BRUCE ALMIGHTY: Atheism's Critique of Arminianism

[drstevej]

Bruce Nolan (Carrey), a television reporter in Buffalo, N.Y.,is discontented with almost everything in life despite his popularity and the love of his girlfriend, Grace (Aniston) . At the end of the worst day of his life, Bruce angrily ridicules and rages against God and God responds. God appears in human form (Freeman) and, endowing Bruce with divine powers, challenges Bruce to take on the big job to see if he can do it any better.

 

Bruce Nolan:       How do you make someone love you without changing free will?
God:                     Welcome to my world.

[MarMema]

So then why do you have, in your church, all those bloody things supposedly from the eucharist?

If there is not a change in substance in your belief, why are those websites out there with those hearts and stuff that supposedly came into existence from your eucharist?

[CCWoody]

woody....cmon - pot...kettle....black ~ R911

The point of my satirical post was that no one can send another person to hell. This is anthroprocentric thinking. For what man naturally doesn't want to blame everyone but himself for his problems.

And, this is not Calvinism at all. Salvation is of the Lord. We are not powerful enough to put someone into the Lord's hands. Neither are we powerful enough to rip them out.

how was the mother of all calvinist holidays at the clear channel woody house? ~ R911

Ah, the solemn Calvinist feast of Thanksgiving was fun. And you?

Woody.

BTW, how do I know my kids are elect? 2 Reasons:

1. I made a covenant with the Lord and asked Him for a sign. I made a second covenant with the Lord and asked Him for another sign.
2. But, even more importantly, I trust in the Written promises made my Him to His own because I trust in Him:

   For the promise is made vnto you, and to your children, and to all that are a farre off, euen as many as the Lord our God shall call.
   (Act 2:39 GB)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

There was also a Patriarch who was *very* Calvinistic, as OP will tell you if he wishes. OP really likes him, I think, just as you like this one who says what you want to hear. But neither is really the mind of the church.

I do like Cyril Lukaris a lot -- and I freely admit it's because he tells me what I want to hear (grin).

But I will also freely admit that Lukaris represents a sort of "Byzantine-rite Augustinianism" which, although the memory of Cyril Lukaris himself is venerated in a number of Eastern Orthodox national Churches, is not theologically typical of the "central mainstream" of Eastern Orthodox doctrine ("although in 1636 Meletios Pantogallos, archbishop of Ephesus, wrote in its defense" ~~ Schaff, "Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge" Vol. III).

That said, Patriarch Lukaris' confessional endorsement of Baptismal Regeneration, Icons, National Churches and the like is closer to Lutheranism than to Calvinism, strictly speaking (nitpick).

[CCWoody]

"But He does not preordain for anyone a definite moral state; He does not preordain either a virtuous or a sinful life and does not at all inhibit our freedom. Therefore, even the Apostle Paul, whom the reformers cite, very closely connects the teaching on predestination with the teaching on God's foresight. In the Epistle to the Romans, he explains this thought in detail, and, incidentally, says concerning predestina-tion: "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son? Moreover whom he did pre-destinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified" (Romans 8:29-30). In this way, God predestinates to glory not according to His groundless arbitrariness, as the reformers think, but according to His foreknowledge of a man's merits accomplished through his free will." ~ MarMema

Consider the following. If God's foreknowledge is of "a man's merit," then God clearly has a foreknowledge of man's justification. After all man has merit. I won't mention the fact that merit destroys the correct meaning of both mercy and grace.

Moving on.... Now, if that is a correct line of reasoning, then the golden chain of Predestination ("whom he did pre-destinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified") is false for there would clearly be no need to justify them which God already foreknew were justly deserving.

Hmmmm!

Woody.

[Pahuanui]

You do a wonderful job of demonstrating that there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Hey, it is not my fault that my questions "presumes conditions that bias any reply towards" the truth, which is my position.

I don't think so. It is your fault if you steadfastly refuse to think. You have a certain position. A position that you assume is the truth, but have no way of actually knowing, and to cap it off, you have no problems biasing conditions with a false dichotomy. Sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling.

Either God is or is not smart enough to figure out how to have His desire for all to freely come to Him.

Or the very nature of the question is foolish because it is unknown if such a characteristic is even applicable to god. Describing the ineffable in any way is like writing in the wind.

If He is smart enough, then you are faced with the fact that this concession about God's Omniscience shreds the non-Calvinist assertion that God desires to have all come to Him for it presents a God deeply divided, which is a blasphemy against His nature. It would deny the ontological name He has chosen to reveal to us when He said "I am that I am."

If He is not smart enough, then you are faced with the fact that you worship a bumbling fool, which is another blasphemy against Him.

Sorry, the limited parameters you impose on the concept of god are your own handicap.

The same argument can be said about His Omnipotence. But, your position is wrong to begin with, as clearly demonstrated by the Scriptures themselves:

The Lord of hostes hath sworne, saying, Surely like as I haue purposed, so shall it come to passe, and as I haue consulted, it shall stand: (Isa 14:24 GB)

Your image of God is too small. And, as shown by the movie, the Atheists blasphemy and mock God because of it.

My image is too small? That's rather comical, since I do not limit my understanding of god to Christianity, and, as such, do not consider your quotation of scripture even remotely relevant.

[CCWoody]

The consistent Calvinist prayer is, "Lord, if it be Thy will, dave my friend Bubba." ~ drstevej

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, on 1 Tim 2:4 (who just happens to be a vastly better Greek scholar than anyone on this forum):


THE LIMITS OF GOD'S PLAN FOR HUMAN SALVATION -- Accordingly, when we hear and read in Scripture that He "will have all men to be saved," although we know well that all men are not saved, we are not on that account to restrict the omnipotence of God, but are rather to understand the Scripture, "Who will have all men to be saved," as meaning that no man is saved unless God wills his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will, but that no man is saved apart from His will; and that, therefore, we should pray Him to will our salvation, because if He will it, it must necessarily be accomplished. And it was of prayer to God that the apostle was speaking when he used this expression. And on the same principle we interpret the expression in the Gospel: "The true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world:" not that there is no man who is not enlightened, but that no man is enlightened except by Him. Or, it is said, "Who will have all men to be saved;" not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will (for how, then, explain the fact that He was unwilling to work miracles in the presence of some who, He said, would have repented if He had worked them?), but that we are to understand by "all men," the human race in all its varieties of rank and circumstances, -- kings, subjects; noble, plebeian, high, low, learned, and unlearned; the sound in body, the feeble, the clever, the dull, the foolish, the rich, the poor, and those of middling circumstances; males, females, infants, boys, youths; young, middle-aged, and old men; of every tongue, of every fashion, of all arts, of all professions, with all the innumerable differences of will and conscience, and whatever else there is that makes a distinction among men. For which of all these classes is there out of which God does not will that men should be saved in all nations through His only-begotten Son, our Lord, and therefore does save them; for the Omnipotent cannot will in vain, whatsoever He may will? Now the apostle had enjoined that prayers should be made for all men, and had especially added, "For kings, and for all that are in authority," who might be supposed, in the pride and pomp of worldly station, to shrink from the humility of the Christian faith. Then saying, "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour," that is, that prayers should be made for such as these, he immediately adds, as if to remove any ground of despair, "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." God, then, in His great condescension has judged it good to grant to the prayers of the humble the salvation of the exalted; and assuredly we have many examples of this. Our Lord, too, makes use of the same mode of speech in the Gospel, when He says to the Pharisees: "Ye tithe mint, and rue, and every herb." For the Pharisees did not tithe what belonged to others, nor all the herbs of all the inhabitants of other lands. As, then, in this place we must understand by "every herb," every kind of herbs, so in the former passage we may understand by "all men," every sort of men. And we may interpret it in any other way we please, so long as we are not compelled to believe that the omnipotent God has willed anything to be done which was not done: for setting aside all ambiguities, if "He hath done all that He pleased in heaven and in earth," as the psalmist sings of Him, He certainly did not will to do anything that He hath not done.

Woody.

[CCWoody]

It is, first, to give your firm and cordial assent to the truth, that God did send his Son, born of a woman, to stand in the room and stead of guilty men, and that God did cause to meet on him the iniquities of us all, so that he bore the punishment due to our transgressions, being made a curse for us. ~ P-Marlowe

If the legal penalty has already been paid, then please explain to me where there is condemnation for any man.

Woody.

[RnMomof7]

I'm confident mine are as well......but what I continually return to (in my head) is the aborted unelect baby - help me (and the unwashed)understand just when a saving election occurs. From what Ive been told by some of my FR swarm friends is that I can be elect despite myself and my arminianism. Supposing that is accurate - I get the notion that there is a pre-disposition of my soul - which brings me back to the aborted unelect baby scenario - and I think this is where my brothers and sisters get hung up as well - so all huffing and puffing things calvin aside for the moment - spend a some time on an informative post and give me and the lurkers an education in election in contrast to

rev we can always trust God to do right..we do not need to tell Him right from wrong . He is the standard , not us. Calvin believed all the infants that died were elect..but if yes or no..the bottom line is no one will be in hell that does not belong there

- It sounds arnminian until verse 39, where I get the impression God has determined election - am I reading it right? - and from this - I'm led to think the truth lies somewhere in between

Actually we would claim those scriptures as well as you would. The question we ask is who will come . Those that come will be saved.

[RnMomof7]

An honest arminian admits that salvation is a personal decision. Likewise, they pray "Lord, bring unending conviction on my friend Bubba." They know that Bubba must choose for himself (Or "herself" IF you're in Louisianna.) Some less than thoughtful arminians pray "Lord, save my friendette, Bubba" but they MEAN "Lord, bring unending conviction on the sweet lass."

Seems to me you are asking God to act on her/him and change their free will..a very Calvinist prayer..but inconsistent with the "free will" choice that Arminians teach . That is making a puppet of your friend:>)

[RnMomof7]

Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card....I will not play the Servetus card

LOL LOL

Thanks Steve

[Gamecock]

My image is too small? That's rather comical, since I do not limit my understanding of god to Christianity, and, as such, do not consider your quotation of scripture even remotely relevant.

Come, let us create god in our own image.

[CCWoody]

Have any of you read or heard of the book listed in this post? ~ MarMema

Oh, those were book names! Um, no! My reading selections have been rather limited. That's not to say I'm not well read. There is just so much good stuff out there it would take me several lifetimes to thoughtfully digest it all. And, I do so love to take something good and spend a year or two absorbing it.

Woody.

[RnMomof7]

Lets grant that Waldensians and Wycliffites were proto-Calvinists. Yet back in the time of late Rome, men like Augustine, Leo, and Gregory are clearly Catholics (living in a Catholic Empire under a Catholic Emperor who had outlawed all other religions) with the distinctive features of the Mass, prayers for the dead, the Papal Primacy, intercession of saints, and many other things no Calvinist would ever dream of adhering too.

Sometimes truth somehow finds it's way in the midst of Apostasy and error. The unbroken chain is the word of God..the broken links are.. from the tradition of men ..but then you know that

[RnMomof7]

A man without grace does not have a free will for spiritual matters.

A man without the imputed grace of God can not ever choose good in Gods sight..no masses or sacraments or good works..they are all filthy rags

[RnMomof7]

Except Calvinist believe that indeed men have "free will" and they will always choose against God.

Men are free to choose God if they desire Him and those that come He will save, but the unregenerate man will never choose that ..he will always choose what he desires..and it will never be God

[CCWoody]

That's rather comical, since I do not limit my understanding of god to Christianity.... ~ Pahuanui

Oh, I was unaware that you are an infidel. I'll restructure my arguments appropriately in my future dialogue with you.

Woody.

[P-Marlowe]

Question from Woody:If the legal penalty has already been paid, then please explain to me where there is condemnation for any man.

Answer from same source as the quote wrongly attributed to P-Marlowe:

"God did not so love the world that any man who does not believe in Christ shall be saved; neither did God so give his Son that any man shall be saved who refuses to believe in him. See how it is put "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish." Here is the compass of the love: while every unbeliever is excluded, every believer is included. "Whosoever believeth in him." C.H. Spurgeon

[Pahuanui]

My image is too small? That's rather comical, since I do not limit my understanding of god to Christianity, and, as such, do not consider your quotation of scripture even remotely relevant.

Come, let us create god in our own image.

Why would anyone do that? What a quaint and stupid thing to presume.

[MarMema]

The Orthodox are the very last people you would find running around trying to save everyone, in fact, we are taught to let God save whom He will and forbidden to proselytize.......that said, there are a few things which become problematic for me.

While I believe the Orthodox church echoes your emphasis on God's majesty and foreknowledge, I am confused by things such as the parable of the "Unsaveable son"( what the Greek translates to instead of prodigal).

As well as other indications that God welcomes those who come at the 11th hour, such as the Paschal sermon of John Chrysostom.

It is difficult to reconcile these kinds of things with a God who would choose some to be damned without any chance at all. Doesn't God also have perfect mercy and love, and how can this be reconciled with the idea of elected as saved?

[CCWoody]

Answer from same source as the quote wrongly attributed to P-Marlowe: ~ P-Marlowe

It was not my intention to attribute that citation to you, but to attribute the source of the post to you. I can see where I was confusing.

And, it is not my attention to argue against the Penal Substitution Atonement, of which both Spurgeon and I believe the Bible teaches.

And, your current citation from Spurgeon doesn't even address the question for it is talking about something totally different. Besides, your citation from Spurgeon clearly reveals his "L" in TULIP: "Here is the compass of the love: while every unbeliever is excluded, every believer is included. "Whosoever believeth in him."" So, I fail to see how your citation even remotely begins to answer the question. I'll be nice enough to ask it again.

If the Lord has paid the legal penalty for every man (which Spurgeon clearly does not believe as per the citation you provided -- LOL!) then why is there a condemnation for any man? Seeing that lack of belief is a sin like any other sin, and seeing that of a necessity to your doctrine that the Lord has paid the legal penalty for even that sin, then why is there a condemnation for any man?

Since a great many false teachers were never able to answer this question, they abandoned the Penal Substitution Atonement for various heretical views. Hopefully, after you have beat your head on the wall of this contradiction in your own theology, you will figure out which part of your theology is false and abandon it. It's really not that hard to figure out.

Woody.