• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Calvinism and Reason

Status
Not open for further replies.

Received

True love waits in haunted attics
Mar 21, 2002
12,817
774
42
Visit site
✟53,594.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
[Continued from previous post]

So you believe that God loves all mankind, even those that go to hell? Two things. First, what is biblical "love" to you? Is it merely an emotion? Second, if God loves all people that ever have, and ever will exist, why does the Bible say otherwise and does that mean that God is eternally disappointed for what He, Himself, brought into being?

Biblical love is the same as practical love: a condition, not an emotion, though the latter may arise from the former. All I can think of when you say 'otherwise' is reference to Esau and Jacob, and the very reformed view of unconditional election. If God is love, He cannot with-hold His love. He can, however, reveal it in different aspects, of which are utterly beyond our comprehension. I also do not believe that God will be eternally disappointed if a person goes to Hell, assuming the arminian bent to be somewhat correct. He will firstly find respect for the person's freedom, as it was that which kept him away from God; sadness may follow, but as J.P. Moreland argues, the human soul is of such a depth that it can easily hold a faint amount of sadness with its otherwise overwhelming joy without the former superseding the latter. As Lewis argued so very brilliantly, Hell does not have veto power over Heaven; that is, those in Hell will not prevent those in Heaven from enjoying their eternal salvation. The only way this can actualize is if Hell is, as Chesterton argued, the ultimate respect for human freedom, or if universalism is true.

What is the paradox, that God creates some people with no intention of bringing them to salvation, and thus He does not, and others were created to be redeemed for the glory of Christ? How is that a paradox?

I believe I meant this on the basis of the contingency of God's universal love; honestly, I cannot find where I said that (tee hee -- we like to express ourselves).

The only "children" made in the very likeness of God were Adam and Eve and God established a covenant of works with them. Do the wrong thing and you shall die. Do the right thing and you shall live forever. Again, unless we are talking about children, there has never been a person, aside from Christ, who has not earned death by their own actions. For God to destroy His own creation for breaking His Law is not unrighteous. It's justice. The very fact that He endures our sinfulness is a sign of His righteous mercy, not His unrighteousness.

Hmmmm, perhaps I am mixing up terms here. Do you consider 'likeness' and 'image', in scripture, to be one and the same? If so, I should have said, in my response to you, "a child made in my very image...," for this is what I meant. Anways, consider this: it would have been mercy to the remainder of the world if indeed God had justice on Adam and Eve, and destroyed them on the spot. By so doing, the great majority claimed by Calvinism to be condemned to Hell will not even exist, nor will those who would eventually come to salvation. My point is that God seems to have a long term goal for mankind, with the sinfulness of man in mind; I believe we take it out of context when we argue that man deserves condemnation as soon as he falls from perfection if indeed it is impossible for humanity with freedom to exist eternally without choosing evil. Of course, this is all philosophical jargon. But if God created man with the knowledge that it is impossible for man to live forever without choosing evil, would not His justice be formed in accordance with such knowledge?

Agreed. What would be the Just thing for God to do to all law breakers?

Hmmm, perhaps I should make known to you that I see mercy and justice as one and the same thing -- both of the love of God. A man who commits an unpardonable offence, and given mercy, only harms him; justice is what makes him a better man -- in a sense, this justice is mercy in disguise. If God loves all, this seems to follow. And actually, there are instances when justice and mercy interlock, as with the case of Adam and Eve: they were kicked out of the garden, but they were allowed to live. And, in the eternal long run, this justice finds fulfillment in mercy: they bask in the lessons learned from momentary faults in the midst of everlasting blessedness.

Received, our "heart" in Scripture is not the muscle that pumps blood throughout our body. It is our very being. Our "seat of reason" from whence all other things flow. Our minds are dengenerate. They are corrupted. A corrupted tree bears corrupt fruit.

See way above; the heart is synonymous with the will, is synonymous with the spirit, according to one school of theology. The mind is acompletely different aspect of the person, though the mind cannot work without the heart.

Then you blame God for the sinfulness of fallen man?

I blame Adam.

I follow the old fashioned Hobbesian understanding of guilt and law: that men can only be held accountable if there is a law they know exists prohibiting them to commit such an action.


So the determining factor in our guilt for our crimes against God's Law is whether we know that it's a crime? Pray tell, if that be the case, why in the world would anyone ever study the Word? It would only make them more accountable. Why would anyone tell anyone else about Christ? If they don't know, according to you, they aren't guilty. I don't understand where you get this at all.

The point of reading the bible is spiritual formation: the process by which our human heart (or spirit, or will) is given a definite form or character. With this comes renovation of the mind, soul, and the body; and with this trasformation comes that much more peace and blessedness.

If they don't know, they are still guilty, for they have still sinned. As I said before, you can sin without law:

"For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus." -- Romans 2:14-16 (NASB)

The very act of sin is a very simple concept to grasp: it is acting contrary to that which you know to be right. Now, certain behavior may be right, but one may be unknowing of it. As Paul states:

"What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET." But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good." -- Romans 7:7-12 (NASB)

Remember also, believers are the only ones who read the bible with interest, and their sins are covered by Christ; non-believers who read it and feel conviction to follow certain acts may very well not be non-believers; they must first be convinced that what they hold in their hands is the infallible word of God, and to do so they must believe that the God of the bible is the God of Christianity. Without such, do you honestly believe they take the entire word of God seriously? I doubt it. They may find a peculiar presence in Christ that they cannot deny (I always loved Einstein's expression: "The luminous Nazarene"), but until they find Him to be who He truly is, the other claims in the bible will be of little or no signifigance to them. Thus they are not held accountable. This, of course, does not mean they are not held accountable for denying the character of Christ in a completed stance.
 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
52
✟44,595.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You know what Received? I had this really long reply typed out and decided to delete it because I think the cavernous gap between our theologies is going to do nothing but make this conversation nothing more than extremely longs posts to prove that we don't agree. I'm not going to change your mind, you're not going to change mine. I just pray that whatever the Truth is, God reveals it to us.

Thanks for the dialog. You have a blessed day.

God bless,
Don
 
Upvote 0

Received

True love waits in haunted attics
Mar 21, 2002
12,817
774
42
Visit site
✟53,594.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Indeed; wise decision. It is not our theology, per se, but our very view of interpreting the divine.

It was fun. I'm glad it didn't slug out as long and hard as I have experienced in the past. Did you read the link I gave a few posts back? Wheeew!

But this doesn't mean we have to close all forms of conversation. We can still talk about law and sin, which I think we can possibly come to an agreement on; or the heart and mind in scripture. But if not, that's totally fine. I haven't been to my home base -- general apologetics -- in days. They're probably jumping off the walls by now.

Blessings.
 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
52
✟44,595.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Received said:
It was fun.

Yes it was. :)

I'm glad it didn't slug out as long and hard as I have experienced in the past. Did you read the link I gave a few posts back? Wheeew!

I read part of it. Wheeeew is right. :eek:

But this doesn't mean we have to close all forms of conversation. We can still talk about law and sin, which I think we can possibly come to an agreement on; or the heart and mind in scripture. But if not, that's totally fine. I haven't been to my home base -- general apologetics -- in days. They're probably jumping off the walls by now.

Blessings.

I certainly hope to continue discussing different matters with you.

God bless and have a good weekend,
Don
 
Upvote 0

Received

True love waits in haunted attics
Mar 21, 2002
12,817
774
42
Visit site
✟53,594.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In a word, no. He is engaged in 'civic righteousness' but any work that is not done unto God is not truly a good work. It is only good in a relative sense.

I disagree. Man is capable of committing acts out of love; this in itself is proof that man is not as depraved as many would like to think he is. God bestowed the natural loves upon humanity as a means of keeping them from destroying themselves, among other things.

Jesus Christ spent more time during His Earthly ministry talking about Hell and condemnation than He did talking about Heaven. The Old Testament is jam-packed with examples of God's wrath and judgement. Yes, God is indeed love. But it is God's nature that defines our standard of love, not our standard of love that defines God's nature. God's love is one of many of His divine attributes, and it is one which exists in harmony and equality with His other attributes, not as His prime attribute to which all others must submit.

Once again, nowhere else in scripture do I read that God is a specific attribute. We hear that He is merciful, righteous, etc. But why is this? Because He loves. Regardless, this still does not solve the problem of God being love. I actually emphatically disagree with your claim by Jesus. As one theologian stated, "This is grossly misleading. It is not even the case if the words heaven and hell are compared in a concordance. When we add "life," eternal life," "my Father's house," "my joy," and "blessed are...," we find a much greater emphasis on the positive possibilities than on the negatives."

And besides, the fact that Jesus speaks of Hell more than Heaven does not mean that He is not love (may it never be!) but that man's condition is indeed bad. A man who walks into a room full of cancer patients unknowing of their disease, and tells them that indeed they have a sickness eating away at their bodies -- this man is not loving them any less. As a matter of fact, it is his telling them this that is an act of love. Nowhere in the bible do we hear that God desires the death of the wicked; on the contrary, He hates it (Ezekiel 33:11)

And yet you must concede that this is so. By His very act of creating a man whom He knows will ultimately perish He is thus ordaining it, unless you wish to argue that God is under compulsion or obligation to create such a man, or that He does not possess the ability to foreknow the ultimate fate of the man. Further, your God not only condemns a man for his sins, but declines to anihilate him in favor of subjecting him to eternal torment. How can you reconcile this with your view of the God of love?

I argue that this view of interpreting the divine is absurd and atrocious. This is far different from God being under obligation to save a person; God brought the person into being. If it were not for God, this person would not eventually suffer eternally.

What is this 'your God' jargon?

You are questioning the divine right of the Creator...the right of the potter to do with the clay as He wishes. If you reject that as an answer that's between you and He, but His Word speaks directly to the matter several times over. It occurs to me that the primary difference between you and I is that you view the ultimate and root purpose of creation as a satisfaction of God's desire to be loved. I view the ultimate and root creation as being to glorify God.

I am questioning the far from divine right of man's theologies. If you believe that God's creating men to ultimately condemn them because they did not have have the capacity to redeem themselves is glorifying to God, then so be it.

I don't think your issue is just with Calvinism, Received. I think your issue is with the doctrine of Original Sin. The elective purposes spelled out in Calvinist theology carry the assumption that man is sinful from birth. Arminians, Baptists and even the Roman Catholics affirm this. The doctrine of Original Sin is a foundational pillar of Orthodox Christian theology. Your posts do indeed sound very Pelagian in nature because your primary argument seems to be philosophical and not Scriptural or even theological except in the abstract.

Whatever works. Man being born in sin from Adam cannot be held morally accountable; his soul is destroyed. My question is how can man be held morally accountable if indeed mankind had no choice in the matter? Adam chose; man fell. This is all I'm focusing on.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.