What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[QvQ]

Yes, however to a Calvinist, any discussion of faith is not meant to persuade but is an expression of Faith, however the discussion may be phrased, such as a question, an argument, an understanding.

That's a level of cognitive dissonance far beyond my ability to engage in.

It is a hardcore fact that I cannot, by any means, persuade anyone of anything.
I can not change your mind or save your soul with preaching, prayers, teachings, arguments based on best evidence and convincing facts.
Unless God so chooses.
Therefore, when I express my faith in speech, thought, conduct or on this forum, I am merely expressing my understanding of the faith, not attempting to persuade.

 

[Fervent]

It is a hardcore fact that I cannot, by any means, persuade anyone of anything.
I can not change your mind or save your soul with preaching, prayers, teachings, arguments based on best evidence and convincing facts.
Unless God so chooses.
Therefore, when I express my faith in speech, thought, conduct or on this forum, I am merely expressing my understanding of the faith, not attempting to persuade.

Engaging in discourse while believing it to be impossible to have effect is not faith, it's vanity.

 

[Mark Quayle]

1. Our conscience tells us we are responsible, but is that explaining how we can be responsible without "uncaused" free will? Not really, is it? It is just saying we are responsible, but it gives no explanation how it is possible without "uncaused" free will.

It seems to me you focus more on if God can hold us responsible, rather than if we logically are responsible. God could hold me responsible for robbing a bank even I never commited that crime. But is that logical or just? The question is not if God can hold us responsible, but whether we are logically responsible for the choices we make.

My argument was that there are ways to show that it cannot be said that God does not, or would not, or that it would not be just for him to, cause people the circumstances (causes) in which they make choices according to their inclinations and influences, yet hold them responsible for their choices: Thus: If God says they are responsible, and if God says that he causes all things, there is no need to say otherwise for either one of those; no need to reinterpret Scripture, because, (at the least), #'s 1,2,3,4.

God makes no statement that he will hold you responsible for holding up a bank you did not hold up. The example does not serve your point. But God does make a statement that he imputes the guilt of Adam's sin onto us. Since we know that to be so, and we also know that he is logical and just, (God's mind and will trumps ours) —and our reasoning that he would not hold us responsible for sin we willfully choose, even if our choices were caused, does not hold up.

(I could have added in @Clare73 's argument —that God is not unjust to hold us responsible for choices freely made according to our inclinations. By that use, after all, no matter the causes, we freely do choose. But that is not an argument of the same type as these, though it would probably have been better understood by you. I could also have repeated my logical arguments, but I've already done that. So I'm coming at this from a different tack.)

2. We don't always choose sin. Sometimes we do, sometimes not. But if the reason I rob the bank is because God has created me a certain way and given me the will to do it, how am I responsible when God is the cause for my will to do it? In the same way, how can I be responsible for other sins?
Are we responsible for being in opposition to God? Well, yes and no! We are not responsible for being born with a sinful nature, but we are responsible for how we live with that sinful nature. How is it possible to be responsible for how I live, if God is the one causing my will to be this way?

You are responsible for robbing the bank; the reason you rob the bank is because you willfully chose to do so, even if there were other sure causes at work to bring you to that point, and to cause you to choose what was already determined for you to do.

You yourself said he caused you to be born with a sinful nature. And you have at other times agreed with at least the Arminian reasoning, that one will live according to that sinful nature until God changes something, no? Arminianism likes "prevenient grace" but it is a necessary change, no?

3. I'm not sure where you are going here. How does that explain how we are responsible without "uncaused" free will?

Because 'uncaused free will' implies not only guilt, as you claim, but it also implies credit for righteous choices —that is, unless you wish to credit mere chance...

4. I don't think the discussion is about guilt, but whether we logically are responsible for what we do.

Ok, Adam's sin. Are we logically responsible for Adam's sin? How could we? We were not even there. Again God could hold us responsible for Adam's sin, but would it be just? It's like I'm responsible for being born an homosexual. Isn't God rather holding us responsible for the things we are logically responsible for? Like living an homosexual lifestyle, or robbing a bank.

Are you saying he imputes the guilt but that he is not logically and justly holding you responsible? That imputation of itself condemns us. And he does have that right to do with his creatures as he pleases; and nobody has, nor does their opinion have, the authority (not to mention the wisdom) to proclaim him unjust. I would say he is more than just to proclaim his whole created race of humans guilty, on the basis of Adam's sin alone, whether we can logically see it or not. What do we know of individuality vs corporate, or even of what sin really is, nevermind the differences in the levels of hierarchy between God and man, and type of economies of God vs man and the relationship between them?

Even if you are right that God imputed Adam's sin on us, it doesn't mean we are logically responsible. It's more the answer: God is God and He can do things in any way He wants. But that's not an argument for us logically being responsible.

It is an argument for the fact of it, or at least, the removal of the argument against it. If God imputed the guilt of Adam's sin on us (and I see no way to say he did not, according to Scripture), yet we cannot see how that is fair, how can we say he would not be fair in holding us responsible for willfully choosing to do that which we are by chain of causation, caused to do? Or, if we do find it fair for him to do so, how is it any less fair for him to hold us responsible for sin we willfully chose and were caused to choose?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, however to a Calvinist, any discussion of faith is not meant to persuade but is an expression of Faith, however the discussion may be phrased, such as a question, an argument, an understanding.

Now that you put it like that, yes, that too, though I do mean to persuade, in the end, a more pure meaning of the Gospel.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Engaging in discourse while believing it to be impossible to have effect is not faith, it's vanity.

He didn't say it would have no effect. The word of God ALWAYS has effect.

 

[Fervent]

He didn't say it would have no effect. The word of God ALWAYS has effect.

First, we're speaking human theology. The arrogance of Calvinists to conflate their interpretations as being equivalent with the word of God is simply the beginning of the error. Second, he said himself he doesn't believe the argument or whatever else is implemented is effective, it's superfluous noise that changes nothing. Vanity of vanities.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It ultimately comes down to the fact that your position requires a re-definition of "choice" that renders it something altogether different from the ordinary use of the word. By your definition, water droplets could be said to "choose" what direction they flow in whenever there isn't a clear direction beforehand. The issue with your position is that whether I am persuaded or not has no basis in our conversation, as the cause is external to either one of us. The intermediaries that are involved have no bearing on the outcome, only the external cause so to argue as if your argument can be effective is to deny the premise that the choices are determined externally, instead implying that there is an authentic freedom to choose between the alernatives rather than the choice being the product of a mechanical process previously initiated.

"The ordinary use of the word", 'choice', is not its definition, or, at least, if it is, its definition then, is not based on fact but on use. Likewise, 'chance', 'free' and so many other commonly used words.

Your water droplets example shows you merely don't agree with what I claim concerning choice. Nor, for that matter, is my definition of 'choice' descriptive of the process by which a drop of water goes one path instead of another, (unless you mean to refer to God's choosing!). Throw all the adjectives (like, 'authentic'), and adverbs you want to at 'free will', you can't fancy it up enough to design a lack of sure causation without stepping past both reason and Scripture. "Chance" just does not get it, and you will be unable to show God submitting to causes outside of his willing them to cause.

"The intermediaries...have no bearing on the outcome?" Then they are not links in the chain, and are not intermediary causes, nor are they involved. Make up your mind.

You want actual alternatives, yet through at least 6,000 years of history, philosophy and science we have yet to encounter even a single instance of two (or more) things presented as options, where more than one of them was actual. Be satisfied with apparent, or even illusory, options. You don't need to know which is actual in order to choose it.

 

[Fervent]

"The ordinary use of the word", 'choice', is not its definition, or, at least, if it is, its definition then, is not based on fact but on use. Likewise, 'chance', 'free' and so many other commonly used words.

Your water droplets example shows you merely don't agree with what I claim concerning choice. Nor, for that matter, is my definition of 'choice' descriptive of the process by which a drop of water goes one path instead of another, (unless you mean to refer to God's choosing!). Throw all the adjectives (like, 'authentic'), and adverbs you want to at 'free will', you can't fancy it up enough to design a lack of sure causation without stepping past both reason and Scripture. "Chance" just does not get it, and you will be unable to show God submitting to causes outside of his willing them to cause.

"The intermediaries...have no bearing on the outcome?" Then they are not links in the chain, and are not intermediary causes, nor are they involved. Make up your mind.

You want actual alternatives, yet through at least 6,000 years of history, philosophy and science we have yet to encounter even a single instance of two (or more) things presented as options, where more than one of them was actual. Be satisfied with apparent, or even illusory, options. You don't need to know which is actual in order to choose it.

The constant need to redefine words so that they mean something contrary to their ordinary uses simply demonstrates the illogic behind Calvinism. God causes sin but is not its author, men are condemned on the whim of God but he "loves" them, etc

How can I know what any of the words you use mean since none of them seem to be defined by their ordinary usage?

 

[Mark Quayle]

First, we're speaking human theology. The arrogance of Calvinists to conflate their interpretations as being equivalent with the word of God is simply the beginning of the error. Second, he said himself he doesn't believe the argument or whatever else is implemented is effective, it's superfluous noise that changes nothing. Vanity of vanities.

Give me one example where Calvinists "conflate their interpretations as being equivalent with the word of God". Please.

So you didn't try to find the point he (like you and I) perhaps could have made better. Nor did you take his bare statement for what it means! If he claims "the argument or whatever else is implemented" is not effective, that is, that "it's superfluous noise that changes nothing.", not only does he make good sense in saying so, but it is an obvious discrediting of your implication that he is one of those "arrogant Calvinists" that thinks his doctrine is equivalent to scripture since he is saying his own arguments are subject to that same description.

 

[Mark Quayle]

My disrespect for it, and my way of addressing of it are related. It's the product of a mind seeking to vindicate himself for his past misconduct so instead of owning responsiblity creates a theological doctrine that absolves him of guilt by blaming Adam. It's repugnant on multiple levels, and its originator based his belief on a mistranslation combined with a faulty assumption about a practice in the church in his day.

Demonstrate the mistranslation and faulty assumption, not to mention your textual criticism where you have discerned —no! reconstructed!— his reasons and methods.

 

[Fervent]

Give me one example where Calvinists "conflate their interpretations as being equivalent with the word of God". Please.

So you didn't try to find the point he (like you and I) perhaps could have made better. Nor did you take his bare statement for what it means! If he claims "the argument or whatever else is implemented" is not effective, that is, that "it's superfluous noise that changes nothing.", not only does he make good sense in saying so, but it is an obvious discrediting of your implication that he is one of those "arrogant Calvinists" that thinks his doctrine is equivalent to scripture since he is saying his own arguments are subject to that same description.

One example? You mean like how you just stated the word of God always has effect when talking about a Calvinist's argument as if they are one and the same thing?

As for the rest of your doublethink, the cognitive dissonance it displays is quite astounding but not surprising.

 

[QvQ]

First, we're speaking human theology. The arrogance of Calvinists to conflate their interpretations as being equivalent with the word of God is simply the beginning of the error. Second, he said himself he doesn't believe the argument or whatever else is implemented is effective, it's superfluous noise that changes nothing. Vanity of vanities.

Au Contraire
1) It is a most humble view, 1 Corinthians 13
2) Faith is expressed through actions, thoughts and speech, pleasing to God by the grace of God.
3) If it is by the Grace of God alone that man is saved, then if I can't save myself, what power do I have to save you?
4) To express faith through action, thoughts and speech is to know, love and serve God. To be concerned whether it will have an effect to my reflected glory is vanity. "I am doing it for God" is vanity of vanities.
A friend told me, if you give a dollar or share a meal, always mention God. If a person says "thank you" say, "thank God, who made all this possible."

Also, the Bible is the effective Word.

 

[Fervent]

Demonstrate the mistranslation and faulty assumption, not to mention your textual criticism where you have discerned —no! reconstructed!— his reasons and methods.

The mistranslation is in the vulgate, where due to a peculiarity of Latin regarding articles the preposition epi was translated as "in Adam" rather than the more appropriate "after which" or similar. This is testified to by the Greek commentaries on Romans such as Chrysostom's, which decidedly interpret Romans 5:12 as being a matter of sequence. In fact, prior to Augustine no mention of Romans 5:12 in the way he understood it exists and even among Latin authors(such as Ambrosiaster) it remains absent.
The faulty assumption came because both Origen and Augustine seem to have assumed that there was a theological(rather than practical) cause for baptising infants, which was the practice of the church at the time.


There's a reason that prior to Augustine no one forwarded a salvation in which the one being saved curiously seems to have no part, either in their condemnation(as Augustine has this on account of Adam) or in their redemption. There's also a reason that prior to Luther most of the church had scaled back Augustine's error, instead landing very much in line with Cassian's position on original sin.

 

[Fervent]

Au Contraire
1) It is a most humble view, Corinthians 1:13
2) Faith is expressed through actions, thoughts and speech, pleasing to God by the grace of God.
3) If it is by the Grace of God alone that man is saved, then if I can't save myself, what power do I have to save you?
It is to express faith through action, thoughts and speech. To be concerned whether it will have an effect to my reflected glory is vanity. "I am doing it for God" is vanity of vanities.
A friend told me, if you give a dollar or share a meal, always mention God. If a person says "thank you" say, "thank God, who made all this possible."

Ah yes, despite the blatant displays of arrogance that so routinely displays itself among Calvinists I forgot they are the most humble, by their own admition.

No one said anything about salvation, but it is quite presumptuous of you to seemingly imply that since I am not Calvinist I must not be saved. What is in question is persuasion to a particular theological paradigm, not a matter of salvation. If you believe your arguments and evidence are incapable of persuasion then your arguments may as well be flatulence.

 

[QvQ]

If you believe your arguments and evidence are incapable of persuasion then your arguments may as well be flatulence.

Or arguments and evidence presented to the nether end of a donkey. Whether it is flatulence is entirely the opinion of the donkey who may not be capable of understanding anything except his own hot air.

 

[Fervent]

Or arguments and evidence presented to the nether end of a donkey. Whether it is flatulence is entirely the opinion of the donkey who may not be capable of understanding anything except his own hot air.

There's that patented Calvinist humility, anyone who disagrees is a donkey.

 

[QvQ]

If you believe your arguments and evidence are incapable of persuasion

I was raised atheist. All my friends were atheist, all very well educated. When I suddenly realized the Truth was Christ, I tried to persuade everyone. I had all sorts of evidence and arguments.
I couldn't persuade anyone. I realized that only God has the power.
So I can contribute "my honest opinion" in the discussion but I do not attempt to persuade anyone. I express my honest opinion, nothing more, take it or leave it.

So now you know, when an atheist decides to tack 95 thesis on Darwin's Door, then you know there is a potential 5 Sola Calvinist in the neighborhood.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The constant need to redefine words so that they mean something contrary to their ordinary uses simply demonstrates the illogic behind Calvinism. God causes sin but is not its author, men are condemned on the whim of God but he "loves" them, etc

How can I know what any of the words you use mean since none of them seem to be defined by their ordinary usage?

I'm guessing you mean to mock my way of using scripture by way of pretending not to know what I mean by my words.

Did you not know that dictionaries of ordinary language do not always usually address the uses the Bible makes of those words? In fact, in theological and philosophical debate they can mean very different things from "ordinary use". Likewise in the medical, legal, technical fields.

But besides that, did you not know that dictionaries must define according to use, and not according to fact concerning those words? Thus, a dictionary's definition of, for example, 'freewill', may carefully thread through the most common uses of the term, carefully shedding unhappy implications and ignoring contradictions with fact. Wikipedia gives, "Free will is the capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded. Free will is closely linked to the concepts of moral responsibility, praise, culpability, sin, and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen." And Oxford Languages, (according to Google), renders it, "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."

See? —even the experts are given to redundancy and vagueness, and to popular acceptance. If one was to translate the Oxford definition to common language it might sound somewhat less poetic: "the ability to act according to one's will; choice." But someone of your persuasion might want to invoke lack of causation: "the power to decide, ungoverned, spontaneous; the ability to make sovereign choices."

Which one is it? The vague Oxford definition that doesn't really say anything and allows for just about anything? The Wiki definition isn't much better, but at least they mostly choose sides, implying that, at least, there are indeed different possible courses of action, (when in fact, nobody has been able to demonstrate that). They also become rather a little encyclopedic, instead of merely defining, and that's ok, but they imply facts not in evidence, yet without commitment to it, by use of the term, "closely linked", to 'moral responsibility' etc. They don't even say whether they are linked by meaning, or by practitioners, or by philosophy or what.

All that to say, that we have every reason and right in debate to demand meaning from words another person uses, and from the Bible translations to find the meaning that fits best the rest of scripture and other hermeneutical tools.


And, again and as usual, your mockings of Calvinism as though they claim what you suppose Calvinism's teachings to imply, are NOT the teachings of Calvinism. They do not teach mere "whim" concerning anything God does. (Nor do they imply it.)

 

[Fervent]

I'm guessing you mean to mock my way of using scripture by way of pretending not to know what I mean by my words.

Did you not know that dictionaries of ordinary language do not always usually address the uses the Bible makes of those words? In fact, in theological and philosophical debate they can mean very different things from "ordinary use". Likewise in the medical, legal, technical fields.

But besides that, did you not know that dictionaries must define according to use, and not according to fact concerning those words? Thus, a dictionary's definition of, for example, 'freewill', may carefully thread through the most common uses of the term, carefully shedding unhappy implications and ignoring contradictions with fact. Wikipedia gives, "Free will is the capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded. Free will is closely linked to the concepts of moral responsibility, praise, culpability, sin, and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen." And Oxford Languages, (according to Google), renders it, "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."

See? —even the experts are given to redundancy and vagueness, and to popular acceptance. If one was to translate the Oxford definition to common language it might sound somewhat less poetic: "the ability to act according to one's will; choice." But someone of your persuasion might want to invoke lack of causation: "the power to decide, ungoverned, spontaneous; the ability to make sovereign choices."

Which one is it? The vague Oxford definition that doesn't really say anything and allows for just about anything? The Wiki definition isn't much better, but at least they mostly choose sides, implying that, at least, there are indeed different possible courses of action, (when in fact, nobody has been able to demonstrate that). They also become rather a little encyclopedic, instead of merely defining, and that's ok, but they imply facts not in evidence, yet without commitment to it, by use of the term, "closely linked", to 'moral responsibility' etc. They don't even say whether they are linked by meaning, or by practitioners, or by philosophy or what.

All that to say, that we have every reason and right in debate to demand meaning from words another person uses, and from the Bible translations to find the meaning that fits best the rest of scripture and other hermeneutical tools.


And, again and as usual, your mockings of Calvinism as though they claim what you suppose Calvinism's teachings to imply, are NOT the teachings of Calvinism. They do not teach mere "whim" concerning anything God does. (Nor do they imply it.)

Where have you used Scripture in any of your responses to me? What I am "mocking" is your making language a moving target, and your expanse of words here gives nothing of profit.

Certainly, context determines how a word is used but more often than not "theological" definitions of words are not derived from how the words were used in their historical context. In fact, much of the issue comes from an ahistoric way of reading Romans apart from the Jewish background(instead giving it a judicial flavoring that is reminiscent of what existed in the fall of Rome) and then using that ahistoric interpretation as a master lens for the rest of Scripture, "harmonizing" verses that flatly contradict it(that one of the most devastating verses for Calvinist soteriology's 4th major tenet occurs in Romans notwithstanding.)

You torture both logic and Scripture to cut a Gordian knot that need not be cut.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The mistranslation is in the vulgate, where due to a peculiarity of Latin regarding articles the preposition epi was translated as "in Adam" rather than the more appropriate "after which" or similar. This is testified to by the Greek commentaries on Romans such as Chrysostom's, which decidedly interpret Romans 5:12 as being a matter of sequence. In fact, prior to Augustine no mention of Romans 5:12 in the way he understood it exists and even among Latin authors(such as Ambrosiaster) it remains absent.
The faulty assumption came because both Origen and Augustine seem to have assumed that there was a theological(rather than practical) cause for baptising infants, which was the practice of the church at the time.


There's a reason that prior to Augustine no one forwarded a salvation in which the one being saved curiously seems to have no part, either in their condemnation(as Augustine has this on account of Adam) or in their redemption. There's also a reason that prior to Luther most of the church had scaled back Augustine's error, instead landing very much in line with Cassian's position on original sin.

So, Adam's guilt is not imputed to us? The Greek, 'epi', like most prepositions has many uses. But the one you claim doesn't change the meaning at all, as far as I can tell. "In Adam" or not, the mention of pattern (in verse 14) allows for even "after the manner of" or "since", both sequences of a sort. Big deal. It changes nothing. Adam's guilt is still imputed to us.

The same thing happens in 1 Corinthians 15:22, except the word is 'en'; it changes nothing by being 'en' instead of 'epi'.

Where have you used Scripture in any of your responses to me? What I am "mocking" is your making language a moving target, and your expanse of words here gives nothing of profit.

Certainly, context determines how a word is used but more often than not "theological" definitions of words are not derived from how the words were used in their historical context. In fact, much of the issue comes from an ahistoric way of reading Romans apart from the Jewish background(instead giving it a judicial flavoring that is reminiscent of what existed in the fall of Rome) and then using that ahistoric interpretation as a master lens for the rest of Scripture, "harmonizing" verses that flatly contradict it(that one of the most devastating verses for Calvinist soteriology's 4th major tenet occurs in Romans notwithstanding.)

You torture both logic and Scripture to cut a Gordian knot that need not be cut.

Aren't you the one who was a couple posts back complaining that I wasn't using language according to common meaning? Now you want me to dive into hermeneutics for the sake of argument.