I'll never join you, Count Calvin.

[Jedi]

Though I can't quite pinpoint why, one of my favorite lines from the Star Wars movies is uttered by the great Jedi Knight Obi-Wan when he is being held captive on Geonosis and first encounters the infamous Count Dooku. The Count, a Sith Lord in secret, asks Obi-Wan to join him to which Obi-Wan responds, "I'll never join you, Count Dooku."

This phrase, properly modified of course, sums up my response to John Calvin. I've found that those who hold close to Calvinistic theology have power at the center of their theological world: they are afraid of anything compromising God's absolute power and sovereignty. They persue this power even at the cost of God's goodness (fittingly, much like a Sith Lord would do). Apparently, they can serve a God who is not all good but they cannot serve a God who is not all powerful.

Perhaps an example might demonstrate this fact. Take soteriology (the study of salvation), for instance. The Bible is clear that not everyone is saved. This leaves us with a choice: (a) is God unable to save some people or (b) is God unwilling to save some people? The former compromises God's power while the latter compromises His goodness.

Calvinists respond that God chose according to His will who will be saved and who will not, but this response leads to more problems than it solves. Contrary to Romans 2:11, God is now showing favoritism (choosing who will be saved solely by His own personal fancey). 2 Peter 3:9 states that God is not willing that any should perish but for all to come to repentence, but this clearly does not apply to the Calvinisitic God (who the Calvinists say is able to save all but chooses not to. What sort of God would want to save all people, be able to save all people, yet not save all people?).

Calvinists will be quick to point out that it is to God's glory that the wicked burn in hell. Yet let it be known that there is more glory in having your enemies join you than to mow them down like grass. If this were not true, why would God go through the trouble of saving anyone?. The destruction of the wicked may be good, but the salvation of the wicked is even better. If this is so, and God is able to save whomever He wants, why would He choose the less glorious route of destroying those He could have saved? Calvin's God has chosen the lesser glory.

If Calvin's God would choose a lesser glory over a greater one, then Calvin's God is not all-good (for an all-good being would want to maximize the amount of goodness). The picture of Calvin's God is not a pretty one, even in the kindest light. Imagine a parent of four children who warns his kids not to go play near the bear's cave. The children hear their father's warning but off they go anyway to have their fun at the bear's cave. Soon they find themselves cornered by bears and unable to save themselves. Now what sort of parent, able to save all the trapped children, would save only two of those children and not all four? That's precisely the sort of God Calvinists present - a being whose parenting skills would have any one of us guilty of poor parenting on account of child neglect.

On the flip side, I do not see the problem Calvinists have with the idea that God could not save everyone - that God allows people the freedom to choose to either do things their way or God's way and cannot possibly save people if they do not wish to be saved. Is it because they want to serve a God who is "able to do anything?" Scripture already says there are limitations to what God can do (e.g. Hebrews 6:18, "it is impossible for God to lie"), so that desire has already been thwarted elsewhere. Omnipotence should be understood as "being able to do anything possible." Phrases like "with God all things are possible" should be understood within their proper context, else they would contradict both logic and scripture.

I suppose if push came to shove, I could serve a God that is not all-powerful. I cannot serve a God that is not all-good. It's a simple matter of my placing goodness at a higher priority than power. Thankfully, it is not necessary to say that God is not all-powerful, only to qualify omnipotence to mean "being able to do anything possible," thus dodging all the logical and scriptural problems faced by those who use the phrase "all-powerful" to mean "able to do anything."

Just as Obi-wan prized goodness over power, my response to Calvin and his theology is this: I'll never join you, Count Calvin.

 

[philN]

I think that scripture may not be as cut and dry on this topic as you are making it out to be. Let us approach this topic humbly with an eagerness to learn more about what scripture says, rather than proving or disproving a popular interpretation.

Though I can't quite pinpoint why, one of my favorite lines from the Star Wars movies is uttered by the great Jedi Knight Obi-Wan when he is being held captive on Geonosis and first encounters the infamous Count Dooku. The Count, a Sith Lord in secret, asks Obi-Wan to join him to which Obi-Wan responds, "I'll never join you, Count Dooku."

Um...okay.

This phrase, properly modified of course, sums up my response to John Calvin. I've found that those who hold close to Calvinistic theology have power at the center of their theological world: they are afraid of anything compromising God's absolute power and sovereignty. They persue this power even at the cost of God's goodness (fittingly, much like a Sith Lord would do). Apparently, they can serve a God who is not all good but they cannot serve a God who is not all powerful.

This is a sweeping generalization, and is thus a logical fallacy. First, you assume that sovereignty and goodness are mutually exclusive. God is, by nature, good; therefore everything that He does is good because it is as he intends it. God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Is this action contrary to the goodness of His nature? I don't believe it to be. Is it likewise so hard to believe that God would likewise judge others who were disobedient in other places? Does this make Him unjust or ungood? Is it really unjust to execute justice?

Perhaps an example might demonstrate this fact. Take soteriology (the study of salvation), for instance. The Bible is clear that not everyone is saved. This leaves us with a choice: (a) is God unable to save some people or (b) is God unwilling to save some people? The former compromises God's power while the latter compromises His goodness.

This is a bit of a bifurcation. First, a God who is unable to save some people is not a god. Again, by nature, there are limitations that God has (he cannot sin, or make a rock so big he cannot lift it, or do anything else that cannot coexist with his nature), but God most certainly is able to save whoever He desires. Your second option is bunk because the scriptures tell us that God does not desire anyone to perish. And yet, people do perish. It is not because he is unable to save them; it is because He "has mercy on those whom he has mercy and hardens those whom he hardens" (Rom. 9:18). It is not an easy answer. And it is one that is hard to reconcile, but God's justice and mercy are not at odds with one another.

Calvinists respond that God chose according to His will who will be saved and who will not, but this response leads to more problems than it solves. Contrary to Romans 2:11, God is now showing favoritism (choosing who will be saved solely by His own personal fancey). 2 Peter 3:9 states that God is not willing that any should perish but for all to come to repentence, but this clearly does not apply to the Calvinisitic God (who the Calvinists say is able to save all but chooses not to. What sort of God would want to save all people, be able to save all people, yet not save all people?).

First off, favoritism in Romans 2 is in reference to ethnicity. God does not show favoritism in that he will judge Jews and Gentiles alike who do evil; but will likewise reward the Jews and Gentiles alike who do good. This verse simply means that no person (regardless of ethnicity) is exempt from the consequences of their actions.

Yes, it is true that God does not wish for any to perish, but for all to come to repentence. He wants to save all people, He can save all people, but He does not. Why? Because God is Just and Holy. He is just because he will punish everyone who is evil and He will reward those who are good. If he simply let everyone sin and then saved them all, He would not be just because He would be letting people who are not repentent for their wickedness into His presence. Secondly, God is Holy. If He were to let wicked men who have not been cleansed by the redeeming blood of His Son into His presence He would be compromising His holiness.

Calvinists will be quick to point out that it is to God's glory that the wicked burn in hell. Yet let it be known that there is more glory in having your enemies join you than to mow them down like grass. If this were not true, why would God go through the trouble of saving anyone?. The destruction of the wicked may be good, but the salvation of the wicked is even better. If this is so, and God is able to save whomever He wants, why would He choose the less glorious route of destroying those He could have saved? Calvin's God has chosen the lesser glory.

To be honest, it is not "Calvin's God". It is the "God of a majority of Christendom from the days of Augustine until now". The only reason Calvin's name is tacked onto it is because his writings were used to form a rebuttal after the Synod of Dordt found the Five Points of Arminianism to be heretical. You can find out more about the Synod and their decisions at your local library or on the internet.

And while it is easy to try and philosophize about whether or not God is just in destroying some people, there is scriptural evidence to suggest that is how God operates. Romans 9:16-23 is a very difficult passage because it speaks of something that we have a difficulty reconciling with a view of a Merciful. In reality, this is because we cannot completely understand mercy or justice and as a result cannot comprehend how the two cannot be mutually exclusive.

If Calvin's God would choose a lesser glory over a greater one, then Calvin's God is not all-good (for an all-good being would want to maximize the amount of goodness). The picture of Calvin's God is not a pretty one, even in the kindest light. Imagine a parent of four children who warns his kids not to go play near the bear's cave. The children hear their father's warning but off they go anyway to have their fun at the bear's cave. Soon they find themselves cornered by bears and unable to save themselves. Now what sort of parent, able to save all the trapped children, would save only two of those children and not all four? That's precisely the sort of God Calvinists present - a being whose parenting skills would have any one of us guilty of poor parenting on account of child neglect.

Again, this is not something that Calvinists simply pull out of their collective asses. There is scripture that suggests that at times such things occur. Again, it is hard to reconcile with our human comprehension of justice and mercy, but to simply ignore the fact that it occurs in the bible is being ignorant. Perhaps this issue isn't meant to be completely comprehended. Perhaps human minds lack the ability to comprehend it. But rather than attacking people for interpretting things differently or for emphasizing different verses then you, perhaps it would be better to really grapple with the text and humbly acknowledge that at times there are things that are not as black and white as we wish they were.

On the flip side, I do not see the problem Calvinists have with the idea that God could not save everyone - that God allows people the freedom to choose to either do things their way or God's way and cannot possibly save people if they do not wish to be saved. Is it because they want to serve a God who is "able to do anything?" Scripture already says there are limitations to what God can do (e.g. Hebrews 6:18, "it is impossible for God to lie"), so that desire has already been thwarted elsewhere. Omnipotence should be understood as "being able to do anything possible." Phrases like "with God all things are possible" should be understood within their proper context, else they would contradict both logic and scripture.

No Christian really believes that God can do anything. I listed some examples of limitations earlier. However, God can do anything that is in accordance with his nature; and it is part of God's nature to be able to control man's hearts. God hardened Pharoah's heart; he also gave people over to sinful desires. If he has the power to do this, of course he also have the power to soften men's hearts and to draw men to himself. I'm not sure I know of any verses that say that God has no control over the will of man.

I suppose if push came to shove, I could serve a God that is not all-powerful. I cannot serve a God that is not all-good. It's a simple matter of my placing goodness at a higher priority than power. Thankfully, it is not necessary to say that God is not all-powerful, only to qualify omnipotence to mean "being able to do anything possible," thus dodging all the logical and scriptural problems faced by those who use the phrase "all-powerful" to mean "able to do anything."

Again, this is a straw man. No one really believes that God can do anything. Your argument here is based on a faulty presupposition that such people exist. God's power and goodness are not mutually exclusive. They are just just hard to understand and reconcile with each other because our human minds have a limited understanding of what the two concepts really mean.

Just as Obi-wan prized goodness over power, my response to Calvin and his theology is this: I'll never join you, Count Calvin

First, Calvin is not a count. Second, Calvin is not an enemy. In fact, speaking as someone who has grappled with both sides of this issue and is still seeking to understand the real meaning of certain passages, I found this somewhat offensive. Calvinists are still Christians. They are your brothers and sisters in christ. To compare them to a dark enemy character from Star Wars is meanspirited and seems to pit christians against other christians. Third, (again) Calvinism did not originate with Calvin. Much of the theology is based on covenental theology which is rooted heavily in the Old and New Testaments and it is likewise the viewpoint held by St. Augustine and a majority of christendom since 300 A.D.

 

[cygnusx1]

before some people start getting all emotional and reactionary it would be worth checking out what one of the most important Theologians of the Catholic Church believes , and no it is not Augustine , this time try Thomas Aquinas!

“The reason for the predestination of some, and reprobation of others, must be sought for in the goodness of God. Thus He is said to have made all things through His goodness, so that the divine goodness might be represented in things. Now it is necessary that God's goodness, which in itself is one and undivided, should be manifested in many ways in His creation; because creatures in themselves cannot attain to the simplicity of God. Thus it is that for the completion of the universe there are required different grades of being; some of which hold a high and some a low place in the universe. That this multiformity of grades may be preserved in things, God allows some evils, lest many good things should never happen, as was said above. Let us then consider the whole of the human race, as we consider the whole universe. God wills to manifest His goodness in men; in respect to those whom He predestines, by means of His mercy, as sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of His justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others. To this the Apostle refers, saying (Rm. 9:22,23): “What if God, willing to show His wrath (that is, the vengeance of His justice), and to make His power known, endured with much patience (allowed) vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction; that He might show the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He hath prepared unto glory”; and (2 Tim. 2:20): “But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver; but also of wood and of earth; and some, indeed, unto honor, but some unto dishonor.”” (1, 23, 5)



So, it is necessary for the completion of the universe, that it might more perfectly manifest the goodness of God, for which purpose it exists, that there be a variety of men, of different grades, some of whom fail to obtain their good, which is salvation. Therefore, it is necessary that God divide mankind into the elect, who obtain their good, in whom shall be realised the goodness of His mercy; and into the reprobate, who fail to obtain their good, in whom the goodness of His avenging justice is realised. Thus is realised the variety of the higher and the lower grades of man, the honourable and the dishonourable; and His goodness is manifested variously and more perfectly than it otherwise would be.



Hence, both salvation and damnation are logically prior in the order of intention to election and to predestination and reprobation. God first intends the purpose of the universe, namely that it might manifest His goodness as far as is possible. Therefore He intends that there should be salvation and damnation, so that His goodness might be variously and thereby more perfectly manifested. Therefore He elects some, whom He predestines to salvation, and the good of His mercy is manifested in these, as St. Thomas says, in that He “spares” them the fate of the reprobate. And others He reprobates, in whom is manifested the good of His avenging justice. God first decides the end and then decides the adequate means to that end, namely predestination and reprobation, the ultimate end being the same for either, namely the manifestation of the divine goodness.



God wishes to realise His wrath as well as His mercy, and there is no injustice in this of God as He deprives no creature of what it is due. The Apostle explains:



“As it is written: Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated. What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy. […] O man, who art thou that repliest against God? […] What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction?” (Romans 9:13-15, 20, 22)



So, we have seen the purpose of the universe, the universal principles that this entails, and how these apply to men. We shall now consider the place of invincible ignorance within this cosmological and teleological context.



As we have seen, it is necessary for the completion of the universe that some men fail in their end and are damned. Now, invincible ignorance is precisely an instance of men failing to obtain their good, which failure must be for the completion of the universe to be effected. If no men failed to obtain their end, which is salvation, or died in their sins, then the goodness of God’s avenging justice would not be manifested in their damnation; and then the universe as a whole would not manifest His goodness as far as it could in the required variety. So it must be that some men are damned - and invincible ignorance is an adequate means to this end. For, all men are conceived with original sin, which suffices for their damnation, as suffice the mortal sins which many men commit. That these people are damned, it is not required that they resist the Faith with a positive sin of infidelity; rather it is adequate that they never hear of the Faith, in which consists their invincible ignorance, without which Faith their sins, which suffice for damnation, cannot be taken away. Wherefore, those who die invincibly ignorant are damned.



So, invincible ignorance, by which men fail to obtain their end, is an adequate means toward the completion of the purpose of the universe; it is an adequate means for the damnation of the reprobate, without which damnation and the variety that it affords, the goodness of God could not be manifested as perfectly as it can be. It is of teleological and cosmological adequacy, one might say, contributing to the completion of the purposeful universe. It is an adequate means to the end, and means there must be, if the end is to be achieved. Hence such ignorance is not a purely negative thing; for although it is in itself negative and permits the failure of the individual creature, nevertheless its ultimate effect is to afford the realisation of the goodness of the avenging justice of God and thereby the success of the entire universe. It is purposeful. It contributes to the universal good, being a means thereto. God is concerned with the universal good, for which it is required that some creatures fail in attaining to their end, so that the universe might attain to its end, which is God alone.



“The everlasting punishments of the wicked will not be altogether useless. For they are useful for two purposes. First, because thereby the Divine justice is [preserved] which is acceptable to God for its own sake.” (Supplement 99, 1; translation corrected in brackets)



God is able to bring good out of evil, and indeed must do if all manner of good is to be realised; therefore He allows some men to die invincibly ignorant and to be damned.



Again, there is no injustice in this with God, for no creature has merited or is due the preaching of the Gospel or the opportunity to be saved, which opportunity is wholly gratuitous and is not rendered to any man as due. Rather, before men are brought to the Faith, without which sins cannot be taken away, they are due only damnation due to original sin and mortal sins. The saved are not chosen, or even given an opportunity to be saved, but purely through grace. They are saved only because God wishes to realise His mercy in them, even as He realises His wrath in the damned. It is all to the glory of His goodness. He deprives no creature of its due, whether He saves or damns. No one can complain. God does what He does because He is good, that is, in order to manifest His goodness in various ways, and it is not unlawful for Him to do as He chooses so as to manifest His goodness. Each shall receive as God freely ordains, and there is no injustice in this with God. If He wishes to leave some men without the hearing of the gospel then that is His business. Those who are saved will see these matters clearly, and they will see the gratuity of the grace that they have received, clearly in the fate of the damned, that none may glory but in God alone.



http://www.christianforums.com/t2495268-thomas-aquinas-a-predestinarian.html

 

[depthdeception]

This phrase, properly modified of course, sums up my response to John Calvin. I've found that those who hold close to Calvinistic theology have power at the center of their theological world: they are afraid of anything compromising God's absolute power and sovereignty. They persue this power even at the cost of God's goodness (fittingly, much like a Sith Lord would do). Apparently, they can serve a God who is not all good but they cannot serve a God who is not all powerful.
[/quote[

I'm not sure that God's soveignty--within the Calvinistic theological paradigm--actually detracts from God's goodness, for after all that which is "good" will be defined by what God does. I think there are better philosophical arguements against the Calvinist's rendering of sovereignty. The "goodness" issue is a classic one that Calvinists love to accuse all antagonists of relying upon. However, not all of us do and it drives them crazy.

[quote[
Perhaps an example might demonstrate this fact. Take soteriology (the study of salvation), for instance. The Bible is clear that not everyone is saved. This leaves us with a choice: (a) is God unable to save some people or (b) is God unwilling to save some people? The former compromises God's power while the latter compromises His goodness.

This is a perfect example of why salvation does not depend upon God's "ability." If you cast the argument in terms of ability, the Calvinist will always win, for of course God is not "unable" to save someone. However, as stated before, salvation is not dependent upon God's ability.

Calvinists will be quick to point out that it is to God's glory that the wicked burn in hell. Yet let it be known that there is more glory in having your enemies join you than to mow them down like grass. If this were not true, why would God go through the trouble of saving anyone?. The destruction of the wicked may be good, but the salvation of the wicked is even better. If this is so, and God is able to save whomever He wants, why would He choose the less glorious route of destroying those He could have saved? Calvin's God has chosen the lesser glory.
[/quote[

This is an interesting point. I will think over it a bit.

The picture of Calvin's God is not a pretty one, even in the kindest light. Imagine a parent of four children who warns his kids not to go play near the bear's cave. The children hear their father's warning but off they go anyway to have their fun at the bear's cave. Soon they find themselves cornered by bears and unable to save themselves. Now what sort of parent, able to save all the trapped children, would save only two of those children and not all four? That's precisely the sort of God Calvinists present - a being whose parenting skills would have any one of us guilty of poor parenting on account of child neglect.
[/quote[

Ah, but in a truly consistent Calvinism, God not only chooses which of the children God will save, but moreover God is one compelling the children to disobey, as well as the one compelling the bear to attack the children.

On the flip side, I do not see the problem Calvinists have with the idea that God could not save everyone - that God allows people the freedom to choose to either do things their way or God's way and cannot possibly save people if they do not wish to be saved. Is it because they want to serve a God who is "able to do anything?" Scripture already says there are limitations to what God can do (e.g. Hebrews 6:18, "it is impossible for God to lie"), so that desire has already been thwarted elsewhere. Omnipotence should be understood as "being able to do anything possible." Phrases like "with God all things are possible" should be understood within their proper context, else they would contradict both logic and scripture.

This is a good qualification. God cannot do anything without qualification. Rather, God can do that which God can do, just as humans can do that which humans can do.

I suppose if push came to shove, I could serve a God that is not all-powerful. I cannot serve a God that is not all-good. It's a simple matter of my placing goodness at a higher priority than power. Thankfully, it is not necessary to say that God is not all-powerful, only to qualify omnipotence to mean "being able to do anything possible," thus dodging all the logical and scriptural problems faced by those who use the phrase "all-powerful" to mean "able to do anything."

The Incarnation of Christ reveals what God's priority is. Love, not power.

Just as Obi-wan prized goodness over power, my response to Calvin and his theology is this: I'll never join you, Count Calvin.

Nor will I. And if I had a lightsabre....

 

[Jipsah]

I've found that those who hold close to Calvinistic theology have power at the center of their theological world: they are afraid of anything compromising God's absolute power and sovereignty.

I've found, being a rather late convert to Calvinism, that most Calvinists of my acquaintance hold with Calvinism because they believe it to be true. That what is called "Calvinism" is, in essence, what the Bible teaches. God's power is unassailable in any case.

Apparently, they can serve a God who is not all good

And now you've wandered into absurdity.

Perhaps an example might demonstrate this fact. Take soteriology (the study of salvation), for instance. The Bible is clear that not everyone is saved. This leaves us with a choice: (a) is God unable to save some people or (b) is God unwilling to save some people? The former compromises God's power while the latter compromises His goodness.

I'll agree with that. The notion that God is unable to do anything is simply not suported by the Bible.

2 Peter 3:9 states that God is not willing that any should perish but for all to come to repentence, but this clearly does not apply to the Calvinisitic God.

As opposed to the Arminian God who'd really, really like for everyone to be saved, but just doesn't have the wherewithal to make it happen. Kinda makes you wonder how He managed to speak a universe into being (assuming that the Arminian God is believed to have done that).

Calvinists will be quick to point out that it is to God's glory that the wicked burn in hell.

As opposed to the Arminian God who apparently had just enough power to create a hell, but not quite enough to keep anyone out of it. Kinda makes you wonder why He created it in the first place.

The destruction of the wicked may be good, but the salvation of the wicked is even better.

Yes, but I think youi've clearly established that the Arminian God is wholly unable to save anyone. He's been reduced to the role of a helpless spectator.

The picture of Calvin's God is not a pretty one

As opposed o the picture of the Arminian God, which is merely pathetic. A kindly but ineffective grandfather who'd love nothing better than to see his kids do well, but who has no power to make it happen.

Soon they find themselves cornered by bears and unable to save themselves. Now what sort of parent, able to save all the trapped children, would save only two of those children and not all four?

Better the Arminian parent, who can't save any of them. Wow.

On the flip side, I do not see the problem Calvinists have with the idea that God could not save everyone

No problem at all. There is no "God could not..."; that's an Arminianism. God will save who e pleases. That number is somewhere between "no one" and "everybody".

Omnipotence should be understood as "being able to do anything possible.

Since the Arminian God isn't necessarily omnipotent then it isn't erally rlevant for them anyway, is it? A great many Arminians believe that God doesn't even know what's going to happen before we do, apparently because "that just wouldn't be fair". They've got God whittled down to a manageable size to pervent Him interfering with their lives.

I suppose if push came to shove, I could serve a God that is not all-powerful.

As an Arminian you don't really have any choice, do you?

I cannot serve a God that is not all-good.

I.E., one who's too annoyingly god-like.

 

[Jedi]

Whew, lots of responses. This might take a while.

 

[Maximus]

Apparently, they can serve a God who is not all good but they cannot serve a God who is not all powerful.

For what it's worth, I liked that.

I also liked the Sith Lord analogy.

 

[Jedi]

First, you assume that sovereignty and goodness are mutually exclusive.

I assumed nothing but explained how they were. Not all people are saved, so either God is unable to save them or is unwilling to save them. A being who is unable to do something has its sovereignty compromised and a being who is able but unwilling to help those in need is not entirely good. Take your pick. These are our choices.

God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Is this action contrary to the goodness of His nature? I don't believe it to be. Is it likewise so hard to believe that God would likewise judge others who were disobedient in other places? Does this make Him unjust or ungood? Is it really unjust to execute justice?

Ah, yes, the appeal to the justice and wrath of God. Typical calvinistic responses. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed not because God didn't care enough to save them, but because their hearts were so turned against God that they wouldn't have life any other way than themselves - He couldn't save them.

First, a God who is unable to save some people is not a god.

And here we have it! Where in the world do you come up with this stuff? Show me in scripture where this is true. Show me through philosophy or theology how this is true. You can't - you just pull this out of thin air and base your entire theology around it: this absurd idea that God MUST be able to save everyone. It's a logical impossibility for as long as people are themselves and not mere puppets of God. For a person to be themselves, God cannot force their wills and if God cannot force their wills, they may very well choose to have things their way than God's way and there is nothing God can do about it: you cannot force free creatures.

I suppose you might say "our wills are not free," but this leads to more problems. If our wills are not free, how can we be justly held accountable for our actions? A man is not praiseworthy of doing good if he could have done nothing else. Likewise, a man cannot be condemned for evil if he had no choice but to do evil. You might as well condemn a river for flowing downstream or a branch hitting you back through recoil afer you moved it out of your way. If the wills of men are not free, they are not responsible for their actions and if they are not responsible for their actions, God cannot justly condemn anyone because of their actions (which they had no control over).

First off, favoritism in Romans 2 is in reference to ethnicity. God does not show favoritism in that he will judge Jews and Gentiles alike who do evil; but will likewise reward the Jews and Gentiles alike who do good. This verse simply means that no person (regardless of ethnicity) is exempt from the consequences of their actions.

First, it is a general statement about God being applied to a particular situation. Second, if you disagree with the general claim that God does not show favoritism, then God is not just (for favoritism is precisely the opposite of fairness). Thus what I pointed out remains steadfast: God does not show favoritism.

Yes, it is true that God does not wish for any to perish, but for all to come to repentence. He wants to save all people, He can save all people, but He does not. Why? Because God is Just and Holy.

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. What sort of God would want to save all people and be able to save all people yet not save all people? Because He is Just and Holy? Forgetting the immediate problem of choosing the lesser glory here, this answer you've given would have God not wanting to save all people - instead, your God wants to mow them down like grass for the sake of his justice.

To be honest, it is not "Calvin's God". It is the "God of a majority of Christendom from the days of Augustine until now".

First, I would not suggest you take safety in numbers. Often a consensus only means that all the fools are on the same side (nearly everyone in the early church until Galileo also believe the sun revolved around the earth). Secondly, only in recent times has there been a resurgance of Calvinism. In talking one of my theology professors about this subject, he noted that a while back, nearly all the papers he received in class were in favore of Arminianism. Now Calvinism composes about half of the papers turned in.

Romans 9:16-23 is a very difficult passage because it speaks of something that we have a difficulty reconciling with a view of a Merciful. In reality, this is because we cannot completely understand mercy or justice and as a result cannot comprehend how the two cannot be mutually exclusive.

Romans 9 is a fun verse to go through - it has absolutely nothing to do with the awful determinism a lot of Calvinists say it does. I also find it very interesting how nothing you wrote even came close to responding to the problem you face as a Calvinist: your God choosing the lesser of two glories by destroying the enemy rather than turning them.

Again, this is not something that Calvinists simply pull out of their collective asses. There is scripture that suggests that at times such things occur. Again, it is hard to reconcile with our human comprehension of justice and mercy, but to simply ignore the fact that it occurs in the bible is being ignorant.

And here you just beg the question without responding to the objection at hand. The best you've done is "scripture says so," to which I adamantly disagree. I've been through discussion after discussion with Calvinists and their strongest passages don't add up while they refuse to face the serious objections posed toward their theology.

However, God can do anything that is in accordance with his nature; and it is part of God's nature to be able to control man's hearts.

Haha, no it's not. Where in the blazes did you pick this up from? Pharaoh? I suggest you read the Hebrew words translated as "hardened" there. God reinforces people's wills but He does NOT force them to do one thing or another. If He did, He would be some maniacal puppet master forcing some people to reject him and then punishing them for it. Mark my words: I will never serve such a God. Such a God is beneath me.

Again, this is a straw man. No one really believes that God can do anything. Your argument here is based on a faulty presupposition that such people exist.

Haha, you obviously haven't disussed this matter with many Christians. There are plenty of uneducated Christians who believe this to be true. To deny the fact that people exist who believe God's sovereignty to be this great.. it's rather gullable.

First, Calvin is not a count. Second, Calvin is not an enemy.

Then I'm afaid you've missed the parallel altogether.

In fact, speaking as someone who has grappled with both sides of this issue and is still seeking to understand the real meaning of certain passages, I found this somewhat offensive. Calvinists are still Christians. They are your brothers and sisters in christ. To compare them to a dark enemy character from Star Wars is meanspirited and seems to pit christians against other christians.

The sith of Star Wars prize power over goodness - that is the parallel I have drawn here and to date, you have not explained my examples away. Calvinsts want God to "be able to save anyone" even if the only way He can compromises His goodness. Like a bad parent who refused to save all of the disobediant children, so the God of Calvinism will never receive even the lifting of my finger in support of him.

As a side note, to make things easier for me, I'll only respond to your post for now. I'd rather not get snowballed here, so I just won't allow it. If other posts get shorter, I see no reason to not respond, but for now, responding to pages upon pages of responses would consume far too much of my time. I'll respond, but I won't make it my life.

Nor will I. And if I had a lightsabre....

Haha, thanks for being a light of encouragement after being faced with darkness.

For what it's worth, I liked that.

I also liked the Sith Lord analogy.

Haha, thanks. Glad to know it wasn't completely wasted.

 

[S Walch]

Excellent Points Jedi

I thought many baptists took the OSAS position?

You have proven me wrong

 

[philN]

This debate has gone on for centuries. None of your "rebuttals" are new and have been responded to by hundreds of Calvinists in the past; just as every Calvinist rebuttal has been responded to by Arminians. What it comes down to is how you interpret scripture. For an Arminian to completely ignore parts of the Bible that are irreconcilable with their presuppositions is ignorant; just as it is ignorant for a Calvinist to twist certain passages to try and reconcile their views.

In my post above, I wasn't trying to make you change your position. I was trying to make you see that there is a defense for Calvinism, just as there is a defense for Arminianism. And maybe, just maybe, we are not able to completely understand how God has set up his system of sovereignty and our free will.

I could go through and respond to each one of your claims, but to be honest, I don't want to. I'm bored with the cyclical nature of these debates and how any attempt to make people think that maybe the answer lies outside of one of the traditional camps is written off as some sort of attack.

Sorry, but I'm just not up to it at the moment.

 

[S Walch]

Well, there's no grey area in this.

We're either OSAS, or we're not.

Theres no demilerterized zone in this!

Either Arminist are correct, or calvinists are.

Take your pick.

 

[Bulldog]

I assumed nothing but explained how they were. Not all people are saved, so either God is unable to save them or is unwilling to save them. A being who is unable to do something has its sovereignty compromised and a being who is able but unwilling to help those in need is not entirely good. Take your pick. These are our choices.

What do you mean by "entirely good"? As in 100%, with nothing else? Is it possible for good to be "entirely good" and execute other traits? If so, then what are you trying to argue here?

Ah, yes, the appeal to the justice and wrath of God. Typical calvinistic responses. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed not because God didn't care enough to save them, but because their hearts were so turned against God that they wouldn't have life any other way than themselves - He couldn't save them.

Using phrases like "God didn't care enough to save them" is framing the argument, it would be better to use a term like "unwilling." And it's not mutually unintelligible to say that God was unwilling to save them and to say that he punished them for their wickedness. I'm not sure you could find a Calvinist that denies that God punishes the wicked because of their wickedness. Their are important questions that need to be adressed here like "Why did they not turn to God"?

And here we have it! Where in the world do you come up with this stuff? Show me in scripture where this is true. Show me through philosophy or theology how this is true. You can't - you just pull this out of thin air and base your entire theology around it: this absurd idea that God MUST be able to save everyone. It's a logical impossibility for as long as people are themselves and not mere puppets of God. For a person to be themselves, God cannot force their wills and if God cannot force their wills, they may very well choose to have things their way than God's way and there is nothing God can do about it: you cannot force free creatures.

The idea in scripture is that God's power and will supercedes that of man. You bring up the classic "force" argument, but fail to see the implications of it - if man does not will to come to God, then why would he? What would make him want to act against his desires and come to God? If the Calvinist is correct, than everyone must be "forced" (which is really a poor term that is a bit misleading as it relates to the belief of Irresistable grace very well)

I suppose you might say "our wills are not free," but this leads to more problems. If our wills are not free, how can we be justly held accountable for our actions?

Calvinists do not view choice as a necessary component of accountability. AN interesting example I've seen brought up goes something like this - if you were stuck in a cave with nothing but hot dog's, and ate them to survive, would you be "accountable" for eating them.

A man is not praiseworthy of doing good if he could have done nothing else. Likewise, a man cannot be condemned for evil if he had no choice but to do evil.

Why?

God cannot justly condemn anyone because of their actions (which they had no control over).

Again, I bring up the hot dog anaology. Did you have any control over eating the hot dogs in the cave?

First, it is a general statement about God being applied to a particular situation. Second, if you disagree with the general claim that God does not show favoritism, then God is not just (for favoritism is precisely the opposite of fairness). Thus what I pointed out remains steadfast: God does not show favoritism.

Clearly there is some "favoritism" in that God has a special saving love for his childrens which he does not have for those who reject him. WOuld you deny this?

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. What sort of God would want to save all people and be able to save all people yet not save all people?

Who said that God "wanted" to save everyone?

Because He is Just and Holy? Forgetting the immediate problem of choosing the lesser glory here, this answer you've given would have God not wanting to save all people - instead, your God wants to mow them down like grass for the sake of his justice.

Your begging the question - assuming your own concepts of so called "lesser glory" and then applying it to God.

First, I would not suggest you take safety in numbers. Often a consensus only means that all the fools are on the same side (nearly everyone in the early church until Galileo also believe the sun revolved around the earth). Secondly, only in recent times has there been a resurgance of Calvinism. In talking one of my theology professors about this subject, he noted that a while back, nearly all the papers he received in class were in favore of Arminianism. Now Calvinism composes about half of the papers turned in.

Many true doctrines took a while to develop.

Haha, no it's not. Where in the blazes did you pick this up from? Pharaoh? I suggest you read the Hebrew words translated as "hardened" there. God reinforces people's wills but He does NOT force them to do one thing or another.

Most Calvinists would agree that God's hardening is a reinforcement of man's will. But the question then is, why would He?

Calvinsts want God to "be able to save anyone" even if the only way He can compromises His goodness. Like a bad parent who refused to save all of the disobediant children, so the God of Calvinism will never receive even the lifting of my finger in support of him.

Again, who said that God wanted to save all of them?

Let's expand on your situation a bit. Say a mother has some children who have gotten druck and are drowning in a body of water. Does the mother have an obligation to save all her children? Would she be an "evil" if she choice to save a few and left the others to the punishment of their own devices? (this analogy is not quite perfect for reasons that may come up later, but hopefully it does make a point)

God Bless

 

[NeoGRizzly]

"May the force be with you"


I had to say that

 

[ttreg]

a sorta off topic question: i know that there is Arminianism and Calvanism but is there anything else?

 

[philN]

Well, there's no grey area in this.

We're either OSAS, or we're not.

Theres no demilerterized zone in this!

Either Arminist are correct, or calvinists are.

Take your pick.

First off, the doctrine of Once Saved, Always Saved, is a bit different than the Calvinist doctrine of Perseverence of the Saints. Also, both Calvinism and Arminianism have implications much greater than the typical arguments that are brought up in discussions about the two.

Second, it's true that it does not logically make sense that both can be accurate. But God does not have to make sense logically. There are lots of paradoxes in the Bible. For example, scripture says that God does not change His mind, but in certain texts we see people talking God out of doing things and giving Him reasons to change His mind. Likewise, there are passages that suggest that perhaps we have a say in things, but there are also passages that imply that God is behind every action that we make, whether we realize it is Him or not.

 

[philN]

a sorta off topic question: i know that there is Arminianism and Calvanism but is there anything else?

There is Amyraldianism, which borrows aspects of both. There is also the view that Christ is the only member of the Elect and we are saved by having a relationship with Him, which is something that we can fall away from (this view sort of borrows from both also).

There are some other views, but I'm blanking on them right now.

 

[choirfiend]

a sorta off topic question: i know that there is Arminianism and Calvanism but is there anything else?

Yes, there's Orthodoxy. Quite different from any teaching you might find among Protestant theology, and similarly different from Roman Catholicism, since the RCC and Protestants are related, but have been separated from Orthodoxy for 1000 years. Amazingly different and refreshing on all issues, really. Have a gander.

 

[mutzrein]

You know what I reckon. You guys will never sort this age old argument out as long as you both hold to the belief that your theology is based on sound doctrine - and therefore you can’t be wrong.

One of the greatest hurdles for you, which ever side of it you stand, is this: the notion of a God who sends many to eternal punishment in hell irrespective of whether you have even heard of the gospel – let alone Jesus, and irrespective of whose choice it is to do anything about it.

 

[cygnusx1]

You know what I reckon. You guys will never sort this age old argument out as long as you both hold to the belief that your theology is based on sound doctrine - and therefore you can’t be wrong.

One of the greatest hurdles for you, which ever side of it you stand, is this: the notion of a God who sends many to eternal punishment in hell irrespective of whether you have even heard of the gospel – let alone Jesus, and irrespective of whose choice it is to do anything about it.

that is the 'archilles heal' of the Armininan doctrine.

 

[choirfiend]

That's why there's the Orthodox view, that doesn't presume to take God's judgement as our own. We don't claim that anyone goes to Hell; neither do we claim to know the mind of God and claim that anyone living is going to Heaven, though we do see those who bring heaven to their lives now, and trust that those people intercede for us now before the throne of God. We basically refuse to try to make up God's mind for Him, and allow Him to be the ultimate Judge. And, this comes from our understanding of what heaven and salvation are, which is very different from anything that may produce Calvinist or Arminian debators. It's a breath of fresh air, really, to believe and trust in God and not try to claim who is saved and who is not.