I have a question for Calvinists...
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
In other words you do not believe that the concept of justice can be rightly applied to God.
That was not a question, by the way. That is what you are saying, whether you acknowledge it or not.
You can't have just intentionally suggested that God THOUGHT something but was wrong!
You need to work on your analogy skills.
The corrected analogy would include the idea that you have a petri dish that you intentionally contaminated for inscrutable reasons just so you could punish the little contaminated critters.
As I said, the concept of justice doesn't apply to your god. The God of Scripture however....
Deuteronomy 32:
3 For I proclaim the name of the Lord:
Ascribe greatness to our God.
4 He is the Rock, His work is perfect;
For all His ways are justice,
A God of truth and without injustice;
Righteous and upright is He.
3 For I proclaim the name of the Lord:
Ascribe greatness to our God.
4 He is the Rock, His work is perfect;
For all His ways are justice,
A God of truth and without injustice;
Righteous and upright is He.
Was Moses wrong for judging God?
And twice the Psalmist says...
Psalms 89: 14 Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne; Mercy and truth go before Your face.
Psalms 97:1 The Lord reigns;
Let the earth rejoice;
Let the multitude of isles be glad!
2 Clouds and darkness surround Him;
Righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne.
Psalms 97:1 The Lord reigns;
Let the earth rejoice;
Let the multitude of isles be glad!
2 Clouds and darkness surround Him;
Righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne.
How about David? Was he not being mindful of his place when he judged God to be righteous? Was he wrong to state that God's righteousness and justice where more fundamental than His sovereignty?
Resting in Him,
Clete
musterion
Well-known member
Total Depravity: the belief that man not only will not but CANNOT believe unless God quickens him to be able to do so, which then saves him. Everything else flows from that. From that false foundation, the Gospel is rendered a sham and God is reduced to a liar and unjust judge. Hence the belief of many, myself included, that Calvinism is a literal cult with a false gospel and a blasphemous view of God.
This is question begging to start with but ignoring that, I am basing my judgement of YOUR god's work (not the God of Scripture) on the basis of the principles of righteousness and justice as taught in Scripture. A god that sets your house on fire so that he can rescue some of its occupants while stating that the one's who he left to burn deserved to die is not a just god. He is a sick sadist!
You misunderstand the analogy!
The house represents your spiritual condition! If you are lost (i.e. if your house is on fire) its because God caused it to be so for you are entirely incapable of doing other than what God preordained that you would do.
“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)
Resting in Him,
Clete
I agree with the thrust of your post but submit that the doctrine of Total Depravity is itself logically predicated upon the doctrine of Absolute Divine Immutability. The entire system has A.D.I as its bedrock foundation.
But still - Great point! We can quibble about which doctrine is more fundamental all we like but the main point is the same. There are probably half a dozen points that one can focus an attack which wields a death blow to the entire Calvinist system.
Resting in Him,
Clete
glorydaz
Well-known member
Total Depravity is a huge one. I've always considered that their biggest weakness. Without that there is no leg to stand on. Of course, you have convinced me, too, about ADI being crucial. :e4e:
musterion
Well-known member
Maybe I'm missing the point (feel free to explain it to me) but I don't see how Total Depravity is dependent upon Immutability. They seem separate issues. God's absolute unchangingness, per Reformed theology, is independent of a sinner's purported inability to believe unless and until God wills it...know what I mean?
Well, in a lot of ways they are indeed separate issues but the arguments for the doctrine of total depravity have to do with the result of sin and the notion that sin corrupts or kills the whole person (i.e the emotions, will and intellect) and thus we are incapable of doing anything good.
Now some Calvinists hold strongly to original sin and others don't but whether the Calvinist believes our depravity comes as a result of our our own sin or Adam's sin, they definitely do believe God predestined EVERYTHING, including the sin, its results and its solution.
The logical connection between predestination and immutability is easy to see but the path through predestination isn't the only way to get there.
God's sovereignty (i.e. God's absolute control of everything that happens) works as a path just as well and in a similar way. Their argument boils down to something like: God does not co-operate with anyone in salvation otherwise man is sovereign and God is not therefore man must be totally depraved. That's over simplified but you get the idea.
Lastly, I'd point out that all doctrinal systems have as a logically necessary starting point their theology proper. The ENTIRE system, regardless of what system it is, rests on the foundation of what it teaches about who God is and what God is like. Thus if you take out Calvinism's theology proper, the rest of what it teaches (right or wrong) is irrelevant. If you take out immutability and its related doctrines you don't have Calvinism and if you don't have Calvinism you don't have the TULIP.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Not at all. Just say what you think Clete and save me the time. You accuse God of causing sin. Place me on your ignore list bud. You're waisted.
lukecash12
New member
As I ruminate my response to you, I have to realize that while I may not have heard the best things, that's no reason for me to be dismissive, condescending, or anything else of the kind. My apologies; I realize now that I can at least see how comfortable we are discussing this subject, and if either of us isn't getting much out of it I'm sure we can amicably move on in a Christian spirit.
In the spirit of being candid, though, your claims, and what you're saying you've read, don't seem to add up to me.
Yes, it's clear what you meant. Just to be clear: I'm assuming that you were already aware of the difference between a supralapsarian and an infralapsarian?
The WCF on God's eternal decree:
I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]
II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions;[4] yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.[5]
III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7]
VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.[17]
The Canons of Dordt:
Article 4: A Twofold Response to the Gospel
- God's anger remains on those who do not believe this gospel. But those who do accept it and embrace Jesus the Savior with a true and living faith are delivered through him from God's anger and from destruction, and receive the gift of eternal life.
- The cause or blame for this unbelief, as well as for all other sins, is not at all in God, but in man. Faith in Jesus Christ, however, and salvation through him is a free gift of God. As Scripture says, It is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8). Likewise: It has been freely given to you to believe in Christ (Phil. 1:29).
- The fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from his eternal decision. For all his works are known to God from eternity (Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:11). In accordance with this decision he graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of his chosen ones and inclines them to believe, but by his just judgment he leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen. And in this especially is disclosed to us his act--unfathomable, and as merciful as it is just--of distinguishing between people equally lost. This is the well-known decision of election and reprobation revealed in God's Word. This decision the wicked, impure, and unstable distort to their own ruin, but it provides holy and godly souls with comfort beyond words.
Neither am I necessarily impressed by education.
Trust me, I've no hesitation in actually constructing arguments. As you can imagine I got cold feet about this, and it would have been much more courteous and respectful of me to simply say I'm no comfortable having a dialogue with you in particular. Yet I've decided instead to give at least one candid discussion a try; now I wasn't wont to do so in the first place because of the claims you're making, but I owe you more than a disrespectful cop-out at this point, and we're brothers in Christ most importantly.
From what I've gathered, there have been a number of supralapsarians on this site (aka hyper-calvinists). I wouldn't say they are representative of most Calvinists, and let's not forget there is also such a thing as a four point Calvinist (e.g. unlimited atonement supporters like Augustus Hopkins Strong and Millard J. Erickson).
And I'll be as cordial as I can.
lukecash12
New member
Yeah, that's not exactly what total depravity is. Total depravity is the idea, IMO rigorously scriptural, that people cannot seek God of their own accord. They must receive the influence of the Holy Spirit. The "influence of the Holy Spirit" doesn't instantly mean irresistible grace, it's something we need to leave up to the scriptures and as a Reformed Arminian I believe in prevenient grace (God's necessary but not rigidly irresistible influence).
See what the council of Orange, and more importantly it's quoted scriptures, have to say, folks:
CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:16); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).
CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).
CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).
CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.
The scriptures are clear that God has to be involved, however you understand that involvement and the level of it, in order for someone to come to saving faith.
Ha! It's not me accusing God of causing sin, its Calvin and any Calvinist you want to name!
Did you not read the quote at the bottom of that post? Do you see my name cited there? Did I write Institutes of Christian Religion?
You want me to put you on my ignore list because I accuse God of being unjust! Where is the Calvinist who has come running to defend God's reputation? We've had a single Arminian do so but not a single Calvinist - so far!
Better wake up intojoy! If you're a Calvinist, its you that uphold the idea that God set the world on fire just to rescue some and not others and demand that we worship him for doing it. That's the God of John Calvin, Augustine and Plato not the God of Scripture who wanted and wants His creation to love Him, who counted such a love relationship at such an inestimable value that He paid the price with His own life in order to maintain and to repair it.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Amen!
I'm out of time this morning. I'll respond to the rest of your post as soon as time allows!
Clete
:up:
How so?
I have no reason to make any of this stuff up. I couldn't get away with it for long if I did. I've been on this website for way more than a decade and have believed all of this for longer than that. No one has yet shown me a single thing to demonstrate that my understanding of Calvinism is anything but accurate.
Having said that and just for the sake of clarity, I do readily acknowledge that many, perhaps most people who self-identify as Calvinist do not believe that God set the world on fire (figuratively speaking) in order to rescue some and burn others. That is what Calvinism teaches but that doesn't mean most "Calvinists" realize that it teaches that. Virtually all of the Calvinists here understand that Calvinism teaches it, even if they'd never put it in those terms, but that's because the people here are into reading and discussing theological issues. They are effectively educated Calvinists even if their education is not formal. So, leaving what we find here aside, the fact that most "Calvinists" are ignorant of what their doctrine teaches past the TULIP, does not give Calvinism a pass. It does not mean that Calvinist get to claim that their doctrine is other than what it is just because most of the pew sitting members believe something quite different than what Calvin taught and what the WCF and other Calvinist authors and founding documents clearly say.
I trust we agree on that point if on nothing else.
Of course! The problem is, (and please don't take my frankness as hostility), that I just don't care about it. As far as I am able to tell, its really nothing more than certain people trying to figure out what intellectual hoops have to be created and then jumped through in order to maintain certain core (pet) doctrines. And while its been quite a while ago, I have spent a lot of time sifting through these things trying to find out what people believe and why they believe it. In fact, it would not be inaccurate to say that pursuing a rational Christian worldview has been the theme of my life.
I think I understand better now why you feel like I'm pulling a fast one here. Let me further clarify myself.
I fully understand that Calvinists believe that God predestined everything AND that man has a will AND that God is not the cause of sin, etc.
I have often argued against Calvinist on just this exact point although I have found it tedious and ineffective and so its not my favorite tactic but it is no less valid!
You see, all that stuff is self-contradictory. It cannot all be true - it CANNOT all be true. If it could be true then reason is meaningless. If reason is meaningless then debate is a waste of time as would be simply attempting to convince anyone of anything because both debate and simple meaningful discourse cannot be done apart from reason.
This is the point at which the Calvinist, most especially the educated Calvinist will begin to use words like 'mystery' and 'antinomy'. In other words, Calvinists do not deny that the concepts contained within their foundational documents are self-contradictory or that they at least appear to be and that they have no means by which to resolve the conflict. In spite of this, and indeed because of it, they are willing to accept the concepts anyway and they call their willingness "faith" or "piety" or both.
It would be interesting to read a debate between you and any number of Calvinists on this website. I'd be waiting for one of them to throw both the WCF and Dordt under the bus in favor of God's absolute control of every atom in existence.
Right! I understand your point. I don't discount the value of education. There are several men that have forgotten more about the Bible than I'll ever learn and I respect them and their education very much. The point I was making, and with which you seem to be agreeing, is that just because someone has graduated from a school doesn't mean they know anything of value.
Cool!
There's no denying that Calvinists come in all colors, stripes and patterns. I would submit to you, however, that this is primarily so because there is a spectrum of intellectual consistency that exists within any group of people and that Calvinists are no exception. If you ask me, Arminius was just an EXTREMELY soft Calvinist. I say that because the foundations of Arminian theology proper is still the Neo-Platonist concept of immutability (and related concepts) and in that respect both systems are essentially Reformed Augustinianism. The differences come as a result of various intellectual inconsistencies between the two groups. Its the difference between one group holding predestination (sovereignty) as paramount while the other, God's justice. Both groups SAY they believe in the sovereignty of God and the will of man - BOTH groups do. It's just one group holds to one more consistently than the other which results in nearly opposite soteriological conclusions. It is because one of those groups hold more closely to one of God's qualitative attributes (i.e. how good God is) over His quantitative attributes (i.e. how much power, or knowledge God has) that they've come very much closer to the truth than the other has. I'll let you guess which one that is!
And so, in conclusion and on the point of quoting Calvin on Calvinism, I challenge you to find a prominent Calvinist leader (R.C. Sproul, Pink or the like) that would read the quotes I've posted from Calvin's Institutes and disagree with them. I don't think you'll find one. At best, you'll find someone who says that the quote is true but it doesn't mean we aren't responsible for our sin. They won't explain how, they'll just state it and leave it be. And if challenged on it they'll pull out the 'mystery'/'antinomy' card which trumps anything because if you're being intentionally irrational, you don't have to make sense.
Resting in Him,
Clete
lukecash12
New member
Okay, let's take a look at this next portion then:
And here we have a No True Scotsman fallacy. One second you'll admit that there is such a thing as a four-point Calvinist, and the next it's a No True Scotsman.
This is basically a non-response. I've already demonstrated the clear difference between them, the different logical order in God's decree, but you peg it down to mental gymnastics. Let's at least engage with the material, in spite of our agreement here that it's logically incoherent.
Were I arguing for my own position, one of the first things I'd point out is how it doesn't make sense to put regeneration before faith, when the scriptures and even key Calvinists will agree that regeneration is the beginning of sanctification. Justification is logically prior to sanctification, so it makes little sense to make regeneration logically prior to justification.
1. I hope we can both agree that if anything is truly scriptural, it is up to us to try and understand it, as opposed to calling it logically incoherent and supplanting it with something else.
2. What's the point of #1 here? Well, let's say that we did agree with Calvinists on key areas of scripture like Romans (which I understand differently because of the New Pauline Perspective), at that point we would have to suspend a priori objections.
Your belief that their ideas are self contradictory, does not negate the actual meaning of those ideas. The WCF explicitly says that God is not actively causing sin.
What is valuable about education is applying discipline to learning, understanding proper sourcing and carefully assessing church history prior to making any blithe judgments.
Yeah, for obvious reasons I don't agree with that last statement. But let's get into the meat of this next bit:
Why don't you prove where the concept came from? Who originally wrote about immutability? And are you aware of the many references in the Word to God's unchanging nature?
The differences come as a result of various intellectual inconsistencies between the two groups. Its the difference between one group holding predestination (sovereignty) as paramount while the other, God's justice. Both groups SAY they believe in the sovereignty of God and the will of man - BOTH groups do. It's just one group holds to one more consistently than the other which results in nearly opposite soteriological conclusions. It is because one of those groups hold more closely to one of God's qualitative attributes (i.e. how good God is) over His quantitative attributes (i.e. how much power, or knowledge God has) that they've come very much closer to the truth than the other has. I'll let you guess which one that is!
Sure, that's how things might look externally, but this summary oversimplifies and misrepresents their arguments.
Your critique of Arminians appears to be directly aimed at Wesleyans. In any case, most every theologian on either side would claim adamantly that he isn't prioritizing God's attributes over one another. God is maximally good and maximally great.
What's more, your impressions of either group doesn't instantly override their statements themselves when considering them.
I've already quoted a statement of faith. You didn't accept the explicitly clear portions I quoted because you think they are logically inconsistent. Whether or not that is true doesn't detract from what they actually believe.
[FONT=arial,helvetica]Glória Patri, et Fílio, et Spirítui Sancto, [/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]Sicut erat in princípio, et nunc, et semper, et in sæcula sæculórum. Amen.[/FONT]
Take a deep breath Clete.
I'm not a Calvanist.
Here's the problem that no one wants to face. Infants die unsaved.
Now, who can determine fairness? Who can claim inequities in such a case?
Surely not me or you Clete. We are but mere creations, our comprehension of God is limited to creation knowledge and we will Never have creator knowledge. All we have is the written word of God whom we can no nothing save what He chooses to reveal to us about Himself.
His word says death is because of sin. Therefore infants die because of sin. Not that they committed but that they inherited from Adam. The fact is that this is an antimony.
My belief is based upon what scripture says and not your fire house hypothetical question.
Intellectual dishonesty.
Why? Because if we can accuse God of being unjust because He must first quicken a person enabling that person to exercise their will against their (sin) nature to accept the gospel, then we can already blame God for allowing sin and death to have ever happened to begin with.
Calvinism teaches that God does not allow anything to happen that he did not himself preordain.
It's not the fact that sent happens that makes God on just it's the fact that God will punish people for actions when, because of God's decree, they could not have chosen to do otherwise.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Lon
Well-known member
I'm not sure if all Calvinists can accept the equivocation. Some can, I can't because it attempts to remove the veil of God.
For instance, if the answer is "to save his soul" then that changes a LOT of the query doesn't it?
IOW, I can't answer the OP because it is 1) too simplistic as to be able to carry-over meaningfully and 2) trying to peer into the holy of holies.
Job and Jacob wrestled with God and later were fearful of ever doing it again. Jacob walked with a limp from his torn hip socket ever after that.
Clete, in many ways, your wrestle with Calvinism equates wrestling with scripture and God. I worry for your hip but pray if such happens it will be a good reminder of how carefully you/we should wrestle with God.