Calvinism is Strange Indeed

[CThomas]

The entire point of my argument was to distinguish between two different types of causes, one of which involves external coercion and the other of which involves "causing" by simply creating with certain proclivities and then "allowing" the behavior to occur without supernaturally altering those proclivities. If this basic point didn't come through in my posting then I must have expressed myself extremely poorly. But in any event, that's what accounts for the curtness. My entire point was to distinguish between causation by coercion and causation by creation-plus-allowance, so when you respond by plucking out the "allowance" component in isolation, critiquing it as if it was the entirety of my argument, and just ignoring the entire distinction in which that comes into play it sort of makes me throw up my hands and say, "well, I tried my best."

P.S. I have no clue why you place a parenthetical question mark after the word exegesis.

Hi CT,

You r response seems unnecessarily curt. I focused on one word ("cause") because that was the subject of your post to me. You followed my analogy to a point, but said the difference lay in the fact that

"This is the polar opposite of what we're saying God does, which merely "causes" the outcome by letting the man do what the guy wants to do anyway",

and so I addressed you. It does no good to address your second point to me, namely:

this whole set of issues is complicated and difficult, and I'm not trying to convince you to become a Calvinist. My ambition here is much more modest. I just want you to see that these sort of arguments that attempt to dismiss Calvinism on casual a priori grounds without doing the hard work of exegesis are wrong, and rest upon a confusion

because this really isn't an issue for me. I have looked at the arguments for Augustinianism and found them wanting. My feeling is that the only thing that makes the "exegesis"(?) "hard work" is the mental gymnastics necessary to make it work to an otherwise rational and reasonable and merciful person.

Regards, Brenden.

[CThomas]

I don't see the problem for Calvinism, Homer. It's obviously a true statement under both Calvinism and non-Calvinism that everyone should repent, and that the failure to do so will have adverse consequences. There is no reason I would take any different reading of the word "all" in this passage than you do.

Hi CThomas,

Getting back to my OP.

Acts 17:30 New American Standard Bible

30. Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,

How are we to make sense of Paul's statement if a large part of mankind is helpless, with no hope of repenting, unless God chooses and regenerates them first? I realize the Calvinist can and will argue that "all" doesn't really mean all, but then "everywhere" could be said to be figurative also.

[psimmond]

CThomas,
It's difficult for me at times to feel that discussing Calvinism with a Calvinists is not a complete waste of time because often they will contradict themselves and claim there is no problem with that.

For example, God ensures that all men are created with a fallen nature (blind and deaf to the truth), and before the foundation of the world He decided to only regenerate some of these (not based on anything these individuals would do in the future). Those he decided not to regenerate, would have absolutely no hope in avoiding eternal damnation. They would live their lives in accordance to the nature and desires that God gave them and then be thrown in hell for living their lives in accordance to the nature and desires that God gave them. On Judgment Day God will say they are guilty of their sins and throw them into the lake of fire despite the fact that He ordained all of their sins and they were only choosing the option that He gave them.

Most everybody would see problems with the paragraph above and claim it makes as much sense as a round square, but Calvinists just say, "Yup, that's the way it works, and it makes complete sense for God to hold them accountable for their sins and throw them in the lake of fire."

What can a non-Calvinist say to that? Sure, God's ways are not our ways, but can we really say God loves all people when he chooses to violently destroy so many for thoughts and actions that He ordained and rendered certain? Does "hate" become "love" when it comes from God's hands? Does "injustice" become "justice" when it comes from God's hands? If words can have completely different meanings when describing God's actions, how can we know that he will keep any of his promises? Maybe, "God cannot lie" really means "God cannot tell the truth." How can we know?

[CThomas]

Hi, psimmond. It seems to me that you are conflating two different issues, namely (a) whether the paragraph is internally inconsistent and (b) whether it reflects an immoral situation. I can't see an internal contradiction in that paragraph, and you don't identify one, but simply say that one exists. Also, you claim that Calvinists "often" claim that "there is no problem with" contradicting themselves. I have never met a Calvinist who said that, and I would be very surprised if your claim is true. Finally, I really don't see the moral point you think is so obvious. There is a perfectly analogous argument that could be made against most non-Calvinist views. Namely, God creates people with fallen natures then does nothing to regenerate the many who fail to respond to the Gospel, consigning them to hell. Now how is that love when He certainly could have intervened to cause them to repent and accept Christ? If the answer by the non-Calvinist is that God allowed them to exercise their free will and that was a good that overrode the bad result of sending those people to hell, then the Calvinist can make the analogous claim that God had equally good reasons under their theology for allowing people to go to hell, e.g., demonstrating His sovereignty, holiness, and perfection, and making His glory known to those on whom He elects to have mercy (e.g., Romans 9). (Also, if the non-Calvinist answer is that God allows people to exercise their free will, then why doesn't God at least repair their fallen natures and then let them act freely with a non-fallen nature, where they would be much likelier to repent and be saved?)

[robbyyoung]

(Also, if the non-Calvinist answer is that God allows people to exercise their free will, then why doesn't God at least repair their fallen natures and then let them act freely with a non-fallen nature, where they would be much likelier to repent and be saved?)

Hi CThomas, and God Bless,

Your above quote is quite interesting, for I believe, post resurrection and onward, God in-fact eludes to repairing man's inability to respond to Him of their own "free-will" unfettered. See the following passage:

John 12:32 (YLT) and I, if I may be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.

Therefore, can we at least entertain that Calvinism should bend it's 'Point 3. Limited atonement' in light of John 12:32?

God Bless.

[psimmond]

CThomas,
How did I know you would read that paragraph and then say, "I really don't see the moral point you think is so obvious"?

I think you're right that some non-Calvinists also hold views that fall apart under scrutiny. Unlike Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc., I don't think the Bible teaches that we are born with a fallen nature. I do believe we have a desire to gratify the flesh, but when we place our faith in God, He gives us his Spirit to help us resist sin/die to our sinful desires.

I believe God loves all people (and when I say "love" I mean it in the sense that Jesus and Paul used it). And I believe that God draws all men to him and desires all to be saved. I also believe that this drawing can be, and often is, resisted and rejected. I do not believe the Bible teaches that God creates some people spiritually blind and deaf and through purposeful neglect keeps them in that condition until they die. And then violently punishes them for being spiritually blind and deaf. You seem to think this would demonstrate God's sovereignty and holiness, but I think most people would agree that this would demonstrate God's cruelty and injustice.

[steve7150]

John 12:32 (YLT) and I, if I may be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.

Therefore, can we at least entertain that Calvinism should bend it's 'Point 3. Limited atonement' in light of John 12:32?







Limited atonement is really just a made up doctrine to plug up a gap in logic. Really when you extend out Calvinism to it's logical end it should end with UR since it's God's will that everyone s/b saved and come into a knowledge of the truth. Isn't God's will irresistable and isn't this God's will? What am i missing?

What i am missing is this so called deadline of physical death and then judgment of heaven or hell. If it's possible that through judgment you can have restoration then Calvinism should lead to UR.

[psimmond]

steve7150, Arminians and Calvinists both recognize two different wills in God. For example, God allows people to sin although he desires righteousness. Why? Arminians say it's because God's desire for humans to exercise free will is greater. In a similar way, those who are reformed say God desires that all would be saved, but his greater desire is to bring glory to himself and this, apparently, is achieved by withholding his grace from certain people.
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/are ... lls-in-god

[TheEditor]

Hi CT,

You wrote:

The entire point of my argument was to distinguish between two different types of causes, one of which involves external coercion and the other of which involves "causing" by simply creating with certain proclivities and then "allowing" the behavior to occur without supernaturally altering those proclivities. . . .My entire point was to distinguish between causation by coercion and causation by creation-plus-allowance

So, to make it more apparent, you would use the analogy of a man creating a ball-bearing, and then placing that ball-bearing on an incline and allowing physics to take it's course? Okay. But then, to imply that the ball-bearing has culpability for rolling off of the precipice is where I take issue. God has imbued his creation with reason, love and compassion. None of these qualities square with a Creator that would melt the ball-bearing in a furnace (or more accurately, put the sentient ball-bearing into a furnace and make sure it cannot melt, hence intensifying it's suffering) for rolling off said precipice.

P.S. I have no clue why you place a parenthetical question mark after the word exegesis.

Simply, because I do not see Augustine as having engaged in it to achieve his theological paradigm. I believe the record supports that his polarizing idea was born out of a reaction to Pelagius, which caused him to fall back on his pre-conversion paradigm of Greek Determinism. Augustine likely tried to graft Gnostic determinism into Orthodoxy, by dumping the "duality" notion of the Gnostic Manichaeans (with whom he fraternized for a decade), and making the deterministic "cause" monistic.

Regards, Brenden.

[dizerner]

steve7150, Arminians and Calvinists both recognize two different wills in God.
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/are ... lls-in-god

Not quite... Arminian will is an either/or scenario, but the Calvinist wills of God is a both/and scenario. For example, God wills men primarily to obey, however he wills them to have their own choice whether to, and he wills to punish disobedience. Is that two wills? No it's two scenarios, one will for each. The Calvinist two wills of God, will that men obey, and will the same men do not obey, and will that they have no will about it. That's two wills, one scenario, simultaneously willing opposite things.

So we have, first preconditions (freewill or none), then scenarios.

Aminian: (freewill)
1. Scenario one: men will with God's will: blessing.
2. Scenario two: men will against God's will: curse.

Calvinist: (no freewill)
1. Only one Scenario: God both wills to bless and to curse them simultaneously.

So I don't think a conditional will of God should be called "two" wills, it's one will with two conditions, and God urges all men to "choose life that they may live."