|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Was John Calvin a Calvinist?
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
So God can't love everyone because that's not covenental? Hence the need to create vessels of wrath?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's all right Mousethief: '...covenantal love towards the unlovable.' means EVERY ONE.
Although the word 'covenantal' is of course redundant and more is always less.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So God can't love everyone because that's not covenental? Hence the need to create vessels of wrath?
That is why I said that the analogy breaks down when you move to God --> lots of people.
However, Eliab has asked the question and I've offered the start of an answer.
IF we are talking about notions of love that apply to everyday human life then my question (putting it the other way round, as it were) still stands - what does it mean to say "I love everybody"? I think I could say that with some measure of sincerity but, in practice, it means nothing to anyone living in Greenland. For any mortal, love means choosing to act towards someone, but therefore not towards everyone else.
Now, at this point one might want to say something like "but it's different with God, he can love everybody in an active manner, 'cos he's God." If so, then it seems Eliab is wanting to have his cake and eat it - analogies will always break down when we move from the divine to humanity. This applies to universalism as much as to calvinism.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So God can't love everyone because that's not covenental? Hence the need to create vessels of wrath?
That is why I said that the analogy breaks down when you move to God --> lots of people.
However, Eliab has asked the question and I've offered the start of an answer.
IF we are talking about notions of love that apply to everyday human life then my question (putting it the other way round, as it were) still stands - what does it mean to say "I love everybody"? I think I could say that with some measure of sincerity but, in practice, it means nothing to anyone living in Greenland. For any mortal, love means choosing to act towards someone, but therefore not towards everyone else.
Now, at this point one might want to say something like "but it's different with God, he can love everybody in an active manner, 'cos he's God." If so, then it seems Eliab is wanting to have his cake and eat it - analogies will always break down when we move from the divine to humanity. This applies to universalism as much as to calvinism.
Then what has been said above is true -- you can't learn about human love from God's love.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
But what could it possibly mean to say we should love as God loves if you're a calvinist?
Your love should be covenantal. Like in marriage. Covenantal love must be exclusive, that is the point. It doesn't mean that you do not love others but it does mean that there is a commitment to the one you have covenanted to love.
That's not what 'exclusive' means. Exclusive does mean that you don't love others.
Also, I don't know about you, but I don't find my wife unloveable. You can say that what we learn from God's love is that we should love the unloveable, or you say that it has to be exclusive and covenantal on the model of marriage. But you can't say both at the same time.
Also: it's not news to arminians and universalists that we can't love all humans indifferently. It's part of our condition as created beings. We learn to imitate God within our condition, not outside it. You, however, want to treat that not as part of our condition but as an instruction (as if we were somehow tempted to try to love everyone equally).
Also: you have heard it said "you shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy". But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (Matt 5:43-45)
The idea that our love (agape) is supposed to be exclusive and covenantal doesn't appear there. Not at all.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Then what has been said above is true -- you can't learn about human love from God's love.
Possibly. In which case that would apply to both sides of the discussion.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That's not what 'exclusive' means. Exclusive does mean that you don't love others.
Fine, let's use a different word then.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Also, I don't know about you, but I don't find my wife unloveable. You can say that what we learn from God's love is that we should love the unloveable, or you say that it has to be exclusive and covenantal on the model of marriage. But you can't say both at the same time.
Yes you can. I may be initially attracted to my wife because I find her lovable, but once the covenant is entered into I am called to love her equally when I find her lovable and when I don't.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Also: it's not news to arminians and universalists that we can't love all humans indifferently. It's part of our condition as created beings. We learn to imitate God within our condition, not outside it. You, however, want to treat that not as part of our condition but as an instruction (as if we were somehow tempted to try to love everyone equally).
So I was right earlier - you do want to have your cake and eat it. Apparently arminians are allowed to factor in the difference that our created state makes but not calvinists.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Also: you have heard it said "you shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy". But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (Matt 5:43-45)
The idea that our love (agape) is supposed to be exclusive and covenantal doesn't appear there. Not at all.
Quite right. The bible talks about God's love in all sorts of different ways. Something like Don Carson's The difficult doctrine of God's love might be a good place to start. So either we try to reduce all depictions of God's love in the bible down into meaningless vanilla or we try to remain faithful to all the nuances.
As I said initially the idea of covenant would be a start to how a calvinist might answer's Eliab's initial question. I never said it would be the full story.
[ 02. November 2010, 02:01: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Apparently arminians are allowed to factor in the difference that our created state makes but not calvinists.
Or is it that their theology precludes it, whereas Arminian theology does not?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Apparently arminians are allowed to factor in the difference that our created state makes but not calvinists.
Or is it that their theology precludes it, whereas Arminian theology does not?
Doesn't that explain why this thread keeps coming to a premature stop?
It does feel as if this has become one of those threads where one group are told what they really believe so that another group can bash them over the head with a stick.
And this coming from someone who isn't even a proper calvinist - I don't accept Limited Atonement for a start - there is too much sauce for both goose and gander.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Your love should be covenantal. Like in marriage. Covenantal love must be exclusive, that is the point. It doesn't mean that you do not love others but it does mean that there is a commitment to the one you have covenanted to love.
It seems to me that you are drawing on that part of Calvinism which is common to most Christians. Unless I've misunderstood you. We all have the Hebrew scriptures in our Bibles, and it would be hard to read those and not notice at least a vaguely covenanty theme.
quote:
Actually it is the universalist and arminian who need to explain how it works out in practice. For them loving like God is just motherhood and apple pie.
Now I'm certain I've misunderstood you. What apple pie has to do with the price of fish, I have no idea. Motherhood, though, is a pretty good picture of the sort of deeply personal and deeply unconditional love that I would have thought that God shows in his covenants, so I am baffled as to the implied contrast.
I think you are saying that to a universalist and arminian love means something wishy-washy, abstract, and sentimental. But it doesn't. I don't know where you get that from at all.
quote:
When I, as a human being, say "I love everyone" in reality it is meaningless.
That's only because we don't actually love everyone. We can see what it might mean for God to love everyone, and we can start to copy that. We can start by trying to love everyone with whom we come into contact. We can try to be considerate and caring to people whom we would be inclined to despise or ignore. There's nothing wishy-washy about that.
quote:
So if I'm going to love like God then I have to live up to that example of love - covenantal love towards the unlovable.
Again, that's something that most any universalist and arminian could agree with (if it means what I think it does).
I'm not at all sure whether you're saying that the Calvinist should try to copy that sort of love towards "everyone" (ie. everyone he comes into contact with and so could potentially love in a practical and non-abstract way) or only an exclusive subset of that group. If he tries to love "everyone" then he clearly isn't, even in his limited scope, seeking to copy what is distinctive about Calvinism. If he has to love only some of that "everyone", then he's aping God, not copying him, because he has no idea at all how God elects those with whom he has this covenant relationship, and cannot even begin to imitate that.
I do accept that there is much more to a Calvinist's faith than the points on which Calvinism is distinctive. There's a vast amount about God's grace and faithfulness which is common to Christendom and even that Calvinists especially emphasise, and this certainly inspires a great deal of very real and costly Christian love. However it is precisely those distinctive Calvinist teachings that challenge our view of love (because they are inscrutable even to Calvinists, and appear to other Christians to be contrary to anything that might be loving at all) that don't translate. We couldn't love in a way that reflects that even if we tried. When Calvinism says "Jesus did not die for these people - God has not chosen to save them - they will suffer for ever and have not been given the grace to have had any chance of escape - they were made for destruction"* it seems unloving to me. I can get a theology which believes that and says "nonetheless trust that God has his good reasons". I can't get a theology which believes it and says "change your view of love so that this seems a good thing to you". How could I even begin to do that?
(*If you call yourself a Calvinist and would repudiate that belief as strongly as I would, then you aren't one of the Calvinists I'm arguing with.)
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
...
It does feel as if this has become one of those threads where one group are told what they really believe so that another group can bash them over the head with a stick.
...
It always does:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
When Calvinism says "Jesus did not die for these people - God has not chosen to save them - they will suffer for ever and have not been given the grace to have had any chance of escape - they were made for destruction"* it seems unloving to me.
...
(*If you call yourself a Calvinist and would repudiate that belief as strongly as I would, then you aren't one of the Calvinists I'm arguing with.)
See, here Eliab is doing just that.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
See, here Eliab is doing just that.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
The whole point of my note was to acknowledge that there are Christians who see themselves as Calvinist (and I'm certainly not saying that they shouldn't) who would not assent to that quoted summary or wouldn't express it in that way. I am not telling anyone what they "really believe". The note is there to make that exact point.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
When Calvinism says "Jesus did not die for these people - God has not chosen to save them - they will suffer for ever and have not been given the grace to have had any chance of escape - they were made for destruction"* it seems unloving to me.
See, here Eliab is doing just that.
Which part of Eliab's summary do you disagree with?
It seems to me that one can't disagree with Eliab's summary without also disagreeing with at least one of the points of TULIP.
(If you're arguing that God knows who wouldn't choose to accept the grace given to them and therefore predestines those people to damnation, that disagrees with the I. If someone can not accept the gift of grace, then grace is not irresistible.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Well Calvin would disagree with the statement
"Jesus did not die for these people"
So you could well be a Calvinist and disagree with that.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That's not what 'exclusive' means. Exclusive does mean that you don't love others.
Fine, let's use a different word then.
As Eliab says, we're supposed to be discussing what is distinctive about Calvinism (read TULIP).
If you're not saying 'loving some people means not loving others' what about what you're saying isn't the common property of all Christians?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Also, I don't know about you, but I don't find my wife unloveable. You can say that what we learn from God's love is that we should love the unloveable, or you say that it has to be exclusive and covenantal on the model of marriage. But you can't say both at the same time.
Yes you can. I may be initially attracted to my wife because I find her lovable, but once the covenant is entered into I am called to love her equally when I find her lovable and when I don't.
There's something of a problem in saying that you find someone unloveable
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Also: it's not news to arminians and universalists that we can't love all humans indifferently. It's part of our condition as created beings. We learn to imitate God within our condition, not outside it. You, however, want to treat that not as part of our condition but as an instruction (as if we were somehow tempted to try to love everyone equally).
So I was right earlier - you do want to have your cake and eat it. Apparently arminians are allowed to factor in the difference that our created state makes but not calvinists.
So all that you've been saying about love being covenantal and "exclusive" derives from the difference that our created state makes? So it doesn't derive from the way in which God loves? We're not learning anything from how God loves?
You've missed the point of my last sentence.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
(Matt 5:43-45)
The idea that our love (agape) is supposed to be exclusive and covenantal doesn't appear there. Not at all.
Quite right. The bible talks about God's love in all sorts of different ways. Something like Don Carson's The difficult doctrine of God's love might be a good place to start. So either we try to reduce all depictions of God's love in the bible down into meaningless vanilla or we try to remain faithful to all the nuances.
There's remaining faithful to all the nuances, and then there's tying yourself up into knots by creating false difficulties. This isn't just a matter of complementary nuances - this is Jesus directly telling us to imitate God in a way quite contrary to the way in which you're saying imitating God leads us.
(By the way, natural vanilla flavouring is one of the most expensive substances on earth by weight.)
[code]
[ 04. November 2010, 01:13: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It seems to me that you are drawing on that part of Calvinism which is common to most Christians. Unless I've misunderstood you. We all have the Hebrew scriptures in our Bibles, and it would be hard to read those and not notice at least a vaguely covenanty theme.
True - but my argument is that our understanding of covenant in western culture has been heavily influenced by Augustinian Christianity. For example, since marriage is a ubiquitous metaphor for the divine covenant in the scriptures, we tend to retain residual 'calvinistic'* overtones to our understanding of marriage. Sure, society is frequently reacting against that definition but it is still fairly common currency.
Hence, I think you need to demonstrate that there is such a concept as covenant that is totally devoid of any calvinistic nuance. Most of us are highly inconsistent in our views (I quite probably am) it is quite easy for armininians to simply unconsciously appropriate elements of calvinism and vioce-versa if they like them.
* calvinistic is in quotes here to refer to a more general reformed augustinian tradition within church history rather than specifically TULIP and 16th century councils.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I think you are saying that to a universalist and arminian love means something wishy-washy, abstract, and sentimental. But it doesn't. I don't know where you get that from at all.
quote:
When I, as a human being, say "I love everyone" in reality it is meaningless.
That's only because we don't actually love everyone. We can see what it might mean for God to love everyone, and we can start to copy that. We can start by trying to love everyone with whom we come into contact. We can try to be considerate and caring to people whom we would be inclined to despise or ignore. There's nothing wishy-washy about that.
Yes, you have misunderstood me. I'm not saying that arminianism must be wishy-washy. I'm merely trying to reflect back the way you are handling calvinism and trying to show what it might look like if the same argument was applied in reverse.
Here you are using the word love is many different ways. I'm not saying that it is wishy-washy but I would argue that it is meaningless. The devil is in the detail - given my finite human state and lack of resources how do I show love to everyone I come into contact with?
Obviously a loving act towards everyone will look very different depending on who it is and my relationship to them. Most of us, whether consciously or not, prioritise our relationships. And then we act accordingly. So, for example, I give away food to homeless people who live in my area when they come calling but I would make sure that I have enough food for my family first. To choose a more controversial example I love my wife and children equally but I prioritise my relationship with my wife over them as an expression of covenant faithfulness. Or put it this way, I love my children by loving my wife - especially when they were younger and needed the assurance of my love they could see that I would always love them because I am faithful to their mother. Loving my wife is loving them.
I've probably expressed this rather clumsily but I would argue that the principle I'm trying to get at comes from the calvinistic concept of covenant faithfulness.
I'm happy to expand on this if you are interested but I think this is one of the central points of Malachi. "I have loved Jacob, Esau I have hated" is about covenant faithfulness. In the same way that Jesus does not literally want us to hate our family I think here it is about priorities, about putting someone first. Then in chapter 2 Malachi makes the link between the breakdown of the covenant and the breakdown of marriage.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Now the danger of this approach is that it can be an excuse for tribalism (as indeed happened with Israel) - so I put my family or my church first and ignore everyone else. I don't think this is the fault of calvinism though. If I put God first in my life then I know that he calls me to show practical compassion to my neighbour. Likewise if I put my family first I know that it is loving them to welcome strangers and outcasts into our midst.
When Calvinism says "Jesus did not die for these people - God has not chosen to save them - they will suffer for ever and have not been given the grace to have had any chance of escape - they were made for destruction"* it seems unloving to me. I can get a theology which believes that and says "nonetheless trust that God has his good reasons". I can't get a theology which believes it and says "change your view of love so that this seems a good thing to you". How could I even begin to do that?
(*If you call yourself a Calvinist and would repudiate that belief as strongly as I would, then you aren't one of the Calvinists I'm arguing with.)
I get that you are not particularly arguing with me because I do not hold to Limited Atonement. However, on a thread entitled 'Was John Calvin a Calvinist?" (where JJ has just answered "No!") it does seem as if you are trying to marginalise calvinism.
Put me straight if I'm misunderstood you but your argument looks to me like this:
1. Calvinism has a rigid definition of TULIP.
2. People who don't agree fully with TULIP cannot really be calvinists.
3. The large sub-set of 'calvinists' who don't accept TULIP fully share so much in common with arminians we might as well just call everyone arminians.
4. Yeah, the wicked witch of Geneva is dead!
5. The old debate is over, arminianism has won.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As Eliab says, we're supposed to be discussing what is distinctive about Calvinism (read TULIP).
If you're not saying 'loving some people means not loving others' what about what you're saying isn't the common property of all Christians?
If everyone who is not a calvinist has to sign up to all Five Articles of Remonstrance (without any quibbling) then you have a point. Otherwise, you don't.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
something of a problem in saying that you find someone unloveable
What is the problem? (BTW I said when (i.e. on the occasions) I find her unlovable.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So all that you've been saying about love being covenantal and "exclusive" derives from the difference that our created state makes? So it doesn't derive from the way in which God loves? We're not learning anything from how God loves?
No, I am saying we learn from how God loves, but I am also saying that we cannot copy him exactly since he is God.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There's remaining faithful to all the nuances, and then there's tying yourself up into knots by creating false difficulties. This isn't just a matter of complementary nuances - this is Jesus directly telling us to imitate God in a way quite contrary to the way in which you're saying imitating God leads us.
Come on Dafyd that is crass proof-texting of the worst order. Jesus also told us to 'hate our father and mother". Sun and rain are completely impersonal - and yet you admit that love is not supposed to be indifferent. Indifference is surely the logical conclusion from Matthew 5?
Oh, just perhaps, it is slightly more complicated than that.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I've probably expressed this rather clumsily but I would argue that the principle I'm trying to get at comes from the calvinistic concept of covenant faithfulness.
Actually, I think you expressed it very well. I'm happy to concede that covenant faithfulness is important in Calvinist thought, and might well influence (to the good) how a Calvinist defines ‘love'.
However covenant faithfulness is not exactly a challenge to ideas about love in the way that hardline-TULIP theology often is. This line of discussion started with Sharkshooter answering the objection to Calvinism "but that's not loving" by (as I understood it) saying that if you find TULIP principles in the Bible as a description of God, then it must be, and our definition of love needs to change. My point is that it can't, not in any practical sense, because TULIP can only be loving if there is stuff going on that we just don't understand and can't copy.
quote:
Put me straight if I'm misunderstood you but your argument looks to me like this:
1. Calvinism has a rigid definition of TULIP.
2. People who don't agree fully with TULIP cannot really be calvinists.
3. The large sub-set of 'calvinists' who don't accept TULIP fully share so much in common with arminians we might as well just call everyone arminians.
4. Yeah, the wicked witch of Geneva is dead!
5. The old debate is over, arminianism has won.
1. Yes. Also (contra Jengie Jon) I think TULIP can be argued compellingly from the exegetical principles used by Calvin in the Institutes, that it is not at all a departure from his theology, and if TULIP believers are included in what we mean when we say "Calvinist", then Calvin himself must be too.
2. No. Calvin's clearly bigger than that. Also, it's not as if Calvin claimed to be writing Scripture. I think that if one is a member of a church in the Calvinist reformed tradition, and/or draws significantly on that body of theology for inspiration and guidance, one has every right to call oneself a Calvinist whether one believes every word of a particular formulation, or not.
3. Ish. I actually have no idea what Arminius believed. "Arminian" is (AFAICS) almost exclusively used to mean "A-Christian-who-is-not-a-Calvinist-particularly-not-in-the-TULIP-sense". And as it's a useful word for that purpose, I propose to employ it thus. So, yes, there are lots of Calvinists differing very little from Arminians.
4. No. There's more to the Reformed tradition than that. I'd happily see TULIP dead and buried, but I could not possibly wish that the whole Calvinist enterprise of engaging with the Bible and proclaiming the grace of God should cease.
5. I wish. However previous discussions I've had on the Ship about Calvinism persuade me that the "rigid definition of TULIP" is alive and well, and that there are even people prepared to say that if you believe that there is any human element whatever in accepting salvation, then you are trusting in your own works and thus not saved. Although it's fair to say that the Ship's intelligent and thoughtful Calvinists seem to adopt a distinctly Jebusite defensive strategy when we've had that sort of discussion, and leave it to the morally blind and lame to hold the walls.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So who's damned and who's saved ?
What proportion of the one hundred billion of us ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
However covenant faithfulness is not exactly a challenge to ideas about love in the way that hardline-TULIP theology often is.
But I think it is.
God chose to bless the whole world by entering into a covenant firstly with one man (Abraham) and then with one nation (Israel).
Love means choosing someone over someone else. In our experience we know that already - those we love want 'special time' with us (to the exclusion of others); when the homeless ask for food they asking that we feed them and not someone else (even if they are not aware of that); when talking to someone we feel especially valued when they are not distracted but make us feel as if we have their full attention. And so on ...
It is not loving to listen to everyone equally at the same time. It is loving to give full attention to each person we meet, but that will mean giving more to some than to others.
I'm arguing that love means choosing X over Y and that we get that notion from the strand of church tradition in which calvinism stands. Also I'm arguing that acting like this is actually loving towards the whole world.
What I'm saying may sound obvious and you will think that it is shared by all Christians but my point is that we owe the calvinist stream for this insight. (Whether we are calvinists or not.)
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
This line of discussion started with Sharkshooter answering the objection to Calvinism "but that's not loving" by (as I understood it) saying that if you find TULIP principles in the Bible as a description of God, then it must be, and our definition of love needs to change. My point is that it can't, not in any practical sense, because TULIP can only be loving if there is stuff going on that we just don't understand and can't copy.
I know that you said that but I don't see how your criticism sticks. Ever since the beginning Christians have wrestled with what we emulate from God and what we can't (just because he's God). In all our theology we reach limits where this kind of question comes into play.
The most obvious example is the WWJD? bracelets. IMO they are simply an excuse for lazy thinking and simplistic answers. Integrity demands that they should renamed: What would I do if I were Jesus? Of course we should all try to copy Jesus - but does that mean turning water in to wine? What about dying for the sins of the world?
In practice all of us filter our desire to imitate Christ through our own hermeneutic. Calvinists and non-calvinists alike. I don't try to copy God's predestination, I do try to copy the principles about love that I learn from it though.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
1. Yes. Also (contra Jengie Jon) I think TULIP can be argued compellingly from the exegetical principles used by Calvin in the Institutes, that it is not at all a departure from his theology, and if TULIP believers are included in what we mean when we say "Calvinist", then Calvin himself must be too.
Guilty by association? Are you really putting that out as an argument?
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
3. Ish. I actually have no idea what Arminius believed. "Arminian" is (AFAICS) almost exclusively used to mean "A-Christian-who-is-not-a-Calvinist-particularly-not-in-the-TULIP-sense". And as it's a useful word for that purpose, I propose to employ it thus. So, yes, there are lots of Calvinists differing very little from Arminians.
Thanks for clarifying that - I thought you were saying this but wanted you to confirm it first.
I agree completely that most people use arminian in this way, but my point is that it is a rather disingenuous form of argument. By using an opposing term you make it sound as if you are criticizing one systematic theology and putting forward a better one. You aren't. You're just taking pot shots from a safe distance.
That is fair enough. Obviously I wouldn't be on the Ship if I thought theology was above criticism. I just don't think it is fair to compare apples with oranges. IMO any systematic theology is going to have weaknesses (since it is impossible to box in an infinite God) but it is one thing to point out said weak points but it is another all together to put up a better, more coherent, systematic theology of your own.
It is easy to take the same kind of pot shots at Dafyd's quote from Matthew 5. If we really tried to love everyone the way the sun and the rain does we would be impersonal and indifferent. Now, of course that is not what Jesus meant - because we need other definitions of love (like the notion of choosing from calvinism) to add nuance.
BTW You may be interested in some of the Five articles of Remonstrance (with which you are siding):
quote:
Article III — That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free-will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing."
Article IV — That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of an good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without that prevenient or assisting; awakening, following, and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements that can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But, as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, inasmuch as it is written concerning many that they have resisted the Holy Ghost,—Acts vii, and elsewhere in many places.
There's a very good case for arguing that this is much more calvinistic than this large group of people you want to put a hoop over would be happy with. You might want to rethink the labels you reach for.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
5. I wish. However previous discussions I've had on the Ship about Calvinism persuade me that the "rigid definition of TULIP" is alive and well, and that there are even people prepared to say that if you believe that there is any human element whatever in accepting salvation, then you are trusting in your own works and thus not saved.
Too true.
Are all Muslims terrorists? Are peaceable Muslims just inconsistent in their faith?
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Although it's fair to say that the Ship's intelligent and thoughtful Calvinists seem to adopt a distinctly Jebusite defensive strategy when we've had that sort of discussion, and leave it to the morally blind and lame to hold the walls.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I'm really sorry that I wasn't there when Samuel anointed you with oil - it must have been quite a spectacle. Do you really think that you have what it takes to unite all Israel?
Thanks for making me think about this more.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So who's damned and who's saved ?
What proportion of the one hundred billion of us ?
God knows.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Love means choosing someone over someone else.
I'm sorry - I don't see this. It's not of the definition of love that love doesn't mean that you do not love others.
[ 03. November 2010, 23:27: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
<cough>
Ahem.
Drum roll please.
... and the winner of the 2010 triple negative is ...
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Love means choosing someone over someone else.
I'm sorry - I don't see this. It's not of the definition of love that love doesn't mean that you do not love others.
I think that you are taking the apophatic tradition a little too far here Dafyd. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I have always agreed that we are called to love everyone. What calvinism brings to the party is that it is actually loving to everyone to choose to show love to some over others, at different times.
So, for example, when I choose to go out for a night with my wife I am choosing her over my children but I still think I am showing love to them as I do so. Loving my wife is loving my children.
What calvinism brings to the definition of love is that frequently my actions may be perceived as unloving at the moment of action - e.g. when I refuse to give cash to a guy who I know really wants it for grog or when I invest time training a community worker because I know that, although I'm not spending that time directly with people who need care, the worker will be able to spend more time (in the long-run) than I can.
All of this, I would argue, flows from the doctrine of election.
IMO the general statement 'we are called to love everybody' quickly turns into 'I will love those I find easy and convenient to love.' However, Election carries with it the sense that I am committed to love people regardless of whether I find it easy or convenient. Which is why any definition of love that completely jettisons any sense of election is so much poorer as a result.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So, for example, when I choose to go out for a night with my wife I am choosing her over my children but I still think I am showing love to them as I do so. Loving my wife is loving my children.
I think this is a serious misuse of the concept of "choosing over" -- you are in essence equivocating on that term and trying to import implications of one meaning into the other.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So, for example, when I choose to go out for a night with my wife I am choosing her over my children but I still think I am showing love to them as I do so. Loving my wife is loving my children.
I think this is a serious misuse of the concept of "choosing over" -- you are in essence equivocating on that term and trying to import implications of one meaning into the other.
I'm surprised that you cannot see the irony of this comment MT.
Eliab and Dafyd have argued that our definition of love does not need calvinism. My point all along has been that such a position is only possible by equivocating and importing implications from elsewhere.
Instead I'm conceding that all of us do that - but that we need to import all the various scriptural nuances to love into our definition,a nd be upfront about so doing.
For example, I'm trying to be fair to the OT concept that God is 'jealous' - indeed, in Exodus 34: 14 he says that his very name is 'jealous'. (I'm sure you know that in Hebrew someone's name is much more than just a label it conveys part of their very presence.)
We all know petty human jealousy and how selfish and controlling it can be. And yet, there is a sense in which true love must be jealous - it would not be a good reflection on my love for my wife if I was not jealous if she was spending more time with another man than me. It would reveal that my love for her is very shallow.
In 2 Corinthians 11: 2 the Apostle Paul says that he is trying to imitate this 'godly jealousy' and he uses the same word that the LXX uses in Exodus 34. Clearly Paul was able to make the step from 'God loves me with a jealous love' to 'I must love others with a jealous love'.
Of course I'm not justifying all jealousy (the NT itself reflects this tension) but any Christian definition of love must surely incorporate something of this concept of jealousy.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
What it sounds like is that you find some word in the Scriptures that is taken to describe God, and you cast around looking for something in our peer-to-peer human life that you can possibly glom it onto.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What it sounds like is that you find some word in the Scriptures that is taken to describe God, and you cast around looking for something in our peer-to-peer human life that you can possibly glom it onto.
Unless you are also saying that Paul is doing this as well then it is a pretty weak response.
If that is all I'm doing then it should be very easy to demonstrate from scripture, tradition and society.
(Qanah is hardly 'some word' - it is everywhere in the OT. And, as I said, it is something that Paul tries to emulate.)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Hmm. Immediately before he says he's jealous for the Corinthians, Paul says "I hope you'll put up with me in a little foolishness."
How seriously do we take the very next verse? He goes on to talk about preparing the church for Christ, and nothing beyond that first sentence is the least bit foolish. Except for the idea that a man can have a godly jealousy? How do you read 1 Cor 11:1?
Does "weak" answer mean "one that contradicts me"?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Does He now Johnny ?
And He loves conditionally ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Hmm. Immediately before he says he's jealous for the Corinthians, Paul says "I hope you'll put up with me in a little foolishness."
How seriously do we take the very next verse? He goes on to talk about preparing the church for Christ, and nothing beyond that first sentence is the least bit foolish. Except for the idea that a man can have a godly jealousy?
He spells it out in black and white what he is referring to as foolishness in verse 17 - 'self-confident boasting'.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
How do you read 1 Cor 11:1?
I read it the same way you do. And unless you've suddenly become arian in your view of the trinity you'd likewise say that the Father and the Son have the same character and same substance.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Does "weak" answer mean "one that contradicts me"?
It could do, but in the case it doesn't. Here it just means weak.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Does He now Johnny ?
Does he what? (Or were you just channeling Are you being served? or Frankie Howard?)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Know who He's saved and who He's damned.
Missus.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
If He doesn't, He is not God.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Why ?
How ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I've been mostly reading this fascinating thread for Host reasons, but maybe I could say something at this point that I know I've said before on "atonement" threads.
I do not believe that God's love is conditional nor do I believe that He shows favouritism. In the Acts account, the shift of church emphasis from "a chosen people" to "a light to the Gentiles" centres around Peter's encounter with Cornelius, within which we have this "step 1" central revelation to Peter that God does not show favouritism.
quote:
Acts 10:34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.
But I call it a step 1. Note that in Peter's eyes at that point, God's acceptance is conditional.
Now there is also a "step 2" - and this is an example of that step 2.
quote:
2 Corinthians 5: 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
The direction of reconciliation is "us to God", not "God to us". We are the ones who are alienated.
Yet, studying the Institutes Book 3 Chapter 14 para 11, we find this summary.
quote:
Moreover, the message of free reconciliation with God is not promulgated for one or two days, but is declared to be perpetual in the Church (2 Cor. 5:18, 19). Hence believers have not even to the end of life any other righteousness than that which is there described. Christ ever remains a Mediator to reconcile the Father to us, and there is a perpetual efficacy in his death—viz. ablution, satisfaction, expiation; in short, perfect obedience, by which all our iniquities are covered. (My emboldening)
You will see that, in this place at least, Calvin has the direction of the reconciliation wrong. He says that Christ reconciles the Father to us, whereas the scripture he quotes urges us to be reconciled to the Father. Much follows from that (IMO) misunderstanding by Calvin, but perhaps the most obvious contrast is with the picture of God the Father in the parable of the Prodigal - the lost son. This Father of the lost son does not need to be reconciled to his son at all. His love is clearly unconditional. He loves His son, even though that son is lost. The son does not realise just how much until he returns.
I do not believe that God needs to be reconciled to us in order to love us. He loves us first. It may be that we also need to be reconciled to Him to appreciate the fullness of His love, but that is another matter.
[ 04. November 2010, 16:38: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Exactly oh 62nd Son of Encouragement.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Hi B62. I thought you'd find this interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Moreover, the message of free reconciliation with God is not promulgated for one or two days, but is declared to be perpetual in the Church (2 Cor. 5:18, 19). Hence believers have not even to the end of life any other righteousness than that which is there described. Christ ever remains a Mediator to reconcile the Father to us, and there is a perpetual efficacy in his death—viz. ablution, satisfaction, expiation; in short, perfect obedience, by which all our iniquities are covered. (My emboldening)
I think you're right here - Calvin is wrong in the way he handles 2 Corinthians 5 at this point. (Although I'd argue that he should have gone to Ephesians - but that is another story!)
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I do not believe that God's love is conditional nor do I believe that He shows favouritism.
I feel like reformation history is being repeated here. Calvin was trying to put forward a view of God's lvoe that was truly unconditional - he argued that (what we would call arminianism) made God's love conditional.
You have made God's love dependent on the PS repenting. We must not divorce that third story from the other two Luke puts into Luke 15. Jesus seeks the lost coin and lost sheep - he doesn't just wait for them to come to him. That is truly unconditional love.
I love the parable of the PS but I do think it's popularity in western culture arises, in part, from how it perfectly matches our contemporary definition of love. If we are to say that the Father loved the son unconditionally when he was still far off then our definition of love will soon turn into sentimentalism. Divine love is active. Otherwise I'm excuse to sit on my butt all day and thinking nice thoughts about people but I don't have to do anything until they come to me.
<ummm> There. I just loved the whole population of India.
<Urrg.> Wow, that's Chine loved too.
My argument is that only a calvinistic view of love can really be unconditional. Please note that I'm agreeing with you that God loves everyone in the sense that the Father loved the PS when he was far away, but if we are to have a divine view of love we need this extra element too.
Now, Eliab is right to raise the question of the unknown - how can we copy decisions based on the mind of God? Well this is where I become all apophatic and say that we know from scripture that his love is not capricious, nor self-seeking and so we are called simply to love unconditionally by 'putting' on love on others. It is this commitment or covenant that I think Calvin brings to the discussion. Arminianism fits much better with our culture where I tihnk I'm loving people but actually I'm doing nice things at my convenience and preference.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
How ?
How did Jesus turn water into wine?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
<Urrg.> Wow, that's Chine loved too.
And look, I can love several billion people without even spelling their name correctly.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Er, so being in control of matter supernaturally equates to knowing all individual human fates before there was matter ?
How ?
Why ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I do not believe that God's love is conditional nor do I believe that He shows favouritism.
I feel like reformation history is being repeated here. Calvin was trying to put forward a view of God's lvoe that was truly unconditional - he argued that (what we would call arminianism) made God's love conditional.
Indeed he was, but he ended up with a condition anyway. And on the way, he seems to misunderstood the ministry of reconciliation, as we agree I think.
quote:
You have made God's love dependent on the PS repenting. We must not divorce that third story from the other two Luke puts into Luke 15. Jesus seeks the lost coin and lost sheep - he doesn't just wait for them to come to him. That is truly unconditional love.
You lose me at this point. God may choose to seek, by the convicting power of the Holy Spirit or the agency of the Church. Or He may choose to wait. His love is not dependent on His means.
quote:
I love the parable of the PS but I do think it's popularity in western culture arises, in part, from how it perfectly matches our contemporary definition of love. If we are to say that the Father loved the son unconditionally when he was still far off then our definition of love will soon turn into sentimentalism. Divine love is active. Otherwise I'm excuse to sit on my butt all day and thinking nice thoughts about people but I don't have to do anything until they come to me.
I think you are right about the dangers of confusing love and sentimentality. And of course Divine love is active. Even when waiting!
I think it is love of God and others which provides the cutting edge of all human outreach. But it had better be expressed unconditionally! Surely you have been in the situation when you know "in your knower" that you must wait for the penny to drop? I'm armed by the old saying that a man persuaded against his will is of the same opinion still. Time and circumstances can be very effective, often much more effective than human activity. Sometimes we follow Jesus in seeking to save that which is lost. Sometimes we follow Jesus in encouraging folks to seek for themselves. And sometimes it seems best to trust that the Spirit of God will work through time and circumstances. Or others of course. We may need to recognise that we're not the right person, not in the right place, and it's not the right time. Patience and kindness are fruits of love.
[ 05. November 2010, 00:01: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Er, so being in control of matter supernaturally equates to knowing all individual human fates before there was matter ?
No.
I was merely pointing out that there are plenty of areas where Christians are happy to trust that God can do something without knowing how he does it.
Oh yes, and I was trying to make that point without mentioning the word 'parsimony'.
Crap. You just made me do it. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Indeed he was, but he ended up with a condition anyway.
In an attempt to remove the even more obvious conditions of arminianism, possibly.
If you are saying that it is turtles all the way down then I'm happy with that. However, If you are trying to say that arminianism promotes unconditional love while calvinism does not then that is clearly not true.
Both systems have turtles all the way. In my simplistic view it only comes down to whether the last turtle is God or mankind - me, I'd put a lot more confidence in God.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
You lose me at this point. God may choose to seek, by the convicting power of the Holy Spirit or the agency of the Church. Or He may choose to wait. His love is not dependent on His means.
I think I lose you because you are stuck in a 16th century debate. Eliab has already explained how he is using the term arminian - in a kind of catch-all reaction against calvinism.
I concede that there are some hardline 5 pointers out there who might struggle with your point above but my 'tradition' would normally self-identify as 'reformed' and yet we'd totally agree with your statement here.
Bearing in mind we are not in Geneva and we are not in the 16th century, I'd say that an arminian theology is going to tend towards the agency of the church and a calvinistic theology is going to tend towards the power of the Holy Spirit. (Again I'm not using the terms historically but rather how they are being bandied around on this thread.)
Of course, as you say, we need both - but IME that is exactly what the vast majority of reformed Christians would say too. If you are fed up with arminians being tarred with the brush of pelagianism then back off doing the same in reverse to calvinists. (That wasn't a reference to 'you' B62 but rather to a general 'you'.)
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think it is love of God and others which provides the cutting edge of all human outreach. But it had better be expressed unconditionally! Surely you have been in the situation when you know "in your knower" that you must wait for the penny to drop? I'm armed by the old saying that a man persuaded against his will is of the same opinion still. Time and circumstances can be very effective, often much more effective than human activity. Sometimes we follow Jesus in seeking to save that which is lost. Sometimes we follow Jesus in encouraging folks to seek for themselves. And sometimes it seems best to trust that the Spirit of God will work through time and circumstances. Or others of course. We may need to recognise that we're not the right person, not in the right place, and it's not the right time. Patience and kindness are fruits of love.
Exactly. You have expressed a calvinistic confidence in the sovereignty of God here. If I was fully arminian I could never sit back and trust that the Spirit might work in his perfect timing.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
So, as you say, you have to be a calvinist to show this kind of unconditional love.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Now you know why I try to avoid labels. There is much more I could say, but you cannot bear it now! And anyway, I'm off on a grandchildren visit in a couple of hours. Must avoid the wrath of my wife and allow time for final preparations and car-loading. Certain issues of trust and sovereignty there!
I may get some online time, depending on whether there is a hotspot near enough in the cottage we've booked. Otherwise "I'll be baaaaaack" in about a week.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Arminianism fits much better with our culture where I tihnk I'm loving people but actually I'm doing nice things at my convenience and preference.
I'm sorry - you objected when we tried to define Calvinism. In the same way, you can't define Arminianism to include whatever negative traits you want to impose upon it.
Covenant theology is not unique to Calvinism. It's absolutely central to most forms of Judaism, for example, and the Jews are not by any reasonable definition Calvinists.
Let me try to restate my main objection to your argument by way of analogy.
God knows everything. In so far as I know, I imitate God. But I can't know everything. If I come to know one subject I can't be coming to know another subject at the same time. I can't learn French and learn Spanish at the same time. I can't study Chinese history and study organic chemistry at the same time.
So when I study Chinese history, I imitate God in coming to know in a manner appropriate to being a creature by not being able also to know chemistry.
I imitate God according to my powers as a creature.
Let's divide that up for logic's sake:
1) I imitate God;
2) according to my powers as a creature.
In so far as I know I am imitating God. In so far as knowing one thing precludes me from knowing something else I am a creature. As this pertains to me as a creature, in this respect I am not imitating God. God is not a creature.
So applying the same analogy to love.
I imitate God by loving everyone as I can.
1) loving everyone - imitating God;
2) as I can - being a creature.
Now my objection is that you are confusing 1) and 2). You're putting what belongs to us in our capacities as a creature into the imitating God element. Basically the implication of what you're saying is our created nature doesn't modify our ability to imitate God. The implication of your theology is God is just like a creature only bigger. On your interpretation of covenant theology - I don't call it Calvinism because it's not unique to Calvinism - God is just another creature like yourself.
And no, it's not true that Arminianism makes love conditional. Some varieties of Arminianism may say that the mode in which God expresses love is conditional, but that love is not. Compare child-rearing: Calvinists have not historically been noted for their permissive approach to child-rearing. Historically, Calvinists have not said that love of one's children requires one not to punish them when they've done wrong. A parent does not cease to love his or her child when the parent tells the child off for their actions.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Johhny, we know that God has complete power to change His mind over any material phenomenon that He is thinking, to change the way it 'naturally' works, to change His thought processes of which every indeterminate quantum perturbation of material reality is an aspect.
He can determine any future configuration He wishes by making it happen that way then or via now or at any point of suspension of the laws of natural indeterminacy which are independent of Him.
Like truth and goodness. Indeterminacy is the only possible way that material reality, at least, works. That God's thinking works with material results.
Nowhere in God's thinking is there a record of the spin of electrons that He is thinking before that spin is observed. And their indeterminate, superpositioned spin - which He creates and sees and sustains with full knowledge, will and power - is unobserved otherwise. By Him.
Unless we claim that there is a realm of existence, of information in which the spin of each electron IS known by God and at the same time is utterly indeterminate by every other criterion and worse ... by Him. That there is data - i.e knowledge, that which the all-knowing must know, now, that says what the spin of an electron will be whenever it is measured despite the fact that such knowledge ... does not exist. That He doesn't know. As well as knows.
Which, of course, is not just imparsimonious.
It is meaningless.
Sharkshooter says that God HAS to do that.
Which LIMITS God.
The way round that meaninglessness is to be even more imparsimonious and say that it's all happened in the future.
What tense is that ?
Missus ?
That constrains God completely to being a clock.
Deus ex machina.
Augustine's. Muhammad's. Aquinas'. Calvin's. Arminius'.
A damning machine. Unless you're a universalist.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Arminianism fits much better with our culture where I tihnk I'm loving people but actually I'm doing nice things at my convenience and preference.
I'm sorry - you objected when we tried to define Calvinism. In the same way, you can't define Arminianism to include whatever negative traits you want to impose upon it.
Yes, exactly right. That is my problem with Eliab's definition of arminianism. It's not even that I'm being forced to compare the worst of calvinism with the best of arminianism - actually arminianism is now a fluid term which can take whatever we want from the rest of Christendom.
If we are going to be vague in our definitions of arminianism then we have to take the hits when generalisations are made. You can't have it both ways.
Perhaps I need to spell out more clearly what I've been doing - it has probably only been clear to me! Since Eliab asked (what I think is a good question) how God's electing love can possibly translate into human ethics I have taken the doctrine of election as a nexus for calvinism. So when I talk about covenant love I am speaking particularly of God's choosing of Israel - a monergistic covenant if you will. That is what is peculiar to calvinism.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Covenant theology is not unique to Calvinism. It's absolutely central to most forms of Judaism, for example, and the Jews are not by any reasonable definition Calvinists.
It is unique in the way I've been using it.
And as for the Jews - haven't you heard of Zionism? The concept of God's election of Israel as both people and land is still common among Jews. Of course it is anachronistic to apply the term calvinism to those Jews who hold to this but they share the same theological parenthood - where do you think calvinists get the idea of election from?
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Now my objection is that you are confusing 1) and 2). You're putting what belongs to us in our capacities as a creature into the imitating God element. Basically the implication of what you're saying is our created nature doesn't modify our ability to imitate God. The implication of your theology is God is just like a creature only bigger. On your interpretation of covenant theology - I don't call it Calvinism because it's not unique to Calvinism - God is just another creature like yourself.
No, that is not what I'm doing. I was replying to Eliab's questions about electing love. Taking the calvinistic concept of electing covenant love I merely gave some examples in human society that, it could be argued, are a legitimate application of a quality of God's love.
Once more you are moving the goalposts - first of all it is said that it is impossible to move from God --> mankind and then when I give some possible examples you accuse me of going from mankind --> God.
Surely the one thing you cannot say about Calvin is that his view of God is just man writ large. If anything, as Eliab has said, the problems are in the other direction.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
And no, it's not true that Arminianism makes love conditional. Some varieties of Arminianism may say that the mode in which God expresses love is conditional, but that love is not. Compare child-rearing: Calvinists have not historically been noted for their permissive approach to child-rearing. Historically, Calvinists have not said that love of one's children requires one not to punish them when they've done wrong. A parent does not cease to love his or her child when the parent tells the child off for their actions.
You've lost me here. I've no idea what this has got to do with our discussion.
My point earlier was that it is mildly ridiculous to accuse calvinists of having a conditional view of love. What do you think the 'U' in TULIP stands for? Feel free to make accusations of inconsistency or point out where calvinism falls down; but when you start saying that calvinism has, at its heart, a conditional view of love then you haven't understood calvinism. Can't have.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Martin - I don't claim to be an expert on science but having a degree in Chemistry means that I do know a little about quantum mechanics. Suffice to say that you are talking with absolute certainty about things that scientists don't. It is called the Uncertainty principle with good reason.
Don't you see any irony in the fact that you are importing all this determinism from science to prove the fact God cannot be deterministic?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I am talking with absolute certainty about the uncertainty principle. Which is scientific of me. I too studied chemistry, including physical chemistry at university.
Your response is merely rhetorical Johnny. And counter-factual. Reality is NOT deterministic. There is no uncertainty about that. It cannot be in theory and it isn't in fact. Fancy that! Reality - creation - is panentheistic. An aspect of God. It is not determined. Therefore He isn't.
God does play dice. Period. He can't not.
Apart from by His will. In which He is all but irresistably determined. He lives with, thinks His indeterminate thoughts - typified by electrons, indeterminate concretizations of the indeterminate abstract - and wills the best possible outcome regardless. In His will is 'YES'. In Him is 'YES'. Despite reality being fundamentally, by definition, indeterminate. Reality is that which is, of itself, indeterminate. Just as the theory says.
So your salvation, remains unknown in fact as it hasn't happened yet. Any more than your conception was known by God seconds before it happened. Let alone from eternity. Whatever 'you' are. Because even at conception 'you' were not determined. Any more than you will be tomorrow. Which is even less than you are now. Which isn't much.
That's SCIENCE Johhny. Reality. Imparsimoniously believe what you want. Why I don't understand. Beyond fear and disbelief which I know right well. It adds nothing and takes away everything. As infinitely more is totally, completely less. It cages, constrains and forces God in to being an infinite, static box with NO degree of freedom whatsoever. A dead box.
And unless one is a universalist it makes one a damnationist.
The language of predestination is ours. Is rhetoric. It has no meaning apart from that. With one exception. Christ. The Chosen (One).
God is not a clock. Not infinite Bender containing infinite spooled eternal Futurama. Not determinate. Except insofar as indeterminacy is.
He's determined, YES.
Salvation is all but utterly inexorable in Christ who deifies us all by becoming human. We are like God, divine, because God is human. ALL are included, ALL are predestined in Him for atonement, for forgiveness, for mercy, for love. NONE are predestined to damnation.
Some may choose damnation as Lucifer apparently has. Despite omnipotent Love. Which can no more make a created being accept love and allow love than It can passively know what the spin of an electron is or whether it's going to rain tomorrow. Or how the King of the North will fare against the King of the South.
To KNOW any of these things before they happen is to MAKE them happen. That cannot be done to a mind.
Just as there are limits to omniscience, there are limits to omnipotence. They are linguistic, logical, propositional, semantic and THEREFORE real.
Love makes indeterminacy irrelevant, forces through it: Jesus saves. Not by putting every tick in the clock by winding it up before it was made.
Ah well.
Just a thought.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I too studied chemistry, including physical chemistry at university.
Did you pass though?
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Your response is merely rhetorical Johnny. And counter-factual. Reality is NOT deterministic. There is no uncertainty about that.
Says who?
Says Martin. Which is just rhetoric too.
There are are whole branches of sociology / biology / psychology which assume some level of determinism. The debate is a current one. Did they fail to get your memo explaining that we now possess exhaustive knowledge on this subject?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
