Calvinism and Relativism

[Hammster]

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.



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.

But you are left with God not knowing the end. That's not an omniscient God.

 

[zippy2006]

But you are left with God not knowing the end. That's not an omniscient God.

Who said God doesn't know? God knows how many souls he will save through us.

Does this mean there is a fixed number? It doesn't mean there is a fixed number that we have no control over. The number is fixed after our choices are taken into account. God, knowing how much I will respond to his grace, knows how many souls I will save--or how many souls he will save through me. But this shouldn't lead to the false conclusion that I have no control over how many souls are saved. I could become a missionary tomorrow and devote my life to the salvation of souls, and thereby save many more souls than I would if I did not make such a choice.

God knows the future, but I don't. I am called to follow his commands, and the extent to which I do so will have eternal effects, including effects on the salvation of souls.

 

[Hammster]

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.

Either you can change the final number, or you can't. Which is it? Because if you can, God isn't omniscient.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

God knows how many souls he will save through us.

Huh. I always thought that they were saved by grace through faith. Now that I know I cab save people, I need a new outfit. Which color superhero outfit goes best with brown hair?

 

[zippy2006]

Either you can change the final number, or you can't. Which is it? Because if you can, God isn't omniscient.

I've explained my position in what I think to be a clear way, and you are free to read and understand or ask questions if you do not understand. The problem came with your earlier post:

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?

God knows the exact number of people who will be saved and what I do influences that final number.

You still haven't answered my question:

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.

 

[Hammster]

God knows the exact number of people who will be saved and what I do influences that final number.

I bet he's happy He has you on His team. That is unless he was shooting for a higher number and you let him down.

 

[Hammster]

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

I believe that we act according to our nature. So sinners sin. And we are all deserving of hell. Do you believe all are deserving of hell?

Of course, God being merciful has chosen to save some. But if He didn't, His character would not be affected.

 

[zippy2006]

I bet he's happy He has you on His team. That is unless he was shooting for a higher number and you let him down.

Yes, my God is powerful enough to create real, free beings rather than a puppet world devoid of desert. What I do actually matters. Strange idea, isn't it?

I believe that we act according to our nature. So sinners sin. And we are all deserving of hell.

People deserve punishment when they do something they shouldn't have done and were capable of not doing. If they had no say in the matter we put them in an asylum, not a prison. It is remarkable that your entire system of theology fails to understand such a basic fact.

Do you believe all are deserving of hell?

I believe sinners deserve Hell, but I believe they had a free choice to sin. I don't believe in an unjust god.

 

[Hammster]

The puppet line. Once you go there, we are finished because not only do you NOT know anything about what you are against, you are unwilling to even try to understand.

 

[zippy2006]

The puppet line. Once you go there, we are finished because not only do you NOT know anything about what you are against, you are unwilling to even try to understand.

If humans don't have free will then they are puppets of antecedent physical causes or God. Ending the conversation is one way to avoid obvious problems such as this. But I'm fine ending our conversation. Perhaps there is a Calvinist who is capable of giving more than single-line replies and who doesn't throw rocks from glass houses.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

The puppet line. Once you go there, we are finished because not only do you NOT know anything about what you are against, you are unwilling to even try to understand.

You have more patience than I.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

If humans don't have free will then they are puppets of antecedent physical causes or God. Ending the conversation is one way to avoid obvious problems such as this. But I'm fine ending our conversation. Perhaps there is a Calvinist who is capable of giving more than single-line replies and who doesn't throw rocks from glass houses.

Perhaps there is a non-calvinist who is humble.

 

[zippy2006]

Perhaps there is a non-calvinist who is humble.

I find your strained claims to the moral high ground specious at best, especially in light of posts such as this one.

 

[Hammster]

You have more patience than I.

Puppets, robots. I don't mind the honest inquiry. But when it's the conclusion as if saying it ends the discussion, I'm done. I've just dealt with it for too long, and don't have the energy.

 

[zippy2006]

Puppets, robots. I don't mind the honest inquiry. But when it's the conclusion as if saying it ends the discussion, I'm done. I've just dealt with it for too long, and don't have the energy.

If you can't take the heat, then don't dish it out. You threw this dandy into the middle of an earnest conversation, which then occasioned my mentioning that Calvinism makes of humans puppets:

I bet he's happy He has you on His team. That is unless he was shooting for a higher number and you let him down.

You not only chose to insult me, you deliberately mischaracterized my position by implying that I believe God and humans to somehow be on the same level. My own posts to you in this thread could easily be quoted to dispel such a strawman.

 

[zippy2006]

Insurmountable problems with Calvinism:

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.


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.

 

[RC1970]

Insurmountable problems with Calvinism:

"You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" ~ Romans 9:19-23

Zippy, What if?

 

[zippy2006]

"You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" ~ Romans 9:19-23

Zippy, What if?

Thanks for reminding me of the central Biblical text Calvinists use to defend their position. But the text doesn't say that sinners have no free will. Instead, this is what Paul says:

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction...​

The context supports Paul's words. The Israelites turned away from God time after time, and Scripture depicts God as being saddened at their behavior. It makes no sense to say that the unfaithful Israelites had no choice in the matter, and that the Lord was saddened by that which could not have been otherwise.

 

[RC1970]

Thanks for reminding me of the central Biblical text Calvinists use to defend their position. But the text doesn't say that sinners have no free will. Instead, this is what Paul says:

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction...​

The context supports Paul's words. The Israelites turned away from God time after time, and Scripture depicts God as being saddened at their behavior. It makes no sense to say that the unfaithful Israelites had no choice in the matter, and that the Lord was saddened by that which could not have been otherwise.

The passage is clearly teaching that God's "enduring with much patience" the "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" was not for sake of the vessels of wrath, since their purpose was "for destruction", but He "endured it", "in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy", which He also made, "for glory".

 

[zippy2006]

The passage is clearly teaching that God's "enduring with much patience" the "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" was not for sake of the vessels of wrath, since their purpose was "for destruction", but He "endured it", "in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy", which He also made, "for glory".

That's true, but he endured it all the same. He did not cause the sin, and there is no indication that the sinner had no free will.

Perhaps you ought to explain exactly why you believe the pericope in question undermines the principle that "ought" implies "can."