i'm sorry. i was busy with finals.
I see what you mean, but there are some non-essential beliefs that do make a big difference. For example you get Christians who preach hell fire, that the world is 6000 years old and that only those who believe just like them will be saved.
that would raise the question of essentialness wouldn't it? or were you referring more to an attitude? if you were referring to an attitude, then the best thing you could possibly do is not to be like them.
On the other end you get understand the Bible rather vaguely maybe only believing in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, if that. I would think both would be saved but would find it hard to work together. Still the separation isn't good like you say.
yeah, i know what you mean. i think if christians actually started setting his kingdom first instead of themselves, i mean totally setting his kingdom first, we'd see big changes in the way christians cooperate (or don't cooperate) with one another.
Im unsure whether Calvinism cross' the essential line. Obviously they are saved, but they do deny that Christ died for all and that God reaches a hand out to all people. For me that is the core of Christianity, that God loves the whole world.
i don't think we can jumble all calvinists into one group, all armenians into one group, or all the in-between into one group, at least not when we're trying to look at essentialness. if we're going to judge (which i don't think is a bad thing) them, i think you have to do it by their actions. a lot of times, people hold a certain theology, say the believe they hold a certain theology, and yet you'll see them acting contrary to it. theology is important, but i think, at least with the distinction between calvinism arminianism, that it's best to differentiate people based on what they're doing, not what they say they believe. it's not an essential issue in my mind.
It depends what sort of determinism you mean. Determinism tends to mean by the laws of physics, etc, whereas Calvinism is concerned with predestination by total depravity and God's grace. Also I wouldn't say choosing to have faith would be a work, but I dunno.
well, i meant it in the most basic sense.... that an action is determined by forces outside of the human will. if an any action follows that pattern, then it is determined. within calvinism, it takes the face of predestination. i think calvinism goes too far when it assumes incompatibilism though, the idea that predestination and free-will are irreconcilable when it comes to salvation. however, not all calvinists that i've met believe that though.... most that i've met that do believe in free-will will only believe it before the fall; or they'll only believe in free-will in reference to non-saving actions (ie, picking my nose or going choosing to watch a sports game), but some will go so far as to believe that free-will is compatible with predestination when it comes to being saved. that's why i think that it's best to judge a person's belief's based on their actions. there are so many presuppositions behind every belief. if a person says "i believe so and so about x".... that doesn't cover everything else he believes about x, why he believes what he does about x, or to what extent he believes what he does about x.
That would be a fair point except that works from reason alone and although I tend to work from reason alot myself I have to say in many places the Bible says that Christ died for and loves the world. Because of this obvious truth I think it over rules reason that could be flawed.
i don't know exactly what you're trying to say here, but i think i have an idea. i agree with you that we should "lean not on our own understanding but in all our ways acknowledge him". i think that's the danger of theology, trying to rationalize God to an unrealistic extent. how can we really understand? we can only go so far.
Also I would be inclined to agree with C.S.Lewis when he said that "Finally, it is objected that the ultimate loss of a single soul means the defeat of omnipotence. And so it does". That is the price of free will and we must have free will otherwise how can we be held responsible for our actions any more than a robot? Even God can't fail I think I view what Christ did on the cross a different way from you which does have this same problem.
good quote. there is some pretty good material in his letters too. two other quotes from lewis come to mind
.... lemme go see if i can find them.
"I take it as a first principle that we must not interpret any one part of Scripture so that it contradicts other parts . . . . The real inter-relation between God’s omnipotence and Man’s freedom is something we can’t find out. Looking at the Sheep & the Goats every man can be quite sure that every kind act he does will be accepted by Christ. Yet, equally, we all do feel sure that all the good in us comes from Grace. We have to leave it at that. I find the best plan is to take the Calvinist view of my own virtues and other people’s vices; and the other view of my own vices and other peoples virtues. But tho’ there is much to be puzzled about, there is nothing to be worried about. It is plain from Scripture that, in whatever sense the Pauline doctrine is true, it is not true in any sense which excludes its (apparent) opposite. You know what Luther said: ‘Do you doubt if you are chosen? Then say your prayers and you may conclude that you are."
taken from:
C.S. Lewis & his view on Calvinism « The Journeymen
. . . and i couldn't find the other one.
What are "these weird problems with God's dual will"?
lol, google it.
Do you take any side on this Arminian/Calvin issue? Im not sure if Im Arminian, but I am not Calvinist.
i'm more of a phil geek than a theology geek if that gives you any indication as to where i'm coming from. i think that both views make the mistake of trying to rationalize God to an extent that just isn't possible for us. i don't have a problem with trying to rationalize God; what i have an issue with is holding it up and holding it over other people's (christians') heads as dogma. I have a problem with any approach to any question that starts with the presupposed belief that "i already understand". christianity is about trust and faith. knowing the bible doesn't grant understanding, and we'll probably never fully understand. understanding is a process that takes place as an individual considers different ideas, prays, and grows closer to God. i think it has to be driven by wonder, not a desire to conceptualize/rationalize God, and not by a desire to "be right". Trust God; have faith in God; believe the essentials. let the awe and wonder God and his creation inspires drive you to understand, but don't assume you already do understand. i think that can be bad for a number of reasons.
To answer your question though, i have ideas, but none of them agree
completely with calvinism or arminianism though.
EDIT:
That is the price of free will and we must have free will otherwise how can we be held responsible for our actions any more than a robot? Even God can't fail I think I view what Christ did on the cross a different way from you which does have this same problem.
oh; at first i thought that that was part of lewis' quote, and then i realized that it wasn't.
i wasn't giving you my view there; i was telling you what a calvinist would say. i am not a calvinist. . . . . which is really what you wanted to hear? right?
LOL, why are you trying so hard to get me to debate these ideas with you?
i
personally think that without free-will man cannot be held as responsible for his actions, but some calvinist believe we do have free-will in determining which decisions we make, just not in coming to christ, or working our way to christ.
are we free to do good rather than evil? another sort of calvinist would say that moral responsibility doesn't even matter in that sense because we're responsible for "what" we are. evil isn't an action; evil is a state of being. we're like a broken pot that can either be destroyed or repaired; how we feel about it, and how we act from our broken standpoint doesn't really matter. instead of judging people based on what they have done with what they have, this other sort of calvinist would say that we're going to be judged by what we are, which is depraved, evil, incapable of doing good. Is God unjust for destroying something that has been broken so that it can no longer carry out it's original function (meaning something that is evil)? who are we to talk back to God? is it wrong for God to destroy what's his that has also fallen from it's original purpose? Is God obligated to give us a choice to be repaired or not repaired? this sort of calvinist would answer somewhere along the lines of "God isn't obligated to show mercy to evil".
another sort of calvinist might bring up the purpose of the law, which is not to offer a choice but to convict. they would assume that that convicting is the "only" purpose of the law (to the extent that the law relates to man), to make a person aware that they are broken/evil.
for these last two, moral responsibility isn't really a question of doing or trying to do something... it's not an "ought".... evil is more of a way of "being".
for them, sin isn't something we do, it's more of something we are.
so, that's three ways in which a calvinist might answer you.
and there are tons of ways to rationalize other viewpoints.
lol, i, personally, am not a calvinist though.
i think it over-rationalizes the issue, leaving holes everywhere. arminianism does the same. i agree with the premise behind c.s. lewis quote that i posted above, that just because one thing is true in scripture doesn't mean that we should suppose that its (apparent) opposite is true to the exclusion of the rest of scripture. the whole premise of calvinism (and the main controversy surrounding it) seems to be based on this idea of incompatibilism, which in this context means that because christians are predestined, people can't also have a free-will of their own. i think that God calls people, and they can choose to come or not come. calvinism has some good points, but i don't think it's a complete idea. i don't think it's a complete thought.
