Why should Calvinists Care about Evangelization?

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Here are a few of my problems with your claim that Molinism solves the issues I’ve raised:

1. Many contemporary philosophers criticize Molinism on the basis of something called the “grounding objection.” Essentially this means that there is nothing in virtue of which counterfactuals of freedom can be true. I don’t understand modern philosophy very well, but I note that many Thomist objections to Molinism are very similar. What exactly do we mean when we say that someone “would do” something? I’m not sure it’s as obvious as it sounds.

 

[Badaliyyah]

Molinists say the logical ordering of events for creation would be as follows:

1. God’s knowledge of necessary truths.
2. God’s middle knowledge, (including counterfactuals).

—Creation of the World—

1. God’s free knowledge (the actual ontology of the world).

I suppose on a more benign reading, 2 and 3 are the same and you don’t need that meaningless 2a (“Creation of the World”), because in knowing what is and is not “counterfactual”, things are already actual. But, then, of course, #2 is no longer a “middle” and you are not a Molinist any longer.

salaam.

 

[Badaliyyah]

misrepresents Augustine (Augustine would never say that God’s love for the elect is not his basis for choosing them) and fails to engage with Augustine’s understanding (or the traditional, classical Catholic understanding generally) of what God’s love means and what it means to will something as an end. Ironically, Most has picked up a fundamentally Protestant view here, that love is altruistic. This is in my opinion untenable. To say that you love another for the other’s good alone or supremely sounds nice, but it’s incoherent. You can’t determine what good is in the first place without some final reference point, and the only such reference point is God. Therefore, both we and God love other humans ultimately for the sake of God, not for the sake of those other humans. Contrary to what Most claims, this is the only way we can truly love at all. All will toward good (which is what love is) must have the ultimate good as its primary object.

This is particularly unfortunate because it fails to engage Augustine’s position where it is truly flawed, which is in the idea that God is glorified through damnation. The problem isn’t with Augustine’s understanding of love, but with Augustine’s understanding of justice (Augustine and Aquinas, with the Western Christian tradition generally, think that God is glorified when He justly damns sinners for their sin, and they seem to think that if some people were not damned God’s glory would somehow be less because this particular aspect of His justice would not be revealed).

Just want to follow up on Contarini’s point. His analysis is right on target from start to finish here.

Let me just add, that the discussion of God as Love must have all the same characteristics that the discussion of Knowledge has. Love is the basis on which finite things exist. Love is the ground for existence, not vice versa (just as God’s Knowing is the ground of finite being). God’s love of humanity is not a result or something created in God through or by certain characteristics of finitude, any more than God’s knowledge is a result or somehow subsequent.

salaam.

 

[Seeking12]

Their efforts can in no way change the number or makeup of the elect.

Their efforts in no way change their status as one of the elect.(assuming they are one of the elect)

Are they just pretending so be polite?

**Acts 4:4 “But many of those who had heard the message believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand.”

Acts 10:44 “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.” (This is interesting because they received the Holy Spirit, the true baptism that saves, no water baptism here. they were baptized by John the Baptist – just something worth noting)

1 Corinthians 1:21 “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not {come to} know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.” (Here God tells us why; He chose to use the message) God uses human instruments to deliver the gospel; and upon hearing some will believe and by believing God will bestow His saving grace.**

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

**Acts 4:4 “But many of those who had heard the message believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand.”

Acts 10:44 “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.” (This is interesting because they received the Holy Spirit, the true baptism that saves, no water baptism here. they were baptized by John the Baptist – just something worth noting)

1 Corinthians 1:21 “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not {come to} know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.” (Here God tells us why; He chose to use the message) God uses human instruments to deliver the gospel; and upon hearing some will believe and by believing God will bestow His saving grace.**

Your interpretation confirms my contention about Calvinism.

ie. Human acts, foolish or wise, are irrelevant to God’s plan.

What the passage in Corinthians ACTUALLY says is that God was well pleased to save those who believed.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I suppose on a more benign reading, 2 and 3 are the same and you don’t need that meaningless 2a (“Creation of the World”), because in knowing what is and is not “counterfactual”, things are already actual. But, then, of course, #2 is no longer a “middle” and you are not a Molinist any longer.

salaam.

2a is crucial in the process, because it is here that predestination is executed.

2a is dependent on God’s knowledge in 2.

 

[Peter_J]

Why should Calvinists Care about Evangelization?

Personally, I prefer the Rachel Lynde’s take on the matter:

“Can you imagine that new minister going on about how he doesn’t believe that all the heathen will be eternally lost? The idea! If they won’t be, all the money we’ve been sending to the foreign missions will be completely wasted. That’s what.”

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Personally, I prefer the Rachel Lynde’s take on the matter:

“Can you imagine that new minister going on about how he doesn’t believe that all the heathen will be eternally lost? The idea! If they won’t be, all the money we’ve been sending to the foreign missions will be completely wasted. That’s what.”

 

[Badaliyyah]

2a is crucial in the process, because it is here that predestination is executed.

2a is dependent on God’s knowledge in 2.

I understand the point of it as it is written, but I had already said what I think is wrong with that in post #60.

I was just trying to save Molina as best I could by giving it some sort of coherent reading. Everything is, in a certain manner, already present in your #2, because knowledge of what is and is not “counterfactual” (to use that language) is to already know things insofar as they are actual, in which case there is nothing more to know. There is no need to say 2a any longer, and 2 and 3 become identical with one another.

salaam.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I understand the point of it as it is written, but I had already said what I think is wrong with that in post #60.

I was just trying to save Molina as best I could by giving it some sort of coherent reading. Everything is, in a certain manner, already present in your #2, because knowledge of what is and is not “counterfactual” (to use that language) is to already know things insofar as they are actual, in which case there is nothing more to know. There is no need to say 2a any longer, and 2 and 3 become identical with one another.

salaam.

1. God’s knowledge of necessary truths.
2. God’s middle knowledge, (including counterfactuals).

—Creation of the World—

1. God’s free knowledge (the actual ontology of the world).

This is not chronology. God is outside of time.

This is an explanation which takes into account man’s freedom vis a vis God’s love, justice, and sovereignty.

God uses his knowledge of our choices, actual and counterfactual, to create a just and loving outcome.

 

[Badaliyyah]

This is not chronology. God is outside of time.

This is an explanation which takes into account man’s freedom vis a vis God’s love, justice, and sovereignty.

God uses his knowledge of our choices, actual and counterfactual, to create a just and loving outcome.

let us hope it is not chronology!

the point is that the distinctions introduce a moment of potency into God, which effectively makes God finite (God does x b/c of something about humanity). Instead we ought to say, God creates a just and loving world because God is Love. Of course history is effected through freedom, but to say that human freedom causes something in God is just non-sense. We are free because God knows us as free, and in that knowledge we are free for God (we are not merely existents, like trees or rocks, but are participate in God through knowing and loving; we are modes of free rationality). You continue to treat God’s knowledge as if it were something passive or receptive, determined by externals.

If you are serious about God not being bound by time then all this worry about pre-destination and fore-knowledge ought to dissipate for you. The real issue, the only issue, here is the absolute dependence of finitude upon the Absolute, the grounding of beings in Being. You are repeatedly looking for ways in which the finite can be the cause of the Infinite, creation can be a cause of something in God, that beings ground Being.

salaam.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

let us hope it is not chronology!

the point is that the distinctions introduce a moment of potency into God, which effectively makes God finite (God does x b/c of something about humanity). Instead we ought to say, God creates a just and loving world because God is Love. Of course history is effected through freedom, but to say that human freedom causes something in God is just non-sense. We are free because God knows us as free, and in that knowledge we are free for God (we are not merely existents, like trees or rocks, but are participate in God through knowing and loving; we are modes of free rationality). You continue to treat God’s knowledge as if it were something passive or receptive, determined by externals.

If you are serious about God not being bound by time then all this worry about pre-destination and fore-knowledge ought to dissipate for you. The real issue, the only issue, here is the absolute dependence of finitude upon the Absolute, the grounding of beings in Being. You are repeatedly looking for ways in which the finite can be the cause of the Infinite, creation can be a cause of something in God, that beings ground Being.

salaam.

If God made the decision to create free creatures, which I believe that he did, then to a certain extent his decisions are based on our actions. Our freedom must have consequences or it is not freedom.

 

[Badaliyyah]

If God made the decision to create free creatures, which I believe that he did, then to a certain extent his decisions are based on our actions. Our freedom must have consequences or it is not freedom.

consequences for God? Finite beings somehow are the ground of Being itself? This is pretty much the story of the Fall: humanity mistakes itself for God through pride (placing itself in a position of priority over God) and a misguided sense of its own self-determination.

We need to talk about your definition freedom…or God…Maybe both – I can’t tell.

salaam.

 

[Seeking12]

Your interpretation confirms my contention about Calvinism.

ie. Human acts, foolish or wise, are irrelevant to God’s plan.

What the passage in Corinthians ACTUALLY says is that God was well pleased to save those who believed.

**My interpretation??? I quoted the very word of God. Perhaps you do not believe God? I guess you prefer to give yourself credit for some of or all of the saving grace?

Jesus plus CHESTERTONRULES good works = CHESTERTONRULES salvation!

There is your personalized formula for salvation; reads unbiblical and quite foolish…doesn’t it?
Calvin certainly understood that justification before God had nothing to do with himself; therefore he had nothing to boast about before God; unlike yourself.**

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

Their efforts are among the means God uses to bring the elect to salvation.

I’m sure you have been told this before. But I repeat it in the faint hope that you actually care a little bit about reason and fairness.

Edwin

Contarini is right.

God doesn’t push a magic red salvation button labeled “John Smith” in order to validate John Smith’s salvation. He uses people and events to consummate His Divine will that the elect be saved. If John Smith in Uganda is one of the elect, then God sends John Doe from America to preach the word to John Smith. John Smith believes the gospel as pre-ordained.

But God uses the gospel messengers to carry this out (as they were commanded to do). The gospel messengers are cooperating in the plan of God. I don’t agree with Calvinism. But you at least need to know what it is in order to argue against it.

Peace…

MW

 

[orange_man]

1. God’s knowledge of necessary truths.
2. God’s middle knowledge, (including counterfactuals).

—Creation of the World—

1. God’s free knowledge (the actual ontology of the world).

This is not chronology. God is outside of time.

This is an explanation which takes into account man’s freedom vis a vis God’s love, justice, and sovereignty.

God uses his knowledge of our choices, actual and counterfactual, to create a just and loving outcome.

this is basic Molinism & amounts to nothing more than wild speculation by a Spanish Jesuit with a vivid imagination.

I’m sure God does have knowledge of counterfactuals (in fact I believe I could support that proposition from scripture). However, I can also debunk the idea that knowledge of counterfactuals forms the basis of election. It’s just another form of Arminian soteriology (and part of a debate that goes back as far as Justin Martyr). IMHO it does not reflect New Testament theology, particularly Pauline theology (but also Johannian).

It’s clear enough to me (after reading many of Augustines works) that the RCC has abandoned his soteriology all together in favor of the concept of foreseen faith most prominently enumerated by Jacob Arminius (dutch protestant theologian). There are competing schools of thought though within the RCC (i.e. thomism verses molinism). However, IMO Aquinas was the king of sophistic theology (relying more on Aristotle than Jesus).

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

God doesn’t push a magic red salvation button labeled “John Smith” in order to validate John Smith’s salvation. He uses people and events to consummate His Divine will that the elect be saved. If John Smith in Uganda is one of the elect, then God sends John Doe from America to preach the word to John Smith. John Smith believes the gospel as pre-ordained.

But God uses the gospel messengers to carry this out (as they were commanded to do). The gospel messengers are cooperating in the plan of God. I don’t agree with Calvinism. But you at least need to know what it is in order to argue against it.

Peace…

MW

The point, which you and others are ignoring, is that you CLAIM that human actions are irrelevant while simultaneously claiming that God needs us for his plans.

Your actions contradict your dogma.

Which is a good thing!

 

[Badaliyyah]

…you CLAIM that human actions are irrelevant…

actually, you keep claiming that someone is saying this, but everyone keeps telling you they are not, so i do not know who you are talking about any more. You certainly are not talking about Calvin, (or Thomas, or Augustine, with whom Calvin agrees on this topic, and who are probably the two greatest and most important theologians in the Latin tradition)…or me, or any of the several actual Calvinists who have bothered to answer you as well. You have shown no interest or willingness to understand the people you criticize. Before you can have a conversation with/about someone, you have to at least make an attempt at fairly understanding what it is they have to say.

Contarini has pointed out the determinism still latent within Molina (and a fairly crass one at that). I have tried to point out logical and philosophical problems with it. But just because we think it is impossible to give human action the relevance you want to give it – because we see substantial problems in doing so – is not the same as saying that human actions are irrelevant.

salaam.

 

[Seeking12]

Contarini is right.

God doesn’t push a magic red salvation button labeled “John Smith” in order to validate John Smith’s salvation. He uses people and events to consummate His Divine will that the elect be saved. If John Smith in Uganda is one of the elect, then God sends John Doe from America to preach the word to John Smith. John Smith believes the gospel as pre-ordained.

But God uses the gospel messengers to carry this out (as they were commanded to do). The gospel messengers are cooperating in the plan of God. I don’t agree with Calvinism. But you at least need to know what it is in order to argue against it.

Peace…

MW

Which of these points do you disagree with? What is your basis if you reject?
The five points of Calvinism can be summarized by the acronym TULIP. T stands for total depravity, U for unconditional election, L for limited atonement, I for irresistible grace, and P for perseverance of the saints. Here are the definitions and Scripture references Calvinists use to defend their beliefs:

Total Depravity - As a result of Adam’s fall, the entire human race is affected; all humanity is dead in trespasses and sins. Man is unable to save himself (Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:10-18).

Unconditional Election - Because man is dead in sin, he is unable to initiate response to God; therefore, in eternity past God elected certain people to salvation. Election and predestination are unconditional; they are not based on man’s response (Romans 8:29-30; 9:11; Ephesians 1:4-6,11-12) because man is unable to respond, nor does he want to.

Limited Atonement - Because God determined that certain ones should be saved as a result of God’s unconditional election, He determined that Christ should die for the elect alone. All whom God has elected and Christ died for will be saved (Matthew 1:21; John 10:11; 17:9; Acts 20:28; Romans 8:32; Ephesians 5:25).

Irresistible Grace - Those whom God elected and Christ died for, God draws to Himself through irresistible grace. God makes man willing to come to Him. When God calls, man responds (John 6:37,44; 10:16).

Perseverance of the Saints - The precise ones God has elected and drawn to Himself through the Holy Spirit will persevere in faith. None whom God has elected will be lost; they are eternally secure (John 10:27-29; Romans 8:29-30; Ephesians 1:3-14).

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

The point, which you and others are ignoring, is that you CLAIM that human actions are irrelevant while simultaneously claiming that God needs us for his plans.

Your actions contradict your dogma.

Which is a good thing!

I don’t claim such a thing. You just don’t get it.

Look back at what Contarini and Badilyyah have been saying. My point is that you are beating a dead horse that Contarini has attempted to put out of its misery. I could never argue the point as well as these two have.

MW