So what's the tempest in the clay pot about? Calvinism, natch. The whipping boy of... Well. Everyone. Even Al Gore's chakra use Calvinists as the poster children of insanity. And that's an odd thing as, when you get down to it, the Calvinist worldview has more agreement with Atheism than most Atheists find capable of stomaching. The entire dogma is shot through with a mechanical fatalism that has Creation running about in the same manner as a light switch being randomly thrown by the master of Physics. Complete and total sway. That, qua Richard Dawkins night-terrors, we are all mechanical meatbags. Just at the sway of a micromanaging creator putting on a puppet show by Himself for His own entertainment.
Which is surely the most evil and incorrect notion of things to ever pox this planet.
Ok, sure. I'll go with that. Now ask yourself: Is it wrong? And if it is, why?
No, I don't really care how it offends your worldly sensibilities. I don't give a stuff about your notions of Libertarian Free Will, Open Theism, or how many Virgins can dance the head of pin. At this point in the conversation I don't care what your answer might be. Right now, your answer is only relevant to yourself and how honestly you tackle it. Because your feelings only matter to you.
If Calvinism is entirely correct, you wouldn't be able to tell. You couldn't prove or disprove it. You would be a cog in Deus' machina playing His assigned part and your disagreement would strictly be His fault.
See? Pure evil. It sanctifies every evil action by every soulless meatbag hanging Luciferian jewelry off their pecs at the Gym.
Yeh, but everything is His fault no matter how you come at it. Puppet? All Him. Moral Anarchist? On His head. Libertarian? His choice entirely. The very notion of existence we bother nattering over is His fault. He is the Father of Time and the Bearer of Everything. He is the Father of the Father of Lies. It's all His fault and you're either really distressed about this or singing Hosannahs.
The discussion is not about whether He's to blame or not. It's about how He's to blame for it all. And you can go Jailhouse with it in any extreme:
- "God made me bang a hooker."
- "God understands I banged this hooker by accident."
- "The Devil made me bang a hooker."
If your safe harbor on the doctrinaire sea goes any farther than "Shit happens, I'll deal with myself" then you're going to have a flock of flies at least one of the above. None of which says anything about whether you're in the wrong port or not.
But the question isn't whether Calvinism is correct: It's whether it's wrong. Proofs are one of those sublime things that only go one direction. You can't prove the truth of a thing to someone else, but you can sure throw falsehoods down the well. And Calvinism boils down to a single claim only. That God can make the puppet dance His tune.
Oh, TULIP trippers, make the stronger claim that God "does." But that's unnecessarily a bridge too far. For strapping the Calvinists on the chair and seeing if they float all that needs dealt with is whether or not God "can." Because, if He can, then there's no manner for us to establish how often He does.
And that gets us back to Aspy Central. Because the claims made there are restricted to this tiny little corner of things at most. And in a fantastically round-about manner by using the 'trust' one can have if God doesn't, or doesn't want to, know the future. All of which is simply trying to sneak Libertarian Trojans in the gate without acknowledging it.
Wait, what?
Yep. If God can be trusted then he must be able to keep His word. Flawlessly. Under Calvinism that's a pretty easy claim unless He has a habit of successfully deceiving Himself in His endless micromanagement. Door closed. But under Libertine notions of Free Will, what then?
If God allows it then He allows outcomes of which He is not yet aware; by choice or otherwise. And, go figure, He's made some claims about various earthly circumstances. So it's not an abstract notion of delayed gratification on the other side of the coil. If He allows Himself to be surprised then, whoops, look there. That can't be allowed or His word will be violated. Which requires He get all Master of Puppets to ensure that his Word is Law.
Oh, you can claim that God foresaw it all from the beginning and so He doesn't need to do so actively now. But then that's a Calvinist argument. Bad harbor, that one.
The only manner in which to accept any strength of Libertine Free Will, and the notion that God is trustworthy in the same breath is to acknowledge that He needs to get cranky and throw down on the Potter's Wheel from time to time. To accept Free Will is to accept that the Calvinists might be right after all. If you throw out the Potter's Wheel, you also have to claim that God is or will be made a liar.
Or you're just confused. Now the Supernet Intertelligence made the claim that it was the Predestination set that are the one's calling God a car salesman based on their take of things. And that sort of argument trips everyone up generally. So-and-so states X, therefore they are claiming Y as a logical consequence. And therefore they are calling God a liar.
But if you state that the Predestination set -- who can't really help themselves anyways -- are flat-ass wrong then you've thrown the Potter's Wheel out the window and so are calling God a liar yourself. Which ought put a finer point on the notion that you should trust God just like you trust people. People are well-known liars too.
So sure, the Calvinists are off their rocker. It's a good argument for Anton LaVey to trot out during recruitment drives. But sneaking in your Libertine notions by yelling that you're blacker than the kettle should hardly be persuasive to anyone.
Now ask yourself again: Is Calvinism wrong? And if so, why?
Me? Yeh, it's wrong. That's just how I feel about it. But you don't care about my feelings.
39 comments:
I can write of the many ways Calvinists are wrong, but I'll focus on one here: The Means of Grace. Which is defined as "God employs certain external, visible means though which the Holy Spirit works and preserves faith and thus accomplishes the sinner's salvation." We believe that the means are the Sacraments and His Word.
Calvinists say the means of grace are not necessary, one is elect after all, and particularly reject gratia universalis (universal grace). Which means there are no means of grace for the non-elect either as there is no occasion to despise and reject it.
Since the Calvinist can't judge his election on the universal call of grace, but has to judge it on inward illumination by the Holy Ghost, that isn't even brought about by the preaching of the Gospel, but rather by "the immediate work of the Spirit." - The truth [the Gospel] attends the work of regeneration, but is not the means by which it is effected," Hodge, Syst. Theology.
The end result is that the Calvinist cannot rely on the power of the word or sacraments, but rather a personal illumination which is subjective, in which taking communion is a symbol, but possibly a worthless one since the elect can never really know.
The greatest fall of Calvinism is that it actually turn salvation into a work doctrine. How? Since one can never know if one is saved then one has to look at his actions to see if he is being Christian enough or feeling the right way. Lest you think I'm being unfair, the Calvinistic theologian Dr. Michael Horton, whom I respect, was asked a question on his radio program "The White Horse Inn" by a Calvinist woman in how can she know that she's actually saved as she was worried. He told he to look to her works! He told her that the since she feels sorry for her sins and she wonders if she is saved means that she is saved. Notice it is all about what she thinks and feels and not what Jesus has done for the sinner.
I think it's worthwhile to distinguish between Calvinists and Calvinism. Especially as most Calvinists are Lutherans with a stolen ID. Most Lutherans are Papists with better hats. And most Papists have a really swell Bridge club. And then there's Sparta.
While I share your bone of contention generally it isn't sufficient to show that Calvinists weigh the same as a duck. Heck, if all you do is take the Greek solution to paradoxes and apply it to Lutheranism you'll crank ol' Calvin out the other side every time.
I do think Horton, whoever he happens to be, needs a good dunking though. An absolutely terrible answer from him.
Yes, without a doubt Calvinism is the logical successor of Lutheranism if logic has to rival scripture. Where the difference comes in is that we barmy Lutherans affirm much of what the Open Theists claim and the Calvinists, which drives both crowds batty while we have an agnosticism party and talk about dark glasses and not seeing through them.
I always have understanding for both groups as agnosticism about two apparently contradictory truths can be a bit intellectually unsatisfying. Besides, depending upon the day I might be in either camp.
And if the pope where to just wear our hats we'd have a family reunion.
Calvin was an unrepentant murderer and put himself in the place of God as judge of Michael Servetus' eternal destiny. Since he proved the love of God was not in him, anything he had to say can be disregarded as irrelevant.
He was a power-mad fruitcake. God have mercy on him.
JartStar: I don't mean logic rivaling scripture. I mean the specific Greek solution to "Tomorrow there will be a battle at sea." It was popular then and Luther dabbled with it. It's still popular today amongst the Philosophy set. Calvin just distilled things down and ran with it. Anyone that does the same will come up with the same notions.
jer: Servetus? Stretching my depth but I thought that only went as far as false witness. Distinction without a difference perhaps. Memory has that the whole affair is instructive on letting pass those with power swaddling themselves in the cloth.
Yeah, that's always a useful lesson. The cloth part avails nothing toward the behaviour, of course.
I personally think predestination is missing the point that God exists outside of space and time, (Alpha to Omega and every point of space/time in between) while we are plodding through it, making our decisions moment-by-moment. Our free will and God's foreknowledge aren't necessarily contradictory from that perspective.
There must be a way to know if you're saved OR NOT. It would be the acme of cruelty to pursue God your whole life, only to find out you were wasting your time and may as well have been Ozzy Osbourne's batkeeper.
Two cents, mostly zinc.
To know? Who can tell? I might crack wise about it, but for all I know I open my eyes tomorrow as the proud new owner of beachfront property on the lake of fire. "Damnit, man."
But it's a covenant, a contract, and both parties are supposed to give their due. If you trust God then the rest is all on you. But people being people I'd take a rough stab and say that if you're certain you are, you probably aren't. And if you're worried about whether you've been slackin' and cutting corners -- like Horton's girl -- then, yeh, you probably know best on that count.
Otherwise I can't see worrying about it much. Do good service for the Lord and it'll work itself out. 'Course we're better at deceiving ourselves than anyone else could be.
Ah. Yeh, well. So basically, I'm screwed. But the rest of y'all are prolly square.
Bah! As a Christian we don't have to wonder if we are forgiven or if we are truly saved. The Holy Spirit offers peace to the believer not uncertainty.
Luke 1:77 to give his people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins,
1 John 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.
John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.
The assurance of my salvation is not due to my intellectual assent or my works, but is brought about by the Holy Spirit within me, giving me peace, and the knowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Don't sell yourself short JQP.
In the first comment, JartStar wrote: Since the Calvinist can't judge his election on the universal call of grace, but has to judge it on inward illumination by the Holy Ghost, that isn't even brought about by the preaching of the Gospel, but rather by "the immediate work of the Spirit."
Yet in comment #8, he wrote: The assurance of my salvation is not due to my intellectual assent or my works, but is brought about by the Holy Spirit within me, giving me peace, and the knowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord.
In the first post you complain that on a certain point the Calvinists are wrong, and then you turn right around and say that the Calvinists are right. Which is it?
JQP: The entire dogma is shot through with a mechanical fatalism...
It's only fatalism if the Mechanic isn't trustworthy. In Ecclesiastes and the Sovereignty of God Robert Short wrote: Man has always wanted to be his own god or “master”' because after all, if he is confident of anything it is that he has his own best interest at heart.
But is that the case? Who has my best interest at heart? God, or me? Fatalism results from "I have my best interest at heart, but I'm not convinced God does." Joy results from "God has my best interest at heart."
JQP: If Calvinism is entirely correct, you wouldn't be able to tell. You couldn't prove or disprove it.
But isn't that true of everything? The best we can do is: 1) show that a system is internally consistent with it's axioms, and 2) try to determine if there is an isomorphism between two systems. We don't know what reality really is, so any isomorphism between our beliefs and reality is, at best, incomplete. Accurate? To a degree.
See? Pure evil.
I'm reminded of something Hofstadter wrote in GEB: ... if one sees self-reference as the root of all evil.
God stepping on the stage and telling us how He's directing things creates what Hofstadter calls a "strange loop."
His fault... .... He's to blame for it all...
This is just the artifact of the Fall: that our notions of good and evil are better than His notion of good and evil. We're the characters in the book telling the author how he really should write things. Yet another example of how broken we are.
But you don't care about my feelings.
Actually, I do. But I'm not going to let them usurp the role of reason.
P.S. Non-deterministic Turing machines and deterministic Turing machines are equivalent. We think we're non-deterministic because that's an integral part of our software.
YMMV.
In the first post you complain that on a certain point the Calvinists are wrong, and then you turn right around and say that the Calvinists are right. Which is it?
I said nothing of the sort. In my latest point I did not say that my knowledge of my salvation was solely based upon my peace, which is what I said the Calvinists must do (besides relying on works). To jump to me saying that the Holy Spirit grants me peace means that I think it is the sole way of knowing that I am saved is either poor thinking or dishonest.
JartStar: It seems my humor, like my chicken, was too dry. I agree with everything you put forth there so long as you tack on the following caveat: We, as a society, don't tend to know what it is to love or to be loved; as can be seen by the divorce rates. But we're damn sure that we do anyways; which can be seen by the marriage rates.
That's what I get for trying to pack things to densely.
wrf3: Rather Calvinism is fatalism is God is trustworthy. That, and most of the rest is putting connotation where naked definitions will do.
And yes, they are equivalent and would be indistinguishable to the machine itself as to which one it was no matter what the truth may be. Which is why I say "does" is too far when "can" suffices. Caveats apply for Pushdowns and similar related automata if you're of the the opinion that we cannot compute everything that can be computed.
JartStar: I said nothing of the sort. In my latest point I did not say that my knowledge of my salvation was solely based upon my peace, which is what I said the Calvinists must do (besides relying on works). To jump to me saying that the Holy Spirit grants me peace means that I think it is the sole way of knowing that I am saved is either poor thinking or dishonest.
Ok. If assurance of salvation is not due to your works (your words) and not due to your intellectual assent (also your words), on what is it based?
JQP: Rather Calvinism is fatalism is God is trustworthy.
"is" or "if"? Equality or implication?
Either way, I don't understand why...
wrf3: Oops, "if." Fatalism is just the secular word for the sectarian Predestination.
If a Calvinist can't trust God to Predestination then the whole edifice collapses and you're off hammering back frou drinks with the Open Theists. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I personally LOVE Calvinism and I think that Calvinists are some of the best apologists out there.
That being said, insofar as TULIP is concerned...
Total Depravity - every person is born with a sinful nature since the fall of man in the Garden of Eden.
Unconditional Election - God chose every person whom He would save. This is also referred to as Predestination.
Limited Atonement - Jesus only died for those whom God chose for salvation.
Irresistible Grace - Man has no free will over his eternal fate, and anybody whom God chooses for salvation cannot resist His call.
Perseverance of the Saints - Once one is saved, they cannot lose their salvation and will persevere throughout their lives.
I leave points #2 and #3 open to debate.
God may have chosen or known who would be His.
I personally LOVE Calvinism and I think that Calvinists are some of the best apologists out there.
Of what use is an apologist to the totally depraved? Ok, you leave points 2&3 open. What use is an apologist to one who isn't getting irresistible grace? Or to one who is?
Calvinism could be true. If it is, everything is out of my hands. I am lost, or saved in spite of myself. There is no hope. That is why it I don't think it is true.
I think the guys were just bored and need something to mull over. Definitions, faith, the bible, it beats the usual range of topics. While I have respect for my contemporary Christians bro's, I cannot bring myself to 'dabble' in caring what Calvin thought or wrote including any of these modern bible teachers.
Just in case I was not clear enough, the modern bible teachers with the books and the products to sell at Christian book stores...These days, bible teachers just sell books, give talks and play at words. Whatever will calm a crowd. They no longer cater to the word of God. Which leaves those weak in faith or young in their walk out in the cold, as they are left to reason it out for themselves.
When it is obvious that many good well meaning people cannot sip at spiritual milk or chew their spiritual food without screaming for more salt or pepper or confusing the two when its clearly labeled. I refer to that crowd not us everyday posters and bloggers.
I'm with Jer. We were told to beware wolves in sheep's clothing, and Calvin was a wolf if I ever saw one. We have a description of what love is, and we have the example of God's love that involved coming to earth, putting on human form, and then sacrificing that form in a most painful and humiliating fashion, all for love of the very people that made it necessary for Him to die. We have been told what true religion is - to care for the widows and orphans and to keep ourselves unstained form the world - and none of this did Calvin practice. Instead he cloaked himself in arrogance, persecuted people that disagreed with him (in most hypocritical fashion), and generally put such fear into people that they weren't even willing to help those that Calvin persecuted, lest the persecution come their way next. Some Calvinists have tried to tell me that I should ignore Calvin's life and that his teachings are true regardless of what kind of man he was - to which I say bull shit. By their fruit ye shall know them. A little leaven leavens the whole lump.
I used to fear death. My life was spent in anxiety and I wondered if I died if I would come to in Hell. And then one day while trying to get my little brother to fall asleep, I was singing the hymn 'Just As I Am'...
"Just as I am, without one plea, but that Thy blood was shed for me..."
And the anxiety went away. The sacrifice was made, the debt was paid. I had done nothing to deserve it, I could do nothing to deserve it, and yet it was done and salvation was freely offered to me and all that I had to do was accept what was freely offered.
I think it's easy to get bogged down because we think to ourselves "It can't possibly be that simple."
Also - I don't think you have anything to fear in regards to waking up with beach front property on the lake of fire. The transformation I've seen in you - from being the angry drunk whose posts I ignored years ago - to what you are now is a miracle. Yes, a miracle. That kind of transformation cannot happen by accident - it goes against everything we observe of natural laws. You're a new man, and there is only one person that can make that transformation happen, and only one way in which it happens.
(Maybe you're being tongue-in-cheek, but I've always had trouble distinguishing that in people...)
Giraffe wrote: There is no hope. That is why it I don't think it is true.
What you're really saying is that you trust yourself for your eternal destiny more than God. Your hope is ultimately in yourself.
Good luck with that...
Arielle:
Two points. First, the character of Calvin isn't relevant. Even the worst of men and angels can say true things. "Calvinism" is just a label for a set of statements that claim to summarize what Scripture teaches. Just as Arminianism is a label for statements that claim to summarize what Scripture teaches. The problem is that they both can't be right, because they don't agree with each other. What matters is which one is truer to Scripture? The Thomists would say both are wrong. :-)
Second is the question of how people who don't love God and are initially hostile to God are changed. What effects the transformation of a will that is adamantly against God? Can a will that is opposed to God transform itself?
wrf3,
You and I will remain completely opposed on point one. Character absolutely matters. A pathological liar may say true things, but he can't be trusted to speak the truth on a general basis. We're told to judge people based on their fruit, so I believe it is foolish to pick the fruit up, feel the slime of it on our fingers, smell the stench in our nostrils, then throw the fruit out the window and pretend everything is fine.
As for point two - we'll continue to disagree there, as well. You believe God created puppets, I do not. Observation suggests that it is perfectly possible for people to experience conflicting desires. There is nothing that suggests to me that it is not possible for someone to desire both the eminence of self, and the fulfillment of a relationship with God. (In fact, unlike Calvinists, I believe everyone is called - that is, given the desire to fill the emptiness in their soul with a relationship with God - and that much of the behavior we see among those still lost is a desperate attempt to fill that emptiness with things other than God.)
I believe that to choose God over self requires the work of the Holy Spirit, but that we are given the free will to accept or reject that work - that we are given the free will to pursue one desire over the other.
Now, that's not to say I believe we've been given unlimited, eternal free will. I don't recall any scriptural passage used by proponents of free will that suggests we are given unlimited opportunities to accept or reject grace.
What you're really saying is that you trust yourself for your eternal destiny more than God. Your hope is ultimately in yourself.
That is just nonsense. I have the same faith that you claim to have. I can do nothing to earn salvation, it is given to me. I believe I have to accept it. You believe I can't refuse it. We end up in the same place.
Giraffe wrote: That is just nonsense. I have the same faith that you claim to have. I can do nothing to earn salvation, it is given to me. I believe I have to accept it. You believe I can't refuse it. We end up in the same place.
It isn't nonsense. Where we disagree is on man's initial state. One side has man dead in trespasses and sins, the other side has man weak in trespasses and sins.
In one case, Jesus says to the spiritually dead, "Live!" and they come alive. Their belief is the result of Jesus' command to them. In the other case, Jesus says to the spiritually weak, "Do you want to live?" and, with what little strength they have, they reply "Yes."
So when you say, "I believe I have to accept it", on what basis do you accept it? Because you have the prior ability to accept it, in which case you are then granted eternal life? Or because you were granted eternal life, with the result that you then came alive and accepted it?
Initial conditions make all of the difference in the world.
wrf3,
You're right, initial conditions do matter. We're not going to agree on what those initial conditions are though, because I don't see myself ever believing that God, in His glory and infinite wisdom and love for mankind, deliberately created eternal souls which He damned to eternal torment from before they were conceived.
I don't see myself ever believing that God, in His glory and infinite wisdom and love for mankind, deliberately created eternal souls which He damned to eternal torment from before they were conceived.
He could have done that, His game, His rules. But that doesn't square with Him stating that He desires all men to come to repentance. I understand that there are verses that support either side.
"Could have" is not the same as "did."
I can't square the gospel and the teachings of Jesus with the notion of being born for eternal punishment, with no hope.
Y'know, I was pondering.
Besides the notion of limited free will (and all free will proponents believe free will is limited, even if individual proponents disagree on what those limits are), there is also simply the possibility that God can make certain promises - and not be a liar even if He has not chosen to "know" the future and is not micro-managing everything - because He's simply intelligent and savvy enough to work things out the way He wants no matter what choices any of us here make. Saul doesn't choose to obey God? No problem, instead of forcing Saul to obey, God removes Saul from power and establishes David. In this scenario, God doesn't have to know for certain what choice Saul will make; He simply knows He can work with any choice Saul makes.
In other words, He has the intellectual capability to see and plan for every eventuality, no matter how complex, and could do so while allowing people the free will to choose to follow or not.
But... some things are just a matter of faith. We can speculate all we want but we can't know for sure. I know what I believe on the subject of Calvinism and it can be summed up in the quote 'a little leaven leavens the whole lump.'
I know you ain't around VD's much... but there is a discussion you may want to check out.
There is a discussion of holocaust math in the cop killer thread.
Douchebag.
wrf3: I like you, you're my favorite engineer. But you did post a piccie of the Morning Star in drag as Colonel Sanders in the other thread so no dice this time. Giraffe and Arielle have this one bang on and you're into the weeds.
For contemplation take Giraffe's example. If your framework is that we're craven then our rationale doesn't matter for the goal we reach. Which is not the 'ends justify the means' but simply that the end justifies itself. So again given that we're craven our justifications to or between ourselves are as suspect as they are irrelevant. How we justify getting to the finish line doesn't matter as long as we blame the right Cat for the cause.
Nate: So I looked it up on your mention. The only math I saw was Beale's; which was too low by roughly 20 to 30 thousand. Either by the Nazi records, the replacement and maintenance on the refractory, coal usage by shipment records and aerial photography, etc. But a reasonable envelope estimate nonetheless.
But you did post a piccie of the Morning Star in drag as Colonel Sanders in the other thread so no dice this time.
Wait. What?
If your framework is that we're craven then our rationale doesn't matter for the goal we reach.
Assuming that I understand your point, that's exactly right. As St. Paul hammers home again and again and again, salvation is "not of yourselves."
What matters is God who changes our rationale to conform to His.
How we justify getting to the finish line doesn't matter as long as we blame the right Cat for the cause.
How God gets us to the finish line is what matters.
wrf3: "Wait. What?"
The fab dandy that's to blame for that nasty Lisp you tharted uthing.
"How God gets us to the finish line is what matters."
Yarp, we're on the same page then.
wrf3: I like you, you're my favorite engineer.
Aw man, I thought I was.
Post a Comment