The 6 common misconceptions about what is called 'Calvinism'

[JAL]

So some embryo's get more "tainted soul" than others?

God Bless,
Rev

I should think so, but my reasons for this conclusion would take us into a complex of ideas that are outside the current topic. And would take too much time to explain. I'm sorry I cannot elaborate further.

 

[Revelation1316]

I should think so, but my reasons for this conclusion would take us into a complex of ideas that are outside the current topic. And would take too much time to explain. I'm sorry I cannot elaborate further.

I have a problem with this.

If all souls in the reservoir are Adam and thus have sinned once, but they get metered out differently to human casings, this shows favoritism, the exact same charge we level at Calvinism and it's adherants who are happy they are 'the elect'.

So you view sounds like God is still unjust, but you don't want to explain why.

That's fine, I understand myself that posting on forums can be tiring, but you must realize that if you don't explain some of the nuances then some people can use your words against you, like this line you said in this thread:

The theologian who says, "My views cannot be understood" might as well shut up.

God Bless,
Rev

 

[JAL]

[/color][/color][/size][/b]

Yes, but that new casing isn't.

Because I - as a soul, mind, & body sinned.

Only my soul is transplanted/cloned into the new casing, not my mind.

This presents a unique problem:

If the new casing with my guilty soul, has a mind that wouldn't have sinned had I did, then that is unjust because concievably if I had had their mind in the Garden of Eden, I wouldn't have sinned.

But, if the mind is linked to the soul, and this new casing would've done the exact same thing as me in the Garden of Eden, then you're forced to say that we are "flawed by design" and God is to blame for our fall. (Supralapsarianism)

In this effect, it makes God unjust - just like the Calvinistic God because he either:

a) created humans knowing they were going to fall, and the ramnifcations that would ensue.

b) created humans not knowing they were going to fall, but bound to make them adhere to the ramnifications.

If you choose a), our God is unjust.

If you choose b), our God is not omnipotent nor omniscient and quite possibly not God at all.

God Bless,
Rev

You asked me to read the post. I want back to, as you asked, and seriously tried. You don't seem to realize what you are asking of me. Let me try to explain. I reject trichotomy because I deem it utterly incoherent. It's not really a "theory to be evaluated" because it is doesn't have any intelligible content. You might as well have written your post in Russian. I can't make any sense of your argument.

Incidentally I find it intersting that you deem God unjust if He

"created humans knowing they were going to fall"

Apparently, then, you believe that God didn't know they would fall? Well, don't answer that, because if you so hold, stating it here would be against forum rules.

 

[JAL]

I have a problem with this.

If all souls in the reservoir are Adam and thus have sinned once, but they get metered out differently to human casings, this shows favoritism, the exact same charge we level at Calvinism and it's adherants who are happy they are 'the elect'.

So you view sounds like God is still unjust, but you don't want to explain why.

"Favori4tism" is an ambiguous term to me. Look, if we sinned in Adam, we all deserve hell. God can show mercy on whom He wants to show mercy, as long as that mercy is properly paid for (by His Son). Also, wrath need not be immediate/pronto. He can put us in another Garden if He likes, or in a new body, as long as He doesn't do something unjust (such as postpoining wrath indifinitely without propitiation).

That's fine, I understand myself that posting on forums can be tiring, but you must realize that if you don't explain some of the nuances then some people can use your words against you, like this line you said in this thread:

The theologian who says, "My views cannot be understood" might as well shut up.

God Bless,
Rev

I do not believe that EVERY detail has to be known and understood to say that we understand something. In one sense I understand a computer. In another sense I CANNOT (I don't have time to master the knowledge of every circuit on a motherboard).

The point is, my views can be understood in the major aspects. The tehnical details are not usually crucial to the defense of my position.

 

[Revelation1316]

You asked me to read the post. I want back to, as you asked, and seriously tried. You don't seem to realize what you are asking of me. Let me try to explain. I reject trichotomy because I deem it utterly incoherent. It's not really a "theory to be evaluated" because it is doesn't have any intelligible content. You might as well have written your post in Russian. I can't make any sense of your argument.

How can you not make sense of my argument?

That post was divided into trichotomy and dichotomy, I specifically state:

But, if the mind is linked to the soul, and this new casing would've done the exact same thing as me in the Garden of Eden, then you're forced to say that we are "flawed by design" and God is to blame for our fall. (Supralapsarianism)

Let me ask you a question:

Q. Did God plan the fall?

Incidentally I find it intersting that you deem God unjust if He

"created humans knowing they were going to fall"

Apparently, then, you believe that God didn't know they would fall? Well, don't answer that, because if you so hold, stating it here would be against forum rules.

Open Theology - which I'm not an adherant of but think it's interesting - would say God takes risks and that sometimes they don't pay off.

The problem here is that a failed risk is a synonym for a mistake.

If you say God makes mistakes, he's not the God we think he is.

However, if you say God knew man was going to fall, then he's responsible for it.

And if he's responsible for the fall, he's probably responsible for the war in heaven also.

Think about it, Lucifer was 2nd in command in heaven, God's light shone threw him.

At what point did Lucifer rebel? And did God know he would?

Same problem, if God didn't know, he's not omniscient, if he did know, then he's responsible for giving a level of power and command to Lucifer which he knew that by design he couldn't control. (absolute power corrupts absolutely)

There are no easy answers here, it seems one has to choose between an inept God or a sovreign one who has no problem in causing people to send themselves to hell by his doing or not doing something.

The closest thing I have to a reconciliation of this problem is this.

Alvin Plantinga says that sometimes a minor evil must exist with a greater good, and that as long as the good outweighs the evil, God is just.

It makes sense ... if you don't have sympathy for the devil.

God Bless,
Rev

 

[Revelation1316]

"Favori4tism" is an ambiguous term to me. Look, if we sinned in Adam, we all deserve hell. God can show mercy on whom He wants to show mercy, as long as that mercy is properly paid for (by His Son).

But if your unborn souls can't access that mercy, unless you believe in Annihilationism for them then God is unjust.

I do not believe that EVERY detail has to be known and understood to say that we understand something. In one sense I understand a computer. In another sense I CANNOT (I don't have time to master the knowledge of every circuit on a motherboard).

The point is, my views can be understood in the major aspects. The tehnical details are not usually crucial to the defense of my position.

But how much tainted soul is metered out is a huge part of your view, because logically if person A has 25% tainted soul, and person B has 50% tainted, it's doubly hard for Person B to choose to accept Christ.

Effectively, this 'metering system' is no different from Calvinism's "reprobate", & the concepts of "Irresistable Grace" (for Person A) and "Common Grace" (for Person B)

God Bless,
Rev

 

[JAL]

But how much tainted soul is metered out is a huge part of your view, because logically if person A has 25% tainted soul, and person B has 50% tainted, it's doubly hard for Person B to choose to accept Christ.

Effectively, this 'metering system' is no different from Calvinism's "reprobate", & the concepts of "Irresistable Grace" (for Person A) and "Common Grace" (for Person B)

Your percentage-formula doesn't really make sense to me, but even if it did, it is not unjust for God to show mercy on some without showing it on others. You would say, "That's favoritism, and that's unjust." I don't see it that way. Suppose my sister has a speeding ticket. I pay her debt. Do I have to pay ALL debts of ALL men to retain a status of righteousness? Have I fallen into the "sin of favoritism?" If that's how you feel, then I suppose we are at an impasse. It's an odd concept of justice, as far as I can see, but I'm not sure how to "disprove" it.

 

[JAL]

How can you not make sense of my argument?

That post was divided into trichotomy and dichotomy, I specifically state:

But, if the mind is linked to the soul, and this new casing would've done the exact same thing as me in the Garden of Eden, then you're forced to say that we are "flawed by design" and God is to blame for our fall. (Supralapsarianism)

You now to try make it sound as though the post made a clear distinction between trichotomy and dichotomy. I looked at it yet again only to feel even more convinced that it looks wholly blatantly trichotomous. I still don't get the argument, but I'm a bit slow. I don't think I want to discuss that post anymore. I am not getting it, and I am sick of trying.

Let me ask you a question:

Q. Did God plan the fall?

My views are not entirely orthodox. You can send me a private message requesting the download link to my free systematic theology.

There are no easy answers here, it seems one has to choose between an inept God or a sovreign one who has no problem in causing people to send themselves to hell by his doing or not doing something.

Yes, there are some pretty easy answers IF we abandon a few of the mainstream assumptions.

The closest thing I have to a reconciliation of this problem is this.

Alvin Plantinga says that sometimes a minor evil must exist with a greater good, and that as long as the good outweighs the evil, God is just.

I read an article by Plantiga at one point I seem to recall him admitting that the problem of evil has some very satisfying solutions if we abandon some of the mainstream assumptions. However, to discuss the specifics is outside forum rules.

 

[Revelation1316]

You now to try make it sound as though the post made a clear distinction between trichotomy and dichotomy. I looked at it yet again only to feel even more convinced that it looks wholly blatantly trichotomous. I still don't get the argument, but I'm a bit slow. I don't think I want to discuss that post anymore. I am not getting it, and I am sick of trying.
My views are not entirely orthodox. You can send me a private message requesting the download link to my free systematic theology.
Yes, there are some pretty easy answers IF we abandon a few of the mainstream assumptions.

I read an article by Plantiga at one point I seem to recall him admitting that the problem of evil has some very satisfying solutions if we abandon some of the mainstream assumptions. However, to discuss the specifics is outside forum rules.

Since we are restricted by forum rules, I'll send you a PM.

God Bless,
Rev

 

[Giver]

I wonder if someone could clarify for me how a Calvinist decides who is chosen? Does becoming a follower of Calvin’s teachings mean you are saved?

Did Calvin teach that people had to live the Word of God to be saved?

 

[JAL]

I wonder if someone could clarify for me how a Calvinist decides who is chosen? Does becoming a follower of Calvin’s teachings mean you are saved?

Did Calvin teach that people had to live the Word of God to be saved?

I'm no expert on Calvinism, but I am familiar with a few of the basics. One of the doctrines for which Calvin is famous is that of the "inward witness of the Holy Spirit". It is the Spirit's testimony to the heart that persuades the agnostic that Jesus is Lord and God, and by continuing this persuasion thereafter, sustains faith. He testifies to the heart that we are indeed children of God.

I strongly agree with this doctrine, as did all the Reformed church of Calvin's day and therefafter. In fact pretty much all of evangelicalism seems to be in agreement with it.

 

[Tyndale]

L = Limited Atonement (Christ died only for the elect, those who will be saved)

The L point is still an area where I find little Scriptural support. It is not, however, a crucial point, since the L point of TULIP is more a logical outworking of the system of doctrine than it is a doctrinal teaching from the Scriptures.

Limited Atonement is present throughout the bible. God has his chosen people numbered since the beginning. this is fact.