him out to be.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Omniscience is meaningless and therefore impossible, as is being 'outside' time. And Ken was NO damnationist.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Martin60: Omniscience is meaningless and therefore impossible
Plenty of meaningless things are possible. I would say that you are the prime example ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Your servant Sir. Omniscience is utterly meaningless. There can be, is, no such thing. Reality is not knowable. Period. Even by the One thinking it. Nothing is MORE provable.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Omniscience is meaningless and therefore impossible, as is being 'outside' time.
Agree. Although technically, omniscience is possible, if one posits a closed universe with no free will. But that would be contrary to Scripture and, as has been hinted out here, contrary to the concept of God as "good". Calvinism is what happens when you try to force-fit a false understanding of sovereignty in to a Bible that has a very different understanding of sovereignty (as in Phil. 2). God as "outside of time" is a desperate dodge to try to make it work-- but it doesn't. Lots of false assumptions there, IMHO.
[ 06. February 2016, 00:22: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
There are only 2 things I "know" about Calvin (and perhaps they aren't even true but I like them anyway).
1. He declared that people are called to all sorts of work, it's not just clergy who have callings.
2. We are suppose to love God for who God is, not for what we can get from God for ourselves. If our focus is "do I get saved?" that is a self centered instead of God centered focus; so it's irrelevant.
I like that idea, that we learn to love and appreciate God for who God is. That makes hell irrelevant to what really matters.
Now that I no longer believe in a punitive hell, the question is doubly irrelevant.
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Omniscience is meaningless and therefore impossible, as is being 'outside' time.
Impossible? Perhaps but...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
Ah yes, the old single/ double predestination debate. This is another one that frustrates me. If you take the logical conclusion of the arguments for God’s sovereignty in hardening hearts, the only result has to be double:
But if you take the "logical conclusion" about other statements about God you'll end up denying the Trinity, Omniscience or Omnipotence and a whole host of things.
Why is believing in single- but not double- predestination a bigger leap of faith - over logic - than believing Three-in-One?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
Ah yes, the old single/ double predestination debate. This is another one that frustrates me. If you take the logical conclusion of the arguments for God’s sovereignty in hardening hearts, the only result has to be double:
But if you take the "logical conclusion" about other statements about God you'll end up denying the Trinity, Omniscience or Omnipotence and a whole host of things.
Why is believing in single- but not double- predestination a bigger leap of faith - over logic - than believing Three-in-One?
Why must you believe either? Why not set aside assumptions and see if there isn't a way of looking at God that doesn't require you to live with so much cognitive dissonance. Sure, God is a mystery and we will never understand everything about divinity, but when "mystery" becomes your answer to pretty much everything, when it's the whole glue trying to cobble together a very messy theology, you gotta wonder... The God of the Bible seems to want to be known-- that seems to be the whole point of the Bible and a big part of the point of the incarnation-- so that we can know the unknowable-- know God. But when we continually throw up our hands and say "mystery" we're not going to know God at all-- it distances us. But Jesus tells us that when we see him, we see God. If we want to know God, know Jesus.
To me Phil. 2 is key to all this. Phil. 2 suggests to me that all of our assumptions about what makes God God-- omniscience, omnipotence, etc.-- are not defining characteristics but simply attributes that can be set aside w/o losing one's essential "Godness". That what makes God God is not "omni-power" but rather "emptying power"-- sacrificial, self-giving love.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
But if you take the "logical conclusion" about other statements about God you'll end up denying the Trinity, Omniscience or Omnipotence and a whole host of things.
Why is believing in single- but not double- predestination a bigger leap of faith - over logic - than believing Three-in-One?
Why are omniscience and omnipotence so important? How have these greek concepts become part of our understanding of God? Usually but not always by the same people who make fun of homoousion.
We can square the circle by tossing out unnecessary baggage.
As for three-in-one, we have tons of experience with things that are three (or some other number) of ONE category, and yet one (or some other number) of some other category. God is not three persons and one person. God is not three gods and one god. God is three persons and one God. There is no logical reason we should conflate "person" and "god". The difficulty of the Trinity is manufactured.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
You're playing my song, mousethief
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Why are omniscience and omnipotence so important? How have these greek concepts become part of our understanding of God? Usually but not always by the same people who make fun of homoousion.
Well, omnipotence is in the Creed—at least in the Latin. (Credo in unum Deum, patrem omnipotentem . . . .) My understanding was that that's the meaning of the Greek, too, but perhaps pantocratora means something a little different?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Why are omniscience and omnipotence so important? How have these greek concepts become part of our understanding of God? Usually but not always by the same people who make fun of homoousion.
Well, omnipotence is in the Creed—at least in the Latin. (Credo in unum Deum, patrem omnipotentem . . . .) My understanding was that that's the meaning of the Greek, too, but perhaps pantocratora means something a little different?
The thing is, you're taking a Hebrew concept, usually translated "almighty", a comforting "God is on our side and he can take care of us" sort of concept, and changing it to a greco-roman concept of air-tight, philosophically sewn-up omnicapability. The immutable force. The problem is, the immutable force is not a biblical concept. It's something of a depersonalization of God. The God of the New Testament is self-effacing and self-emptying. He doesn't stand on his dignity, he steps out of it like St. Francis in Zeffirelli's "Brother Sun, Sister Moon" steps out of his clothes, in order to enter into our nakedness. He self-limits his power to accommodate us.
In kabbala (which I do not believe but showing the concept is not limited to the NT), God actually contracts Himself in order to make room for the world to exist.
As I have said more than once, Calvinists are far more concerned about God's might and dignity than God is. God lays it aside. Calvinists warp logic to keep it intact.
----
"Pantocrator," by the way, is usually translated in the English-speaking Orthodox world as "ruler of all."
[ 06. February 2016, 22:23: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Why are omniscience and omnipotence so important? How have these greek concepts become part of our understanding of God? Usually but not always by the same people who make fun of homoousion.
Well, omnipotence is in the Creed—at least in the Latin. (Credo in unum Deum, patrem omnipotentem . . . .) My understanding was that that's the meaning of the Greek, too, but perhaps pantocratora means something a little different?
But this is a massive problem with Christianity.* EVERY sect uses interpretation. Not going to argue as to who has it right, not my fight, but all do to some point.
So, first, where are the omniscient and omnipotent bits in the bible?
*Buddhism has its interpretative issues also. As does every religion I have encountered. It is a human thing, I am not singling out Christianity, but that is what we are discussing here.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The thing is, you're taking a Hebrew concept, usually translated "almighty", a comforting "God is on our side and he can take care of us" sort of concept, and changing it to a greco-roman concept of air-tight, philosophically sewn-up omnicapability. The immutable force. The problem is, the immutable force is not a biblical concept. It's something of a depersonalization of God. The God of the New Testament is self-effacing and self-emptying. He doesn't stand on his dignity, he steps out of it like St. Francis in Zeffirelli's "Brother Sun, Sister Moon" steps out of his clothes, in order to enter into our nakedness. He self-limits his power to accommodate us.
]
Exactly. This seems precisely what is being said in Phil. 2:5-8:
quote:
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
The conjunction in vs. 6-7 is translated differently in different translations, but I'm partial to this one, which suggests that the kenosis is not some great exception to the divinity, but rather that this sort of self-emptying, self-sacrificial love is the very essence of divinity- the thing that makes God God.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
As I have said more than once, Calvinists are far more concerned about God's might and dignity than God is. God lays it aside. Calvinists warp logic to keep it intact.
Well said. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The conjunction in vs. 6-7 is translated differently in different translations, but I'm partial to this one, which suggests that the kenosis is not some great exception to the divinity, but rather that this sort of self-emptying, self-sacrificial love is the very essence of divinity- the thing that makes God God.
Indeed, Jesus did say he never did anything he didn't see his Father do first.
Orthodox theologian Bulgakov* says creating the world and particularly man was not some voluntary and arbitrary choice that God made, but flows directly from God's very nature. God is a creator by nature and not by choice. He couldn't NOT create us.
____
*not the same Bulgakov who wrote The Master and Margarita which is also a good book
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
That seems very, very suspect to me. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The thing is, you're taking a Hebrew concept, usually translated "almighty", a comforting "God is on our side and he can take care of us" sort of concept, and changing it to a greco-roman concept of air-tight, philosophically sewn-up omnicapability. The immutable force.
Fair enough. But it seems that, given this, the question isn't "Is a God omnipotent?" It's "What do we mean when we say God is omnipotent?"
quote:
The problem is, the immutable force is not a biblical concept. It's something of a depersonalization of God. The God of the New Testament is self-effacing and self-emptying. He doesn't stand on his dignity, he steps out of it like St. Francis in Zeffirelli's "Brother Sun, Sister Moon" steps out of his clothes, in order to enter into our nakedness. He self-limits his power to accommodate us
As I have said more than once, Calvinists are far more concerned about God's might and dignity than God is. God lays it aside. Calvinists warp logic to keep it intact.
Without a doubt, this can be a danger when things get of whack. (And every "ism" has its own dangers when things get out of whack.) And I guess a true Calvinist might say it's emphasized so much because otherwise we humans in our depravity would ignore it totally. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I can only say that in my experience, it hasn't proven true, I don't think. I have heard the kenosis of God preached, and praised, about as much as I have heard the sovereignty and might of God preached and praised—if not in actual time spent on each subject, then in terms of the overall importance given to each over time. I at least have never seen them as mutually exclusive, except perhaps in a paradoxical way.
quote:
"Pantocrator," by the way, is usually translated in the English-speaking Orthodox world as "ruler of all."
Thanks. I did know that's a common translation, but I thought I recalled it can also be translated along the lines of "all powerful," which lead to not being sure what the Orthodox would understand it.p to mean.
Food for thought, even in Hell.
[ 07. February 2016, 00:41: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
That seems very, very suspect to me.
Thaaaaat's Niiiiice. Are you going to discuss it, or just pass gas? Of course just passing gas is fine for Hell. But we are, in fact, having a pretty good discussion here.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Fair enough. But it seems that, given this, the question isn't "Is a God omnipotent?" It's "What do we mean when we say God is omnipotent?"
True enough. I wonder if "omnipotent" as a translation of "pantocrator" doesn't smuggle in some baggage not present in the Greek, and start the western concept of God's omnipotence (to use the common English word) off on the wrong foot? I've heard there are other places in the Creed where that is said to have happened (by the Orthodoxen of course) but at the moment I don't remember what they are (sorry!).
quote:
Without a doubt, this can be a danger when things get of whack. (And every "ism" has its own dangers when things get out of whack.) And I guess a true Calvinist might say it's emphasized so much because otherwise we humans in our depravity would ignore it totally.
If I ignore it, it's because God predestined me to do so.
quote:
I have heard the kenosis of God preached, and praised, about as much as I have heard the sovereignty and might of God preached and praised—if not in actual time spent on each subject, then in terms of the overall importance given to each over time. I at least have never seen them as mutually exclusive, except perhaps in a paradoxical way.
Of course I have no experience of your experience, and base my opinion on my own experience, in particular my experience of the discussions on the Ship.
quote:
quote:
"Pantocrator," by the way, is usually translated in the English-speaking Orthodox world as "ruler of all."
Thanks. I did know that's a common translation, but I thought I recalled it can also be translated along the lines of "all powerful," which lead to not being sure what the Orthodox would understand it to mean.
I have never heard it translated that way, at least not that I knew that was what was being translated. In particular, I have never, ever heard the icon of Christ Pantocrator being described with words like "all powerful" or "omnipotent" or "almighty." Always "ruler of all."
quote:
Food for thought, even in Hell.
As I said just above, this has been a very fruitful thread, food-for-thought wise.
[ 07. February 2016, 01:05: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
That seems very, very suspect to me.
Thaaaaat's Niiiiice. Are you going to discuss it, or just pass gas? Of course just passing gas is fine for Hell. But we are, in fact, having a pretty good discussion here.
I give it another page before it drives the Hell Hosts mad.
But don't let that stop from having a nice hate-on about Calvinism. A person like you who claims to be a universalist and Orthodox at the same time has ZERO credibility to against Calvinism.
Don't you have an accordion to screw?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Don't you have an accordion to screw?
Have you been drinking again?
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
No, through obviously you are not a Gentleman from 19th Century Russia as your accordion playing makes the Baby Jesus cry.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I give it another page before it drives the Hell Hosts mad.
As a thorough-going Arminian, I can think of no better place for discussing Calvinism and predestination than these infernal realms.
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
But if you take the "logical conclusion" about other statements about God you'll end up denying the Trinity, Omniscience or Omnipotence and a whole host of things.
Why is believing in single- but not double- predestination a bigger leap of faith - over logic - than believing Three-in-One?
Why are omniscience and omnipotence so important? How have these greek concepts become part of our understanding of God? Usually but not always by the same people who make fun of homoousion.
OK, well I thought I was choosing examples of things which are generally agreed on but cause problems for "logic". Clearly that was naive.
quote:
As for three-in-one, we have tons of experience with things that are three (or some other number) of ONE category, and yet one (or some other number) of some other category. God is not three persons and one person. God is not three gods and one god. God is three persons and one God. There is no logical reason we should conflate "person" and "god". The difficulty of the Trinity is manufactured.
But for me at least that introduces a new problem, namely God as a category. This reminds me of something Andreas used to say about Father, Son and Spirit are all "God" in the same way that you and I are both "Man". However I always though that was just Andreas. If that's what you mean, if that's just standard Orthodoxy, well it's a bit of a mind-fuck for me, but I can see why Trinity was a poor example for my argument.
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
Ah yes, the old single/ double predestination debate. This is another one that frustrates me. If you take the logical conclusion of the arguments for God’s sovereignty in hardening hearts, the only result has to be double:
But if you take the "logical conclusion" about other statements about God you'll end up denying the Trinity, Omniscience or Omnipotence and a whole host of things.
Why is believing in single- but not double- predestination a bigger leap of faith - over logic - than believing Three-in-One?
Why must you believe either? Why not set aside assumptions and see if there isn't a way of looking at God that doesn't require you to live with so much cognitive dissonance.
By "either" are you referring to double vs single predestination or the Trinity?
I'm not sure either of these rises to the level of cognitive dissonance for me. Partly because I got used to the idea early on that there would be things about God which weren't containable in my brain.
And I believe in predestination because that's what the bible seems to say. At least I used to. My current thinking on the bible is in flux and may change.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Double predestination is simply a logical consequence of being saved by "grace alone".
It was inevitable for reformation theology to get its knickers in such a knot.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
What SPK, it's suspect that God has to create, from eternity therefore, infinitely, or not be God?
What would He be otherwise?
What astounds me is that the implications of God are by-passed by Western Christianity.
mousethief and I aren't on speaking terms because I've been an arsehole with him once too often, but he is of course right. The West does some mystery - big thinking, but the East does it much more.
If God then all is well. ALL. Since eternity. God has ALWAYS created. The multiverse is infinite and eternal in God.
It creates only ONE problem for orthodoxy. Jesus. How many hypostases have there been? orthodoxy says one. Logic says infinite exponentiating.
Unless, for eternity, God was not creator. Which is ... illogical to the point of meaningless. Null.
I was trying to explain things like this to my poor wife yesterday, having trapped her in the car. Omniscience is meaningless. Even God, thinker, reifier of all that eternally has been, sustainer of an infinity of quantized stuff, of stuff that can only be if it is quantized, cannot know, even 'by the spirit' what its state is other than indeterminate. It has, can have, no other state. Under ANY circumstances.
I have completely demolished magical thinking in myself and my wife, but we're left with Jesus. Thank God! But in her, the rational but not pathic trajectory, is to regard God as nonsense. My counter is that existence is nonsense, you're no better off, apart from by one layer of complexity, without God. We're ALL left with nonsense. God or no God. Except with God there is purpose. There is transcendence. In Christ we have eternal life now.
And so it has ALWAYS been. It is pathetic, insane hubris to imagine that we are quantitatively significant.
The intensity of Divinity - like zero point energy being an average - is such that we ARE individually significant in infinity.
Just like the empty rooms that God is completely present in, has an infinity of viewpoints of, along with the infinity of perceptions of all other phenomena of course, when no one is even looking in the window. How does He integrate all that eh? What is His point of perception?
Not even suspect I'm sure.
Meaningless ramblings as the best analyticalisticalists here will tell you.
They're just not smart enough.
You see if God is PRACTICALLY, really 'omnipresent', which He is to the degree that he's omniscient, it has implications for His perception.
Which luckily - which has nothing to do with it - is omnipathic.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
For quantitative (significance) read ordinal, but not in Cantor's sense. First, second, third. We're infinitest+n.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
No, through obviously you are not a Gentleman from 19th Century Russia as your accordion playing makes the Baby Jesus cry.
You are a very silly man.
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
And I believe in predestination because that's what the bible seems to say.
And it also seems to say the opposite. Interpretation. Tradition.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Double predestination is simply a logical consequence of being saved by "grace alone".
It was inevitable for reformation theology to get its knickers in such a knot.
Dayum I keep agreeing with Evensong. Is that hooves I hear?
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
When I did a little reading on Calvinism vs Arminianism I found it interesting that the Arminians went to such great lengths to frame their ideas in such a way as to NOT to run afoul of the idea that God was sovereign. Calvinism was the gold standard on this, so the Arminians tried mightily to put their ideas out there in such a way as to not be heretical on this point. Whether people had a choice in matters of faith didn't seem primary in the Reformation world. These days the gift of free will is such a given that where God's sovereignty comes into it doesn't get much play. Except among some Calvinistic hold-outs such as those in the OP, evidently.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Predestination = God is a sadistic bastard. Like Zeus or Odin.
Free will = God is a sadistic bastard, if it includes the condition of accepting God in this world is part of being "saved".*
"We cannot know God" is a cop out if you at all use the bible as justification for either of those positions.
SPK, and any other predestinophiles, tell me how I'm wrong.
*Really, it it includes a hell at all.
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on
:
What I suppose (correct me) is the primary text on judgement (Sheep and Goats in Matthew 25 31-46) has always appeared to me, if not totally salvation by works, damnation by works.
Then again "I never knew you" rather suggests pre-knowledge, if not pre-destination. But why would God create beings He "never knew"rather completely?
I cling to universalism as my last best (and perhaps only) Hope, even though I've been told here that I lack Faith.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It's all right agingjb. Jesus was making it up as He went along, just like the rest of us. Greater works than He shall we do. In making up better.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
When I did a little reading on Calvinism vs Arminianism I found it interesting that the Arminians went to such great lengths to frame their ideas in such a way as to NOT to run afoul of the idea that God was sovereign. Calvinism was the gold standard on this, so the Arminians tried mightily to put their ideas out there in such a way as to not be heretical on this point. Whether people had a choice in matters of faith didn't seem primary in the Reformation world. These days the gift of free will is such a given that where God's sovereignty comes into it doesn't get much play. Except among some Calvinistic hold-outs such as those in the OP, evidently.
It's a given, but holding mutually exclusive positions about predestination and/or foreknowledge and free will is quite common among most all Calvinists and not a few Arminians.
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
And I believe in predestination because that's what the bible seems to say.
And it also seems to say the opposite. Interpretation. Tradition.
True. But on balance and in the context of my background/tradition that's the conclusion I came to.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I can see Sober Preacher's Kid's problem ... God being 'forced' or 'compelled' to do anything - even by his own nature - seems counter-intuitive somehow ...
But then, is Bulgakov's suggestion/notion any more iffy than that of many Calvinists who suggest that God 'has' to limit the atonement in order to defend his own justice, holiness or integrity?
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
At least the Bulgakov/Orthodox model is far more Mysterious and positive ... the idea of God creating from all eternity is a far more attractive one, surely, than God condemning from all eternity?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I like the bit in the Orthodox Liturgy which describes God as 'good and a friend of man' - or of 'mankind'/humanity depending on the translation.
It doesn't say that God is a capricious bastard.
Sure, I know that Calvinism and Reformed theology properly understood needn't lead to that conclusion either - and as Jengie says, it's proper response is to instill a sense of awe and wonder.
However, it's the hoops it has to jump through that achieve that that bother me ... but then, the same might be said of other traditions/Traditions and formularies.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
And I believe in predestination because that's what the bible seems to say.
And it also seems to say the opposite. Interpretation. Tradition.
True. But on balance and in the context of my background/tradition that's the conclusion I came to.
So, "I believe in predestination because that's how my tradition taught me to read the Bible."
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
And I believe in predestination because that's what the bible seems to say.
And it also seems to say the opposite. Interpretation. Tradition.
True. But on balance and in the context of my background/tradition that's the conclusion I came to.
So, "I believe in predestination because that's how my tradition taught me to read the Bible."
Mmm, sort of. If by "taught me to read the Bible" you mean handed me a ready-made interpretation which I decided I agreed with then not really*. If you mean that the tradition I came up in inevitably influenced how I came to interpret the Bible then of course yes.
Two other things are worth saying. First I'm not sure what my "tradition" actually is or even whether it's coherent. I was brought up a Methodist but have passed through various other denominations but always within Evangelical churches. So it's not like I haven't heard a variety of positions on various issues. So on predestination I've heard sermons and so on arguing for and against. I've been in Arminian churches and Calvinist ones and ones that wouldn't use either label.
Which leads to the second thing which is that more than a particular position on predestination my tradition has taught "the answers are in this book". So on a given issue I arrived at a position based on hearing a number of competing points of view, each argued from the Bible, and I tended to adopt the ones that seemed most convincing. From time to time I'd be persuaded to change my views.
At least that's the theory, not saying I ever did it perfectly in practice. As I said a lot of it was probably inconsistent if you looked at it in detail.
These days I have a lot more open questions because as I said earlier I'm trying to figure out whether the Bible really will take that kind of weight. It's messy and uncomfortable but *shrug* it's where I am.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
fwiw, that seems to this evangelical to be a good-- and honest-- place to be.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Predestination = God is a sadistic bastard. Like Zeus or Odin.
Free will = God is a sadistic bastard, if it includes the condition of accepting God in this world is part of being "saved".*
"We cannot know God" is a cop out if you at all use the bible as justification for either of those positions.
SPK, and any other predestinophiles, tell me how I'm wrong.
*Really, it it includes a hell at all.
You're wrong to the extent that you seem to be assuming that "predestination," "saved" and even "hell" each have a single meaning accepted by all Christians.
As mentioned many times in this thread, there are many understandings or versions of predestination. Universalism is one of them, but I doubt you'd suggest that a God who has predestined that all will be saved (whatever we mean by being "saved") is a sadistic bastard, like Zeus or Odin.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
, but I doubt you'd suggest that a God who has predestined that all will be saved (whatever we mean by being "saved") is a sadistic bastard, like Zeus or Odin.
Yes, actually, I would. If omniscience is on the table. If your God willingly allowed the suffering that people go through, even with heavenly reward at the end, what other conclusion can one make? If you remove omniscience and omnipotence, as some here have, then you have a case for a decent creator.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
, but I doubt you'd suggest that a God who has predestined that all will be saved (whatever we mean by being "saved") is a sadistic bastard, like Zeus or Odin.
Yes, actually, I would. If omniscience is on the table. If your God willingly allowed the suffering that people go through, even with heavenly reward at the end, what other conclusion can one make? If you remove omniscience and omnipotence, as some here have, then you have a case for a decent creator.
I used to make sense of it in terms of a homogeneous material universe, which God keeps intact, so that it's not magical. But hang on, what is the virtue in that? But why am I bringing virtue into it? Anyway, I gave up.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
, but I doubt you'd suggest that a God who has predestined that all will be saved (whatever we mean by being "saved") is a sadistic bastard, like Zeus or Odin.
Yes, actually, I would. If omniscience is on the table.
So another qualification added.
That's the problem with simple, unqualified assertions like "predestination=God is a sadistic bastard."
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
, but I doubt you'd suggest that a God who has predestined that all will be saved (whatever we mean by being "saved") is a sadistic bastard, like Zeus or Odin.
Yes, actually, I would. If omniscience is on the table.
So another qualification added.
That's the problem with simple, unqualified assertions like "predestination=God is a sadistic bastard."
It isn't a qualification but an establishing of conditions.
If God is merely a player, trapped in a set script like the rest of us, then Christianity is meaningless.
If he had control, we start wandering towards dark territory.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
, but I doubt you'd suggest that a God who has predestined that all will be saved (whatever we mean by being "saved") is a sadistic bastard, like Zeus or Odin.
Yes, actually, I would. If omniscience is on the table.
So another qualification added.
That's the problem with simple, unqualified assertions like "predestination=God is a sadistic bastard."
True. But I'm struggling to see what qualifications could be added to predestination in which God is NOT a sadistic bastard. Not saying there aren't any, just saying I can't think of any and haven't seen any on this thread.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Why are omniscience and omnipotence so important? How have these greek concepts become part of our understanding of God? Usually but not always by the same people who make fun of homoousion.
Well, omnipotence is in the Creed—at least in the Latin. (Credo in unum Deum, patrem omnipotentem . . . .) My understanding was that that's the meaning of the Greek, too, but perhaps pantocratora means something a little different?
Pantokratora is better translated...wait for it...as "All-Sovereign" than "Almighty."
Although, to be fair, the ideas are related.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
When I did a little reading on Calvinism vs Arminianism I found it interesting that the Arminians went to such great lengths to frame their ideas in such a way as to NOT to run afoul of the idea that God was sovereign.
That's because the Arminians were, after all, Reformed.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Double predestination is simply a logical consequence of being saved by "grace alone".
Double predestination: Calvinism as theological pornography. Successor televangelists perfected the money shot. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
And I believe in predestination because that's what the bible seems to say.
And it also seems to say the opposite. Interpretation. Tradition.
True. But on balance and in the context of my background/tradition that's the conclusion I came to.
So, "I believe in predestination because that's how my tradition taught me to read the Bible."
Is this serious, 'cause the Orthodox sure play the Tradition card a whole lot.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Is this serious, 'cause the Orthodox sure play the Tradition card a whole lot.
Well, of course, but they're upfront about playing it.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Is this serious, 'cause the Orthodox sure play the Tradition card a whole lot.
Well, of course, but they're upfront about playing it.
Exactly my point.
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on
:
Well, we finally left the Church. The pastor did the hard bit for us by preaching such a gospel + conservative evangelical sermon that it was there on a plate! One week of worry later, a difficult conversation and a home visit from the elders and we're free!
Farewell reformed conservative evangelical 'bible believing' church!
(He is convinced there isn't another church in our town, or maybe even county that's preaching the gospel - turns out in 2 weeks, we've found 2 already)
[ 17. June 2016, 17:53: Message edited by: Stoker ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Depends on what he means by 'preaching the Gospel' of course. If he means preaching the Gospel in exactly the way he understands it, then that might limit things a little ...
But I'm glad you seem on your way to something that might be more conducive for you and yours, Stoker.
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
Well, we finally left the Church. The pastor did the hard bit for us by preaching such a gospel + conservative evangelical sermon that it was there on a plate! One week of worry later, a difficult conversation and a home visit from the elders and we're free!
Farewell reformed conservative evangelical 'bible believing' church!
(He is convinced there isn't another church in our town, or maybe even county that's preaching the gospel - turns out in 2 weeks, we've found 2 already)
Good luck in your new church(es). What kind(s) have you tried so far?
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0