I have a question for Calvinists...

[Clete]

The silence is deafening.

I'm writing a response to your post. I'll post it tonight - I promise!

Sorry for the wait!

 

[intojoy]

Antinomy: two TRUTHS that seemingly contradict.

This is the antinomy, how does the divine sovereignty of God work in harmony with the will of man?

If one goes to the divine sovereignty extreme he ends up with the hyper Calvin error. If one goes too far with the human responsibility side he ends up with the error of Armenianism.

Take the middle ground I do.

 

[Clete]

Antinomy: two TRUTHS that seemingly contradict.

This is the antinomy, how does the divine sovereignty of God work in harmony with the will of man?

If one goes to the divine sovereignty extreme he ends up with the hyper Calvin error. If one goes too far with the human responsibility side he ends up with the error of Armenianism.

Take the middle ground I do.

You highlighted the wrong word.

The sovereignty of God (i.e. the Calvinist doctrine, that is) doesn't just seem to contradict the will of man, it does contradict it. The two are mutually exclusive.

This means that it isn't an antinomy, its a contradiction.

The alternative position is to say that there is no such thing as a contradiction and that all.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Antinomy: two TRUTHS that seemingly contradict.

This is the antinomy, how does the divine sovereignty of God work in harmony with the will of man?

If one goes to the divine sovereignty extreme he ends up with the hyper Calvin error. If one goes too far with the human responsibility side he ends up with the error of Armenianism.

Take the middle ground I do.

The dude dudn't know God subjected him to vanity.

In his exercising of it he's out there on his white horse rescuing God's honor.

:mrt:

 

[Clete]

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.

Oh! You are quickly becoming one of my favorites! You and I would get along.


What I'm doing is not a fallacy. Calvinism teaches what it teaches. People want to hold to modified versions but that doesn't change what Calvinism is. In other words, to be present, the no true Scotsman fallacy requires the lack of a specific standard. In other words, there's nothing that defines a "true" Scotsman in a no true Scotsman fallacy. It's just whatever the fallacy maker needs it to be, which is what makes it a fallacy.

You can't even point to something that I've claimed Calvinism teaches that any Calvinist here has denied believing. Just because such a person does exist somewhere, doesn't mean that what I've quoted isn't Calvinism. It is Calvinism or there is no such thing.

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.

Yes, mental gymnastics. In the Calvinist order, everything (including every action taken by every agent) is the effect, God is the cause.The "logical order" is irrelevant.

All the mental convolution only serves to muddy the water and obscure that simple fact. The effect it has is generally to glaze people's eyes over.

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.

More than that, it is the logical order because the effect cannot precede its cause.

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.

That which is logically incoherent is false.

The bible is truth!

Therefore, if anyone thinks he's got something that is both biblical and logically incoherent, he has misunderstood the bible.

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.

I don't think I follow you on this point. Please elaborate.

I understand that the WCF says that, but the point is that Calvinists do not care whether what they believe is self-consistent and so that can SAY anything they want. That and they're very fond of redefining very common words to mean something very different than what they would seem to mean to anyone who wasn't a Calvinist.

What is valuable about education is applying discipline to learning, understanding proper sourcing and carefully assessing church history prior to making any blithe judgments.

I can't completely agree with you. There are lots of truly idiotic ideas that can be quite blithely rejected without any reference to church history or the need for a formal education.

The bible is not difficult to understand. Most third graders have a strong enough command of the language to understand virtually any biblical passage.

I, for example, wouldn't need an hour's worth of seminary to understand what justice is and that any doctrine that teaches that God is unjust is a false doctrine, no matter what its history is or whether its source documents are referenced correctly.

Yeah, for obvious reasons I don't agree with that last statement. But let's get into the meat of this next bit:

Right! No surprise there!

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?

I'm aware of the references in God's word referring to God's unchanging character, yes. I trust that you are aware of the references to when God changed in really dramatic ways, yes?

As for proving where the idea came from, that would be quite a task. A tack well beyond the scope of this format, I'd say. But! While this is not going to constitute a PROOF, I'll give you the nuts and bolts of it.

Immutability came from Aristotle, or more precisely Plato's Republic, which you've already stated that you're familiar with.

From Plato it goes to Bishop Ambrose of Milan, who teaches it to Augustine.

From Augustine it finds its way to the Catholic church.

From the Catholic church to Martin Luther (an Augustinian monk).

Then Calvin and Arminius clash it out in the 17th century over whose 5 points are correct and here we are.

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.

Again, they can SAY anything they want - the do not care whether their doctrine is self-consistent!

And whether they adamantly claim to the contrary, the fact is that they are forced to choose and they do! Every Calvinist I've ever met is quick to throw justice under the bus, even if they insist that they aren't doing so, in favor of God's absolute control of every event that occurs. It's been done on this very thread!

Further, the Bible explicitly states that God is righteous and just and kind and merciful and loving and much more. It DOES NOT explicitly state that God controls everything that happens. In fact, it explicitly states the opposite.

Jeremiah 7:30 “‘The people of Judah have done evil in my eyes, declares the Lord. They have set up their detestable idols in the house that bears my Name and have defiled it. 31 They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire—something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind.​

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]

Quite right! People can BELIEVE anything they want. People can believe the sky is green with yellow stripes if they want. What say they believe and what their core doctrines actually teach are often two different things.

And what does undermine what they SAY they believe is what they actually defend and how they defend it. There is simply no denying that the Calvinist puts about 1000 times as much emphasis on their sovereignty doctrine than they do on the will of man. If they didn't, they'd be Arminians who do the opposite.
The also put WAY WAY WAY more emphasis on the omni-attributes and immutability of God than they do the quality attributes of God. They cling so tightly to God's immutability and refuse to allow even the slightest hint of any sort of change whatsoever but will readily and will passion insist that whatever we humans think justice is, it doesn't apply to God.

So in other words, when a Calvinist SAYS he believes that God is sovereign and that He is just. The reason it doesn't get stuck in their throat on the way out is because they've redefined the word "just" to mean nothing in particular. For the Calvinist, justice just means whatever it needs to mean in order for them to be able to SAY that they believe that God is just while maintain their true belief which is that God is in absolute meticulous control of every event that happens no matter how good or evil it seems to us mere mortals to be.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

I rest my case. Again, this is the central issue for "Christians" if it is fair for infants to die lost isn't it. What I see in many is a failure to accept the fact that God's word is silent concerning infant salvation and on top of this many go out on a limb and presuppose that God would somehow be unjust in not saving all infants. Not me. I can fully trust that God will do right. He does all things well.

I agree with this comment completely!

Babies that die are certainly not sent to Hell because of original sin. That's just stupid. But that doesn't mean that God is going to over ride their free will either.

What I believe concerning this issue is rather an interesting topic but is better suited to a different thread. I don't even want to bring it up here. Too many heads will explode.

My problem with us is not that we choose to think that all infants will get a pass and be saved. My problem is that most choose to foolishly state an ultimatum on God claiming He would be unjust not to save.

He would indeed be unjust to send anyone - ANYONE - to an eternal punishment because of anything other than their own sin.

That's not my opinion, by the way. That's true because of what the word justice means.

God can never be unjust.

If your god is arbitrary then he is unjust, by definition.

Neither can He contradict His word.

If faith is required for accepting the gospel then infants cannot be saved since they cannot excercise faith.

They are not guilty.

They can and do die and that is biblically due to their inheritance of sin.

A problem that Christ removed for the entire race at Calvary. Romans 5

So whereas I would love to believe all infants are given a free ride into eternity this is not supported by soteriology and isn't biblically provable.

So where is your fire house argument now? If you cannot prove infant salvation then you cannot prove God is being unjust in what Calvin taught concerning total depravity and election.

If one infant goes to Hell because of Adam's sin, I will refuse heaven, even if it offered.

God is not unjust.

Sending babies who has done neither right nor wrong to an infinite punishment for the sins of their father is unjust. (definition of justice)

Therefore God will not send babies to Hell.

Just my take.

Your take borders on blasphemy. You will give an account for every idle word you speak. Be careful what you say.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[intojoy]

We disagree. All have fallen short of the righteousness of God even those who died prior to taking their first breath. All have sinned.

 

[glorydaz]

We disagree. All have fallen short of the righteousness of God even those who died prior to taking their first breath. All have sinned.

Nope, all die...even those who have not sinned like Adam did.

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

 

[intojoy]

Nope, all die...even those who have not sinned like Adam did.

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Enoch?

 

[glorydaz]

Enoch?

Enoch died.

Heb. 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

Heb. 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.​

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

 

[intojoy]

Enoch died.

Heb. 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

Heb. 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.​

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Elijah?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Enoch died.

Heb. 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

Heb. 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.​

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Enoch did not die.

Same as those who are Christ's at his coming do not die.

Enoch was quickened by the spirit of Christ that was in him.

Christ came down into Enoch and took him to heaven.



1 Peter 1:11 KJV


11 Searching what , or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify , when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow .

 

[glorydaz]

Elijah?

Would John 3:13 be any less true where Elijah was concerned? Also, how did Elijah manage to write a letter to King Jehoram after he was taken up to heaven?

 

[glorydaz]

Enoch did not die.

Same as those who are Christ's at his coming do not die.

Enoch was quickened by the spirit of Christ that was in him.

Christ came down into Enoch and took him to heaven.



1 Peter 1:11 KJV


11 Searching what , or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify , when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow .

Not according to Scripture.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Elijah?

Same thing bro.

The spirit of Christ signifying.




John 11:26 KJV


26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die . Believest thou this?


1 Corinthians 15:51 KJV


51 Behold , I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep , but we shall all be changed ,

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Not according to Scripture.

And there you were tellin' me you knew how the Godhead works.

Not.


John 5:21 KJV


21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will .


John 5:17 KJV


17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto , and I work .

 

[Truster]

Of course anyone can offer an answer but I want to hear from the Calvinists in particular on the following question....


If someone sets your house on fire in the middle of the night and then, once the house is fully engulfed in flames, rushes in to rescue you and your 2nd child but decides to leave your wife and your other ten kids to burn in the fire, do you praise the man as a hero or condemn him as a murderer?

Would your answer be different if you were the wife or one of the other ten children?

Resting in Him,
Clete

You sign off 'resting in Him'', but your question proves you do not have rest. Kingdom reality deals with reality and not silly hypothetical questions.

 

[glorydaz]

And there you were tellin' me you knew how the Godhead works.

Not.


John 5:21 KJV


21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will .


John 5:17 KJV


17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto , and I work .

Christ was the first.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Christ was the first.

Yep.

Before ever the earth was. :idea:

 

[intojoy]

Would John 3:13 be any less true where Elijah was concerned? Also, how did Elijah manage to write a letter to King Jehoram after he was taken up to heaven?

We shall not all die, some shall meet the Lord in the air.