Calvinist Doctrine: Biblically Warranted?

[dcyates]

James 1:11 says... For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed.

Does the sun actually rise ??? Or does it appear to rise from the human view point?

Ponder: How might this case help explain your issues?

John 3:16 says... For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Does God actually love the world??? Or does he merely appear to love us from the human viewpoint?

Did God really send his Son??? Or does it only appear that way from a human perspective (à la docetism)?

Is it really true that whoever believes in him will not perish??? Or is something else altogether intended here?

Do those who believe really enjoy eternal life??? Or is that simply hyperbole on the part of the evangelist?

There has to be a reason why a text should not be interpreted as it otherwise appears, doc. (And the presuppositions of an overriding theological paradigm ultimately derived from Hellenistic philosophy isn't one of them.)

 

[drstevej]

Ponder some more.

 

[dcyates]

Ponder some more.

Doc, it's because I've pondered over this issue for so long that I no longer subscribe to Calvinism -- despite it being the theology that I was steeped in when I first became a Christian and for nearly 20 years after that.
But please, if you think you have an especial insight into this that I might be missing, then honestly, Doc, I'm all ears.

 

[drstevej]

Then return to my question and respond to it. You instead gave illustrations that were unrelated.

Does the sun actually rise ??? Or does it appear to rise from the human view point?

 

[dcyates]

Then return to my question and respond to it. You instead gave illustrations that were unrelated.

Naturally I disagree that my analogies are unrelated, but nevertheless, no, the sun does not actually rise. Subsequent scientific (specifically astronomical) findings and a simply huge shift in Western cosmology has, strictly speaking, rendered a literal interpretation of this text to be both mistaken along with anachronistic. (Though we continue to use such phenomenological phrasing in this regard all the time -- as any perusal of daily weather reports that include the times of that given day's sunrise and sunset will reveal).

But most pertinent to our discussion is the fact that, given the cosmology of the time, James himself would have firmly believed that he was speaking both accurately and literally when referring to a sunrise. The end result is that later scientific discovery provides the reason for which insisting on a literal interpretation of this verse to be both unwise and erroneous.

So, I'll ask you, doc, what is the reason that causes an insistence on the otherwise clear implications of the passages I cite in the OP to be similarly unwise and erroneous?

(Incidentally, the only answer that I perceive as being available to you is Calvinist theology itself, which is the very topic under discussion. This therefore being an example of question-begging it has the effect of rendering your answer fallacious. But again, doc, if you've any insights that you think have so far escaped my "pondering," then, by all means, bring 'em on.)

 

[Hammster]

The difference here is that I'm not the one who's discounting the evidence of a mountain of texts for the sake of the apparent meaning of a few. Calvinism, on the other hand, takes a few instances (out of context) where it appears to indicate that God is immutable and that his foreknowledge of all future events is perfect and complete (à la Plato) and then demands that the rest of the Bible be interpreted through that Calvinist prism.
The one and only time that anybody here brought up any text from Scripture (Eddie L and 1 Sam 15), I dealt with it head on. Now will somebody PLEASE answer the question?!?!

Tell you what, Hammster, answer the question. (And do I have to add that you will only have answered it by actually addressing the three texts to which I refer in the OP? To be on the safe side, let me add that you will have answered the question only if you actually address the three texts to which I refer in the OP. Okay?) And then, after you have, you can hit me with your best three Bible texts that you think support a Calvinist understanding of God, and ask me the same question. I promise you -- let me repeat, I PROMISE YOU -- I will answer it and will do so by ACTUALLY addressing the texts you cite.

In fact, this challenge applies to every Calvinist here. But the only stipulation is that you first have to answer my question, then I'm happy to answer yours.

This way, perhaps we'll allow the truth of the Bible to "get the prize." (Sorry, Eddie, but don't unlock your trophy case just yet.)

It's impossible to give a satisfactory answer. You reject anything that might include "in light of what we know of God from other Scriptures".

 

[drstevej]

Naturally I disagree that my analogies are unrelated, but nevertheless, no, the sun does not actually rise. Subsequent scientific (specifically astronomical) findings and a simply huge shift in Western cosmology has, strictly speaking, rendered a literal interpretation of this text to be both mistaken along with anachronistic. (Though we continue to use such phenomenological phrasing in this regard all the time -- as any perusal of daily weather reports that include the times of that given day's sunrise and sunset will reveal).

But most pertinent to our discussion is the fact that, given the cosmology of the time, James himself would have firmly believed that he was speaking both accurately and literally when referring to a sunrise. The end result is that later scientific discovery provides the reason for which insisting on a literal interpretation of this verse to be both unwise and erroneous.

So, I'll ask you, doc, what is the reason that causes an insistence on the otherwise clear implications of the passages I cite in the OP to be similarly unwise and erroneous?

(Incidentally, the only answer that I perceive as being available to you is Calvinist theology itself, which is the very topic under discussion. This therefore being an example of question-begging it has the effect of rendering your answer fallacious. But again, doc, if you've any insights that you think have so far escaped my "pondering," then, by all means, bring 'em on.)

AMR is right, I will discuss this further when we are in the appropriate forum.

 

[dcyates]

It's impossible to give a satisfactory answer. You reject anything that might include "in light of what we know of God from other Scriptures".

Well isn't that very thing included in my challenge? Answer my question and then preface with these exact words if you like your three best texts that you believe support those aspects of Calvinist theology that are impacted by the texts I've cited. I'm trying to be as accommodating as possible here, with the sole stipulation being that you first answer my question.

And I assure you, I don't reject ANY part of inspired Scripture. So if yours is the most accurate interpretation of any biblical text, then I WILL alter my theology accordingly.

 

[dcyates]

Had you taken the time to read the item linked earlier, you would have your answer. You seem to think you have discovered something novel that supports your open theism. You have not. We have heard it all before. Asked and answered.

Answered?!? Somebody answered my question as I've presented it in the OP?!? I must have missed that. Please reproduce that post for me.
But that said, if what you say is true, then it should be a relatively simple matter for you to answer my question. Again (and I'm being perfectly calm as I type this, so please, kindly read it in the spirit in which it's intended), I don't want to be directed elsewhere. Too often when I ask a question I have people respond by telling me to go here or there and to read/watch/listen to/whatever this or that which has been by produced by expert such-and-such, and when I do, not only is my question not answered but it frequently just engenders more questions from me. I want somebody here to answer my question as best they can. When I see someone at least putting in an effort, I promise you, I don't jump down anybody's throat. Considering the fact that I've asked this question umpteen times over the span of three threads I think I've shown sufficient patience.

I suspect you just want to draw attention to yourself and are not really open to correction.

Well, you don't know me, Patrick. I want more than anything to draw attention to biblical truth and, given that I used to be a dyed-in-the-wool, true blue, card-carrying, honest injun Calvinist, but am not now, I believe I'm very open to change where it's shown that it's warranted. (And if anybody objects to the politically incorrect use of the phrase "honest injun," you can relax: I'm Metis, having native blood on both sides of my family.)

If you were you would have spent time reviewing resources you have been pointed to, no? Just sayin'.

Again, Patrick, you don't know me. I used to be a student at Regent College and sat at the feet of J.I. Packer and Paul Helm. Believe me, I've been adequately exposed to plenty of Calvinist/Reformed thought.

Please review the CF Statement of Faith, paying particular attention to the item as relates to discussions of open theism:

http://www.christianforums.com/rules/#faq_sof_creed

You are barging in the wrong forum here with your heterodoxy.

The wrong forum?!? For goodness sake, I was as much as kicked out of another forum for asking this exact question and told by a mod to pose my question here! Now you're trying to tell me this is also the wrong forum!? Lol! You guys are too much!

 

[dcyates]

AMR is right, I will discuss this further when we are in the appropriate forum.

Et tu, doc? Weren't you in the other forum? You should know that Hammster directed me here. He told me that I was to ask THIS question in THIS forum, and now here we are on the fourth page of THIS thread and STILL nobody has even TRIED to answer the question!

 

[drstevej]

Discussions about Nicene and Trinitarian beliefs may take place in the Christian-Only forums, all discussions regarding non-Nicene and non-Trinitarian topics will take place in Unorthodox Theology. Those topics include (but are not limited to)
● Universalism
● Open Theism
● Full Preterism
● Trinitarianism
● Annihilationism
● Masonry
● discussions related to unorthodox Christian religions

See ya there or nowhere.

 

[Hammster]

Et tu, doc? Weren't you in the other forum? You should know that Hammster directed me here. He told me that I was to ask THIS question in THIS forum, and now here we are on the fourth page of THIS thread and STILL nobody has even TRIED to answer the question!

I directed you here to ask the question. You did. It was answered. This is not a debate thread.

 

[Eddie L]

Et tu, doc? Weren't you in the other forum? You should know that Hammster directed me here. He told me that I was to ask THIS question in THIS forum, and now here we are on the fourth page of THIS thread and STILL nobody has even TRIED to answer the question!

This was my answer, and I'm stickin' to it:

If God is to interact with us, He has to condescend to us in order for us to make sense of His interaction. He is not one of us, in that He thinks of one thing at a time, or exists in one place at a time, or comprehends matters from some start to some finish.

We process things according to the brain we've been designed to think with. We can't imagine that our thought process and God's is anything alike. YET, He interacts with us, and when He does, He has do so in a way that we can comprehend.

The Bible speaks to us on multiple levels. Sometimes it explains the background. It addresses some of God's complexity, or reveals something of His working behind the scenes. But if God is going to communicate with us and fulfill some purpose with this creation, there are times that the Bible communicates God's working to us in more "human-like" terms.

It is the same way when we talk to infants or toddlers. We may know where we're going, but in order for our youngsters to learn, we address them with one step at a time.

We need to keep that in mind when we read passages that suggest that God changes or that He repents. Even in the book of 1 Samuel, when God expresses that He repents that He made Saul King, we are reminded a few verses later that "for he is not a man, that he should repent". I think this is some pretty careful wording to make sure that we don't get it in our heads that we can understand God or that He is along for the ride to change with us.

Practically, that news was very bad for Saul. God had decreed Him king and was now decreeing him NOT king. Theologically, we can conclude that God sovereignly decreed that He would express regret over appointing Saul. He ordained His own interaction with creation.

That in no way suggests that God learns, changes, or alters course. It means that He ordained as Sovereign that in His interaction with man that He would change course.

If we can't fully wrap our minds around that, why would we be surprised? Who can fathom the mind of God? He is not contained by a brain like ours, so how can His thinking resemble ours? And since we are contained in our brains, how could we fathom anyone who isn't?

You liking my answer is not a requirement that can be levied upon my answer.

 

[dcyates]

See ya there or nowhere.

Yeah, I've seen the list, doc. I see it also includes "Trinitarianism." What's up with that?!? Are we not supposed to be Trinitarian in our theology?

As for you being "there or nowhere," do whatever you want, doc, it's still a more or less free country; I can't force you to stay.

 

[Hammster]

It never says to choose between YHWH and other gods. Try again.

 

[AMR]

Again, Patrick, you don't know me. I used to be a student at Regent College and sat at the feet of J.I. Packer and Paul Helm. Believe me, I've been adequately exposed to plenty of Calvinist/Reformed thought.


The wrong forum?!? For goodness sake, I was as much as kicked out of another forum for asking this exact question and told by a mod to pose my question here! Now you're trying to tell me this is also the wrong forum!? Lol! You guys are too much!

You are in the wrong forum for this discussion. Follow the rules, please.

 

[dcyates]

I directed you here to ask the question. You did. It was answered. This is not a debate thread.

Lol! Are you kidding me?!? Based on what I've seen, debates are going hard and fast on about 95% of all the threads on this site -- and that's probably a conservative guess. You directed me to this forum for the expressed purpose of asking this question. And do you honestly think it's been satisfactorily answered? Especially given that your own answer was to say, simply put, this question can't be answered?

 

[dcyates]

This was my answer, and I'm stickin' to it:

If God is to interact with us, He has to condescend to us in order for us to make sense of His interaction. He is not one of us, in that He thinks of one thing at a time, or exists in one place at a time, or comprehends matters from some start to some finish.

We process things according to the brain we've been designed to think with. We can't imagine that our thought process and God's is anything alike. YET, He interacts with us, and when He does, He has do so in a way that we can comprehend.

The Bible speaks to us on multiple levels. Sometimes it explains the background. It addresses some of God's complexity, or reveals something of His working behind the scenes. But if God is going to communicate with us and fulfill some purpose with this creation, there are times that the Bible communicates God's working to us in more "human-like" terms.

It is the same way when we talk to infants or toddlers. We may know where we're going, but in order for our youngsters to learn, we address them with one step at a time.

We need to keep that in mind when we read passages that suggest that God changes or that He repents. Even in the book of 1 Samuel, when God expresses that He repents that He made Saul King, we are reminded a few verses later that "for he is not a man, that he should repent". I think this is some pretty careful wording to make sure that we don't get it in our heads that we can understand God or that He is along for the ride to change with us.

Practically, that news was very bad for Saul. God had decreed Him king and was now decreeing him NOT king. Theologically, we can conclude that God sovereignly decreed that He would express regret over appointing Saul. He ordained His own interaction with creation.

That in no way suggests that God learns, changes, or alters course. It means that He ordained as Sovereign that in His interaction with man that He would change course.

If we can't fully wrap our minds around that, why would we be surprised? Who can fathom the mind of God? He is not contained by a brain like ours, so how can His thinking resemble ours? And since we are contained in our brains, how could we fathom anyone who isn't?

And I've already countered this "answer." First of all, it isn't an answer to the question of the OP. Second, you've attempted to address my question by poorly interpreting another text altogether. (Even the fact that Samuel would spend all night crying out to God obviously indicates his assumption that such earnest entreaties might result in a change in God's mind.) And third, your "answer," by necessity, employs extra-biblical categories: Where does Scripture say that God doesn't "comprehend matters from some start to some finish"? Or that, "We can't imagine that our thought process and God's is (sic) anything alike"? Or anything like your assertion that "we are contained in our brains"?
Finally, it's honestly tough for me to believe that anybody could posit this:
"Theologically, we can conclude that God sovereignly decreed that He would express regret over appointing Saul" as a serious interpretation of the text. Do you honestly believe that any of the ancient readers of this passage would turn to each other after having read it and say, "Theologically, we can conclude that God sovereignly decreed that He would express regret over appointing Saul"?!?

You liking my answer is not a requirement that can be levied upon my answer.

Be that as it may, quality is a requirement that can reasonably be levied upon an answer (not to mention it actually addressing the question asked!), and I sincerely hate to be this blunt, Eddie, but as far as that requirement goes, yours is sorely lacking.

 

[dcyates]

It never says to choose between YHWH and other gods. Try again.

Uhh, are you kidding, Hammster? You "try again." As in, reading the text again:
"Now, therefore, fear the Lord and serve Him in sincerity and truth; and put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the Lord, CHOOSE FOR YOURSELVES TODAY WHOM YOU WILL SERVE: WHETHER the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, OR the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (emphasis mine).

My goodness, I even highlighted it in bright red for everybody!

 

[dcyates]

You are in the wrong forum for this discussion. Follow the rules, please.

[staff edit] All I did is ask the question:
"How do Calvinists interpret texts like 2 Kings 20.1-6, Jeremiah 3.6-7, and 18.7-10 (just for a few examples) in light of their "classical" position regarding God's perfect and complete foreknowledge?"

And all I've done since then is insist -- to the point of practically pleading -- that the question be answered (along with addressing certain other texts and issues, but only as they've been brought up by others).

Apart from that, Patrick, I see an "M" for "Moderator" beside Hammster's CF name, but not one beside yours. He directed me here to ask this exact question. Rather than try to shut down the discussion, why don't you instead try directing your efforts towards answering the question? My challenge from post #20 is still out there.

"Tell you what, Hammster, answer the question. (And do I have to add that you will only have answered it by actually addressing the three texts to which I refer in the OP? To be on the safe side, let me add that you will have answered the question only if you actually address the three texts to which I refer in the OP. Okay?) And then, after you have, you can hit me with your best three Bible texts that you think support a Calvinist understanding of God, and ask me the same question. I promise you -- let me repeat, I PROMISE YOU -- I will answer it and will do so by ACTUALLY addressing the texts you cite.

In fact, this challenge applies to every Calvinist here. But the only stipulation is that you first have to answer my question, then I'm happy to answer yours."

I haven't had any takers so far, though, and that was over twenty-five posts ago. Let's go, guys, my gloves are down and my chin is sticking out. I'm ready for your best shots.