|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is Calvinism the Asperger's Syndrome of Protestantism?
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think there's a particular strand within Eastern monasticism which asserts that the closer we get to God the less concerned we are about our own salvation and the more concerned we are about the salvation of others, Dafyd.
Thank you. I think that's what I was trying to say.
(That said, I'm not convinced about Eastern Orthodoxy being free of the hang-ups that Western theology has; I do agree with ken that your speculations about the psychology behind Reformed theology are shedding more heat than light.)
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
]Not sure this is a fair appraisal of open theism or universalism, chris stiles! Have you read up on these views, to find out how their advocates answer your charges? Here is something on Open Theism if you're interested.
Sure, you can posit some variant of Molinism. Nevertheless, that still doesn't absolve a prime mover who sets everything in motion.
quote:
@chris stiles - it isn't a problem for annihilationists either.
It isn't as much of a problem for annihilationists - because *all* you have is a group of sentient beings, some of whom experience finite torment. I think I hear Ivan Karamazov ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Well only if you think the only way to order the universe is through hard determinism. Open theism affirms that God can still (and sometimes does) determine events by his power alone. But usually he orders the universe by being ultra smart - so smart he can anticipate any eventuality and have a response laid on for it to achieve his purposes
Which still doesn't help unless you also adopt universalism. Otherwise again you are trying to justify the happiness of those saved versus the unhappiness of those who aren't.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
A good Calvinist isn't concerned with anyone's salvation; theirs or others, that is God's business. They are concerned with glorifying God, and to enjoying God forever. The extent to which I am able to do that now is already a foretaste of heaven. This matters here and now it matters in the present. In the end if I am honest I am not too sure as heaven as some future reality but I do know that in the present that is open to me. When I work theoretically, the present isn't somehow separate from the beginning or judgement day, but somehow are one and the same.
Of course predestinarianism is then nonsense but so is free will. It is, and that is all that can be said.
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
]Not sure this is a fair appraisal of open theism or universalism, chris stiles! Have you read up on these views, to find out how their advocates answer your charges? Here is something on Open Theism if you're interested.
Sure, you can posit some variant of Molinism. Nevertheless, that still doesn't absolve a prime mover who sets everything in motion.
No, I suppose it doesn't... Oh, and I don't know what Molinism is, sorry. Linky link to something you think sums it up well?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
There aren't that many good Calvinists around then, Jengie ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Thinking about it, there aren't that many good Orthodox, RCs, Wesleyans, Arminians or anything elses about either, come to that ...
Which is where grace comes in, of course.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
No, I suppose it doesn't... Oh, and I don't know what Molinism is, sorry. Linky link to something you think sums it up well?
The wikipedia article is - in this case - actually quite good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism#Knowledge_of_counterfactuals
quote:
A good Calvinist isn't concerned with anyone's salvation; theirs or others, that is God's business. They are concerned with glorifying God, and to enjoying God forever.
I think some people might be re-acting against populist caricatures of Calvinism, from certain snippets by people like John Piper et al.
Personally, I prefer Heidelberg.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Probably, Chris Stiles.
I don't have any issue at all with the enjoying God and glorifying him for ever thing, I do have an issue with popular/populist forms of Calvinism.
But then, I'd probably have problems with the populist forms of any tradition one might care to mention. Not that I'm setting myself up as any kind of guru ... I can be sentimental and easily led ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What I'm saying is that your characterisation of the Pharisee's position is circular. On account of what does the Pharisee think he deserves righteousness if he doesn't have righteousness already? The position doesn't make sense.
Or to repeat the schema:
Athlete: Person: Winning: Medal ::
Pharisee: God: ???: Righteousness.
What could ??? possibly represent given that it doesn't represent righteousness?
First of all I pointed the out the reason Luke gave to why Jesus told the story. Someone in the story is an example of a person who is confident of their own righteousness. My money is on the Pharisee.
As to your schema above exactly the same could be applied to an athlete - if they genuinely believe that everything comes from God in the first place (i.e. in this case their physical abilities) then they are also being rewarded for something they were given as a gift.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's not that it creates more problems. It's just that it creates a worse problem. I don't understand how anyone who is not a sociopath can find the doctrine of irresistible grace tolerable, let alone comforting, without being a universalist.
Well, unless you are a universalist you still have a problem that God chose to create a universe in which he knew a number of people were definitely going to end up experiencing eternal torment.
But it's fundamentally a different reason for the problem. I've already illustrated this before. It's the difference between knowing that a certain number of people are going to die on the roads each year, and individually selecting which people they are going to be. One involves knowing about likely outcomes within a system, the other involves actively intending to bring about outcomes.
There's a huge difference in implications for God's character between "I'll try to save all of them" and "I'll save you, you... no, not you... you... nope... nope again... yeah I'll have that one".
And yes, I used the word 'try'. This comes back to the whole notion of free will existing. If it means anything, it means that God has constrained His power.
[ 06. August 2012, 02:38: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And yes, I used the word 'try'. This comes back to the whole notion of free will existing. If it means anything, it means that God has constrained His power.
Yes, exactly. A part of God's self-emptying was to allow the existence of other causal agents, to allow us to make free and unrestrained choices, and to really allow our choices to change the world.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And yes, I used the word 'try'. This comes back to the whole notion of free will existing. If it means anything, it means that God has constrained His power.
Yes, exactly. A part of God's self-emptying was to allow the existence of other causal agents, to allow us to make free and unrestrained choices, and to really allow our choices to change the world.
Precisely.
I repeat: The only alternative to the difficult proposition of a sovereign God's permitting a degree of genuine freedom in his universe, is the infinitely more difficult proposition of a holy God's being the author of sin.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Hmmmm ...
There is a Calvinistic argument I've come across, Mousethief that suggests that free-will can't really exist - or if it does, it is effectively constrained and therefore isn't 'free'. But they would say that, wouldn't they?
Seriously, though, I can certainly see the Calvinistic point of view when it comes to us being flawed or hampered in the choices we make - but then, the Orthodox would also agree that we are marred and constrained by the effects of 'ancestral sin'. The only difference on this score that I can see is the degree to which we stretch things.
TULIP Calvinists stretch human inability pretty far (some would say too far) in one direction and those with a more positive anthropology would stretch it in the other direction - again, too far for some people ...
But I don't think this is the nub of the issue. The stumbling blocks/sticking points of TULIP tend to be concentrated on the 'L' - the limitedness of the atonement - although this does follow as a logical corollary to the surrounding petals ...
This is what I mean by the cold logic and the apparent ability of some Calvinistically inclined people to 'switch off' what might be termed their natural humanity. Taken to its extreme there is something coldly inhuman about full-on Calvinism - at least in the way it's popularly represented.
I suggest that the onus is on Calvinists to demonstrate that this is not the case. Just as the onus is on those of a more Arminian or - dare I say it - semi-Pelagian persuasion to convince the rest of us that their schema is not anthropocentric works-righteousness ...
Quite frankly, I've come across some TULIP types who seem rather gleeful that the Almighty appears to have chosen some for eternal perdition without them having any say in the matter. They suggest that this glorifies Almighty God and demonstrates his justice. If ever there was a twisted logic out there, this is surely it.
I remember a missionary who'd worked in a West African Muslim country telling how the villagers in one place had stood passively by as a young girl was washed downstream in the local river. It must have been Allah's will. Eventually, he'd persuaded some of them to form a human chain and help him to scoop her out before she drowned. He insisted that there was nothing particularly cruel, negligent or indifferent about these people, they were wonderfully warm and loving. No, what had happened was that the extreme determinism of their particular 'take' on Islam had led them to adopt an almost passive or indifferent response to preventable disasters.
I submit that the same could hold of extreme forms of Christian determinism - but equally I would accept that, properly understood, the broad thrust of Calvinistic theology doesn't or needn't incline this way. The Reformed tradition has indeed produced many fine activists, missionaries, philanthropists, preachers and much else besides.
It's influence on the arts hasn't been as baleful as is popularly suggested either - although I can think of instances where 'populist' forms of Calvinism have had this effect.
I think it is the extremes that I, and others, are reacting against. I would also accept that my amateur psychologist categorisation of personality types and the placing of some Calvinists somewhere on the autistic spectrum isn't helping either - it is indeed, generating more heat than light.
I'm prepared to drop it.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There is a Calvinistic argument I've come across, Mousethief that suggests that free-will can't really exist - or if it does, it is effectively constrained and therefore isn't 'free'. But they would say that, wouldn't they?
That's not actually a particularly Calvinist argument, that's just Compatibilism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
It tends to be fairly difficult to reconcile free-will in the libertarian sense, the world as we know it, and moral responsibility. The sorts of sources of indeterminism in the physical world tend not to be under our control.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Gamaliel
Predestinarianism does not rule out free will. Just that free will has nothing to do with salvation. The statement is God chose you, not you chose God is predestinarian however that is the only choice it applies to. Yes that leads to the diabolical logic that if you are saved, you can do what you like and nothing will stop you from being saved. However the sinner's prayer group of Arminians also are guilty of that.
But the yard stick for Calvinism is NOT TULIP, its a handy summary produced at the end of a very political theological struggle that is trotted out. If you don't believe me read the third chapter of Kenneth J Stevens book I recommended earlier, it answers in depth this very point.
I was taught by a Calvinist theologian and James A Whyte would own that he was (he was a Church of Scotland minister) and yet stood out as someone who was a profoundly humane pastoral theologian, said that there are two responses to logic, one is to accept it and the other to accept that it points out the limits of human logic and bow before the mystery of God acknowledging that you do not know. What I am asking you to do is for once acknowledge that there are both strands woven together in a fabric of the tradition in such a way we no more can separate one from the other but form a unity.
No tradition is made up of a uniform thread, you'd not expect it of the Anglica, Orthodox or Roman Catholic, why do you expect it of the Reformed? We are a living tradition making up the second largest tradition within Christianity, and often fiercely independent of each other. Do you really think we can speak so singularly?
If you want further proof try putting in Calvin and apophatic, and you will turn out a lot of interesting articles. I am not pointing to an apophatic Reformed theology, these articles are about something else. Basically there is not point in pointing to proofs, I did earlier, you aren't prepared to read them.
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Of course I believe you, Jengie. What I've written above in no way detracts from your historical perspective on the way that TULIP was devised as a helpful (or Hellful?) acronym. I'm not disputing your insight at all.
I'm quite prepared to read your comments, Jengie and quite prepared to accept that there are multiple strands within the Reformed tradition. Where have I ever denied that? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I have repeatedly acknowledged that I am exaggerating my position/objections in order to make a point - as a kind of rhetorical device.
If you're going to accuse me of not listening to your viewpoints then I could just as easily accuse you of not reading my posts properly.
I have made it very clear in a number of posts now that I don't have a beef with the broader end of the Reformed tradition and that I don't believe that all Calvinists are inhumane, cold calculating, evil bastards. I don't doubt the humanity of your theological teacher for one minute.
I might cast doubt on your ability to recognise rhetoric when you see it though ...
I am certainly prepared to acknowledge that there are various strands woven together in the fabric of the Reformed tradition. I am quite prepared to accept too, that Calvinism, properly understood, does not eradicate free will but simply its effects in terms of salvation ... 'You did not choose me but I chose you ...' etc.
It doesn't help though, when certain Calvinistic posters respond in such a way as to make it appear that my deliberately and rhetorically offensive caricature may be based on demonstrable observation.
As you have done ...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Seriously, I've already said that I'm quite prepared to drop the autism analogies and I will do. I'm happy to cut you a heck of a lot of slack, I bow to your superior knowledge and insight into the Reformed tradition. I fully accept that that tradition is a lot broader and more nuanced than its detractors claim.
Lest there remain any ambiguity, I am not tilting at the Reformed tradition per se, I am not even tilting at Calvinism per se, at least not in the broader sense (I've got Calvinistic DNA in my spiritual genes too) - what I am carping at is a particular over-realised application of it which, it strikes me, almost invariably leads to dualism.
Other traditions will have their own Achilles's Heels. I'm simply suggesting that dualism and a certain lack of nuance might be the Achilles's Heel of a certain kind of populist Calvinism.
Anglicanism will have a different Achilles's Heel, Orthodoxy another, Roman Catholicism a different one again (unless your Orthodox in which case you'd see Roman Catholicism and Protestantism alike as sharing the same Scholastic Achilles's Heels).
I just happen to be focussing on particular forms of Calvinism in this thread. On another thread I might have a go at something else.
Get over it.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It doesn't help though, when certain Calvinistic posters respond in such a way as to make it appear that my deliberately and rhetorically offensive caricature may be based on demonstrable observation.
You deliberately insulted people and they acted all insulted? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, exactly.
Precisely.
You guys rock.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Careful, Orfeo, outrageous shows of flattery and sycophancy bring out the worst in me. I may well turn my cannon around and start blasting at Kaplan's Arminianism, Mousethief's Orthodoxy and your inability to understand perfectly comprehensible passages in 16th century English that Zach82 posted (admittedly without any contextual background, but still ...).
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Just ignore him, Orfeo.
I really appreciate flattery and sycophancy.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, flattery will get us anywhere.
Bask in your all too fleeting exposure to flattery and sycophancy, Kaplan ... you deserve it ...
Perhaps we should wait until some full-on Calvinist comes along and tells us that it is yet more evidence of your semi-Pelagian desire to be justified by works ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
They shouldn't be so sensitive ...
It's been Gamaliel's stated purpose to insult Calvinists into confirming his idiotic assumptions this whole time. He admitted this during my hell call. Unfortunately, Calvinists keep posting on this thread all the same.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Perhaps you were predestined to post here, Zach ...
To convince recovering Calvinists like me of the error of our ways ...
Seriously, whilst I enjoy winding people up, particular those who are very earnest and so on, there are places where I believe that Calvin does ring true. I'm not saying Calvinism = Bad, Everything Else = Good.
That would be to display a similar kind of binary dualism that some of the posters here seem to exhibit.
Oh, I forgot, you are an American as well as a Calvinist ...
Seriously again, I've got a lot of time for some of the more Calvinistic folks here - ken, Chris Stiles, Jengie Jon (when she's not playing the 'I'm-the-only-person-in-the-whole-wide-world-who-truly-understands-Reformed-theology' card.
Heck, on some threads I even find myself agreeing with you on certain points.
Get over it already.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I am over it, though I am somewhat irritated that other the Calvinists still believe this thread is worthwhile.
[ 06. August 2012, 15:36: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well you obviously do, otherwise you wouldn't have come back.
I think I've proven my point several times over.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
And you're proving my point quite well, I think, so one more venture to this thread was not altogether worthless. ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
So it's quits, then. You think my post is idiotic and I think that you're overly legalistic, dualistic and binary.
So we're both happy ...
Who can discern his errors?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
More seriously, I think that things would have gone more swimmingly if I'd started a thread that ran something like:
'How can Calvinism resist falling into dualism, Orthodoxy into semi-Pelagianism (if indeed it wants to avoid it) and Arminianism into a form of works-righteousness?'
That way the implied value judgements are spread all ways round.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
@Jengie. You wrote 'Predestinarianism does not rule out free will. Just that free will has nothing to do with salvation.'
Don't get that. You're free to make choices, but not about whether or not to respond to saving grace? Are we free to choose to respond to God's non-saving grace? Are you saying that there is one agent - God - when it comes to salvation but multiple agancy when it comes to other activity?
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
@Jengie. You wrote 'Predestinarianism does not rule out free will. Just that free will has nothing to do with salvation.'
Don't get that. You're free to make choices, but not about whether or not to respond to saving grace? Are we free to choose to respond to God's non-saving grace? Are you saying that there is one agent - God - when it comes to salvation but multiple agancy when it comes to other activity?
I can't speak foir Jengie but predestination certainly does not rule out free will, whether or not free will has anything to do with salvation. Its all in Boethius
I suspect that the reason for confusion is that people are unclear about what they mean by "free will".
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Saving Grace works independently of human will. Remember the doctrine of irrestible grace is also part of TULIP. Something that you can choose not to take is not by definition irrestible. As some things can be restible and others not you can have free will in some matters and not in others. After all death in the end is pretty irrestible but that does not mean I can't choose what I will have for breakfast tomorrow morning.
Predestinarians are not automatical determinists.
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
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Remember this debate is academic for me, both sides are wrong and they are wrong because they fail to take seriously how different the experience of creation is for God than it is for us. I believe in an omni-creator, the beginning is just one edge of God's creation not the start point. Therefore causality does not work the way we suppose when applied to God. I find the God who gives a free choice in such matters no more pleasant than predestinarianism.
However you both build up straw men. The tendency among those who claim to follow Arminus is to imply that Predestinarianism means loss of freewill completely. That is just as much nonsense as the straw men of predestinarians that claim to freely make that choice the will has to be totally unconstrained.
What Predestinarians take seriously about Grace is that its source is the Divine will, thus if it is as God wills then it must be irrestible. To jump from the conclusion that therefore all actions are constrained means that you propose the choice over breakfast cereal is somehow equivalent to the choice over Grace to God.
There is a long line of thought on this James Hogg's book The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner starts with the premis of someone believing exactly that, who is deceived by the Devil into believing that he is among the Elect. He goes onto commit murder, because if he is among the elect there is no way he can fall from Grace.
This extreme form is the opposite parody of the person who prays the sinner prayer but continues to feel free to drink heavily, beat his wife and commit any sort of crime because he has chosen Christ and therefore is saved.
Jengie
[ 06. August 2012, 18:16: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
@Jengie. You wrote 'Predestinarianism does not rule out free will. Just that free will has nothing to do with salvation.'
Don't get that. You're free to make choices, but not about whether or not to respond to saving grace? Are we free to choose to respond to God's non-saving grace? Are you saying that there is one agent - God - when it comes to salvation but multiple agancy when it comes to other activity?
I can't speak foir Jengie but predestination certainly does not rule out free will, whether or not free will has anything to do with salvation. Its all in Boethius
I suspect that the reason for confusion is that people are unclear about what they mean by "free will".
By "free will" I mean the real possibility that one could make at least two different choices in exactly the same circumstances, both external and internal. It's the genuine power of contrary choice. I accept that you could, theoretically, limit free choice to some decisions and not others. Jengie's 'we can't choose whether or not we die we can decide about breakfast' doesn't work for me. None of us has a choice about death, and the outcome is the same for everyone.
Responding to grace is a moral choice. If we can't choose how to respond to it, I don't see how it can be a moral choice any longer. But then again I don't accept the idea that apart from Christ the only choices we can make are sinful ones. That's one of Augustine's innovations, and didn't attract much interest in the Eastern churches.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
First of all I pointed the out the reason Luke gave to why Jesus told the story. Someone in the story is an example of a person who is confident of their own righteousness. My money is on the Pharisee.
I agree with all of that.
(Well, not quite all: the Pharisee is not "confident of their own righteousness" - the parable is told against those who are confident that 'they are righteous and regarded others with contempt'. The word 'own' is your addition to the text.)
That doesn't mean that the Pharisee is an Arminian. Being an anti-Arminian doesn't guarantee that you're not confident that you're one of the righteous.
Look: I agree that the Pharisee isn't condemned for being an anti-Arminian. He is an anti-Arminian, but that's not why he's condemned. What I am saying is that he isn't condemned for being an Arminian or Pelagian either - because he isn't one.
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
By "free will" I mean the real possibility that one could make at least two different choices in exactly the same circumstances, both external and internal. It's the genuine power of contrary choice.
I think the closest version of 'free will' to what you seem to be expressing is the libertarian brand, http://tinyurl.com/33at94
The problem is that scientifically anyway, it's very hard to come up with a mechanism for how the libertarian brand of free-will would actually work. This is one reason why most philosophers tend in the direction of some form of compatibilism.
quote:
Responding to grace is a moral choice. If we can't choose how to respond to it, I don't see how it can be a moral choice any longer.
Conversely, a compatibilist might say that unless we act according to our prior beliefs, inclinations and thoughts we can't actually be held culpable for any of the moral choices we make.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But it's fundamentally a different reason for the problem. I've already illustrated this before. It's the difference between knowing that a certain number of people are going to die on the roads each year, and individually selecting which people they are going to be. One involves knowing about likely outcomes within a system, the other involves actively intending to bring about outcomes.
In your scheme, before God created he still knew who in that creation would reject him and who would accept him. However much he might have 'wanted' all people saved, he was still setting in train a set of events that were going to result in a subset of those in hell.
I'm not sure your attempts to make things a lot more dispassionate make them any better. After all, it's just a different brand of callousness stated that way isn't it?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Look: I agree that the Pharisee isn't condemned for being an anti-Arminian. He is an anti-Arminian, but that's not why he's condemned. What I am saying is that he isn't condemned for being an Arminian or Pelagian either - because he isn't one.
Maybe a way forward would be for you to explain why he is condemned then? He is clearly is being condemned for something.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But it's fundamentally a different reason for the problem. I've already illustrated this before. It's the difference between knowing that a certain number of people are going to die on the roads each year, and individually selecting which people they are going to be. One involves knowing about likely outcomes within a system, the other involves actively intending to bring about outcomes.
In your scheme, before God created he still knew who in that creation would reject him and who would accept him. However much he might have 'wanted' all people saved, he was still setting in train a set of events that were going to result in a subset of those in hell.
I'm not sure your attempts to make things a lot more dispassionate make them any better. After all, it's just a different brand of callousness stated that way isn't it?
Perhaps.
Why exactly do you think God allowed The Fall in the first place?
Logically, the proposition that God is in total control of our eternal destiny leads back to that point. Never mind this idea that God is so sovereign he will determine exactly who is saved (and who isn't), before you even GET that far you should be asking: why did God ever allow things to get to the point where people needed saving to begin with?
[ 07. August 2012, 03:32: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
predestination certainly does not rule out free will, whether or not free will has anything to do with salvation. Its all in Boethius
Boethius in Book V of The Consolation Of Philosophy writes of free will and foreknowledge in a way which is quite congruent with Arminianism.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Ramarius
In most situations there are things that tend to swing us one way or another. For instance if you gave me a choice between Hot Chocolate or Black Coffee, Black coffee would win every time.
This is greater than most people expect, my father when working used to be able to predict not just the outcomes of meetings but what position every member of staff would take (there were only five but still).
This is the problem with your definition of freewill, it would take an impossible experiment to prove. Raising two clones, through identical experiences and not making contact with each other. I did first arts Logic and Metaphysics and this was part of the course. A slight deviation in circumstances could be enough to cause different responses.
The big challenge to freewill on your terms is to ask where it comes from. Remember at the very small scale things are pretty deterministic. I am not talking humans here, I am talking atoms and such.
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
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Of course this is almost irrelevant to the debate here, because it is not a matter of all things being equal for humans. Salvation is not just up to us, it is a matter of the will of God. To ignore this is to ignore the fundamental. All things are not equal.
You have three options:
1)That God's will is sovereign
2)That human will is sovereign
3)For some reason God decides to give up the sovereignity of his will in favour of an individuals.
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Is it just me, or am I right to detect a certain binariness creeping back into the discussion - or even a certain anachronistic tendency too, with issues of Calvinism/Arminianism being read back into the Gospels themselves - hence discussions as to whether the Pharisee in the example given was Arminian/Anti-Arminian etc etc.
Sure, I appreciate that these were not serious attempts to portray the Pharisee's stance, but it does strike me as symptomatic of a certain dualism I've detected throughout this thread - as if there are only two options available. Either you are Calvinistic to some extent or you are Arminian.
I'm suggesting that the issue isn't as clear cut as that and that there may even be no need in the first place to adopt either position.
The whole Calvinist/Arminian thing only makes sense in the context of the Reformation. Calvin (rightly in my view) reacted against elements of late-medieval Catholicism but did so using the very same Scholastic medieval mindset that was characteristic of that late medieval Catholicism.
And, being something that started in reaction to something else, it inevitably went to an opposite extreme. Then along comes the Arminian thing, which as Jengie Jon has pointed out elsewhere is itself a subset of the Reformed position, and reacts against what it believed to be the weak points of Calvinism ... in so doing establishing fault-lines and weak spots of its own.
I'm completely with the Calvinists when it comes to defending God's sovereignty - and the predestination thing too, although I'd hesitate to try to fathom out how it all 'works'. I completely agree with them that there are flaws in the Arminian position, particularly when it comes to the 'sinner's prayer' type approach and altar-calls and so on and so forth. Heck, I veered in a more Calvinistic direction in reaction against all this stuff.
Now, I'm suggesting, neither view solves all the problems. I'm not saying they're untenable, you can make out a fairly convincing case for both, even if you do end up with a fairly strained hermeneutic at times.
In my clumsy way I'm suggesting that there's a third way and that elements of the Eastern position may provide some clues and hints as to what that might be. Just a thought.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sorry, I overlooked Jengie's previous post.
There, this is what I'm getting at. It's all far too binary.
Why should there be some kind of dichotomy here?
We accept that Christ is both fully God and fully man at one and the same time. We accept (most of us) that the scriptures are at once the words of men and the word of God. Why should it be so difficult to see salvation in some kind of synergistic way - us co-operating with divine grace - but with God sovereignly and mysteriously involved with overseeing and directing the process?
If we have no difficulty with the idea of God the Holy Spirit overseeing the formation of the scriptural canon, for instance, why should there be any difficulty with the idea of him working in and through our natural faculties - and yes, giving us the grace and faith by which we respond?
I really don't see the problem.
It's only an issue if you believe that God is small enough and petty enough to be robbed of any glory if we're seen to collaborate in some way. 'Not by works lest anyone should boast.' I don't see anyone boasting in their works. What I see in those traditions which Protestants traditionally have accused of promoting justification by works is a sense of 'God have mercy upon me a sinner.'
Sure, the whole apparatus of indulgences and merits and so on in late medieval Catholicism inculcated that attitude - but I don't see much of it now - although I'm sure it's still there in popular forms of Catholicism.
But equally there are problems with the Calvinist and Arminian positions, they can both promote their own forms of spiritual pride.
We need another way.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Maybe a way forward would be for you to explain why he is condemned then? He is clearly is being condemned for something.
From the post to which you are replying:
"the parable is told against those who are confident that 'they are righteous and regarded others with contempt'. "
Was that really that difficult to read?
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Why exactly do you think God allowed The Fall in the first place?
Logically, the proposition that God is in total control of our eternal destiny leads back to that point. Never mind this idea that God is so sovereign he will determine exactly who is saved (and who isn't), before you even GET that far you should be asking: why did God ever allow things to get to the point where people needed saving to begin with?
Sure. I was just pointing out that using your own scheme similar problems start to surface.
The reason I'm reformed is not because I have a solution to any of those problems, it's because it's true to my experience of being saved by grace alone (I think the scriptural witness is also fairly weighty - but we have already traded several pages of verses).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
I'm just wondering what the uber-Calvinist view is on what exactly "accepting the salvation freely offered" involves .. I mean, is it saying a certain prayer, accepting a certain theology, or could it perhaps living your life a certain way? In the analogy given later (setting aside it's flaws)... what does one do to tie that rope around them and let Jesus pull them up?
I realize that a Calvinist is not likely to say "live your life a certain way", but to me, it seems that this is the perfect intersection of the "faith" and "works" positions: you accept the freely offered gift of salvation by striving to live a good life--not in order to "earn" something, but just because that's part of the acceptance.
I've heard Calvinists ask "if works are required, how do you know you have done enough". Asside from the obvious answer of "why do you need to know that? That's up to God", one can also ask "how do you know if you believe enough of the right things to have met the acceptance criteria?"
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Of course this is almost irrelevant to the debate here, because it is not a matter of all things being equal for humans. Salvation is not just up to us, it is a matter of the will of God. To ignore this is to ignore the fundamental. All things are not equal.
You have three options:
1)That God's will is sovereign
2)That human will is sovereign
3)For some reason God decides to give up the sovereignity of his will in favour of an individuals.
Jengie
A fourth option is to follow Molina's idea of concurrence. Or you could have a variation of 2 and 3 - God in his sovereignty gives me the power to choose whether or not to accept his grace. And on your point above about influences on our decisions, a cause can be sufficient without being necessary.
The problem with the whole irresistible grace idea is it's so clinical and, frankly, dehumanising. My response to grace is an ongoing (and decidedly imperfect) expression of love to God and my fellow human beings. That response makes me the person I am. The idea that I only love God because he has chosen that I should love him - that I love him not out of response to his self-emptying in incarnation and passion but because he forced that decision on me - Is, frankly, hideous.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, it's the coldly clinical aspect that I find chilling too ...
That's not to say that individual Calvinists are cold-hearted and lacking in compassion or fellow-feeling, of course ...
The grace thing is fine. But there seems to be a lot of baggage that comes with it.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Maybe a way forward would be for you to explain why he is condemned then? He is clearly is being condemned for something.
From the post to which you are replying:
"the parable is told against those who are confident that 'they are righteous and regarded others with contempt'. "
Was that really that difficult to read?
Apologies for not making myself clear. I meant how do you think does his behaviour in the story fits the bill? (join up the dots.)
(The reader, ISTM, is invited to work that out. In so doing, I still can't see how you are so certain that the Pharisee is not acting in a semi-pelagian manner. From the text itself I suppose you could argue that there is not enough evidence to convict of that, but I still can't see on what grounds you are saying that he cannot be arminian. If you are basing it on the fact that he thanks God for his righteousness then he wouldn't be the first person inconsistent in his thinking, would he?)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
You're doing it now, Johnny S. Why does the Pharisee in the story HAVE to be either Calvinist or Armininian?
This is all terribly anachronistic and terribly, terribly binary.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
