lukecash12
New member
I guess it's pretty clear now, as to the issue of intellectual honesty.
I have a question for Calvinists...
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
So then tell me what my question gets wrong.
Whose "we"?
Is the quote feature broken?
Who are you speaking to and in response to what?
lukecash12
New member
Oh bother... I couldn't even find your latest response! How silly of me :chuckle:
Yeah, sorry about the rapid fire posts. I've been rather busy with work and so I got behind on my responses. I'll try to do a better job of keeping up!
Cleve, quit dealing with milk. You have a good conviction of your beliefs. And you are right about Calvin's extremes, he definitely had way too much error but it's not that important. It is to the Calvknists (hehe) because they assume they've reached some level of deeper thought. Same with Mad, but it simply is far from the truth. These doctrines are rabbit holes. What you need is Israelology.
Israelology the Missing Link in Systematic Theology
lukecash12
New member
Denn alles Fleisch ist wie Gras
und alle Herrlichkeit des Menschen
wie des Grases Blumen.
Das Gras ist verdorret
und die Blume abgefallen.
So seid nun geduldig, lieben Brüder,
bis auf die Zukunft des Herrn.
Siehe, ein Ackermann wartet
auf die köstliche Frucht der Erde
und ist geduldig darüber, bis er empfahe
den Morgenregen und Abendregen.
Aber des Herrn Wort bleibet in Ewigkeit.
Die Erlöseten des Herrn werden wieder kommen,
und gen Zion kommen mit Jauchzen;
ewige Freude wird über ihrem Haupte sein;
Freude und Wonne werden sie ergreifen
und Schmerz und Seufzen wird weg müssen.
For all flesh is as grass,
and the glory of man
like flowers.
The grass withers
and the flower falls.
Therefore be patient, dear brothers,
for the coming of the Lord.
Behold, the husbandman waits
for the delicious fruits of the earth
and is patient for it, until he receives
the morning rain and evening rain.
But the word of the Lord endures for eternity.
The redeemed of the Lord will come again,
and come to Zion with a shout;
eternal joy shall be upon her head;
They shall take joy and gladness,
and sorrow and sighing must depart.
Hehehe, that would depend on your book references. I'm something of a book junky. I've no doubt we'll get along. We may not find each other the most agreeable on every subject, but that's hardly a realistic expectation for anyone.
Aside from that, a major flaw in your reasoning is this historical misunderstanding that you have, that Calvin defines the group as a whole and there is no room for variety. "Calvinism" was a label given to this other primary group of the Reformation, by Luther. From the 15th century on "Calvinists" have always called themselves Reformed.
These are the primary first generation Reformed thinkers: Huldrych Zwingli (1484–1531), Martin Bucer (1491–1551), Wolfgang Capito (1478–1541), John Oecolampadius (1482–1531), and Guillaume Farel (1489–1565). And these are the primary theologians of the second generation: John Calvin (1509–64), Heinrich Bullinger (1504–75), Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563), Peter Martyr Vermigli (1500–62), and Andreas Hyperius (1511–64).
Bullinger in particular was more influential for 16th century thinkers than Calvin, because he was the primary author of the Second Helvetic Confession. Here is one of the most famous sermons of the day, by Bullinger on predestination, with some wonderful quotations in it from Tertullian, Theodoret, and Syrach: http://www.covenanter.org/Predestination/bullinger_04_04.html
[SIZE=+1]"Therefore the saints acknowledge, that although wars, plagues, and divers other calamities do by God's providence afflict mortal men, yet notwithstanding that the causes thereof do arise of nothing else than the sins of man. For God is good, which wisheth us rather well than evil: yea, oftentimes he of his goodness turneth our evil purposes unto good ends; as is to be seen by the history of Joseph in the book of Genesis."
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]"The doctrine of the foreknowledge and predestination of God, which hath a certain likeness with his providence, doth no less comfort the godly worshippers of God. They call foreknowledge that knowledge in God, whereby he knoweth all things before they come to pass, and seeth even present all things that are, have been, and shall be. For to the knowledge of God all things are present; nothing is past, nothing is to come. And the predestination of God is the eternal decree of God, whereby he hath ordained either to save or destroy men; a most certain end of life and death being appointed unto them. Whereupon also it is elsewhere called a fore-appointment."
[/SIZE]
Here's a very respected name in Reformed thinking, Herman Bavinck, who wrote a significant systematic theology: http://www.the-highway.com/Bavinck_predestination2.html
C. The supralapsarian and infralapsarian interpretation of the decree:
(1) Points of agreement. Both agree:
(a) That God is not the Author of sin (supra as well as infra).
(b) That Scripture (not philosophy) is the only source of our knowledge of God's decree (supra as well as infra).
(c) That man's fall and punishment is not merely the object of God's foreknowledge but of his decree and foreordination (infra as well as supra).
(d) That faith is not the cause of the decree of election, neither sin the cause of the decree of reprobation (infra as well as supra).
(2) Points of disagreement:
(a) In general, supralapsarianism places the decree of predestination proper above (supra) the decree to permit the fall (lapsus); while infralapsarianism places the decree of predestination proper below (infra) the decree to permit the fall (lapsus). Hence:
Supralapsarianism:
predestination
fall
Infralapsarianism:
fall
predestination
(b) From this general differentiation it becomes clear that supra and infra differ in regard to their presentation of the order in the elements of God's plan. The logical order according to supra:
1. a decree determining the purpose of all things, namely, the revelation of God's virtues; specifically, the revelation of his mercy in the salvation of a definite number of possible men; and the revelation of his justice in the perdition of another definite number of possible men 2. a decree to create the men thus elected and reprobated. 3. a decree to permit them to fall. 4. a decree to provide a Mediator for the elect and through him to justify them, and to condemn the reprobate.
The logical order according to infra:
1. a decree to create man in holiness and blessedness. 2. a decree to permit man to fall. 3. a decree to elect some out of this fallen multitude and to leave others in their misery. 4. a decree to bring about the salvation of the elect through Christ. See II, F.(c)
From this again it is apparent that according to supra men viewed as possible or creatable and fallible are the objects of the decree; while, according to infra men viewed as fallen are objects of the decree.
The key difference here, monsieur, is in whether or not God unconditionally elected people before or after they sinned in Adam.
The bible is truth. Truth is logically coherent. Man, on the other hand, does not always think in a logically coherent fashion. Ergo, if the Reformed theodicy has sufficient scriptural support as to the truth of TULIP, it is we who are thinking in a logically incoherent fashion.
My personal disagreement with them on the subject of election, has to do with my exegesis of Romans in keeping with the New Pauline Perspective (using the Talmud and other contemporary Jewish literature to better understand what Paul was addressing). Paul was contending against the doctrine of unconditional corporate election, that of the Jews, in order to establish a Christ centered definition of the True Israel. Under the New Pauline Perspective I don't think there is explicit exegetical support anywhere for unconditional election, and no explicit support for conditional election either. The reason I interpret the scriptures as saying that election is conditioned on faith, is my understanding of soteriology. Theodicy and soteriology are mutually contingent subjects, so it is sound to understand theodicy according to the nature of soteriology.
Without the support for unconditional election in Romans, which is considered the bedrock of that doctrine, what it boils down to is irresistible grace (monergism) vs prevenient grace (synergism) as the Holy Spirit has to be involved in the first place. If synergism is more scriptural, then we have to think in a theocentric manner and conclude that it is consistent with God's sovereignty.
Furthermore, no one thinks that they have an understanding that is both biblical and logically incoherent. The latter is something you have ascribed to them.
2. Theology doesn't redefine common words. It carefully keeps it's own technical vocabulary in check, having to adapt terms from different languages. The original Reformed thinkers were primarily writing in Swiss, German, and French during the 16th century. Obviously the English words that Reformed theologians use aren't going to mean the same thing as they do in US English, or UK English.
Technical vocabulary is developed through critical literature and dialogue. Given that, it is impossible to understand all of the technical terms by theologians or philosophers unless you have done the requisite reading on the subject. The reason such technical vocabulary is maintained, is because there are wholly different pressures on scholars than there are on the common person. Our every day vocabulary is born from a cultural dialogue, while the academic sciences are not so ethnocentric. Cultures don't strive to preserve continuity while the academic sciences do.
While I appreciate the substance of your statement here, there are no scriptural indications that people can understand the texts without adult intellectual capacity. Paul even states that the Law is a paidagogos/mentor-tutor, and that there are two stages in understanding God: milk and meat. The letter of the Law must give way to the Spirit of the Law.
What's more, while there are a number of plain statements in the Bible, we aren't the original audience. We can't expect that what was clearly communicated to them is necessarily clear for us. That would betray ignorance as to the process of history. Languages and modes of expression change.
William of Auvergne made perfect sense to Peter of Abelard when they debated over the Trinity in the 12th century, but we don't live in the 12th century. Eusebius' use of Syriac and Greek is quite plain, but the very fact that he was using 4th century Greek makes the matter not so plain. The same is true with the scriptures.
I'm comfortable examining things grammatically in the TR and BH, so I do hope that if you reference anything you are at least familiar with relevant ancient vocabulary.
Return to this post for reference material on the subject: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4470942#post4470942
und alle Herrlichkeit des Menschen
wie des Grases Blumen.
Das Gras ist verdorret
und die Blume abgefallen.
So seid nun geduldig, lieben Brüder,
bis auf die Zukunft des Herrn.
Siehe, ein Ackermann wartet
auf die köstliche Frucht der Erde
und ist geduldig darüber, bis er empfahe
den Morgenregen und Abendregen.
Aber des Herrn Wort bleibet in Ewigkeit.
Die Erlöseten des Herrn werden wieder kommen,
und gen Zion kommen mit Jauchzen;
ewige Freude wird über ihrem Haupte sein;
Freude und Wonne werden sie ergreifen
und Schmerz und Seufzen wird weg müssen.
For all flesh is as grass,
and the glory of man
like flowers.
The grass withers
and the flower falls.
Therefore be patient, dear brothers,
for the coming of the Lord.
Behold, the husbandman waits
for the delicious fruits of the earth
and is patient for it, until he receives
the morning rain and evening rain.
But the word of the Lord endures for eternity.
The redeemed of the Lord will come again,
and come to Zion with a shout;
eternal joy shall be upon her head;
They shall take joy and gladness,
and sorrow and sighing must depart.
| Denn alles Fleisch | |
Hehehe, that would depend on your book references. I'm something of a book junky. I've no doubt we'll get along. We may not find each other the most agreeable on every subject, but that's hardly a realistic expectation for anyone.
Precisely. You've made Calvinism what you need it to be. I'll be illustrating that further but let's dwell on your own definition of a No True Scotsman.
Aside from that, a major flaw in your reasoning is this historical misunderstanding that you have, that Calvin defines the group as a whole and there is no room for variety. "Calvinism" was a label given to this other primary group of the Reformation, by Luther. From the 15th century on "Calvinists" have always called themselves Reformed.
These are the primary first generation Reformed thinkers: Huldrych Zwingli (1484–1531), Martin Bucer (1491–1551), Wolfgang Capito (1478–1541), John Oecolampadius (1482–1531), and Guillaume Farel (1489–1565). And these are the primary theologians of the second generation: John Calvin (1509–64), Heinrich Bullinger (1504–75), Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563), Peter Martyr Vermigli (1500–62), and Andreas Hyperius (1511–64).
Bullinger in particular was more influential for 16th century thinkers than Calvin, because he was the primary author of the Second Helvetic Confession. Here is one of the most famous sermons of the day, by Bullinger on predestination, with some wonderful quotations in it from Tertullian, Theodoret, and Syrach: http://www.covenanter.org/Predestination/bullinger_04_04.html
[SIZE=+1]"Therefore the saints acknowledge, that although wars, plagues, and divers other calamities do by God's providence afflict mortal men, yet notwithstanding that the causes thereof do arise of nothing else than the sins of man. For God is good, which wisheth us rather well than evil: yea, oftentimes he of his goodness turneth our evil purposes unto good ends; as is to be seen by the history of Joseph in the book of Genesis."
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]"The doctrine of the foreknowledge and predestination of God, which hath a certain likeness with his providence, doth no less comfort the godly worshippers of God. They call foreknowledge that knowledge in God, whereby he knoweth all things before they come to pass, and seeth even present all things that are, have been, and shall be. For to the knowledge of God all things are present; nothing is past, nothing is to come. And the predestination of God is the eternal decree of God, whereby he hath ordained either to save or destroy men; a most certain end of life and death being appointed unto them. Whereupon also it is elsewhere called a fore-appointment."
[/SIZE]
This is merely anecdotal evidence and a truism.
If your eyes are glazed over, then it's apparent that you aren't aware of the functional difference in the orders of the decree of God.
Here's a very respected name in Reformed thinking, Herman Bavinck, who wrote a significant systematic theology: http://www.the-highway.com/Bavinck_predestination2.html
C. The supralapsarian and infralapsarian interpretation of the decree:
(1) Points of agreement. Both agree:
(a) That God is not the Author of sin (supra as well as infra).
(b) That Scripture (not philosophy) is the only source of our knowledge of God's decree (supra as well as infra).
(c) That man's fall and punishment is not merely the object of God's foreknowledge but of his decree and foreordination (infra as well as supra).
(d) That faith is not the cause of the decree of election, neither sin the cause of the decree of reprobation (infra as well as supra).
(2) Points of disagreement:
(a) In general, supralapsarianism places the decree of predestination proper above (supra) the decree to permit the fall (lapsus); while infralapsarianism places the decree of predestination proper below (infra) the decree to permit the fall (lapsus). Hence:
Supralapsarianism:
predestination
fall
Infralapsarianism:
fall
predestination
(b) From this general differentiation it becomes clear that supra and infra differ in regard to their presentation of the order in the elements of God's plan. The logical order according to supra:
1. a decree determining the purpose of all things, namely, the revelation of God's virtues; specifically, the revelation of his mercy in the salvation of a definite number of possible men; and the revelation of his justice in the perdition of another definite number of possible men 2. a decree to create the men thus elected and reprobated. 3. a decree to permit them to fall. 4. a decree to provide a Mediator for the elect and through him to justify them, and to condemn the reprobate.
The logical order according to infra:
1. a decree to create man in holiness and blessedness. 2. a decree to permit man to fall. 3. a decree to elect some out of this fallen multitude and to leave others in their misery. 4. a decree to bring about the salvation of the elect through Christ. See II, F.(c)
From this again it is apparent that according to supra men viewed as possible or creatable and fallible are the objects of the decree; while, according to infra men viewed as fallen are objects of the decree.
The key difference here, monsieur, is in whether or not God unconditionally elected people before or after they sinned in Adam.
While the form of your logic is fine, the epistemological axiom is anthropocentric rather than theocentric. That is a fundamental problem. God has revealed Himself to us through the scriptures. The scriptures interpret the scriptures, hence the historico-grammatical approach. Any other form of biblical interpretation would be eisegesis, not exegesis.
The bible is truth. Truth is logically coherent. Man, on the other hand, does not always think in a logically coherent fashion. Ergo, if the Reformed theodicy has sufficient scriptural support as to the truth of TULIP, it is we who are thinking in a logically incoherent fashion.
My personal disagreement with them on the subject of election, has to do with my exegesis of Romans in keeping with the New Pauline Perspective (using the Talmud and other contemporary Jewish literature to better understand what Paul was addressing). Paul was contending against the doctrine of unconditional corporate election, that of the Jews, in order to establish a Christ centered definition of the True Israel. Under the New Pauline Perspective I don't think there is explicit exegetical support anywhere for unconditional election, and no explicit support for conditional election either. The reason I interpret the scriptures as saying that election is conditioned on faith, is my understanding of soteriology. Theodicy and soteriology are mutually contingent subjects, so it is sound to understand theodicy according to the nature of soteriology.
Without the support for unconditional election in Romans, which is considered the bedrock of that doctrine, what it boils down to is irresistible grace (monergism) vs prevenient grace (synergism) as the Holy Spirit has to be involved in the first place. If synergism is more scriptural, then we have to think in a theocentric manner and conclude that it is consistent with God's sovereignty.
Furthermore, no one thinks that they have an understanding that is both biblical and logically incoherent. The latter is something you have ascribed to them.
1. Reformed thinkers are plenty concerned with whether or not what they say is self-consistent. Otherwise they wouldn't be making the numerous fine distinctions they have over some of the same basic positions. There would otherwise be no reason for the numerous systematic theologies, homilies, famous sermons, confessions of faith, etc.
2. Theology doesn't redefine common words. It carefully keeps it's own technical vocabulary in check, having to adapt terms from different languages. The original Reformed thinkers were primarily writing in Swiss, German, and French during the 16th century. Obviously the English words that Reformed theologians use aren't going to mean the same thing as they do in US English, or UK English.
Technical vocabulary is developed through critical literature and dialogue. Given that, it is impossible to understand all of the technical terms by theologians or philosophers unless you have done the requisite reading on the subject. The reason such technical vocabulary is maintained, is because there are wholly different pressures on scholars than there are on the common person. Our every day vocabulary is born from a cultural dialogue, while the academic sciences are not so ethnocentric. Cultures don't strive to preserve continuity while the academic sciences do.
In many such instances it is easy for the ignorant to assume all of the wrong connotations at first blush. They think in an anachronistic and ethnocentric manner.
Tell that to Job, the Apostle John, and the Apostle Paul. If everything were so easy to understand then we wouldn't have needed the Pauline epistles, and Arius wouldn't have divided the church and got Athanasius exiled.
While I appreciate the substance of your statement here, there are no scriptural indications that people can understand the texts without adult intellectual capacity. Paul even states that the Law is a paidagogos/mentor-tutor, and that there are two stages in understanding God: milk and meat. The letter of the Law must give way to the Spirit of the Law.
What's more, while there are a number of plain statements in the Bible, we aren't the original audience. We can't expect that what was clearly communicated to them is necessarily clear for us. That would betray ignorance as to the process of history. Languages and modes of expression change.
William of Auvergne made perfect sense to Peter of Abelard when they debated over the Trinity in the 12th century, but we don't live in the 12th century. Eusebius' use of Syriac and Greek is quite plain, but the very fact that he was using 4th century Greek makes the matter not so plain. The same is true with the scriptures.
So, your very human, and very fallen, moral standards are sufficient to accept or reject anything in the scriptures, at first blush? And where has any Reformed thinker ever said "God is unjust"?
God changed what? His nature? His decree? We're already in agreement on the first (hence no need for hermeneutic discussion), and at this point it's vague what change might be entailed, so let's see what you mean by God changing dramatically.
I'm comfortable examining things grammatically in the TR and BH, so I do hope that if you reference anything you are at least familiar with relevant ancient vocabulary.
What was the Platonic and Peripatetic concept of immutability? Was it identical to Augustine's concept?
There's no special interest in reading a diatribe here, monsieur. I appreciate your candor and can empathize, but let's set polemics aside and ask ourselves: what are they saying and what do they really mean when they say it? I'm not entirely confident yet that you've grasped the answer to that question.
Accepting someone's statements and then building a straw man on the basis of them being disingenuous, is a violation of the principle of charity. The principle of charity should always be our default state before we better understand an interlocutor's position. It certainly appears to me that you didn't sufficiently suspend judgement under the guidance of this principle in order to understand what exactly Reformed thinkers believe.
This is a characterization not in line with any critically acclaimed theology on either side. Read Forline's Quest for Truth and Bavinck's Systematic Theology, and you'll see that on both ends they are concerned with and discuss in many words the ultimate unity of the attributes of God, of maximal excellence in every respect.
Merely another diatribe in which you projection your impression of their system onto their own thinking. Their understanding of why it is just for God to exercise His prerogative in punishing anyone He so pleases, is informed by the Augustinian model of sin. No person deserves redemption according to his/her own merit.
Return to this post for reference material on the subject: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4470942#post4470942
Last edited:
lukecash12
New member
A little bump, so you don't have to digging for this, Clete.
I see it there! :up:
I've been short on time because of work. I'll get to it asap, I promise.
lukecash12
New member
Hey, don't sweat it. I'd like to be so short on time, myself. Just figured you find it as bothersome as I do, having to dig through one or more pages to find something. This site is pretty darned active.
This is your contention but you've failed to demonstrate that this is so nor even that there is an actual Calvinist alive that would deny believing a single one of the quotes of Calvin that I've presented. Not that such a Calvinist doesn't exist anywhere but they aren't here and I've never met one.
My definition? Who asked me what the definition of the fallacy is? The NTS fallacy has a very clear definition that I had nothing to do with developing.
No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing").
The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.
The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.
The way you are using this fallacy, if it were valid, then there would be no such thing as Calvinism. As soon as anyone proposed a set of ideas that compose what is called 'Calvinism' all anyone would have to do is come up with a single individual who disagreed on a single point while still calling himself a Calvinist to disallow the definition.
For the NTC fallacy to apply you have to just be ignoring counter examples for no reason or you have to have an unreasoned definition of the general term. Neither of which applies to what I'm doing here or to what I've been doing now for decades.
I recently started a thread called John Calvin said this... in which I've posted nine different quotes (and perhaps more to come) directly from John Calvin on Calvinism. Of course I know that it wasn't called Calvinism when he wrote his books but the point is that they are quotes concerning doctrines which have to do with Calvinism and not quote concerning some other subject like antisemitism or government policy or whatever. Here are some quotes from Calvinists on that thread...
I have no problem with this statement....
After all, Satan had to ask permission to tempt Job...
God allows Satan to do his evil for our own good and to show his grace.
God is the alpha and omega... the beginning, end and everything in between is all under his absolute control.... not a single hair falls out of your head unless he decreed it.
You are judging God based on your own sense of justice.
The devil is Gods devil,he made him and he has him under control,just where he wants him.
Looks like God predestined you not to believe the Gospel!
I don't really have a problem with any of this
Those things are sound and cannot be refuted!
God is not responsible for evil for the same reason creation happened and we exist: because he is the definer of WHAT IS. God says he is not responsible; therefore he is not responsible; because he has said he is not. By his very nature he cannot be wrong. God is the definer, man is not. God says we are responsible for the evil we do; for the mere reason that he has said we are responsible, we are responsible, and deserving of punishment.
I see no reason for a Calvinist to distance themselves from any of Calvin's remarks quoted in the OP.
God never rejected the reprobate according to His foreknowledge of their actions. God rejects reprobates according to His will. God formed all men, either for dishonor or honor, according to His willful purposes and good pleasure. To reject this truth is disbelief and a rejection of Sovereign God Himself.
After all, Satan had to ask permission to tempt Job...
God allows Satan to do his evil for our own good and to show his grace.
God is the alpha and omega... the beginning, end and everything in between is all under his absolute control.... not a single hair falls out of your head unless he decreed it.
You are judging God based on your own sense of justice.
The devil is Gods devil,he made him and he has him under control,just where he wants him.
Looks like God predestined you not to believe the Gospel!
I don't really have a problem with any of this
Those things are sound and cannot be refuted!
God is not responsible for evil for the same reason creation happened and we exist: because he is the definer of WHAT IS. God says he is not responsible; therefore he is not responsible; because he has said he is not. By his very nature he cannot be wrong. God is the definer, man is not. God says we are responsible for the evil we do; for the mere reason that he has said we are responsible, we are responsible, and deserving of punishment.
I see no reason for a Calvinist to distance themselves from any of Calvin's remarks quoted in the OP.
When considered in their full context, nor do I.
God never rejected the reprobate according to His foreknowledge of their actions. God rejects reprobates according to His will. God formed all men, either for dishonor or honor, according to His willful purposes and good pleasure. To reject this truth is disbelief and a rejection of Sovereign God Himself.
And the list of quotes of similar comments from Calvinists on this site would go into the thousands of quotes. The point being that I am not misrepresenting Calvinism. The main point of that thread was to demonstrate exactly that.
I've never, not even once, suggested that Calvin defines Calvinism but merely that Calvin was a Calvinist, even if he wouldn't have called himself that at the time. And I've also never suggested that there is no room for variety. I fully understand that there is subgroups and variation in doctrine within those groups. The fact that such variety exists doesn't imply that what I've presented as Calvinism is somehow a mischaracterization of the system.
I don't see how you didn't just prove MY point.
With one quote the will of man is vaguely affirmed as the cause of bad events (i.e. sin) and then the next quote essentially equates foreknowledge, predestination and the sovereignty of God with each other.
Notice that there is no attempt to make the two ideas make sense with each other. They (Calvinists) affirm one and they affirm the other(s). It as if they don't notice that the two are in contradiction. Perhaps its that they don't want their audience to notice. Either way, the fact is that they do contradict and a further fact is that they make no effort to reconcile the contradiction. They are happy, literally happy to to live with it. Their willingness to live with it is what they think faith is.
And to relate this directly back to what I've presented as Calvinism, the fact that there are some Calvinists who rightly credit man's sin for the evil in the world doesn't change the fact that those same Calvinists do not disagree with a syllable of the quotes I've presented from Calvin.
Now who's using the no true Scotsman fallacy?
I've got real, red blooded, living, breathing Calvinists who openly affirm the quotes from Calvin as being an accurate statements of their beliefs. You've got, at best, hypothetical Calvinists that surely must exist somewhere that might disagree with Calvin's wording or who would place the emphasis elsewhere or whatever. But not even the Calvinists you quote contradict what I've posted from Calvin.
Even this sentence glazed my eyes over!
That's an overstatement, of course but the point is that it just isn't necessary to get so complicated. You can know you screwed something up somewhere when you're having to pic at such nits. Straining out flies to swallow a camel is a bad thing! The bible is just not that difficult a book to understand.
On this topic, its as simple as understanding what love is or what justice is and knowing that God is both loving and just. Calvinism falls to bits on that one single point. The only way to salvage it is to commit an Arbitrary Redefinition (equivocation) fallacy and redefine what love and justice are, which is precisely what Calvinists do!
Its just semantics because there isn't one single Calvinists anywhere on the planet that would not absolutely affirm that God predestined and infallibly per-ordained the fall of Adam! What order God did things after that is academic.
Further according to your earlier quote...
"For to the knowledge of God all things are present; nothing is past, nothing is to come."
Thus there is no before or after the fall of Adam in the mind of ANY Calvinist (except rhetorically) including ones you cite as being even more formative of the system than Calvin himself.
The self contradictions within the Calvinists system are never ending!
This is inherently self-contradictory.
You cannot read the bible without sound reason. You cannot understand the words eisegesis or exegesis nor how to perform either without sound reason. There is no way to declare anything to be consistent with or in contradiction to the bible without sound reason. God Himself cannot reveal anything apart from sound reason for He is the very personification, indeed the incarnation of sound reason (John 1). To reject sound reason is to reject God Himself just it would be to reject love or justice. These terms derive their meaning from God's character. Thus every unbleiver who loves steals from the the Christian worldview. Every atheist who attempts to argue the non-existence of God borrows from the Christian worldview to make his argument and thus defeats himself with the first intelligable word he speaks. Similarly, attempting to suggest that one elevate the Bible above reason defeats himself by making the proposal.
By what process, other than coherent thought, do you propose to determine whether there is "sufficient scriptural support" for any doctrine you want to name?
See what I mean? Its self-contradcitory.
HA! That's a laugh!
There's a whole movement within Christiandom that is overtly anti-intellectual, the whole point of which is "It doesn't have to make sense! Stop thinking and just believe!" You don't even have to be a Calvinist to fall into that category. Nearly the whole of those who call themselves "Charasmatic" believers or "Spirit filled" are at least tacitly, if not overtly anti-intellectual.
Further, the whole purpose of the term "antinomy" is reserved as an superlogic trump card and is pulled out only when there are contradictions that cannot otherwise be resolved. If I had a dime for everytime I've heard the word 'antinomy' applied to the soverignty of God vs man's will, I'd have a lot more time for posting on TOL!
Theological hoop jumping. They want self-consistency but are willing to live without it
This is wishful thinking at best.
Ask a Calvinist what justice is. You won't get anything like, "Doing unto the criminal as he sought to do to his neighbor.", as we are taught in scripture. What you'll get is, "Whatever God says it is." In other words, "justice" is "arbitrary". Just is its opposite. How much more can a word be redefined than that?
Regardless, words mean things. Otherwise, communication is impossible. I understand that in any debate defining terms is an impotant first step but that's not what Calvinists do. They arbitrarily force common words to mean whatever they need them to mean in order to maintain two things; the absolute immutability of God and God's absolute maticulous control of everything that happens.
We will not agree on this point. The bible is easy to understand so long as you just read it. What makes it difficult is the doctrines you bring to it that aren't there. People who think that God controls everything that happens are going to get confused inside of two pages of the book of Genisis.
EVERY Reformed thinker who declares that God per-ordained sin and that those who He for-ordained to sin are also per-ordained to be punished for that sin have said that God is unjust.
They were never say verbatim that "God is unjust." because they've defined the word "just" to mean "anything God does or says".
God became a man with a physical body.
God the Son died, both spiritually and physically (i.e. His spirit was separated from His body - physical death and He was separated from the Father - spiritual death.
God rose from the dead, both spritually and physically.
To deny any one of these points is anti-Christ and denies the whole Christian religion. To accepts any one of them is to deny Calvinism's core doctrines.
Okay - Out of time! That's plenty enough for now anyway.
Resting in Him,
Clete
lukecash12
New member
I've given quotations from two of the primary Reformed confessions of faith (the WCF and Canons of Dordt, articles 4-6), referenced a second generation Reformed thinker who was more influential at that time (Bullinger); referenced Herman Bavinck, and in doing so pointing out that the view of double predestination that you portray in the OP is a description of hyper-Calvinists/supralapsarians. And let's not forget that I even mentioned four-point Calvinists, namely Augustus Hopkins Strong and Millard J. Erickson.
All the while, what we've seen from you is nothing but a few quotations from Calvin and anecdotal statements. I just so happen to have anecdotal experiences to the contrary, having known plenty of Calvinists that distinguish between necessary/primary and contingent/secondary causes. "Living breathing 'Calvinists'", monsieur, "living and breathing".
You have fostered the wrong impression, my friend. Let's not forget the usefulness of the principle of charity, lest we go off on irrelevant tangents because of an unwarranted assumption. I was agreeing with your definition, because of course that is the definition that any proper logician would use.
But I digress... what I had actually meant by that statement was that you agreed to the correction definition, and that should give us some pause as we examine what you were claiming. At this point I've referenced Reformed thinkers all the way from the first generation up to now. These references have unanimously contradicted your earlier claim, given the "train of the ungodly" quotation, that Reformed thinkers all believe that God damns the reprobate through necessary as opposed to contingent causes.
This is the crux of why I believe you are committing a No True Scotsman. You have dismissed my counter examples out of hand.
Sorry, no offense to the more reasonable people that frequent this site, but this isn't exactly the best place to go looking for representatives of a school of theology or a denomination.
You're right, especially in the last sentence here. However, there are numerous facts so far that you've ignored. So far, you haven't provided a single credible source as to why all Reformed thinkers have the same ideas as Calvin on double predestination. What you have provided so far is some quotation from Calvin and your own anecdotal opinion.
What I have provided so far, on the other hand, is key quotations from two different confessions of faith that whole Reformed denominations are based on. Presbyterians are required to affirm the WCF, for example. That's why I went to Dordt and WCF first, because there are several denominations centered around them. That is specifically how you are characterizing Reformed thinkers incorrectly. Calvin was an influential theologian, but he did not write any statements of faith that denominations are based on today. Those statements of faith contradict him, and people of those denominations are called "Calvinists", ergo they have every reason to call themselves Reformed.
What on earth is your point? That what they believe doesn't make sense? Or that in spite of what they say you somehow have this special knowledge as to what they really mean? That they don't really believe God is just, etc.?
Here's the rub: your quotations from Calvin don't determine what whole denominations believe. The four primary documents that fill that role are the WCF, Canons of Dordt, the Belgic Confession, and the Second Helvetic Confession (primarily authored by Bullinger). You say you've read them. If that's so, go ahead and find me a single quote from one of them explicitly indicating belief in the same idea that you've quoted from Calvin. I've already given quotations from two of them that explicitly deny necessary instead of contingent causes for people being reprobate.
Oh, really? The numerous sentences that I underlined just flew right past your head?
And this is where you establish your pomposity to the point that I lose interest entirely in having a discussion. This is exactly why I wasn't wont to do this in the first place. I try to point out the meaning of distinctions you have trivialized, pointing out specifically how infralapsarians don't subscribe to your idea of Calvinist double predestination. You blithely disregard it, and any explanation of it glazes your eyes over. So this is me, having lost interest; the field is yours.
God bless.
I wasn't being blithe, I was being hyperbolic - silly even. How could that single sentence have actually glazed anyone eyes over? I even said as much in the very next sentence and went on to explain my point fully. What's there to be so upset about?
If I'm actually being rude to you, you'll know it, Luke! You won't have to worry about misunderstanding me. You needn't be so thinned skinned. Up until this last paragraph I was thinking you'd posted a pretty good post! Someone who knows something about what he's talking about and is able to articulate himself is rather in the minority around here. I thought this was going actually be fun! It isn't going to be fun at all if you're all the time getting your feelings hurt because you think everything I say is me being mean.
All you need to know is that I get angry when people blaspheme God or say really truly stupid things. And when that happens, I don't continue the conversation in the very next sentence like nothing happened. And I definitely do not spend two and half hours typing up a response to the rest of their post.
That's a typical question coming from a guy who has "do right or face the consequences" in his profile. You have the wrong idea of God and you're in traditions of men instead.
God arranges circumstances. God put the house in front of the murder on purpose. God put the house in front of the home owner on purpose. The murderer is happy. The home owner is happy. God is happy. so yes it was God that put the house in front of the murder while you think God shouldn't have anything to do with the house. This is an illusion of what you think God is. If I were you , I would check out calvinism due to being an honest theology.
lukecash12
New member
| Lord, do not pass judgment on Your servant | |
Herr, gehe nicht ins Gericht mit deinem Knecht. Denn vor dir wird kein Lebendiger gerecht.
Lord, go thou not into court with this thy thrall, since with thee there is no living person just.
Mein Gott, verwirf mich nicht,
Indem ich mich in Demut vor dir beuge,
Von deinem Angesicht.
Ich weiß, wie groß dein Zorn und mein Verbrechen ist,
Dass du zugleich ein schneller Zeuge
Und ein gerechter Richter bist.
Ich lege dir ein frei Bekenntnis dar
Und stürze mich nicht in Gefahr,
Die Fehler meiner Seelen
Zu leugnen, zu verhehlen!
My God, reject me not,
While I myself now humbly bow before thee,
From thine own countenance.
I know, though great thy wrath and mine own wickedness,
That thou art both a ready witness
And a most righteous judge as well.
I give to thee my free confession now
And cast myself not in great risk,
That I my soul's own failings
Disclaim now, or keep hidden.
Let me be a little frank then, so we can clear this up: I have problems with being too literal minded. This is because I have ASD, which I didn't particularly want to mention, as even saying that you have a neurological disorder can make things even more confusing for everyone. So, when you used hyperbole I very literally took that as you disregarding my efforts, to clear up why something that sounds overcomplicated actually means something, that infra vs supra involves substantial differences as to what predestination is.
Sorry about that. It's very difficult to understand the subtext people use when you have a related neurological problem. The simplest way I could put it is that most people have more information to work off of in social situations, so I'm stuck somewhere behind trying to figure out all the subtext. Give me a math problem to figure out, discuss with me some seemingly complicated term, put me on Jeopardy, I'm fine, but ask me to figure out when someone is being coy or using hyperbole and more often than not you'll get the wrong answer.
So... where were we?
It doesn't seem complicated at all to me. Infra thinkers see primary and secondary causes, supra thinkers see only primary causes. How is that so?
From Bavinck on supra:
1. a decree determining the purpose of all things, namely, the revelation of God's virtues; specifically, the revelation of his mercy in the salvation of a definite number of possible men; and the revelation of his justice in the perdition of another definite number of possible men 2. a decree to create the men thus elected and reprobated.
On infra:
1. a decree to create man in holiness and blessedness. 2. a decree to permit man to fall. 3. a decree to elect some out of this fallen multitude and to leave others in their misery.
The difference seems pretty clear to me, it's not hard to go from either viewpoint to how they work out in the scriptures. Think of the way the first part of the decree is stated in the infralapsarian order. This is why many people have called supralapsarians "hyper-Calvinists", as they agree with Calvinist's "train of the ungodly". Supralapsarians are a minority.
While it's on my mind, I'd like to point out that the Canons of Dordt were a response to the remonstrance/petition (hence the name "Remonstrants") sent to the Synod of Dordt by the first Arminian group, primarily led by Johannes Wtenbogaert and Jan Uytenbogaert. Reformed belief was already establish before that statement of the five points, aka TULIP. In fact, there were already some notable Reformed thinkers that believed in unlimited atonement, that we would call four-point Calvinists today.
"Pre-ordained" and "actively caused" aren't identical, at least in a Calvinist's mind. If you have a problem with that logic, so be it. But we have to at least register what they are, and why there is an actual difference between what most Reformed thinkers believe and what Calvin believed. There is a distinction to them between types of causes.
What you're suggesting (at least so far as I can tell), however, is that we can go beyond the grammatico-historical approach and insert our own ideas about justice, etc. to see what the bible is saying, that we can use our own broken moral capacities to look at the bible and determine what is moral.
On the contrary, it is the bible that tells us what is moral. We can't look at the bible and say to ourselves "well it can't be saying this because I don't agree with that", rather the impetus is on us to better learn what the scriptures have to say and go from there.
Not really. I was making a distinction between a posteriori reasoning in the case of the scriptures, and a priori reasoning in the case of pre-filtering the a posteriori information with our own rationalizations. There's nothing contradictory about the idea that our a priori reasoning is flawed, and in need of being amended by a posteriori reasoning, through the scriptures.
The Lord Himself points out that we need to test things against the information we've already been given ("see that you're not led astray"), in the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13, Matthew 24, Luke 21) and elsewhere.
For clarity's sake: I had meant that in reference to the group in question. About as "anti" intellectual as Reformed thinkers get is in the realm of Reformed epistemology, e.g. Kierkegaard, Plantinga, the sensus divinitatus, and I wouldn't say that such material is militant against reason at all. Now, is there an abundance of lay persons with a different attitude? Absolutely. Lay persons have much of the same tendencies in every denomination in all of Christendom, for Pete's sake!
However that term might be misused by some people, it primarily came into use during the great debates between the followers of Thomas Aquinas and William of Ockham, over Nominalism vs Realism. Sorry... I can get pretty nerdy about anything to do with epistemology and math, lol.
So you just magically know what everyone is thinking? You somehow know that, despite them actually believing in something, they know it doesn't make sense and they've decided to live with it? Let me guess, more references to anecdotal examples...
You certainly wouldn't find a description like that in Reformed literature. But I'm sure you would hear just that if you asked anyone in such a denomination that question on the street.
Your idea of an arbitrary definition is hundreds of years old. Doesn't seem all that arbitrary to me. Rather, it seems like the universe of discourse is quite a bit older than modern English, hence the words they've had to borrow from English, for the benefit of English speakers who don't speak Latin, etc., are not going to mean what they do in the common vernacular.
Please ruminate with me for a second on this emboldened portion. Do you mean to say that all considerations of anachronism should go out the window, that we should blindly trust everything in a translation and think as if we are the original audience?
As for the underlined portion, I believe you are entirely underestimating the biblical knowledge of people who believe in predestination. You may disagree with people, but your mere disagreement doesn't make any other party than your own ignorant.
(A) Are you at all able to recognize a distinction in the nature of different kinds of causes?
(B) How do you define the word "just"? What is your response to portions of Job which state that we all deserve condemnation? Grace is unmerited, correct?
Except Reformed thinkers affirm each of the original Ecumenical Creeds, including the Apostle's Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Definition of Chalcedon. Augustine did as well. So maybe your idea of how they use the word "immutable" is a bit off? Or are you right across the board about everything... not even willing to assent to that? Go ahead and find me one reference to a thinker in the Augustinian tradition who uses the word "immutable" to describe anything other than God's divine nature.
Last edited:
First I want to thank you Luke for your willingness to continue. I've spent half a day responding to what you've said. I've not been this compelled to research and to think in quite a long time.
This post is ridiculously long! I don't expect and would actually prefer that you not respond to it all. These posts when responded to point for point as I have done here get to be exponential in their growth. So please feel free to just pick a handful of things to respond to or else just respond with a general response or whatever you like.
God bless you!
I read your quotes and I'm sorry but it just seems to me to all be so much semantics. Again, and I'm not trying to just be stubborn here, the Calvinist doesn't mind having doctrines that contradict one another. They, of course, would say that they only seem to contradict and call it an antinomy but regardless of what they call it, the end result is the same. Out of one side of their mouth, the Calvinists you site say,
And then in the very same breath, but out of the other side of their mouth they say,
To which I respond, "Saying it doesn't make it so!"
I get your point. You're saying that they say they believe something and so I don't get to claim that they believe the contrary.
Except that I do get to claim that so long as I can establish what I claim. And I say that I've more than established it, I've proven it. I've been debating Calvinists for well over a decade and not just here on TOL. I've debated them on their own websites. Never one time have I ever come across a single Calvinist who has denied believing not only that God per-ordained every event that occurs but that God Himself is actively holding every atom in the universe together and that nothing could occur without God's sovereign hand firmly in the mix.
Further, it is the Westminster Confession of Faith itself that teaches "double predestination" (not there could rationally be any other kind).
It goes on to say...
So, if the predestination to life happened without cause then on what basis does any Calvinist claim that the predestination to death was WITH cause? The consistent ones make no such claim and the inconsistent ones try to come up with all kinds of confusing rationalizations but at the end of the day still maintain that God's absolute meticulous and personal control of every event that occurs is fully intact.
In other words, their objection to "double predestination" is semantics. It is semantics, Luke! I have no doubt that there's Calvinists out there that would jump up and down and pound their fists insisting that they do not believe that God causes sin but they cannot escape the rational implications of their core doctrines. Doctrines that they do not deny and are unwilling to modify in spite of the clear problems it causes in regards to the nature and source of sin.
Well, alright then lets look at the WCF....
It is my contention that the latter comment concerning where sin proceeds from is nothing at all but pure lip service. It is the author's own testimony against himself. He knows that what he's just written accuses God of evil and so throws in a comment to the contrary to salve the conviction of his own heart. I admit readily that I cannot prove that contention but I do, nevertheless, believe it. I can see no other reason why it needs to be in there.
I don't deny that they actually believe what they say they believe but people can believe whatever they choose to believe. Branch Davidians believed (and some still do) that David Coresh was the second coming of Christ. Oprah Winfrey believes she's a wise woman. Just as their belief is not evidence that they are right nor is it evidence that they are self-consistent.
And you do have to be careful about what the Calvinist means when he speaks. You cannot take the statement "God is just." at face value because they will do whatever is needed to the definition of the word "just" to maintain their belief that God acts in an arbitrary manner.
To be more precise, in a discussion about justice the distinction between necessary and contingent is meaningless because regardless of the cause, or whether that cause was primary or secondary or necessary or contingent, the effect could not have been otherwise. In other words, the following axiom cannot be denied by any Calvinist...
God's decree, therefore (fill in the blank). - i.e. you eating a chicken for dinner, someone shooting JFK, 9/11, Christmas, the fall of Adam, Calvary, righteousness, sin, whatever.
What occurs in between God's decree and the event is academic. Further, whatever causes falls in between God's decree and the event where themselves decreed by God, according to the Calvinist.
If assigning the label "broken capacities" to the use of sound reason was appropriate then there would be no way for us to understand anything. If you argue that the bible teaches that our minds are broken then I would ask by what process you came to understand that the bible taught that? By what process did you read the bible and discern the nature of morality if not by the application of sound reason?
There is no way to "learn what the scriptures have to say and go from there" apart from the application of sound reason. There is NO other way.
The mistake you are making here is a very common one. That mistake being that the bible is somehow super-rational. That God Himself is super-rational. He is not! God is no more super-rational than He is super-just or super-love. God not only is loving, He is love. God not only is righteous, He is righteousness. In the first chapter of John we learn that God is Logos. God is logic. God is not only logical, He is logic. Attempting to understand the bible without sound reason is an attempt to understand God's word without God. It is fundamentally self-contradictory.
Here is just one quote that is typical of Christian thought regardless of denomination...
I'm not new to this topic, Luke. You aren't the first to make these arguments and you won't be the last. I've debated lay people, pastors and professors and I've read or listened to every debate on the topic I can lay my hands on. I've read C.S. Lewis, R.C. Sproul., Pink and half a dozen other Calvinists on a wide variety of subjects and have yet to find one that did not hold to the belief that God is utterly immutable and that therefore His decrees are immutable and will immutably come to pass. Some give more accommodation to man's will than others but it is always an accommodation, and they are always left with the choice of undermining either God's immutability or man's will and they universally choose to undermine man's will, never even questioning whether their understanding of God's immutability needs looked at.
What you will find and what I have already quoted is their belief that God chooses people to save (or condemn) arbitrarily. Salvation, in the mind of ANY Calvinist, is by God's arbitrary decree.
Their ONLY defense against the accusation that such arbitrary action on God's part is unjust is to say that it is just because God did it (an argument that has been made on this very thread) and then, if pressed, to pull out the antinomy card. It is another example of blind belief. They DO consider their willingness to believe both things as faith and piety.
If, for example, we were debating the color of the sky and you decided that it was red instead of blue. If you redefined the words "red" and "sky" so that the statement, "The sky is red." is true, it wouldn't mean you won the debate. It would mean that you cheated.
My only point is that the bible is not even 10% as complicated as most theologians turn it into. You can, for the most part, simply read the bible and understand what its talking about. It isn't written in code such that only the experts can get it. It was written in normal language to normal people and most translations get it mostly right.
The word means what it means.
Justice is righteousness. If I'm not mistaken, the Hebrew language uses the same word for both, the distinction, if any, being determined by the context.
In interactions with other people it is encapsulated by the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In criminal justice it is the converse, thus it justly is done unto the criminal as he did or sought to do unto his neighbor (i.e. an eye for an eye).
The bible constantly likens justice to a financial transaction where a debt is owed by the sinner and must be paid either by the sinner himself or by a substitute. The point being that justice includes the concept of equability or fairness. If a man has stolen $100 it would not be just to require him to pay $20,000. Nor would it be just to punish a man for an offense he was not guilty of or that was an accident. (Calvinism's predestination and sovereignty of God doctrines reduce every event to accidents in so far as man's will is concerned.)
The bottom line here is that justice is not arbitrary. There is a standard, that standard being righteousness. To believe that God is arbitrary, as ALL Calvinists do, is to believe God is unrighteous.
But not in the Calvinist sense of the word! God is NOT arbitrary!
My sister gave me a very expensive watch one year for my birthday. I didn't earn that watch. It was a gift. My opening the package and putting the watch on my arm didn't earn me the watch. It was a gift that I did not earn and that was offered freely out of love and that I accepted in love.
In the same fashion, God decided to pay the sin debt of the whole world (which He did not have to do but that was His prerogative) and elected to save those who would respond to Him in faith. Thus grace is not antithetical to justice, as the Calvinist repeatedly claims, but is in complete compliance with it. For if justice requires our death and God can do ANYTHING at all and remain just then where is the need for Christ's death?
Again, they love to have their cake and to eat it too. They simply are fine with the contradictory nature of their beliefs.
I do not deny that they wholeheartedly affirm the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ but pin them down on whether God died for the sin and they'll get all squirmy and uncomfortable. And they get that way because they are ABSOLUTELY not willing to accept the notion that God can change - period.
and elsewhere Sproul writes...
When we consider love as an attribute of God, we recognize that it is defined in relation to all the other attributes of God. This is true not only of love but also of every other attribute of God. It is important to remember that when we speak of the attributes of God, we are speaking of properties that cannot be reduced to composite parts. One of the first affirmations we make about the nature of God is that He is not a composite being. Rather we confess that God is a simple being. This does not mean that God is "easy" in the sense that a simple task is not a difficult task. Here simplicity is not contrasted with difficulty but with composition. A being who is composite is made up of definite parts. As a human creature, I am composed of many parts, such as arms, legs, eyes, ears, lungs, etc.
As a simple being, God is not made up of parts as we are. This is crucial to any proper understanding of the nature of God. This means that God is not partly immutable, partly omniscient, partly omnipotent, or partly infinite. He is not constructed of a section or segment of being that is then added to other sections or segments to comprise the whole of God. It is not so much that God has attributes but rather that He is His attributes. In simple terms (as distinct from difficult terms) this means that all of God's attributes help define all of His other attributes. For example, when we say God is immutable, we are also saying that His immutability is an eternal immutability, an omnipotent immutability, a holy immutability, a loving immutability, etc. By the same token His love is an immutable love, an eternal love, an omnipotent love, a holy love, etc. - emphasis added - R.C. Sproul - Loved by God Chapter 1
Sproul on whether God changes His mind...
And finally (This is a great example of an appeal to antinomy (mystery) where Sproul simply affirms both that God became a man and that God is immutable with no attempt to reconcile the two. Keep in mind also what I've already quoted Sproul as saying about the simplicity of God and how you cannot separate any one aspect of God from another.)...
Resting in Him,
Clete
This post is ridiculously long! I don't expect and would actually prefer that you not respond to it all. These posts when responded to point for point as I have done here get to be exponential in their growth. So please feel free to just pick a handful of things to respond to or else just respond with a general response or whatever you like.
God bless you!
I read your quotes and I'm sorry but it just seems to me to all be so much semantics. Again, and I'm not trying to just be stubborn here, the Calvinist doesn't mind having doctrines that contradict one another. They, of course, would say that they only seem to contradict and call it an antinomy but regardless of what they call it, the end result is the same. Out of one side of their mouth, the Calvinists you site say,
"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and immutably ordain whatsoever comes to pass".
And then in the very same breath, but out of the other side of their mouth they say,
"yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."
To which I respond, "Saying it doesn't make it so!"
I get your point. You're saying that they say they believe something and so I don't get to claim that they believe the contrary.
Except that I do get to claim that so long as I can establish what I claim. And I say that I've more than established it, I've proven it. I've been debating Calvinists for well over a decade and not just here on TOL. I've debated them on their own websites. Never one time have I ever come across a single Calvinist who has denied believing not only that God per-ordained every event that occurs but that God Himself is actively holding every atom in the universe together and that nothing could occur without God's sovereign hand firmly in the mix.
Further, it is the Westminster Confession of Faith itself that teaches "double predestination" (not there could rationally be any other kind).
By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death. - Westminster Confession of Faith ch. 3
I quoted the WCF chapter 3 a moment ago.
It goes on to say...
Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace.
So, if the predestination to life happened without cause then on what basis does any Calvinist claim that the predestination to death was WITH cause? The consistent ones make no such claim and the inconsistent ones try to come up with all kinds of confusing rationalizations but at the end of the day still maintain that God's absolute meticulous and personal control of every event that occurs is fully intact.
In other words, their objection to "double predestination" is semantics. It is semantics, Luke! I have no doubt that there's Calvinists out there that would jump up and down and pound their fists insisting that they do not believe that God causes sin but they cannot escape the rational implications of their core doctrines. Doctrines that they do not deny and are unwilling to modify in spite of the clear problems it causes in regards to the nature and source of sin.
But not without cause! I reject them because they do not establish your claim. I've not denied that such Calvinists exist. I've claimed that because they exist does not mean that what I've presented as Calvinism is inaccurate. What I've presented is not inaccurate at all. The exceptions you present, if anything, prove the rule.
Well, alright then lets look at the WCF....
Chapter 5
God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.
The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin
And so, once again, out of one side of the mouth comes one thing and from the other side, its opposite.God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.
The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin
It is my contention that the latter comment concerning where sin proceeds from is nothing at all but pure lip service. It is the author's own testimony against himself. He knows that what he's just written accuses God of evil and so throws in a comment to the contrary to salve the conviction of his own heart. I admit readily that I cannot prove that contention but I do, nevertheless, believe it. I can see no other reason why it needs to be in there.
Both!
I don't deny that they actually believe what they say they believe but people can believe whatever they choose to believe. Branch Davidians believed (and some still do) that David Coresh was the second coming of Christ. Oprah Winfrey believes she's a wise woman. Just as their belief is not evidence that they are right nor is it evidence that they are self-consistent.
And you do have to be careful about what the Calvinist means when he speaks. You cannot take the statement "God is just." at face value because they will do whatever is needed to the definition of the word "just" to maintain their belief that God acts in an arbitrary manner.
I guess what I'm saying is that "necessary vs. contingent" causes is a distinction without a difference. It's similar to discussing the "perfect vs. permissive" will of God. The later category being inclusive of everything, including everything in the former category. Making the distinction meaningless.
To be more precise, in a discussion about justice the distinction between necessary and contingent is meaningless because regardless of the cause, or whether that cause was primary or secondary or necessary or contingent, the effect could not have been otherwise. In other words, the following axiom cannot be denied by any Calvinist...
God's decree, therefore (fill in the blank). - i.e. you eating a chicken for dinner, someone shooting JFK, 9/11, Christmas, the fall of Adam, Calvary, righteousness, sin, whatever.
What occurs in between God's decree and the event is academic. Further, whatever causes falls in between God's decree and the event where themselves decreed by God, according to the Calvinist.
The WCF and virtually every Calvinist I've ever come across wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want it both ways as is demonstrated by what I've already quoted directly from the WCF.
Again, self-contradictory.
If assigning the label "broken capacities" to the use of sound reason was appropriate then there would be no way for us to understand anything. If you argue that the bible teaches that our minds are broken then I would ask by what process you came to understand that the bible taught that? By what process did you read the bible and discern the nature of morality if not by the application of sound reason?
There is no way to "learn what the scriptures have to say and go from there" apart from the application of sound reason. There is NO other way.
Then answer the question. By what process, other than coherent thought (a.k.a. sound reason) do you distinguish a posteriori from a priori? By what process do you determine which are flawed and need amending and to what degree and in which direction? By what process, if not sound reason, do you "test things against the information we've already been given"?
The mistake you are making here is a very common one. That mistake being that the bible is somehow super-rational. That God Himself is super-rational. He is not! God is no more super-rational than He is super-just or super-love. God not only is loving, He is love. God not only is righteous, He is righteousness. In the first chapter of John we learn that God is Logos. God is logic. God is not only logical, He is logic. Attempting to understand the bible without sound reason is an attempt to understand God's word without God. It is fundamentally self-contradictory.
You cannot be seriously suggesting that the acceptance of antinomy is not common place throughout Christianity.
Here is just one quote that is typical of Christian thought regardless of denomination...
"...the heretic often refuses to recognize that Christian Revelation contains truths that sometimes have two sides irreconcilable by human reason. One example of a Christian antinomy is the truth that God is almighty, or omnipotent, and yet that men also have been given free-will by their creator." - C.B. Moss, D.D - "The Christian Faith: An Introduction to Dogmatic Theology"
It isn't magic. Its called long experience. That and I can read.
I'm not new to this topic, Luke. You aren't the first to make these arguments and you won't be the last. I've debated lay people, pastors and professors and I've read or listened to every debate on the topic I can lay my hands on. I've read C.S. Lewis, R.C. Sproul., Pink and half a dozen other Calvinists on a wide variety of subjects and have yet to find one that did not hold to the belief that God is utterly immutable and that therefore His decrees are immutable and will immutably come to pass. Some give more accommodation to man's will than others but it is always an accommodation, and they are always left with the choice of undermining either God's immutability or man's will and they universally choose to undermine man's will, never even questioning whether their understanding of God's immutability needs looked at.
You aren't likely to find an overt definition of justice in any Calvinists literature at all! Its as if they avoid the subject except to state their belief that God is just.
What you will find and what I have already quoted is their belief that God chooses people to save (or condemn) arbitrarily. Salvation, in the mind of ANY Calvinist, is by God's arbitrary decree.
Their ONLY defense against the accusation that such arbitrary action on God's part is unjust is to say that it is just because God did it (an argument that has been made on this very thread) and then, if pressed, to pull out the antinomy card. It is another example of blind belief. They DO consider their willingness to believe both things as faith and piety.
Arbitrary is perhaps the wrong word. They do have a reason for changing the definitions of common words. That reason being the preservation of the core doctrines. My point is that it is not a valid tactic.
If, for example, we were debating the color of the sky and you decided that it was red instead of blue. If you redefined the words "red" and "sky" so that the statement, "The sky is red." is true, it wouldn't mean you won the debate. It would mean that you cheated.
No, I don't mean that. That would be definitely taking my position too far.
My only point is that the bible is not even 10% as complicated as most theologians turn it into. You can, for the most part, simply read the bible and understand what its talking about. It isn't written in code such that only the experts can get it. It was written in normal language to normal people and most translations get it mostly right.
As I said before, they are distinctions without a difference. They seem entirely rhetorical.
I do not get to define the word "just".
The word means what it means.
Justice is righteousness. If I'm not mistaken, the Hebrew language uses the same word for both, the distinction, if any, being determined by the context.
In interactions with other people it is encapsulated by the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In criminal justice it is the converse, thus it justly is done unto the criminal as he did or sought to do unto his neighbor (i.e. an eye for an eye).
The bible constantly likens justice to a financial transaction where a debt is owed by the sinner and must be paid either by the sinner himself or by a substitute. The point being that justice includes the concept of equability or fairness. If a man has stolen $100 it would not be just to require him to pay $20,000. Nor would it be just to punish a man for an offense he was not guilty of or that was an accident. (Calvinism's predestination and sovereignty of God doctrines reduce every event to accidents in so far as man's will is concerned.)
The bottom line here is that justice is not arbitrary. There is a standard, that standard being righteousness. To believe that God is arbitrary, as ALL Calvinists do, is to believe God is unrighteous.
All have rebelled against the God of life and therefore deserve death.
Of course!
But not in the Calvinist sense of the word! God is NOT arbitrary!
My sister gave me a very expensive watch one year for my birthday. I didn't earn that watch. It was a gift. My opening the package and putting the watch on my arm didn't earn me the watch. It was a gift that I did not earn and that was offered freely out of love and that I accepted in love.
In the same fashion, God decided to pay the sin debt of the whole world (which He did not have to do but that was His prerogative) and elected to save those who would respond to Him in faith. Thus grace is not antithetical to justice, as the Calvinist repeatedly claims, but is in complete compliance with it. For if justice requires our death and God can do ANYTHING at all and remain just then where is the need for Christ's death?
Nope!
Again, they love to have their cake and to eat it too. They simply are fine with the contradictory nature of their beliefs.
I do not deny that they wholeheartedly affirm the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ but pin them down on whether God died for the sin and they'll get all squirmy and uncomfortable. And they get that way because they are ABSOLUTELY not willing to accept the notion that God can change - period.
I'm willing to accent to anything that you can demonstrate. But you'll fail to demonstrate that I've got this one wrong.
I could quote nearly any Calvinist you want to name from Calvin on through to R.C. Sproul! In fact, let me just quote Sproul (Calvin's position isn't in dispute)...
It [divine immutability] is likely the most overlooked, under appreciated, unknown attribute of the living God. Of course we are in grave danger indeed if we seek to pit against one another or to rank in relative importance the attributes of God. The doctrine of His simplicity reminds us that God is one, that He is not composed of parts. The attributes of God are not like that old spiritual, Dry Bones, wherein we affirm that the wrath bone’s connected to the justice bone, the justice bone’s connected to the omniscience bone. Neither does God find balance between competing qualities, as if His wrath were muted by His grace, or His love tempered by His holiness. These are all one, the same thing. In the end all of what He is He is because He is God.
and elsewhere Sproul writes...
When we consider love as an attribute of God, we recognize that it is defined in relation to all the other attributes of God. This is true not only of love but also of every other attribute of God. It is important to remember that when we speak of the attributes of God, we are speaking of properties that cannot be reduced to composite parts. One of the first affirmations we make about the nature of God is that He is not a composite being. Rather we confess that God is a simple being. This does not mean that God is "easy" in the sense that a simple task is not a difficult task. Here simplicity is not contrasted with difficulty but with composition. A being who is composite is made up of definite parts. As a human creature, I am composed of many parts, such as arms, legs, eyes, ears, lungs, etc.
As a simple being, God is not made up of parts as we are. This is crucial to any proper understanding of the nature of God. This means that God is not partly immutable, partly omniscient, partly omnipotent, or partly infinite. He is not constructed of a section or segment of being that is then added to other sections or segments to comprise the whole of God. It is not so much that God has attributes but rather that He is His attributes. In simple terms (as distinct from difficult terms) this means that all of God's attributes help define all of His other attributes. For example, when we say God is immutable, we are also saying that His immutability is an eternal immutability, an omnipotent immutability, a holy immutability, a loving immutability, etc. By the same token His love is an immutable love, an eternal love, an omnipotent love, a holy love, etc. - emphasis added - R.C. Sproul - Loved by God Chapter 1
Sproul on whether God changes His mind...
Does God Change His Mind? If God is immutable, if He does not change at all, does that mean He never changes His mind either? This is a very thorny problem. The Bible appears to say at times that God changed His mind. - (He goes on to explain how the biblical references to God changing His mind are figures of speech.) - One Holy Passion by R.C. Sproul.
And finally (This is a great example of an appeal to antinomy (mystery) where Sproul simply affirms both that God became a man and that God is immutable with no attempt to reconcile the two. Keep in mind also what I've already quoted Sproul as saying about the simplicity of God and how you cannot separate any one aspect of God from another.)...
Christ’s existence as true God and true man, as well as the reality of the transcendent Lord of glory entering into history to save His people, are both profound mysteries. What we do know is that, against those who would espouse a “kenotic Christology,” the Son did not give up any of the attributes that are essential to deity in the incarnation. Instead, He manifested the form of God in the likeness of humanity. Augustine wrote, “He is said to have ‘emptied himself’ in no other way than by taking the form of a servant, not by losing the form of God. For that nature by which he is equal to the Father in the form of God remained immutable while he took our mutable nature” - emphasis added - From Ligonier Ministries, the teaching fellowship of R.C. Sproul
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited: