Calvinism and Relativism

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,178
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,526.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
God wants us to be perfect, and therefore I conclude that he will perfect us. You command something if you want it, whether now or in the future. Why do you believe that God won't perfect us? Do you think he is incapable? Uninterested?
  1. God will make us perfect.
  2. God condemns people for failing to do the impossible.
According to your reasoning, 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive, and you choose to believe 2 and reject 1. I don't think you've made a very good choice, but then again, I don't think Calvinism is true.
I don't reject 1. I believe that upon glorification, we will be made perfect. But that doesn't negate the command in Matthew to be perfect.

But even by your reasoning that we will be made perfect in the future, it's still a command the we cannot keep, yet are dependent upon God to complete in us. So your argument still falls short.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I don't reject 1. I believe that upon glorification, we will be made perfect. But that doesn't negate the command in Matthew to be perfect.

If you believe that the command will be fulfilled then the command is not impossible to fulfill.

But even by your reasoning that we will be made perfect in the future, it's still a command the we cannot keep, yet are dependent upon God to complete in us. So your argument still falls short.

I don't find Scripture saying "Be perfect this very instant," or "Be perfect on your own resources." Besides, who's to say that perfection is unattainable in this life? I don't doubt God's power to do such a thing.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,178
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,526.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
If you believe that the command will be fulfilled then the command is not impossible to fulfill.



I don't find Scripture saying "Be perfect this very instant," or "Be perfect on your own resources." Besides, who's to say that perfection is unattainable in this life? I don't doubt God's power to do such a thing.
I thought your argument was "ought" equals "can". Now you are changing your tune.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,803
13,115
72
✟362,269.00
Faith
Non-Denom
God wants us to be perfect, and therefore I conclude that he will perfect us. You command something if you want it, whether now or in the future. Why do you believe that God won't perfect us? Do you think he is incapable? Uninterested?
  1. God will make us perfect.
  2. God condemns people for failing to do the impossible.
According to your reasoning, 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive, and you choose to believe 2 and reject 1. I don't think you've made a very good choice, but then again, I don't think Calvinism is true.

Hebrews 10:11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for f]">[f]sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I thought your argument was "ought" equals "can".

No, it is that ought implies can. Implication and equality are very different things.

Now you are changing your tune.

So you say. But what is my new tune, and how does it contradict my claim that "ought" implies "can"? Of course you neglect to tell us--all you do is create charges with no basis.

Perhaps this will help you, it really isn't very difficult:

Zippy: "Ought" implies "can."
Hammster: God commands us to be perfect, but this is impossible (therefore "ought" does not imply "can.")
Zippy: It is not impossible. Therefore your argument against my initial proposition fails.
Hammster: I thought your argument was "ought" equals "can." Now you are changing your tune.​
 
Upvote 0

jimmyjimmy

Pardoned Rebel
Supporter
Jan 2, 2015
11,556
5,728
USA
✟234,973.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
No, it is that ought implies can. Implication and equality are very different things.



So you say. But what is my new tune, and how does it contradict my claim that "ought" implies "can"? Of course you neglect to tell us--all you do is create charges with no basis.

Perhaps this will help you, it really isn't very difficult:

Zippy: "Ought" implies "can."
Hammster: God commands us to be perfect, but this is impossible (therefore "ought" does not imply "can.")
Zippy: It is not impossible. Therefore your argument against my initial proposition fails.
Hammster: I thought your argument was "ought" equals "can." Now you are changing your tune.​

You ought not disobey ANY of God's commandments. Are you capable of that? What am I saying?! You must be.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,178
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,526.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
No, it is that ought implies can. Implication and equality are very different things.



So you say. But what is my new tune, and how does it contradict my claim that "ought" implies "can"? Of course you neglect to tell us--all you do is create charges with no basis.

Perhaps this will help you, it really isn't very difficult:

Zippy: "Ought" implies "can."
Hammster: God commands us to be perfect, but this is impossible (therefore "ought" does not imply "can.")
Zippy: It is not impossible. Therefore your argument against my initial proposition fails.
Hammster: I thought your argument was "ought" equals "can." Now you are changing your tune.​
Oh, it imply can, not that it equals can. It's all clear now.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,178
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,526.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
This means that if it is said that someone ought to do something, it logically follows that they can do it.
If we ought to be perfect, then it logically follows that we can. Yet you say that we will be perfect, not by our own power, but God.
 
Upvote 0

jimmyjimmy

Pardoned Rebel
Supporter
Jan 2, 2015
11,556
5,728
USA
✟234,973.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Maybe we should say that ought implies that God will work in those He chooses to do what He wills to do.

We ought not worship other gods, but God knows we will. It's so awesome that He's cool with it. ;)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
If we ought to be perfect, then it logically follows that we can. Yet you say that we will be perfect, not by our own power, but God.

Yes, you already said that and I already answered it:

I don't find Scripture saying "Be perfect this very instant," or "Be perfect on your own resources."

God never said "Be perfect without my help." Therefore the fact that God can make us perfect fulfills the possibility of being made perfect. It is not impossible to be perfect.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,178
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,526.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Yes, you already said that and I already answered it:



God never said "Be perfect without my help." Therefore the fact that God can make us perfect fulfills the possibility of being made perfect. It is not impossible to be perfect.
That would be fine if He said be made perfect. But that's not what He said.
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
I wanted some of your input and discussion on a topic that I’ve been mulling over lately. There are several issues that would need to be resolved in my mind before I could consider Calvinism
Calvinism requires a God who is a monster, who creates beings for the sole purpose of torturing them forever, giving them no other alternative. Why would you consider Calvinism for even a moment?
 
  • Like
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

jimmyjimmy

Pardoned Rebel
Supporter
Jan 2, 2015
11,556
5,728
USA
✟234,973.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
I love all of these uninformed, yet completely uncharitable, mischaracterizations of Reformed theology.

As a Christian, if a brother told me that I misrepresented his view, I would first apologize, ask hime how I had misunderstood him, and further ask HIM to explain his position so that I could understand it better. At least I would attempt some or all of these things. . .

There have been a few threads that have com around to Reformed theology lately, with people being told countless times that they have misunderstood the Reformed viewpoint, yet I do not recall a single person acting in the above manner. Not even close.

Uncharitable is an understatement, brother.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
That would be fine if He said be made perfect. But that's not what He said.

Let's look at your argument:
  1. God demands perfection of us.
  2. Perfection is impossible.
  3. Therefore God demands the impossible ("Ought" does not imply "can").
As I've pointed out numerous times, the problem is that you give absolutely no justification for premise (2). Why would anyone believe premise (2), especially given premise (1)? You have no case.


Let's move on to look at some of the implications of denying that "ought" implies "can." Here are some of the things that someone who denies the principle must count as just:
  • Fly to the moon without any help from technology or you will be executed.
  • (To a newborn infant): walk across the room or you will be severely punished.
  • Make 2+2=5 or your hands will be cut off.
  • Achieve the impossible or you will be eternally damned.
Now anyone with some common sense has a ready reply to these claims:
  • This is unjust. Humans can't fly to the moon without any help from technology. It is unjust to punish someone for failing to do what is impossible.
  • But newborn infants can't walk, or even understand your command!
  • But I can't make 2+2=5!
  • But "ought" implies "can." If something is impossible, then it can't be commanded (i.e. contrapositive).
The Calvinist quickly rejects such "excuses," pointing out that they rely on the wholly false principle that "ought" implies "can." "I never asked whether you could do such a thing, I just told you to do it!" He believes God is just, even though he demands the impossible and punishes eternally for failing to do it. It is downright scary to think what the Calvinist parent who truly takes his doctrine to heart is capable of--he would punish his children for failing to do the impossible without batting an eye.

I love all of these uninformed, yet completely uncharitable, mischaracterizations of Reformed theology.

You are good at saying things, but you are bad at giving arguments for the things you say. Is the Calvinist god a monster? I think it is undeniable that he is.
  1. Anyone who sends someone to eternal damnation for failing to do the impossible is a monster.
  2. The Calvinist god sends people to eternal damnation for failing to do the impossible.
  3. Therefore the Calvinist god is a monster.
There is nothing uninformed about this. There is no mischaracterization of Reformed theology. There is just the logical conclusion of a very poor theological system.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,178
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,526.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Let's look at your argument:
  1. God demands perfection of us.
  2. Perfection is impossible.
  3. Therefore God demands the impossible ("Ought" does not imply "can").
As I've pointed out numerous times, the problem is that you give absolutely no justification for premise (2). Why would anyone believe premise (2), especially given premise (1)? You have no case.


Let's move on to look at some of the implications of denying that "ought" implies "can." Here are some of the things that someone who denies the principle must count as just:
  • Fly to the moon without any help from technology or you will be executed.
  • (To a newborn infant): walk across the room or you will be severely punished.
  • Make 2+2=5 or your hands will be cut off.
  • Achieve the impossible or you will be eternally damned.
Now anyone with some common sense has a ready reply to these claims:
  • This is unjust. Humans can't fly to the moon without any help from technology. It is unjust to punish someone for failing to do what is impossible.
  • But newborn infants can't walk, or even understand your command!
  • But I can't make 2+2=5!
  • But "ought" implies "can." If something is impossible, then it can't be commanded (i.e. contrapositive).
The Calvinist quickly rejects such "excuses," pointing out that they rely on the wholly false principle that "ought" implies "can." "I never asked whether you could do such a thing, I just told you to do it!" He believes God is just, even though he demands the impossible and punishes eternally for failing to do it. It is downright scary to think what the Calvinist parent who truly takes his doctrine to heart is capable of--he would punish his children for failing to do the impossible without batting an eye.



You are good at saying things, but you are bad at giving arguments for the things you say. Is the Calvinist god a monster? I think it is undeniable that he is.
  1. Anyone who sends someone to eternal damnation for failing to do the impossible is a monster.
  2. The Calvinist god sends people to eternal damnation for failing to do the impossible.
  3. Therefore the Calvinist god is a monster.
There is nothing uninformed about this. There is no mischaracterization of Reformed theology. There is just the logical conclusion of a very poor theological system.
Sure there is. As I've stated earlier, folks aren't sent to hell because God ensures that they cannot believe. They go to hell because of sin.

Let me ask you this. Is there a fixed number of people who will be in hell? In other words, is there anything you can do to change what the final number will be?
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Sure there is. As I've stated earlier, folks aren't sent to hell because God ensures that they cannot believe. They go to hell because of sin.

And do you believe they have free will? Do you believe they are capable of not-sinning?

The true Calvinist believes neither, which means that they believe God sends people to Hell for sins they could not help but commit. ...for failing to do the impossible.

Let me ask you this. Is there a fixed number of people who will be in hell? In other words, is there anything you can do to change what the final number will be?

Of course I can change the final number. That is why Jesus instructs me to preach the Gospel. It is also why he metes out such a heavy penalty for increasing that number (Matthew 18:6).
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,178
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,526.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
And do you believe they have free will? Do you believe they are capable of not-sinning?

The true Calvinist believes neither, which means that they believe God sends people to Hell for sins they could not help but commit. ...for failing to do the impossible.



Of course I can change the final number. That is why Jesus instructs me to preach the Gospel. It is also why he metes out such a heavy penalty for increasing that number (Matthew 18:6).
Then you have a god who is not omniscient. My view is that God ordains the means as well as the ends. So we preach the gospel because that's the method God uses to first glorify Himself, and that's what He uses to bring salvation to His sheep.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Then you have a god who is not omniscient. My view is that God ordains the means as well as the ends. So we preach the gospel because that's the method God uses to first glorify Himself, and that's what He uses to bring salvation to His sheep.

God ordaining the means to an end does not mean that it isn't a means to the end. If God uses an instrument to achieve some goal it does not mean that the instrument cannot be said to be a proper cause of the goal. If God uses me to bring a drink of water to someone who is thirsty it doesn't mean that I am not the cause that provided the drink. I gave them a drink. I increased the amount of water accessible to them. I effected a real change in the world. The same is true with the salvation of souls. We work, and God works through us. They are not mutually exclusive.

...and that's what He uses to bring salvation to His sheep.

God brings salvation through us. We are a real cause of the salvation.

Granted, your view of divine action is characteristically Calvinistic, but I think it's mistaken. God is not one more competitive being among the rest, he is the First Cause, the ground of all being. God & creatures is not an either-or affair.
 
Upvote 0