God's ability according to Calvinism

[allsmiles]

And you've been a part of TOL for how long now? I'm sure long enough to know that there is no shortage of Calvinists around (though they support it wholeheartedly, don't dare call them one) to defend this.

:chuckle:

Okay, point taken. I'm not entirely sure your reasons for their reluctance are the ones I'm thinking of, but I get what you're saying.

That's TOL. That's what we do. The Calvinist starts a thread supporting their ideas, the OVer does the same. The Young Earth supporter starts a thread giving support for their belief, having no doubt and old Earth believer will be along shortly attempting to refute the young Earth beliefs. Same with Homos vs. Homo haters, Pro lifers vs. pro abortionists, both parties expecting that there will be opposition.

So what's the big deal?

I don't see a position being taken and defended here.

Why don't you sign up and join their team?

I was a Calvinist and if I ever returned to Christianity I would return to Calvinism.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I was a Calvinist and if I ever returned to Christianity I would return to Calvinism.

Of course!!! Would you have a choice????

 

[allsmiles]

All the tulips have been crushed and stomped on.

That strikes me as being in the eye of the beholder.

There used to be a time on TOL where you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a Calvinist. Now, nobody is a Calvinist!!!

That's not exactly what Poly told me, but okay.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

This is great... the only person brave enough to defend Calvinism is a Pagan. :rotfl:

 

[Poly]

This is great... the only person brave enough to defend Calvinism is a Pagan. :rotfl:

I'll always have more respect for a person who will at least be honest about what he/she believes. (Even if it is admitting to a doctrine that makes me feel sorry for them that they believe it.)

So what's really behind a Calivinst, not wanting to admit he's a Calvinist? :think:

 

[allsmiles]

Of course!!! Would you have a choice????

:ha:

Not really, scripture is fairly clear on the subject.

 

[allsmiles]

I'll always have more respect for a person who will at least be honest about what he/she believes. (Even if it is admitting to a doctrine that makes me feel sorry for them that they believe it.)

So what's really behind a Calivinst, not wanting to admit he's a Calvinist? :think:

Again, the reluctance doesn't have anything to do with shame Poly :nono: It's the bitterness that a Calvinist is met with that causes the reluctance. Threads like this for example aren't conducive to a constructive dialogue between denominations.

 

[drbrumley]

Actually, there is one thing that the Calvinists limit God in, claiming He is unable to do. They don't feel He's powerful enough to give man a freewill. He's not powerful enough to set a world in motion, leaving it to do it's thing like an awesome, fantastic, and beautiful machine, which allows man a freewill, and then be sure to still come out victorious in the end.

POTD!

 

[drbrumley]

Again, the reluctance doesn't have anything to do with shame Poly :nono: It's the bitterness that a Calvinist is met with that causes the reluctance. Threads like this for example aren't conducive to a constructive dialogue between denominations.

Not so.....we have bent over backwards for these nice folks. But like all disagreements, someone fires the first shot and usually it is the Calvanist who just can't stand God being limited. But it really is not us who is limiting God. It is them. They flat out say God cannot limit Himself, thereby limiting God. O the shame of it all.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

:ha:

Not really, scripture is fairly clear on the subject.

If .... "scripture was fairly clear on the subject", Calvinism wouldn't be wrong.

Calvinism is like Mormonism or any other goofy belief, they misuse a few passages from the Bible, throw in some human philosophy, and the next thing ya know.... wacky theology! :kookoo:

 

[drbrumley]

:kookoo: world we live in Knight.

This is great... the only person brave enough to defend Calvinism is a Pagan. :rotfl:

 

[allsmiles]

Not so.....we have bent over backwards for these nice folks. But like all disagreements, someone fires the first shot and usually it is the Calvanist who just can't stand God being limited. But it really is not us who is limiting God. It is them. They flat out say God cannot limit Himself, thereby limiting God. O the shame of it all.

I don't see a Calvinist firing any first shots here Doc, in fact it's the other way around.

As for the idea that God cannot limit himself... I'm not actually familiar with that idea. I've read Boettner, Pink, Luther, Steele and Thomas' work on the subject, Calvin himself (among others), etc. and it doesn't ring a bell.

 

[allsmiles]

If .... "scripture was fairly clear on the subject", Calvinism wouldn't be wrong.

I don't think you'll ever find a Calvinist who adheres to the TULIP doctrine who says that they're wrong. They say you've got it wrong and y'all go 'round and 'round until you're blue in the face. As an aside, I think that if scripture were clear as a whole there wouldn't be any disagreements, but here we have 30,000 + denominations and sects. That's a different argument though.

Calvinism is like Mormonism or any other goofy belief, they misuse a few passages from the Bible, throw in some human philosophy, and the next thing ya know.... wacky theology! :kookoo:

Martin Luther's work The Bondage of the Will makes a fantastic, logical, coherent case that disproves your perception of Calvinism.

 

[GuySmiley]

Actually, there is one thing that the Calvinists limit God in, claiming He is unable to do. They don't feel He's powerful enough to give man a freewill. He's not powerful enough to set a world in motion, leaving it to do it's thing like an awesome, fantastic, and beautiful machine, which allows man a freewill, and then be sure to still come out victorious in the end.

I was going to say that! :thumb:

 

[Servo]

I'll always have more respect for a person who will at least be honest about what he/she believes. (Even if it is admitting to a doctrine that makes me feel sorry for them that they believe it.)

So what's really behind a Calivinst, not wanting to admit he's a Calvinist? :think:

Yeah, you might get the "I don't believe in labels, I believe what the Bible says..." routine.

 

[GuySmiley]

Again, the reluctance doesn't have anything to do with shame Poly :nono:

True, the reluctance is by God's decree.

It's the bitterness that a Calvinist is met with that causes the reluctance.

They should rejoice in the biterness because it is by God's decree. Then they should also rejoice in the reluctance. Now that I think of it, Calvinists should be the happiest people on Earth. If they are not, then of course, it is by God's decree.

Threads like this for example aren't conducive to a constructive dialogue between denominations.

Of course, again, threads like this are by God's decree.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Martin Luther's work The Bondage of the Will makes a fantastic, logical, coherent case that disproves your perception of Calvinism.

Uh... is he a TOL member?

No?

Darn! :madmad:

 

[allsmiles]

Uh... is he a TOL member?

No?

Darn! :madmad:

:chuckle:

No, he's only the fella who got the ball rolling on the Protestant Reformation, but what does he know, right? Have you read The Bondage of the Will Knight? Or anyone else here for that matter, have you actually consulted Luther or Calvin or Boettner or Pink on this subject?

I get the feeling that what most people around here know about Calvinism they've been taught by people who aren't Calvinists. I could be wrong in saying that, but I don't know until I ask.

 

[VanhoozerRocks]

It seems to me that the position which is essentially being "created" on this thread is not what most Calvinists would characterize themselves as holding to. Mud-slinging and making classic reductionistic claims helps no one in the quest for theological accuracy. True theological dialogue is meant to help build up the church in an epistomological and pragmatic (not in the philisophical pragmatic school sense) manner. While I am not attempting to send this thread down a rabbit trail about reductionistic statements, I am making a plea. A plea for real loving, Bible-oriented, calm, reality grounded discussion of theology (regardless of its topic). Saying the same old statements over and over and over, helps no one.

On an aside. I hope no calvinist would say that they hold to God being able to do semantic impossibilites. Because that is inherently illogical, and obviously impossible.

How about a debate of how Frankfurt examples apply to the philosophical free will debate? Or a comparison of Lukan and Pauline theologies of providence? Constantly stating that Calvinism makes man not free, or open theism makes God impotent, or Arminianism makes God subject to the VCR fallacy helps no one. So if we are going to talk predestination vs. free will, lets at least try to contribute something fresh to the debate.


Soli Deo Gloria

 

[Nathon Detroit]

:chuckle:

No, he's only the fella who got the ball rolling on the Protestant Reformation, but what does he know, right?

He was also a flaming racist.

So... where does that leave us?

That's why I like to stick with God's word and not men's words, it's much more logical to just go straight to the source.