How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Mark Quayle]

What do you know about scripture? Paul states in 1 Timothy 2:4 that God desires all men to be saved - but you disagree - thus you know more than Paul. Is it the Calvinism, that affords you such arrogance?

Did you even read what I said about 1 Timothy 2:4? I don't disagree with what it says at all.

Do you disagree with Romans 9:13 and Malachi 1:2-3, that says God loved Jacob but hated Esau?

 

[rturner76]

I'd rather not be lumped in with the Calvinists anyway. I'd prefer to follow the Church that Christ founded on the Rock rather than a lawyer.

 

[Clare73]

It is not God that chooses.

Poor Peter, he got it wrong again (1Pe 1:2).

Judgement comes to men that refuse the spirit of God. Don't get wrapped around the axle with the 'election term'. For clear thinking non-Calvinists mortals, salvation is commonly based upon co-operation that Paul prescribes in Acts 2:36-41 and Romans 10:9-14.

 

[JAL]

Brother, do you mean this? That God is to be held to human definitions?

Did you not read my argument there? Why would you cling to an obvious contradiction?
By definition, what do we as humans consider a person to be if he deviates from love/kindness as WE HUMANS understand it? Unkind! Cruel! Is that how you really want to classify God? You are not making any sense. This is incoherent.

Can we please put the coherent theories on the table and then debate them? How are we better than a cult if we wallow in incoherent theories and contradictions?

Isn't it a clear and key teaching from Job that God is not to be held to human definitions?

See above. I don't care how many Scriptures you can summon "in support" of a contradiction - trust me they don't support that. It is YOUR responsibility, as an exegete, to find a logically consistent interpretation of said Scriptures.

It doesn't strike you as something approaching Gnostic heresy to utter any phrase beginning with "I'm the only person in church history..."?

You conveniently omitted my closing words, "as far as I know". Is this is an ad hominem attack? I hoped you were above that?

What am I supposed to do? Lie about it? Again, as far as I know, I'm the only one in church history who has advanced a thorough-going solution to the Problem of Evil by simply revising the traditional definition of God.

Let me ask you a question: Do you believe the Protestant Reformation contributed anything of value? Meaning, didn't the church need some reform even after 1500 years of scholars? Unless you think scholars are nowadays infallible, isn't it possible that we still need reform?

Or for that phrase to end with "... you just have to abandon traditional definitions of Yahweh."? But I like my traditional definitions of Yahweh! Sorry, but pass.

Sure if you want to adhere to contradictions and incoherence, there's nothing I can do about it. Examples of the incoherence (and there are plenty more).
...(1) The Trinity is a fellowship of three persons. I am a Trinitarian. However, fellowship can only be meaningfully defined as ongoing and/or consecutive communications. How can an atemporal God have consecutive communications among the three persons? Or even consciousness? Humanly incoherent.
...(2) The traditional claim is that the Son is "eternally" begotten - atemporally begotten. What's that even supposed to mean? No one could possibly know. Humanly incoherent.
....(3) The traditional claim is that an immutable God became man. If that's not a contradiction, I don't know how to define contradiction.
...(4) Can an infinitely powerful God crave more power? Obviously, No. By that same token, can an infinitely self-sufficient God crave ANYTHING - have any unfulfilled wants, desires, needs? Obviously, No. Therefore He could not have WANTED to created this world for His good pleasure.
...(5) Infinity is not a specific number. Any description of a reality as infinite is humanly incoherent. Might as well be speaking gibbeish.

Silly me, here again I'm trying to reason with someone who embraces Calvinism. When will I ever learn?

The context here is the Open-Theistic claim that man's actions can catch God off-guard. Even if God can just-slightly be caught off guard doesn't that have significant implications to God's omniscience? Beyond the novelty factor of such conjecture I can't believe that any serious student of the Bible can accept this.

I'm not getting your point here. Yes, this is indeed a problem for an infinitely knowledgeable God. Why do you think this problem applies to me? Look, we know from the Incarnation that God cannot be an infinitely knowledgeable being. Such a being cannot learn anything new. Jesus proved that God is the type of being who can learn.

If your theories reduce the Incarnation to triviality then I would suggest that two thousand years of debate, analysis and insight into the event begs to differ. You should at least sit up and ponder whether one man might be more likely to be mistaken than thousands of scholars over time on all sides of the aisle.

Gee, I never considered the possibility that they might be right. Thanks for pointing that out. (Sorry for the sarcasm, but I think you earned it).

Look, the Hypostatic Union has at least four areas of apparent contradiction (allegedly resolved in an incomprehensible God). My position has zero.

Of course, maybe you are right, but you see how the claim may raise eyebrows yes?

Do I seriously need to inject more sarcasm here? You seem to be doing your best to bring it upon yourself.

Wait... isn't it me (i.e. Calvin) that's making the claim that God doesn't behave in ways that most humans would classify as evil? Or maybe it's hinging on the definition of "most" here. Anyway, I'm making no claim that God commits evil.

Sure, you just don't call it "evil" when your Calvinistic God does such (evil) things. You give Him a pass. Charles Hodge admitted of his own Reformed position that we'd naturally describe a person as malevolent if he behaved like the Calvinistic God, but, since He is God, we must give Him a pass! Lovely. Let the Reformed enjoy their contradictions. Sorry, I'll pass.

 

[Clare73]

Calvinist theology positions God dangerously close to satan as 2 Corithians 4:4 states that satan is responsible for blinding the reprobate. Calvin says that God does so per his "Doomed from the womb" text - which I have quoted earlier and anyone can google. Where is your allegience - is it to God per 1 Timothy 2:4, or is it to Calvin? You claim you are a Paulist (eye roll please). Paul clearly states that God desires all to be saved in 1 Timothy 2:4 - but you per hardcore but undeclared Calvinism disagree - thus you declare yourself wiser than Paul. FYI: Leading Calvinists John Piper and John MacArthur have made statements that God desires all to be saved - you should google the Dunning-Kruger effect!

I agree that not all are saved per 1 Peter 1:2 - that does not mean that God does not desire all to be saved. That is not what Peter is stating per 2 Peter 3:9. Given the thousands of directives in the Bible, it is clear that men have a role in their destiny - it is who will you serve (Joshua 24:14-15)!

I have no doubt that sovereign infinite wisdom and power have chosen the best means to the best end.
The rest is window dressing.

That fallen man does not know what are the best means nor what is the best end leaves him in somewhat of a debilitated position to critique God on the matter.
It is not mine to judge the infinite wisdom, it is mine to receive and embrace it.
And that I do with all confidence in its rightness.

 

[JAL]

Brother, do you mean this? That God is to be held to human definitions?

Why do you use English bibles? Why not use a Bible in a language foreign to you, such as Chinese (presumably) ???

Here's why. Because if you and God don't share a common language and common terminology, the Bible is useless and affords no hope. Right? Don't believe me? Pick up a Bible in a language totally incomprehensible to you and see how much progress you make.

I don't know how to make the point any plainer. Again, if what God means by "love" is not what YOU, as a HUMAN, mean by "love", the Bible affords no hope - indeed you're in real trouble.

 

[Brother-Mike]

It is YOUR responsibility, as an exegete, to find a logically consistent interpretation of said Scriptures.

Nah, not so much. I approach the Bible as the Word of God - complex, self-referential, beautiful. I have no obligation to hammer it into a logically consistent interpretation with my Sledgehammer of Hubris. Instead, I'll study it. And read commentaries and analyses of all stripes. Heck, if my beagle pens a treatise on 1 John overnight I would read that too, and put as much authority in it as I do Calvin's Institutes. Maybe some of these opinions help me, many others may not. I might just take pieces of Calvin that help me in my personal understanding of God's Word. I can live with ambiguity, and secret things if need be.

If you have a different philosophy I'm happy for you. Maybe you're right about all of these points, and in my studies I'll encounter the truth in that same way that you believe you have. We'll both know the truth in the mere blink of an eye soon enough.

 

[Mark Quayle]

When I replied to your geneticist scenario I did state that he was "guilty of building 7 harmful robots". The problem again is that your scenario and the nature of God are not equal - what analogy of God truly can be? I'm not denying the existence of evil. If anything [and I only bring up your "Rule of Conscience" to make this point] aren't you denying the geneticists' evil actions via the ROC? e.g. he acted according to his conscience and to him creating killer robots wasn't evil and thus it wasn't.

In my opinion there is a far more direct and primal question if we want to wade into theodicy: why didn't God just fast-forward to the endgame of New Earth, bypassing all of the evil and imbuing his creations with all of the same wisdom and understanding of his Glory that we would otherwise have gained in the unfolding of Creation?

Neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian (and not even an Armenian Arminian, not even an African-American-Armenian Arminian) gets to dodge this question, no matter how much they struggle against their prideful wish to get God off the hook or to preserve the idolatry of their own free will insistence.

Only an Open Theist such as yourself is prepared to go the extra-mile, defenestrating God's power and omniscience to the point that God can't even know the actions of men ahead of time, so evil surprises God just as much as it does its victims. If you hold that that's Biblical, then more power to you. Literally

I don't know the answer to the question myself, and I can only go on the glimpses occasionally revealed in scripture. On this side of Judgement, maybe it's just going to have to be one of the secret things that we're not meant to understand.

But I can look to some verses that may shed a clue and support the argument that our God's a storytelling God, and Creation is one big Theatre of God's Glory. Take Isaiah 27:2-5 for example:

"When that time comes,
sing about a delightful vineyard!
I, the Lord, protect it;
I water it regularly.
I guard it night and day,
so no one can harm it.
I am not angry.
I wish I could confront some thorns and briers!
Then I would march against them for battle;
I would set them all on fire,
unless they became my subjects
and made peace with me;
let them make peace with me.”

Anyone holding to God's omnipotence must ask where the thorns and briers are coming from. Is there some power outside of him creating them? Is he "wishing" for them because it's out of his control, or wishing in the way I might say "I wish to have some toast today for breakfast"? When he says "unless they became my subjects" does this mean he can't make them? But then does "let them make peace with me" echo the same uncertainty?

How about Genesis 50:19-20:

"But Joseph said to them, “Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today."

Like Isaiah 10 we seem to have a God that's operating on a level that is able to author evil without committing it, able to steer the flow of the story without turning us into robots.

If you are affronted by this and you sleep better believing that God cannot author what we at our level call evil, then God gave you the freedom to construct whatever model works best for you. I think at least on that we agree.

Your question has been asked many times by atheists and skeptics/scoffers. To me it seems apparent that God did exactly that —i.e. to speak the completed creation (The Bride of Christ, Body of Christ, Dwelling Place of God) into existence. WE just don't see it that way, being bound in this temporal existence, by which God is not bound.

There are a few places in Scripture where such a view is hinted at, even more than hinted at, maybe, but we never read it that way. Much of prophecy, particularly end-times prophecy such as Revelation, speak in the past tense: "Then I saw..." but we assign a temporal language rule to it that maybe it doesn't mean at all. Maybe it IS something that happened, at least from God's perspective.

(One of the things I delight in about the Greek is the Aorist Tense, which does not assign past, present nor future, but just type of action. Others are also delightful: completed in the past contingent on present action, for example. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to have already forgiven us our sins...")

 

[JAL]

The context here is the Open-Theistic claim that man's actions can catch God off-guard.

You respect Open Theism? A theory that appeared in the last few years? You're seriously suggesting that scholars were wrong about God for the first 2,000 years of the church? Such a momentous insinuation is equivalent to the gnostic heresy, right? Isn't that what you accused me of, a moment ago?

 

[zoidar]

What am I supposed to do? Lie about it? Again, as far as I know, I'm the only one in church history who has advanced a thorough-going solution to the Problem of Evil by simply revising the traditional definition of God.

If you don't find your idea anywhere in the history of Church, not even among the Early Church Fathers, I will have to say it's not much to hold on to.

 

[JAL]

Nah, not so much. I approach the Bible as the Word of God - complex, self-referential, beautiful. I have no obligation to hammer it into a logically consistent interpretation with my Sledgehammer of Hubris. Instead, I'll study it. And read commentaries and analyses of all stripes. Heck, if my beagle pens a treatise on 1 John overnight I would read that too, and put as much authority in it as I do Calvin's Institutes. Maybe some of these opinions help me, many others may not. I might just take pieces of Calvin that help me in my personal understanding of God's Word. I can live with ambiguity, and secret things if need be.

If you have a different philosophy I'm happy for you. Maybe you're right about all of these points, and in my studies I'll encounter the truth in that same way that you believe you have. We'll both know the truth in the mere blink of an eye soon enough.

Look, exegesis is an imperfect science because we are fallible. As such, the exegete only has two strong safety anchors:
...(1) The law of non-contradiction
....(2) Insistency upon coherent doctrine

If you are not prepared to honor such principles, sorry I'll pass on pretty much anything you have to say. You're being completely irrational. Well, in your own words:

Heck, if my beagle pens a treatise on 1 John overnight I would read that too, and put as much authority in it as I do Calvin's Institutes

You described yourself better than I did.

Perhaps it's best if you NOT critique my ideas? I don't want readers to operate on the dubious assumption that your posts are rational.

 

[JAL]

If you don't find your idea anywhere in the history of Church, not even among the Early Church Fathers, I will have to say it's not much to hold on to.

A theology that easily resolves the unsolved problems of theological history is not much to hold on to? Um..er...I beg to differ.

At times I've been asked to "prove" my ideas. My initial response, at least, is usually the same, "Why do I even need to do that? My system is the only one to date that actually works, logically."

 

[Brother-Mike]

Your question has been asked many times by atheists and skeptics/scoffers. To me it seems apparent that God did exactly that —i.e. to speak the completed creation (The Bride of Christ, Body of Christ, Dwelling Place of God) into existence. WE just don't see it that way, being bound in this temporal existence, by which God is not bound.

There are a few places in Scripture where such a view is hinted at, even more than hinted at, maybe, but we never read it that way. Much of prophecy, particularly end-times prophecy such as Revelation, speak in the past tense: "Then I saw..." but we assign a temporal language rule to it that maybe it doesn't mean at all. Maybe it IS something that happened, at least from God's perspective.

(One of the things I delight in about the Greek is the Aorist Tense, which does not assign past, present nor future, but just type of action. Others are also delightful: completed in the past contingent on present action, for example. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to have already forgiven us our sins...")

Thanks for the reply Mark - now you're really trying to break my brain! Indeed I previously had some early pondering into the "interface" between our temporal existence and the seemingly atemporal New Earth (e.g. are we already there and here simultaneously? Or does time just end at when we arrive? Will my beagle be there with me? Will he complete his commentaries?).

If convenient, I'd be interested in a suggested verse or two (above you pointed to some places in Scripture "even more than hinted at").

Appreciated as always, BM

 

[zoidar]

A theology that easily resolves the unsolved problems of theological history is not much to hold on to? Um..er...I beg to differ.

At times I've been asked to "prove" my ideas. My initial response, at least, is usually the same, "Why do I even need to do that? My system is the only one to date that actually works, logically."

Ok, I'm not going to debate it with you, but I had to share my thoughts. God bless!

 

[JAL]

Indeed I previously had some early pondering into the "interface" between our temporal existence and the seemingly atemporal New Earth,.

Can we try being rational for a nanosecond? Let's suppose the New Earth is atemporal - coexisting in the past, present, and future. That would mean, wouldn't it, that past, present, and future ALL continually exist - and thus are all three atemporal, right? So, then, the New Earth would be temporally identical to the current earth. Atemporality is incoherent drivel.

 

[JAL]

If you don't find your idea anywhere in the history of Church, not even among the Early Church Fathers, I will have to say it's not much to hold on to.

In whole, or in part? Many of the parts of my system can be found in the history of the church. For example Tertullian held to a material monism.

 

[Clare73]

If you don't find your idea anywhere in the history of Church, not even among the Early Church Fathers, I will have to say it's not much to hold on to.

But he knows more about matter and energy than anyone who has ever lived. . .

 

[John Mullally]

I have no doubt that sovereign infinite wisdom and power have chosen the best means to the best end.
The rest is window dressing.

That fallen man does not know what are the best means nor what is the best end leaves him in somewhat of a debilitated position to critique God on the matter.
It is not mine to judge the infinite wisdom, it is mine to receive and embrace it.
And that I do with all confidence in its rightness.

Spinning on "sovereign infinite wisdom" is pure Calvinist buzz-word lunacy - there is no such phrase in the Bible. No one is talking about critiquing God - its either you believe scripture or you do not believe scripture - that is not window dressing. Talking about best means and best ends is part of the endless, worthless Calvinist speculation - and like all things Calvinist, it has no practical value. Paul said that God desires all men to be saved in 1 Timothy 2:4. You claim you are a Paulist and yet you do not believe him on this matter - it is because you are more accurately a Calvinist.

 

[JAL]

But he knows more about matter and energy than anyone who has ever lived. . .

Another ad hominem attack? I wonder why someone would stoop to that? Might it betoken an inability to discredit my beliefs biblically and logically?

 

[Clare73]

Spinning on "sovereigh infinite wisdom" is pure Calvinist buzz-word idiocy. Critiqying God is not necessary - its either you believe scripture or not believe scriptue. Paul said that God desires all men to be saved in 1 Timothy 2:4. You do not believe 1 Timothy 2:4.

One more time. . .your issue is with Peter (1Pe 1:2) who presents God as choosing some (not all) to be saved.

Don't try to hang that one on me!