God is POWER, Thus Spoke Calvinuthra

[Received]

I'm incredibly skeptical of any theology that idealizes power, sovereignty, omnipotence, things like that. Calvinism is the perfect example of this, and although I think there's nothing wrong with holding omnipotence with God as an inextricable characteristic of him (whatever this characteristic really means to us non-omnipotent creatures), it sounds like pure plain tribalism when we idealize power in this way. Like we're really saying, "MY God will mess YOU up," if you're not down with him (believe or perish), which makes you wonder why a person would have such a value.

Well, I think it's because, to some degree, this person is very sensitive to hurt and vulnerability, and they idealize power as a way to overcompensate for this perceived weakness (when it's anything but). In this sense (and this clearly isn't the only variable here), Calvinism (and associated protestant theologies) is the appearance of hypermasculinity that cloaks a very sensitive soft center.

"But people believe in Calvinism because they think it's true." I can't deny this to some degree; what I'm saying, though, is that you wouldn't be inclined to believe in God's super duper power tripism if you weren't psychologically primed for it beforehand.

 

[lesliedellow]

Well, I think it's because, to some degree, this person is very sensitive to hurt and vulnerability, and they idealize power as a way to overcompensate for this perceived weakness

Or it could be because they can read the Bible, of course.

Now here's an interesting question. What sort of insecurity prompts a person to post something like this?

 

[Received]

Or it could be because they can read the Bible, of course.

Now here's an interesting question. What sort of insecurity prompts a person to post something like this?

My insecurity with the idea of a mean, devil-like deity.

 

[lesliedellow]

My insecurity with the idea of a mean, devil-like deity.

You had better excise passages such as Ephesians 1.4-5 from your Bible.

Besides which, God spends the entire Old Testament making clear what he thinks of idolatrous worship, coupled to a refusal to recognize himself alone as Lord.

 

[CaDan]

I'm incredibly skeptical of any theology that idealizes power, sovereignty, omnipotence, things like that. Calvinism is the perfect example of this, and although I think there's nothing wrong with holding omnipotence with God as an inextricable characteristic of him (whatever this characteristic really means to us non-omnipotent creatures), it sounds like pure plain tribalism when we idealize power in this way. Like we're really saying, "MY God will mess YOU up," if you're not down with him (believe or perish), which makes you wonder why a person would have such a value.

Well, I think it's because, to some degree, this person is very sensitive to hurt and vulnerability, and they idealize power as a way to overcompensate for this perceived weakness (when it's anything but). In this sense (and this clearly isn't the only variable here), Calvinism (and associated protestant theologies) is the appearance of hypermasculinity that cloaks a very sensitive soft center.

"But people believe in Calvinism because they think it's true." I can't deny this to some degree; what I'm saying, though, is that you wouldn't be inclined to believe in God's super duper power tripism if you weren't psychologically primed for it beforehand.

Here's what's odd, though. Most Reformed folks I have encountered don't act like that.

Here's my hypothesis: If one is convinced of God's absolute sovereignty, then one doesn't have a burden to help out by being God's cheering section. On the other hand, if one thinks God needs a fan base to get the final field goal in overtime, one may feel the need to give a couple of extra cheers to your side and boos to the other side.

 

[Received]

I guess Hitler is a little helpful in giving us an idea of God, then.

Regarding Ephesians, see corporate election theology.

As for the Old Testament, see arguments against Biblical literalism and arguments for the Bible as partly influenced by sinful man's perception of things (hence nasty God in the OT when we're nasty people ourselves, and nicer God in the NT as we actually start, you know, becoming like Christ).

 

[Received]

Here's what's odd, though. Most Reformed folks I have encountered don't act like that.

Here's my hypothesis: If one is convinced of God's absolute sovereignty, then one doesn't have a burden to help out by being God's cheering section. On the other hand, if one thinks God needs a fan base to get the final field goal in overtime, one may feel the need to give a couple of extra cheers to your side and boos to the other side.

Shut up, de Cannes.

 

[Received]

Here's what's odd, though. Most Reformed folks I have encountered don't act like that.

Here's my hypothesis: If one is convinced of God's absolute sovereignty, then one doesn't have a burden to help out by being God's cheering section. On the other hand, if one thinks God needs a fan base to get the final field goal in overtime, one may feel the need to give a couple of extra cheers to your side and boos to the other side.

I agree that reformed folks don't act that way, and are generally nice, humble people. Until, I think, you start questioning their theology. Then the tribalist gates come open.

 

[lesliedellow]

I guess Hitler is a little helpful in giving us an idea of God, then

Emotional outbursts prove nothing. At least, nothing that you would want to have proved.

Regarding Ephesians, see corporate election theology.

Sorry, it won't wash:

"And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."

Jesus is very clearly talking about individuals.

As for the Old Testament, see arguments against Biblical literalism and arguments for the Bible as partly influenced by sinful man's perception of things (hence nasty God in the OT when we're nasty people ourselves, and nicer God in the NT as we actually start, you know, becoming like Christ).

I have heard some superficial poppycock in my time, but that takes the biscuit. Nice gentle Jesus in the New Testament is constantly issuing warnings, such as that to be found in the last verse of Matthew 25.

 

[Received]

Emotional outbursts prove nothing. At least, nothing that you would want to have proved.

Yeah, neither does mindreading. But my point wasn't emotional or irrelevant: if God acts like Hitler, that says something about God.

Sorry, it won't wash:

"And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."

Jesus is very clearly talking about individuals.

Individuals plural, exactly. And this point can fit resistible grace to a T: nobody can come to Christ without grace, but this grace doesn't mean a person necessarily comes.

I have heard some superficial poppycock in my time, but that takes the biscuit. Nice gentle Jesus in the New Testament is constantly issuing warnings, such as that to be found in the last verse of Matthew 25.

Warnings which are totally legitimate if you consider how God is all about helping poor people out and promising condemnation for those who don't. Remember that "eternal" here is the operational word, which is better translated as "age".

 

[lesliedellow]

Individuals plural, exactly. And this point can fit resistible grace to a T: nobody can come to Christ without grace, but this grace doesn't mean a person necessarily comes.

The context clearly implies that it is only given to some to come to Christ.

Warnings which are totally legitimate if you consider how God is all about helping poor people out and promising condemnation for those who don't. Remember that "eternal" here is the operational word, which is better translated as "age".

"Eternal" there is αιωνιος, and it means everlasting, just as it does in Romans 16.26

 

[Received]

The context clearly implies that it is only given to some to come to Christ.

Disagree. The verse refers to God's authority in giving people the ability to come to him, not specifically to his selectivity with regard to whom it is given. If the latter were the case, it would be logically incoherent to blame Judas for not believing, given that he didn't choose to be born into this world and (according to you) would be unable to come to Christ without irresistible grace.

"Eternal" there is αιωνιος, and it means everlasting, just as it does in Romans 16.26

I'm getting agelong or eternal. "Everlasting" is probably a more recent invention of theologians. The beauty of agelong or eternal is that they allow you to focus on the quality of the life or punishment in question, and not its quantity, which leads people astray by making them think life is about how long you live. It isn't. Everyone clearly lives forever according to the NT, so it's redundant to speak of eternal life (or punishment) as everlasting. If everyone is going to live forever, it makes no sense to speak of a need to repent so you can live forever. This means, by semantic logic, that αιωνιοc here means eternal or agelong. Eternal life is much like a spotlight you have the choice of stepping into, and not an endlessly moving train into the future.

 

[Paradoxum]

As I lost faith, the Calvinistic God seemed to me to be a monster... wanting to burn people when he could save them instead. That isn't loving, and God is love.

 

[Received]

As I lost faith, the Calvinistic God seemed to me to be a monster... wanting to burn people when he could save them instead. That isn't loving, and God is love.

Even atheists have more faith than Calvinists.

 

[lesliedellow]

Disagree. The verse refers to God's authority in giving people the ability to come to him, not specifically to his selectivity with regard to whom it is given. If the latter were the case, it would be logically incoherent to blame Judas for not believing, given that he didn't choose to be born into this world and (according to you) would be unable to come to Christ without irresistible grace.

Nobody was holding a gun to Judas's head when he betrayed Jesus. He did it of his own volition, and therefore he was responsible for his actions.

I'm getting agelong or eternal. "Everlasting" is probably a more recent invention of theologians.

Words mean what they mean. Not what you want them to mean. From the Cambridge Concise Dictionary of New Testament Greek:

Αιωνιος - long ago; without end, eternal, everlasting.

 

[Received]

Nobody was holding a gun to Judas's head when he betrayed Jesus. He did it of his own volition, and therefore he was responsible for his actions.

Actually, someone was holding a spiritual gun to his head and blaming him for the trigger being pulled. If you're

1) born into existence against your will,
2) this existence involves total depravity, and
3) you're unable to save yourself by your own will because of irresistible grace,

then you can't be responsible for NOT repenting. Which is exactly what people do with Judas: label him condemned for killing Jesus. So either God and other people are blaming a person for something he can't help doing, or there's something wrong with one of the three premises. By logical necessity.

Words mean what they mean. Not what you want them to mean. From the Cambridge Concise Dictionary of New Testament Greek:

Αιωνιος - long ago; without end, eternal, everlasting.

Okay, without end and eternal are precisely to my point, as is long ago. Again, "everlasting" probably has no merit, but you've gotta give me the point since I'm 3/4, right?

 

[lesliedellow]

Actually, someone was holding a spiritual gun to his head and blaming him for the trigger being pulled. If you're

1) born into existence against your will,
2) this existence involves total depravity, and
3) you're unable to save yourself by your own will because of irresistible grace,

then you can't be responsible for NOT repenting.

You can be held responsible for your sin.

 

[Received]

You can be held responsible for your sin.

Do you agree with Romans 14 that the opposite of faith is sin?

 

[lesliedellow]

Do you agree with Romans 14 that the opposite of faith is sin?

That is not what it says. It effectively says that anything which is done in violation of a religiously informed conscience is sinful.

 

[Paradoxum]

Even atheists have more faith than Calvinists.