brianc
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by brianc on Jun 23, 2012 7:11:18 GMT -5
I've only found one Calvinist here, and when I threw up this challenge, she chose not to answer. In fact, I've never once gotten an answer to this scenario from a Calvinist. So, I'm curious if one here will answer my scenario. I ask this question in all innocents and curiosity as to what a Calvinist's answer is. I really want to know, because no matter how I twist or turn anything in my head, I cannot figure out how this is merciful, loving or glorifying to God.
Calvinists believe we have no true free will when it comes to salvation. They believe God alone chooses whom will be saved and whom will go to hell. They believe salvation is irresistible when God presents it, thereby circumventing our free will to reject it. This means even though God says His will, in the Bible, is that all repent and come to a knowledge of Him (be saved), and even though He apparently has the power to save everyone (by Calvinist standards), God chooses to send many to hell...the majority, in fact, it seems. So, here's my scenario. Also, the following scenario goes from the following premise that God created the first human, Adam, and is his father. And everyone down Adam's line is therefore one of God's children. When the term "children of God" is used, it is not referring to the Bible's colloquialism referring to the spiritual children of God. It is referring to all people whom have ever existed. Just as if you have 10 children and they have 10 children each and so on down the line, 10 generations down the line, all of those offspring are still your children or grandchildren or great-grandchildren. Also, Calvinists say that God sends people to hell against their will to show His glory, and that He is not a tyrannical god but a loving god because of this.
Scenario:
Let's say you are a father or mother and you have four children. If you have children of your own, use them as the children in the scenario. You must choose to send three of the four to hell to burn for eternity (assuming people burn for eternity in hell or the Lake of Fire). And the other one gets saved and spends eternity with you in peace and joy. Which of your children do you choose to send to hell? Explain how it is merciful for you to send three to hell when you have the power to save them all. Explain how it is loving to do this. Explain how it glorifies you to send three to hell and only save one.
I have yet to receive an answer to this scenario from a Calvinist. No one ever takes the challenge. They either make excuses or they simply leave the conversation. Any answers from Calvinists would be much appreciated. Thanks so much.
- Brian
|
|
|
|
Post by yoda47 on Jun 23, 2012 11:33:21 GMT -5
As I said in the other disscution, I don't really consider myself a Calvinist. This is one of those areas that I'm still in the process of reasearching; I haven't made up my mind yet, and I want to make sure that whatever doctine I hold to is Biblical.
But I don't think I understand part of the setup to the question. I'm sure I'm just missing something, but:
I'm confused. If I understand correctly (again, I'm not sure that I do...), you're proposing a question using the same wording as a Biblical phrase, but using a diffrent definition than the one the Bible uses everytime it uses the phrase, yet expecting a Biblical answer?
If we accept that God views us all as his children, the question is valid (perhaps I'm confused why the alternet definition was mentioned?) If God views only those who are saved, chosen, elect, (whatever you want to call it) as his children, then the question doesn't matter because God saves all his children then.
John 8:31-59 comes to mind here as an illistration as to how God sees us...
So, am I miss-understanding something?
Ignoring the problem of my confustion about the premise of the question for the moment, I'm going to take a crack at answering it. (I feel I'm appoligizing too much, but again, if my explanation doesn't hold up, remember that I'm still working out my views on this whole issue. It'll be interesting to see other's responses.)
First, some more mis-understandings or clarifications are requested by me:
- Why? Why do we have to choose whom to send to Hell? (Stay with me, this does matter...)
- Why only save one, instead of some other random number? I get that, in the case of our example, you can't save them all, but why only one? (This might not matter... I'm not sure.)
First; why it matters why:
I might be mis-understanding, but my understanding is that this is an analogy to why God chooses to save some from hell and not others. If so, we need to understand why we're being saved, and what we did that requires us to need saving.
We need to be saved because we are sinful. It's my understanding that not all denominations agree that all people are inherently sinful. The analogy kinda falls apart here, because nothing in any penal code I've read says that we deserve to die because our ancestors did something wrong, but I understand this is an analogy, so I'm skipping this for now.
So, skipping inherited sin (which I do belive is biblical, but...) we deserve to die because we haven't kept God's law. It's very scrict. You mis-step, even a little, and the punisment is death.
In our secenerio, what have our kids done that's deserving of death? Let's say they all killed someone, and you're a judge or something and can't just let them off the hook cause you love them.
Why is this important, you ask?
Because God's character never changes. God is a just God, as well as a loving God. If God just let us all off the hook, that would not be just.
We also have to define grace and mercy. You ask:
It's not.
Mercy is not giving us what we deserve.
If we deserve death, mercy is not killing us.
Grace is giving us what we don't deserve.
If we deserve death, and we get life and to be adopted sones of God, which we don't deserve, that's grace.
In the scenerio, you'd be showing grace and mercy to the child you choose to save, and justice to the other three.
I think the question is not "How is it loving to send three kids to hell." But rather, "How is it loving to save one of them."
Saving us when we deserve death, that's love.
Again, if we all deserve death, it's wonderful that God chose to save at least some of us.
I don't know why God only chooses some of us to save if he can save us all (other than that wouldn't be just, and God is just.) I suppose that if I knew that, I'd be all-knowing, and only God is...
And I have no idea how God chooses who to save, but then, I'm not all-powerful and all knowing.
The problem with the Aramin (spelled wrong, I know, sorry...) argument is:
The Bible clearly states that there IS election and predestination. As I understand it, the Aramian position is that means that God knew who whould choose him, when offered, and those are the 'elect'.
This, however, makes God just a fourtne teller -- he looked into the future to see the elect and didn't really choose them exactly... If man can reject God, then God is not all-powerful, which the Bible states that he is.
The problem with Calvanism is:
The flip side of this argument. And the fact that Calvinism requires limited atomment (i.e. Jesus only died for the elect, not everybody else) even though the Bible says he died for all.
.... and that's where my brain starts hurting...
So I'm praying about it, and trying to assemble a list of Bible verses that pertain to the subject in every manner, and going from there.
I'll get back to you if I draw any conclusions.
|
|
brianc
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by brianc on Jun 26, 2012 8:37:51 GMT -5
But I don't think I understand part of the setup to the question. I'm confused. If I understand correctly (again, I'm not sure that I do...), you're proposing a question using the same wording as a Biblical phrase, but using a diffrent definition than the one the Bible uses everytime it uses the phrase, yet expecting a Biblical answer? If we accept that God views us all as his children, the question is valid (perhaps I'm confused why the alternet definition was mentioned?) If God views only those who are saved, chosen, elect, (whatever you want to call it) as his children, then the question doesn't matter because God saves all his children then. John 8:31-59 comes to mind here as an illistration as to how God sees us... So, am I miss-understanding something? In the Bible, we are called "children of God" when we've been saved. And we're called children of the devil when we're unsaved (John 8:44). This is clearly a spiritual description of sonship, not a physical sonship. Therefore, what I'm saying is to forget the spiritual use of the term "children of God" and think only of the physical use of the term. Physically, God is the Father of all people on earth, because He created the first male and female, from whom everyone else comes. Therefore, everyone, physically speaking, is a child of God. I say that because one Calvinist tried to say the scenario was not valid, because only saved people are children of God. Spiritually speaking, she was correct. Physically speaking, she was wrong. If there is another father of the human race, I'd like him pointed out. LOL Does that help? Sorry for the confusion. I may not have explained it well. Because this is what Calvinist doctrine teaches. It teaches that God created (birthed, if you're a human parent) mankind, and humans have no choice in whether they go to heaven or hell, because God is the only One who can choose that for them. In other words, God has to send some people to hell and some to heaven and it's completely His choice. Their free will doesn't apply. Basically, Calvinists say that all humans are on their way to hell due to their sin-nature, and God chooses a few to save from hell to be with Him in heaven. And trust me, the majority go to hell in their belief system. A minority go to heaven. Does this help you understand why the scenario is formed the way it is? Because Calvinists believe a great majority of people are going to hell. Even if every single professing Christian on the planet were to be saved, that would only be one-third of the earth's 6.5 billion people. That's quite a minority. And if we take all people for all time, and we consider that 2-11 billion existed before the flood and were all wiped out, and if we consider that most people before Christ didn't accept God and get saved, then that's a huge majority of the world going to hell. So, I'm just trying to make the scenario as closed to Calvinist doctrine as I can, but on a scaled down level. Again, remember that we're going strictly off of Calvinist doctrine which says everyone is inherently evil and is headed to hell unless God chooses to save them. Therefore, the scenario I've given is completely accurate for their standards. Now, whether the kids did anything wrong or not, they are inherently evil according to Calvinist doctrine, so they are headed to hell. Calvinists believe it glorifies God to send all of these kids to hell except one. I want one of them to answer the scenario with their choice of which child to send to hell, and to tell how it glorifies God and shows His love. And because there is no way to show how that glorifies God or shows His love, not one Calvinist will ever answer this scenario. Not one. I just like to test this wherever I find Calvinists to see if any will come up with an answer. You and I know at least one Calvinist exists on this board, and she hasn't tried to answer this. In fact, when I asked this scenario in a different thread, she used the excuse that only the saved are the children of God, so that she would not have to answer the question. It's important to ask a Calvinist so they must face the truth--that their idea of whom God is is horrific, cruel, unloving and despicable. None wants to admit this, but if they answer this scenario, they will have to admit it. And therefore, none answer it. Again, the question is asked from the Calvinist view of things. Calvinists don't say that God shows His glory through saving some. They say God shows His glory by sending many to hell for their sins. That is key to their doctrine. They have to say this so that God doesn't appear like some evil, cruel individual. If it's for His glory, then that somehow makes it okay in their eyes. I make the scenario like I do because with children, you can't gloss over the cruel nature of it. Calvinists say God chooses randomly. There's no rhyme or reason behind it. He just picks randomly. He has to in their scenario, because it cannot be based on anything the person has done or that would be salvation based on works (somewhat). Also, if God has the power to save everyone against their free will, then God is purposely sending people to hell when He could give them all mercy. Also, the Bible says His will is that all repent and be saved. So, if God (according to Calvinists) has the ability to save everyone against their free will, then why does God go against His stated will and save only a few? Their God is going directly against His own will. Calvinists use the excuse that, "Oh, those verses say 'all', which is referring to all Christians, not all mankind." Well, in context, that's not at all what it means. The verse means all mankind. They say the letter is addressed to Christians, so "all" is referencing only Christians. That's absurd, because by that logic, letters to Christians can never be about anyone but Christians, so they can't make reference to the world with the term "all". lol It's absurd. Incorrect. You're not thinking it through. God gave us free will. He did that because love is a choice. In order for us to choose to love Him or anyone, we must have free will. So, by nature, free will cannot be infringed upon by God or anyone else, because that would mean free will isn't truly free. This makes God no less all powerful than He is right now. God has set limits on Himself such as He will not sin and He will not infringe upon our free will. So, just because God won't sin, you're saying He's not all powerful? Well, that makes no sense. He's the One who placed that limit of not sinning and not taking back His word to not infringe on our free will. Sin would infringe upon His holiness. Breaking our free will would break His promise of free will for us (sin). Atheists use an argument that says, "Can God build a wall He cannot climb?" The Christian says "No" and the Atheists says, "Then God's not all powerful, because that's something He can't do." If the Christian says "Yes" then the Atheist says, "So if God can't climb over the wall He built, then He's not all powerful." Your logic is faulty on this count, similar to how theirs is. Also, there is nothing wrong with God looking into the future to see who will choose Him. But it's not exactly like that. He knows our hearts. Therefore, He knows whether we will choose His gift of salvation or not if He offers it to us, and He knows it ahead of time. The fact that He can know us that well shows His incredible power. And knowing our hearts so well that He knows every choice we will make throughout life is exactly how He knows the future, actually. And knowing science the way He does, allows Him to know absolutely every earthquake that will happen. And knowing that He can command Satan to bring a storm on the earth is yet another way He can predict the future, because He knows every storm that will ever happen, because He's the one commanding Satan to start every one. This is how He stopped the rain on the land for over 3 years when Elijah asked Him to do so. This is how the storms destroyed Job's land and livestock. God has so many avenues of control and so much knowledge that He doesn't need to infringe upon our free will. Calvinism completely kills God's glory by saying that He can't get us to accept Him without infringing upon our free will, and therefore, we have no free will when it comes to salvation. It's pretty simple, really. Romans says that those God foreknew, He chose to become children of God. What did He foreknow about them? That they would accept Him, because their hearts were not hardened too much. Jesus told the Pharisees that they would not accept Him, because they were hard-hearted, but if they would open their hearts, they would see with their eyes and hear with their ears and be saved. Therefore, they were choosing not to accept His salvation. Peter, just after Jesus ascended, said that the Jews knew their Messiah came and had signs in the heavens and on earth to prove it, and yet most of them rejected Him. So, Peter accused them outright of knowing Jesus was the Messiah and still rejecting Him because He was not what they wanted, which was a king to bring them out of the oppression of the Roman empire and set up His kingdom and rule here on earth, physically. Another way to prove we have free will is with Jonah's story. God tells Jonah to do something and Jonah refuses multiple times. God never changes Jonah's will. Instead, God throws lots of obstacles in Jonah's way which make him so miserable that he decides it would be easier just to do what God asked him to do. So, God does what He always does and coerses or convinces rather than infringing upon someone's will. The entire Bible is a testament to this, because never once does God take over someone's will. If there's something you don't understand about it, let me know. I think you're just being too analytical with this. I think you're trying to make it more complicated than it is. All truth is very simple at its core. One just has to step back and reduce things to their very simplest form and take a look at them. It's amazing how simple God and His truths are. And yet, He is complex. But we don't need to go into the complexities of Him to understand Him, because understanding Him is simple: He is Love and He is Good. Plain and simple. If you complicate things in life, it'll make things a lot harder for you. Same with your writing. If you complicate it with details, you'll lose your readers. Keep it simple and everyone's happy.  I discuss this stuff in here in order to simply beliefs to their core so people understand them. If they understand them, it makes them easier to convey in their writing. You'd be surprised how many Christians don't really know what they truly believe or haven't really thought about it or can't prove biblically what they believe. - Brian |
|
|
|
Post by yoda47 on Jun 27, 2012 9:51:56 GMT -5
That's a little more clear. I still think it's not valid though.
If we're talking physicaly, then we don't die. We get to live. If we're talking spiritually, then the senorio is valid, as it is our souls that go to hell. (One can argue for phisically being cast into hell after the great judegment, but that's so clouded in phropeshy that it's hard to tell what it means until it's past...)
I'll skip a few points here. (I feel a bit like I'm taking a final exam for collage on my first day... As I've said, I'm still researching this area of doctrine, and have not yet reached any conclusions. I feel that you might be mis-understanding some of the Calvinist doctrines, but this feeling is based off a surface read of some introductory paraphraphs of a few Calvinist websites, so... In any case, I'm finding this discussion helpful and fascinating.)
Here's one of those possible mis-understandings. I'm not sure they belive that "it glorifies God to send all these kids to hell except one."
It's more like they are all going to hell unless God does something. It shows his love by chosing to save one instead of letting them all die, like they deserve.
Or, are you really asking "Why choose to just save one instead of all of them?"
In that case, wouldn't a better scenerio be something like a pregnent mother and child are both dying and you can only save one, which do you save?"
And yes, I'm aware that that senerio leads to the question "If God is all-powerful, why can't he save both?" but the same question could be asked of the first scenerio.
The answer to both though, is: I don't know, I'm not God. God is all-knowing, since I am not all-knowing, and not God, I cannot answer this question, only God can.
Which spirals us into a whole diffrent disscusion.... anyway...
Wait: we all deserve death, God saves some us anyway, even though we don't deserve us, and that makes him cruel? Did I miss something? (internet needed note: No, not I'm not being sarcastic, really: did I miss something here? Remember, I've not yet fully studied either Calvinisam or Araminisam...)
One of us (or both) missed something here.
My (limited) understanding is that:
A: It is not his glory that God shows by sending some to hell, but his justice
B: God doesn't send us to hell, our own sins do.
That's one of the parts that I don't really understand.
A few comments here:
- I've been thinking about it some more, and I think I have logical and Biblical proof that this point of Calvinism (God can't choose only those who chose him because that would make him little more than a fourtune teller) is invalid.
We know from experimentation that our perception of time as a stright line is not true. Therefore, if God exists outside of time he can choose us (from our perspective) both before, during, and after we choose him without a contridition.
Biblically, the statement that God exists outside of spacetime is accurate as well (but only if we hold to a literal Genisis). If God created time (day 1: "there was evening and morning, it was the first day.), then he has to exist outside of it. Also, the first chapter of Genisis is quite clear that God existed before time, as stated.
If this is true, then, as opposed to belittling the power of God chosing only those he knew would chose him, it magnifies him even further.
- You say that God has set limits on himself so that he will not sin (the rest of that quote section, etc, etc.)
This is not true.
Sin is not a set of actions that are bad or good. Sin is doing what is against the will of God. God cannont do what is against his own will, that doesn't make any sense. Thus, the whole wall question is based off a mis-understanding of what sin is, and is nonsense.
As C.S. Lewis said: "Can man ask a question that God cannot answer? Quite easily, I would say. All nonsense questions are unaswerable."
- Do you have a list of Bible verses that support the concept of free-will, both for and against? (again, not sarcastic, this is something that I want to complie anyway. Also, Calvinists say that man was created with free-will and lost it during the fall, but I think that's yet another seperate disscusion...)
That's possible, but the Bible does say to work out your own salvation (can't find or remember the verse, but it's in there with the one about always being ready to give a resoned answer for your faith...)
|
|
|
|
Post by bethatasitmay on Jun 27, 2012 10:35:40 GMT -5
Not a Calvinist , don't know what is defined as one. Do know that all knowledge will make, is making, has made the decisions. The main point is that he is the only one qualified. Holiness requires you understand your/our inability to meet a perfect standard. Yet God is Holy. Thank God i do not have to make such a choice as the original one posted, neither i pray would you. For every thought of the imaginations of man are continually bent evil. This means we have no predilection to do righteousness since the fall. It is the arrogance of man to presume to know the mind and power of God concerning creations original purpose. We probably assume it's all about us? Yet why such a vast expansive universe if we are the culmination and not simply a component? I know three things please God. Judgement, righteousness and loving kindness. Of these three judgement is more prominent than the other two combined within scripture. Is it a time for labels?
|
|
brianc
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by brianc on Jun 28, 2012 13:08:15 GMT -5
That's a little more clear. I still think it's not valid though. If we're talking physicaly, then we don't die. We get to live. If we're talking spiritually, then the senorio is valid, as it is our souls that go to hell. (One can argue for phisically being cast into hell after the great judegment, but that's so clouded in phropeshy that it's hard to tell what it means until it's past...) I'll skip a few points here. (I feel a bit like I'm taking a final exam for collage on my first day... As I've said, I'm still researching this area of doctrine, and have not yet reached any conclusions. I feel that you might be mis-understanding some of the Calvinist doctrines, but this feeling is based off a surface read of some introductory paraphraphs of a few Calvinist websites, so... In any case, I'm finding this discussion helpful and fascinating.) I'm not misunderstanding anything from their doctrines. I've discussed this with many Calvinists. They all say the same thing, that sending people to hell shows God's glory. Some will twist it and say everyone is going to hell anyway, so saving a few is showing God's glory. But that poses two questions: If God can save one, why not save them all, because that would be more glorifying, and two, if God's will is that everyone get saved and He doesn't carry out that will, then why is God going against His own will? Those are two huge questions Calvinists can't answer. So, it always comes back to: "Please show me how it's merciful to save just a few people when you have the power to save everyone person from hell?" And that is the crux of the problem, because it is not merciful nor does it show God's glory. It shows His hatefulness toward the human race, because He chooses not to save them all when He could, and He goes against His own will. That makes no sense whatsoever. Calvinist doctrine, therefore, makes no sense unless one believes God is at His core cruel. I disagree. I believe it's very easy to know what God's motives are here and why He does what He does. We MUST have free will for us to be able to love, because love is a choice. One must love God to accept His salvation. Therefore, we must have our free will to choose God or reject Him--plain and simple. Since the Bible says God "foreknew" us, and as a result of that, He predestined us to salvation, there are only two possibilities: He knew we would choose Him, so He chooses us ahead of time, or He knew who we were ahead of time and predestined us for salvation. Now, the second one begs the question, what does it matter if He knew us ahead of time, and therefore, why mention it? And also, why give us free will (and do we have it)? And why did God break His promise of giving us free will in Genesis 1:26-28? What is the meaning of life if God's just going to send most people to hell? Why not just create a bunch of people and send most to hell and save a few for heaven and not make them waste their time on earth? Do you see how this view completely takes the meaning of life away, invalidating any need for life at all? It makes life pointless and God cruel. But, if God foreknew who would accept Him, then it makes sense that He would choose us ahead of time to be saved. He never infringes upon our free will this way. Love is still intact. There is a point to life, because we must choose. Everything in the Bible lines up with this. Never once in the Bible do we see God force anyone's will, ever. He coerces, yes, but never forces anyone's will. Yes, you missed that God could save anyone and says His will is that everyone be saved, and yet He chooses instead to send most people to hell. That's incredibly cruel. And let's not forget that Adam sinned first, and we are simply born into it. It doesn't matter that we must still choose to sin before we're officially damned to hell, because no one has the power to fight off every possible sin they could commit for their entire life, meaning that basically, everyone is born destined to hell. We never had a chance. But if we have free will and can choose to accept God's gift, that makes sense, and that is fair. God could easily say it's His will that everyone be saved, but not everyone get saved due to free will. Again, Calvinism simply does not make sense nor line up with God's character throughout the Bible. See, here's the difference with Calvinism and Arminianism: Either God SENDS people to hell, or we choose hell ourselves by rejecting God. It is just to send someone to hell who has chosen to go there by rejecting God. That makes sense. But it does not make sense to send someone to hell regardless of their free will. One makes God cruel while the other makes God loving. And if you ask me, Calvinism makes God unjust, because God doesn't give anyone a way out unless He randomly chooses to save them. That's cruel. That's the exact answer a Calvinist should give, because their belief provides no answer for this. However, an Arminian will tell you that God can't save everyone, because of free will. One makes perfect sense, the other causes a problem biblically and with the character of God. I disagree that God exists only outside of time, but I agree that it magnifies Him. I think that even though God exists outside of time, He is also subject to it if He wishes to exist with us and be with us at all times. Because He interacts with time, He must necessarily be subject to it. Being "outside of time" doesn't necessarily mean someone can see the future. In fact, we know it doesn't, because Satan and his angels are in eternity, outside of time, and yet they cannot tell the future. Only God can. Therefore, it is another power that allows God to see the future, and has nothing to do with living outside of time. Well, of course sin is equal to the ways other than God's ways. My point was that God has set limits for Himself in certain things. And if you ask me, sin is one of them. For instance, God has to have free will. Therefore, He could choose to do something against His own will, but it would be sin...so He sets a limit on what He will and will not do. Same goes for free will. He gave us free will in Genesis 1:26-28, and He chooses not to break that promise to us. He's drawn a line in the sand for Himself He never crosses. So your logic is falling short there. I only have verses that support free will. Never have a seen a verse that is against free will. However, I will say that there are verses which, at first glance, seem to say we have no free will. But all it takes is a little context and thought on what is actually being said, and one quickly sees that it's not professing a lack of free will at all. The verses are usually expressing God's amazing ability to work outside the realm of free will and shape us through events. Because they don't say that specifically, people can interpret them differently. But if so, they must assume that God went back on His word in Genesis 1:26-28 about giving us free will. The thing is, hermeneutically, that's not right. Unless God changes something He sets in place later in the Bible, we are to assume that rule never changed. Nowhere does God say we ever lost our free will. Therefore, it's still intact. One other big testament to this is that nowhere in the Bible does God take control of someone against their free will. God doesn't make Jonah go to Nineveh. God "asks" Jonah to go, and he refuses. God makes his life miserable, so he finally chooses, of his own free will, to go to Nineveh. If we didn't have free will, God would have made Jonah go. It's a really simple concept shown all throughout the Bible. But it doesn't say "work out your knowledge of the Bible with fear and trembling." It says "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling." You must link that verse with another verse of Paul's to really understand it. Paul says that none of us can be certain about our salvation, because many people are simply fooled into believing they're saved when they're not. So he says not to judge anyone's salvation, and to run the race as if to win the prize so that your faith will be affirmed in the end. There are people who think they're saved and they don't work toward God. They just assume they're saved. If they were smart, and following Paul's suggestion, they would work hard to get close to God and help others to ensure their salvation is real, not just imagined. When it comes to learning about God, it's simple. We are to learn from God. It took me all of a few seconds to learn the Bible's stance on this subject of free will and predestination. I asked God to show me, and He brought verses to mind. Those verses, within a few seconds, told me the Bible's stance. I looked them up, just to make sure I wasn't misquoting anything to myself. All of the verses made an air-tight case. Later, I discussed it with Calvinists and none of the verses they threw up could prove a lack of free will or that God chose us against our free will. It really is simple when you step back and look at the big picture. It all boils down to love being a choice, and life has no meaning if we have no free will, and God is cruel (and sinful) if His will is that everyone be saved, but even though He has the power to save everyone, He still chooses to send most to hell. That's just messed up. I don't serve a god like that. - Brian |
|
brianc
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by brianc on Jun 28, 2012 13:16:25 GMT -5
Not a Calvinist , don't know what is defined as one. Do know that all knowledge will make, is making, has made the decisions. The main point is that he is the only one qualified. Holiness requires you understand your/our inability to meet a perfect standard. Yet God is Holy. Thank God i do not have to make such a choice as the original one posted, neither i pray would you. For every thought of the imaginations of man are continually bent evil. This means we have no predilection to do righteousness since the fall. It is the arrogance of man to presume to know the mind and power of God concerning creations original purpose. We probably assume it's all about us? Yet why such a vast expansive universe if we are the culmination and not simply a component? I know three things please God. Judgement, righteousness and loving kindness. Of these three judgement is more prominent than the other two combined within scripture. Is it a time for labels? As I said, you (as all other Calvinists do) will not answer the scenario. Labels? Tell me, how do you pick the food from your pantry when you decide to cook? It's by the labels. Labels discern one thing from another. You believe the same thing Calvinists believe, which makes you a Calvinist in your salvation beliefs. Why do you have a problem with that? It's the truth. You are also labelled a woman. Do you have a problem with that? It's true, so you shouldn't. If I were put in jail, I would be labelled a prisoner, and I must deal with that, even if it's a negative label...it is true. There's nothing wrong with labels. They help us discern one thing from another. The Calvinist must necessarily say that we cannot know the mind of God, and that's why we don't know what creation is for or why God chooses to send most people to hell against His stated will in the Bible. Arminians simply say that while we cannot know the mind of God completely, we can know some things about the mind of God, and free will and how salvation is gotten are two things we can know according to scripture. Understand that Calvinists absolutely must be wrong about mankind losing their free will at the fall, because if free will and man's rulership over the world were revoked, then Jesus would have no need to come here as a man. Jesus came as a man to gain the rights of a man, both to rule on earth and to do as He pleased with His own free will as a man. He chose to save us. He chose to die as a sacrifice for us. He has the choice and rulership we have now. Rulership of the earth and free will are the same thing. Unless a person understands that, they don't understand Genesis 1:26-28, nor can they understand why Jesus had to come as a man. It's okay that you don't want to answer the scenario. I'm looking for a Calvinist who will answer it. That's all. I'm not trying to make anyone look bad and I'm not trying to have a debate here. I just want someone who is a Calvinist to answer the scenario. It really is that simple. - Brian |
|
|
|
Post by isabeau on Jun 29, 2012 21:46:02 GMT -5
You and I know at least one Calvinist exists on this board, and she hasn't tried to answer this. - Brian That's because she's not a complete idiot. I've read through this thread. You have made it perfectly clear, in spite of your rather flimsy disclaimers, that you have no interest in true discussion on this topic. You are openly hostile toward what she believes, and refer to the God she believes in as horrible. You're not interested in getting an answer to your question. Any answer she might give you, you would reject out of hand, because you've made it clear that there is no answer to that question that would satisfy you. So why would she waste her time engaging in a completely pointless discussion with you? Why would any Calvinist? |
|
|
|
Post by bethatasitmay on Jul 9, 2012 10:43:10 GMT -5
The scenario is flawed. Assumptions were inherently made that the one you choose to save is the innocent one. God does not choose that any be sent to hell. The soul that sins it shall die. Again i must stress labeling for you persist in the horizontal/carnal. Having bypassed/ignored the love resolution you missed the key to free will. In the flesh labels are necessary for common sense survival but using natural judgment to box in the God of all creation to fit some preconcieved idea as to how you would do things is pretty arrogant don't you think? It comes down to one very simple but indespensible reqiurement. Do you know Jesus? Not know of him, know of his word, know his word, rather know him. Thus saith the Lord. My ways are not your ways. So much higher are my thoughts than yours. Please reread Job. Carefully.
|
|
|
|
Post by bethatasitmay on Jul 11, 2012 9:47:34 GMT -5
I was not in a position to relay this information in the last post but hope you consider what you will do with these. Isaiah 29:16, 45:9-12. Romans 9:14-24, verse 24 in particular. Also would be interested in how you interpret Romans 8:28-34 and Ephesians 1:3-14. As for thoughts from previos post consider Isaih 55:7-9. Take another step and finish with verses 10-12. I'm not looking for someone to simply disagree on the fundamentals but rather seeking an individual sound in english sentence structure to futher a project to the next phase. Someone who thinks differently to correct and keep me on my toes. I also wish to learn proper sentence structure. This individual does not by necessity have to agree with me. But as iron sharpens iron.
|
|
|
|
Post by Teskas on Jul 15, 2012 14:01:23 GMT -5
Members are reminded that The Anomaly exists to further the writing skills of authors working in the genre of Christian Speculative Fiction. This area of the site, "Learned Disputations," is meant to be an area where individuals can discuss theological topics that may touch on their fictional material. There are plenty of websites on the Internet which cater for full-blown polemics.
Members are requested to take particular care to keep any discussion here in an impersonal style. It is permissible to refer (for example) to "a doctrine of predestination which seems to be favored by X," or "a doctrine of purgatory I believe to be favored by Y." But please be super-careful not to phrase your comments in such a way that you either attack or appear to attack the religious denomination or affiliation of another member. An exchange of ideas or legitimate inquiry does not have to be either combative or hurtful.
This particular thread of discussion is now locked.
|
|
