Predestination

[Montalban]

Yeah. Calvinism is a little strange like that. The Scriptures clearly state that God wants everyone to be saved, which doesn't really jibe with the idea that God picked some elect and is content to let the rest go.

It also makes God a hypocrite. God asks us to love everyone. But according to Calvinism he loves only a few - for whatever arbitrary reason HE chooses.

 

[Albion]

Is there any value to living an ethical life if one is not elect ?

Absolutely.

Why should one bother ?

Is that your idea of virtue--what will it "get" me? On the contrary, that which is right and good should be done because it is right and good! I believe that if we read the Bible with this in mind, we will find that this is what is being taught, not 'Do this so that you can get past the pearly gates.'

What's more, you made an assumption there that is one more of those folk tales about Predestination told by those who don't know what it is--but know that they don't like it! I refer to "if one is not elect." Well, do you know if you are among the Elect or not? Predestinarian Christians do not suggest that it's possible.

 

[Albion]

I've already addressed this when you tried to labour that straw-man upon me.

Sorry, but time and again, the Freewillers here have indeed used the Universalist argument to try to prove their case. If you are not a Universalist, I'd suggest trying to find some other line of argument.

 

[Albion]

God asks us to love everyone. But according to Calvinism he loves only a few

Not true. Predestinarian Christians (always called by you "Calvinists" whether or not they are Calvinists) do not say that. YOU say that he loves only a few; we say that the Bible does not tell us how many he has chosen.

for whatever arbitrary reason HE chooses.

Again, that's what YOU think. We do not presume to tell God what his reasons are or that they are arbitrary.

 

[Montalban]

Sorry, but time and again, the Freewillers here have indeed used the Universalist argument to try to prove their case. If you are not a Universalist, I'd suggest trying to find some other line of argument.

Twice now I've explained the difference.

 

[Montalban]

Not true. Predestinarian Christians (always called by you "Calvinists" whether or not they are Calvinists) do not say that. YOU say that he loves only a few; we say that the Bible does not tell us how many he has chosen.

Whether it is 10% or 68.83% it's not love of everyone. So you have Jesus telling us to love everyone, but not doing that himself... because he's already condemned people to hell, before time

Again, that's what YOU think. We do not presume to tell God what his reasons are or that they are arbitrary.

Of course they are arbitrary. Do you know what the word means?

subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
Arbitrary Definition | Definition of Arbitrary at Dictionary.com

 

[Montalban]

Is that your idea of virtue--what will it "get" me? On the contrary, that which is right and good should be done because it is right and good! I believe that if we read the Bible with this in mind, we will find that this is what is being taught, not 'Do this so that you can get past the pearly gates.'

But if you have no free will, why are you doing what is right and good? You'd be doing 'right and good' because you're compelled to do so.

What's more, you made an assumption there that is one more of those folk tales about Predestination told by those who don't know what it is--but know that they don't like it! I refer to "if one is not elect." Well, do you know if you are among the Elect or not? Predestinarian Christians do not suggest that it's possible.

Where did Thekla do this?

 

[Hammster]

They are Church Fathers too. If you quote them you have just quoted a Church Father

Again, differences in how we see things. The bible is the word of God. The other "church fathers", as you call them, are not Scripture.

 

[Hammster]

Simple logic. God is omnipotent, therefore He can save everyone. He doesn't do so, according to predestination. So God chooses which people will go to Hell when he creates them, by not electing them.

So you agree, then (since God is omnipotent), that He creates people whom He knows He will not save, and thus knows He will send to Hell.

I know, I know. God doesn't send people to Hell, people send themselves to Hell. Or, God still gives them a chance. Or whatever other similar type argument there is against this. But the end result is the same. God knowing creates people whom He knows will not be saved, and whom He knows He will send to Hell.

 

[Hammster]

If God denies the opportunity to repent to some, while granting it to others, then he is not just.

Where do you find that God is obligated to save anyone, or give them the "opportunity" to be saved, as you put it?

 

[Montalban]

There's a world of difference between creating someone whom you know will go to hell and creating a person for hell.

The difference is one of intent.

One has a God who loves us and creates us, knowing some will not choose him.

The other is a malicious God who creates people especially to be tormented.

One path is one of love, choice and return of love. The other is of pointlessness, of being automatons, of having God punish people who have not faulted themselves at all.

The other difference is for us.

I do not know how my story will end. But if I were to believe that God had created some for hell then there would be no hope for me;
a) hope would just be an illusion as without free will, there is no choice, nothing I can do
b) God would be a hypocrite - demanding I love everyone, yet not doing this himself
c) no love

Intent is an important thing here. Suppose you see me breaking into a house. You might think I'm a criminal. What if someone was dying and I needed to call an ambulance and the only way I could do this was by breaking into a house. The effect is the same - but the intent differentiates my actions from that of a burglar.

The same with God. We all die. Some will go to heaven, some will go to hell. The difference is whether God loves us all, and wishes that we are all saved, or that God doesn't love us all, wishes only some to be saved and creates them especially with the intent of being saved.

 

[MamaZ]

Originally Posted by Montalban

Dorothea,
The really odd thing about the pro-predestination camp is the insistence that reading the Bible is a 'personal matter', but there's nothing 'personal' about a person who's been compelled to be saved, and what would be the point in reading the Bible anyway, nothing about reading it would make a person more, or less saved.
​

Salvation is not the end result.. It is just the beginning of our relationship with God as our Father.. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.. So delving into the scriptures we grow.

 

[MamaZ]

God is not Santa Claus keeping a list of who has been naughty or nice.. HE is God the creator of Heaven and Earth and all that is..

 

[Montalban]

According to Calvinism, God does keep lists!

 

[Hammster]

According to Calvinism, God does keep lists!

Actually, the bible says God keeps lists. But it isn't a naughty or nice list, since none do good.

 

[Montalban]

It is unfortunate that people would want to argue that God is such that he is hypocritical; demanding we love all, but not doing so himself. The odd thing is that they are so determined to defend a self-annihilating argument; because what's the point in arguing this - if they were right? It wouldn't change anything.

The idea that none of us do good can lead to all manner of evils, if nothing we do matters. Moslems idea of god follows the same path, they say "If al-Lah wills it" because for them determinism is everything.

Jesus, calling us to him would be spouting meaningless calls, because he's already decided who will come, and who has fallen.

James Hogg examined this in his lampoon of Calvinistic determinism "The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner: Written by Himself. With a detail of curious traditionary facts and other evidence by the editor" A very long name indeed!

 

[Montalban]

One writer says that salvation is just the beginning of our relationship with God. What matter this though? We don't really have a relationship with God under Calvinistic doctrine.

We can't love him in any meaningful way because not only do we do nothing good, but we're compelled by God to choose him.

 

[Hammster]

There's a world of difference between creating someone whom you know will go to hell and creating a person for hell.



The difference is one of intent.



One has a God who loves us and creates us, knowing some will not choose him.



The other is a malicious God who creates people especially to be tormented.



One path is one of love, choice and return of love. The other is of pointlessness, of being automatons, of having God punish people who have not faulted themselves at all.



The other difference is for us.



I do not know how my story will end. But if I were to believe that God had created some for hell then there would be no hope for me;

a) hope would just be an illusion as without free will, there is no choice, nothing I can do

b) God would be a hypocrite - demanding I love everyone, yet not doing this himself

c) no love



Intent is an important thing here. Suppose you see me breaking into a house. You might think I'm a criminal. What if someone was dying and I needed to call an ambulance and the only way I could do this was by breaking into a house. The effect is the same - but the intent differentiates my actions from that of a burglar.



The same with God. We all die. Some will go to heaven, some will go to hell. The difference is whether God loves us all, and wishes that we are all saved, or that God doesn't love us all, wishes only some to be saved and creates them especially with the intent of being saved.

Well thought out answer. Wrong, but well thought out.

Would God be just if He didn't save anybody?

 

[Montalban]

In the mind of the early church, free will was always taught.

Augustine might be interpreted as denying this. Certainly Calvin took this novel approach when he devised a new way of looking at scripture, 1,500 years after the events.

There's a good list of early church sources on the matter here...
http://www.austingrad.edu/images/Resources/church/Free Will.pdf

 

[Montalban]

Without free will punishment of sinners would be unjustifiable. What reason would there be to punish someone who had no choice in doing wrong?

Imagine if I sit you down and say "Push this button" and there's only one button. The button is wired to a device that will shock you. I tell you to push the button. You have no choice, if you don't I'll shoot you. That's the system Calvinists have. Through no fault of your own you're compelled into an action that's going to lead you to be punished.