So long. It's been fun!

[BryanW92]

Also you have misunderstood Calvinism if you think behavior has anything to do with someone being of the elect or not. From the Calvinist perspective it was a choice from the foundations of the world and has nothing whatsoever to do with someone's behavior or even acceptance of Christ. Someone accepting Christ does not prove election nor does someone denying Christ because there is NO free will to do either.

Most Presbyterians, outside of a few groups like the PCA, no longer believe in full predestination because it is full of logical and Biblical contradictions.

I think that you misunderstand it. I know that the version of Calvinism that I was taught by Methodists varies greatly from the version that I have learned from Presbyterians. Its like two people describing a hot rod. One is a car nut who loves everything about it that is fast and loud, and the other is a person who hates fast and loud cars.

You make it out to be logically impossible since you refuse to accept the total sovereignty of God and the corruption of mankind. You think that humans can thwart the will of the God who created the universe.

Since the non-Elect are radically corrupted, they cannot accept Christ in anything more than saying some words and then returning to their old life.

 

[GraceSeeker]

You make it out to be logically impossible since you refuse to accept the total sovereignty of God and the corruption of mankind. You think that humans can thwart the will of the God who created the universe.

I DO accept the total sovereignty of God and the corruption of mankind (though the phrase I use is "total depravity"). I just don't think the Bible describes a world in which humans are devoid of the ability to say NO to God, so that God's love is no more resistible than that of a common rapist.

 

[BryanW92]

I DO accept the total sovereignty of God and the corruption of mankind (though the phrase I use is "total depravity"). I just don't think the Bible describes a world in which humans are devoid of the ability to say NO to God, so that God's love is no more resistible than that of a common rapist.

A common rapist?? That's good.

But let's break down salvation:

1) God made us to glorify him. I think that we all agree on that.
2) He knows everything. We all agree on that.
3) He put the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden. Adam and Eve took a bite. We all agree on that.
4) They took on a sin that we are now responsible for just by being born. We agree on that.
5) We are condemned to hell for our sins, using a standard of perfection that he admits we cannot achieve. But he provides a heaven for those who can. But they can't. Huh?
6) He gives us the means of salvation and the free will to choose to take it or not. If we don't, we go to hell to be tortured for eternity for sins that he knew we'd do based on something that our ancestor did thousands of years ago. We are told that just having a lustful thought condemns us. What kind of choice is that? Where is the free will in that?

So, if the God of Calvin is a common rapist, then the God of Arminius is a terrorist. Of course, the God of Wesley inserts Prevenient Grace into us without our permission to guide our free will decision. Is Prevenient Grace just a spiritual roofie to help us make the "right" free will decision?

Now, with all that said, I don't believe a word of that last paragraph. Free will was a tool invented by Pelagius to get people to get off their butts and to stop thinking of themselves as "once saved, always saved" and doing nothing for others and not desiring to change themselves. If God is what we think he is, then our free will is as meaningless as that of Neo when he was living in the Matrix before he took the red pill. In other words, you and I have no way of knowing if we have free will or not.

BTW, as far as God being a rapist, see Luke 1:26-38. He already has a record.

 

[GivingMyAll4Him]

5) We are condemned to hell for our sins, using a standard of perfection that he admits we cannot achieve. But he provides a heaven for those who can. But they can't. Huh?
6) He gives us the means of salvation and the free will to choose to take it or not. If we don't, we go to hell to be tortured for eternity for sins that he knew we'd do based on something that our ancestor did thousands of years ago. We are told that just having a lustful thought condemns us. What kind of choice is that? Where is the free will in that?

Declaration of intent: A one time remark, just a thought in my head. I've been on CF for 11 years and posted fewer than 200 times. I hate forum arguments, so that's not what I'm trying to do. But I see this, and see a gap in logic that needs to be addressed. So BryanW92, take it for what you will, and leave it if you wish. I'm saying all this because I'm going to disagree with you, and some on CF don't do well with that.

The problem with what you've said in these two points is that there is no theology of the cross, and your theology of salvation is far too narrow.

I'm going to begin with your outline, comment on it, and modify it.

1) God made us to glorify him. I think that we all agree on that.
Absolutely. The Gen. 1 creation story follows the pattern of tabernacle/temple building. God built for himself a temple. Now, when you build a temple, the last thing you put in it is an image of the god or goddess to be worshiped. God placed humanity in his temple. We were created in his image, for the purpose of being a reflection of Him. Our purpose was worship. We are a worship symbol in God's holy temple (this world).

2) He knows everything. We all agree on that.
He knows everything that is knowable. There's plenty of debate about that which is unknowable, though. Is the future knowable? If it is already determined, then yes. Many Calvinists would argue that the future is determined, as is a person's salvation. There are a good number of people from different traditions, however, that believe that the future is undetermined, and therefore unknowable. This freaks some people out a bit. However, if we believe that God is all-powerful, then we should not fear that which is unknowable. He is still God. He is still able. More than able.

3) He put the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden. Adam and Eve took a bite. We all agree on that.
Yes. Adam and Eve introduced sin. For the sake of clarity, many who believe this also believe that it is metaphor or myth (which is a word used to describe a cultural story, not the opposite of a "fact").

4) They took on a sin that we are now responsible for just by being born. We agree on that.
That we are born into sin is generally accepted. It's probably a lot bigger than Adam and Eve's sin, though.

5) We are condemned to hell for our sins, using a standard of perfection that he admits we cannot achieve. But he provides a heaven for those who can. But they can't. Huh?
Here's where you lose me, as well as any serious Wesleyan. Death (hell) is the consequence of sin. We seem to agree on that. We are unable to remove ourselves from sin. But the sacrifice of Jesus is sufficient to restore us to covenant relationship with God.

We live in covenant relationship with God. The consequence for broken covenant is death. God never breaks covenant, but we all have (your 4th point). Christ acts as a covenant substitute, taking the very death we deserve upon himself, and restoring us in righteousness (covenant relationship) with God.

That "standard of perfection that he admits we cannot achieve" isn't something that we are expected to achieve. Instead, we are expected to receive. That's the gift of the cross.

6) He gives us the means of salvation and the free will to choose to take it or not. If we don't, we go to hell to be tortured for eternity for sins that he knew we'd do based on something that our ancestor did thousands of years ago. We are told that just having a lustful thought condemns us. What kind of choice is that? Where is the free will in that?
Yeah, that's pretty lousy free will. Totally agree. But thousands of years ago, the future hadn't happened. It was not determined. Free will insists upon that. If we have free will, then the future is unknowable.

Instead, free will should be understood as our ability to choose to receive the gift of salvation, or reject it. We can choose to be restored in covenant with God, through the gift of the sacrifice of Jesus, or we can reject the opportunity.

One more thing: Salvation is much bigger than "going to heaven" and "going to hell." Salvation is being freed from the patterns of death. It is using our free will to choose the way of Jesus, which is life-giving. It is about becoming a disciple of Jesus, and learning his ways. Heaven is a reality that we can begin to live into even now, and experience in full upon our death.

And so is hell. Which is part of the reason for my disclaimer above. Clearly, we disagree on a few things here. If I came and said "You are such an idiot, how can you believe these things?" (which, for what its worth, is not how I think of you or the things you have expressed - just an example) I would be practicing the way of hell. By belittling you, cutting off opportunity for meaningful relationship, etc., I would allow hell to enter into our conversation. I would be practicing the way of death rather than trying to live into the way of Jesus.

There's so much more, and I've only gone surface-deep here. But I just wanted to let you know that no serious theologian holds the logic you described, and if that is your understanding of Wesleyanism, I certainly understand why you're leaving! I would really encourage you to chase down those ideas that you have and don't just jump traditions when you find problems like that. There are people far smarter than either of us (smarter than me, especially!) who can help you resolve the tensions you're describing. Whatever tradition you land in, look for consistency and find answers to your questions and dilemmas without jumping ship to another tradition.

I think this is post 158? 159? Something like that for me. In 11 years. Ha! I probably won't respond even if you do, though when I log back in in a few months I'll be interested in reading your response, if you choose to post one. I'm just not here frequently enough to be much good for dialogue. I hope you don't mind that I've interjected a few thoughts before running away!

 

[GraceSeeker]

...and if that is your understanding of Wesleyanism, I certainly understand why you're leaving! I would really encourage you to chase down those ideas that you have and don't just jump traditions when you find problems like that.

I could be wrong about this, but until the last couple of posts, I would have guessed that Bryan was still as much Wesleyan in his theology as he has always been. He ended up in a position that he could no longer stomach in his local church (and probably most of us have been there at sometime in our life), and the next best choice for him ended up being a PCA congregation. Now, he is working through his theology in that context.

I consider the fact that he is still interacting with us a sign that he still values the input of this group regardless all the other stuff going on in his life.

 

[Joykins]

4) They took on a sin that we are now responsible for just by being born. We agree on that.
5) We are condemned to hell for our sins, using a standard of perfection that he admits we cannot achieve. But he provides a heaven for those who can. But they can't. Huh?
6) He gives us the means of salvation and the free will to choose to take it or not. If we don't, we go to hell to be tortured for eternity for sins that he knew we'd do based on something that our ancestor did thousands of years ago. We are told that just having a lustful thought condemns us. What kind of choice is that? Where is the free will in that?

If we're going to ask questions, where's the justice in any of those last 3 points? Condemned out of hand for an ancestor's act, and then cherrypicked into Paradise for no apparent reason as well? Do we worship a just God or not?

 

[Historicus]

Mod Hat On

Please remember our "house rules" here in Wesley's Parish when posting.

"All posts within this faith community must adhere to the site wide rules found here (Community Rules). In addition, if you are not a member of this faith group, you may not debate issues or teach against it's theology. You may post in fellowship. Active promotion of views contrary to the established teachings of this group will be considered off topic."

Mod Hat Off
​

 

[GraceSeeker]

BTW, as far as God being a rapist, see Luke 1:26-38. He already has a record.

I did see it. And I observed within the text that Mary consented to God's plan, saying: “I am the Lord’s servant, may your word to me be fulfilled.” (see vs. 38)

Verdict: Not guilty. God has no such record as you imply.


Or.....Do you doubt that Mary actually consented? For, it to be consent, free will must be involved. That really is what this discussion is about. Was Mary free to say, like Peter once did, "God forbid. This must never happen."

 

[BryanW92]

If we're going to ask questions, where's the justice in any of those last 3 points? Condemned out of hand for an ancestor's act, and then cherrypicked into Paradise for no apparent reason as well? Do we worship a just God or not?

That's my point. Where is the justice in that? The canned Calvinist answer is that God is just and because he is just, he must punish all sinners, which is all of us. But he is also merciful, so he has [pick one depending on your theology:] chosen some or given grace and free will to all and some will respond to it to save some people from their well-deserved punishment (remember: just thinking an angry thought is murder or a lustful thought is adultery).

I want to take the easy road and believe that God does what God is going to do. But, is that just? Is a judge being fair when he applies punishment arbitrarily, or for reasons that have nothing to do with the crime?

If I was a pure 100% five point Calvinist, I would still have problems with the idea of the Elect because it doesn't seem fair or just. But, neither does free will when babies are being born in places where becoming a Christian is a capital offense. I see those Christians in Iraq dying on that mountain and wonder why they couldn't have been born 1000 miles to the west in a formerly-Christian nation like France that could use some good believers.

 

[BryanW92]

I did see it. And I observed within the text that Mary consented to God's plan, saying: “I am the Lord’s servant, may your word to me be fulfilled.” (see vs. 38)

Verdict: Not guilty. God has no such record as you imply.


Or.....Do you doubt that Mary actually consented? For, it to be consent, free will must be involved. That really is what this discussion is about. Was Mary free to say, like Peter once did, "God forbid. This must never happen."

Technically, it is more like a CEO calling in a female subordinate in the 1950's and saying, "take off your clothes or clean out your desk". By 1950's standards, she was being given a great honor to become the CEO's mistress. But, by today's standards, it is not such an honor.

Do I doubt that Mary consented? I don't know. I think she did consent. But, if the angel of the Lord came to me and told me that I was going to be given a great honor and respected among men for the rest of time, but I was going to lose my job, my family, be publicly humiliated, and be bankrupted first, what would I say?

Would I say, "Sorry dude. You've got the wrong guy! Stop blocking the TV."? How much free will do we really have when an angel is standing in your living room?

 

[Joykins]

That's my point. Where is the justice in that? The canned Calvinist answer is that God is just and because he is just, he must punish all sinners, which is all of us.

I don't like that because it implies that there are external constraints on God, rather than the complete sovereignty that Calvinism stresses.

That doesn't even get into the problem of hereditary guilt, which isn't, by any reasonable standards, at all just. People should be judged on their own deeds and merits (and indeed, in the Bible, they are...)

But he is also merciful, so he has [pick one depending on your theology:] chosen some or given grace and free will to all and some will respond to it to save some people from their well-deserved punishment (remember: just thinking an angry thought is murder or a lustful thought is adultery).

That's a pretty classic example of a false dilemma. He could equally as well show mercy to everyone, or no one, or have some reason for showing mercy to some and not others.

And in fact, when we look at Biblical examples of judgment--there is some identifiable reason for them.

I want to take the easy road and believe that God does what God is going to do. But, is that just? Is a judge being fair when he applies punishment arbitrarily, or for reasons that have nothing to do with the crime?

I certainly don't think so.

If I was a pure 100% five point Calvinist, I would still have problems with the idea of the Elect because it doesn't seem fair or just. But, neither does free will when babies are being born in places where becoming a Christian is a capital offense. I see those Christians in Iraq dying on that mountain and wonder why they couldn't have been born 1000 miles to the west in a formerly-Christian nation like France that could use some good believers.

Perhaps it actually is a false dilemma.

 

[Joykins]

Technically, it is more like a CEO calling in a female subordinate in the 1950's and saying, "take off your clothes or clean out your desk". By 1950's standards, she was being given a great honor to become the CEO's mistress. But, by today's standards, it is not such an honor.

It wasn't a huge honor in the 1950s, either.

Do I doubt that Mary consented? I don't know. I think she did consent. But, if the angel of the Lord came to me and told me that I was going to be given a great honor and respected among men for the rest of time, but I was going to lose my job, my family, be publicly humiliated, and be bankrupted first, what would I say?

Would I say, "Sorry dude. You've got the wrong guy! Stop blocking the TV."? How much free will do we really have when an angel is standing in your living room?

I guess the example of Jonah could be instructive...

 

[GraceSeeker]

How much free will do we really have when an angel is standing in your living room?

Personally, I think quite a bit. But just because we have the freedom to say "No" to God doesn't mean that we necessarily have the courage to do so. Still, Jonah did -- at least for awhile. I don't think it is taking away of our free will when the hound of heaven continues to pursue us until we, exhausted, finally surrender to his will. It still requires a surrender, not a compulsion.

 

[MystyRock]

Would I say, "Sorry dude. You've got the wrong guy! Stop blocking the TV."? How much free will do we really have when an angel is standing in your living room?

I'm still working through my core beliefs. But I would like to think that angels appear to people who need them or are ready to accept them. Or maybe only someone with the right attitude can actually see angels?

In my experience, Calvinists do not promote free will doctrine. I choose to believe God is so loving that he gave us the option to accept him, or not. He could have made robots with no choice, but he didn't - he made us.

 

[BryanW92]

That's a pretty classic example of a false dilemma. He could equally as well show mercy to everyone, or no one, or have some reason for showing mercy to some and not others.

You can dismiss my comments as a false dilemma, but I was using the classic Calvinist and the classic Arminian positions so it isn't my false dilemma. I did not muddy the waters by including the Universalist position because that really isn't a legitimate part of the Christian discussion.

 

[BryanW92]

In my experience, Calvinists do not promote free will doctrine. I choose to believe God is so loving that he gave us the option to accept him, or not. He could have made robots with no choice, but he didn't - he made us.

That's what I was taught too. But it's more complicated than the Calvinist Robot explanation.

I had a job for a couple years where I programmed industrial robots. These are pretty versatile machines and can be programmed to do a variety of tasks. An observer could watch one of these robots evaluate a product and perform different motions and tasks on each one to the point that they'd call it an Artificial Intelligence. But, it was just programming--a response to stimuli that followed certain procedures based on inputs.

Psychologists break human behavior down to a series of responses to stimuli. We're a lot smarter than a robot in a factory, but we still have pre-programmed instincts. We have learned behaviors. We have chemical reactions in our brains that motivate us to be hungry or want sex or sleep or run or fight.

Even if we are trained to overcome a response (e.g. to not flinch from gunfire), it is just new programming overwriting the old.

 

[GraceSeeker]

We're a lot smarter than a robot in a factory, but we still have pre-programmed instincts. We have learned behaviors. We have chemical reactions in our brains that motivate us to be hungry or want sex or sleep or run or fight.

Even if we are trained to overcome a response (e.g. to not flinch from gunfire), it is just new programming overwriting the old.

And this is my objection to Calvinism. Let us assume that the above accurately describes the human condition. We are pre-programmed. We aren't making moral choices, because we aren't making choices at all. We are simply responding to our programming.

And who is our programmer? Would that be the one who created us. So, whatever you call it/Him, God, Creator, or Almighty Programmer, we are not just his subjects, but we are also completely subjugated to his programming for us. We have not made a completely free choice in our entire lives. Joshua might have said "Choose this day!" But it was a false choice, for God not only already knew, but had already programmed what our response would be. Same thing in the Garden of Eden. God told Adam and Even not to eat of the fruit of the tree in the center of the garden, but he knew what was going to happen. And he knew not just because he had foreknowledge, but because he had foreordained it.

And now you see the problem, or at least I hope you do. If it was not truly my free choice, then on what basis am I -- one who is not a free moral agent -- held accountable for a decision that was made not by me but the one who programmed me?

 

[GraceSeeker]

Calvin vs. Wesley (Book Review) | Seedbed

In Calvin vs. Wesley: Bringing Belief in Line with Practice one will not find a Wesleyan polemic against Calvinism, per se. In fact, the author Don Thorsen displays not only familiarity with the writings of John Calvin, but also respect for the man as one of the greatest Protestant theologians. He quotes from many of Calvin’s writings directly, not relying on hearsay or secondary interpretations, and does his best to be as accurate in his presentation of Calvin’s beliefs as possible. It is evident—as Wesley himself said of his disagreement with Calvin’s understanding of the doctrine of justification—the difference between these two is often just “a hair’s breadth,” but what different trajectories those small differences create![1] I do not hope to convey that Thorsen’s book is merely a passionless juxtaposition between Wesley and Calvin. He is convinced that Wesley’s vision for Christianity is not only truer to the Bible, Christian tradition, sound thought, and human experience, but also that many Christians, even self-declared Calvinists, tend to side with Wesley in how they understand and practice their Christianity.

 

[Joykins]

You can dismiss my comments as a false dilemma, but I was using the classic Calvinist and the classic Arminian positions so it isn't my false dilemma. I did not muddy the waters by including the Universalist position because that really isn't a legitimate part of the Christian discussion.

Calvin vs. Arminius was originally (and can still be seen as) a debate within Reformed theology. They are hardly the only possible positions that are part of the orthodox Christian discussion (I'll accept for the sake of argument that Universalism would be part of the unorthodox Christian discussion). When we look at how God makes actual judgments in the Bible, we don't see as clear a pattern as any of those things would make.

 

[circuitrider]

Everything that a person says could easily be prefaced with IMO. I mean, do you really think that I believe that I have the power to absolutely see and decide what is in a person's heart??

Bryan I don't actually know you at all. So when you claim you know someone isn't a Christian then I take what you say for what you say. That's all I can do here.