Hating Calvinists?

[frumanchu]

N-n-n-not necessarily:

"An illustration is in order. Suppose a young man (whom we will call Jim) is contemplating marriage, and knows two young ladies (whom we will call Joan and Betty), either of whom would make a good wife for him. As a Christian, he has three basic choices: (1) to propose to neither of them; (2) to propose to Joan; or (3) to propose to Betty. Bear in mind that the young man is under no compulsion. There is nothing outside his own will that places demands on him to choose any one o fth three options (or any other one).... Suppose further that the young man happens to know that if he proposes to Joan she will say yet and if he proposes to Betty she will say no. Suppose then, in accordance with this foreknowledge of how she will freely respond, that Jim chooses to proppose to Joan. Suppose even that he knew she would be reluctant at first but with persistent and loving persuasion she would eventually -- freely -- accept his offer. The decision on his part was entirely free, uncoerced, and not based on anything outside himself. But is was also a decision that was with full knowledge of the response and which respected the free choice of the person to whom he decided to propose. This is analogous to what the moderate Calvinist [my position; he calls it such because modern Calvinists believe more than Calvin] believe about God's unconditional election." (Geisler)

This sums it up perfectly; however, he goes on to state what the Calvinist would hold:

"In contrast, let's hold the same illustration up against extreme Calvinists' belief. They would say that if Jim foreknew that both women would refuse his proposal for marriage unless coerced against their will to do so,* he would not have to show his love to either of them. Instead he could, for instance, decide to force Betty to marry him against her will. Would we not say that "forced love" is a contradiction in terms? And since Jim represents God in the illustration, would not this make God into someone who forces Himself on otheres in violation of their integrity? It seems to me that this is precisely what the extreme Calvinists are affirming."

*In an educational footnote, Geisler states thus: "Extreme Calvinists insist they hold to the truth that man is free and uncoerced. They claim "Man is free -- one hundred percent free -- to do exactly what he wants. God does not coerce a single one against his will." Yet Palmer adds shortly thereafter, "Incidentally, the Christian has no free will either.... Christ will not let him reject Him". Language is emptied of meaning when we speak of such things as being coerced to act freely."

The fallacy in Geisler's analogy is the understanding of a) the reason behind Joan and Betty's rejection of Jim, and b) the means by which Jim would go about overcoming such a reason.

Further, there are some questions that need to be asked of his initial analogy, such as why Betty will reject Jim no matter what he does. His analogy could quite easily, especially with a little application of Scripture, be shown as inapplicable to the situation surrounding election.

 

[frumanchu]

Unsymbolizing your illustration.....

What if Jim and Betty's future child was one of the elect? Then certainly God would have forced Jim to force Betty to marry him. Right?

-A

If God elects a person, it's a foregone conclusion that that person will be born. You cannot elect someone who does not exist. God doesn't need to actively, forcefully decree the birth for it to happen.

 

[Received]

The fallacy in Geisler's analogy is the understanding of a) the reason behind Joan and Betty's rejection of Jim, and b) the means by which Jim would go about overcoming such a reason.

Further, there are some questions that need to be asked of his initial analogy, such as why Betty will reject Jim no matter what he does. His analogy could quite easily, especially with a little application of Scripture, be shown as inapplicable to the situation surrounding election.

Please expand on this thought.

It seems we have argued at least the fringe of this idea without delving deeper. However, because there is no reason that we can detect of X rejecting Y, it does not stand that we must therefore deny any of its plausibility. Why would someone reject God's love? Because they do.

In short, the non-calvinist perspective regarding why people accept/reject divine love resides around their own spiritual constitution. We must keep in mind that it is the heart that God judges; not the soul -- and many times the soul -- as is common in the most elemtary of psychoanalysis -- keeps the heart from doing, or proceeding, as it otherwise would like. This is otherwise known as fear. A man who would will the Good is one that God would elect; forcing is unnecessary, and, as Lewis would argue, contrary to His plan.

What if Jim and Betty's future child was one of the elect? Then certainly God would have forced Jim to force Betty to marry him. Right?

Not necessarily. To not exist implies the lack of any values. God does not need for a specific person to be born at a specific time in order to carry out His plan. By your phrase "Jim and Betty," it seems that you imply absolute freedom; for how could they have a child except through their free act at procreation?

I find what fru says in regards to this quote quite right, minus the first sentence; a non-calvinist would merely assert that because the person will be born -- through the freedom of the couple in question, and the ordination of God --, he/she will be among/without the elect.

To claim that God must in a sense wait on us for His election -- which is of love -- therefore negates any sovereignty by Him seems to mis-interpret the non-calvinists perception of the essence of the divine -- not of power, but love, and love simply cannot have its own way. The power of God lies in His ability to woo, if you will, the person or party in question; to compel someone against their former wills is simply superflous according to this interpretation.

Blessings.

 

[frumanchu]

Please expand on this thought.

Unfortunately I'm on my way out of town right now, so I don't know how soon I'll get to it. I apologize in advance if I forget to address it, and feel free to remind me if I do forget

 

[CCWoody]

If God elects a person, it's a foregone conclusion that that person will be born. You cannot elect someone who does not exist. God doesn't need to actively, forcefully decree the birth for it to happen.

I was all too eager to help make them babies. Nobody had to twist my arm. On the country, seeing the number which I have fathered, a little restraint was eventually needed.

The problem here is that we have a group of people who insist that they are in control, when it is clear from the scriptures, that it is the Lord who closes wombs and opens them and even gives life to all things. The Lord is not sitting around hoping that Bob and Sue will get together and create a life. Even as He has ordained the existence of Bob and Sue, He has also ordained their very offspring.

Thine eyes did see me, when I was without forme: for in thy booke were all things written, which in continuance were facioned, when there was none of them before. Howe deare therefore are thy thoughtes vnto me, O God! how great is ye summe of them!
(Psa 139:16-17 GB)
​

It cannot be plainer! Before a single day of my life had ever been lived, all of them had already been written in the Lord's book. Ah, and to cut off the "but" before it is uttered, I was not the author of that book, which would make the Lord a mere cosmic Plagiarist, as most of the church of Christ would have us believe.

Good grief, even seeming random events are directly under the control of the Lord:

• The lot is cast into the lap: but the whole disposition thereof is of the Lord.
  (Pro 16:33 GB)

 

[armothe]

The problem here is that we have a group of people who insist that they are in control, when it is clear from the scriptures, that it is the Lord who closes wombs and opens them and even gives life to all things. The Lord is not sitting around hoping that Bob and Sue will get together and create a life. Even as He has ordained the existence of Bob and Sue, He has also ordained their very offspring.

Two questions:

1) How does God Himself "give life" (that is physical life). I'm not trying to be facetious here, but I thought the male's sperm fertilized the female's egg?
Do you see God stepping into this process and touching the fertilized egg with a divine hand, christening the egg with a life/soul/spirit?

2) When God ordains the existence of a person, He must also ordain the existence and consumation of the parents as well (and down through the ancestral generations- think on an exponential level here). Thus, He must ordain pretty much every event in human history. Doesn't this make God directly involved with every event or thought ever made? (ie - God is calling all of the shots) It wasn't my idea to have chili for lunch today, it was God's choice.

-A

 

[armothe]

Unfortunately I'm on my way out of town right now, so I don't know how soon I'll get to it. I apologize in advance if I forget to address it, and feel free to remind me if I do forget

Return safely!

-A

 

[rnmomof7]

Good grief, even seeming random events are directly under the control of the Lord:

• The lot is cast into the lap: but the whole disposition thereof is of the Lord.
  (Pro 16:33 GB)
  
  

Often what seems at the time a random free will choice on what seems a small matter may in fact greatly affect your life and the ones around you.

The fact is only God has the complete picture

 

[Received]

The problem here is that we have a group of people who insist that they are in control, when it is clear from the scriptures, that it is the Lord who closes wombs and opens them and even gives life to all things. The Lord is not sitting around hoping that Bob and Sue will get together and create a life. Even as He has ordained the existence of Bob and Sue, He has also ordained their very offspring.

Thine eyes did see me, when I was without forme: for in thy booke were all things written, which in continuance were facioned, when there was none of them before. Howe deare therefore are thy thoughtes vnto me, O God! how great is ye summe of them!
(Psa 139:16-17 GB)
​

It cannot be plainer! Before a single day of my life had ever been lived, all of them had already been written in the Lord's book. Ah, and to cut off the "but" before it is uttered, I was not the author of that book, which would make the Lord a mere cosmic Plagiarist, as most of the church of Christ would have us believe.

But if God is speaking of pure foreknowledge here -- which I believe the emphasis points -- then there is no question as to how the action does not depend on Him, but on the many contingencies that bring forth life. The idea refers to ordination -- I could have, at least in principle, not existed, but because I do does not make myself any more special than a man other than myself.

Indeed, "I" was saved in high school a rather short while ago; but I do not believe it a limitation of God to have "me" saved in the body of a sixty year old man.

Good grief, even seeming random events are directly under the control of the Lord:

• The lot is cast into the lap: but the whole disposition thereof is of the Lord.
  (Pro 16:33 GB)

I would point out that such words as "random" are truly non-existent. By the admission to an event of such unlikely exactitude from ourselves, God is merely ordaining what we otherwise...don't care for.

 

[Sunbeam]

Sunbeam,

Good and well. I can understand how this verse can cause friction; my only emphasis was that through faith we are perfected in the righteousness of God, for righteousness comes through faith, and faith without works (i.e. the love of Christ) is dead. To sin is to do that which your conscience begs you not to (Romans 14:23), and it is quite easy not to sin.

Oh okay. I should clarify that "perfect" to me means a pretty clear conscience of motivation, not that our actions always match.

The avatar is Soren Kierkegaard -- my motivation for being obscure and well-thought-though-zealously-presented -- i.e. without consideration for clarity

I don't know who he is offhand. I'll have to look him up. lol. My writing is not always organized either. lol

 

[Received]

Kierkegaard will make your head go "phhhheeeffffffp"

Of course, he is arguably the greatest writer on faith, and the leap of/to faith. He is profound, and very much prolific. It is my collegiate task to read every one of his works, then go crazy and create Calvinianism.

 

[PreacherFergy]

Actually, John Calvin took full credit for the murder of Servetus in a 1561 letter from him to Marquis Paet of Navarre.

-A

In a sense, you are correct. However, John Calvin wrote to Servetus several times to try to persuade him to turn from his error. Servetus just returned Calvin's writings w/ mocking words, etc. to him Calvin pleaded for him to turn, but he didn't.

Sorry for such a late reponse, but I've been quite busy this holidy season. Feel free to email me at dunamistheou@aol.com to continue this conversation

 

[rnmomof7]

Kierkegaard will make your head go "phhhheeeffffffp"

Of course, he is arguably the greatest writer on faith, and the leap of/to faith. He is profound, and very much prolific. It is my collegiate task to read every one of his works, then go crazy and create Calvinianism.

I thought Paul was the greatest writer .

Kierkegaard is not a theologian..but a philosopher and the Father existentialism.

Christianity is not a religion of reason, but is instead a religion of faith .
If that is the origin of your religious teaching I would suggest that your intellect is fed more than your spirit.
There is no truth each self is different, and therefore the truth of the self is inherently subjective.

His work is not Biblical and finds its foundation in his own troubled relationship with his father.

My suggestion to Sunbeam is to spend her time in the bible and let the Holy Spirit lead her into truth.

 

[Received]

mom, where on earth are you getting motivation for even the slightest tinge of a reason that my post speaking of Kierkegaard had anything to do with belittling the power of the Holy Spirit, and the theology attained through scripture reading?

All of your assertions are dead wrong; Kierkegaard wondered whether his melancholy was a result of his father's early curse of God in his destitute position prior to his birth.

I never ever said that reason was paramount to faith; you are creating phrases out of the air. You cannot have faith baseless, and reason is indeed a weapon to destroy the wiles of the enemy that prevent many from comprehending the truth of the Gospel; indeed, "Come, let us reason together." -- Isaiah 1:18 (NKJV).

Yes, Paul is a great writer; and yes, theology is poetry because I believe it. But because we know more about the life of Kierkegaard -- his discipleship from Luther's writings, his dealings with grief, his constant revelation that Christianity comprehended is no Christianity at all (quite what you are arguing against), that truth is subjectivity and no truths can be attained by objective, cold reasoning -- which is death to rationalism (again, quite what you are arguing against) and life for personal revelation -- because of all this, Kierkegaard remains in much a different light than Paul. For while the latter we have difficulty with in grasping his arguments, though nonetheless admire his hand in divine inspiration, we praise Kierkegaard for allowing us to grasp the sayings of Paul, and Jesus, and John, and Abraham, much greater. You are missing the point by fifty leagues if you are against such a writer as Kierkegaard, or even one who denies the urgency of reason in the face of faith. Christendom needs reason; and its lack is very well the reason why belief is so scanty and ill-worn by the members of its church: likely many of them who do not believe; who sit in the pews of church sunday after sunday with a superficial righteousness that makes them closer to Hell than prostitutes. I am not here to create a form of pseudo-praise for Paul; I am here for Christ, and His person, for it is indeed the Word as a metaphysical entity that constitutes who He is, and what the word as we know it is. Small wonder why I keep my theology simple with such claims as 1 John 4:8 and reminders of Jesus' sayings that revealed His absolute equality and mimicry of the Father. Simplicity is my initiation; reason is my argument.

Whatever means we may use to find the fulness of God's glory we should use with emphasis; my path is reason and argument, and it is more than obvious that this is not the path of all, for there are many gifts but one Spirit. I am here to defend my doctrine, and if statements of passion and transitory arrogance find themselves in my way, so much the worse for my opposition, and so much the worse for the edifying work of Christ.

 

[rnmomof7]

mom, where on earth are you getting motivation for even the slightest tinge of a reason that my post speaking of Kierkegaard had anything to do with belittling the power of the Holy Spirit, and the theology attained through scripture reading?

All of your assertions are dead wrong; Kierkegaard wondered whether his melancholy was a result of his father's early curse of God in his destitute position prior to his birth.

I never ever said that reason was paramount to faith; you are creating phrases out of the air. You cannot have faith baseless, and reason is indeed a weapon to destroy the wiles of the enemy that prevent many from comprehending the truth of the Gospel; indeed, "Come, let us reason together." -- Isaiah 1:18 (NKJV).

I have read enough of your post to see the intellectualization of the word of God.
By faith are ye saved..not by reason.

Yes, Paul is a great writer; and yes, theology is poetry because I believe it. But because we know more about the life of Kierkegaard -- his discipleship from Luther's writings, his dealings with grief, his constant revelation that Christianity comprehended is no Christianity at all (quite what you are arguing against), that truth is subjectivity and no truths can be attained by objective, cold reasoning -- which is death to rationalism (again, quite what you are arguing against) and life for personal revelation -- because of all this, Kierkegaard remains in much a different light than Paul.

For sure

For while the latter we have difficulty with in grasping his arguments, though nonetheless admire his hand in divine inspiration, we praise Kierkegaard for allowing us to grasp the sayings of Paul, and Jesus, and John, and Abraham, much greater.

I only praise God.
Do you really believe this mentally ill depressed man was "inspired"?

I worked with mentally ill people they talk in circles and so some sound gifted because they think on another plane . In reality their thinking is not coherent because of their illness

You are missing the point by fifty leagues if you are against such a writer as Kierkegaard, or even one who denies the urgency of reason in the face of faith. Christendom needs reason;

No Christianity needs Christ .

and its lack is very well the reason why belief is so scanty and ill-worn by the members of its church: likely many of them who do not believe; who sit in the pews of church sunday after sunday with a superficial righteousness that makes them closer to Hell than prostitutes.

You are correct..the tares often run the churches..but they need grace not the reason of men.

Jesus tells us the enemy planted the tares , that they would have a superficial likeness to the wheat..but at the Harvest they will be thrown into the fire.
These tares were planted by one that once promised "ye shall be as gods"

I am not here to create a form of pseudo-praise for Paul; I am here for Christ, and His person, for it is indeed the Word as a metaphysical entity that constitutes who He is, and what the word as we know it is. Small wonder why I keep my theology simple with such claims as 1 John 4:8 and reminders of Jesus' sayings that revealed His absolute equality and mimicry of the Father. Simplicity is my initiation; reason is my argument.

Whatever means we may use to find the fulness of God's glory we should use with emphasis; my path is reason and argument, and it is more than obvious that this is not the path of all, for there are many gifts but one Spirit. I am here to defend my doctrine, and if statements of passion and transitory arrogance find themselves in my way, so much the worse for my opposition, and so much the worse for the edifying work of Christ.

Mat 7:13Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:


Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Luk 13:24**
Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

There are many ways to Christ ,all but one are dead ends .

 

[Received]

I worked with mentally ill people they talk in circles and so some sound gifted because they think on another plane . In reality their thinking is not coherent because of their illness

I quit, rnmomof7.

You refuse to negotiate. Your claims are wrong, falsely emphatic, and downright absurd. I am not out to get you. Never was.

"Intellectualizing God's word" -- what disgusting talk. Has it ever occured to you that God's word is so deep and wondrous that the meticulous investigation that comes about through the "intellectual" matters you perpetually ascribe to me reveal only the greater glory of God? Are you content with superficial-world, where everything is simple, and by such men are content with a pragmatic view of scriptures, easily twisted to their own fancy? Augustine didn't think so -- he is very much a theologian and a philosopher; if not for the endless depths of Luther and Calvin, we would be stuck sucking as pagans on a creed outworn.

Keep the conspiracy strong -- perhaps in your zeal you shall fall hard and realize there never was a battle to begin with. Until then, I am waiting until we eschew this deception and concentrate on the title of the forums. What have I done to you? Defended my case? Should there not be those who care about their future; who actually work with what God has given them? If I am nothing more than a colossal intellectual barrier as a splinter in your mind, gnawing at peace that would otherwise be yours without challenge and disagreement, so much the worse for you.

"Come, let us reason together" -- from the mouth of God (Isaiah 1:18)
"Study to why thyself approved unto God..." -- 2 Timothy 2:15

Our legendary and malicious uncordial calvinist once declared that we were biblical myopics; how to the contrary I desire to express that such persons of such refusal to consider the glory of God within the confines of personal revelation, but rather only to the limitations of a book of such ambiguity in language and translation and debate -- biblical slaves.

You praise only God? Have you never expressed a moment of warmth and praise to one of your own children? It is difficult to imagine a parent that doesn't. How long did it take you to consider such an ill reply from what you obviously knew to be my meaning? You are more intelligent than that.

Without intelligence we are mere beasts as slaves to our desires and fears. God has more sense than that.

Christ is the reason for my intelligence. He is the most brilliant man who has ever lived.

 

[rnmomof7]

[/font]

I quit, rnmomof7.

You refuse to negotiate. Your claims are wrong, falsely emphatic, and downright absurd. I am not out to get you. Never was.

I refuse to negotiate the word of God.

"Intellectualizing God's word" -- what disgusting talk. Has it ever occured to you that God's word is so deep and wondrous that the meticulous investigation that comes about through the "intellectual" matters you perpetually ascribe to me reveal only the greater glory of God?

It is so great and wondrous that the intellect of man can never understand it. It is understood only under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not the intellectual ramblings of a carnal man

Are you content with superficial-world, where everything is simple, and by such men are content with a pragmatic view of scriptures, easily twisted to their own fancy? Augustine didn't think so -- he is very much a theologian and a philosopher; if not for the endless depths of Luther and Calvin, we would be stuck sucking as pagans on a creed outworn.

Luther and Calvin did not ever claim to operate from their intellect.

Keep the conspiracy strong -- perhaps in your zeal you shall fall hard and realize there never was a battle to begin with. Until then, I am waiting until we eschew this deception and concentrate on the title of the forums. What have I done to you? Defended my case? Should there not be those who care about their future; who actually work with what God has given them? If I am nothing more than a colossal intellectual barrier as a splinter in your mind, gnawing at peace that would otherwise be yours without challenge and disagreement, so much the worse for you.

Jhn 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

1Cr 2:10**
But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

God has given us an "intellect" , for some it will be led by the spirit of God not the ramblings of an insane man

"Come, let us reason together" -- from the mouth of God (Isaiah 1:18)

Isa 1:18**
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Is it your reading of this verse that men can reason with God to be saved?

The word reason in Hebrew does not necessarily mean Human reason (or intellect)...That is the assumption of men .
That meaning is actually one of the last of the definitions. It is frequently translated as rebuke or reprove

1) to prove, decide, judge, rebuke, reprove, correct, be right

a) (Hiphil)

1) to decide, judge

2) to adjudge, appoint

3) to show to be right, prove

4) to convince, convict

5) to reprove, chide

6) to correct, rebuke

b) (Hophal) to be chastened

c) (Niphal) to reason, reason together

d) (Hithp) to argue

"Study to why thyself approved unto God..." -- 2 Timothy 2:15

It would be helpful to look at the context of that verse.
What was Timothy to study? Was it the words of men or God ?

2Ti 1:13**
Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

**
*
2Ti 1:14**
That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.

The surrounding verses seem to warn against learning from the work of men

*
*
2Ti 2:14**
Of these things put [them] in remembrance, charging [them] before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, [but] to the subverting of the hearers.

**
*
2Ti 2:15**
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

**
*
2Ti 2:16**
But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

**
*
2Ti 2:17**
And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;

2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

Our legendary and malicious uncordial calvinist once declared that we were biblical myopics; how to the contrary I desire to express that such persons of such refusal to consider the glory of God within the confines of personal revelation, but rather only to the limitations of a book of such ambiguity in language and translation and debate -- biblical slaves.

You expose your theology here Received.

Personal revelation has led to the Mormons , the JW's, the Muslims etc.

When I read the word and I have a Ahhh haaa moment, I know it is an illumination from the holy Spirit..not some "deep secret" that my intellect has discerned .


I have no desire to develop a new doctrine..but only to be faithful to that which was delivered by Christ.

Jhn 7:16**
Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me

You praise only God? Have you never expressed a moment of warmth and praise to one of your own children? It is difficult to imagine a parent that doesn't. How long did it take you to consider such an ill reply from what you obviously knew to be my meaning? You are more intelligent than that.

There is a difference between offering words of praise and praising some one.

I only praise (worship) God.

Without intelligence we are mere beasts as slaves to our desires and fears. God has more sense than that.

Without a soul we are mere beasts. Our mind being only one part of that.

2Cr 9:13* Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for [your] liberal distribution unto them, and unto all [men];

Christ is the reason for my intelligence. He is the most brilliant man who has ever lived.

And His words are found in a Book . It is a good thing to take the words of that "brilliant "man over the words of a fallible man

Gal 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

You are a nice guy received..but I think you credit the intelligence of man too much and the word of God too little.

You quote men and honor their works it seems over the ability of the Holy Spirit's ability to make the word of God live in your heart

 

[Heilo2003]

i have to go and i just started! newbie? i know more about my religion than any other 14 year old ... most likely

 

[frumanchu]

Ummm...ok.

Out of curiosity, what prompted you to post to a thread that's been silent for 15 months???