Calvinism and its Secret Universalism

[Hammster]

Of course. That doesn't mean he didn't love them. He gave them their way, after all.

It doesn’t seem that He loves them enough to save them from their bad choices, though.

 

[Mark Quayle]

P3: God shows no partiality, i.e. God's judgments are not conditioned by any non-moral aspect of a person. So, God doesn't give grace just because one is Jewish or Gentile or tall or short, etc. God's judgments are fair, in terms of righteousness.

Thanks.

I agree with your use of "partiality" as far as you go with it here. But, no, this doesn't seem to me to be his use of God's non-partiality in his argument. He takes it for a blanket statement that God treats everyone the same.

The conclusion is that the combination of God's love, desire, sovereignty, justice, and freedom leads to all being saved.

I like it as an argument. I really do. This youngster is going places.

It is silly, though. Calvinism simply doesn't use the terms he uses the same way he uses them. The terms, 'Partiality', 'Love', 'Justice' and 'Freedom' all mean something different to Calvinism than what he uses them to say, and, in spite of his present use of 'Sovereignty', I can pretty well guarantee by what he has said so far, that he doesn't mean the same thing by it either, that Calvinism does.

I think he means to conclude, that if Calvinism used the terms the way he thinks they should be used, that it would logically lead to Universalism.

 

[Clare73]

What this verse proves? Does this prove that God created people for hell and make them liable for judgement for something he caused them for before eternity?

It goes to God loving all equally, in light of Romans 9:13 in the context of 9:10-13.

 

[public hermit]

Thanks.

I agree with your use of "partiality" as far as you go with it here. But, no, this doesn't seem to me to be his use of God's non-partiality in his argument. He takes it for a blanket statement that God treats everyone the same.



It is silly, though. Calvinism simply doesn't use the terms he uses the same way he uses them. The terms, 'Partiality', 'Love', 'Justice' and 'Freedom' all mean something different to Calvinism than what he uses them to say, and, in spite of his present use of 'Sovereignty', I can pretty well guarantee by what he has said so far, that he doesn't mean the same thing by it either, that Calvinism does.

I think he means to conclude, that if Calvinism used the terms the way he thinks they should be used, that it would logically lead to Universalism.

Well, I agree if he wants to show that Calvinism leads to Universalism, he will have to couch his argument in such a way that the premises are acceptable to a Calvinist, which isn't happening here. If your target is specifically Calvinism, it needs to be framed accordingly.

Still, someone coming from that tradition could make a viable argument with essentially his premises. The Calvinist is forced to qualify the love premise in order to secure the sovereignty premise and the doctrine of hell. I think that has already been expressed in this thread, i.e. God loves some and not others.

Our young friend eliminates that quandary. He sees that as a bad thing. I see it as a step in the right direction.

 

[dóxatotheó]

I’m a father. There’s nothing my children could do that would make me disown them, not make them suffer for eternity.

Am I a better father than God? Why or why not?

Definition of Rhetorical Question

 

[Hammster]

Definition of Rhetorical Question

Definition:

a question asked solely to produce an effect or to make an assertion of affirmation or denial and not to elicit a reply, as “Has there ever been a more perfect day for a picnic?” or “Are you out of your mind?”

My question isn’t rhetorical.

 

[dóxatotheó]

God loves some and not others.

Our young friend eliminates that quandary. He sees that as a bad thing. I see it as a step in the right direction.

I believe Gods love is determined by our actions but his love never changes. Never said God cannot love someone I said he loves all equally. Meaning if ones a sinner than God doesn't love them because they not his children because they chose that path. God love won't change for creation you understand what i mean when I said that?

It is silly, though. Calvinism simply doesn't use the terms he uses the same way he uses them. The terms, 'Partiality', 'Love', 'Justice' and 'Freedom' all mean something different to Calvinism than what he uses them to say, and, in spite of his present use of 'Sovereignty', I can pretty well guarantee by what he has said so far, that he doesn't mean the same thing by it either, that Calvinism does.

I think he means to conclude, that if Calvinism used the terms the way he thinks they should be used, that it would logically lead to Universalism.

If it is in that case than you stand correctly i presume. Also, English is my first language I just am trash at typing I am American.

It goes to God loving all equally, in light of Romans 9:13 in the context of 9:10-13.

God love equally in what I mean by that is the present actions of a person doesn't change the feelings of God towards that person. Gods love is perfect is why he doesn't change according to a person actions

I’m a father. There’s nothing my children could do that would make me disown them, not make them suffer for eternity.

Am I a better father than God? Why or why not?

You are not a better Father than God because Gods discernment is more upon the persons rejection of his love than him just disowning them. Thats why i ask if God loves all babies to see if you agree or disagree.

I agree God has predestined some to perdition, and absolutely does have the right to do so.

He does I don't disagree, does God knowledge takes away free will? God creating people for hell does sound wrong when we say it as such because we understand God forknews each event so we understand they made the choice which he knew they would. God wouldn't stop creating because he knows they would choose hell over him.

What are you referring to by 'John Calvinism soft determinism'. I know what determinism is --I don't need that explained-- but why 'soft'? Why not simply, 'determinism'

theres two different forms of Calvinism hyper and mainstream. What i mean by soft is traditional Calvinism and not double-predestination.

hat makes you think he would --your reasoning, or the Bible?

The Question is why would God won't do it?

God is not sovereign if he lends a bit of sovereignty to someone else --i.e. "freewill" as some define it. It is self-contradictory for there to be more than one sovereign

Free will isn't over Gods sovereignty its Compatible with it.

 

[public hermit]

I believe Gods love is determined by our actions but his love never changes. Never said God cannot love someone I said he loves all equally. Meaning if ones a sinner than God doesn't love them because they not his children because they chose that path. God love won't change for creation you understand what i mean when I said that?

Right, you believe in some libertarian free will. You have a strange way of putting it, but it's not uncommon.

 

[dóxatotheó]

Right, you believe in some libertarian free will. You have a strange way of putting it, but it's not uncommon.

I believe more in the compatibilism philosophy I believe in determinism to an extinct.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I believe more in the compatibilism philosophy I believe in determinism to an extinct.

Do you believe some people are 'just better' than others? What else would explain how some people choose right when others choose wrong?

 

[dóxatotheó]

Do you believe some people are 'just better' than others? What else would explain how some people choose right when others choose wrong?

that every person chooses according to his or her greatest desire. In other words, people will always choose what they want-- and what they want is determined by (and consistent with) their moral nature. God has influence on our desires, Is why he has full control of what goes on past, future, and present.

 

[public hermit]

that every person chooses according to his or her greatest desire. In other words, people will always choose what they want-- and what they want is determined by (and consistent with) their moral nature. God has influence on our desires, Is why he has full control of what goes on past, future, and present.

That's very Augustianian, almost Calvinist.

 

[dóxatotheó]

That's very Augustianian, almost Calvinist.

Calvinist believes unconditional I believe conditional lol. I believe we can reject Gods grace which is bestowed to his creation before eternity through the Son. Is why we are chosen in Christ before the foundations of the world because his grace was bestowed only through believing in Christ

 

[public hermit]

Calvinist believes unconditional I believe conditional lol. I believe we can reject Gods grace which is bestowed to his creation before eternity through the Son. Is why we are chosen in Christ before the foundations of the world because his grace was bestowed only through believing in Christ

Do you mean like Origen, pre-existence of souls? So, somehow we freely determine our fate, so to speak, prior to our material existence? I'm just trying to get a sense of what you mean.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I believe Gods love is determined by our actions but his love never changes. Never said God cannot love someone I said he loves all equally. Meaning if ones a sinner than God doesn't love them because they not his children because they chose that path. God love won't change for creation you understand what i mean when I said that?

Do you have scripture to support the idea that God's love is determined by our actions?

If, as you say, "ones a sinner than God doesn't love them because they not his children because they chose that path" then why in your argument do you claim omnibenevolence and use 'no partially' to mean he treats all the same?

If it is in that case than you stand correctly i presume. Also, English is my first language I just am trash at typing I am American.

Ok

God love equally in what I mean by that is the present actions of a person doesn't change the feelings of God towards that person. Gods love is perfect is why he doesn't change according to a person actions

Well, at least this time you got something right.

You are not a better Father than God because Gods discernment is more upon the persons rejection of his love than him just disowning them. Thats why i ask if God loves all babies to see if you agree or disagree.

How does the one question lead to the other?

He does I don't disagree, does God knowledge takes away free will? God creating people for hell does sound wrong when we say it as such because we understand God forknews each event so we understand they made the choice which he knew they would. God wouldn't stop creating because he knows they would choose hell over him.

You tell me. Obviously, God's knowledge does not take away choice. But what is free will?

Why didn't he stop creating if he knew they would choose wrong?

theres two different forms of Calvinism hyper and mainstream. What i mean by soft is traditional Calvinism and not double-predestination.

HyperCalvinism is not the only one that teaches double-predestination. And HyperCalvinism doesn't even teach double-predestination to mean where you take it --that God had equal purpose in creating those for hell as for heaven. Apparently, HyperCalvinism teaches whatever its opponents say it teaches, even though they can't agree where to draw the line between hyper and mainstream. HyperCalvinism teaches no choice. That is the difference.

The Question is why would God won't do it?

Do you mean, Why would God not give unconditional grace to everyone? --Read Romans 9:10-23 Some he made for one purpose, some for another. That's why.

Free will isn't over Gods sovereignty its Compatible with it.

Well, then, "free will" is not uncaused, not sovereign, not autonomous. It is only will. Actual choice

 

[Mark Quayle]

that every person chooses according to his or her greatest desire. In other words, people will always choose what they want-- and what they want is determined by (and consistent with) their moral nature. God has influence on our desires, Is why he has full control of what goes on past, future, and present.

Lol, so that sounds like MY definition for free will --simply 'will', actual choice. (Although I don't say God's mere 'influence', but God's causing.)

So where is the equality and fairness you were decrying in your OP?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I believe more in the compatibilism philosophy I believe in determinism to an extinct.

Think what you are saying here. Does cause-and-effect not rule? Is it not pervasive? Is there something, besides God, that is not caused within the chain of cause-and-effect? Then everything is caused by God, directly or indirectly. Nothing happens spontaneously. So, everything is determined. There is no 'extent' to which it goes and no further.

What does rule, if not everything (besides God) is caused?

 

[dóxatotheó]

Do you mean like Origen, pre-existence of souls? So, somehow we freely determine our fate, so to speak, prior to our material existence? I'm just trying to get a sense of what you mean.

Arminianism my friend is the view I have concerning election and compatablism is my view concerning free will.

 

[dóxatotheó]

Nothing happens spontaneously. So, everything is determined. There is no 'extent' to which it goes and no further.

What does rule, if not everything (besides God) is caused?

If something happens apart from Gods determination isn't that a paradox.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If something happens apart from Gods determination isn't that a paradox.

Nothing happens apart from God's determination.

 

[Hammster]

You are not a better Father than God because Gods discernment is more upon the persons rejection of his love than him just disowning them. Thats why i ask if God loves all babies to see if you agree or disagree.

But I’d still love my children even if they reject me. My love isn’t conditional. It seems that you are saying that God’s love is ultimately conditioned upon whether people love Him back.