|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Can you be a Christian and a Calvinist?
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by londonderrry:
A Christian must be a Calvinist, not necessarily wearing that name or even knowing who John Calvin is, but believing in their heart that they are evil (Total Depravity), that only God is good (Unconditional Election), that only God can save them (Limited Atonement) and can do all that he chooses (Irresistable Grace) and that they are forever in the arms of Jesus Christ by grace (Perseverance of the Saints).
That's an unusual explanation of what TULIP means.
How does Unconditional Election mean that only God is Good? In my understanding of this term, Unconditional Election means that being 'elected' is not on the merits of the elect but by God. It is not what we do that causes God to chose to save us.
Limited Atonement, as usually understood, is not about the fact that it is only God who saves us with which I would agree, but the doctrine that Christ only died for the elect with which I strongly disagree. It is a very logical doctrine but inconsistent with God as revealed in Christ.
Irresistable Grace is not about God's omnipotence but about the fact that if one is elect then there's no escape.
Saying that all Christians believe in Calvinism by redefining Calvinism seems very strange to me.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Not praising God.
Rev. 16:10 The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom was plunged into darkness. People gnawed their tongues in anguish
Rev. 16:11 and cursed the God of heaven for their pain and sores. They did not repent of their deeds.
Okay, let's take the me-and-God out of this.
At the Last Judgement, you yourself wanting to praise God, will be doing so and be judged righteous for your faith, which was of course none of your doing and a direct gift from God. However, I'd like you to consider what would happen if your wife, children and friends were all unable at that point to confess faith in Christ and ended up in Hell (be it annihilation, or eternal torment, or not-Heaven, whatever).
From a Calvinist viewpoint, my understanding is that this would be because God chose for no reason not to give them any faith. It would be, God declaring all these people you know and love, to be not loved sufficiently by God for them to have been granted salvation. Sure, as Creator he could in no sense said to be acting unjustly, but would you love God because of this? If you could grant faith and through it justification and salvation yourself to your family and friends, would you? If so, are you not saying God is less merciful than you?
On the other hand, if this same horrific thing happened and some of those you loved ended up in Hell, and you asked God why he didn't give them the faith that would save them, and he said he had done everything, everything within his power to give them that faith including a trillion years of sub-eternity pseudo-time since death to begin to repent, and he would not give up on them now even though he knew through omniscience that they would always be lost, and that the Hell (whatever it is) they were entering was of their own making and the most loving of all options because Heaven would be worse to them, and that all this happened because God loved them so much he would not wipe out their free will, killing them by turning them into puppets...
Now, I do not know for certain that the latter represents reality more than the former. I hope I never presume to judge God - I wrestle with our conception of him and I see multiple ways of interpreting revelation. But as I said, Scripture reads to me that way, and I'd rather take my chances believing God to be more merciful than less.
[spelling]
[ 02. May 2005, 12:44: Message edited by: GreyFace ]
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
londonderrry
Apprentice
# 9158
|
Posted
Eliab:
quote:
so pardon me if I don’t point out all the ways in which you are wrong and just shoot at this open goal:
I think you are missing my point and playing off at some other field. Of course Peter was predestinated and could not have lost his salvation, but hypothetically if he was not elect and had persisted in his error, he would have been disciplined by the church (just as the Judaizers were.) Pelagianism is not a minor error but on the scale faced by the apostle Paul with the Judaizers... the principle error being a conditional (on man) 'gospel'.
Carys:
As I said earlier, for a narrow definition of Calvinism, I would suggest that anyone read the Canons of Dordrecht (the original 5 points)... but as far as being a Calvinist in Spirit... I would say that there are those who believe in the spirit of the points... without understanding all the finer implications (or who have simply never heard of Dordrecht or John Calvin for that matter). For example... when I spoke of unconditional election. I was simply trying to say that the individual would believe his salvation was based on the goodness of God (and consequently and necessarily... not on himself) which is the principle behind unconditional election ('It is not based on me... but on God's mercy.) Hope that clears up what I could have been clearer in explaining.
Reformed in Christ,
Sean, N. Ireland
www.cprf.co.uk
Posts: 26 | From: Northern Ireland | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Londonderry, are you prepared to answer Luigi's question, and my own? You might not have got round to them yet.
I'm curious as to this concept of only God being good. It seems to imply rather strongly that God has, for reasons of his own, only made things that are not good, or as one might say, evil. Do you agree, or do you think that the statement is intended as a comparison of human and divine goodness?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by londonderrry:
I think you are missing my point and playing off at some other field.
I started playing on your field. You moved the flags.
quote:
Of course Peter was predestinated and could not have lost his salvation, but hypothetically if he was not elect and had persisted in his error, he would have been disciplined by the church
Please answer the question. Of course St Peter was wrong, and seriously so. But because we know he was elect (had already accepted God and been saved) at the time he made this error, we can know that it was an error which the saved are free to make. If he was free (while saved) to so err, he was free to persist in that error. While he persists in error is he still saved?
You have to answer 'yes' if Calvinism is true. And if you do the inescapable (and thoroughly Biblical) conclusion is that those who continue to trust Jesus for their salvation are saved, whatever else they get wrong.
Of course, I don't think Calvinism is true. I do think Calvinists are part of the church and can be saved. You seem to be saying that anyone who grants any role at all to human will in salvation is not saved. On that basis, Jesus Christ himself was not saved (St Matthew 23.37).
--------------------
"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
|
|
londonderrry
Apprentice
# 9158
|
Posted
Greyface:
quote:
Londonderry, are you prepared to answer Luigi's question, and my own?
No.
Eliab:
quote:
While he persists in error is he still saved?
A Christian can stumble into serious sin (eg. David, etc.) but will always be brought back to repentance by the grace of God.
quote:
You seem to be saying that anyone who grants any role at all to human will in salvation is not saved.
No. I am saying that anyone who 'conditions' salvation on the works, will, etc. of man is engaged in a works gospel and not saved.
Reformed in Him,
Sean, N. Ireland
www.cprf.co.uk
Posts: 26 | From: Northern Ireland | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by londonderrry:
I am saying that anyone who 'conditions' salvation on the works, will, etc. of man is engaged in a works gospel and not saved.
1) Suppose I hold that I am free to accept or reject salvation, but in all other respects I put all my trust on God's unconditional offer made to me regardless of my merits. Is that "conditioning salvation on the works, will, etc. of man"?
2) If it is, how is this different from saying (from my last post):
quote:
anyone who grants any role at all to human will in salvation is not saved
?
3) If it is not, do you agree that non-Calvinists who believe this are saved?
--------------------
"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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by londonderrry:
I am saying that anyone who 'conditions' salvation on the works, will, etc. of man is engaged in a works gospel and not saved.
Are all doctrinal errors damning? Or just this one?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by londonderrry:
I am saying that anyone who 'conditions' salvation on the works, will, etc. of man is engaged in a works gospel and not saved.
Are all doctrinal errors damning? Or just this one?
It's not a doctrinal error, unless we confuse (as some do):
(a) saving faith in God,
and
(b) correct opinions about salvation
Which I don't think whoever posts as londonderry does, as they are careful to say that people who don't use the word "Calvinism" or have never heard of Calvin or Dordrecht could still be saved by the grace of God. Which is good, because most Christians who ever lived probably never heard of Calvin.
They are different things, although we use the word "belief" to describe them both. Though presumably (b) ought to lead to (a) - if it didn't no-one would bother to evangelise. And (a) ought to lead sooner or later to (b), else why bother to teach in churches.
The same would apply to all the other hypothetical cases brought up - John Wesley or the apostle Peter may or may not have had some wrong beliefs about the grace of God, but they are saved by the grace of God.
If it were not so then salvation by works would be brought in through the back door - the intellectual work of having the correct opinions on doctrine. And salvation would be conditioned not by the free grace of God, but by our luck in finding the right teachers and our diligence in learning what they taught us. Which would be salvation by works.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by londonderrry:
Greyface:
quote:
Londonderry, are you prepared to answer Luigi's question, and my own?
No.
Why not? Too difficult for you?
[ 02. May 2005, 18:44: Message edited by: GreyFace ]
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
On reflection, I apologise for that last question, londonderry.
I doubt I'll be having many fruitful discussions with you if you ignore awkward questions, though.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks, Londonderry for your reply. I am also conscious that you are a relative newcomer to the SofF and really don't want you to feel singled out.
It took me a while in my own journey to realise that the arguments you employ against total perspicuity - comparing scripture with scripture - immediately allow for diverse reasonable opinions about its meaning. Essentially, as soon as you admit that argument, you have admitted the possibility of diverse theologies. The process of weighing for the balance of the truth requires human judgement. Illogicalities can be ruled out, but it is possible (demonstrably so in the history of the church) to construct different theologies while retaining a high view of the authority and inspiration of scripture. The problem with your arguments is that you seem to be supposing, not an infallible and authoritative scripture, but an infallible interpretation of the same.
I am not arguing that your theological viewpoint is untenable - simply that it is not the only one that may be derived by folks with a high view of the authority and inspiration of scripture. And yet other Christian viewpoints can be held by those who have a high view of scripture and whose doctrine of the church enables them to tap into traditional interpretations. We're all, in some sense, weighing scripture with scripture, but our scales are humanly constructed and therefore subject to bias, error, misunderstanding, differences of emphasis etc. Given our diversity, any unity cannot be based on uniformity. Charity and grace are much better guideposts.
--------------------
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
|
|
londonderrry
Apprentice
# 9158
|
Posted
Eliab:
quote:
1) Suppose I hold that I am free to accept or reject salvation, but in all other respects I put all my trust on God's unconditional offer made to me regardless of my merits. Is that "conditioning salvation on the works, will, etc. of man"?
Yes. You make the arbitrating factor... your will rather than the grace of God.
quote:
2) If it is, how is this different from saying (from my last post): "anyone who grants any role at all to human will in salvation is not saved"
There is no dispute that man has a will and that a man's will has a role in salvation, but it is an entirely passive role and cannot innitiate salvation, condition salvation or play the determining role in salvation. Salvation is all of God's free grace. Salvation is innitiated by God, conditioned on God alone and determined by God.
Reformed in Him,
Sean, N. Ireland
www.cprf.co.uk
Posts: 26 | From: Northern Ireland | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by londonderrry:
There is no dispute that man has a will and that a man's will has a role in salvation
Is man free to reject God, then? If not, how can he be said to have a will?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
My view is that Calvinists (generally, and those of them that I know and love) necessarily believe conduct to be true of God which if it were done by any other entity, they would (one hopes) reject as unjust and wicked. It seems to me they would rather believe the Bible to be true than God to be good - or at least, that they would rather distort their definition of goodness than their interpretation of Scripture.
Arminians in my limited experience do the same, but are less open about it. So, for example, nearly every Arminian I know would acknowledge that God through his sovereign choice at the very least allows circumstances to arise which will effect someone's response to the Gospel either positively or negatively, yet will judge them according to how they respond to that message at that time.
All of this talk about duplicity in the mind of God and whatnot is equally true of Arminianism unless one is a universalist or accept the open-ness of God. Neither of these are theologies I have much time for, but at least they have the abilites to see the complete lack of logicality and liveability of Wesleyan Arminianism.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by londonderrry:
There is no dispute that man has a will and that a man's will has a role in salvation
Is man free to reject God, then? If not, how can he be said to have a will?
As a sola scripturist I prefer to approach this question from the other side. Does Scripture address us as if we have a will? Yes, always; and calls upon us to respond accordingly. (All the usual texts, you know them, eg anywhere in John 10 or the whole of John really).
I choose to believe that the Lord is not perpetrating a massive fraud upon us in addressing us this way.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I choose to believe that the Lord is not perpetrating a massive fraud upon us in addressing us this way.
I'm right behind you on that one. So is not the fact that we're called, persuaded, and not magicked into obedience, rather overwhelming evidence that we are given freedom to choose?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I choose to believe that the Lord is not perpetrating a massive fraud upon us in addressing us this way.
I'm right behind you on that one. So is not the fact that we're called, persuaded, and not magicked into obedience, rather overwhelming evidence that we are given freedom to choose?
We are given a choice, yes. But as a sola scripturist I choose to take seriously the passages in the Bible that insist that God in his sovereignty predestines us to choose him. (Ephesians, Romans...)
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
londonderrry
Apprentice
# 9158
|
Posted
quote:
Is man free to reject God, then? If not, how can he be said to have a will?
Dordrecht (Head IV, Articl XVI) put it quite scripturally when it said:
"But as man by the fall did not cease to be a creature, endowed with understanding and will, nor did sin which pervaded the whole race of mankind, deprive him of the human nature, but brought upon him depravity and spiritual death; so also this grace of regeneration does not treat men as senseless stocks and blocks, nor take away their will and its properties, neither does violence thereto; but spiritually quickens, heals, corrects, and at the same time sweetly and powerfully bends it; that where carnal rebellion and resistance formerly prevailed, a ready and sincere spiritual obedience begins to reign; in which the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consist. Wherefore unless the admirable author of every good work wrought in us, man could have no hope of recovering from his fall by his own free will, by the abuse of which, in a state of innocence, he plunged himself into ruin."
In other words... in regeneration God by His grace conforms ('bends') our will to His own.
Reformed in Christ,
Sean, N. Ireland
www.cprf.co.uk
Posts: 26 | From: Northern Ireland | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
But now I have a question for you, GreyFace.
Fire away. I think I owe you a few answers ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
Your position approaches universalism - am I correct in thinking that?
Not entirely. If we're given freedom to choose, if freely chosing is a component of salvation, there is no reason that I can see to assume that nearly everyone will be saved.
quote:
Isn't universalism itself a form of coercion? You will love Jesus, eventually, like it or not.
I agree, if that's what Universalism is. It's not, in the we-have-free-will version. The free will version of Universalism believes that God's love will eventually win everyone over, that everyone will freely choose him in the end, that no-one's self-will will be strong enough to damn them for eternity against God's contingent will, that Christ's redeeming work is sufficient for all people to be saved.
Of course, freedom implies risk, so it's possible that not all are saved, and my reading of Scripture (for what it's worth) is that it is at the very least, possible to miss out on eternal life.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
Londonderry,
I think I now understand your points about the involvement of the will in salvation - when we are saved our wills respond to God by his grace, not by our choice. Our wills are not free to accept God without his call, nor are they free to refuse Him if he calls us. Please correct me if I misinterpret you.
I then understand you to be saying that any theology which does not agree to this, and grants to man the free will to refuse the call of God is not a Christian theology at all but rather a damnable heresy in which no man can be saved.
Thus no Arminian protestant (or Catholic, or Orthodox, or any derivative thereof) is really a Christian and they are all (unless God has predestined them to repentance) lost.
Before I respond to that I'd like to be sure that this is indeed what you are saying. Is it?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Leprechaun (or anyone else for that matter),
quote:
All of this talk about duplicity in the mind of God and whatnot is equally true of Arminianism unless one is a universalist or accept the open-ness of God.
What do you mean by "accept the open-ness of God"? Is this shorthand for the position that says you can accept Jesus without recognising Him as such? (Genuine question.)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Calvinists [...] would rather distort their definition of goodness than their interpretation of Scripture.
Arminians in my limited experience do the same, but are less open about it.
Really? I would have thought it a much more plausible charge that Arminians will strain their interpretation of scripture to any extent rather than disturb their view of God's goodness. I'd deny the charge, of course, but I think it is much more likely to stick than the opposite.
In any case, I prefer the Arminian error (if error it is) to the Calvinist, because although I believe in both the reliability of scripture and the goodness of God, I am much more certain that God is good.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Of course, freedom implies risk, so it's possible that not all are saved, and my reading of Scripture (for what it's worth) is that it is at the very least, possible to miss out on eternal life.
OK that works. You couldn't really have this view and be a Universalist I think.
Do you include in your view then the risk that Mary could've said 'no' to the angel? Hence, no incarnation. Hence, no salvation. You could've had an endless succession of Marys refusing to be used in this way. God locked out of his own creation by the recalcitrance of humanity.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Do you include in your view then the risk that Mary could've said 'no' to the angel?
Yes. Of course, God knew she would agree. This is the interaction of free will and omnipotence - predestination. I agree with Boethius, I think.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What do you mean by "accept the open-ness of God"? Is this shorthand for the position that says you can accept Jesus without recognising Him as such? (Genuine question.)
Ricardus,
The open-ness of God is a fairly new theological movement which claims that there are certain aspects of the future that God does not know. It's fairly complex and I don't understand it fully, but ISTM to be saying that God knows what he will do in the future but not what any of us will do.
This seems to me to be a far more logical (if more dangerous) view than Arminianism which says we are responsible for our decisions but God foreknew what we would do, and organised the cirumstances in which we would make our decisions - thus to all intents and purposes is in control of them.
Anyway, that's what I meant by the open-ness of God - sorry to just drop it in without making it clear what I was talking about.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The open-ness of God is a fairly new theological movement which claims that there are certain aspects of the future that God does not know. It's fairly complex and I don't understand it fully, but ISTM to be saying that God knows what he will do in the future but not what any of us will do.
In other words what we used to call "heresy" once upon a time. Leads directly to panentheism, pelagianism, annhilationism, and lots of other nasty little isms.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Leprechaun,
Thanks for your reply. I wholly agree with you that Wesleyan Arminianism doesn't make much sense - I find Calvinism far more logical and have much more respect for it.
You've missed out an alternative, though, which is that we can accept Jesus without recognising Him as such (which is how I read Matt 25:37-40 - though whether I'm reading from or into the text is open to debate). I'm aware that, despite attacking Calvinism, I haven't really outlined my own beliefs.
Arminian - what londonderry would probably call semi-Pelagian - anthropology does allow us a flickering capacity to choose good, or at least to wish we weren't so bad. Since God is good, I would say that anyone who desires good accepts God ipso facto - the alternative being to say that God is not good. (Take note that I'm talking about desiring good, rather than being good, which is of course impossible.)
I agree with you that we don't really have a free choice as to whether or not to accept Christianity - because all sorts of irrelevant factors are around to cloud our judgement - but the whole essence of a moral decision is that it's wholly free. Factors other than pure morality don't count.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Do you include in your view then the risk that Mary could've said 'no' to the angel?
Yes. Of course, God knew she would agree. This is the interaction of free will and omnipotence - predestination. I agree with Boethius, I think.
ISTM that this confuses predestination and foreknowledge. God could foreknow what was going to happen without predestining it. But if he didn't predestine it, then we are back to Mary and all her potential successors having the power to say know and God standing by rather helplessly, knowing it is going to happen yet not having the power to change things.
I haven't read Boethius so he may have suggested an option I haven't foreseen
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Is it heretical to deny the principle of divine simplicity? If so, I would submit that Calvinism is heretical.
In the Calvinist view, we all come before God in an identical condition: total depravity. God must (logically) respond to our condition in whatever way is right: that is, in whatever way is in accordance with His nature.
If it is right for Him to save someone in that condition, then He must save us all (Universalism). If it is right for Him to make someone an offer of grace, then He must do so to everyone (Arminianism).
But Calvinists seem to be arguing that it is right for God in that situation both to make an offer of grace and to condemn that person. But this means that God's nature in this situation is both to have mercy and to condemn us. Since these are opposite responses, it follows that the nature of the Godhead must be in conflict with Itself, thus violating the principle that God is simple.
This is a pretty important question, isn't it.
I wonder if the divine simplicity consists in God's desire for his own glory—expressed when he is seen as being true to his own revealed word— rather than (our versions of) what justice and mercy must look like.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Thanks for your reply. I wholly agree with you that Wesleyan Arminianism doesn't make much sense - I find Calvinism far more logical and have much more respect for it.
I agree that Calvinism is very logical. Logically, I can understand Limited Atonement. It is very logical but, it is not, in my view, consistent with the view of God in Jesus. I find Wesley's Arminianism much more consistent with that. Opening wide his arms for us on the cross, dying for all even those 'who will not turn to him', pouring himself out for us, seeking the lost.
What is it that doesn't make sense about Wesleyan Arminianism?
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I wonder if the divine simplicity consists in God's desire for his own glory
This is an important part of Calvinism, it seems to me, but I"m not sure how Biblical it is -- where in Scripture does it say that God's greatest desire is for his own glory?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I wonder if the divine simplicity consists in God's desire for his own glory
This is an important part of Calvinism, it seems to me, but I"m not sure how Biblical it is -- where in Scripture does it say that God's greatest desire is for his own glory?
Hi Mousethief
The theme of the Lord seeking glory for himself is right through the story of the Old Testament, notably at key points of the redemption of Israel from Egypt, and then as the Bible writers reflect back on the event in later years. It’s striking how often the central aim of the events of the narrative have nothing to do with Israel and her rescue, and everything to do with God bringing honour and glory to his own name. One such example, and the idea is often repeated:
quote:
Ex. 14:17 And I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they shall go in after them, and I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host, his chariots, and his horsemen.
Ex. 14:18 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I have gotten glory over Pharaoh, his chariots, and his horsemen.”
This is hardly surprising, given that glory belongs to God and to him alone:
quote:
Psa. 115:1 Not to us, O LORD, not to us, but to your name give glory,
for the sake of your steadfast love and your faithfulness!
Nor is this necessarily incompatible with the good and wellbeing of those whom God blesses as he brings glory to his own name. What is surprising, however, are occasional passages where God’s glory and the good of the Israelites are placed in contrast to each other. Ezekiel has this classic statement:
quote:
Ezek. 36:19 I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed through the countries. In accordance with their ways and their deeds I judged them.
Ezek. 36:20 But when they came to the nations, wherever they came, they profaned my holy name, in that people said of them, ‘These are the people of the LORD, and yet they had to go out of his land.’
Ezek. 36:21 But I had concern for my holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations to which they came.
Ezek. 36:22 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came.
Ezek. 36:23 And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Lord GOD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes.
Ezek. 36:24 I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land.
Ezek. 36:25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you
<snip>
Ezek. 36:32 It is not for your sake that I will act, declares the Lord GOD; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel.
(Bold mine)
But in one sense, why look to a specific passage to establish that God has his own glory in mind as an aim (although it is a perfectly reasonable thing to look for such passages). Wouldn’t Trinitarian theology teach you as much? What I mean is, in both Orthodox and Catholic tradition, the Son gives glory to the Father, the Father gives glory to the Son, and the Father and the Son together are glorified by the Spirit. This has been so from eternity to eternity, certainly before there was any creation for the Creator to relate himself to. Therefore God seeks his own glory and has done so from eternity.
BTW I am deeply ashamed of this solecism that I just picked up:
quote:
originally posted by me:
Mary and all her potential successors having the power to say know
Would you believe that I was dictating my words to the computer and it made the error? Oh… I didn’t think so.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
ISTM that this confuses predestination and foreknowledge. God could foreknow what was going to happen without predestining it.
Actually, it seems to me that an omnipotent God could not, because God is always free if you like to modify or not modify the future as seen from a particular point in time. You will rightly point out that this is compatible with both Calvinism and the other theologies we're discussing, but that's no surprise as we're all basing things on Scripture.
So we get back to the question of God's purpose in either allowing free choice, or in forcing some people into damnation.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Thanks for your reply. I wholly agree with you that Wesleyan Arminianism doesn't make much sense - I find Calvinism far more logical and have much more respect for it.
I agree that Calvinism is very logical. Logically, I can understand Limited Atonement. It is very logical but, it is not, in my view, consistent with the view of God in Jesus. I find Wesley's Arminianism much more consistent with that. Opening wide his arms for us on the cross, dying for all even those 'who will not turn to him', pouring himself out for us, seeking the lost.
What is it that doesn't make sense about Wesleyan Arminianism?
Carys
I actually agree with you about limited atonement. That's why I would call myself a four and a bit point Calvinist.
What I think is illogical about Arminianism (aside from the fact it means one must do some very creative exegesis) is that it is supposedly predicated on human choice, yet most Arminians I know want to maintian the sovereignty of God over things like life circumstances etc. Now if God knows the future, and sovereignly arranges some people's life circumstances that they have very negative experiences of Christianity so they reject it, and does nothing to change that, so they end up rejecting Christ - well in what sense has he not chosen? There is so little difference as to make none at all.
That's why, ISTM that if one thinks free will is so important, then the open-ness of God is a far more sensible route to go down - although it does leave you with even more exegetical difficulties.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
It’s striking how often the central aim of the events of the narrative have nothing to do with Israel and her rescue, and everything to do with God bringing honour and glory to his own name.
I would suggest that any of these passages can be seen in the light of this - that bringing honour and glory to God's name, in the perception of any observing humans, is for our benefit. I don't believe God is enhanced by my perceiving his glory, or damaged by my failure so to do.
quote:
And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I have gotten glory over Pharaoh, his chariots, and his horsemen.
Presumably it's to the benefit of Egypt to know this.
quote:
What is surprising, however, are occasional passages where God’s glory and the good of the Israelites are placed in contrast to each other.
Total unsurprising if one views Israel's role as primarily to act in a priestly capacity internationally, that is, to show God's glory to the whole people of Earth.
quote:
But I had concern for my holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations to which they came.
See? It's because they damaged God's reputation among the nations. To the detriment of the nations, because worshipping God and our own well-being are not only not incompatible but actually, to my mind, in some ways an identity.
quote:
And the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Lord GOD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes.
And so on...
quote:
Wouldn’t Trinitarian theology teach you as much? What I mean is, in both Orthodox and Catholic tradition, the Son gives glory to the Father, the Father gives glory to the Son, and the Father and the Son together are glorified by the Spirit. This has been so from eternity to eternity, certainly before there was any creation for the Creator to relate himself to. Therefore God seeks his own glory and has done so from eternity.
How then is his glory enhanced by displaying it to us? His glory is surely, from an eternal point of view, in what and who he is, not in what he has displayed to humans. I conclude therefore that any display of his glory is for our benefit out of his love, and although I admit this might be my human failing, an interpretation that has God refusing to help those in desperate, ultimate, eternal, horrific need does not bring him glory as much as, oh for instance, the one that has God incarnating, suffering and dying for all.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Thanks for your reply. I wholly agree with you that Wesleyan Arminianism doesn't make much sense - I find Calvinism far more logical and have much more respect for it.
I agree that Calvinism is very logical. Logically, I can understand Limited Atonement. It is very logical but, it is not, in my view, consistent with the view of God in Jesus. I find Wesley's Arminianism much more consistent with that. Opening wide his arms for us on the cross, dying for all even those 'who will not turn to him', pouring himself out for us, seeking the lost.
What is it that doesn't make sense about Wesleyan Arminianism?
Carys
The problem comes if you say that only Christians are saved, because whether or not one becomes a Christian may be affected by all sorts of things that have nothing to do with repentence - Christianity is not self-evident, so to become a Christian you must either take a shot in the dark or work through a process of deductive reasoning. All sorts of purely social factors might put someone off Christianity - to take an extreme example, one cannot imagine a Moor expelled from Spain seeing anything good in Christianity - and if we are going to have people arbitrarily barred from the Kingdom, "God's sovereign choice" is a better reason for it than "society". I think this is what Leprechaun is getting at.
Though looking at some of Wesley's quotes as given by londonderry it's quite possible he didn't say this, in which case I have maligned him.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Ah, but saying non-Christians are saved (post-incarnation) then leads to even more exegetical difficulties and even more contradiction of basic themes of the Bible.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leonato
Shipmate
# 5124
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
What I think is illogical about Arminianism (aside from the fact it means one must do some very creative exegesis) is that it is supposedly predicated on human choice, yet most Arminians I know want to maintian the sovereignty of God over things like life circumstances etc. Now if God knows the future, and sovereignly arranges some people's life circumstances that they have very negative experiences of Christianity so they reject it, and does nothing to change that, so they end up rejecting Christ - well in what sense has he not chosen? There is so little difference as to make none at all.
I'm confused by this, and you seem to misrepresent Arminianism. I would say that God does not sovereignly arrange a person's life circumstances. A person's life is determined by their free will, the free will of other people, and by events in the natural world. If someone has a bad experience and rejects God it is their choice. Other people have bad lives and still accept God, some have great lives and reject him.
You confuse foreknowledge with predestination - God knowing the future and sovereginly arranging the future are not the same thing.
What is this creative exegesis required for Arminianism? It always seems to me tha TULIP Calvinism requires more creativity. The parables almost always indicate people choosing good and being accepted for their choices (good Samaritan, prodigal son etc. etc.). To me an Armimnian approach fits these parables far better than Calvinism.
--------------------
leonato... Much Ado
Posts: 892 | From: Stage left | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I haven't read Boethius
Do. He's bloody brilliant. The Consolation of Philosophy is one of the all-time great books.
Don't just believe me - it was King Alfred's favourite book (he of the cakes). Apparently he translated it into English himself.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I agree that Calvinism is very logical.
I think you concede too much to the Calvinists. Calvinism is certainly not logical.
The proof:
If Calvinism is true, it is axiomatic that one can only accept the Christian truth if called by God.
Calvinism EITHER (liberal, Leprechaunite view) is a sub-set of the Christian truth OR (hardline, londonderrian view) is itself the Christian truth. In either case, if Calvinism is true it is necessary for a Calvinist to have accepted Christianity.
Therefore it is possible to believe Calvinism only if called by God.
If Calvinism is true, it is axiomatic that unless one is called by God, no degree of moral or intellectual effort can lead a person to belief in Christianity or Calvinism.
Therefore it is impossible to arrive at Calvinism by unaided logic.
Therefore Calvinism is not logical.
(It might still be true. It may be possible to believe Calvinism on the basis of revelation, alone, or though the media of authority and reason. But it cannot be logical.)
The hardline view of Calvinism is illogical on additional grounds (follow londonderry's audio links if you have 70 minutes' free time and a good place to spit) because in that system God not only calls the elect, he also actively hardens and deceives the reprobate. Our beliefs, including any belief that we are saved, can be manufactured by God, whether those beliefs are true or false. Thus no one can logically be certain of any theology at all (psychologically, they can be certain, because God makes it so, however He does this just as well to confirm the erring in their heresy as to confirm the elect in the truth, and thus divine conviction is no guarantee of truth).
--------------------
"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
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leonato:
You confuse foreknowledge with predestination - God knowing the future and sovereginly arranging the future are not the same thing.
I am not in the least bit confused.
What is the difference between "knowing what someone will do, knowing it will lead them to Hell, being in control of the cirumstances that lead them making such a choice, and not doing anything to stop them" and "choosing that they will go to Hell"? Not very much I submit.
Foreknowledge, with any measure of power to change the future (never mind omnuipotent power) is, effectively predestination.
And that's not even starting on all the life circumstances over which people have no control whatsoever.
The idea that people's choices are "free" in any real sense can only be the case if God has no foreknowledge.
As for exegetical problmes with Arminianism - try all of Ephesians 1 and most of John's Gospel.
quote:
quoth Eliab
Calvinism EITHER (liberal, Leprechaunite view)
I have never been called a Liberal before. How novel. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ 04. May 2005, 10:40: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Saying that non-Christians will not be saved turns God in to Satan.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
What is the difference between "knowing what someone will do, knowing it will lead them to Hell, being in control of the cirumstances that lead them making such a choice, and not doing anything to stop them" and "choosing that they will go to Hell"? Not very much I submit.
I think I see the problem. The problem appears to me to be that you are convinced that we will all be judged on what we do in this life alone and that the only criterion on which we will be judged is whether we had faith in Christ. Which, as isn't often pointed out, is not a moral judgement at all if we had no say in it.
Apologies if I have this wrong.
Thus you have to argue, that if omnipotent God wanted someone to be saved, he would surely be able to ensure that they hear the Gospel, that they encounter Christ in such a way that they would be unable to avoid turning to him, here and now in this life. Therefore the conclusion is that as plainly God does not do this for everyone (Amazon tribes) he does not want all to be saved.
But this, as someone famous once said, contradicts the plain reading of scripture. In my humble opinion. As well as being apparently thoroughly unjust if God's selection criteria are arbitrary, as appears to be Calvinist teaching.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Leprechaun:
[qb]
But this, as someone famous once said, contradicts the plain reading of scripture. In my humble opinion. As well as being apparently thoroughly unjust if God's selection criteria are arbitrary, as appears to be Calvinist teaching.
Well perhaps. But I was attempting to critique Wesleyan Arminianism - not what you are presenting which I think veers from Arminianism towards universalism, without quite reaching that destination.
Of course I may not have got a handle on Wesleyan Arminianism at all, as most of the people I know who purport to believe it crumble at the first sign of a discussion into why they think Calvinism is such an awful thing.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Gordon,
quote:
I wonder if the divine simplicity consists in God's desire for his own glory—expressed when he is seen as being true to his own revealed word— rather than (our versions of) what justice and mercy must look like.
I don't see this. If God's glory is unsurpassable, how can He seek glory by any other means than simply being Who He is?
I'm not sure what you mean by "seen as being true to his own revealed word" either. Surely His own revealed word should be true to Him, not the other way round?
Custard,
quote:
Ah, but saying non-Christians are saved (post-incarnation) then leads to even more exegetical difficulties and even more contradiction of basic themes of the Bible.
I would say pretty much all the options being presented here give exegetical difficulties, which is why I don't believe in Sola Scriptura. Which difficulties you consider worse than others depends on the weight you give to separate themes in Scripture.
The exegetical problems with my view become less serious if we say that "accepting / believing in / putting your trust in Christ" is effectively equivalent to "desiring goodness" - which is the logical consequence of the equation Christ = God = good.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leonato
Shipmate
# 5124
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
What is the difference between "knowing what someone will do, knowing it will lead them to Hell, being in control of the cirumstances that lead them making such a choice, and not doing anything to stop them" and "choosing that they will go to Hell"? Not very much I submit.
Foreknowledge, with any measure of power to change the future (never mind omnuipotent power) is, effectively predestination.
And that's not even starting on all the life circumstances over which people have no control whatsoever.
God choosing whether or not a person goes to Hell is vastly different from predestining that person to Hell. Foreknowledge with omnipotence is NOT predestination.
Naturally God chooses who is saved and who is not, the question is how that is acheived. Arminianism suggests that this choice depends on the person's freely chosen faith and actions. God may know what these will be, but has not chosen what these will be. Calvinism suggests that this salvation is by predestination, which must be independent of any faith or action in that person or else it isn't predestination.
In Arminianism salvation is after the fact; in Calvinism, before.
I can't see how Calvinism fits with free will. If God is a Calvinist and gives us free wil then either a memeber of the elect can go round raping and murdering of his free choice and still be elect, which I assume no Calvinist beleives, or being elect forces you to be faithful and good, so you have no free will, or you are elect because of your faith and goodness: Arminianism. Which is it?
--------------------
leonato... Much Ado
Posts: 892 | From: Stage left | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
not what you are presenting which I think veers from Arminianism towards universalism, without quite reaching that destination.
Not so, or at least no more so than any form of Calvinism that is agnostic on the fate of those who aren't openly meeting the criterion of open confession of faith in Christ at the moment of their death. Free will could potentially result in enormous numbers of casualties. I hope for Universalism because I trust God knows what he's doing, and I believe that if people are lost it will be against God's contingent will.
I don't think this is much different to Calvinist/Calvinians who accept predestination of those who become explicitly visibly Christian in this life, but won't jump off the fence on the question of those who don't.
To the more staunch supporters of double predestination on this thread, would you feel upset to find Universalism was true? I'd be positively gleeful.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leonato:
God choosing whether or not a person goes to Hell is vastly different from predestining that person to Hell. Foreknowledge with omnipotence is NOT predestination.
Well, I can't see how the moral responsibility for people going to Hell is any different on God. "Free" choice, outside the circumstances of life (over which we have no control) is a fiction.
He decides the circumstances which shape our decisions. What's more, he knows in advance what those circumstances will be and has the power to change them should he wish. The difference between this and "predestining" someone to heaven or hell is just semantics.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
