God is POWER, Thus Spoke Calvinuthra

[Received]

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

No, it says that whatever (period) is not from faith is sin. Even though the context is as you say, the statement is a principle.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

No, it says that whatever (period) is not from faith is sin. Even though the context is as you say, the statement is a principle.

all sin stems from a want of trust in God. that is what the verse is referring to.

whatever we do say or think that is done said or thought with a disposition of distrust in God is sin.

So how does this verse support your view views?

 

[lesliedellow]

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.

If it didn't have biblical support, Calvinism isn't a theology anybody would be likely to invent, but, for that very reason, it is less likely to be something which somebody has just pulled out of their head.

Also, whether or not you find something agreeable does not determine its truth value. I sometimes wonder what would happen if people did science in the same way they try to do theology.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

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.





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.

Yes....words do mean what they mean...


A further way of explaining Jesus’ statement about eternal punishment is by observing the derivation of kolasis. Bruce calls attention to the root of kolasis which is κολάζω (kolazō, “mutilate, prune”) and concludes that the noun refers to a corrective type of punishment rather than a vindictive one. He notes the possibility of combining that notion with αἰώνιον (aiōnion) which etymologically means “agelong,” not “everlasting.” The idea of agelong pruning or discipline leaves open the hope of ultimate salvation. To his credit, however, he notes that the doctrine of future states must rest on more basic considerations than those of etymological derivation. In the present context, the contrast with eternal life establishes that eternal punishment is not a limited period of discipline, but is without limits.
Master's Seminary Journal Volume 9, vnp.9.2.162 (Sun Valley, CA: The Master's Seminary, 1998).
──────────────────

Eternal punishment (κολασιν αἰωνιον [kolasin aiōnion]). The word κολασιν [kolasin] comes from κολαζω [kolazō], to mutilate or prune. Hence those who cling to the larger hope use this phrase to mean age-long pruning that ultimately leads to salvation of the goats, as disciplinary rather than penal. There is such a distinction as Aristotle pointed out between μωρια [mōria] (vengeance) and κολασις [kolasis].
A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol.V c1932, Vol.VI c1933 by Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention., Mt 25:46 (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997).
──────────────────
The incompatibility of love and fear is also evident from the fact that fear is associated with κόλασις. The original Greek understanding of this word is not so much related to “punishment” as to “discipline” or “physical training.” In Hellenism it takes on the meaning of “punishment” and later becomes a technical term for the “eternal punishment” that will be imposed at the final judgment..




Age long pruning chastisement, not eternal torture.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Yes....words do mean what they mean...


A further way of explaining Jesus’ statement about eternal punishment is by observing the derivation of kolasis. Bruce calls attention to the root of kolasis which is κολάζω (kolazō, “mutilate, prune”) and concludes that the noun refers to a corrective type of punishment rather than a vindictive one. He notes the possibility of combining that notion with αἰώνιον (aiōnion) which etymologically means “agelong,” not “everlasting.” The idea of agelong pruning or discipline leaves open the hope of ultimate salvation. To his credit, however, he notes that the doctrine of future states must rest on more basic considerations than those of etymological derivation. In the present context, the contrast with eternal life establishes that eternal punishment is not a limited period of discipline, but is without limits.
Master's Seminary Journal Volume 9, vnp.9.2.162 (Sun Valley, CA: The Master's Seminary, 1998).
──────────────────

Eternal punishment (κολασιν αἰωνιον [kolasin aiōnion]). The word κολασιν [kolasin] comes from κολαζω [kolazō], to mutilate or prune. Hence those who cling to the larger hope use this phrase to mean age-long pruning that ultimately leads to salvation of the goats, as disciplinary rather than penal. There is such a distinction as Aristotle pointed out between μωρια [mōria] (vengeance) and κολασις [kolasis].
A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol.V c1932, Vol.VI c1933 by Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention., Mt 25:46 (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997).
──────────────────
The incompatibility of love and fear is also evident from the fact that fear is associated with κόλασις. The original Greek understanding of this word is not so much related to “punishment” as to “discipline” or “physical training.” In Hellenism it takes on the meaning of “punishment” and later becomes a technical term for the “eternal punishment” that will be imposed at the final judgment..




Age long pruning chastisement, not eternal torture.

people have to engage in eisegesis to come up with the idea that hell is not eternal. the scripture needs to be read in the spirit in which it was written. Matthew was not an ecumenical universalist. He was a first century Jew writing to Jews. They knew that it was appointed unto men once to die, and then comes the judgment.

 

[lesliedellow]

people have to engage in eisegesis to come up with the idea that hell is not eternal. the scripture needs to be read in the spirit in which it was written. Matthew was not an ecumenical universalist. He was a first century Jew writing to Jews. They knew that it was appointed unto men once to die, and then comes the judgment.

Besides which, we know from Josephus that eternal punishment was not an idea unknown to first century Jews.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

people have to engage in eisegesis to come up with the idea that hell is not eternal. the scripture needs to be read in the spirit in which it was written. Matthew was not an ecumenical universalist. He was a first century Jew writing to Jews. They knew that it was appointed unto men once to die, and then comes the judgment.

"Churches" had to cover over the meanings of words to sell tickets to heaven.


And where those Mathews words?

Lake of Life - Pruning




The word by which our Lord describes punishment is the word kolasin, which is thus defined: "Chastisement, punishment." "The trimming of the luxuriant branches of a tree or vine to improve it and make it fruitful." "The act of clipping or pruning--restriction, restraint, reproof, check, chastisement." "The kind of punishment which tends to the improvement of the criminal is what the Greek philosopher called kolasis or chastisement." "Pruning, checking, punishment, chastisement, correction." "Do we want to know what was uppermost in the minds of those who formed the word for punishment? The Latin poena or punio, to punish, the root pu in Sanscrit, which means to cleanse, to purify, tells us that the Latin derivation was originally formed, not to express mere striking or torture, but cleansing. correcting, delivering from the stain of sin."



Also, ancient Jews did not believe in eternal hell. Nor do modern ones.

 

[lesliedellow]

Also, ancient Jews did not believe in eternal hell. Nor do modern ones.

The Pharisees did. Jesus's disagreements with them seem to have revolved around their self righteousness, not their theology.

Josephus Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 1, Verse 3.

One scholar (James D G Dunn) has even speculated that Jesus might have been a Pharisee himself. The Pharisees also believed that everything which happens in this life is preordained by God. They shyed away from pursuing that belief through to its logical conclusion in predestination to eternal life or eternal punishment. At least one of their number, in the person of St Paul, did, however, take that final step.

 

[Received]

people have to engage in eisegesis to come up with the idea that hell is not eternal. the scripture needs to be read in the spirit in which it was written. Matthew was not an ecumenical universalist. He was a first century Jew writing to Jews. They knew that it was appointed unto men once to die, and then comes the judgment.

Universalists also know this too, which is probably why it was so popular with the early church fathers.

 

[Paradoxum]

If it didn't have biblical support, Calvinism isn't a theology anybody would be likely to invent, but, for that very reason, it is less likely to be something which somebody has just pulled out of their head.

People invent immoral ideas... an idea seeming immoral isn't a reason to think it more likely true.

Also, whether or not you find something agreeable does not determine its truth value. I sometimes wonder what would happen if people did science in the same way they try to do theology.

It doesn't matter whether it's agreeable, it matters whether it's loving and moral... two things that people claim God to be.

 

[Tree of Life]

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.

What you're saying is that people are Calvinists because they're not as balanced and emotionally stable as you? Some might call this ad hominem.

 

[lesliedellow]

People invent immoral ideas... an idea seeming immoral isn't a reason to think it more likely true.

If it didn't have biblical support, people would react against it in the same emotional way you do. Unfortunately, it does have biblical support.

It doesn't matter whether it's agreeable, it matters whether it's loving and moral... two things that people claim God to be.

What matters is whether it is true. Atheists would doubtless have the bare faced cheek to accuse theists of subjectivism.

 

[lesliedellow]

What you're saying is that people are Calvinists because they're not as balanced and emotionally stable as you? Some might call this ad hominem.

That is one of the politer ways of putting it.

 

[Received]

What you're saying is that people are Calvinists because they're not as balanced and emotionally stable as you? Some might call this ad hominem.

Where did I say emotionally unstable?

 

[lesliedellow]

Where did I say emotionally unstable?

"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."

Unless you have as much trouble with the meaning of English words as you do Greek ones.

 

[Received]

How is that emotional instability?

 

[Received]

If it is emotional instability, about half of American males (who want to be gruff and strong and grrrr) are emotionally unstable.

 

[lesliedellow]

If it is emotional instability, about half of American males (who want to be gruff and strong and grrrr) are emotionally unstable.

Are you trying to reinforce the superiority complex of us Europeans re Americans?

 

[Received]

Are you trying to reinforce the superiority complex of us Europeans re Americans?

There is no superiority complex with you Europeans. You are just better males than American males are, generally speaking.

Fact.

 

[SarahsKnight]

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.

Sorry, I know it was quoted yesterday so it kind of interrupts the current topic, but I'm going to have to go with Paradoxum on this one. I mean, I've listened to a lot of Calvinist arguments over the last two years and while it does have a sufficient quantity of Biblical evidence (pretty much all of Romans 9 through 11, for instance), there is to me an equal amount for the free will to choose Christ, too, with the nudging - but not forcing - of the Holy Spirit. And even more striking, is that the Calvinist thought, especially the TULIP principle, presents so many quandaries and implications that just don't make sense.

For instance, Calvinism worships the almightiness of God, as in His ability to do whatever He pleases even if it is for the detriment of some humans, over His (typical definition of) love, right? It's about worshiping the power more than the goodness that we humans like to see in Him. Well, by itself, that's fine, because indeed God is almighty and Sovereign to me, but, how does man having the ability to choose Him or not, or make other choices, violate His soveriegnty? And that's what most Calvinists I've heard from sound like they're thinking. To me, either way, even if all of humankind chose Him or rejected Him, He's still going to be God in the end and balance the scales. And also, while I believe a moderate form of Calvinism sees predestination in the sense that God predestines some for salvation, and merely "passes over" the rest without actually forcing them into condemnation, why would He even allow these humans who are on a collision course for death (I take the conditionalist view of Hell, so I don't use the term eternal torment), ESPECIALLY if the second death means eternal conscious torment in Hell, to be born if He knows they will be born that way and He already knows He intends to not draw them to Him at all, passing them over?

And most of all, how is it that if humans making a choice to come to Christ under the Spirit's prodding - but not forcing - violates God's sovereignty in the Calvinist view, then they are not also by default acknowledging that God Himself is the author of the sin He hates so much? That Adam and Eve also did not have a choice whether to eat from the Tree of Knowledge or not, but that He predestined for them to and bring sin into the world? And, seriously, are you sure you want to stake that kind of claim on Him?
Or, is it that moderate Calvinists who do not explicitly admit this have simply never thought about it that way?

Now, am I saying all Calvinists are mean-natured like I know Robert Morey to be (and I've always heard about John Calvin himself, with his witch-hunting and all)? No. I know some Calvinists are just simply grateful that they were chosen for eternal life and that's all, without seeming to rub how special they are in the face of those who do not believe or simply question if Calvinism is the right mode of one's view towards God. But some do, it seems.

And lastly, one thing that is just my personal opinion, but I've also heard it argued from Calvinists that man cannot freely respond to or reject Christ's offer of salvation because it would be a work and not by grace alone. Well, I don't see how simply saying "yes, I would like to have this gift you so generously offer, God, thank you for that" is a work. I mean, it's still a gift; you just gratefully accepted it from a generous Hand instead of having it shoved in your face.


Now, from this post I think you can gather three things about me, that I believe in eternal security over losing salvation due to sinning too much, free will to accept Christ over Calvinism, and the conditionalist theory of the second death and the nature of the human soul over the traditional view, and indeed in all three of these matter believers debate on I have chosen the "nicer", "gentler" side, I know. But in case anyone has it on their lips to say to me, like I've heard some say in the past, how does this mean I have too soft a view of God or do not honor Him enough or want everything about Him to be nice and gentle? For one, I think the conditionalist view of death is still fearful enough, and two, since when is it a crime or a dishonor to worship and rveere God because I do think He is indeed that good? I mean, I know everyone has their own view of Him, so some will very well disagree with me, but I ask you, is it better to worship God because you are thankful to Him for what you perceive to be His goodness, or because you are afraid of Him using His omnipotence to punish you, or because you see Him punishing others?