Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
First, this is an ad hominem attack. Of God. Saddam Hussein was not kind, but he wasn't kind because the thoughts and intents of his heart were evil.
Are you thinking God intends evil -- not simply the punishments of evil, but actually evil -- on those who defy Him?
dont try to put words into my mouth please. i am saying torture is cruel. till i came to this forum i never met anyone who approved of torture.
Second, Hell is kind because it is more consistent with God's actual care for people than His leaving them to their own evil. The constant downward spiral of evil does indeed result in something more cruel than Hell.
It results in unresolved evil.
He could annihilate them. the only point of letting people rot in hell is for revenge. why is God interested in revenge? cant he let the people just die? whats the point of toruring them?
The interesting thing about your argument so far has been to focus on evil people as if they're not deserving of such punishment. Prove that case. Tell me that Hussein doesn't deserve to rot in Hell for all eternity. Tell me that Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao, or Pol Pot are so pitiful that they don't deserve the resolution, the consequence of their sins.
And then show me that the origins of their sins are not the same as mine. So the results of my sins are not the same as theirs.
i wouldnt want to see anyone rot in hell. why would i? why would you? i dont understand this attitude. Jesus wanted us to be gentle.
Otherwise I'm actually most pleased to take the intense, severe, and eternal punishment as not only good, but kind toward the depths of such evil.
this defines cruelty without its connotations. You can't promote the denotation of "intense, severe, painful" consequences into "therefore wrong".
"Cruelty" has a connotation -- that intense, severe, painful infliction has to be for its own sadistic reasons, or for some evil purpose. Otherwise it's not cruelty. It's punishment.
it certainly does seem sadistic to me, and pointless. its not going to achieve anything, except revenge, and something for christians with your type of thinking to rejoice over in heaven.
If you think punishment is wrong, then I just have to deny the assertion. Kids who grow up either without punishment, or without recognizing it as such land in the harshness of prison, and probably will be there indefinitely. Which is rather similar to the pattern on display in God's punishment.
i dont say punishment is wrong i say that if cruelty was going to be necessary to achieve God's purpose, it would have been kinder not to have created the world at all. my concept of kindness is a human one, which i got from my understanding of Jesus. but i must be mistaken.
Are you thinking God intends evil -- not simply the punishments of evil, but actually evil -- on those who defy Him?
dont try to put words into my mouth please. i am saying torture is cruel. till i came to this forum i never met anyone who approved of torture.
Second, Hell is kind because it is more consistent with God's actual care for people than His leaving them to their own evil. The constant downward spiral of evil does indeed result in something more cruel than Hell.
It results in unresolved evil.
He could annihilate them. the only point of letting people rot in hell is for revenge. why is God interested in revenge? cant he let the people just die? whats the point of toruring them?
The interesting thing about your argument so far has been to focus on evil people as if they're not deserving of such punishment. Prove that case. Tell me that Hussein doesn't deserve to rot in Hell for all eternity. Tell me that Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao, or Pol Pot are so pitiful that they don't deserve the resolution, the consequence of their sins.
And then show me that the origins of their sins are not the same as mine. So the results of my sins are not the same as theirs.
i wouldnt want to see anyone rot in hell. why would i? why would you? i dont understand this attitude. Jesus wanted us to be gentle.
Otherwise I'm actually most pleased to take the intense, severe, and eternal punishment as not only good, but kind toward the depths of such evil.
this defines cruelty without its connotations. You can't promote the denotation of "intense, severe, painful" consequences into "therefore wrong".
"Cruelty" has a connotation -- that intense, severe, painful infliction has to be for its own sadistic reasons, or for some evil purpose. Otherwise it's not cruelty. It's punishment.
it certainly does seem sadistic to me, and pointless. its not going to achieve anything, except revenge, and something for christians with your type of thinking to rejoice over in heaven.
If you think punishment is wrong, then I just have to deny the assertion. Kids who grow up either without punishment, or without recognizing it as such land in the harshness of prison, and probably will be there indefinitely. Which is rather similar to the pattern on display in God's punishment.
i dont say punishment is wrong i say that if cruelty was going to be necessary to achieve God's purpose, it would have been kinder not to have created the world at all. my concept of kindness is a human one, which i got from my understanding of Jesus. but i must be mistaken.
Upvote
0
Perhaps I'm wrong in that assumption, but are you sure?
That's what I've been trying to say to you... that if you concede that God is GOD, then you would have to concede that His omniscience and holiness require that whatsoever He has decreed to be is necessary. Your present inability to understand why notwithstanding. Everything He has decreed to be derives from His perfect and absolute wisdom and holiness, and is therefore perfect and absolutely necessary. God makes no mistakes. We specks of dust just aren't capable of comprehending much of it.
You are navigating through treacherous waters here, Pippa, and my prayer is that the Captain of salvation will guide you safely through them. There are many who have become shipwrecked there.
Not judging you.... been there, done that, and got that t-shirt, and if anything I learned from it is that my mind is completely insignificant.
Upvote
0
heymikey80
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
So you're saying punishment is torture? That's the only conclusion you can reach. Hell is punishment. You're accusing God of torture in Hell. So punishment is torture.
Annihilate? I know of plenty of people, and the most obvious is Hitler, who would just love to be annihilated for the evil he did. "Sure, just put a gun to your temple and shoot."
That leaves his evil completely unresolved.
You haven't been tortured.
So you would prefer to state that no one may seek vengeance? But the Lord says, "Vengeance is mine."
If someone as infinitely right as God exists, then something as infinite and severe as Hell exists for obtaining justice from those who defy Him. Y'can't have one without the other. And Creation itself demonstrates the defiance of people, so the only question there is whether God is right. If He is, then Hell exists.
And if He isn't, then nothing is right. You can quit asking for the absence of torture. Because nothing is right if God isn't right.
Reject God's righteousness, and you lose all sense of when kindness is right.
Hell is not sadism. It's right. It's just not what you like.
So Matthew 25 was never really understood? Didn't Jesus say that? Or was He just misunderstood?
How about Matthew 23? Was Jesus just misunderstood there?
How about Matthew 5 -- Jesus' quintessential statement of Christianity 101. Misunderstood there, too?
Are these Jesuses kind?
Upvote
0
I
Ignatios
Guest
You're assuming way too much in the background here. First, that there must be an exacting of wrath in a measure correlative to a person's sin. That is, God, by necessity of his nature, cannot forgive sin outright, but must exact wrath in every case. Protestants prove this with their view of the penal substitutionary atonement theory. The problem with this is that for God to fulfill, by nature, the wrath due sinners, he hasn't resolved sin, but rather he has transferred the wrath due sinners to his Only-begotten. Where is the justice here? If we are to view God as so just that he can't forgive any sin without punishing it for eternity, then why do we not see it as absurd that he unjustly condemned his own Son to die instead? That's not justice. That's even worse. People go to hell because they deny God of their own will, apart from God determining it beforehand. That is, their personhood is not dissolved into God's will or a part of God's will from the get-go.
Frankly, a god who determines many people to torment in order to satisfy his own wrath before they were created, for reasons which we cannot comprehend, and then asks us to trust him in spite of all this, not knowing our predestined fate or whether our perception of God's love is applicable to us personally because of the possibility of his indiscernable will toward the reporbate, is not a god who's worthy of worship, no matter how many times we're told that we just can't comprehend his ways.
I feel a "how dare you" coming on.
Upvote
0
mlqurgw
Well-Known Member
- Aug 19, 2005
- 5,828
- 540
- 70
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
The idea that God simply overlooks sin makes God to be unrighteous and makes the death of Christ an unecessary evil act committed by God against His Son. You wrongly think God took the life of Christ from Him but the Scriptures are clear that Christ laid down His life and no one took it from Him. He alone had both the right and ability to lay it down. God cannot punish an innocent man for crimes he didn't commit anf remain just but Christ wasn't a mere man. A mere man has no right over his own life and is responsible to Him who gave him life. He cannot take the sin of another in justice. Christ can and in perfect justice suffer in the place of sinners because He doesn't answer to a higher authority as there is no higher authority than Himself. You simply have no idea what it is that Christ did.
Upvote
0
mlqurgw
Well-Known Member
- Aug 19, 2005
- 5,828
- 540
- 70
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I disagree. The issue is the nature of the atonement. Being united with an atonement that isn't really an atonement is pointless. Union with Christ is absolutely vital but what good does it do if His work is not complete? You are, in reality, the one who is using a red herring. The atonement of Christ is the crux of the Gospel. Everything in the Gospel hinges on it.
Upvote
0
heymikey80
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Why would this solution be any more just?
Why does this false view of Calvinism constantly recur? It must be from an unwillingness to actually investigate the claims of Calvinism, because this strawman was alleged and rejected very shortly after the Reformation.
Hence it clearly appears that those of whom one could hardly expect it have shown no truth, equity, and charity at all in wishing to make the public believe:
* * *
that this teaching means that God predestined and created, by the bare and unqualified choice of his will, without the least regard or consideration of any sin, the greatest part of the world to eternal condemnation; that in the same manner in which election is the source and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and ungodliness; ... and very many other slanderous accusations of this kind which the Reformed churches not only disavow but even denounce with their whole heart. Canons of Dordt, 1618
I've enough friends in Orthodoxy to know something of the connections and distinctions between us, and they tend to shy away from trying to talk about Calvinist theology as much as I tend to shy away from trying to talk about Orthodox theology. As you've already made the 500 year-old mistake, I'd suggest at least a little better circumspection is in order, if not a more serious investigation into the Calvinistic view.* * *
that this teaching means that God predestined and created, by the bare and unqualified choice of his will, without the least regard or consideration of any sin, the greatest part of the world to eternal condemnation; that in the same manner in which election is the source and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and ungodliness; ... and very many other slanderous accusations of this kind which the Reformed churches not only disavow but even denounce with their whole heart. Canons of Dordt, 1618
We at least have a smaller corpus of documentation for our view, with far fewer people than Orthodoxy proposes to incorporate into one view. It's more straightforward. As is Scripture.
Upvote
0
I
Ignatios
Guest
It wouldn't involve God unjustly condemning his Son in place of those who deserve it. It would involve people suffering the consequences of their own, independent actions rather than suffering the consequences of God's decision to make them in order to sin and then be "justly" condemned. It would be more just because man's condemnation would be a result solely of his own will, and not the will of God prior to man's existence.
This "false view" of Calvinism constantly recurs for two reasons. First, Calvinistic views are diverse and this view has been espoused (and justifiably so). Second, most of my criticisms are based on the necessary conclusions that Calvinists usually affirm implicitly or deny for no other reason than they don't like the conclusions. As in the teachings of those at Dordt, Calvinists espouse views that necessarily lead them to several heresies, but deny them simpy because they don't want to own up to what their views ultimately entail. These cop-outs can be found at numerous places in Calvinist theology, but they never remove the false views that necessarily entail heresy. They simply say, "we don't believe that, so stop misrepresenting us", never showing why their views are free of heretical conclusions.
I was a serious Calvinist for many years, and I'm familiar with the Continental Reformers, English and Scottish Reformed, and American Reformed thinkers from the Puritans to the modern schools of Reformed thought.
If you'd like to show inconsistencies in the corpus of Orthodox thought then I'd appreciate hearing of them.
I believe the Protestant Calvinist views are more diverse and less straightforward except through a scholastic, static disassociation of the language and concepts of Scripture and the early Fathers into a systematic, rational doctrinal deposit summed up in 5 points.
Upvote
0
heymikey80
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
As pippa would rightly respond, God had all knowledge. He could've prevented this from happening.
The problem remains the same. It's no different at all, actually. It simply deprives God of His omnipotence.
Simply not true. I quoted from the Canons of Dordt, Ignatios. It's the defining statement of Reformed theology.
Not true, again. Dordt actually declared the points that contradict these assertions. This is the finalizing summary of the Canons.
You'd do better to be informed about whom you try to debate.
Um, your next statement is falsified by this assertion.
The reason for condemnation of all of mankind is their own actions. It's based and caused by their defiance of God and consequent fall of the entire race in life through a sinful nature.
The reason for salvation is the actions of God in changing a sinful nature by the Spirit, in the Spirit's own timing and power.
Two determinations. Two different sources.
This has always been Calvinism. To allege differently -- as you just did -- uncovers a core misunderstanding of Calvinism. You can't allege what you're about to.
Your immediate prior statement indicates you weren't serious about investigating these distinctions.
I have neither interest nor concern in doing so here. As I've said, the critical point is reliance on the Person of Jesus Christ and no other. Accrete all else you wish, but don't trust any. It'll fall when you attempt to go before God with it.
You do know that the Seven Points of Calvinism (themselves a response) never really caught on, right? These are a truncated response to the Five Points of the Remonstrance.
Upvote
0
tanelornpete
Junior Member
I would like to jump into this conversation, at least temporarily. You point out your view here would be more just. You offer a weak definition: people would suffer the consequences of their own actions, as opposed to actions that they take because the Creator made them that way. Then you claim that it would be more just because mans condemnation would be the result of his own will! His condemnation would not be the will of Gods'.
First, some questions:
How do you know this?
Where do you get your definition of justice?
Is there an external category of justice to which God must adhere?
If so, is it eternal and more powerful than God?
Secondly:If so, is it eternal and more powerful than God?
You write: It would be more just because man's condemnation would be a result solely of his own will
I am confused. In all my study of the history of the world I have yet to find any system of justice where the accused is the judge especially at his own trial. Yet you write that it is more just that man condemn himself willingly! Now this would make sense coming from an unbeliever: no one I would want to condemn themselves, and the cry I want to judge myself would at least be expected if not a bit childish.
Now I know this is not what you are trying to say: you are attempting to argue for a humanity that is not dependent upon God for its moral judgment. But I always argue that a point needs to be made as clearly as possible and open to further definition until there is logically no escape from the conclusion reached.
In the instance of this discussion: the point to be established (as I see it) is: from whence the definition of justice? What criteria sets the parameters, the inescapable conclusion that yes, this is justice. Does opinion settle the argument? Does some deific category or idea settle it?
Upvote
0
In response to Ron's emphasis on the importance of the extent of the atonement which was proffered in response to my refutation of the Double Payment argument....
Yes, I would agree that the extent of the atonement is crucial; union with Christ doesn't assert otherwise.
But the Double Payment argument begins with the assumption of universal atonement and tries to prove a logical inconsistency built upon that assumption.
Since both sides of the issue asserts that union with Christ is necessary for the atonement to be effective (!), the real issue, then, is whether Union with Christ is automatic or conditional.
I'm not trying to refute Calvinism in saying all this. I'm just trying to centre the debate on the real issue.
Yes, I would agree that the extent of the atonement is crucial; union with Christ doesn't assert otherwise.
But the Double Payment argument begins with the assumption of universal atonement and tries to prove a logical inconsistency built upon that assumption.
Since both sides of the issue asserts that union with Christ is necessary for the atonement to be effective (!), the real issue, then, is whether Union with Christ is automatic or conditional.
I'm not trying to refute Calvinism in saying all this. I'm just trying to centre the debate on the real issue.
Upvote
0
Forgive the long post, but I think this might be worth reading patiently....
Although I'm not a Calvinist, I am reformational in that I do affirm Penal Satisfaction View of Atonement, with Calvin (and Arminius, but not Wesley).
Penal Satisfaction, as Ignatius correctly explains, begins with God's justice demanding that every sin be exactly punished, and that God cannot arbitrarily choose to forgive sin. Sin-debt must be satisfied for there to be forgiveness. Ignatius rejects this position, but he correctly understands it. (Ignatius shows himself highly informed in this discussion, and does not deserve any aspersions otherwise.)
But Ignatius' main reason for rejecting Penal Satisfaction is faulty. His argument is that Penal satisfaction does not actually satisfy the justice of God, and is therefore logically incoherent. He claims that since the elect actually are not punished for their sin, but in fact, go scot free, then the justice of God is not satisfied.
We can illustrate his point. If my brother gets fined $100,000 for some irregularity in his trading with the Stock Market, I could actually pay his fine without him experiencing any of the consequences.
On the other hand, if he murders a clerk during a convenience store robbery, he would have to go to prison himself. If I volunteered to go to prison in my brother's stead, the judge would not permit it since it would be a miscarriage of justice. In such cases, I cannot serve as my brother's substitute.
Ignatius would say that this latter case is exactly what is wrong with Penal Satisfaction View of the Atonement.
But this argument against Penal Satisfaction View of the Atonement does not adequately consider the ramifications of the Doctrine of Union with Christ.
Union with Christ is a real dynamic. It makes it so that the believer actually shares Christ's history. Through Union, what Christ experienced, the believer also shares.
Perhaps another illustration would help. Prior to 1959, Hawaiians were not a part of the American Union. They couldn't rightly celebrate the 4th of July; the couldn't truly say that Washington was the Father of their country, or that the forefathers endured Valley Forge.
However, on the day of their admission into the U.S., Hawaiians, by virtue of said union, could rightly make claim to all these things. By a stroke of a pen, American history became Hawaiian history.
Likewise the person united with Christ.... Because of union with Christ, the believer is rightly said to have died with Christ and that Christ's sufferings are also his own sufferings.
There is plenty of biblical statements to corroborate this explanation.
Thus, the main argument against Penal Satisfaction View of the Atonement is mollified. The holiness of God is truly satisfied, and God does not end up arbitrarily forgiving the elect.
I think this is a good reformational analysis.
Although I'm not a Calvinist, I am reformational in that I do affirm Penal Satisfaction View of Atonement, with Calvin (and Arminius, but not Wesley).
Penal Satisfaction, as Ignatius correctly explains, begins with God's justice demanding that every sin be exactly punished, and that God cannot arbitrarily choose to forgive sin. Sin-debt must be satisfied for there to be forgiveness. Ignatius rejects this position, but he correctly understands it. (Ignatius shows himself highly informed in this discussion, and does not deserve any aspersions otherwise.)
But Ignatius' main reason for rejecting Penal Satisfaction is faulty. His argument is that Penal satisfaction does not actually satisfy the justice of God, and is therefore logically incoherent. He claims that since the elect actually are not punished for their sin, but in fact, go scot free, then the justice of God is not satisfied.
We can illustrate his point. If my brother gets fined $100,000 for some irregularity in his trading with the Stock Market, I could actually pay his fine without him experiencing any of the consequences.
On the other hand, if he murders a clerk during a convenience store robbery, he would have to go to prison himself. If I volunteered to go to prison in my brother's stead, the judge would not permit it since it would be a miscarriage of justice. In such cases, I cannot serve as my brother's substitute.
Ignatius would say that this latter case is exactly what is wrong with Penal Satisfaction View of the Atonement.
But this argument against Penal Satisfaction View of the Atonement does not adequately consider the ramifications of the Doctrine of Union with Christ.
Union with Christ is a real dynamic. It makes it so that the believer actually shares Christ's history. Through Union, what Christ experienced, the believer also shares.
Perhaps another illustration would help. Prior to 1959, Hawaiians were not a part of the American Union. They couldn't rightly celebrate the 4th of July; the couldn't truly say that Washington was the Father of their country, or that the forefathers endured Valley Forge.
However, on the day of their admission into the U.S., Hawaiians, by virtue of said union, could rightly make claim to all these things. By a stroke of a pen, American history became Hawaiian history.
Likewise the person united with Christ.... Because of union with Christ, the believer is rightly said to have died with Christ and that Christ's sufferings are also his own sufferings.
There is plenty of biblical statements to corroborate this explanation.
Thus, the main argument against Penal Satisfaction View of the Atonement is mollified. The holiness of God is truly satisfied, and God does not end up arbitrarily forgiving the elect.
I think this is a good reformational analysis.
Upvote
0
Despite earlier posts by some, I simply don't see the logic or the motive behind the claim that hell's punishment is derived out of the love of God.
Hell, as others above have affirmed, is derived out of the holiness and justice of God. It's a looooonnnng stretch to claim that it reflects his kindness!
Hell, as others above have affirmed, is derived out of the holiness and justice of God. It's a looooonnnng stretch to claim that it reflects his kindness!
Upvote
0
Ignatius writes,
I think this is a fair statement, one which would naturally arise, perhaps unavoidably, in response to Calvinistic presuppositions.
I would suggest that a good project for Calvinists here on the forum would be to work through the particulars of Ignatius' comment clause by clause, grappling with the implications of their theology. It's not an effective refutation to issue a general denial with rhetorical flourish.
I think this is a fair statement, one which would naturally arise, perhaps unavoidably, in response to Calvinistic presuppositions.
I would suggest that a good project for Calvinists here on the forum would be to work through the particulars of Ignatius' comment clause by clause, grappling with the implications of their theology. It's not an effective refutation to issue a general denial with rhetorical flourish.
Upvote
0
The claim that something which God ordained is inherently "necessary," as someone claimed above, is a highly Platonic view of God and ends up implying that God has no free will, but is himself determined.
God had (!) to decree the Fall? God had to decree the substitutionary death of his Son?
I don't buy it. Rather, I think God gave his only begotten Son not because he had to and had no other choice, but because he loved the world so much that he freely, freely gave him.
God had (!) to decree the Fall? God had to decree the substitutionary death of his Son?
I don't buy it. Rather, I think God gave his only begotten Son not because he had to and had no other choice, but because he loved the world so much that he freely, freely gave him.
Upvote
0
So we may then presume that you assert that there are other possible realities that would equally or even better declare the glory of God?
Upvote
0
tanelornpete
Junior Member
Frankly, a god who determines many people to torment in order to satisfy his own wrath before they were created, for reasons which we cannot comprehend, and then asks us to trust him in spite of all this, not knowing our predestined fate or whether our perception of God's love is applicable to us personally because of the possibility of his indiscernable will toward the reporbate, is not a god who's worthy of worship, no matter how many times we're told that we just can't comprehend his ways.
Unless there is a willingness to take the Calvinist's position for the sake of argument as though it were true and examining it that way to find contradiction (thence falsehood) the entire exercise is one of futility.
As a Calvinist I am more than willing to examine my thoughts - that's a hallmark of a good Calvinist -we believe we, as sinful beings, are subject to a truth outside of us: thats one reason we became Calvinists in the first place!
David
I agree and it's not a difficult assignment. I'd like to point out initially that there are certain terms in the statement to be debated that, while on the surface may seem to be implicated by Calvinism are instead implicated by non-Calvinist presuppositions. I've found in past debates that the largest impediment to clarity in this particular issue isn't in offering Classical Christian clarification but in the fact that regardless of the statements made, they are still filtered back through non-Calvinist presuppositions and restated without understanding.
Unless there is a willingness to take the Calvinist's position for the sake of argument as though it were true and examining it that way to find contradiction (thence falsehood) the entire exercise is one of futility.
As a Calvinist I am more than willing to examine my thoughts - that's a hallmark of a good Calvinist -we believe we, as sinful beings, are subject to a truth outside of us: thats one reason we became Calvinists in the first place!
David
Upvote
0
tanelornpete
Junior Member
Frankly, a god who determines many people to torment in order to satisfy his own wrath before they were created, for reasons which we cannot comprehend, and then asks us to trust him in spite of all this, not knowing our predestined fate or whether our perception of God's love is applicable to us personally because of the possibility of his indiscernable will toward the reporbate, is not a god who's worthy of worship, no matter how many times we're told that we just can't comprehend his ways.
The God posited here is not the God Calvinists worship. Having said that, Id also like to point out that if this deity were the only one that existed, like it or not, this would be the true one to worship and any other god would be a false one. 'Worthy' of worship or not, if such a deity existed, worship would be required by this deity. So the idea that such a thing is worthy of worship or not is a completely irrelevant notion.
Instead, what the author of this post means is I would not want to worship this deity and is building a universal, generalized position for all other human beings based upon that particular opinion. Much politics and theology are based upon such erroneous notions. In the realm of truth, opinion matters very little. Truth trumps opinion to the extent that opinion is meaningless and a waste of time.
So, given that this post is based upon an induced opinion and a misrepresentation of Classical Christian thought, a phrase by phrase analysis is very difficult, if not pointless. Let me reiterate for clarity:
IF such a god existed, IF these were the issues of Calvinism, IF this was the argument that Calvinists posit, the argument would still be moot, because if this were the only god in existence, youd either have to worship or suffer.
The Classical Christian argument is this: The Scriptures are written anthropomorphically. It expresses truths about God clothed in terms that humans use. Hence, God spreads His wings and stretches out His hand. God neither has wings nor hands. But we can understand the implications of these metaphors quite easily.
God is the creator. He creates what He wants for the reasons He wants. There are no external categories existing outside of God that determine what Space, Time, Good, Evil, Love, Hate, Justice, Truth, or any number of other possible idea that you can come up with. The only limitation to God is God Himself.
From a Classical Christian viewpoint love is what God does, truth is what God thinks. All the categories you can list: mercy, justice, etc., are defined by the way God does them. We, as Calvinists cannot use an external definition (our opinion of should be) as a way of judging how God works.
Classical/Reformation thought is unique in this approach.
The term wrath is an anthropomorphism. God does not experience physio-chemical reactions to intellectual stimuli (i.e., emotion). What is written about God in terms of emotion is written with the human experience in mind our side of the tapestry, if you will. Hence, judgment for sin is called Gods wrath. What is really is: a wall of Gods holiness against which no sin can penetrate. It cannot exist in the same place and the conflict between the two is wrath from our viewpoint (God does not allow it) and holiness on Gods side (sin is a negation of holiness.)
Hence, the phrase: a god who determines many people to torment in order to satisfy his own wrath before they were created (which to me seems irrelevant to the point of meaninglessness) doesnt even have the same propositional meanings as the Classical Christian view.
The implication is this: The Calvinists believe that God is controlled by a psychological internal rage that is bursting to get out. He thought up a list of flies to pull wings off of to help assuage this anger.
The reality: God chose to reveal Himself to His created beings. His nature is Holy, and it is evident to us rational creatures (creatures that can ponder a concept and build a series of related, valid propositions and true conclusions off of this concept) as a division of creation into vessels created to highlight justice and vessels to demonstrate mercy. What we experience is defined as love and wrath.
Given these two completely different phrases, you can see why the induced opinions of an author and the reality of thought of those he is trying to refute are so completely different as to be almost alien to one another.
Final note on this clause: it states: "a god who determines many people to torment in order to satisfy his own wrath before they were created."
NO Calvinist claims God satisfied His wrath before creation. I assume this is just poor grammar rather than a purposeful placement of phrase.
More on other phrases coming.
The God posited here is not the God Calvinists worship. Having said that, Id also like to point out that if this deity were the only one that existed, like it or not, this would be the true one to worship and any other god would be a false one. 'Worthy' of worship or not, if such a deity existed, worship would be required by this deity. So the idea that such a thing is worthy of worship or not is a completely irrelevant notion.
Instead, what the author of this post means is I would not want to worship this deity and is building a universal, generalized position for all other human beings based upon that particular opinion. Much politics and theology are based upon such erroneous notions. In the realm of truth, opinion matters very little. Truth trumps opinion to the extent that opinion is meaningless and a waste of time.
So, given that this post is based upon an induced opinion and a misrepresentation of Classical Christian thought, a phrase by phrase analysis is very difficult, if not pointless. Let me reiterate for clarity:
IF such a god existed, IF these were the issues of Calvinism, IF this was the argument that Calvinists posit, the argument would still be moot, because if this were the only god in existence, youd either have to worship or suffer.
The Classical Christian argument is this: The Scriptures are written anthropomorphically. It expresses truths about God clothed in terms that humans use. Hence, God spreads His wings and stretches out His hand. God neither has wings nor hands. But we can understand the implications of these metaphors quite easily.
God is the creator. He creates what He wants for the reasons He wants. There are no external categories existing outside of God that determine what Space, Time, Good, Evil, Love, Hate, Justice, Truth, or any number of other possible idea that you can come up with. The only limitation to God is God Himself.
From a Classical Christian viewpoint love is what God does, truth is what God thinks. All the categories you can list: mercy, justice, etc., are defined by the way God does them. We, as Calvinists cannot use an external definition (our opinion of should be) as a way of judging how God works.
Classical/Reformation thought is unique in this approach.
The term wrath is an anthropomorphism. God does not experience physio-chemical reactions to intellectual stimuli (i.e., emotion). What is written about God in terms of emotion is written with the human experience in mind our side of the tapestry, if you will. Hence, judgment for sin is called Gods wrath. What is really is: a wall of Gods holiness against which no sin can penetrate. It cannot exist in the same place and the conflict between the two is wrath from our viewpoint (God does not allow it) and holiness on Gods side (sin is a negation of holiness.)
Hence, the phrase: a god who determines many people to torment in order to satisfy his own wrath before they were created (which to me seems irrelevant to the point of meaninglessness) doesnt even have the same propositional meanings as the Classical Christian view.
The implication is this: The Calvinists believe that God is controlled by a psychological internal rage that is bursting to get out. He thought up a list of flies to pull wings off of to help assuage this anger.
The reality: God chose to reveal Himself to His created beings. His nature is Holy, and it is evident to us rational creatures (creatures that can ponder a concept and build a series of related, valid propositions and true conclusions off of this concept) as a division of creation into vessels created to highlight justice and vessels to demonstrate mercy. What we experience is defined as love and wrath.
Given these two completely different phrases, you can see why the induced opinions of an author and the reality of thought of those he is trying to refute are so completely different as to be almost alien to one another.
Final note on this clause: it states: "a god who determines many people to torment in order to satisfy his own wrath before they were created."
NO Calvinist claims God satisfied His wrath before creation. I assume this is just poor grammar rather than a purposeful placement of phrase.
More on other phrases coming.
Upvote
0
tanelornpete
Junior Member
for reasons which we cannot comprehend
How this can be an objection is hard to comprehend. True Christians believe in the Trinity, by definition. How many comprehend that? How about the incarnation? How many comprehend that? God stopped or slowed time at least twice in Scripture how many comprehend that? The clause is irrelevant as a refutation of Calvinism.
How this can be an objection is hard to comprehend. True Christians believe in the Trinity, by definition. How many comprehend that? How about the incarnation? How many comprehend that? God stopped or slowed time at least twice in Scripture how many comprehend that? The clause is irrelevant as a refutation of Calvinism.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
