The Narrow Path Ministries

During the protracted debate with Calvinists at this forum, I found myself thinking that the Calvinist picture of God was not an attractive one. Who could love a God like that? As I recall, someone referred to the Calvinist God as a monster. Hope it was not I! I rather quickly repented of my thoughts.

Arminian, would you still love God if you became convinced the Scriptures actually teach Calvinism? I would. And Universalist, would you still love God if you became convinced the Scriptures taught either Calvinism or the traditonal view of hell? And Calvinist, would you still love God if either the Arminian or Universalist position proved to be the true one?

I say if Calvinism is true, praise God! And if Christian Universalism is true, Praise God! I say this believing both to be false, although I find the Calvinist to have the better scriptural arguments, while the Universalist has better philosophical arguments than the Calvinist.

Some here have indicated (Steve, Christopher, et al) that there is not enough information to decide for sure if Universalism is true or false. I find this puzzling among those who so vehemently oppose Calvinism. I am convinced of the traditional Arminian position, while I admit I just might be wrong about either of the other two systems, only one of which would seem to possibly be true, as one being correct means the other is false.

If a person can not believe in God if the Scriptures teach one of the positions he does not hold, is not the person judging God?

Hello Homer, long time-no post,

You wrote:

During the protracted debate with Calvinists at this forum, I found myself thinking that the Calvinist picture of God was not an attractive one. Who could love a God like that? As I recall, someone referred to the Calvinist God as a monster. Hope it was not I! I rather quickly repented of my thoughts.

Re: the "Calvinist debate" (of last summer)
One point I brought up was:
"When was Ordo Salutis an issue with NT writers and their readers?"
In other words: At that time; was there any kind of controversy over: Does one become regenerated before or after believing?

The Calvinists could not find one instance of when this was an issue. Therefore, I concluded that it was not an issue to the Apostles, NT authors, and first century Christians. These Christians---and the Lord himself---knew nothing about Calvinism, Arminianism, and Universalism. (A simple review of history reveals Calvin, Arminius, and Origen were not born yet).

Arminian, would you still love God if you became convinced the Scriptures actually teach Calvinism? I would. And Universalist, would you still love God if you became convinced the Scriptures taught either Calvinism or the traditonal view of hell? And Calvinist, would you still love God if either the Arminian or Universalist position proved to be the true one?

The NT is "closer" to being Arminian than Calvinist by a long shot. However, the NT authors were Jews (if we include Luke as a Jewish convert, which I think can probably be done). Once again, Jesus and the Apostles, and/or NT authors, knew nothing of these later Gentile developments in theology (including Origen's). When I say "they knew nothing" I mean that, if they did, they didn't elaborate on it in the NT.
I.e., there is no internal NT evidence that Jesus, any NT authors, or early Christians believed in, nor "had", a philosophical concept of God.

If I agree more with Arminianism than Calvinism or Universalism, which I do, this doesn't make me an "Arminian". It makes me more in agreement with Arminius (and his followers) on the "Calvinist debate" issues that came to the forefront in the late 1500s and early to mid 1600s---Gentile stuff---hundreds of years removed from the first century and the thought of the NT people and NT authors.

Calvinism has roots in philosophy that predates the NT. But it wasn't "laid over the Bible" (like a grid or sift) till Augustine---by Gentiles who had a philosophical view of God, (very unlike first century Jews), and who were at least 380 years or so removed from the NT era.

I say if Calvinism is true, praise God! And if Christian Universalism is true, Praise God! I say this believing both to be false, although I find the Calvinist to have the better scriptural arguments, while the Universalist has better philosophical arguments than the Calvinist.

Not to continue to repeat things but, these things are not NT era ideas.

I'll add that, Thomas Talbott "pits" these three sytems of theology against one another. This is not how to do theology; original authorial intention and meaning is how I do it. This is how many Christians "say" they do it too---but they do not. Let me illustrate this point.

Are my "choices for beliefs" to be derived from the thoughts of:
A. Origen, Augustine (and/or Calvin) or Arminius (and his followers)?
OR
B. Jesus, Peter, Paul, the Apostles, and the NT?

The answer is: B.
I'm not just "saying" I believe in authorial intention and meaning (in the Scriptures themselves); I get my views from the Bible, and only the Bible.

Some here have indicated (Steve, Christopher, et al) that there is not enough information to decide for sure if Universalism is true or false. I find this puzzling among those who so vehemently oppose Calvinism. I am convinced of the traditional Arminian position, while I admit I just might be wrong about either of the other two systems, only one of which would seem to possibly be true, as one being correct means the other is false.

Again, what you've written here is an example of how Talbott does things. I find this essentially absurd. What the NT authors said, not later Gentile guys....

If a person can not believe in God if the Scriptures teach one of the positions he does not hold, is not the person judging God?

I'm not sure I understand this question, Homer. I don't really "have" any dilemmas on what I believe along these lines---as I base my beliefs on the Jewish worldview of Christ, the Apostles, NT authors, and the primitive (very first) Christians. I keep with this constantly; later Gentile issues are secondary at the most.

Since I disagree with Origen and modern universalists; and with philosophy being "placed over the Bible" (Augustine, Calvin, and modern Calvinists); I agree more with Arminius on the stuff he and his followers contested in the Calvinistic system.

But I am not an "Arminian".

Thanks for reading and take care,
Rick

P.S. I have a new blog and may do an "article" on this some time (it's one topic I have targeted). It might be something like, "Who says I have to be a Calvinist or an Arminian?"

Rick wrote:

Quote:
If a person can not believe in God if the Scriptures teach one of the positions he does not hold, is not the person judging God?


I'm not sure I understand this statement, Homer.

What I am getting at is this: If God isn't like what I, in my opinion, think He must be, would I still love Him?

Hi Homer

What I am getting at is this: If God isn't like what I, in my opinion, think He must be, would I still love Him?

I don't know how I could (or can) answer this.

'Reason being, God is just like how I know Him.
Why should I have doubts that He's otherwise?
How I know Him is based in His self-revelation, not my opinions, cf.:

Eph 1, NASB
15For this reason I [Paul] too, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which exists among you [the Ephesians and, also, us] and your love for all the saints,
16do not cease giving thanks for you, while making mention of you in my prayers;
17that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him.

If I were an agnostic I could possibly answer your question.

But as things are, I know God just like how He is. How's that, Homer?

Homer wrote:Arminian, would you still love God if you became convinced the Scriptures actually teach Calvinism? I would.

If I were an Arminian (instead of an Open Theist), I would say that the question is meaningless. For I could not be convinced. I simply would not believe in the existence of such a "God".

And Universalist, would you still love God if you became convinced the Scriptures taught either Calvinism or the traditonal view of hell?

Ditto (as in the first answer)

And Calvinist, would you still love God if either the Arminian or Universalist position proved to be the true one?

In my early twenties I was a Calvinist, and just as dogmatic as current Calvinists. At that time, I could never have been convinced of these "heretical" positions.

Let's consider another scenario. Suppose Paul's actual first letter to the Corinthians is found. It is determined beyond question to be authentic. In it Paul clearly teaches, again beyond question, that he received from Christ:

1) The TULIP of Calvinism is true. or

2) That the traditional undestanding of free will and eternal punishment is true. or

3) That Universalism is true.

Would you, in any case, still be a Christian?

I would certainly still be a Christian, and was, even when I held some of these other views. I didn't believe all the Calvinist points, but I would have, if I had thought the Bible taught them. I have no problem with God having all the prerogatives. If I had to believe the Calvinist doctrines, I would still fear God, and feel obliged to serve Him. I would simply have difficulty finding Him lovable.

Would you, in any case, still be a Christian?

Of course. My becoming a Christian had to do, first and foremost, with a relationship. The theology, which filled in the blanks, came later and gradually.

I would still serve God, and seek to understand, but would find it hard to be joyful in my faith if Calvanism or ET were proven to be true.

Todd

I would still serve God, and seek to understand, but would find it hard to be joyful in my faith if Calvanism or ET were proven to be true.


I would love to say that it would'nt matter, but we are commanded to love God wilh all or our MIND as well as heart and to be frank my mind can not comprehend eternal torment.
It's becoming more and more evident to me that the average person is throughly incompetent to make decisions affecting his eternal destiny and if this is true then the concept of eternal torment is beyond my ability to grasp.