Calvinism Debate between Bob Enyart and TNAR's Dr. Larry Bray

[zippy2006]

Rather, Calvinistic doctrine is very clear that there is no reason one human is saved and another is not. And by "no reason" I mean that the decision was made without any reference at all to the humans themselves. God may have chosen, but His choice had nothing to do with anything we did or failed to do. We are, quite literally, inanimate pawns in a game of God on Calvinism.

No, this isn't part of Westminster, but "...by His Holy counsel..."

Another aid to furthering these conversations would be to focus on meaning and logic rather than wording. When the Calvinist says "by His Holy counsel" they mean nothing other than what I've already stated, namely that man plays absolutely no part in his salvation and it falls completely on God.

The distinction has always rested on gift vs merit. There is no merit in accepting a gift. If I am offered $1,000,000 and I accept it, it does not therefore follow that I merited the money, or that I deserved it more than someone else.

Agreed. This is right up the line with the Calvinist stance.

It isn't at all. AMR confirms here that Calvinism rejects even the idea that man can accept a gift.

The Catholic position affirms a mystery, something we cannot understand. It affirms that man, in some mysterious way, plays an active role in his relationship with God and therefore his salvation; it affirms human responsibility just as the Scriptures do on each page. Calvinism avoids the mystery but in the process loses everything.

To me, it is simply asserting that mystery or otherwise, we take God's counsel and don't offer it but trust. I'd think the end result is the same for both here.

There is no such thing as trust on Calvinism, for the human being is not capable of such an action which implies freedom.

Points:

1. Calvinists believe that there is absolutely nothing about man that influences God's decisions about whether he will be saved. Man cannot reject salvation, man cannot accept the gift of Christ, man can do absolutely nothing with respect to salvation.

2. It logically follows that God's decision concerning who is saved is arbitrary with respect to man. "God's Holy counsel" is logically disconnected from any factor that applies to a particular man whatsoever. This is essentially equivalent to random/arbitrary choice regarding salvation, for whatever variables God takes into account to determine salvation, none of them are minutely related to any particular trait of any particular man, most importantly including his acceptance of a gift.

3. The Calvinistic God renders permanent judgment, sending some to Hell and some to Heaven, without taking into account anything about the particular people being judged. This is obviously unjust.

You seem to be rejecting Calvinistic doctrine and claiming that it is something that it isn't. I'd suggest either converting, assenting to the three points above, or addressing them. I'm glad that you are beginning to question the serious problems of Calvin's ideas, but you are trying to sit in the middle where no middle exists, precisely because the middle is orthodoxy and Calvinism, by its very nature, has rejected moderation and resorted to extremes, such as is evident by AMR's post. AMR believes that a marriage covenant can be properly modeled by monergism, or maybe he simply rejects the marriage covenant altogether. :idunno:

:e4e:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

It isn't at all. AMR confirms here that Calvinism rejects even the idea that man can accept a gift.

Er, no. I argue in that post, via the rope analogy, that the spiritually dead, can do nothing until they are quickened from said death. Once so quickened from their spiritual death, they will (not may) believe. The reference you use of mine above is describing nothing more than regeneration, which, as argued therein, must logically come before faith. Nothing else is in view in the analogy and I would appreciate your not importing more freight into my words than they can bear.

There is no such thing as trust on Calvinism, for the human being is not capable of such an action which implies freedom.

Points:

1. Calvinists believe that there is absolutely nothing about man that influences God's decisions about whether he will be saved. Man cannot reject salvation, man cannot accept the gift of Christ, man can do absolutely nothing with respect to salvation.

2. It logically follows that God's decision concerning who is saved is arbitrary with respect to man. "God's Holy counsel" is logically disconnected from any factor that applies to a particular man whatsoever. This is essentially equivalent to random/arbitrary choice regarding salvation, for whatever variables God takes into account to determine salvation, none of them are minutely related to any particular trait of any particular man, most importantly including his acceptance of a gift.

3. The Calvinistic God renders permanent judgment, sending some to Hell and some to Heaven, without taking into account anything about the particular people being judged. This is obviously unjust.

You seem to be rejecting Calvinistic doctrine and claiming that it is something that it isn't. I'd suggest either converting, assenting to the three points above, or addressing them. I'm glad that you are beginning to question the serious problems of Calvin's ideas, but you are trying to sit in the middle where no middle exists, precisely because the middle is orthodoxy and Calvinism, by its very nature, has rejected moderation and resorted to extremes, such as is evident by AMR's post. AMR believes that a marriage covenant can be properly modeled by monergism, or maybe he simply rejects the marriage covenant altogether.

This is why we rarely interact on important matters. No matter what the topic along these lines, you cannot help but drawing first blood and becoming ugly in your discourse. I get that you have an opinion and are passionate about it, but I just don't have the inclination to respond when met with this level of uninformed vitriol. Being the sinner that I am would eventually lead me to meeting you on your own terms and I am confident no one will be edified from such behavior. I am struggling mightily to not get down in the mud with you or anyone else. I fail at this much too often for my own liking and personal embarrassment, so this time I won't be taking the ugly bait you have set out for me.

zippy2006, I don't know what has happened to you. Your calumnious stridency in the past couple of years seems to rule your behavior and it is genuinely disappointing to observe. Rather than seeking to wound, I would that we discuss sacred topics in the manner they deserve, and along the way, edify one another. :AMR:

AMR

 

[Lon]

Another aid to furthering these conversations would be to focus on meaning and logic rather than wording. When the Calvinist says "by His Holy counsel" they mean nothing other than what I've already stated, namely that man plays absolutely no part in his salvation and it falls completely on God.

It isn't at all. AMR confirms here that Calvinism rejects even the idea that man can accept a gift.

No, he'd agree with this. What he disagrees with is that man can do so without God, that is, He is the primary agent (active) and we the receivers (passive). This is monergism.

There is no such thing as trust on Calvinism, for the human being is not capable of such an action which implies freedom.

Salvation is a gift from God, not of anything we've done.

Points:

1. Calvinists believe that there is absolutely nothing about man that influences God's decisions about whether he will be saved. Man cannot reject salvation, man cannot accept the gift of Christ, man can do absolutely nothing with respect to salvation.

I quoted the wheat and tares as well as the passage from Peter concerning the cornerstone. God reveals Himself to man and those who come are foreknown, thus God's actions enable man to come to Him.

2. It logically follows that God's decision concerning who is saved is arbitrary with respect to man. "God's Holy counsel" is logically disconnected from any factor that applies to a particular man whatsoever. This is essentially equivalent to random/arbitrary choice regarding salvation, for whatever variables God takes into account to determine salvation, none of them are minutely related to any particular trait of any particular man, most importantly including his acceptance of a gift.

Simple foreknowledge should have you on page with us here. He knows, and it isn't arbitrary.

3. The Calvinistic God renders permanent judgment, sending some to Hell and some to Heaven, without taking into account anything about the particular people being judged. This is obviously unjust.

No again, He foreknows who responds, even in the RC.
You seem to be rejecting Calvinistic doctrine and claiming that it is something that it isn't. I'd suggest either converting, assenting to the three points above, or addressing them. I'm glad that you are beginning to question the serious problems of Calvin's ideas, but you are trying to sit in the middle where no middle exists, precisely because the middle is orthodoxy and Calvinism, by its very nature, has rejected moderation and resorted to extremes, such as is evident by AMR's post. AMR believes that a marriage covenant can be properly modeled by monergism, or maybe he simply rejects the marriage covenant altogether. :idunno:

:e4e:

As given above, I believe it is a problem of grasping what is being said.
As I said, it is inconsequential to your salvation whether or not you believe you had something to do with it or not. I know I was a believer when I thought I had a part in it. I was mistaken but it is not a huge issue other than understanding for me that God had everything to do with it and me, not so much. In the end, we are simply arguing how much we took part in our salvation, not denying it of each other.

For me it is as simple as this: The rescuer gets a medal for saving two people, one is satisfied and the other is saying because he held on, he should get a medal too for taking part in his own rescue. We can argue about that all day, but both are standing saved upon the deck and the Rescuer still gets full credit for both rescues.

The other part of this that gets sticky, is what happens to all the rest in the water yet to be rescued. I believe they all get the life-ring tossed to them, many multiple times. As long as they are treading water thinking they can swim forever having fun in the water, their end is their own. If God drags some, it only reveals His gracious tenacity that one will not perish on His watch, it in no way means anything bad against Him. I've been appauled that anyone would think so because the basic difference is that you believe God is frantically trying to pull all out of the water whereas I believe He simply focuses His rescue attempt to those He knows He will save. Whether that is arbitrary or not, it doesn't matter (I don't think it is due to foreknowledge among other things).

 

[zippy2006]

It isn't at all. AMR confirms here that Calvinism rejects even the idea that man can accept a gift.

Er, no. I argue in that post, via the rope analogy, that the spiritually dead, can do nothing until they are quickened from said death. Once so quickened from their spiritual death, they will (not may) believe. The reference you use of mine above is describing nothing more than regeneration, which, as argued therein, must logically come before faith. Nothing else is in view in the analogy and I would appreciate your not importing more freight into my words than they can bear.

Incorrect. My point bears precisely what it intended to, and your response only confirms that. Man can do nothing beforehand, and he can resist nothing after. On Calvinism, man cannot change anything in the way of salvation. He does not receive a gift, it is forced upon him; he does not reject a gift, for it is refused him.

This is why we rarely interact on important matters. No matter what the topic along these lines, you cannot help but drawing first blood and becoming ugly in your discourse. I get that you have an opinion and are passionate about it, but I just don't have the inclination to respond when met with this level of uninformed vitriol. Being the sinner that I am would eventually lead me to meeting you on your own terms and I am confident no one will be edified from such behavior. I am struggling mightily to not get down in the mud with you or anyone else. I fail at this much too often for my own liking and personal embarrassment, so this time I won't be taking the ugly bait you have set out for me.

zippy2006, I don't know what has happened to you. Your calumnious stridency in the past couple of years seems to rule your behavior and it is genuinely disappointing to observe. Rather than seeking to wound, I would that we discuss sacred topics in the manner they deserve, and along the way, edify one another. :AMR:

AMR

The reason we rarely interact is because your enormous pride is unable to confront direct arguments that show your position to be inadequate. When I answered directly one of your posts on this topic, you deleted the thread and cut off all contact with me under the guise of "me being vitriolic." I have done nothing of the sort. I have set out numbered arguments that you are again unable to answer, and so you hide behind a lazy and false assertion that I am being too mean to you, even though your own posts are blindingly more condescending than my own.

Answer the arguments or stop with the whining and false accusations and make your retreat without the silly excuses. Clearly the idea that you are wrong does not belong to your logical set of possibilities, but this is a theology forum where we interact rather than hide behind (false) ad hominem attacks. lain:

If you honestly want to try to sustain such a notion, then feel free to point out precisely where I have been vitriolic, for I am calling your tired bluff. /endrant

Edit: This is not to say that I am never vitriolic, for at times I am, usually in reply to more or less similar posts. But with you it has not generally been so, and surely not of late. This assertion of yours has turned into an empty defensive technique and I am growing quite tired of it. It's as if you write a two page long reply filled with arguments and condescension alike, and expect the person to bow down. I answer each of your points with a reason and if there is any edge involved it is nothing vitriolic, but is rather pressure pushing back at your condescension.

 

[Lon]

This assertion of yours has turned into an empty defensive technique and I am growing quite tired of it. It's as if you write a two page long reply filled with arguments and condescension alike, and expect the person to bow down. I answer each of your points with a reason and if there is any edge involved it is nothing vitriolic, but is rather pressure pushing back at your condescension.

Consider: This thread is a testament to what AMR is experiencing (I believe). It is hard to read some of your posts in there as a Calvinist because your rebuttals at times have been harsh and what appears either faulty assessment &/or animosity toward Calvinism in general.

In my opinion this is the root of the problem with Calvinism, and also why it is a very dangerous denomination indeed, at least as far as ideas go. We should run, not walk, from such a perverse idea as represented here, just as a number of ex-Calvinists have. And we are not getting this idea from some crazy Calvinist who isn't in accord with Reformed thought, but rather from someone who has spent an impressive amount of time studying and learning about the Reformed tradition and is easily the strongest representative of Calvinism on TOL.

-zip :e4e:

...one of many interconnected problems in Calvinism...blatantly false and even absurd -zip :e4e:

...you must logically conclude that God is the author of evil. Assuming the proof holds (as I am quite sure it does) the conclusion is simple: Calvin was wrong. At that point I think you must throw out Calvin and trust to God's goodness...if you don't think that it is yet time to abandon Calvin, then pray tell what must happen before you do? -zip :e4e:

I'd suggest either converting, assenting to the three points above, or ... beginning to question the serious problems of Calvin's ideas...Calvinism, by its very nature, has rejected moderation and resorted to extremes, such as is evident by AMR's post. AMR believes that a marriage covenant can be properly modeled by monergism, or maybe he simply rejects the marriage covenant altogether. :idunno:

:e4e:

The statements tend to be unequivocal, which can be frustrating or unpalatable to some (hard to address/respond to what appears staunch and unalterable). For me, I have simply thought that it a needed challenge of patient explanation but it isn't easy to read such for one holding to a particular theology. Each of us have our own strengths and weakenesses and so, for me, it was with what patience and ability I may possess that I endeavored.
In Him,
-Lon

 

[zippy2006]

Consider: This thread is a testament to what AMR is experiencing (I believe). It is hard to read some of your posts in there as a Calvinist because your rebuttals at times have been harsh and what appears either faulty assessment &/or animosity toward Calvinism in general.

Oddly enough, the quotes you give don't make the point you wish to make, although I think you could find quotes from me that do make that point. In particular I claimed that you will find very few such posts addressing AMR himself.

Quote 1: I stand behind that, and the language was intentionally used to reflect the exact same wording that AMR has used against other theories such as the Exchanged Life idea. The quote is not vitriolic, but is rather descriptive, and I even note that it is my opinion. That's what I think of Calvinism. I wasn't attacking Calvinists, and it is clear that I am attacking the belief system itself. :idunno:

Quote 2: A comment made to an ex-Calvinist who was expressing his sentiments. I note that Calvinistic doctrine is "blatantly false and even absurd." Not vitriolic, not personal. :idunno:

Quote 3: Qualified by "assuming the proof holds." I will also stand behind that statement. If my proof that Calvinism is incorrect and evil holds, then you should abandon it etc.

Quote 4: You left out the last option I gave in "I'd suggest either converting, assenting to the three points above, or..." What was it? "or answer the points." What part of that is vitriolic or uncalled for? I may have redacted "I'm glad you've begun to question the serious problems of Calvinism," but the rest I stand by, and even that statement is far from vitriolic. I think you are sitting in an untenable middle ground that is contrary to Calvinistic doctrine, and that is what I expressed.

The statements tend to be unequivocal, which can be frustrating or unpalatable to some (hard to address/respond to staunch). For me, I have simply thought that it a needed challenge for patient explanation but it isn't easy to read such for one holding to a particular theology. Each of us have our own strengths and weakenesses and so, for me, it was with what patience and ability that I endeavored.
In Him,
-Lon

My statements are often unequivocal (though those were not, notice the "in my opinion" and "if the proof holds"). They are of course open to argument and rebuttal, but I believe them and speak them so. Note also that I have stood up for Calvinism when it was being wrongly mistreated imo. If someone is ragging on Calvinism because it is Settled, or believes in election, or othersuch things that are not particular to Calvinism, I will point that out.

:e4e:

 

[Lon]

My statements are often unequivocal (though those were not, notice the "in my opinion" and "if the proof holds"). They are of course open to argument and rebuttal, but I believe them and speak them so. Note also that I have stood up for Calvinism when it was being wrongly mistreated imo. If someone is ragging on Calvinism because it is Settled, or believes in election, or othersuch things that are not particular to Calvinism, I will point that out.

:e4e:

Okay, but it does look rather staunch and adverse as well as a representing a frustration from characterizations, that lead me sympathetically toward AMR. If I turned the tables and voiced similar assessments of the RC, would that tend to be troublesome to you?
We embrace our respective theologies to a certain personal degree.

 

[zippy2006]

Okay, but it does look rather staunch and adverse as well as a representing a frustration from characterizations, that lead me sympathetically toward AMR. If I turned the tables and voiced similar assessments of the RC, would that tend to be troublesome to you?
We embrace our respective theologies to a certain personal degree.

I understand that. I think Calvinism does a very great disservice to God, and that obviously bothers you to some extent. That's why we are in dialogue, and that is the difference between you and AMR. And to be quite honest, I don't have nearly as many problems with your or AA's Calvinism as I do with AMR's flavor.

Many do criticize the Catholic Church with much more anger than I do Calvinism. If they are not open to dialogue, I ignore them. If it is someone I respect who is open to dialogue, then we can usually mete out their main problems, which are often due to misunderstandings. For years now I have struggled with Calvinism, and only relatively recently have I taken a strong position and come to believe that, rather than a misunderstanding, it is in fact a deep flaw in the system itself. It is precisely whether they are mischaracterizations that is at stake, and I am more than willing to explore that idea.

But I think our discussion will bear fruit, so I don't find it overly necessary to explain myself. I will continue to try to be more irenic, but it must be understood that I have a strong dislike for Calvinism and I have a number of reasons why. If those reasons are not addressed my problems with it will not go away.

:e4e: