God is POWER, Thus Spoke Calvinuthra

[Jeremy E Walker]

Shall not the judge of all the earth do what is right?

We are on earth and God is in heaven and He does as He pleases. We must remember this and thus persevere in humility always guarding against those things that make for controversy.

 

[Received]

The Calvinist reframe would be: shall not right be what the judge of the earth does?

 

[Tree of Life]

The Calvinist reframe would be: shall not right be what the judge of the earth does?

What's wrong with this? What could be more right than whatever the author of life is and does?

 

[Received]

What's wrong with this? What could be more right than whatever the author of life is and does?

The problem with this is this is the opposite of what the verse says.

 

[Tree of Life]

The problem with this is this is the opposite of what the verse says.

The verse in context is a confused question imbedded in a narrative. What doctrine are you drawing from it?

 

[lesliedellow]

The Calvinist reframe would be: shall not right be what the judge of the earth does?

And what would the moral standard be against which God's actions are to be judged right or wrong?

It wouldn't be the one you will thoughtfully provide, for him to conform himself to, would it?

 

[Received]

The doctrine that God does what's good, and not that good is whatever God does. Nowhere in the Bible is the latter stated formulaically. The reason this is extremely important is that "whatever God does is good," becomes by definition, "whatever I believe God does according to my theology is good." This opens the door for tyranny and all sorts of terrible things God can be believed to be doing, but it doesn't matter: if God does it, even if we think it's miserable and evil, it's good because he does it. What this really means is that we're considering a theology that fits together nicely no matter the consequences it means in terms of God's character.

The alternative, which prevents all this, is to say as the verse does: that God does good, that in a sense goodness is something "outside" God (note the quotes here). What does this mean? Instead of considering whatever we think God does is good, we actually have a standard of goodness by which we can consider God's behaviors and qualities to see if he fits them or not. If he doesn't seem like a good God, then our theology is at fault, try again.

The former is inherent to Calvinism and makes it dangerously easy for God to become a monster. I say it's best not to worship a God who you wouldn't at least respect in human form on earth if this person had the same characteristics.

 

[lesliedellow]

The doctrine that God does what's good, and not that good is whatever God does. Nowhere in the Bible is the latter stated formulaically. The reason this is extremely important is that "whatever God does is good," becomes by definition, "whatever I believe God does according to my theology is good." This opens the door for tyranny and all sorts of terrible things God can be believed to be doing, but it doesn't matter: if God does it, even if we think it's miserable and evil, it's good because he does it. What this really means is that we're considering a theology that fits together nicely no matter the consequences it means in terms of God's character.

The alternative, which prevents all this, is to say as the verse does: that God does good, that in a sense goodness is something "outside" God (note the quotes here). What does this mean? Instead of considering whatever we think God does is good, we actually have a standard of goodness by which we can consider God's behaviors and qualities to see if he fits them or not. If he doesn't seem like a good God, then our theology is at fault, try again.

The former is inherent to Calvinism and makes it dangerously easy for God to become a monster. I say it's best not to worship a God who you wouldn't at least respect in human form on earth if this person had the same characteristics.

You are avoiding the question. From whence comes the higher morality which even God is to be subject to?

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Any belief on faith and absent objective evidence is psychologically primed, no matter what type of religious belief it is.

Non-belief is also psychologically primed, because non-believers typically have a much higher psychological need to reconcile beliefs, with reality and objective evidence.

 

[Received]

You are avoiding the question. From whence comes the higher morality which even God is to be subject to?

I'm not avoiding it. It's you who is making the claim that God needs a standard outside of himself.

 

[Received]

Any belief on faith and absent objective evidence is psychologically primed, no matter what type of religious belief it is.

Non-belief is also psychologically primed, because non-believers typically have a much higher psychological need to reconcile beliefs, with reality and objective evidence.

Mostly agreed. I'd say that intuition, or knowing without reasoning, can very much be a naked invitation to do or believe something without psychological influence.

 

[Paradoxum]

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.

Some people not reacting against Calvinism just means that those people think it has support. It doesn't mean it actually has support. Also, some Christians don't think the Bible is infallible, so are free to reject bits of the Bible which don't make sense.

I can see why some people think Calvinism is supported by the Bible, but it can be interpreted differently.

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

Yes it matters whether it's true. If Calvinism is inconsistent with the idea that God is good and loving (which is more clear), then perhaps Calvinism is on shaky ground. If Calvinism is inconsistent with God as Love, then Calvinism is false.

 

[Received]

The inconsistency with Calvinism goes way beyond just the Bible. Calvinism is logically inconsistent on a very basic level. It requires repentance which its targets can't provide. Book closed.

 

[Paradoxum]

The inconsistency with Calvinism goes way beyond just the Bible. Calvinism is logically inconsistent on a very basic level. It requires repentance which its targets can't provide. Book closed.

What do you mean? People are asked to repent, but they can't without God making them do it, so there's no point in asking them to repent?

 

[Received]

What do you mean? People are asked to repent, but they can't without God making them do it, so there's no point in asking them to repent?

Yep. God is asking impossible things, therefore God isn't at work here.

 

[SarahsKnight]

That's one of things, Paradoxum, yes.

To my understanding, Jesus' command to go and make disciples of the nations, to preach the Good News to the poor, in the Calvinist view isn't to give people hope and to do so for the sake of getting people saved, because it was already decided by God Himself (not because of foreknowledge but literal predestination) at the beginning of time, thus to the Calvinist they should preach the Gospel just as an act of obedience to Jesus, that's it. Even though in reality when preaching the Good News they are really preaching "Good News for a precious few of you in the audience, but very, very bad news to the rest."

 

[bhsmte]

Mostly agreed. I'd say that intuition, or knowing without reasoning, can very much be a naked invitation to do or believe something without psychological influence.

You don't think personal psychology plays a role in one's intuition?

 

[Received]

Yeah, the Gospel*. Calvinists also have to argue what determines God's choosing one person for eternity over another who isn't chosen. "It's his will," only begs the question here. It's much more logically satisfying to go the Arminian route in holding that God just isn't omnipotent as we like to think of it and some people will be lost despite his desiring all to come to repentance, or (IMO) the most satisfying would be universalism, which holds that all people will be saved in good time.

*unless you're not in, then you're screwed.

 

[lesliedellow]

I'm not avoiding it. It's you who is making the claim that God needs a standard outside of himself.

No I am not, you are. So for the third time of asking, from whence cometh the higher morality, against which God's actions can be judged either right or wrong.

 

[Received]

You don't think personal psychology plays a role in one's intuition?

It does to some degree. We can never know whether our intuition is constructed entirely from our previous experiences, current schemas, and other things, or whether there's something objective leaking through our intuition. I think that if you look at, say, fear as a psychological mechanism, this is a very reliable (although far from foolproof) indicator of something dangerous around the corner which often works without conscious awareness ("I feel like I don't trust this person but I don't quite know why...").