Posted on 02/28/2010 8:30:39 AM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
John Calvin's 16th century reply to medieval Catholicism's buy-your-way-out-of-purgatory excesses is Evangelicalism's latest success story, complete with an utterly sovereign and micromanaging deity, sinful and puny humanity, and the combination's logical consequence, predestination: the belief that before time's dawn, God decided whom he would save (or not), unaffected by any subsequent human action or decision.
Calvinism, cousin to the Reformation's other pillar, Lutheranism, is a bit less dour than its critics claim: it offers a rock-steady deity who orchestrates absolutely everything, including illness (or home foreclosure!), by a logic we may not understand but don't have to second-guess. Our satisfaction — and our purpose — is fulfilled simply by "glorifying" him. In the 1700s, Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards invested Calvinism with a rapturous near mysticism. Yet it was soon overtaken in the U.S. by movements like Methodism that were more impressed with human will. Calvinist-descended liberal bodies like the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) discovered other emphases, while Evangelicalism's loss of appetite for rigid doctrine — and the triumph of that friendly, fuzzy Jesus — seemed to relegate hard-core Reformed preaching (Reformed operates as a loose synonym for Calvinist) to a few crotchety Southern churches.
No more. Neo-Calvinist ministers and authors don't operate quite on a Rick Warren scale. But, notes Ted Olsen, a managing editor at Christianity Today, "everyone knows where the energy and the passion are in the Evangelical world" — with the pioneering new-Calvinist John Piper of Minneapolis, Seattle's pugnacious Mark Driscoll and Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Seminary of the huge Southern Baptist Convention. The Calvinist-flavored ESV Study Bible sold out its first printing, and Reformed blogs like Between Two Worlds are among cyber-Christendom's hottest links.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
“If, as Jeremiah says, the heart is “deceitful above all things”, then this good soil happened at some point after their conception and before their conversion.”
It seems to me that God works to prepare the soil of most men, while men typically resist. And that happens from birth until we either convert, die, or God gives us over to our evil nature.
” 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” - Matt 5
If we are to imitate God, we must love those who hate us, and give good gifts to our enemies, and not just our friends.
This passage indicates God’s love, not just for the elect, but for those who hate him. That is why I find it so odd that some would say God hates the non-elect. We are called to love all, because of God’s example, so how could God not love all the world? Even though it hates him, God loves...and is patient, and merciful, and giving. Until he decides it has gone far enough, and he judges man.
Think of the example of the vineyard (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%205&version=ESV), where God gives it everything - and still it rejects him. In the end, he judges - but not until he has first proven his love many times over.
So it is with man. God gives us love, and mercy, and withholds judgement - not forever, but certainly until we have proven our evil beyond any question.
Consider Hosea 2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea+2&version=ESV). It should make us weak with guilt at our hard hearts, and overwhelm us with God’s mercy!
Who did Paul think he was, that he “might save some”?
Here is an entire sermon on the subject:
The short of the sermon is that Paul knew very well who does ALL of the saving, and Paul was not afraid to use this language because he knew his readers/listeners would understand exactly where he was coming from. The attention remains on God and we are used by God as His instrumentalities for HIM to save men. God could have saved in a thousand different ways, but He chose to use men to preach the Good News (faith by hearing). Paul is grateful and pleased that God had chosen him to witness this through him.
What's the difference? I have no problem looking at it this way.
Our sin separates us from a holy God and causes spiritual death. This is both actual and potential. The sinner is presently “dead” because, in the absence of faith, he is not enjoying life giving union with Christ. The sinner is potentially dead because if he continues in this state he will be forever cut off from the presence of the Lord in Hell (2 Thess. 1:9). [9They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might”-ESV]
I am fine with this, and I do not see any meaningful distinction between this and the Calvinist position. This just adds another category for no apparent reasons.
But this leads to absurdities and demonstrates that pressing this parallel between those who are spiritually dead and physically dead is unwise and without Scriptural support. If the analogy is accurate then spiritually dead people should not be able to do anything more than corpses can do, which is plainly absurd. A single example will suffice.
This is the paragraph that first tells me the author is not serious. He is inventing a straw man in claiming this parallel and then blaming Calvinists for his OWN implications and extensions. Calvinists do not speak of spiritually dead not being able to "do anything", whatever that means. And I don't know what the author means by "anything more". If he means earn salvation then he is right that this is the Calvinist belief, i.e. that physical corpses cannot earn their salvations any more than spiritually dead people can. If he means something else then I don't know what he is talking about.
The Bible plainly teaches that those who are dead in sin resist the Holy Spirit. Now have you ever seen a corpse resist something? Of course not. So if we adopt the implications of the Calvinistic definition of “dead in sin” then we must deny that anyone who is dead in sin can resist the Holy Spirit or reject the gospel (Acts 7:51; 2 Thess. 2:10; 1 John 4:10; Rom. 10:21). [ 51 “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.—ESV][10and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.—ESV] ......
The author misinterprets all of these passages, and then falsely tries to pin this "do anything more than a corpse" rule on Calvinists, which HE invented. Of course being dead in sin means resisting all that is good, and all that God stands for and teaches. For the lost there is no other ability or course of action to take. Therefore, this is a false argument.
“You’re pushing it too far” says the Calvinist. Really?
No, we would not say this is pushing it too far since it has zero relation to Calvinism. These arguments only push a fictitious belief system that the author has invented for the purpose of attacking.
We are either as spiritually useless as a physical corpse or we need to abandon the parallel.
Please tell me this author is not trying to say that sinning according to nature is being spiritually useful?!?! :) YIKES!
OK, but if you believe that God's love for us (and Jesus' love for the Father) involves action on His part then you agree with me. :)
What is its intended use for a) the Reformed elect, and b) the Reformed reprobate? Is there a difference for the two identified groups? I believe that there is substantial difference between the groups; therefore there is substantial difference between the intent of the Gospels between the two groups, correct?
Yes, I agree. The Bible is God's love letter to His children, and it draws them to belief and sanctifies them after belief. To the reprobate, much of it is nonsense. The Bible was not written to the reprobate.
FK: ... I don't think I said it that strongly. I believe that temporal happiness can certainly be enhanced by living a comparatively moral life.
Perhaps the emphasis is mine. At any rate, can you indicate that the Reformed reprobate live enhanced happier lives by a) reading the Gospels or b) by living comparatively moral lives? Do you have any evidence?
Anecdotally, there is a reported conversation between missionary E. Stanley Jones and Gandhi in which Gandhi said: “If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today,”.
You asked for a theological basis so I'll use the Ten Commandments as an example. I think that it can be assumed that one is far more likely to lead a happier life if he follows them, even if he is not a believer. Sure, non-believers have a hole in their hearts making them less fulfilled individuals than believers, but I'm talking about among non-believers. It must just be true that some are happier than others during life.
FK: For example, do you believe that on average morally depraved individuals are generally happier people than those who lead moral lives?
I do not.
OK, then what are we arguing about? :) This is all I'm saying. The origin of morality itself is God, so it is also in the scriptures and we (and the reprobate) get it from there. God also gives everyone some level of it at conception.
FK: The grace that the elect receive does not take the form of a "docu-dump" of knowledge.
What form does it take? Many of the Reformed posting on here are sure of their salvation, which surely includes certain knowledge.
As I said, the eyes and ears being opened. Knowledge comes later such that, for instance, one can be sure of his salvation. Many opened eyes and ears perceive such Biblical truths (knowledge) right there in scripture.
Let me see if I have this straight. The Reformed Holy Spirit touches the predestined individual. Then the individual must hear the Gospel. Then he will believe. Then he will be saved.
In the normal course, yes.
If that is correct, if anything in this chain is broken, the individual will not be saved.
Well, it's really a "package deal". IOW, in the normal course it's impossible for some but not all of these things to happen after the initial regeneration (touching by the HS).
FK: It can't be taunting since neither party has any idea if the listener is reprobate or not.
Are you saying that the listener may be elect at some point in the future, but current listeners in the status of elect know?
No, one who is elect has that status from before he is born, but he is not eligible to know he is elect until he becomes a believer. Now, of the elect all of them spend some part of their lives as non-believers. During that time they are unsaved, but still elect. They are still elect because their belief and salvation is already a foregone conclusion, it's just a matter of it actually occurring within time. So, I'm saying it can't be taunting because I and the other person have no idea whether I am witnessing to an unsaved person who will later believe (elect) or an unsaved person who will never believe (reprobate).
We are taught not to throw pearls before swine, and that the seed that falls on rocky ground is wasted. Thus, a mechanical exercise for the most part.
Yes, but I take that to refer to "forcing" oneself on a clearly unwilling participant. If someone tells me to go away, but I keep witnessing to him anyway right then, then I think I am in the wrong. However, if the person is willing to listen to me, then I think it is obedient to God to witness to him regardless if he turns out to be reprobate or not. I can't know that at the time, so the error must be in favor of the potential for the person.
I find that this message of disposal of humanity to be completely alien to my reading of the Gospels, which is of a God of infinite love, and who sent His Son to die in cruel pain so that we would not have suffer in cruel pain forevermore.
I don't see how it is any different from the God you believe in since you admit He is omnipotent and could save everyone with a snap of His fingers, but chooses not to. He wouldn't even have to violate the free will problem that concerns you. He could have chosen to give everyone full information and truly left it up to people to decide. In that case virtually everyone would have chosen Heaven freely, but He did not set it up that way. Why is that not cruel but the Reformed God is? Under either system the exact same number of people wind up in hell, right? How can you say one is cruel and one is not?
Responding to a dozen different posters, even just reading their posts can take a whole day, and most of them are not really prone to Laconic brevity. So, my apologies for getting back to you with considerable delay.
I do know that you and betty boop are FR's veterans who "champion atheistic and agnostic arguments" and that you two have written a book about it.
I am not sure exactly why you mention this, or what that is supposed to mean, except that you have been on the FR a long time, not that these forums necessarily change anything. I wonder what your counterparts think about your book, but if it is supposed to be a self-congratulatory testament to one's free time and effort then I am sure it is a prized possession in your library.
betty boop, marron, Texas Songwriter, P-Marlowe, spirited irish and others have brought many wonderful insights to the debate over the years. And I am honored to be joined with them in the great debate. Their arguments are eloquent, informed, piercing, logical, faithful.
Humility never struck me as a particular characteristic of people who call themselves "Christians," so self-congratulatory pats on the back are not surprising, and never lacking, it seems, in (self)flattery. Some of them are, it seems, particularly good at it.
Now, in adiditon to your credits you also write: I have observed that the presupposition most atheist/agnostic seek to achieve in their arguments is their belief that God is a hypothesis
Treating something as a hypothesis is not a "belief," AG. It is an approach to a question with conceivable but uncertain outcomes.
And from there, they usually admit only whatever evidence is acceptable to a metaphysical naturalist with the ultimate goal being to convince a Christian that God is a delusion
No doubt, there are zealots on both sides of the religious divie who seem to share an intence intolerance of anything other than their own perceived truth, and apparently even a wish for the elimination of all dissenting opinions. It volumes of their character and the nature of humanity in general, than of atheists in particular.
I give no ground whatsoever to atheists or agnostics' presupposition by simply declaring my testimony: God is not a hypothesis. He lives. His Name is I AM. I've known Him for a half century and counting.
You, and your personal and anecdotal experience, are not a proof of God's existence, AG.
The claim that One I have known so long and so well is a hypothesis is absurd on the face.
On what "face?" That something is a hypothesis is in large part dependent on the level and type of proof one is interested in. Again, your argument appears to be that your subjective experience must be true, and that somehow 'proves' to you that God (whom you can't even define) is not a hypothetical concept. We have been through this solipsistic argument before.
Thereafter, I simply convey the words of God which speak for themselves.
They are words of God to you because you are willing to believe they are. That doesn't mean they are. To the Jews, the NT words which you believe are God's words, are no different than names in a telephone directory because they refuse to believe them. The Muslims, likewise, choose to believe in the Koran as the word of God, but you and the Jews don't.
Just because one group decides what consititutes the words of God doesn't mean they are. We have been through this obvious and self-evident argument and yet it seems to have no effect, which doesn't surprise me given the mindset that uses the subjective personal experience as the ultimate litmus test of what is true and what is not.
If my correspondent has "ears to hear" he will. And if he doesn't, he won't believe anyway
That is sophism based on nothing concrete; it can be applied to any argument because that way you don't have to prove anything.
Even when I am convinced the words of God will not register with my correspondent, I nevertheless must convey them and my testimony for the sake of my brothers and sisters in Christ who are engaged in the great debate. After all, they may find something useful in their own testimony.
But of course you do, which means you are not really debating with the correspondent, but sharing self-congratulatory views with the those who will approve.
If you can't defend your beliefs with your own words, why do you bother to even engage? Just curious.
thank you for it; but it was a busy weekend.
I will have to remember that.
kosta: In other words you believe it’s true because it’s in the book and the book is true because you believe it is!
Mankind has always lived by revelation. Revelation from the living personal God, from the spirit realm, and from other men.
Take the accusation smugly flung by you at betty boop, and other Christians in an apparent attempt at showing them to be believers in superstitious nonsense. Underlying your so-called ‘empirically’ provable accusation is the revelatory nonsense made up by moral imbeciles, most notably, Feuerbach.
Feuerbach was an idiot. It was he who declared that God is an invention of superstitious, ignorant men after he had rearranged Hegel’s pantheistic dialectic.
Hegel was a master magician, a student of Hermeticism, alchemy, Theosophy, and other such esoteric teachings. In short, mysticism is the spiritual foundation of Hegels’ dialectic, just as it is the foundation of Marx’s materialist dialectic. And just as it is the foundation of so-called ‘evolutionism,’ whether of the Darwinian, neo-Darwinian, punctuated equilibrium, or panspermia variant.
In short, the accusation you tossed at betty, et al, is itself the revelation of a man-—a lying idiot at that. And you ‘faithfully’ believe it, and believe it absolutely. Using your own words: “... you believe it’s true because Feuerbach the swindler said it and Feuerbach is true because you believe he is!”
EXCELLENT POINTS, of course.
Though the Thunder from Mt Sinai
to some . . . .
would evidently be the sound of one hand clapping because the receptors are out to lunch.
Hegel was a master magician, a student of Hermeticism, alchemy, Theosophy, and other such esoteric teachings. In short, mysticism is the spiritual foundation of Hegels’ dialectic, just as it is the foundation of Marx’s materialist dialectic. And just as it is the foundation of so-called ‘evolutionism,’ whether of the Darwinian, neo-Darwinian, punctuated equilibrium, or panspermia variant.
AMEN! Righteous!
Theosophy rules the modern mind, whether it acknowledges that fact or not. And yet it is the same error perpetuated over eons -- self-worship and not God-worship.
"We fight against mysticism and tyranny!" -- "300"
INDEED.
We've been over your arguments many times already.
All I will repeat here is by illustration.
In all likelihood, you do not know my brother. But I do. I've known him as long as I have drawn breath and I'm 63 years old.
You may say his existence is hypothetical. But I know him personally, so your claim is absurd.
You may demand "proof" of his existence. He and I would both laugh at such a demand.
You may deny that he has said the things I aver that he has said. But I know his voice, I know he said them. So your denial means nothing to us.
In sum, concerning any debate with a Freeper who champions atheistic or agnostic claims, I will not "put myself in his shoes." Instead, I will repeat my testimony once again:
For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. - Hebrews 4:12
Thank you too, AG. To say you have a brother is not an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence under oridnary circumstances. Ordinarily, when a person says he or she has a sibling is not a hypothetical statement.
Yes, but FK we need things, God doesn't, by definition. We need love, God doesn't. What would God do to the himself as an act of self love? And we all recognize that self-love is not love. Ergo, God seems to have fulfilled his purpose by creating us so he would have someone to love and someone to love him. I realize this is radical and "OMG" sort of thing, but if you think about it, what good is having all the love in you if you can't give it?
I will freely admit that I have no idea of the mechanics of the love that happens within the Trinity, just THAT it happens (because we are told it exists in scripture). But for an act that demonstrates intra-Trinitarian love I will take a GUESS, and offer the procession of the Holy Spirit (filioque or not :).
I also wouldn't imagine that it could be compared to human love because you are right, God doesn't NEED anything. This would appear to address your issue, i.e., it cannot fulfill God's purpose by creating us so he would have someone to love and someone to love him BECAUSE He doesn't NEED us to love or love Him. We do know that He WANTS these things though. He wanted to have adopted children to be His people and give Him glory, etc., so here we are.
I think my supposition that God's loving is not comparable to our own is further indicated by the fact that no where are we told that God is better or better off because He created us. IOW, God was perfect in all ways, lacking nothing, before He created. Therefore, I don't think we can say that God having (or BEING) love is missing something until He created an external object for that love.
Finally, I would disagree that self-love is not love. The Commandment is to love your neighbor as you love YOURSELF. That tells me that self-love can be very appropriate, albeit it can also be destructive. Since the latter could not apply to God, it would seem that God and self-love would not be inappropriate together at all.
“Odd, isn’t it, that Cornelius received an angel of the Lord with a message before he was saved. He was even commended. And a centurion was commended for his “great faith” - even odder, since faith is a gift, and not something the centurion could have had... “
Sarcasm aside, there is no mention of Cornelius’ “great faith” in the scriptures. What you do find in the story is God’s leading him to salvation with no mention of his exercising faith. It was all of God.
Acts 10:20, “Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.” Acts 11:13-15, “And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.” Acts 15:7, “And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.”
“And in Acts 2, were they cut to the quick before or after they believed and were baptized?”
Vs. 37, “ Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?”
The Holy Spirit convicted them of sin before they believed and were baptized. That is the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. They were dead in trespasses and sin and quickened, brought to life, and recognized their condition.
Jhn 16:7-8, “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment”
“The unbeliever is separated from God, dead spiritually, just as Jesus was dead physically, and the exceeding great power that raised Jesus from the dead also quickens the unbeliever so that they can exercise the faith to be saved that was included in the abounding grace of God”
“Actually, that is wrong. Unless and until God abandons us, we are never described as so dead we cannot repent. Remember the Prodigal Son? He was dead, but he repented without his father’s kidnapping him.”
When one reads the context of the parable of the Prodigal son they will find the subject is the father’s searching for the son. It is the father’s love, not the son’s change of heart that is being taught.
Luke 15: 1-2, “All the tax collectors and sinners came to listen to Jesus. But the Pharisees and the scribes complained, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”
Vs. 3-7, Concerns a shepherd searching for a lost sheep, not the condition of the sheep Vs. 8-10, Concerns a woman searching for a lost silver coin, not the condition of the coin. Vs. 11-20, Concerns a father looking for his lost son, not the condition of the son.
“There actually aren’t all that many passages talking about us as ‘dead’ prior to conversion. Most passages talk about us being lost, or slaves, or rebels, or disobedient, or sinners.”
The passage in Eph. 5:14, “Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.” uses the Ezek. 37:4-14 prophecy to demonstrate forcibly the idea that unbelievers are spiritually dead and only the breath of God can bring them back to life.
Jesus refers to that same passage in defending himself against the attack of the Jews concerning the Sabbath.
John 5:24-25, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
“And there isn’t a single verse where God says he regenerates those whose names are on his list, and gives them faith. That seems kind of odd, if that is God’s plan of salvation.”
Eph. 1:4-5, “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,”
Jn. 1:13, “Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
Col 2:13, “And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;”
Jas. 1:18, “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.”
Jn. 3:3-6, “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”
Tit. 3:5-6, “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;”
Eph. 2:1, “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;”
Rom. 8:29-30, “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
kosta: Ordinarily, when a person says he or she has a sibling is not a hypothetical statement
Spirited: Ordinarily, when someone makes a claim such as the one made by kosta, the automatic assumption is that the claim is the written manifestation of a thought process originating in the mind.
However, whenever an agnostic/atheist/materialist either speaks or writes something we must assume that ‘a discarnate entity’ hovering somewhere in the unseen realm near to the machine-body called kosta has ‘oozed’ a meme onto the material brain of robot-kosta, then ‘caused’ the robot to open its’ mouth in order that memetic utterances can be heard.
What else are we to think but a variation of the above since if materialism is paradoxically true, then kosta is both soulless and mindless?
“As a man believes so he is” can be otherwise stated as “ideas have consquences.” The consequences of abusing your free will in order to reject the living God is the loss of your soul and mind.
I am honored and humbled, sir. I graciously accept of my own free will and pledge to guard the Council's Forest with the utmost surety and confidence in my unconditional election. Long live the Order, whosoever they are (since there is no list).
I only hope you can take better care of the Forest than our Keeper of the Institutes did with the personally autographed copy of the Institutes.
Perhaps it has been misplaced within the Forest not near the non list. I shall commence a search immediately, sparing no expense up to the amount of my own beer can cash-ins. It SHALL be found!
Neener Neener Neener.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.