It should come as no surprise that I think the idea of God "failing" is wrong. Indeed, while I can appreciate that someone might feel intellectually compelled to hold such a view, I am genuinely baffled as to how anyone could find it exciting or consoling. Of course, as a good Thomist, I also think that it is true to say "God died on the cross" because the divine and human natures of Christ share a single subject of predication (i.e. the divine person of the Word). But, just to confuse things further, while I think you can (and must) say that "God died on the cross" (and "God was born of the Virgin Mary") you can't say that the divine nature died on the cross (or was born of Mary).

Well, I've got to go off to Rome for a week to consult with the Pope, so when I get back the number of posts on this thread should be in the quadruple digits.

quote:

---

Originally posted by afish:
Stowaway
You say,
“The great irony of "Calvinism" is that, in seeking to remove limitations on the sovreignty of God, it ends up removing all choice from God and making him and us a closed system drifting immovable in spacetime.”

Er how does it do that?

---

Because if God is ineffable (and please don't make me have to go through what that means again!) then the creation that he made was the only creation that he ever could have made. The best of all possible worlds indeed, if you can believe it.

And this creation is determined by the sovreignty of God in all it's dimensions, especially time and it is therefore as frozen as God.

Take Calvinism to its logical conclusion and this is where you get. As far from a straight reading of scripture as it is possible to get.

When I ask concerning God’s electing,
“Why arbitrary? God is always sovereign never arbitrary.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say,
“Exactly my point. Hence the falseness of "U" (Unconditional Election)”
Come on WHY exactly does (for you) unconditional = arbitrary?

Further on you yourself say that unconditional election means;
“ (a) God could save all but chooses not to; based on some (unknown to us) criterion of His own, and those He chooses to save He saves willy-nilly, and those He chooses to damn He damns willy-nilly;”
Exactly, “based on … criterion of His own”. What other criterion should He use? But WHY the “willy-nilly”? Why for you (and other tulip bashers) does, God’s own criterion = willy-nilly = arbitrary?

Now about those poor kids and the mashed potatoes (reminded me of a landlady I once had).
The choice that the elect make is not God or God. It is a real choice, God or NotGod. But the choice they make is, in the end, the choice, they were always going to make and God knew what it was before it was made. None of which (however much people huff and puff) changes the fact that it was/is a real choice. The elect accept salvation always because (in the end) they want it never because they are forced.

Which of course brings us to this,
Mousethief says,
“My counterclaim is that although God COULD save all (if he overrode our free will), he chooses NOT to override our free will.”
Now this raises something which I think is quite crucial. Could, in reality, God save all? I think not. Do I still believe Him to be omnipotent? I do. There are quite a few things that God cannot do. He cannot lie. He cannot sin. He cannot deny Himself. None of which means that He is not omnipotent. I believe that in the matter of salvation/election God CANNOT over-ride the free-will He has given us. Now, of course God CAN and does over-ride freewill. He can and does force us to do things (or not to) . BUT in the matter of whether we choose Him or reject Him, no He cannot over-ride because being willing (not just pretending) is part (maybe even the crucial part?) of the whole deal. Does any of this compromise or diminish God’s omnipotence? Not at all. If God “forced” people into heaven (maybe locking them into the rooms He had prepared for them) that wouldn’t demonstrate his omnipotence it would just be a demonstration of nonsense.

Ok that’s quite enough for tonight, I will resist irresistible grace until another time.

I was using "willy nilly" not to mean "arbitrarily" but rather "regardless of the desires/wishes of the person involved."

It is true, that if God has His reasons, however inscrutable, then it is not strictly speaking arbitrary. But it is irreducibly arbitrary from our point of view, and that is how I was speaking. At any rate it is far more arbitrary than the criterion I believe is used: namely, the response of the individual to the offer of salvation by God.

If you are interested, look at St. John Chrysostom's commentary on the 9th chapter of Romans in his Sermons on Romans. Verrrry interesting.

The passage does not strictly say this. It says that we are saved by the grace of God on the basis of saving faith which he also gives us. It does not say that we did not choose to be saved, or that we did not seek God. It merely says that we cannot boast about our salvation because it is God's gift.

Think of a beggar who goes to the local shopping centre and puts down his hat. He may receive, but at the end of the day, he cannot say that he earned his money. Or rather, he can say it but he would be wrong. And that is the point of the passage.

On reflection, I think the whole problem is one of trying to make God fit into human conceptions. Mousethief is right - you can't pretend to give people a choice when you haven't really. But an illustration from physics follows.

Light is a particle. It is also a wave. Or, rather, its behaviour is best explained in some situations by it being a particle, and in others a wave. Of course, these are contradictory models. But both are true after a fashion. The problem is that what light really "is" has no direct analogies in our normal experience, and therefore we do not have the mental models to really get to grips with it (although we can invent mathematics to do so, like with 4D space...)

So both God choosing us and us freely choosing Him are 'true' after a fashion, inasmuch as neither of them is really completely 'true' in the same what that "my cat is black and white" is completely true.

Practical theology demands that we assume free will, or personal choice, for the unsaved. We can not tell people that they need to make a choice to repent and have faith in Christ whilst assuming that they have no choice. However, once saved, if we look back, what do we see? The Spirit of God quickening our soul and our having nothing to do with our salvation.

On limited atonement, I do not believe, as Mouse does, that God plays craps. Sorry Mouse. When Christ was crucified, he did not give his life on the off chance that sinful men and women might happen to trust in his death for their salvation. Christ died knowing who he was dying for and that he would quicken their soul at just the right time.

That’s my humble thru’pence ha’penny’s worth.

John Wesley’s sermon in response to accusations by Calvinist James Hervey that he was an ‘Arminian’ perhaps best sums up this debate. Wesley may be rightly accused of ducking the issue, but he has a point.

quote:

---

’How dreadful and how innumerable are the contests which have arisen about religion! And not only among the children of the world…but even among the children of God, those who have experienced “the Kingdom of God within them”, who had tasted of “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost”. How many of these in all ages, instead of joining together against the common enemy, have turned their weapons against each other, and so not only wasted their precious time but hurt one another’s spirits, weakened each other’s hands, and so hindered the great work of their common Master!”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
She was raised in the Roman Catholic Church and taught that if she died after she committed a mortal sin and before she confessed it, she would go to hell. The nuns taught her that many of her childish misbehaviors were mortal sins, so she spent most of her childhood trying to avoid hell.

---

Just for the sake of completeness: this is not at all correct Roman Catholic doctrine. (I'll not set forth what is here, unless anyone is interested.) It's very unfortunate that she was exposed to such rot! (And that salvation is a free gift of God was not only scriptural but a statement of the Council of Orange in 529.)

Calvin in no ways attracts me, so I cannot add much to this discussion of a theological viewpoint which I find dismal. However, judging from the liturgy which Calvin formulated - the excommunications as well - it is understandable why Calvin's hopes of introducing frequent communion did not work very well. He had the most pessimistic, miserable view of humanity I have ever seen - and the doctrine of double predestination is not especially comforting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Just for the sake of completeness: this is not at all correct Roman Catholic doctrine. (I'll not set forth what is here, unless anyone is interested.) It's very unfortunate that she was exposed to such rot!

---

Unfortunately, this was widely taught in Roman Catholic elementary schools in America as recently as twenty years ago. Maybe it still is.

I'm sure the reason for this teaching was an attempt to make the children behave. Some Sunday School teachers in other denominations do the same kind of thing.

I started a thread last summer about abusive religious education of children. I take seriously what Jesus said about offending one of the little ones.

End of tangent.

I would be very wary of arguing against such people's Calvinism because it might appear that I was arguing that God does not love them as much as they think He does, or drive them from a gospel of grace to one of works.

Maybe it's time to stop criticising Calvinism and start promoting the wonders of a more open view of God, if we can agree what that is. But building is harder than breaking down.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
On limited atonement, I do not believe, as Mouse does, that God plays craps. Sorry Mouse.

---

There is a person on the boards called Mouse so I'm not sure if you mean her, or me.

I don't believe God plays dice. I thought I had made that clear. This is one thing that turns me off about Calvinism: the seeming randomness of God's choice.

I think Astro has said something very sensible, about people using Calvinism as a sort of crutch until they grow into understanding our freedom in Christ.

Stowaway, I agree that we cannot boast -- if we are saved, it is because God saves us. It would be like a person who has been hauled up out of a well or mine just before it caved in, by a rope being let down and then hauled up. It would be madness for such a person to claim he had "saved himself" because he tied the rope around himself. This is how the Orthodox see salvation: God saves us (lets down the rope and hauls it back up again), but we must accept and appropriate that salvation (tie the rope around our waist*). Salvation takes both, but there is nothing to boast about in the part that we contribute, which is only to voluntarily grab hold of that which God so freely offers.

Reader Alexis

*and, to torment the metaphor even further, God explicitly tells us how to tie the rope and what knot to use, and walks us through tying it until we get it right.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stowaway:
Thanks for that. I will use it in future.

---

With my compliments.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
Light is a particle. It is also a wave. Or, rather, its behaviour is best explained in some situations by it being a particle, and in others a wave.

....

So both God choosing us and us freely choosing Him are 'true' after a fashion, inasmuch as neither of them is really completely 'true' in the same what that "my cat is black and white" is completely true.

---

I am happy with paradox, but not with a logical inconsistency. God is/is not the only decision maker in the universe is not a conclusion that should stand in a systematic theology that is, after all, only a logical construct.

Calvinism is not based on the Bible as much as on a few assumptions. The main assumption is that God must be as big as we can conceive him: in sovreignty, in knowledge, in power, in perfection. In blowing him up as big as possible, Calvinism eliminates mankind as we understand it.

The faith to believe that leads to salvation is something that you make inside yourself.

That's why Jesus could say to those He healed, "Your faith has saved you."

Ephesians 2.8 says, "For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." Grace and salvation are God's gift, but faith isn't a gift from God. The faith to believe and accept God's gift of grace has to come from you.

God has many gifts to give, but the faith to believe isn't one of them. God didn't give Abraham faith to believe in Him. Abraham made faith inside himself of his own free will. That's what we're all expected to do, and if we don't God can't save us.

God is looking for people who make that faith of their own free will. Those are the ones who are worthy to be given grace and to spend eternity with Him. As Mousethief says, You have to grab the rope and tie it around your waist if you're going to be saved. That's your faith, its not a gift from God.

Only those who are humble enough to grab the rope can be saved. The saviour can't save you unless you first grab the rope.

Having faith is what we're responsible for. Those of us who have the faith to believe can take credit for that. Calvin wanted God to have all the credit. He wanted God to have the credit for giving us the faith to believe. But he was wrong. We are responsible for our faith, for making the decision to have faith of our own free will. That is the condition God places on us for grace and salvation.

The faith to believe is not a gift from God. The faith to believe is what we do, and without our faith, faith that comes solely from inside of us, God can't save us. God can't know until the very last moment how many will make the faith to believe.

Calvin got it wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mouse:
Faith is not a gift from God.

The faith to believe that leads to salvation is something that you make inside yourself.

---

Well, is this strictly true? The wide range of evidence from the scriptures (not just Paul, who actually listed "faith" among the gifts of the Spirit) shows an understanding that the power and the will of a person to follow God's ways is itself a gift from God (cp. especially Psalm 119 which is a plea for God to put the speaker on the right path ) It is God who ultimately quickens us, opens our hearts, enlightens us, guides us in the right way.

This debate tends to set two ideas off against each other, whereas the scriptural understanding was always one of creative tension - both/and not either/or. It's an approach which allows you to have Job in the canon without destroying its integrity. And this idea is present in prayers of the church since then - you can see it in BCP collects.

quote:

---

Originally posted by calvin's granny:

Sorry, but it has nothing to do with believing that you are pre-destined. God's word says you are - Romans 8:30[/QB]

---

There are others who keep to it and work out some form of Calvinism that satisfies them. To those people I say fine, but I am also prepared to argue with them in that my understanding of the bible leads me to believe that Christ died for all, that salvation is offered to all, and that we are able to resist God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mouse:
Faith is not a gift from God.

<snips>

Having faith is what we're responsible for.

---

that belief will more than likely sustain you quite well until you are in one pickle of a crisis and need desperately to have God intervene on your behalf....(life-threatening illness, imminent loss of a loved one, being thrown out in the streets penniless, and so forth.)

and then you pray, and you pray, and
think that you have created enough faith within yourself, so that God will surely do something to rescue you
....and what if He doesn't ?

paul clearly talks about the gift of faith. i think this is something different than our "saving faith". this gift of faith is (IMHO) a belief that despite circumstances, things will work out - it is this gift that God chooses gives (or chooses not to give) when we are in those circumstances that you describe, bessie.

the faith that (i think) mouse is talking about is that "saving faith" when we choose to follow God. more of a decision than a belief.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bessie rosebride:
how would we know we have made enough (faith) to guarantee our salvation?

---

Well, I think that it is, and I don't think that that means that I have to swallow Calvinism. God can enlighten us, but it is up to us whether we decide to go with that enlightenment. The parable of the sower is a good illustration here.

We are in agreement Mousethief . This is wonderful! Ok let’s continue.
I said earlier that irresistible grace and unconditional election make a pair. If God elects some then obviously those elected will, in the end, not be able to evade that election. BUT, once again, this will still involve them making a real freewill decision. As we saw without that heaven would be a nonsense. Now it therefore seems obvious to me that to those who are not elected (who reject God by real free will choice) God does not extend irresistible grace, *grace yes* but not to the extent that it is irresistible.

The problem that people have, istm, is in muddling up things which must be either/or and things which can be both/and. The sovereignty of God is an either/or. Either He is sovereign or He is not. Even with human rulers and states though sovereignty has geographic and time limits within those borders and that period of time there is either overall rule (ie sovereignty) or there isn’t. The notion of “limited “ cannot be applied to the notion of “sovereignty” itself without nullifying it.
But concerning God’s sovereignty and mans free will this is not either/or but both/and. God does not stop being sovereign when man chooses to disobey Him or even when man chooses to reject Him totally.

Stowaway
quote – “Because if God is ineffable (and please don't make me have to go through what that means again!) then the creation that he made was the only creation that he ever could have made. …
And this creation is determined by the sovreignty of God in all it's dimensions, especially time and it is therefore as frozen as God.
Take Calvinism to its logical conclusion and this is where you get. …
Sorry! I think that is as clear as I can get!”

Mmm not very clear though. If in another thread you have previously given an explanation of what ineffable means, can you point me to it? In my dictionary it means unutterable. Not at all sure what it has to do with the tulip.
I can see no reasons, logical or theological, why God could not make as many creations as He wants to. Are there any?
Why does the fact that God “determines dimensions” (set limits) imply that He and the creation is frozen? I believe at least 4 of these 5 points which are supposed to encapsulate Calvinism are in accord with what I read in The Bible. I just don’t see this logic which you say leads to a frozen God/creation?
Does Calvin anywhere actually deny that we have free will?

quote – “God is/is not the only decision maker in the universe is not a conclusion that should stand in a systematic theology ..."

Again does Calvin actually claim that ONLY God makes decisions?

quote – “Calvinism is not based on the Bible as much as on a few assumptions. The main assumption is that God must be as big as we can conceive him: in sovreignty, in knowledge, in power, in perfection. In blowing him up as big as possible, Calvinism eliminates mankind as we understand it.”

Wow! I’d like to be around when you and the Frenchman meet up.
What God has revealed to me in The Bible is that He is, among many other things, The Eternal, without beginning or end, The Almighty, sovereign, Lord of all. He also reveals that He has given mankind a lot of unfrozen freedom to choose what they do with their lives and how they respond to Him personally.

And of course, Calvin was a lawyer as his master below... That was propably the main reason why calvinism turned out the way it did

quote:

---

Originally posted by afish:
If God elects some then obviously those elected will, in the end, not be able to evade that election. BUT, once again, this will still involve them making a real freewill decision.

---

They can't evade it, but their decision is free. How can these be reconciled? They are mutually exclusive. This is nonsense. God forces them to make a freewill decision in his favour? Then what do YOU mean by freewill? Because it's certainly not what the English language means by it, namely, that it ISN'T FORCED.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH:
Astro said that Calvinism gives a person the assurance of salvation. That's fine for the tiny fraction of humanity it considers to be saved. The 99%+ who are the canon fodder for the Lake of Fire should feel very bleak indeed knowing they aren't predestined for salvation.

---

And that is the JOY that Jesus kept before Him as He endured the cross!

Aghhh! Good Lord give me strength!
Mousethief beloved brother, you are the one who inserts the word “force” not me. WHY ?
The fact that the God knows our hearts, our days, our decisions before we do is in no way irreconcilable with the fact that the freewill decisions that we make are exactly that. We are not pre-programmed but the whole programme is already know by God. It seems evident to me that when the decision, “Let us create man in our own image”, was taken that God was not gambling. He foresaw all the consequences of that decision and went ahead in that knowledge. If He had not we would not be here now FREELY discussing and FREELY living out the INEVITABLE consequences of that SOVERIEGN decision.

[B]PaulTH[B/]
You say concerning predestination,
“That's fine for the tiny fraction of humanity it considers to be saved. The 99%+ who are the canon fodder for the Lake of Fire should feel very bleak indeed knowing they aren't predestined for salvation.”
How do they know?

I think that, for now, I’ve given this just about all that I’ve got. I’ve found the debate stretching and helpful. Thanks to all involved.
I strongly recommend the link given earlier by Sacred ThreeFrom Augustine to Arminus

(Just incase, the original link is on page 2 of this thread)
but be warned it prints out at 16 sides.

quote:

---

Originally posted by frater-frag:
And of course, Calvin was a lawyer as his master below...

---

Saying that Calvin was wrong is one thing.

Suggesting that Calvin was in the service of Satan is entirely another, an assertion which is a) damaging, b) has the implication that all those who hold to a calvinist theological position are equally in Satan's employ.

According to Christian theology God did become Man and died for our sins etc.

Now, since calvinism states that all humans are allready predestined to either Heaven or Hell, my conclusion is that the Incarnation was un-nescessary, ie, that Christ and his actions didn´t have any impact on the future for human souls.

I could have used up more space, trying to explain what I mean, but, it´s more of a challenge to make it short

And, to call the Laywer beneath for Calvins master was a bit to much... Sorry about that Wood, I withdraw that comment!

quote:

---

Originally posted by afish:
The problem that people have, istm, is in muddling up things which must be either/or and things which can be both/and. The sovereignty of God is an either/or. Either He is sovereign or He is notBut concerning God’s sovereignty and mans free will this is not either/or but both/and. God does not stop being sovereign when man chooses to disobey Him or even when man chooses to reject Him totally.

---

I'm afraid we completely disagree. God does not have to determine all things to be a sovreign. Sovreignty is a both/and. On the other hand God's sovreignty(as defined in Calvinism) and man's free will is an either/or.

quote:

---

If in another thread you have previously given an explanation of what ineffable means, can you point me to it? ... I just don’t see this logic which you say leads to a frozen God/creation?

---

Read my other posts on this thread.

quote:

---

Does Calvin anywhere actually deny that we have free will?

---

We are talking about Calvinism rather than Calvin. But then Calvinism does not always deny free will, as you say. However it contains a logical impossibility - God ordained all things and each individual is responsible for his own actions. A theology that claims to be a logical construct should not contain mutually exclusive statements.

quote:

---

quote – “God is/is not the only decision maker in the universe is not a conclusion that should stand in a systematic theology ..."

Again does Calvin actually claim that ONLY God makes decisions?

---

Is this not the Calvinist definition of Sovreignty?

quote:

---

Wow! I’d like to be around when you and the Frenchman meet up.

---

If some theologies are correct, Calvin has had a few hundred years to observe his creation. I am sure he is not so hot on it now.

quote:

---

What God has revealed to me in The Bible is that He is, among many other things, The Eternal, without beginning or end, The Almighty, sovereign, Lord of all.

---

I said earlier that I think that the culture of Calvin's time influenced the theology. To me that is a given, but I may get some dissenters.

If I remember rightly, the model for the universe in Calvin's time was the clock, and I think that you can see that in Calvinism.

Determinism has ruled in world views until last century when quantum theory arose and it was shown that the underlying nature of the universe was non-determinist and probablistic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by afish:
Mousethief beloved brother, you are the one who inserts the word “force” not me. WHY ?

---

Because you say they cannot evade it. If that's not forced, I'm a rabbit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH:
Astro said that Calvinism gives a person the assurance of salvation. That's fine for the tiny fraction of humanity it considers to be saved. The 99%+ who are the canon fodder for the Lake of Fire should feel very bleak indeed knowing they aren't predestined for salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bessie rosebride:
If you have even the desire to be saved and serve God, that desire came from God. If He hasn't given you the desire for Him, then you won't be in despair over not being "chosen".

---

This is very comfy-cosy, but what about those who have loved ones who are destined for perdition? It would break my heart if my mother (who is not a Christian) or my daughter (who is) were destined for perdition. Is my heart more spacious than God's? Does He not desire their salvation even more than I do? If not, he is an ogre and I would almost rather be damned than bend the knee to such an evil tyrant.

I, myself, have been praying for several years for my former in-laws and my former husband (all of them quite cold towards things of Christianity)...but I dearly want to have them in Heaven and not see them consigned to a horrible eternity...So far, their hearts have not softened, but I continue to pray...

Are our hearts more spacious than God's? At one point when my father-in-law was getting delirious I asked God if I should stop praying for him....immediately I was impressed with the thought of what Jesus said - that none should perish.

I am very comforted by the sentence, which is repeated over and over in our prayers, that says (in myriad ways all being a variation on the same theme) "You are a good God and you love mankind."

God loves us. All of us. This is the heart of Christ's message. This is the heart of Paul's gospel. This is why I think that any "system" which requires one to think that God hates any man, woman, or child -- let alone a huge plurality if not majority of them -- does a great disservice to God, and that's why I used the word "blasphemy." Ascribing hatred of humans to God, who is in point of fact all-loving. This is what's wrong with Calvinism, and the Anselmianism it's based on.