Catholicism & Free Will

[Revelation13_16]

From our point of view, perhaps. But of course Calvinists don’t think that our point of view is the important one. They believe that God’s purposes are beyond our understanding. I agree with them–my question is, why not say this several steps earlier in the argument and save yourself from coming within a hairsbreadth of ascribing evil to God?

I hate what I’m about to say, but it’s only applicable if Calvinism is right. (which I sincerely hope it is not)

But here goes.

God creates Adam, a being with free will. This being is arguably flawed in the fact that God’s love is not sufficient for his happiness - he requires the touch and companionship of a woman, a being that has to be made later. This is tantamount to an ‘upgrade’, Adam version 2.0 - to fix the problem of loneliness.

Adam holds all the responsibility for the human race to come, and yet he is tempted into eating of the fruit by the one that gave him happiness. (Eve)

Eve was tempted by the sinful serpent God allowed in the Garden of Eden. (if God didn’t allow it, he wasn’t aware of it’s prescence, and this brings God’s omniscience into question)

So naive Adam is tempted by proxy from Satan, a being far more powerful & intelligent than himself through Eve, his trusted companion in whose company he found the happiness and contentment than he couldn’t get from God alone.

Adam was made aware of death from the fruit, but upon reading Genesis, it seems like only the First Death (the return to dust) is implied. Later on we find out sin is so damaging that it relegates all to the Second Death (Hell) which is by far the worse of the two.

Could Adam have known this? And even if he did, did he really stand a chance to refuse when his most trusted companion and the former 2nd highest power in existence was urging him to do it?

Anyway, what’s done is done, sin is commited, enter life as we know it. I’ve always had the view that God made reparations for his mistakes. (heresy to some)

This wasn’t what I was taught, but by reading Genesis it seemed like God was experiencing things for the first time - giving humans chances to suprise him - like Noah - whom before that God seemed intent on killing off humanity in full.

It also seemed like God could be influenced by Man, his conversation with Abraham and Abraham’s negotiations about the numbers of deaths that were to take place in Sodom and Gomorrah seemed evidence of this.

Jesus’ sacrifice always seemed to me God’s way of righting his wrongs after conclusive evidence that humans couldn’t save themselves was reached. Thus God doing this was a powerful & beautiful thing.

I later learned that this view is Open Theism - although I may be wrong, I’ve never read Open Theistic material.

The problem with Calvinistic Predestination is that before the foundations of the world, God knew the fall would happen, and he knew the consequences, and he allowed it.

This is Supralapsarianism, and logically it proves that God is either:

a) Willing that many should spend eternity in torment through no fault of their own. (flawed by design)

or

b) Powerless to stop it.

Depending on which one you pick, both have problems.

If you pick b) God is not the God we think he is - he is not as sovereign as he would have us believe as some things are outside of his control, and this view gives the Gnostics some credence.

The Gnostics (if I understand correctly) believed the God of the Old Testament was a demiurge and not fit to create perfectly, Jesus was sent from a higher God more higher, wiser, and loving.

I don’t agree with the Gnostics, but their view is tempting - on the surface of things it helps to explain why so little love is seemingly shown in the Old Testament toward man, in contrast to the God of the New Testament.

If you pick a) however, you give God his sovereignty, his omiscience, his “be all and end all” status, and I think all of us would choose a)

The problem that comes with a) is huge in my opinion, possibly more huge than choosing b)

The question is, how can you honestly love the God of a)?

When I first heard about Calvinism, my first reaction was, “if this true, then I sympathize with Lucifer”.

I nearly want to vomit just typing that, please know that it pains me severely to say that but if one chooses a) it makes Lucifer’s rebellion in heaven more understandable.

Ofcourse, I’m not saying Lucifer is any better, his motives for taking the throne may have been completely 100% pride as we believe today, but if the God of a) is willing to let so many suffer and chose for it to occur, can you really say a different God would have been so much worse?

Probably, I hate the Devil, but I’m not sure I can love the God of a) either, this puts me in an awful position as I am powerless to sit on the fence, I must choose a side (assuming I have choice) and if we trust the Bible (and I do) then there really is only one option to choose, the God of a) who we believe will ultimately win.

continued

 

[Revelation13_16]

… continued

I liken the God of a) to a terrorist holding a group of 20 office workers hostage. The terrorist says 15 of you will die, but you 5 I chose to save, go in peace and rejoice in my mercy.

If you are one of the 5 chosen, you can be thankful to the terrorist, but you’re dishonest if you say he’s “good”.

There’s no reason why you got chosen to be freed and the others were chosen to be killed. There is nothing inherantly special about you that warranted you being freed. (unconditional election)

I posed this question to my seminary trained Calvinist friend and he countered by saying “you raped and killed his daughter”. Apparently this was the justification of sending someone to hell in the example.

I countered that God was supposed to hold my hand, instead he made me do it by making me flawed - his company not suffice (the need for Eve) and then putting me in the midst of Satan in the garden - I may have killed and raped his daughter, but allowed me to do it by using me as a puppet by proxy. (if you know a child will play with matches and put the matches within reach can you honestly then blame the child for playing with the matches?)

My Calvinist friend countered that Adam wasn’t flawed, God always intended to create Eve, he just did it in stages to show man it’s not good for him to be alone.

This shut my mouth and made me stare into space for 20 seconds, I have never pondered it this way.

He could be right, I could be right, I’m not sure.

Dave Hunt wrote a book called “what love is this?”.

I haven’t read it, and after hearing reviews about Hunt I’m not sure if he’s “academic” enough to warrant listening to, but he chose a great title for an anti-Calvinistic book.

It’s very, very hard to love the Calvinist God for me.

Even if I’m elect (and I’m not sure I am), although this God might save me, I still see an unfairness in his methods.

While I can be grateful, I’m not sure how ‘pure’ the love is.

Jesus said “If you know how to give good gifts, how much more does your father in heaven?”.

Likewise, if I was married and had 4 kids, and all were drowning by their own fault - and I had the power to save all 4 - I’d save all 4.

The Calvinst God saves 1, and there is nothing special about that child, nothing that child has done warranted his saving.

If I’d save 4, and he saves 1, then am I - with my corrupt mind & heart - more loving than God?

Impossible!

The Arminian God is fairer. The Arminian God says to the 4 kids, “take my hand quick”, if only 1 takes his hand, the other 3 can’t complain if they drown.

And this is why this issue kills me so much.

Because I was saved with the Arminian view of God, baptised with the Arminian view of God, and backslid for 10 years with the Arminian view of God.

The Calvinist view of God brought me back to obedience quicksmart, I fear the Calvinist God but my goal in coming back to obedience for the rest of my life is to love God completely and live like a Christian.

I’m not sure I can love the Calvinist God, while he may save me, I can’t get over the unfairness of his choices to allow others to be tormented forever without them even having the option - just once! - to reach out for salvation.

Then ofcourse the whole issue is raised as to whether I can really ‘judge’ God in the first place. If I can’t accept a being higher than me because he doesn’t conform to my standards, aren’t I utterly corrupt and just like Lucifer - willing to bow down to no one but myself? (a horrible, horrible, thought)

My speech above judging God and sympathizing with Lucifer sickens me to the core, but I justify it by saying that I only judge the God of this doctrine (Calvinism), and if this doctrine is false, I have judged correctly, if it is true, then clearly I am the reprobate, with a false faith, and that’s why I don’t understand.

Hoping not to go to hell for my words,
Rev

 

[Revelation13_16]

I’m rather baffled by this. First you implicitly criticize people who call themselves Calvinists but differ with Calvin. You say that they should call themselves something else. Then you say that they do call themselves something else but that in fact they don’t differ with Calvin that much. Speaking of being illogical. . . . unless perhaps you are speaking of completely different groups of people, which you didn’t make clear

I disagree with nearly every statement in this section of your post. First of all, you have no right to tell people what “Calvinism” should mean. Language is not limited by etymology. “Calvinism” has come to mean the Reformed tradition as defined by the Canons of Dordt and the other historic confessions. The only different from the term “Reformed” is IMHO historical–one can use the term "Reformed a bit more broadly (I tend to avoid “Calvinism” when speaking of Reformed theology before Calvin, for instance, and I tend to speak of Anglicanism as Reformed rather than Calvinist, because Anglicanism never adopted important aspects of Genevan Calvinism such as church polity). “Reformed” is the older, more universal, and in most respects preferable term. I simply don’t see what your point is here. “Calvinists” have never agreed with Calvin in everything. Calvinism (“Reformed Protestantism”), like Lutheranism, is a confessional tradition. You want to know what Calvinists believe, read their confessions. Calvin is just a particularly important theologian. The Reformed never particularly wanted to be called Calvinists, and it’s highly unfair to saddle the term on them because they generally agree with Calvin and then reproach them with unfaithfulness when they don’t!

Yes, perhaps I was wrong.

I did base my understanding on Calvin + the Institutes and not the confessions, which I assumed were an otherodox understanding and extension of Calvin’s works.

I would be interested in seeing all the things they disgareed with that Calvin wrote, to see how much was really there.

Further research is warranted here, I’ll keep my Cynicism in check.

Quite a bit of his stuff is on the Internet. Here’s his analysis of Augustine’s theory of predestination. Most’s own theory is here.

Thanks for that, these links are great.

In Christ,
Rev13_16

 

[Contarini]

I’ve only taken Eucharist in Sydney about 5 times and all was presided over by a Reverend. (but the trays carried around by lay persons)

I believe Bishop Jensen vetoed lay presidency on the grounds that it went against the consensus of the Anglican Communion. That made me really respect him, even though I differ with him on all sorts of theological points.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on Compatibalism.

I don’t think that the libertarian/compatibilist distinction makes sense when speaking of divine action. If you insist on pushing it, I’d say that we have libertarian freedom WRT second causes and compatibilist WRT God. But I think that language is misleading because it implies that God is just one more cause acting on us, when in fact God is the ground of our being (don’t worry–I’m not going Tillich on you–I haven’t even read Tillich in fact, it’s just the best phrase I can think of).

Argh, I spent a small fortune on these.

You might try buying such books one at a time

I benefited from proximity to excellent academic libraries (until recently) and from the friendship of benevolent people of various persuasions (mostly Calvinists and Catholics) who gave me a number of books in an effort to convert me!

Oh well, at least it’s a good intro, but I’d prefer to be done with this subject and either justify one and kill the other for good.

I would not count on that. Certainly I have been unable to do any such thing, and I’ve been thinking about it for at least half my life!

I wasn’t going to get White or Hunt because of their reputations but thought this book in it’s debate format would be light and entertaining, akin to a colloquial conversation about the subject.

Fair enough–but with an issue like this it’s fatally easy simply to swap cliches.

I’m not in seminary, I’m just a commoner.

I know, but you mentioned the diocesan seminary in a manner that implied you had some contact with it, so I thought you might have access to its library.

Romans does seem the key to all this.

That’s the conventional wisdom. Frankly, I don’t think Scripture is the key to the issue, because I don’t think the issue is resolvable on the doctrinal level (hence my admiration for the Catholic Church’s position). There are certain errors on both sides that must be rejected (as incompatible with Scripture), but beyond that it is from my perspective an issue for speculative, philosophical theologians. Of course Christian philosophers must submit to Scripture and keep it in mind, but I don’t think exegesis is the best way to approach the issue. The great error of Calvinism is their insistence that the basis for predestination is a matter central to the Christian fiath. The heart of the Christian faith on this is a paradox. It’s the job of philosophers to work on the paradox and express it in ways that are not contradictory. It’s the job of theologians and exegetes to make sure that the paradox remains intact and is not resolved into a heretical oversimplification.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Thanks for the recommendations.

I was thinking of getting this eventually.

Waste of money?

Well no–that’s one of the things I recommended (Luther’s Bondage of the Will together with the work by Erasmus to which he was responding).

I hope Edwards’ “Freedom” isn’t like his “THE JUSTICE OF GOD IN THE DAMNATION OF SINNERS”.

He spent nearly all the text calling humans ‘worms’ and whatnot in an attempt to justify God’s sovereign choice in choosing whom he will.

That’s standard Calvinist rhetoric. *Freedom of the Will *is more philosophical.

Perhaps, but all the Calvinist apologetics I’ve read on this sound exactly the same, in a nutshell God can do what he wants and can’t be wrong, everyone should shut up, and the saved should be thankful they were chosen.

Sure, but there are more complex issues behind this rhetoric. As long as you just read these modern apologists spouting the party line, of course you’re going to hear a monotonous unanimity!

I’m not a confirmed Anglican yet. I was baptized a Baptist, but I’ve never taken confirmation as yet to any denomonation.

I can’t confirm myself to a Calvinist church with these qualms, I’d just be an imposter.

Well, the “Calvinist church” in question is the Diocese of Sydney or perhaps your local congregation, not the Anglican Church of Australia or the Anglican Communion generally. I don’t know what exactly the Sidneyites require you to profess when you are confirmed, but presumably you are not required to agree with every theological opinion of your bishop or priest.

BTW, I note that among the Calvinist writers you’ve been reading you haven’t mentioned J.I. Packer. He is, after all, probably the most eminent Anglican Calvinist of our time. He’s worth reading.

I have some Augustine on Free Will coming to me, and William of Ockham’s view on predestination.

Is this Predestination, God’s Foreknowledge, and Future Contingents? Adams and Kretzmann (the editors) are excellent scholars of medieval philosophy and the book is certainly important, but very heavy going. I would suggest reading Aquinas before either Scotus or Ockham–he’s both more central and easier to read, and he’s available online for free. However, Ockham is one of the few medieval theologians who really does sound more or less like an “Arminian,” so I can see why you would want to read him.

I disagree with this view personally.

Why? Which part of it do you disagree with?

Edwin

 

[Philthy]

I hope this is helpful. I will not say that I fear it is confusing, because on this subject to be helpful and to be confusing are probably the same thing. If you aren’t confused by predestination, you don’t understand the issue at all.

In Christ,

Edwin

I am TOTALLY with you on this one Edwin!!! I have never seen anything more destructive to my prayer life than contemplation of predestination and election.

The topic raises some incredibly difficult issues, such as what it means to “know” something. I can not entirely express what I am about to say, but I will try…
All things which are temporal are known by God. Human moral activity, however, which has an impact on eternity (outside of time) may not, in fact, be “knowable” until it has occurred(in the sense that eternity has been impacted). Therefore such events are not “known” by God become known simultaneously as the present to God as they unfold. Sure, that clears it up…

 

[Keikiolu]

…{snip}
Calvinism teaches that man is totally corrupt and cannot choose God. For God to save someone, God must give that person Grace which is irresistable (man cannot fight against it) and that Grace draws man to God like a fish being reeled in to the fisherman, without struggle, and sure to end up in the boat and not escape.

{snip}

Arminianism teaches that man is totally corrupt but still has the ability to choose God. God imparts his grace freely to all and man can either accept it or reject it. God casts the hook in the water, and the fish can either accept it or not, and if he chooses to accept it, he can later on struggle and break free, man has a choice.

{snip}

…Now, my question is this:

Q. Which of these two views is Catholicism most like?

Warm Regards,
Rev 13_16

Free will exists. We can choose to accept grace or not.

Therefore… (you choose).

But in no case is man “totally corrupt”. Man is merely, though pervasively, “tainted” with original sin.

To call man “totally corrupt” would have me believe that God would create a “totally corrupt” thing,… which makes no sense to me. (Even Satan wasn’t CREATED totally corrupt.)

To utterly deny “free will” would make the story of the universe and our human story within it utterly meaningless, as we are not here to learn and choose, but to shift from here to there as robots.

Hmmm,… I choose free will and the beauty of a good creation where we are tasked to wisely choose to not give in to sin because God has shown us the wisdom of His beauty.

You may do as you wish though,… if you have free will, of course.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Free will exists. We can choose to accept grace or not.

Therefore… (you choose).

But in no case is man “totally corrupt”. Man is merely, though pervasively, “tainted” with original sin.

To call man “totally corrupt” would have me believe that God would create a “totally corrupt” thing,… which makes no sense to me. (Even Satan wasn’t CREATED totally corrupt.)

To utterly deny “free will” would make the story of the universe and our human story within it utterly meaningless, as we are not here to learn and choose, but to shift from here to there as robots.

Hmmm,… I choose free will and the beauty of a good creation where we are tasked to wisely choose to not give in to sin because God has shown us the wisdom of His beauty.

You may do as you wish though,… if you have free will, of course.

According to the bible, God did create everything good. The ability for humans to fall into sin must be good in some way.

I got the following quote on salvation by “free will” cooperation from an internet site several years ago. Unfortunately, I don’t know who wrote it or where that site can be found but I think it refutes the idea that we can justly attribute our salvation to our own free will choices. Here is the quote:

The theory, “saved by my free-will cooperation with God’s grace” brings with it a great many absurdities, all of which glorify men instead of God:

1. It makes man the cause of his own salvation.
2. It puts grace into man’s power, not man’s will under the power of grace.
3. It robs God of the honor of making one person to differ from another, and ascribes it to man.
4. It allows man a liberty of boasting to God, saying, “God, I thank you that you gave me power to will (yet you gave that to Judas as well as me), but I thank myself for the act of willingness, since I receive from you no more than Judas did.”
5. It exempts the creature from the power of God, as if man, spider-like, could spin a thread out of his own bowels whereon to climb to Heaven.
6. It makes man the cause why God wills this or that; so God must attend on the will of man, and not be infallible in His decrees, nor working all things according to the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11 Psalms 115:3).
7. Then the apostle James lied in saying “every good gift” is from God (James 1:17); and Paul also was mistaken in Romans 9:11. He should have said, “It is of man that willeth and runneth,” and not, “Of God that showeth mercy.”

 

[Contarini]

This being is arguably flawed in the fact that God’s love is not sufficient for his happiness.

Well, I don’t read the story as literally as you do, particularly since your reading would appear to contradict traditional Christian beliefs about God’s omniscience and unchangeability! As I see it, Eve was always part of the plan (though she may have been created/become sentient later than Adam) and the story is making a point about the purpose of gender and sexuality (very relevant in our day!) rather than about the temporal order of creation or the imperfection of God’s “first plan.”

(if God didn’t allow it, he wasn’t aware of it’s prescence, and this brings God’s omniscience into question)

Right. How is this only a problem for Calvinism?

sin is so damaging that it relegates all to the Second Death (Hell) which is by far the worse of the two.

Well, a lot of it isn’t explicit in Genesis (with only Genesis, we probably wouldn’t identify the snake with Satan, for instance). But I think the most Biblical approach is that death is death–the “second death” is simply the full, irrevocable form of death.

Could Adam have known this? And even if he did, did he really stand a chance to refuse?

I think Christians are committed to believing that yes, he could. But obviously it was a very difficult temptation–only this would explain how good creatures of God could possibly choose to turn away from God without irrevocably committing themselves to evil (the traditional view is that Satan’s fall is irrevocable precisely because he wasn’t tempted).

I’ve always had the view that God made reparations for his mistakes. (heresy to some)

Well, I’d have to agree that it is objectively heresy–the picture of God implied in what you just said is radically different from the one Christians have historically held. It seems to me that the Calvinist/Arminian debate is really small potatoes compared to this. I’m baffled as to why you would even take Calvinism seriously if this is your view of God!

This wasn’t what I was taught, but by reading Genesis it seemed like God was experiencing things for the first time - giving humans chances to suprise him

The story (particularly those sections of it which higher critics have traditionally assigned to the “J” document, though of course the entire documentary hypothesis is highly speculative and open to question) does give that impression, doesn’t it? But of course Christians have not traditionally taken this language literally.

It also seemed like God could be influenced by Man,

Clearly God’s *actions *are influenced by human beings. But the traditional, orthodox view is that this is itself part of God’s total design–God gives us the dignity of being actors together with him in the drama of the universe.

I later learned that this view is Open Theism

It’s a bit bolder and more radical than the versions of Open Theism I’ve encountered. I know something about this because I am currently teaching at a school that just fired a well-known Open Theist because his views were too controversial. In fact, I benefited from this to some extent because although they needed another professor anyway, they originally wanted a Biblical scholar and might not have hired a historian of Christian thought if they hadn’t also needed to replace Sanders.

Sanders and the other open theists I know something about would not say that God makes mistakes. They would say that God takes risks by creating free human beings whose actions He cannot (by definition) foresee. One of my objections to this is in fact that either God could foresee the sort of things humans would do (even if He didn’t foresee their specific actions) or He couldn’t. If He could, then he’s not “off the hook.” If He couldn’t, then we have to question what it would mean to say that He was perfect or all-knowing in any meaningful sense (even granted the premise that future free actions are intrinsically unknowable).

Other, more radical people, such as the Lutheran Biblical scholar Terence Fretheim, would probably be willing to say that God makes mistakes. In fact, I attended a session on open theism at the American Academy of Religion annual meeting last fall in which Fretheim gave the official response to a whole panel of open theists and chided them for not being willing to go further, specifically in being unwilling to speak of God changing.

 

[Contarini]

The problem with Calvinistic Predestination is that before the foundations of the world, God knew the fall would happen, and he knew the consequences, and he allowed it.

That’s not Calvinism. That’s just regular old orthodox Christianity. I can’t see why you think Arminianism helps in this regard. Open theism might, though I don’t think it makes much difference because of the dilemma I posed above. Frankly, I think this is the single biggest problem for Christianity or any form of monotheism. In my opinion, the sort of god for whom this objection would not be a problem would not be God at all but a polytheistic deity, even if for some strange reason we concluded that there was only one of him (i.e., there might quite easily be more of such a god out there somewhere–the only way you can hold to a coherent monotheism, in my view, is to say that God is absolutely perfect).

I don’t agree with the Gnostics, but their view is tempting - on the surface of things it helps to explain why so little love is seemingly shown in the Old Testament toward man, in contrast to the God of the New Testament.

I agree that Gnosticism has a certain appeal (though I think it’s radically mistaken), but I can never understand this OT/NT distinction, although many readers of the Bible seem to think it obvious. It appears to me that the God of Isaiah or Hosea is every bit as loving and forgiving as the God of the NT, and the God of Matthew or Revelation is in some respects *more *terrifying and vengeful than the God of the OT. Nowhere in the OT do we get the idea that God will torment the wicked eternally–something claimed in the NT. I find God’s wrath and His mercy all the way through the Bible–both are intensified in the NT, which gives us in the story of Jesus the key to the whole narrative and only in *that *sense is a more comforting book than the OT.

But I seem to be in a minority on this one!

The question is, how can you honestly love the God of a)?

Well, speaking for myself, simply by saying that God is above my understanding and that “a” is not a true account of God’s actions but rather an account of what God’s actions would look like if God interacted with the universe as one more agent, who plans, controls, permits, etc. God is far more than this–God is the life of all things. God is not impersonal (i.e., human persons are the closest analogs to God we know), but God is more than personal. In other words, the ways in which God is like humans are more important and more central to God’s identity than the ways in which God is like a lion or a lamb or a tree or a mountain or a rainstorm or a volcano, but at the end of the day God is not any of these things–including a human being. Probably the best analogy to our relationship with God is that of an author and a work of fiction. We are not real in the way God is real. He exists on a completely different plane of reality altogether. We can only speak of Him as a person insofar as He has revealed Himself to us in that form–in a cloudy and mysterious way in the OT (as “Yahweh”) and more concretely and clearly in the man Jesus. When we see Jesus we see the sort of person God is insofar as God is a person (actually He is three Persons!). If we can love Jesus, then we can love God.

Also, I would say that if we can love the story of which we are a part, then we must find the Author loveable. Terrifying and horrible as the story often is, I cannot say that the story as a whole is other than good and glorious. My most recent and particular reason for this is the birth of my daughter (three months ago). A story of which she forms one of the latest chapters must be a good story

Of course there are problems with the story analogy (the main one being that our stories contain terror and evil because we find them in the world around us–but God is the original Creator and not a sub-Creator, so the problem of evil remains).

When I first heard about Calvinism, my first reaction was, “if this true, then I sympathize with Lucifer”.

I don’t blame you for that. God made us to love justice and goodness, so our revulsion from a view of God that appears unjust or evil is from God and we shouldn’t be ashamed of it.

 

[Contarini]

Probably, I hate the Devil, but I’m not sure I can love the God of a) either, this puts me in an awful position as I am powerless to sit on the fence, I must choose a side (assuming I have choice) and if we trust the Bible (and I do) then there really is only one option to choose, the God of a) who we believe will ultimately win.

Well, I’m with C.S. Lewis on that one. It’s always wrong to pick a side because we think it will win. If the universe were so constructed that goodness were a doomed rebellion against omnipotent evil, then we would have no choice but to go down to destruction fighting. I think this is inconceivable (i.e., we can only conceive it because we are confused and don’t actually understand the terms in question–in particular because we treat ontological and moral goodness as two separate things, which is the case only in their imperfect form). But it’s important to get our priorities straight. We believe that God is good first of all, and we believe that God is all-powerful because we believe that being is good and that only goodness can be creative–evil can only corrupt and destroy. “God” is not simply a name for “the one who is all-powerful.” At times I fear that hardline Calvinists mean this when they say “God,” and if that’s so then they are the ones who are worshipping Satan. In particular, the argument that we can’t rely at all on our moral sense is a fundamentally wicked and satanic argument, and any form of Calvinism that relies on this is warped to the core.

Some of your language reminds me a lot of my former roommate. He attended a (quite moderate) Calvinist church and, like you, seemed to find Calvinism both compelling and repellent. He used dualistic language much like yours in the last bit I quoted above. He’s still going to that church and I think he’s made his peace with it. But on the whole I think that this kind of language may be a sign that you should back off from the whole issue for a bit. That may involve telling your Calvinist friends to go jump in a lake (or in the Pacific if you’re close enough). As Luther was fond of saying, you should look to the crucified Christ, in whom God is most fully revealed. The God of predestination is the hidden God–we don’t even have an adequate vocabulary to talk about that aspect of God. But we have His Word–literally–that the terrifying God we do not understand is truly revealed in the living Christ who loved us, died for us, and overcame death so that we might share in His eternal life. That is our starting point–that is the known by which we interpret the unknown God. Calvinists err disastrously because they start from the wrong end.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

… continued

I liken the God of a) to a terrorist holding a group of 20 office workers hostage. The terrorist says 15 of you will die, but you 5 I chose to save, go in peace and rejoice in my mercy.

Well, the analogy is wrong IMHO because it isn’t God holding us hostage, it’s Satan. The question is why God *permits *Satan to “kill” some (though of course Satan only “kills” those who choose to be “killed”–even Calvinism teaches this, at least in its more sensible forms).

I posed this question to my seminary trained Calvinist friend and he countered by saying “you raped and killed his daughter”. Apparently this was the justification of sending someone to hell in the example.

Well, in the first place the fact that your friend was willing to accept this analogy shows how warped his form of Calvinism is! And of course your argument is in principle a fair one–we have to account for the Fall in the first place, so Calvinists argue illogically when they cite the Fall as the justification for reprobation. I don’t think your argument about the creation of Eve holds much water, but I don’t think you need it to make your point.

I haven’t read it, and after hearing reviews about Hunt I’m not sure if he’s “academic” enough to warrant listening to

Well, the problem with Hunt isn’t so much that he isn’t academic (though I do think a good academic training helps people be fairer in their treatment of opposing points of view) but simply that he’s not very good as a theologian or apologist. He sees the world very much in black and white and makes little effort to be fair to points of view with which he disagrees.

Likewise, if I was married and had 4 kids, and all were drowning by their own fault - and I had the power to save all 4 - I’d save all 4.

And that is why election and reprobation can’t possibly work on that level. On that level I’m a Wesleyan–God gives prevenient grace (His “hand”) to all. But there is another, more philosophical level at which it seems clear that an omnipotent and omniscient God has in some sense chosen to permit everything that actually happens. That is what I quoted in the earlier post from Luther–the “hidden” vs. the “revealed” God. And my only answer is that we simply can’t understand how this “hidden” level of God’s action works, because we have no standard by which to understand how the Creator and Sustainer of all life relates to the life that so utterly depends on Him.

The Arminian God is fairer. The Arminian God says to the 4 kids, “take my hand quick”, if only 1 takes his hand, the other 3 can’t complain if they drown.

But again, this analogy doesn’t adequately capture how God relates to us. The closest analogy would be this: if you knew before conceiving a child that that particular child would be a wicked person and lead an utterly wretched life, wouldn’t you consider waiting till another night to conceive a child? Obviously even this analogy is inadequate, but I think it gets closer to the real dilemma.

The Calvinist view of God brought me back to obedience quicksmart, I fear the Calvinist God but my goal in coming back to obedience for the rest of my life is to love God completely and live like a Christian.

Interesting–I see why your feelings are so complicated.

Consider the possibility that both views of God are hopelessly inadequate!

I can’t get over the unfairness of his choices to allow others to be tormented forever without them even having the option - just once! - to reach out for salvation.

Well, even in Calvinism they have the option–they just aren’t going to take it unless God chooses to move them to do so.

If I can’t accept a being higher than me because he doesn’t conform to my standards, aren’t I utterly corrupt and just like Lucifer - willing to bow down to no one but myself? (a horrible, horrible, thought)

Well, as I said earlier I think it’s actually the Calvinists who make this criticism of you who are worshipping (if not acting like) Lucifer. The essence of Satan is the warped choice of power over goodness. Your refusal to bow down to anything that is not good is exactly the opposite of Satan’s choice.

Hoping not to go to hell for my words,
Rev

If anyone is going to go to hell for their words, it is those Calvinists who have made you think that there’s something Luciferan about loving goodness!

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Revelation13_16]

Well no–that’s one of the things I recommended (Luther’s Bondage of the Will together with the work by Erasmus to which he was responding).

Excellent, I’ll get it then.

That’s standard Calvinist rhetoric. *Freedom of the Will *is more philosophical.

Excellent, I’ll read it then.

Sure, but there are more complex issues behind this rhetoric. As long as you just read these modern apologists spouting the party line, of course you’re going to hear a monotonous unanimity!

If I find flaws with apologists explaining these complex issues can I really delve deeper?

Well, the “Calvinist church” in question is the Diocese of Sydney or perhaps your local congregation, not the Anglican Church of Australia or the Anglican Communion generally. I don’t know what exactly the Sidneyites require you to profess when you are confirmed, but presumably you are not required to agree with every theological opinion of your bishop or priest.

Excellent, I’ll find out exactly what confirmation requires me to say.

Though I’m not really sure of the good of confirmation - it’s not a sacrement is it?

BTW, I note that among the Calvinist writers you’ve been reading you haven’t mentioned J.I. Packer. He is, after all, probably the most eminent Anglican Calvinist of our time. He’s worth reading.

I was recommended Packer by my Anglican Calvinist friend, I chose Sproul though.

Is this Predestination, God’s Foreknowledge, and Future Contingents?

Yes.

Adams and Kretzmann (the editors) are excellent scholars of medieval philosophy and the book is certainly important, but very heavy going. I would suggest reading Aquinas before either Scotus or Ockham–he’s both more central and easier to read, and he’s available online for free. However, Ockham is one of the few medieval theologians who really does sound more or less like an “Arminian,” so I can see why you would want to read him.

Cheers for that.

Why? Which part of it do you disagree with?

Edwin

I disagree with it because it’s the same old Calvinist party line:

“If you’re saved, glory to God. If you’re in hell, it’s your own damn fault!”

I disagree completely.

If we have inherited Sin from Adam, and Adam chose to follow the devil, and thus we follow ‘the prince of the power of the air’ as Ephesians 2 points out, here’s the problem:

Adam had a choice where we no longer even have the choice (hence we are totally depraved) so it’s not our fault (nor fair) if we go to hell - it’s Gods - since only he can save us. (under the Calvinist doctrine, please don’t send me to hell God, I’m criticisizing the doctrine not you … unless the doctrine is true, in which case I’m stuffed)

I think Calvinists need to be honest, there is no singular Predestination, only double.

That’s why at present I’m an Arminian and I can’t figure out whether I’m:

a) Reprobate (and hence unsaved) for saying these things.

or

b) I need to drop a few IQ points, notions of Ethics & Logic, to become a Calvinist … it just seems wrong to me.

I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on me ascribing evil to God under the Calvinist doctrine, don’t hold back if you think I’m a heretic, maybe it’ll wake me up?

Love,
Rev

 

[Revelation13_16]

Well, I don’t read the story as literally as you do, particularly since your reading would appear to contradict traditional Christian beliefs about God’s omniscience and unchangeability! As I see it, Eve was always part of the plan (though she may have been created/become sentient later than Adam) and the story is making a point about the purpose of gender and sexuality (very relevant in our day!) rather than about the temporal order of creation or the imperfection of God’s “first plan.”

Hmm, I come from an Independant Baptist background that was dispensational & fundamental, so I was taught reading the Bible any other way than literal was to err.

Ofcourse, the church didn’t prescribe us to read any Systematic Theologies and whatnot and was thus a bit ‘pentacostal’ by favoring worship alot which I think is kind of detrimental and probably why I came up with such views.

Right. How is this only a problem for Calvinism?

I see what you’re saying, how it’s not only a problem for Calvinism, but for Calvinists it’s a big problem because God is all knowing.

His omniscience is never called into question in Calvinism, hence the supralapsarian view that he knew the fall would take place, and that a fallen entity that was 2nd in rank only to him could tempt his new creation.

Effectively, I don’t see how Calvinists cannot ascribe evil to God without being brain damaged or terribly selfish revelling in their own salvation because in the pre-world lottery they were chosen when many people on the ‘wide path’ never had a choice and are going to burn in hell forever.

forever (sorry, it’s so important I had to stress it twice)

Well, a lot of it isn’t explicit in Genesis (with only Genesis, we probably wouldn’t identify the snake with Satan, for instance). But I think the most Biblical approach is that death is death–the “second death” is simply the full, irrevocable form of death.

But Christianity isn’t like Mormonism or any other religions where you get a second chance.

For example in Mormonism upon death the angel Moroni tells people the truth and asks them if they now want to accept it or not.

Ofcourse, everyone is going to say yes aren’t they, even Richard Dawkins would.

But the option of a second chance post death is contra to the Bible, “for man dies once, and then the judgement”

You could say then that the first death is the second death anyway because it will lead there anyway if you’re not saved.

I think Christians are committed to believing that yes, he could. But obviously it was a very difficult temptation–only this would explain how good creatures of God could possibly choose to turn away from God without irrevocably committing themselves to evil (the traditional view is that Satan’s fall is irrevocable precisely because he wasn’t tempted).

I have problems with the fall of the angels too.

Obviously Satan got a third of the angels to join him, but they must have been of a lower rank and not able to fully realize what repercussions their actions might have.

But also they could of been the highest and therefore willing to take the risk?

But whatever view you take, I don’t think you can avoid saying that there was sin in heaven. (please bear with me, put away the pitch fork!)

If Satan fell victim to pride, what was pride doing in heaven?

We are told we will be changed in heaven, that’s why when people say “won’t heaven be boring” we say “no” because they are using their earthly minds and desires and thinking there will be no change in heaven.

But if pride was in heaven, the willingness to self serve in lieu of serving God, what was it doing there?

This casts doubts on God’s sovreignty and power I believe, and leaves us only with two choices: (if there’s another please correct me)

1. Either God knew Satan would do this because he staged it. (ie- Made Satan fall)
2. God didn’t know, it was unexpected.

If you choose 1), God is sovreign but evil.

If you choose 2), God is good but does not have the power that most people ascribe to him.

Either way, both views are heretical, but logical, go figure!

continued

 

[Revelation13_16]

from above

Well, I’d have to agree that it is objectively heresy–the picture of God implied in what you just said is radically different from the one Christians have historically held. It seems to me that the Calvinist/Arminian debate is really small potatoes compared to this. I’m baffled as to why you would even take Calvinism seriously if this is your view of God!

Any views I have are in flux and are subject to change.

I credit Calvinism in ‘scaring the heck out of me’ and making me want to sort out my salvation rather than just lay back with a ‘once saved, always saved’ approach and do nothing for God.

But you do have to wonder why God would send a part of himself to die to save us.

Think about it for a moment, really.

Why isn’t God an Anihilationist? Why doesn’t he destroy souls after they die? Why keep them suffering forever?

The only thing I can think of is this:

God can’t destroy souls because souls are made from the same substance as God, hence any annihilating of a substance like God would be a small death of God in some way and hence a contradiction (since God can’t die or everything collapses)

Thus all created souls can only be imprisoned at worst (like Superman the movie) but cannot die.

My hypothesis has a flaw though, if souls are of the same substance as God and death of a soul would be a small death to God, what about the torment of a soul, would it not be a small torment to God?

I wonder if praise in heaven is therefore used to counter this, like a Morphine to the pain God might feel from having created beings the same substance as him suffering eternally - rendering a dull pain to him.

But then, if God can feel any pain, is he God?

It’s a difficult concept this hypothesis, but you’ll see the logic in it, for we can’t say God is bad, but we think hell is bad, so either we are wrong in our thinking about justice (quite possibly) or about God. (possible but heretical)

The story (particularly those sections of it which higher critics have traditionally assigned to the “J” document, though of course the entire documentary hypothesis is highly speculative and open to question) does give that impression, doesn’t it? But of course Christians have not traditionally taken this language literally.

I find it hard to take any other way.

Clearly God’s *actions *are influenced by human beings. But the traditional, orthodox view is that this is itself part of God’s total design–God gives us the dignity of being actors together with him in the drama of the universe.

But the drama is scripted then to a tee - this is the Calvinist view.

The problem with this is once again evil, if God’s writing the script then he’s scripting people to hell.

Either that or God is lying, hell doesn’t go on forever, he just made it appear to us that it does to get the most out of his actors. (again, both options heretical)

Sanders and the other open theists I know something about would not say that God makes mistakes. They would say that God takes risks

Risks either succeed or fail, failed risks are called mistakes.

by creating free human beings whose actions He cannot (by definition) foresee. One of my objections to this is in fact that either God could foresee the sort of things humans would do (even if He didn’t foresee their specific actions) or He couldn’t. If He could, then he’s not “off the hook.” If He couldn’t, then we have to question what it would mean to say that He was perfect or all-knowing in any meaningful sense (even granted the premise that future free actions are intrinsically unknowable).

Exactly, it’s one or the other logically.

Other, more radical people, such as the Lutheran Biblical scholar Terence Fretheim, would probably be willing to say that God makes mistakes. In fact, I attended a session on open theism at the American Academy of Religion annual meeting last fall in which Fretheim gave the official response to a whole panel of open theists and chided them for not being willing to go further, specifically in being unwilling to speak of God changing.

Tricky territory.

If God changes, but is unchanging you could only explain it as being cyclic in nature.

That is, two parts of the trinity provide the means for the other part to rule (the Father) who rules his cycle before the next part takes over and the former becomes the support beam to him.

If God ‘cycled’ like this, theoretcially there may be a window within the transition of cycles in which Satan had his opportunity to strike (God’s achiles’ heel so to speak)

It would explain why God has Archangels (to protect him in times of transition) but wouldn’t explain how sin came about in the first place.

Either way, heresy.

 

[Contarini]

If I find flaws with apologists explaining these complex issues can I really delve deeper?

Well, if you read the thread Maranatha started based on a rather hasty remark of mine, you’ll see that I don’t think much of apologists as a class!

Though I’m not really sure of the good of confirmation - it’s not a sacrement is it?

Well, that’s a long story! The Articles say that confirmation and the other “lesser sacraments” aren’t sacraments, at least not in the same way as baptism and Eucharist. I was taught in the Anglo-Catholic church where I was confirmed (though this is the general teaching of the Episcopal Church’s catechism) that they are on a lower level but not necessarily non-sacramental altogether. It really depends on what you mean by a sacrament!

Confirmation is a particularly problematic sacrament. The Orthodox call it “chrismation” and do it at the same time as baptism, so it’s not really a separate sacrament at all. And then there’s the anointing with chrism that takes place in baptism–I’ve never understood how this is not the equivalent of the Orthodox chrismation, making our confirmation something quite different!

Liturgical historians say that confirmation developed in the early medieval West (i.e., Western Europe–what became Catholicism as opposed to Orthodoxy) in part as a response to large rural dioceses. Originally the bishop was supposed to be present at baptisms and lay hands on the newly baptized. As Christianity spread and dioceses got larger (being seen more and more as administrative districts rather than local churches) this became difficult–I don’t think the Orthodox require bishops for chrismations. In the West confirmation was seen as the episcopal act that completed baptism and conferred the Holy Spirit in a fuller way. In the Reformation it was redefined in response to Anabaptist criticisms–it was seen as the point at which children’s catechesis was complete and they were able to embrace the Christian faith for themselves. It basically came to be seen as simply the act by which you joined the Church as an adult. The 20th-century liturgical movement cast doubt on confirmation by emphasizing the liturgical unity of baptism. In many ways confirmation has come to be seen as a rather superfluous sacrament–but we still do it! (An interesting note–RCs have now decided that confirmation can be “delegated” to local priests by the bishop, so that it’s no longer a purely episcopal sacrament for them, as it still is for us unless Sidney has monkeyed with that!)

I disagree with it because it’s the same old Calvinist party line:

I can see why you interpret it that way, but I don’t. My problem is with the Calvinist explanation of the maxim, not with the maxim itself, which seems a quite obvious and basic Christian paradox.

I think Calvinists need to be honest, there is no singular Predestination, only double.

If you are determined to avoid paradox, then you’re right. Myself, I couldn’t be a Christian without paradox.

Edwin

 

[Revelation13_16]

That’s not Calvinism. That’s just regular old orthodox Christianity. I can’t see why you think Arminianism helps in this regard.

Because at least in Arminianism people have a choice.

Arminian predestination, God looked down the corridors of time and saw who would believe in him and thus saved them.

Calvinism has no choice, election is unconditional.

Orthodox Christianity says God can’t make mistakes, but this leaves too many unaswered questions.

Open theism might, though I don’t think it makes much difference because of the dilemma I posed above.

Open Theism is tricky but ultimately it puts God in a very loving position.

Would you rather have a God that can make mistakes but fix them or would you rather have a God that can’t make mistakes but makes horrible decrees instead?

I think I’d rather have a God who can make mistakes and also love us enough to fix them than the Calvinist God that says “I decide everything, even justice, dance puppet”.

You could say the root of God for Open Theists is love, the root of God for Calvinists is sovreignty.

I can’t see the latter as being anything but “might makes right” personally.

Frankly, I think this is the single biggest problem for Christianity or any form of monotheism. In my opinion, the sort of god for whom this objection would not be a problem would not be God at all but a polytheistic deity, even if for some strange reason we concluded that there was only one of him (i.e., there might quite easily be more of such a god out there somewhere–the only way you can hold to a coherent monotheism, in my view, is to say that God is absolutely perfect).

If God is perfect then all our doctrines are flawed.

If all our doctrines are flawed then the material they are based on must be flawed.

If the material we are given is flawed, but God is perfect, then Christianity is a false religion. (God forgive me for even thinking such a thing)

but I can never understand this OT/NT distinction, although many readers of the Bible seem to think it obvious. It appears to me that the God of Isaiah or Hosea is every bit as loving and forgiving as the God of the NT, and the God of Matthew or Revelation is in some respects *more *terrifying and vengeful than the God of the OT. Nowhere in the OT do we get the idea that God will torment the wicked eternally–something claimed in the NT. I find God’s wrath and His mercy all the way through the Bible–both are intensified in the NT, which gives us in the story of Jesus the key to the whole narrative and only in *that *sense is a more comforting book than the OT.

I get what you’re saying.

Chris Knechtle in his show “Give me an answer” often says “Jesus talked about hell more than anyone else in the Bible” when he faces people who have a view of Jesus not from the NT.

I guess people talk about the “OT god” because the Torah contains things such as commands to burn witches, endorses genocide etc.

I hate what Muhammad did but you could argue it’s no different from what is commanded to the isrealites in Deutoronomy.

Ofcourse the only difference would be that:

1. God’s people, God’s will
2. Arab’s by the 7th century should have known better than to be living like people from 4000 BC.

Well, speaking for myself, simply by saying that God is above my understanding and that “a” is not a true account of God’s actions but rather an account of what God’s actions would look like if God interacted with the universe as one more agent, who plans, controls, permits, etc. God is far more than this–God is the life of all things. God is not impersonal (i.e., human persons are the closest analogs to God we know), but God is more than personal. In other words, the ways in which God is like humans are more important and more central to God’s identity than the ways in which God is like a lion or a lamb or a tree or a mountain or a rainstorm or a volcano, but at the end of the day God is not any of these things–including a human being. Probably the best analogy to our relationship with God is that of an author and a work of fiction. We are not real in the way God is real. He exists on a completely different plane of reality altogether. We can only speak of Him as a person insofar as He has revealed Himself to us in that form–in a cloudy and mysterious way in the OT (as “Yahweh”) and more concretely and clearly in the man Jesus. When we see Jesus we see the sort of person God is insofar as God is a person (actually He is three Persons!). If we can love Jesus, then we can love God.

Then Calvinism is certainly not true then.

continued

 

[Revelation13_16]

Also, I would say that if we can love the story of which we are a part, then we must find the Author loveable. Terrifying and horrible as the story often is, I cannot say that the story as a whole is other than good and glorious. My most recent and particular reason for this is the birth of my daughter (three months ago). A story of which she forms one of the latest chapters must be a good story

No offence but it’s biased IMHO because you do not know the eternal fate of your daughter. If this life is like a speck of dust, then happiness & beauty now is meaningless compared to where we spend eternity.

My Calvinist friend is having a baby, but if I were a Calvinist, I wouldn’t breed for a million dollars.

Why?

Because if my seed is predestined to either Heaven or Hell, it’s actually safer if it never meets an egg and fertilizes.

I really don’t understand how a Calvinist can procreate and say they are not selfish.

Ultimately they are taking a part in the ‘gamble’ that is the soul of their child.

I wouldn’t ‘play ball’ with God in any system of predestination, I’d be thinking about the soul of my kid and wouldn’t take the chance in creating another reprobate.

Whilst Calvinists may say “we don’t have a choice” I disagree, you always have a choice, even if it means a vasectomy or even castrating yourself.

To say you don’t have a choice is to give carte blanche to every sinner who has ever done evil but couldn’t resist it because they didn’t have a choice.

If you’re a Calvinist and you marry, you should know at the altar that your wife is going to want a kid, or there’s a good chance you’ll accidentally make on, therefore you choose to gamble with the soul of your kid.

But if one called themselves a Calvinist and didn’t breed out of fear their seed would go to hell, would they be saved?

Really, think about this.

Would God predestine one of his elect to mistrust him so much that he is unwilling to procreate?

No, ofcourse not.

So that “Calvinist” would really be reprobate and has a false faith, a wolf in sheeps clothing, ultimately destined for hell.

I can’t reconcile any of this.

God giving people false faiths without their choice etc, I long for some Calvinist to come along and make me see their doctrine in a beautiful light but all I can see is an utterly awful god behind Calvinism.

Of course there are problems with the story analogy (the main one being that our stories contain terror and evil because we find them in the world around us–but God is the original Creator and not a sub-Creator, so the problem of evil remains).

Plantinga’s book arrived today BTW.

I don’t blame you for that. God made us to love justice and goodness, so our revulsion from a view of God that appears unjust or evil is from God and we shouldn’t be ashamed of it.

Problem: Most Atheists revile the Christian God yet according to Christianity they are going to hell.

But if their digust is from a love of justice and goodness then they are the true followers of God, aren’t they?

Likewise if Calvinism digusts me, it might only prove that I am reprobate.

“God” is not simply a name for “the one who is all-powerful.” At times I fear that hardline Calvinists mean this when they say “God,” and if that’s so then they are the ones who are worshipping Satan. In particular, the argument that we can’t rely at all on our moral sense is a fundamentally wicked and satanic argument, and any form of Calvinism that relies on this is warped to the core.

So, do Calvinists worship another Jesus?

Are Calvinists saved?

I know if I were God and one of my followers actually thought I’d predestine people to hell forever, I might save him, but let him go through a bit of hell first for being so stupid and insulting me thinking I’d do such a thing.

Some of your language reminds me a lot of my former roommate. He attended a (quite moderate) Calvinist church and, like you, seemed to find Calvinism both compelling and repellent. He used dualistic language much like yours in the last bit I quoted above. He’s still going to that church and I think he’s made his peace with it. But on the whole I think that this kind of language may be a sign that you should back off from the whole issue for a bit. That may involve telling your Calvinist friends to go jump in a lake (or in the Pacific if you’re close enough). As Luther was fond of saying, you should look to the crucified Christ, in whom God is most fully revealed. The God of predestination is the hidden God–we don’t even have an adequate vocabulary to talk about that aspect of God. But we have His Word–literally–that the terrifying God we do not understand is truly revealed in the living Christ who loved us, died for us, and overcame death so that we might share in His eternal life. That is our starting point–that is the known by which we interpret the unknown God. Calvinists err disastrously because they start from the wrong end.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This post brings up a very interesting point. It is something that I have contemplated for a while. Before I say anything, however, let me express that I am not an expert in Catholic beliefs, because while I WANT to become a Catholic, I am not one. I cannot attend the RCIA class until this upcoming fall, so I still have a lot to learn, but this is what I THINK they believe. Feel free to correct me.

To answer your question most simply, I believe that the Catholic view is closest to Arminianism in the sense that God died for all, but everyone has the choice as to whether or not to accept the gift. Even after acceptance, however, it is still the person’s responsibility to maintain his lifestyle so that he does not reject his salvation and fall into the category of a non-Christian again, so to speak.

My own problem deals in a deeper point, however. Arminianism, in and of itself, seems to descend into Calvinism, to me. God’s omniscience is mutually exclusive to free will, to me.

If I am thinking about this correctly, God already knows who will and will not accept him. As such, do we really have a choice in the matter? For that matter, do we have ANY choices? Fate/Destiny/Omniscience are all the same thing to me. If God sees that something will happen, it will happen exactly the way he saw it, no arguments.

So while we may THINK we have the choice of turning to the left or right on a street, God already knows that we will turn right. No matter what, we WILL turn right. Is that free will?

The same principle begs to be applied to salvation. If God knows that someone will not accept him, does that person ever really, truly have a chance?

Of course - because the Love of God which moves Him to elect & predestine to salvation (& He does this “before the foundation of the world”) is what guarantees that the elect will be saved; their being elected (= chosen) in eternity is in some sense the cause of their being called & justified & sanctified in time.​

There is no way we can ever understand these things in this life - much has been revealed, but certain things have not been. What we do know is that God is Good, Righteous/Just, Merciful - the Cross proves this, if anything does. What we do not know is what happens when or if God is rejected at death - & IMHO, we don’t need to know, & shouldn’t try to. There is such a thing as being blinded by excessive light. It’s better to “make [our] calling and election sure”, & to pray for one another - this is what Scripture commands - than to peer too closely into God’s ways with others. ##

I would LOVE someone to clarify this question for me, as it has troubled me for quite some time now.

God is the Giver of our freedom - we are free to turn our freedom into a means of disobeying God; we are not free to escape being affected by this use of our freedom. IOW, God loves us enough to make us free enough to be capable of damning ourselves by sinning against Him. Atoms can’t be damned; or stones; or elks; or apes; only man can sin, & be damned for doing so. But neither can those creatures love God in a way which reflects being created in God’s image - we can, by God’s gift. So there is far greater range of possibilities open to man, than to atoms or stones - for better or for worse.​

Freedom is not true, is not what it is meant to be, if it is used against God. It is meant to make us free for, & to & into God - never to make us free from God. The only true freedom is to be the slave of God - the deeper the slavery, the greater the freedom. Freedom is not a value-free, neutral thing, it is not indifferent - it is a gift with a bias towards being used for God. God Himself is biassed, in our favour, as He tells the Israelites in Deuteronomy, “This day I have set before you life and death; therefore, choose life”. Freedom is not value-free, because God is not value-free.

God cannot be accepted by those who want to hate Him - to love God, is not the same thing as hating God. God cannot give us freedom, even though we are capable of rejecting Him, and take away our freedom to reject Him. That is to will a contradiction. If we are genuinely free at all, we are free to reject Him. And because good is good only in so far as it is like Him, to reject Him is to choose evil, death & damnation instead.

 

[Revelation13_16]

Well, the analogy is wrong IMHO because it isn’t God holding us hostage, it’s Satan. The question is why God *permits *Satan to “kill” some (though of course Satan only “kills” those who choose to be “killed”–even Calvinism teaches this, at least in its more sensible forms).

Perhaps I am not clear here. (my fault)

You and I Edwin are born into that room with the other 18 people (that’s everyone!)

The Guy at the front is God, he has a gun.

There is one door, marked heaven.

The God of Arminianism says “I don’t want to shoot you, so choose life through my Son who died for you” and whoever does this can leave the room through that door now"

5 people exit.

The Arminian God then says, “I’m sorry you’ve chosen to endure this, I will give you what you have chosen and what you deserve” and kills the 15 people remaining.

Now, rewind the tape, but this time we make the guy at the front of the room with the gun the Calvinist God.

The God of Calvinism says “I don’t want to shoot you, but you can’t choose life through my Son who died for you because you are corrupt, ergo, I have made your choice for you. You 5, yes you, leave the room”

5 people leave.

The Calvinist God then says, “I’m sorry you’ve chosen to endure this, I will give you what you have chosen and what you deserve” and kills the 15 people remaining.

As you can see from the bold above, there is a huge logical gap here in the analogy.

Maybe it’s flawed, I’m not the smartest man, if so please correct it.

Well, in the first place the fact that your friend was willing to accept this analogy shows how warped his form of Calvinism is!

He’s Moore College trained (very prestigious apparently), perhaps he was just indulging me?

And of course your argument is in principle a fair one–we have to account for the Fall in the first place, so Calvinists argue illogically when they cite the Fall as the justification for reprobation. I don’t think your argument about the creation of Eve holds much water, but I don’t think you need it to make your point.

Perhaps I should think about reading not Chronologically but from a different P.O.V, I don’t know what I’d call it though.

The problem is ofcourse in Genesis God only creates things because others must precede it. (nothingness but God > Heaven & Earth > etc)

Well, the problem with Hunt isn’t so much that he isn’t academic (though I do think a good academic training helps people be fairer in their treatment of opposing points of view) but simply that he’s not very good as a theologian or apologist. He sees the world very much in black and white and makes little effort to be fair to points of view with which he disagrees.

Have you read his book “The Woman rides the Beast”?

Any good?

And that is why election and reprobation can’t possibly work on that level. On that level I’m a Wesleyan–God gives prevenient grace (His “hand”) to all. But there is another, more philosophical level at which it seems clear that an omnipotent and omniscient God has in some sense chosen to permit everything that actually happens. That is what I quoted in the earlier post from Luther–the “hidden” vs. the “revealed” God. And my only answer is that we simply can’t understand how this “hidden” level of God’s action works, because we have no standard by which to understand how the Creator and Sustainer of all life relates to the life that so utterly depends on Him.

Darn, if you don’t know then there’s no hope for me.