[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Tell me what you think. ~~ White Mountain

Okay.

It was up to Jean Calvin, though, to add double predestination and eliminate Augustine’s free will theodicy in favor of a God who has decreed evil and suffering for his own amusement.

Totally false.

Calvin's position is that God decreed judgment upon the evil to make known the riches of His Glory on the vessels of Mercy prepared beforehand for Mercy.

Here, I'll state Calvin's position on the subject:

What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

(Apostle Paul, epistle to the Romans, ch 9 vs 23-25)

That's Calvin's position on the subject.

Now, we analyze your points. I count 2 critical logical fallacies on the first glance...

Now, I am sure you have many disagreements with Andrew's thesis, but it does reflect a line of reasoning that I have often seen in your posts:

• God is always fair and just.
  (True)

• God has predestined some to eternal life, and has likewise predestined others to eternal damnation, in both cases without regard to any merit or demerit on their part -- God withholds from the latter the grace to repent -- etc.
  (Utterly False. Calvin's view is NOT that God predestines the Reprobate to Damnation without regard to their demerits. He specifically states that God predestines the Reprobate to Damnation precisely on the basis of their Moral Demerits. Without a long series of excerpts to prove the point, I'll just quote one of Calvin's own chapter headings on the subject: "Election confirmed by the calling of God. The reprobate bring upon themselves the righteous destruction to which they are doomed." Nuff said.)

• The reader's common sense says this is horribly unfair and unjust.
  (Critical codicil: Holy Scripture specifically declares that the Natural Man's "common sense" is at war with God, and actively hostile against a Right understanding of God's Justice.)
  ***Romans 8: 5 - 8 -- For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
  ***1 Corinthians 2: 14 -- But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

• "Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" (Romans 9:20), in which Holy Scripture is used to imply that the reader is questioning #1 (the justice of God) and to demand therefore that the reader must instead question #3 (his/her common sense), when in fact it is #2 (the erroneous logic and conclusions of Mr. Calvin) that must be called into question.
  (Rather, it is White Mountain's false characterization of Calvinism which should be called into question -- and identified as a Bearing of False Witness once he has been alerted to his errors... which, he has).

[White Mountain]

Your #175 had some minor quibbles with my #168, none of which address my central point. But I don't mind polishing my prose with your kind and able assistance.

None of us can have any problem with line of reasoning #1: God is just. #2 is a brief statement of some of John Calvin's interpretations which alarm the regenerate disciple of Christ, so we can modify this to your satisfaction and thus remove your expressed concern. Even so, it seems to me that while there is plenty to convict the unrepentant sinner in the Day of Judgment, that does not enter into the election decision before the foundation of the world, according to Calvin. But let's word #2 to your satisfaction, so long as it preserves how unjust Calvinist doctrine seems to the regenerate reader, since Calvin acknowledges the appearance of injustice just before he quotes Romans 9:20 in his attempt to overwhelm the objection.

Regarding #3 you say that the objector can have no common sense because he is unregenerate. As I said above, it is the regenerate who are offended by the injustice that Calvin attributes to God through his misinterpretation of the Bible. The unrepentant sinner doesn't pay any attention to these things.

So let's do a little polishing and see how it looks:

-o0o-

Now, I am sure you have many disagreements with Andrew's thesis, but it does reflect a line of reasoning that I have often seen in your posts:

1. Bible Truth is presented: God is always fair and just.
2. John Calvin's interpretations are then presented as though they were on a par with Bible truth: God has predestined some to eternal life, and has likewise predestined others to eternal damnation, without regard to any merit on their part -- God withholds from the latter the grace to repent -- the rest of TULIP -- etc.
3. The regenerate reader's common sense says this is horribly unfair and unjust.
4. "Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" (Romans 9:20), in which Holy Scripture is used to imply that the reader is questioning #1 (the justice of God) and to demand therefore that the reader must instead question #3 (his/her common sense), when in fact it is #2 (the erroneous logic and conclusions of Mr. Calvin) that must be called into question.

If the reader accedes to the demand that he must doubt his God-given common sense and faculties of reason, the tendency is to let the person presenting this line of reasoning do his thinking for him, something that I would advise against.