M
Mystic_Warrior
Guest
No, it’s not.
This has been explained over and over.
No, I don’t.
I’m leaving.
Peace…
MW
- Status
I’m leaving.
Peace…
MW
B
Badaliyyah
Guest
Let us try this one last time, despite the fact that this issue has been addressed so many times on this thread alone that you ought to be able to tell us Calvin’s or Aquinas’ answer yourself by now. So, taking your three propositions:
Evangelization may well be one way in which I discover that the ultimate truth of human existence is not found in some finite object, but has its ground in God. The way in which God/Being is known by beings is in and through the beings themselves. History is the way we know ourselves and God; it is how we become who we are. These two (God and humanity), within History, cannot be separated. There is no other path for us who are finite.
You need to stop putting human freedom on the same level with God. You need to stop ignoring the difference between beings and Being.
salaam.
for starters, maybe you should, for your own sake, avoid words like “already” (pre-destination, fore-knowledge, the use of the past tense in the verb) because it seems to be distracting you from the issue. These words are certainly very traditional ways of talking about God, but you seem unable to remember that God is not in time, and so your objections seem to indicate that there was some past event that determined the future, when this has nothing to do with election. You have said that you understand that, so we ought to be able to agree that we are not talking about some past event that determined humanity’s future. We are, instead, talking about the way in which temporal, historical, finite being is grounded in Being. As long as the temporal language of something like “already” or “chosen” is not causing a distraction, then we can move on. God is the sole basis of election.
since denying this would involve saying that the finite beings ground Being, which is absurd, then of course this is true. Again language of “choice” must be treated with caution since it suggests moving from a set of possibles to an actual situation (i.e., from potency to act). Being beyond time and all divisions, there can be no change in God and thus no movement from a possible situation to a realized one. With this provision in place, we can move on.
Now, the entire problem with this thread, as has been mentioned repeatedly, is that you think 1 and 2 somehow have something to do with 3. Human freedom is about human beings in history. 1 and 2 are about Being/God. The way in which finite beings manifest themselves and what they are is through the history of their freedom with others. I believe or I don’t believe. I like asparagus (or not so much). Things call out to me to be objects of my freedom: will I buy a car; will I make material possessions into an idol, will I deny the ultimacy of the finite and live a life toward God. Unlike a rock, rationality and desire is a constitutive part of being human: we are free.
Evangelization may well be one way in which I discover that the ultimate truth of human existence is not found in some finite object, but has its ground in God. The way in which God/Being is known by beings is in and through the beings themselves. History is the way we know ourselves and God; it is how we become who we are. These two (God and humanity), within History, cannot be separated. There is no other path for us who are finite.
You need to stop putting human freedom on the same level with God. You need to stop ignoring the difference between beings and Being.
salaam.
O
orange_man
Guest
According to Catholic doctrine no human can change what God already knows will occur (according to His prescience, in other words God has infallible knowledge of the future & counterfactuals). We just realize that God is not beholden to man in making His choices. In other words the clay doesn’t shape the potter.
That being said true Calvinism (not to be confused with heretical hyper-Calvinism) acknowledges human free will and moral agency. We just don’t look to Aristotle to explain these divine mysteries for us … we accept that finite man cannot understand the judgments of God nor trace His steps (as Paul explains at Romans 11:33-34) as a matter of faith.
Almost every error in Christian history can be traced to man trying to explain the judgments of God, which He has not made privy to us. This is our natural inclination after all … since few are willing to relinquish that level of control. Most of us desire to be our own masters and in a sense our own gods (the same mistake our first parents made). Most people just don’t get it … if we maintained any ability to save ourselves there would have been no sense in sending Christ to live the life we couldn’t live and die the death we deserve.
Many will say it’s the coming of Christ, which now enables all people to turn and be saved. However, the fallacy of this concept of a universal prevenient grace is readily refuted by scripture and common sense.
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
B
Badaliyyah
Guest
I said:
One last time, and then I am done, Preaching is the normative means, for Calvin, by which contemporary human persons encounter God within history. Through the preaching of the word, persons hear and believe (or not). God’s Love for us (beyond time) is the reason we believe within time (though, because we are historical beings, this is experienced by us within the movement of historical causes, like preaching, etc.). On the other hand, our belief is NOT the reason God Loves us.
Your inability to distinguish between the basis for existence in God who is beyond time and change, etc., etc., and the way in which human beings encounter their own existence within time (utterly dependent, and dispersed through the divisions of finite existence), is, at this point, either stubbornness or invincible. You have failed, repeatedly, to present Calvin in manner that is recognizable.
You will either realize there is a difference between God’s causality (primary cause) of the finite, and the means (secondary causes) by which things are related to one another and come to be what they are in time, or you will continue to not understand Calvin. Having failed to understand Calvin, your criticisms are off point (i.e., Calvin knows the difference between God as first cause, beyond time, and the secondary causes at work within time).
In any case, if you cannot understand what Contarini said all the way back in post #4, I doubt there is much point in continuing.
salaam.
and then, in a twilight zone worthy moment, you said:
I have really sad news for you. This is exactly what Calvin says. You have been told this so many times in this thread that I have lost count. But you were given this answer as early as post #4, which should pretty much have ended the thread.
One last time, and then I am done, Preaching is the normative means, for Calvin, by which contemporary human persons encounter God within history. Through the preaching of the word, persons hear and believe (or not). God’s Love for us (beyond time) is the reason we believe within time (though, because we are historical beings, this is experienced by us within the movement of historical causes, like preaching, etc.). On the other hand, our belief is NOT the reason God Loves us.
Your inability to distinguish between the basis for existence in God who is beyond time and change, etc., etc., and the way in which human beings encounter their own existence within time (utterly dependent, and dispersed through the divisions of finite existence), is, at this point, either stubbornness or invincible. You have failed, repeatedly, to present Calvin in manner that is recognizable.
You will either realize there is a difference between God’s causality (primary cause) of the finite, and the means (secondary causes) by which things are related to one another and come to be what they are in time, or you will continue to not understand Calvin. Having failed to understand Calvin, your criticisms are off point (i.e., Calvin knows the difference between God as first cause, beyond time, and the secondary causes at work within time).
In any case, if you cannot understand what Contarini said all the way back in post #4, I doubt there is much point in continuing.
salaam.
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
S
Seeking12
Guest
I’ll help you out; NO, because God is the determiner of who gains entrance into heaven and therefore by default who doesn’t.
S
Seeking12
Guest
**I don’t think anyone said; at least I did not, that God needs us for His plan. That would be a contradiction to human actions as being irrelevant.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!
For clarification; you don’t seem to read very well. God chose to use, that is He decided to use, human instruments, that is people, to deliver His gospel message to reach the elect, BUT He can and does use other means to accomplish His purpose. Does He have to use people, no, but is that one way He chose to? yes.**
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
So evangelization, which is a human activity, is irrelevant to salvation.
That’s my point.
A Calvinist who is proud of his beliefs. Well done.
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
That is your position. I understand.
S
Seeking12
Guest
**There you go putting words into peoples mouths; that is not what is said. You really need to read more carefully. It is irrelevant only in the sense that God could have chosen a different route to reach the elect other than evangelization, but God did chose this as a means and therefore it becomes very relevant, which is why we do evangelize.
I think you are so bent on twisting this because you are afraid that you are not among the elect; but you are still breathing. God did not reveal this to me until the age of 35. So hang in there!**
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
It is irrelevant because, according to Calvinist doctrine, it has no impact on who goes to heaven.
That is my point, and you have stated that you agree with me.
I’m not trying to put words in your mouth.
E
Eggnotz
Guest
I used to be a Calvinist (among other things) and I couldn’t get past the notion that God created a number of human beings, in His “image and likeness” for the sole purpose of consigning them to Hell. This is the mother of all non sequiturs.
Also, the fact that John Calvin demonstrated God’s love to pregnant girls by drowning them gave me pause.
“In Calvin’s Orwellian theocracy…the Consistory [enforcers] …made no distinction between religion and morality… Abortion was not an issue because any single woman discovered to be with child was drowned…along with her unborn child and her lover, if he could be found.” (William Manchester, A World Lit Only By Fire, pp.190-191}
It seems to me that the Gospel is kinder and gentler to pregnant girls than Calvin believed. The state of being pregnant is not a sin. Many Calvinists are fiercely pro-life but Calvin didn’t only kill the baby, but the mother as well. This is cognitive dissonance in the extreme.
Also, the fact that John Calvin demonstrated God’s love to pregnant girls by drowning them gave me pause.
“In Calvin’s Orwellian theocracy…the Consistory [enforcers] …made no distinction between religion and morality… Abortion was not an issue because any single woman discovered to be with child was drowned…along with her unborn child and her lover, if he could be found.” (William Manchester, A World Lit Only By Fire, pp.190-191}
It seems to me that the Gospel is kinder and gentler to pregnant girls than Calvin believed. The state of being pregnant is not a sin. Many Calvinists are fiercely pro-life but Calvin didn’t only kill the baby, but the mother as well. This is cognitive dissonance in the extreme.
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
That’s a new one on me. It is shocking if true, but not directly related to Calvinist theology.
E
Eggnotz
Guest
I gave proper attribution to the reference. William Manchester was a very highly regarded historian.
This was merely a little background. But please remember my central point, which was:
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
No, he’s not. He was a reporter and not a professional historian. He never received a Ph.D., although according to wikipedia he did teach history as an adjunct at Wesleyan University. Most of his books concern modern history. I have not read A World Lit Only by Fire, but from what I’ve seen and heard of it it appears to be a typical secularist hatchet job uninformed by good modern scholarship.
I am not an expert on the penal code of Calvin’s Geneva and can’t say with absolute certainty that Manchester is mistaken. But I would be very surprised if he were correct. A few people were executed for adultery in Geneva. I have never heard from any source other than Manchester and those who repeat him that anyone was ever executed there for simple fornication.
Martin Bucer, on whom I wrote my dissertation, did argue at one point that “adultery” could be defined as any illicit sexual activity (and Bucer argued for the death penalty for adultery, though not in the same passage in which he gave this broad definition of adultery). Calvin definitely agreed with Bucer that the death penalty should be applied to adultery, but as far as I know this was only for adultery in the strict sense of the word.
Edwin
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
Bucer and Calvin did not think that the Gospel contradicted the Law as found int he Old Testament.
Do you find the idea of executing adulterers more contrary to the Gospel than that of executing heretics? Why?
Edwin
- Status