|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Why Calvinism makes sense
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jacques More:
I do not read Him in the bible as living outside of time (eternal in that sense), having total knowledge of future events (omniscience which is more than what is knowable) nor do I see His will carried out everywhere (omnipotence such that sin is in His will).
This is the nub of it. Most theologians have seen the Bible as exactly describing such a God.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Just because I found them on the Net, some quotes from Spurgeon:
quote:
I recollect an Arminian brother telling me that he had read the Scriptures through a score or more times, and could never find the doctrine of election in them. He added that he was sure he would have done so if it had been there, for he read the Word on his knees. I said to him, "I think you read the Bible in a very uncomfortable posture, and if you had read it in your easy chair, you would have been more likely to understand it.
quote:
One week-night, when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the preacher's sermon, for I did not believe it. The thought struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment—I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him.
quote:
John Newton used to tell a whimsical story, and laugh at it, too, of a good woman who said, in order to prove the doctrine of election, "Ah! sir, the Lord must have loved me before I was born, or else He would not have seen anything in me to love afterwards."
quote:
I were to declare that man was so free to act that there was no control of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I should declare that God so over-rules all things that man is not free enough to be responsible, I should be driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other. I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
This is the nub of it. Most theologians have seen the Bible as exactly describing such a God.
But most biblical scholars would agree with Jacques More.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by psyduck:
And it was all going so well...
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Yes don't you hate it when somebody has to drag facts into it?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
The starting point of Calvinism is that without God's intervention no one would be saved. 'All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God'. No one of their own initative would choose to folow God without Him calling them. Election is not God showing disfavour on some but rather Him exercisng his love and favour by giving salvation to those who do not deserve it.
--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.
Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jacques More
Shipmate
# 5157
|
Posted
Hi Jeff,
quote:
Election is not God showing disfavour on some but rather Him exercising his love and favour by giving salvation to those who do not deserve it.
That’s interesting, but it is contrary to scripture: ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
“With the merciful You will show yourself merciful . . . “ 2 Samuel 22:26
“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.” Matthew 5:6-7
That tells me it is those who do these things that reap likewise ![[Smile]](smile.gif) not those who don’t. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Regards,
Jacques
Unless otherwise stated Bible quotes are from the New King James Version. © copyright Thomas Nelson Inc. 1979,1980,1982.
--------------------
A text out of context is a pretext
Posts: 59 | From: Croydon, UK | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Oh, goody! A proof-texting! I'll see your two verses, Jacques More, and raise you these:
"and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy. " Exodus 33:19
"he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." Matt 5:45
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
A proof-texting war! This could be purgatory's version of hell's slagging wars.
If we get to pick sides, I'll go with Mousethief.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Originally posted by Jeff Featherstone:
The starting point of Calvinism is that without God's intervention no one would be saved. 'All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God'. No one of their own initative would choose to folow God without Him calling them. Election is not God showing disfavour on some but rather Him exercisng his love and favour by giving salvation to those who do not deserve it
I think we'd all agree that without God's intervention no one would be saved. I would agree that God's favour on us gives salvation to those who don't deserve it. But for me, this is the biggest arguement in favour of universalism which has been arrived at by individual Calvinists for the same reason. We have all sinned. None of us deserves God's pardon. But He gives it unconditionally. Some traditions say that what we do is important. I agree it is, but not for salvation. Other traditions say that what we believe is important. No way!
If God saves us, because He is God and loves us, by nature of having created us, we can have no fear in this world or the next. He will save us. Our Redeemer's name in Hebrew is Yahoshua which means "Yah saves". Jesus knew it and he hs taught to us, His followers to know it. God saves, in Jesus.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Featherstone:
The starting point of Calvinism is that without God's intervention no one would be saved.
Well duh. I'll go even further. Without Christ's death on the cross no one would be saved. And yet I still don't believe Calvinism.
quote:
'All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God'. No one of their own initative would choose to follow God without Him calling them.
Yes. Absolutely. The difference is that I think he calls all.
quote:
Election is not God showing disfavour on some but rather Him exercisng his love and favour by giving salvation to those who do not deserve it
And not on others. Don't call that "showing disfavour" if you don't want to, but then at least be man enough to admit that the difference is semantics and not reality.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
Why is it only semantics? Surely there is a difference between God choosing some and ignoring others, and God choosing some and actively preventing others who want to from coming?
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But most biblical scholars would agree with Jacques More.
When you say "most", hatless, I take it you are using the word to mean "a few"?
--------------------
humblebum
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Jeff Featherstone: quote:
Election is not God showing disfavour on some but rather Him exercising his love and favour by giving salvation to those who do not deserve it
In the sense that "God showing disfavour on some..." is technically Reprobation, not Election, that's true. But to hold Election and Reprobation together in a doctrine of Double Predestination does seem to turn Election-Reprobation into two sides of the same coin, and produce the same effect. And we can't absolve the Calvinist tradition from having developed the doctrine of Double Predestination to a high degree - whatever else we've done with it.
Election is certainly God "exercising his love and favour by giving salvation to those who do not deserve it" - and it's clearly there in Romans. Whether Reprobation is there as anything other than the (apparently) logical shadow of Election is, I think, a moot point. I imagine the key text is always going to be Romans 9, and for the record I don't think you can derive a thorughgoing doctrine of Reprobation from it. But that's for Kerygmania.
It takes us back to the exchange between Ken:
quote:
This is the nub of it. Most theologians have seen the Bible as exactly describing such a God.
and Hatless: quote:
But most biblical scholars would agree with Jacques More
And if you want to know what the Bible says, you ask a biblical scholar, not a theologian. Doctrines are derived from Scripture, not contained in it.
So - a question. If we could have Election without Reprobation - how would the critics of Calvinism feel about that?
Because I think that Paul comes pretty close to giving us that.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
Why is it only semantics? Surely there is a difference between God choosing some and ignoring others, and God choosing some and actively preventing others who want to from coming?
If it means the "others" end up in Hell either way, surely it's a difference in words only, hence "semantics".
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I assume hatless is refering to the fact that the Biblical witness is actually very weak in reference to God being omnipotent or omniscient ... ie: the Bible doesn't say that about God. It does use terms like God Almighty, but they have subtly different meanings to the omni's.
Terms like omnipotence were introduced into Christian theology from Greek philosophy rather than being derived directly from Scripture, more or less. I think you'll find first century rabbis totally unable to comprehend the sort of "can God create a rock too big to lift?" type questions because the sort of philosophical framework needed (including the concept of omnipotence) would be totally alien to them.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Um, Alan, "almighty" and "omnipotent" are two different ways of saying exactly the same thing. Etymologically-wise speaking, both mean "all-powerful."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Yes, but omnipotent has baggage that Allpowerful doesn't ... but I'm struggling to try and explain what I mean ... maybe I'll try in the morning.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Actually, NEAM, Alan has a point - which turns on the meanings of the Hebrew expressions that 'God Almighty' is translating. But it's a Kerygmania point...
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Could be, psyduck -- but he hasn't explained that point yet. Can you do it for him?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I assume hatless is refering to the fact that the Biblical witness is actually very weak in reference to God being omnipotent or omniscient
Yes, that's right. The Bible portrays a God who can change his mind, and who is very engaged with his people. He doesn't just go on saying the same eternally true things over and over again. He responds afresh to things that happen and seems to react, to care, to be stirred up by them.
He does not survey humanity from a distance, does not seem as loftily sovereign as a Calvinist's God, but seems deeply focused on Israel's daily misfortunes.
I can see, reading the discussion so far, that there is a certain amount of Calvinist in me. It's Process Theology, though, that I find the most satisfying approach, because it is the least worst theology when it comes to the problem of evil (at the expense of a traditional view of divine omniscience/potence). I think the Biblical witness fits quite well with a Process God - inextricably involved with creation, and in some ways at risk from creation's independence and human freewill.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Oh, I wouldn't presume...
(Not even a Psyduck...)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Well, I might presume in the morning...
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
<snip!>I can see, reading the discussion so far, that there is a certain amount of Calvinist in me...<snip!>
I stopped reading there. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Hatless: quote:
It's Process Theology, though, that I find the most satisfying approach, because it is the least worst theology when it comes to the problem of evil (at the expense of a traditional view of divine omniscience/potence). I think the Biblical witness fits quite well with a Process God - inextricably involved with creation, and in some ways at risk from creation's independence and human freewill.
Now that's realy interesting. I've come back and looked at Process Theology off and on over a long period, and I always start off thinking "Why was I so much against this stuff the last time I looked at it?" and this continues for some time, until sudden;y, once again, I recoil from it. And my recollection is that I recoil from it at a slightly different point, and in slightly different ways, each time.
Could this be worth a thread? Especially since I suspect my problems with PT might be a sort of 'negative' of yours with Calvinism? I'd thought of launching one, but I think it would come better from a PT fan!
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jacques More
Shipmate
# 5157
|
Posted
Good morning all, (in the UK ![[Cool]](cool.gif) )
quote:
Oh, goody! A proof-texting! I'll see your two verses, Jacques More, and raise you these:
"and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy. " Exodus 33:19
"he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." Matt 5:45
I am glad to have a few days away from work this week (which is why normally I am not about in the daytime except weekends).
The Exodus passage is a direct response to Moses request that he be wiped off God's book so that Israel could be spared. God would not do that. He is as per the Samuel passage merciful to the merciful. It does go on to say,
"And with the devious You will show Yourself shrewd" 2 samuel 22:27
So that in context whom God has mercy on is the merciful.
As for the rain and the sun this is not to do with salvation, but shows the heart of God in that His nature shows that "the goodness of God leads you to repentance" Romans 2:4
Regards,
Jacques
--------------------
A text out of context is a pretext
Posts: 59 | From: Croydon, UK | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Repentence is nowt to do with salvation, then?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jacques More
Shipmate
# 5157
|
Posted
Of course it does Mousethief, so if you wish to extend the rain and the sun to be a call to salvation in that sense, I'd have to agree with you. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Jacques
--------------------
A text out of context is a pretext
Posts: 59 | From: Croydon, UK | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Hey, you made the connection with the repentence verse, not me. Credit where credit is due!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jacques More
Shipmate
# 5157
|
Posted
Ah, but you earlier posted that you believe God calls all.
Jacques
--------------------
A text out of context is a pretext
Posts: 59 | From: Croydon, UK | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jacques More
Shipmate
# 5157
|
Posted
One of the favourite Calvinist proof texts is in John 6:65 ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
“. . . no one can come to me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
[Indeed Augustine used these John 6 portions.] ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
In the first portion of verse 65 Jesus says "I have said to you that . . ." alluding to a previous mention of the above. The previous mention is in verse 44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day."
Understandably it is used equally force-ably to 'prove' the idea mentioned. The context that is left unspoken however involves primarily verse 45
"It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me".
Here we find Jesus explaining what he has just stated above. God is in the business of teaching about spiritual truths and those who learn these things come to Jesus. Jesus did not say everyone who has heard from the Father come to him, but everyone who has heard and learned come to him. The implication exists therefore that you can hear, but reject and refuse to learn. This is Jesus' own explanation and there is no idea implied of a fixed number of people as taught by God. In fact Jesus' quote says 'they shall allbe taught of God' (my emphasis); hardly a limited number here. The context therefore of the verse in hand does not warrant use for the idea of individual predestination excluding others.
You are right Mousethief God does call all. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Regards,
Jacques
Unless otherwise stated Bible quotes are from the New King James Version. © copyright Thomas Nelson Inc. 1979,1980,1982.
--------------------
A text out of context is a pretext
Posts: 59 | From: Croydon, UK | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
By raining on them?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jacques More
Shipmate
# 5157
|
Posted
What, not smilie?
--------------------
A text out of context is a pretext
Posts: 59 | From: Croydon, UK | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Um, Alan, "almighty" and "omnipotent" are two different ways of saying exactly the same thing. Etymologically-wise speaking, both mean "all-powerful."
OK, after a nights sleep to allow my brain to function better ... my assessment of the difference between almighty and omnipotent. I think (and I'm really no expert) that the greek and hebrew approaches differed radically.
Greek philosophy (or at least Platonism in its various forms) tended to approach things with a logic that said that the perfect must exist - and then extended this to say that this ultimate perfect is God. So, therefore God must be the most perfect being possible - in power, in knowledge etc. Hence God is omnipotent, capable of doing all things, leaving just a bit of room for debate as to what is included in "all things" (eg: a rock to big to be lifted).
Hebrew theology started from God exists and has revealed himself through his words (including through prophets) and actions. That revelation convinced them that God is more powerful than other forces (eg: the armies and gods of Egypt). The Hebrew God is almighty, but the emphasis is on his being powerful enough to save his people and defeat any other power - this doesn't require God to be the most powerful being possible. That it might be possible to conceive of a more powerful being is irrelevant if such a being doesn't exist.
And, one final point. Far too often we read omnipotent back into the text where the word almighty appears. That the words themselves mean the same thing doesn't mean that the ideas they convey are the same.
Clearer?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Actually the word "almighty", not being a Hebrew word, doesn't occur at all.
Jacques: sorry.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jacques More
Shipmate
# 5157
|
Posted
Yes, but it's interesting to note from Alan's contribution that the origin of the idea of the omnis is Greek and not Hebrew (i.e. not the biblical context).
The foundation for Calvinism even in John's Institutes assumes the omniscience of God not revealed in the bible: knowing all things future.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Jacques
P.S. I know how to edit now...
[ 17. December 2003, 08:49: Message edited by: Jacques More ]
--------------------
A text out of context is a pretext
Posts: 59 | From: Croydon, UK | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Not Even a Mousethief:
Actually the word "almighty", not being a Hebrew word, doesn't occur at all.
Pedant. Sorry that I don't know Hebrew and was forced to use an english translation.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Jacques More:
You have suppositions about the form of Calvinism that you are talking to that I find surprising given the discussion on these boards over the last couple of weeks.
Firstly I do not need every verse in the Bible to tally with the idea of Omniscient, Omnipotent God. I would not expect a book mainly written before the end of the first century A.D. to tally with the understandings of eternity of a twenty first century mathematicians who is quite happy to consider time-space as probably having more than four dimensions. That would be plain silly I mays as well be a seven day creationist.
If you want I could cite psalm 139 at you but you would come back with that being poetry no doubt. To persuade me you do not have to show that at times God is portrayed as not knowing the future in the Bible, it is quite obvious to anyone who reads it. What you have to show is that God is never ever portrayed as that and that is always incompatible with every passage in the bible. I would suggest that was impossible but the need for that level of proof that is required.
The Bible to me and I would guess to many replying on this thread is polyvocal. There is not one picture of God in the Bible but many each giving clues and indications to a God who is beyond, but all also human creations. We believe is a God who has not just incarnated himself in Jesus Christ but is incarnating himself in his word. Proof texting does not work for us, as it set the Living word. It really does not matter whether that is by a Biblical Scholar or a Theologian. Biblical Scholars at most give us a minimal understanding of the Word. In that if they can get to the original meaning (and from having been around them I would say that was dubious) we must not interpret that part of the Bible in a way that is incompatible with that meaning. Academic theologians are playing interesting games which if they help us make clearer the God of which we speak are worth listening to.
Calvinism can appear to be a very "we have got it sussed" theology. However for those who are like me, he rather provides a useful part of the framework which we use to think around the gospel. It is however the spaces that are more important than the framework to our theology.
Very few of those who honour Calvin, that I go around with, spend much time worrying of damnation and such. It is treated by most as an interesting historical artefact. The simple reason being that it is a wrong point of focus. To worry about damnation is to worry about a person, if one truly understands Calvinism it is a call to concentrate on God and not that of the person. It is a corrective and much needed challenge to modern Christianity, not to concentrate so much on the needs of man but on the Glory of God.
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Well that's mighty handy, Jengie -- if we just concentrate on God we won't hear the screams of the damned. But is a God who would create people for the sole purpose of damning them, a glorious one?
to Alan: yes but you must still unpack your hereclitean claim "they mean the same thing and yet don't mean the same thing if you get my drift."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Last night, I asked quote:
If we could have Election without Reprobation...
This morning, Jengie said:
quote:
Very few of those who honour Calvin, that I go around with, spend much time worrying of damnation and such. It is treated by most as an interesting historical artefact. The simple reason being that it is a wrong point of focus. To worry about damnation is to worry about a person, if one truly understands Calvinism it is a call to concentrate on God and not that of the person. It is a corrective and much needed challenge to modern Christianity, not to concentrate so much on the needs of man but on the Glory of God.
Et voila!
Most people who do their theologizing in the Calvinist tradition, in my experience, do it with this emphasis. Calvin certainly did. But then again, it's important to distinguish between Calvin and Calvinists - as with Marx and Marxists. Things change once the scholastics get their teeth into things. In particular, the Federal Calvinism of the early seventeenth century represents a departure from the nascent Calvinism of the mid-sixteenth. There have been moves, for that very reason, to replace the Westminister Confession of 1646 with the Scots Confession of 1560 as the Subordinate Standard of the Church of Scotland, though without success.
I really do think that the probles come when you press things too far, and too logically. But the problem for the non-Calvinists is that it's just the same for them. If their God is omnipotent, and loving, and not all are saved, they have to account for why. And if all are saved - how? Is there any road to universalism other than the one the Calvinists have trodden? Even Origen didn't believe that all would stumble in eventually. He believed that the loe of God tracked souls down (even Satan's) through an almost-infinity of worlds.
No, free-will is a market-solution, base on choice. And choice based on inadequate information is a rigged market.
What we need is the humility to realize that by and large theology passes over into speculation for most of us at more or less the same point. The different traditions are different ways of following through the implications of what we do know.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I have heard at least one version of Universalism that is intriguing. That is that Heaven and Hell are the same place, and that is the place where we are in the glorious presence of God. Whether to us it is Heaven or Hell depends on our response to that glorious presence. Of course you then also get the Hell where the Damned prefer the absense of God's presence to living in it.
These are intriguing speculations and I do not believe them either. I am agnostic towards the form the after life will take except that there will be judgement there but whether the judgement is damnation or revelation I have no idea. I solely believe in this because of the consistency of the witness through the ages that people are held accountable to the Lord. Yes I know myself as silly here as the rest.
All I really know is in this life I prefer to explore the Glory of God, and encourage others to do so, than spend time worrying over the next.
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
|
|
Jacques More
Shipmate
# 5157
|
Posted
Hi Jengie,
quote:
If you want I could cite psalm 139 at you but you would come back with that being poetry no doubt. To persuade me you do not have to show that at times God is portrayed as not knowing the future in the Bible, it is quite obvious to anyone who reads it. What you have to show is that God is never ever portrayed as that and that is always incompatible with every passage in the bible. I would suggest that was impossible but the need for that level of proof that is required.
I assume you mean as follows:
“For You have formed my inward parts; You have covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvellous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skilfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them.” Psalm 139:13-16
This passage especially in the NIV can be seen as useful to the doctrine of unconditional predestination, "All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." (Psalm 139:16 NIV): The idea being that if God has written up all the days of our lives before they existed then you can't help but see unconditional predestination as a reality.
The extent of God's knowledge is awesome. He knows all that is knowable. See my article Evil and God's knowledge.
The Hebrew literal in immediate context which in the NIV is "all the days ordained for me were written in your book” refer to Lit. “what days they should be fashioned” (KJV margin). In other words the order in which his body was fashioned was known and understood in detail by God. This is my understanding of this text portion.
So that in the KJV we have:
“Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect;. and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.” Psalm 139:16 KJV
There is in context – therefore - no appreciation that the days of one's life is known by God in advance, but the order in which the parts of the body are
knit together in the womb. Thus it does not refer to a form of predestination.
As to:
quote:
What you have to show is that God is never ever portrayed as that and that is always incompatible with every passage in the bible.
This is what I read and believe, I challenge therefore to be given a passage that can only mean He knows everything about the future.
Regards,
Jacques
Unless otherwise stated Bible quotes are from the New King James Version. © copyright Thomas Nelson Inc. 1979,1980,1982.
NIV material is taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 by the International Bible Society
--------------------
A text out of context is a pretext
Posts: 59 | From: Croydon, UK | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
This is what I read and believe, I challenge therefore to be given a passage that can only mean He knows everything about the future.
Ah but that is the nub of it. It is what YOU READ and what YOU BELIEVE. It is not what you have demonstrated here. YOUR READING is formed by YOUR BELIEF as much as the other way around. I know this from my own experience, I hinted at it in a previous post. That is why it I think you will find it impossible to prove to anyones satisfaction here. What you only demonstrate above is that another doctrine is equally compatible with the text, not that what you object to is incompatible.
To those who follow Calvin in my form it is as a Biblical Scholar once told me, the reading on your knees that counts not that with the most uptodate of scholarship.
I enjoy and appreciate biblical scholarship, indeed use when I am on my knees but it does not settle the faith.
By the way have you got to Fr Gregory's thread about what you take as well as the Bible as authoritative.
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
|
|
Jacques More
Shipmate
# 5157
|
Posted
Hi Jengie,
quote:
YOUR READING is formed by YOUR BELIEF as much as the other way around. I know this from my own experience, I hinted at it in a previous post. That is why it I think you will find it impossible to prove to anyones satisfaction here. What you only demonstrate above is that another doctrine is equally compatible with the text, not that what you object to is incompatible.
There is in part a sense in which all that is true. But, within such a view if there are no texts of the bible which cannot be reasonably read another way then the limits of that thinking are revealed.
My approach is that indeed the bible is the only sure foundation for all Christian doctrine. If a doctrine does not have any text that can be read otherwise in context, it can be held safely as a belief. However if you find you end up with no passage that can be seen that way, you have a false doctrine. This is the case for 'Calvinism'.
I see the bible as indeed inspired writing to the extent that it is the only source from which to draw evidence from what to believe in regards to the living God. Therefore all ideas of contrary views of God in Scripture point to a misunderstanding and are false.
When He says,
" 'Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?' says the Lord GOD, 'and not that he should turn from his ways and live?' - 'For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,' says the Lord GOD. 'Therefore turn and live!' " Ezekiel 18: 23, 32
It is wholly inconsistent with Calvinism or Calvin's direct teaching. So I find it to be a false doctrine. ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
Regards,
Jacques
Unless otherwise stated Bible quotes are from the New King James Version. © copyright Thomas Nelson Inc. 1979,1980,1982.
--------------------
A text out of context is a pretext
Posts: 59 | From: Croydon, UK | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
The classic answer is Ephesians.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jacques More:
When He says,
" 'Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?' says the Lord GOD, 'and not that he should turn from his ways and live?' - 'For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,' says the Lord GOD. 'Therefore turn and live!' " Ezekiel 18: 23, 32
It is wholly inconsistent with Calvinism or Calvin's direct teaching. So I find it to be a false doctrine.
This is one of the most inaccurate claims against Calvinism that I have seen - and it appears every time the discussion is held.
The passage does not say that God is happy that some will be in hell. In fact, it says the opposite - He will is unhappy that some will be in hell. Likewise, all Calvinists I know are unhappy that some are in hell. Please, stop telling us what we believe - especially when you are wrong.
God says "turn and live". This is why many Calvinists (as well as many non-Calvinist Christians) are evangelical.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
I remember the matter of evangelism being a very divisive issue among my Calvinist relatives and friends.
There seemed to be three positions. The "strict" Calvinists were totally opposed to any form of evangelistic activity. Billy Graham was seen as an arch-heretic. They felt that human efforts to convert the unregenerate are an affront to the will of a sovereign God. These same people tended to be opposeed to purchasing insurance and viewed gambling as one of the most serious of sins.
At the other extreme, there were Calvinists who not only evangelized, but went as far as using such "worldly" methods as radio and televison evangelistic efforts.
The middle way was a restrained, non-emotional, minimal witness under very limited circumstances.
The preferred form of evangelization seemed to be the extablishment of mission churches in areas with a small proportion of Calvinists in the population. The middle-of-the-roaders would want the first steps in conversion to come from those outside the faith. Their dislike for many forms of evangelization seemed to me to reflect their notions of taste and decorum as much as their theology.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jacques More
Shipmate
# 5157
|
Posted
Hi Ken,
quote:
The classic answer is Ephesians.
A careful read of Ephesians reveals that Paul is throughout making use of the pronouns 'us' and 'we': the group is in view; not a set of picked out individuals. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
You choose which group you are (end up) in as testified by your deeds: a life of wickedness or of righteousness (see Romans 2 and John 3). In Romans 8 Paul clarifies how this works. See my commentary on Romans 8:28.
Regards,
Jacques
--------------------
A text out of context is a pretext
Posts: 59 | From: Croydon, UK | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jacques More
Shipmate
# 5157
|
Posted
Hi Sharkshooter,
quote:
This is one of the most inaccurate claims against Calvinism that I have seen - and it appears every time the discussion is held.
The passage does not say that God is happy that some will be in hell. In fact, it says the opposite - He will is unhappy that some will be in hell. Likewise, all Calvinists I know are unhappy that some are in hell. Please, stop telling us what we believe - especially when you are wrong.
God says "turn and live". This is why many Calvinists (as well as many non-Calvinist Christians) are evangelical.
If Calvin is right and Calvinism true, then there are the elect and those who are not: elect in the sense of picked out to be saved.
If it is true, then none of these elect end up in hell.
Now, if God is true to Himself, it is inconsistent for Him to be grieved about those going to hell if they are unable to turn.
That is the inconsistency with the scripture involved in Calvinism irrespective of evangelism.
Not forgetting that ‘elect’ translated from eklektos does not mean ‘picked out’ but ‘of quality’: it is used in the Septuagint abundantly as such: tall trees, precious silver, quality meat, pleasant land, etc…
Regards,
Jacques
--------------------
A text out of context is a pretext
Posts: 59 | From: Croydon, UK | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jacques More:
Now, if God is true to Himself, it is inconsistent for Him to be grieved about those going to hell if they are unable to turn.
Actually, I find it entirely consistent that God is greived that some will go to hell - regardless of whether they can or cannot turn.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
Originally posted by Jacques More:
quote:
But, within such a view if there are no texts of the bible which cannot be reasonably read another way then the limits of that thinking are revealed.
To be honest, Jacques, this comes across to me as being really quite snooty. "There are some valid criticisms to be made against Calvinism, and there are other valid ways to read the bible - HAH! I WIN!"
Yes, Calvinism has its limitations - I doubt if there are any Calvinists (or Calvinians) round here who would get upset over admitting this, but are you really pretending that your own theology is without limitation?
Perhaps if were able to present and discuss your own theological position (Process Theology, I assume), without the constant resort to Anti-Calvinist Polemic, people might be able to discuss its merits and flaws in a balanced way? (without the need for this silly proof-texting war)
Humblebum
[ 17. December 2003, 15:32: Message edited by: humblebum ]
--------------------
humblebum
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
