Help me answer an important Calvinist question

[Catholic_Dude]

adventistnomore:

Gods desire is clear:

This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (2 Tim. 2:3-5)

That was a really good passage, I went and looked it up and it was actually 1Tim2, but none the less it says in the Bible I usally use:
3 This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
I needed to see something like that today, just one passage. Im going to see what he has to say about this.

 

[HOMEWARD-BOUND]

Mark 13:13

Everyone will hate you for your allegiance to me, but whoever endures to the end will be saed.

 

[John_Henry]

Catholic Dude:

You [Catholic Dude] didn’t say the words “all people will be saved” but you did say that God desires the salvation of all people and has the power, authority, and inclination to achieve His will. Such a claim is synonymous with saying that all people will be saved

It is not synonymous. God wills all to be saved. That is straight from St. Paul. God is sovereign. No one disputes it. But just because God wants all to be saved, and certainly could make it happen if he chose to suspend man’s free will, doesn’t mean he that he does make it happen.

And herein lies the incongruity in your position. You acknowledge that God is capable of saving as He will, that He has the power and authority and inclination to do as He desires. Despite such claims, which can only find their logical end in a profession of universalism, you claim that some still go to hell. That doesn’t send off any alarms in your brain?

It is only incongruous if you deny free will. God is sovereign. Man is free. Those are two sides of a coin. Therein lies great mystery. And speaking as an ex-Calvinist, they don’t dig on the mystery thing.

To see how close Catholics can come to Calvinism, check this out:
cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm

 

[atheos_sum]

It is impossible for the Christian (whatever the denomination) to deny the basic idea of Calvinism. If you accept some basic attributes of God, then Calvinism is intrinsically implied. When I read these empty posts I simply have to laugh. Anti-Calvinists deny the very air they breathe. I have deep respect for Calvinists in their recognition and devotion to this austere truth. I have proffered an argument in defense of Calvinism on this site under the title “Calvinism.” Unsuprisingly, the anti-Calvinists on this thread could not adequately defend their own beliefs.

The thread was started by Rand Al’Thor.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I spent literally months studying Calvanism. It’s simply a flawed belief system. Even in this thread, you have proof that Calvanists have to deny Bible verses to arrive at their beliefs.

 

[Lazerlike42]

cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm

 

[Lazerlike42]

cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm

(Pardon me for not wanting to argue. Calvanists are hopelessly circular in their reasoning which makes it very difficult to argue. I’ve spent far too much time in my life doing this to do it any more.)

 

[Lazerlike42]

I will point out thought to all Calvanists, that if there’s ever been a time when you knew you should do something nice for a person, or help with the housework even though you don’t want to, or give money to the poor, or not say that cussword, or not laugh at that joke, or anything of the sort, but you did anyways, you’re going to Hell!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

atheos_sum-

It is impossible for the Christian (whatever the denomination) to deny the basic idea of Calvinism.

Lets rephrase that, its impossible for Calvinist to deny the basic idea of Christianity.
Im not saying Calvin wasnt smart, Im saying your thinking backwards in history.

If you accept some basic attributes of God, then Calvinism is intrinsically implied.

Again your crediting someone who didnt originally invision “the basic attributes” of God.

When I read these empty posts I simply have to laugh.

Lets see what you got.
So far I have yet to find one Calvinist who can tell me when it was ok to start ignoring Church councils, which they claim they adhere to. Yet to find one who could tell me when they could start ignoring Bishops. One who could justify why they use a different canon than their hero Augustine.
Your the only empty post in here.

Anti-Calvinists deny the very air they breathe. I have deep respect for Calvinists in their recognition and devotion to this austere truth.

Listen to your logic.
Calvin came around about 500 years ago, I dont think “non-Calvinists” before him denied the very air they breathe.

I have proffered an argument in defense of Calvinism on this site under the title “Calvinism.” Unsuprisingly, the anti-Calvinists on this thread could not adequately defend their own beliefs.
The thread was started by Rand Al’Thor.

I havent seen it, link it here.

 

[atheos_sum]

Catholic Dude:

atheos_sum-
Lets rephrase that, its impossible for Calvinist to deny the basic idea of Christianity.
Im not saying Calvin wasnt smart, Im saying your thinking backwards in history.

Let’s rephrase that? I like it the way I wrote it to begin with.

(Actually I would change “impossible” to “illogical”)

What i am implying is that the basic idea of Calvinism is in fact a logical extension of Christianity. I didn’t say that Calvinism IS the basic idea of Christianity, no more so than I would say “spiritual gifts” or “baptism” are the basic ideas of Christianity, although they have sparked massive debates.

I don’t want to get into a discussion about whether or not you have to be Calvinist to be saved either. to be completely upfront, I simply want to point out that anyone who flatly denies Calvinism is denying something true about Christianity.

At any rate you were being too vague in your reply.
Catholic Dude:

Again your crediting someone who didnt originally invision “the basic attributes” of God

Really now. Did I credit Calvin with envisioning the basic attributes of God? read, my dear child, pick up and read!

(I’m always amazed when people begin a rejoinder with “again…” when they actually never made the rejoinder to you before.)
Catholic Dude:

Lets see what you got.
So far I have yet to find one Calvinist who can tell me when it was ok to start ignoring Church councils, which they claim they adhere to. Yet to find one who could tell me when they could start ignoring Bishops. One who could justify why they use a different canon than their hero Augustine.
Your the only empty post in here.

You should know that I am no Calvinist; I am an atheist, so it is of little interest to me whether Calvinists are justified in ignoring church councils or bishops or canons.
Catholic Dude:

Listen to your logic.
Calvin came around about 500 years ago, I dont think “non-Calvinists” before him denied the very air they breathe.

You didn’t have to live during or after Calvin’s time to recognize the doctrine predestination inherent in Christianity, no more so than you needed councils such as Nicaea to recognize the doctrines they expounded. The people who recognize these doctrines before they were officially articulated are known as proto-orthodox, or in our case, proto-Calvinists. And if Calvinism was true during & after Calvin, should it not have been true before?

But to your point:

Yes, I do think that non-proto-Calvinists who openly denied predestination denied the very air they breathed.
Catholic Dude:

I havent seen it, link it here.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=50614&page=2&pp=100&highlight=calvinism

 

[Lazerlike42]

Whether or not a person is an atheist or are concerned personally with bishops has no bearing on the inability to refute the claim.

Being an atheist, this poster nonetheless is able to present Calvanist arguements.

If he can do this, why then is he unable to refute the objections concerning bishops?

It is also important to point out that the doctrines of predestination and election as defined by the Holy Bible are very complicated and difficult to grasp and understand. While I don’t doubt the intelligence of this poster, it is valid to posit that such a person would not have the interest, or theological background (regardless of study as there is far more to theology than study) necessary to understand these things.

 

[atheos_sum]

Lazerlike42:

Whether or not a person is an atheist or are concerned personally with bishops has no bearing on the inability to refute the claim.

You’re right, I’m not unable, but it isn’t the issue. Never mind the person of “Calvin” for the moment: the issue of councils and bishops should have no bearing on your ability to refute the idea of predestination.

And, I might add, this thread wasn’t concerned with the issue of bishops and councils to begin with. If you want to argue about that, start a new thread. Nonetheless, your fallacies are incredibly easy to spot; I would not hesitate to say that it’s as if they were straight out of a text-book on logic. (see the fallacy “red-herring.”)

Lazerlike42:

Being an atheist, this poster nonetheless is able to present Calvanist arguements.

Are you saying that I should be disqualified from responding in defense of Calvinism simply because I am not a Calvinist? If Tim sees Billy being bullied on the playground, is Tim not justified in defending Billy even though he, in fact, is not himself Billy? It sounds like you are just apprehensive towards atheists, am I right? (see the fallacy “ad-hominem”)

The best way to refute someone’s ideas is to actually try refuting their ideas. (And even better: refuting their central ideas instead of marginal ones.) You have not done this. You have instead tried to focus on me as a person. Imagine two people debating in front of an audience and one interrupting the other saying, “Don’t listen to this man because he is fat and stumpy. You wouldn’t take advice from a fat stumpy man would you?” Or an ugly man, or a bald man, or a hairy man, or a Jewish man. What does it have to do with the truth of the claim?

Lazerlike42:

If he can do this, why then is he unable to refute the objections concerning bishops?

This is laughable, you sound like bad lawyer. Like I said, it’s a red herring—not only because it isn’t the issue at hand, but also because Calvin’s attitude towards bishops and councils doesn’t discredit the doctrine of predestination. And if you think it does, then instead of nebulously saying, “Yes it does!” Why don’t you actually explain why it would have any impact on the independent doctrine of predestination?

Lazerlike42:
It is also important to point out that the doctrines of predestination and election as defined by the Holy Bible are very complicated and difficult to grasp and understand. While I don’t doubt the intelligence of this poster, it is valid to posit that such a person would not have the interest, or theological background (regardless of study as there is far more to theology than study) necessary to understand these things.

What qualifies as “theological background”? What is your theological background? And isn’t the fact that I am writing this response evidence that I have the “interest” which you claim I do not have? Also, I suppose if anyone else on this thread isn’t a theologian you would tell them they don’t have the background to “necessary to understand these things”? If this is true, then I must ask if there are any theologians even present.

By your own standards, you have not demonstrated to know the slightest about argumentation—as evidenced by your fallacies. And even theologians need to be experienced in the art of argumentation. So what poor seminary did you attend?

I am taken aback that you wouldn’t want me to participate simply because of my views.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

atheos_sum-

What i am implying is that the basic idea of Calvinism is in fact a logical extension of Christianity. I didn’t say that Calvinism IS the basic idea of Christianity, no more so than I would say “spiritual gifts” or “baptism” are the basic ideas of Christianity, although they have sparked massive debates.

Your exactly right it is an extention of Christianity thats what the reformers were after their version of Christianity picking and choosing what they want to believe. Actually Baptism is a basic idea of Christianity and people like Calvin went out of their way to reduce it to nothing near what it was since the early Church times.

I don’t want to get into a discussion about whether or not you have to be Calvinist to be saved either. to be completely upfront, I simply want to point out that anyone who flatly denies Calvinism is denying something true about Christianity.

Nobody flatly denied Calvinism. Calvin believed in God, we believe in God. Your the one changing your tune to “flatly” denies.

Really now. Did I credit Calvin with envisioning the basic attributes of God? read, my dear child, pick up and read!

you said:
If you accept some basic attributes of God, then Calvinism is intrinsically implied.
Ok, in the context of “flatly” I would say yes some basic attributes for Calvinism to be applied:
-outside time
-all powerful
-creator of all

You should know that I am no Calvinist; I am an atheist, so it is of little interest to me whether Calvinists are justified in ignoring church councils or bishops or canons.

So why are you defending calvinism in the first place? As an atheist you recognize serious shortcomings in that ideology.

You didn’t have to live during or after Calvin’s time to recognize the doctrine predestination inherent in Christianity, no more so than you needed councils such as Nicaea to recognize the doctrines they expounded. The people who recognize these doctrines before they were officially articulated are known as proto-orthodox, or in our case, proto-Calvinists. And if Calvinism was true during & after Calvin, should it not have been true before?

False, its called protestantism and it was unthinkable and illogical in the so called proto-Calvinist’s mind. Two things: Sola Scriptura and Faith Alone.

But to your point:

Yes, I do think that non-proto-Calvinists who openly denied predestination denied the very air they breathed.

Nobody denies predestination, just certain views on it.

p.s. about that thread I dont think its worth reading all 125 posts to get up to speed on something 3 months dead. If there is something you have to say make a new thread.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Rand Al'Thor:

Peace be with you!

Here’s the best thing about Calvinism. You know what the best proof of you being one of the “elect” is? If you’re a Calvinist! That’s the ONLY proof and/or assurance you have if you’re a Calvinist.

In theology, or in churchmanship ?​

I had this Calvinist tell me that anywhere from 86%-92% of the world is going to hell!!!

Catholics have been known to insist that most of the world will be damned - on this very site: and probably the person being cited relied on the same quotations from the Bible as Catholics. There have been threads about where people on the CAF are going to end up after death.​

There is nothing in the notion of predestination to salvation which even hints at how many will be saved - “predestined” and “one of the few to be saved” are not equivalent in meaning. ##

And what makes it even more ridiculous is that evidently, according to him, God simply arbitrarily chooses to send these people and there’s nothing anyone can do to change it…if we accept Christ it’s only because God chose for us to accept Him; if we don’t it’s because God chose for us not to accept Him and damn us to hell. And evidently all this is somehow a testiment to the glory of God (no explanation of why or how it’s a testiment to that glory, though!). How anyone could believe this junk
is beyond me.

In Christ,
Rand

Calvinism is not “junk” - no more so than Catholicism, which so many non-Catholics find as blasphemous, nonsensical, and idiotic as Catholics often find what those people believe to be.​

Maybe Catholics should be like Calvinists, &read St.Paul - he has plenty to say in Romans and Ephesians about election. In Romans 9 to 11, he has a lot to say against criticising God for choosing some people, and not others: the “arbitrariness” (as some see it) of God’s gracious electing purpose is heavily emphasised. God chose Jacob rather than than Esau for no reason any eye of ours can see - that choice was still a holy & righteous act, for God is altogether Most Holy; therefore, so are all His deeds.

That word “arbitrary” would be better omitted - God is sovereign in his election of the predestined, and they are predestined, not because they attract God by some good in them that he has not granted them, but purely because He so chooses. His goodness is the only soyurce of good in them; they have no claim on Him. Predestination and election are purely gracious Divine acts - it is not because of any good in us that we are cats rather than human beings; and it is not through any good in the elect that they are elect. All in both nature & grace is from God. Before justification, they elect are as much outside the friendship of God as the non-elect - the only thing that distinguishes them is that God has elected the elect for salvation, and not the others: even Catholics believe there is a Hell; the existence of a Hell is no more of a problem than the question of why some are elected, and others not: an Almighty God allows both reprobation, and damnation - so why accept Hell, and not election ?

If God is to be God at all, and not a man-made idol, there are going to be acts of God to which we can assign no reason. What we can do, is adore the Wisdom of a God Who acts as God does, all of whose ways are nothing but holy, good, gracious and wise. God is not answerable to us. As the Bible says in both Testaments, “Who has ever been His councillor ?” And because we cannot give a reason for the ways of God apart from His own Will, the temptation is to think He is no different from the “arbitrary” & capricious sort of tyrant of whom history is all too full.
He is not like this - because He cannot do what is unrighteous or unholy: so it matters not at all that we cannot say why He acts: it is enough that all His ways “are mercy and truth”, and are righteous, every one of them. If God is God and not man, He has to be “allowed” to be mysterious, and far beyond our understanding.

“Our choice of Christ” is a bit one-sided - “You did not choose me - I choose you”; & “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day”. [John 6.44]

Of course this is “a testament to the Glory” of God - all His works proclaim His Glory. He made them - so they proclaim Him Who is their Creator & Lord. And the way in which He works out our salvation, because it proceeds from His Wisdom, cannot but glorify the God Who “invented” it. All creation is, in that sense, sacramental.

What are we to believe instead ? That God, because of the good He sees in us, that we have come by without His help, should give us heaven as a reward for our being outside His friendship ? If God is more than the invention of our own brains, He is going to appear arbitrary at some point. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Rand Al'Thor:

Peace be with you!

I’ve had an ongoing discussion with a Calvinist for months now, so I TOTALLY understand what you’re dealing with. I still have never once gotten a satisfactory answer to predestination. All I’ve been told (after I’ve dumbed down predestination, using fairly simple logic, and explained it in a way that would make almost anyone throw it in the trash) is “It is a testiment to God’s glory”.

Could that be the problem - that you’ve “dumbed down” something that cannot be treated in that way without being distorted ?​

That’s it. So when God damns someone before they are even born, when they die and He judges them and casts them to hell, that’s a testiment to his glory. Anyone else see the stupidity in that line of thinking? If God gives us free will and we CHOOSE not to accept Him and obey His commandments and then he judges us rightfully, then that’s fine…but when you think that he MAKES us (and by the way, this Calvinist says that while God creates us to be damned and predestines all the actions we will ever make, that’s not forcing us to sin) sin and then casts us into hell for it when we had no say in the matter, how in the world is that a testiment to His glory?

I don’t know if I made this too clear, but these Calvinist beliefs are so darn unclear to me!

In Christ,
Rand

It took me years to move from wondering how any one could believe anything so patently absurd (so it seemed) as Calvinism - stick with it You’ll probably see how it fits together when you aren’t even thinking of it.​

 

[Lazerlike42]

Total Depravity - More or less correct, no need to refute

Unconditional Election - Doesn’t matter so much, either
agreement or disagreement is
acceptable for Catholics.

Limited Atonement - 1Jo 2:2 He Himself is the propitiation for our
sins, and not only for ours, but also
for those of the whole world."

                       - Heb 2:9  But we see Jesus, who was made a 
                                      little lower than the angels for the  
                                      suffering of death, crowned with 
                                      glory and honor; **that he by the 
                                      grace of God should taste death for 
                                      every man.**

Irresistable Grace - Acts 7:51 “You stiff-necked people with
uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are
always resisting the Holy Spirit; as your
forefathers did, so do you.”

                      - Joh 5:39  Search the Scriptures; for in them 
                                      ye think ye have eternal life: and 
                                      they are they which testify of me. 
                        Joh 5:40 **And ye will not come to me, that ye  
                                     might have life.**

Perserverence of the Saints -

Rom 11:16 Now if the firstfruits offered up are holy, so is the whole batch. And if the root is holy, so are the branches.
Rom 11:17 Now if some of the branches were broken off, and you, though a wild olive branch, were grafted in among them, and have come to share in the rich root of the cultivated olive tree,
Rom 11:18 do not brag that you are better than those branches. But if you do brag–you do not sustain the root, but the root sustains you.
Rom 11:19 Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”
Rom 11:20 True enough; they were broken off by unbelief, but you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid.
Rom 11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you either.
Rom 11:22 Therefore, consider God’s kindness and severity: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness toward you–if you remain in His kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.
Rom 11:23 And even they, if they do not remain in unbelief, will be grafted in, because God has the power to graft them in again.
Rom 11:24 For if you were cut off from your native wild olive, and against nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these–the natural branches–be grafted into their own olive tree?

                             Phi 2:11 - And that **every tongue** should 
                                           confess that Jesus Christ is 
                                           Lord, to the glory of God the 
                                           Father. 
                             Phi 2:12  Wherefore, my beloved, as ye  
                                           have always obeyed, not as in 
                                           my presence only, but now 
                                           much more in my absence, work 
                                           out your own salvation with fear 
                                           and trembling.

Double Predestination - Eze 33:11 Tell them: As I live"–the
declaration of the Lord GOD–
"I take no pleasure in the
death of the wicked, but
rather that the wicked
person should turn from his
way and live. Repent, repent
of your evil ways! Why will
you die, house of Israel?

                              2Pe 3:9  The Lord is not slack concerning 
                                           his promise, as some men count 
                                           slackness; but is longsuffering to 
                                           us-ward, **not willing that any 
                                           should perish, but that all should 
                                           come to repentance.**

 

[atheos_sum]

Catholic Dude:

atheos_sum-

Your exactly right it is an extention of Christianity thats what the reformers were after their version of Christianity picking and choosing what they want to believe. Actually Baptism is a basic idea of Christianity and people like Calvin went out of their way to reduce it to nothing near what it was since the early Church times.

A logical extension means that it isn’t the main crux, but that it nevertheless necessarily follows.

What is the basic idea of a square?

You could say that it is a polygon with four equal angles.

A logical extension of that would be that it is an equilateral rectangle.

If you know what a square is, and you know something about the realm in which squares are called into question (i.e. geometry) you can then draw out all the axioms and assumptions and come to further conclusions about the nature of a square.
Catholic Dude:
Ok, in the context of “flatly” I would say yes some basic attributes for Calvinism to be applied:

-outside time

-all powerful

-creator of all

Yes those are attributes. But this is my standard list.

-Creator of all

-Omniscient

-Omnipotent

<Unbound by the limitations of his creation

<time

-Omni-benevolent

-Eternal
Catholic Dude:
So why are you defending calvinism in the first place? As an atheist you recognize serious shortcomings in that ideology.

I recognize that Calvinism is a logical extension of nearly all the monotheistic religions. Calvinism, though doctrinally consistent, nonetheless exposes a gaping error in the monotheistic tradition. I wish to expose this gaping error.
Catholic Dude:
Nobody denies predestination, just certain views on it.

p.s. about that thread I dont think its worth reading all 125 posts to get up to speed on something 3 months dead. If there is something you have to say make a new thread.

Really, nobody denies predestination? What kind of predestination do you accept?

It was a good thread and well worth reading. I think most people on this site think Calvinism is silly and easily refuted. But I have shown in that thread that it is very defensible. But my opponents just left me hanging, which isn’t very credible on their part. Sadly, people would rather post on less substantive threads where they can simply say how silly Calvinism seems to them, without actually finding stasis and battling for their ideas.

 

[atheos_sum]

I would rather have you post on the other thread, since I have already committed much to that case, and because I fear that we would simply accumulate another 125 posts on this thread, and then suddenly you would give up and leave me hanging in the same situation I am in now. But I’m actually feeling a little apathetic about finding a worthy opponent, since I have done this quite a bit already, even with some well-read Calvinists friends of mine who wish to argue that benevolence can be reconciled with omniscience.

 

[atheos_sum]

You’ve got to be kidding.

You guys are leaving me hanging again?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

atheos_sum:

I would rather have you post on the other thread, since I have already committed much to that case, and because I fear that we would simply accumulate another 125 posts on this thread, and then suddenly you would give up and leave me hanging in the same situation I am in now. But I’m actually feeling a little apathetic about finding a worthy opponent, since I have done this quite a bit already, even with some well-read Calvinists friends of mine who wish to argue that benevolence can be reconciled with omniscience.

It would certainly be no fun or good to pile up a heap of posts which don’t go anywhere…​

What do you want to oppose ? ##