Omniscience means fatalism.

[Rosenritter]

That's why I believe that Calvinism is convoluted, irrational, and a false doctrine.

So unless we assume that Calvinists are predestined to believed Calvinism, and assuming that how we believe in regard does have an important (and not negligible effect) on us and others, how do we better reach out here? Calvinism taken to its logical extreme is a type of spiritual fatalism, and fatalism is not good news for all men. I am more interested in how to respond constructively here.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

The major difference between a Calvinist (no free-will) and a person who places their faith, via free-will, in the Gospel of the grace of God' (as Paul labels it) is the fact of HOW one receives eternal life and forgiveness of all their sins. The Calvinist would have us believe that God chose His Elect (those He wanted to save) before the foundation of the world. Whereas, those that follow the Gospel of the grace of God believe one is saved by hearing the Gospel and placing one's faith in Christ as their personal Savior. (Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.")

Another verse would be Hebrews 11:6 "But without faith, it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

According to that verse, one can only please God, through one's faith. It also states that God rewards those who seek Him. Calvinism teaches that God gives His chosen elect the faith to become an true believer. Whereas, those who cling to the Gospel of the grace of God, (Acts 20:24 "But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.) believe that all of humanity was created by God with 'free-will' to choose what to place their faith in.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I'd like to see a Calvinist try to explain away Matthew 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

Especially, the last four words.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I'd like to see a Calvinist try to explain away Matthew 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

Especially, the last four words.

Asked and answered...often.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...e-God-Unjust&p=4811227&viewfull=1#post4811227

:AMR:

AMR

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Asked and answered...often.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...e-God-Unjust&p=4811227&viewfull=1#post4811227

:AMR:

AMR

Was your 'explanation' from the teachings of Calvin or your personal 'opinion?'

 

[Clete]

I am simply going with the testimony of the whole scriptures.

I do not doubt your intentions or motives.

Most Christians are trained to reject what Pelagius taught, but that does not mean his beliefs were fundamentally wrong.
Most Christians are trained to accept what Augustine taught, but that does not mean his beliefs were fundamentally right.

We need to examine the teachings for the underlying beliefs and then compare those beliefs against the whole of scriptures to see whether they match or not.

I agree with this entirely. A doctrine isn't right or wrong because of who taught it, which is the point I've been making about how being accused of following Pelagius is not an argument.

Incidentally, I think that Mennosota what trying to make a similar point when he ended up claiming to have effectively come up with Calvinist doctrine without it being taught to him. If he hadn't taken it to the extreme of an outright lie, his point would have been just as valid as ours. A doctrine isn't wrong because Calvin wrote it in a book. Virtually every distinctively Calvinist doctrine is indeed wrong but it isn't because it came from Calvin.

It is simple.
Calvinists must have been predestined to be wrong about predestination and free-will.

Of course! :chuckle:

Yep.

You know what is really incredible is that none of this exchange nor any of the other similar exhanges I have with people in the past have ever succeeded in moving any of the Calvinists on TOL a single inch off their insane doctrine. I'm certain that it would have moved me! Had I been a Calvinist and read something that pointed out so clearly how convoluted and just downright goofy it gets, it would have put a pretty sizable crack in my theological foundations, but these people are just unmoored to anything that would allow them to objectively evaluate the veracity of their own thought processes. That's a pretty bad situation to be in, I'd say.

Clete

 

[Clete]

AMR just linked to a post which was a post of a link to another post!

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:



When you finally get to some relevant text, it's AMR explaining how the verse doesn't mean what it says or even what it seems to be trying to communicate at all. It, according to AMR, basically means the opposite of what it says.

Of course, the only reason anyone would do that is if it conflicted with their doctrine and so, as such, it doesn't stand as any sort of real argument. It's just the same old question begging nonsense that Calvinists seem incapable of avoiding. In fact, the demonstrated need to explain away the verse is a tacit admission that the verse conflicts with his doctrine. If there were gramatical and syntax based (i.e. language based) reasons for making the verse say what AMR suggests, then that would effectively be a retranslation and could be a valid argument but his post isn't anything like that. The motivation for explaining away the plain reading of the text is based solely on Calvinist doctrine and nothing else and so, as I said, it's question begging nonsense.

Clete

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

AMR just linked to a post which was a post of a link to another post!

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:



When you finally get to some relevant text, it's AMR explaining how the verse doesn't mean what it says or even what it seems to be trying to communicate at all. It, according to AMR, basically means the opposite of what it says.

Of course, the only reason anyone would do that is if it conflicted with their doctrine and so, as such, it doesn't stand as any sort of real argument. It's just the same old question begging nonsense that Calvinists seem incapable of avoiding. In fact, the demonstrated need to explain away the verse is a tacit admission that the verse conflicts with his doctrine. If there were gramatical and syntax based (i.e. language based) reasons for making the verse say what AMR suggests, then that would effectively be a retranslation and could be a valid argument but his post isn't anything like that. The motivation for explaining away the plain reading of the text is based solely on Calvinist doctrine and nothing else and so, as I said, it's question begging nonsense.

Clete

A typical Calvinist MUST run Scripture through their 'Calvinist filter' before giving their 'interpretation.'

 

[Rosenritter]

Asked and answered...often.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...e-God-Unjust&p=4811227&viewfull=1#post4811227

:AMR:

AMR

Since we have to go link chasing I'll summarize what I read. AMR has to reason that Jesus must be switching subjects drastically in the same breath in the same passage. This doesn't actually solve his difficulty but it does distract...

Mat 23:37 KJV
(37) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

With this reasoning the Calvinist might hope that it is not the will of the children that prevent Jesus from gathering them together, but only the will of the leaders. This only shifts the problem to an even more wretched and worse state, because now the will of the leaders are able to deny the God's will access to the children of Jerusalem!

Oh, but wait, the reasoning continues. Jesus apparently wasn't God when he said that. Problem averted. He shifted out of "God mode" for a brief second there while pronouncing judgments on Jerusalem in verses 36 and 38. I wonder how many other times Jesus spoke without the authority of God and with a separate will that we can safely disregard as being in error.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Was your 'explanation' from the teachings of Calvin or your personal 'opinion?'

It was my studied opinion and conclusion on the passage, brother. You may not agree with it, but, unlike yourself, I have actually provided a detailed explanation and not simply asserted my opinion.

So please stop claiming over the years that no Calvinist has given an answer to your favorite locus classicus passage used to claim libertarian free will exists.

No proper Calvinist denies free will, that is the liberty to choose according to one's greatest inclinations at the moment one so chooses. We all will declare that this liberty of spontaneity (Biblical free will) exists because God has granted this very free will and God does no violence to the will of the moral creature via the outworkings of His Providence to render certain His volitional will (i.e., what God has decreed).

Persons constructing straw men of the Calvinist's views by claiming we operate from the same presuppositions they do and therefore believe about our beliefs what they believe about our beliefs leaves no hope for honest discussion.

If persons would avail themselves of a Scripturally accurate summary of our beliefs, e.g., WCF, with a nice exposition of the same here, much clarity would ensue. Unfortunately some prefer to just parrot others in discussion forums and not dig deeper.

Accordingly, before making wild claims about what Calvinists believe, avail yourself of what they actually believe. For example, on the matter of free will, see:
https://reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_IX.html

If you find small section above difficult reading, take up and read a nice exposition of the same:
https://reformed.org/documents/shaw/shaw_09.html

Both contain copious Scriptural support. If you do not like what you read therein, mount your complaints using the same Scriptural support shown and defend your personal conclusions.

That said, the years pass on and you remain unwilling to actually engage beyond the usual anti-Calvinist bromides:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...e-Reprobates&p=4496193&viewfull=1#post4496193

Do better. I know you are capable. Don't prove me wrong.

AMR

 

[Rosenritter]

It was my studied opinion and conclusion on the passage, brother. You may not agree with it, but, unlike yourself, I have actually provided a detailed explanation and not simply asserted my opinion.

So please stop claiming over the years that no Calvinist has given an answer to your favorite locus classicus passage used to claim libertarian free will exists.

No proper Calvinist denies free will, that is the liberty to choose according to one's greatest inclinations at the moment one so chooses. We all will declare that this liberty of spontaneity (Biblical free will) exists because God has granted this very free will and God does no violence to the will of the moral creature via the outworkings of His Providence to render certain His volitional will (i.e., what God has decreed).

Persons constructing straw men of the Calvinist's views by claiming we operate from the same presuppositions they do and therefore believe about our beliefs what they believe about our beliefs leaves no hope for honest discussion.

If persons would avail themselves of a Scripturally accurate summary of our beliefs, e.g., WCF, with a nice exposition of the same here, much clarity would ensue. Unfortunately some prefer to just parrot others in discussion forums and not dig deeper.

Accordingly, before making wild claims about what Calvinists believe, avail yourself of what they actually believe. For example, on the matter of free will, see:
https://reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_IX.html

If you find small section above difficult reading, take up and read a nice exposition of the same:
https://reformed.org/documents/shaw/shaw_09.html

Both contain copious Scriptural support. If you do not like what you read therein, mount your complaints using the same Scriptural support shown and defend your personal conclusions.

That said, the years pass on and you remain unwilling to actually engage beyond the usual anti-Calvinist bromides:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...e-Reprobates&p=4496193&viewfull=1#post4496193

Do better. I know you are capable. Don't prove me wrong.

AMR

AMR, you responded to a question today with a post that you had made five years ago. If you aren't able or willing to be able to review your own thoughts on the matter now, why do you expect others to do so and take that seriously? Perhaps God might have a perfect understanding that has no need of correction, but if we do allow ourselves to be ruled by Holy Spirit it remains a possibility that even our explanations of what we thought we once knew might change.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You know what is really incredible is that none of this exchange nor any of the other similar exhanges I have with people in the past have ever succeeded in moving any of the Calvinists on TOL a single inch off their insane doctrine. I'm certain that it would have moved me!

Only people with free-will can reject Calvinistic determinism.
Is that a tautology or is it begging the question?

Had I been a Calvinist and read something that pointed out so clearly how convoluted and just downright goofy it gets, it would have put a pretty sizable crack in my theological foundations, but these people are just unmoored to anything that would allow them to objectively evaluate the veracity of their own thought processes.

Most people are only willing to go so far with their religious beliefs.
They hear the teachings of their denomination, may question some of them, but then stop questioning and either accept or reject the rest of the teachings.

My approach to Christian doctrines is this one:

Acts 17:11 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.​

Because of this, I have had to stop believing many of the doctrines I was taught in my youth and believe other doctrines that fit the scriptures better.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

AMR, you responded to a question today with a post that you had made five years ago. If you aren't able or willing to be able to review your own thoughts on the matter now, why do you expect others to do so and take that seriously? Perhaps God might have a perfect understanding that has no need of correction, but if we do allow ourselves to be ruled by Holy Spirit it remains a possibility that even our explanations of what we thought we once knew might change.

Excellent point.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

It was my studied opinion and conclusion on the passage, brother. You may not agree with it, but, unlike yourself, I have actually provided a detailed explanation and not simply asserted my opinion.

So please stop claiming over the years that no Calvinist has given an answer to your favorite locus classicus passage used to claim libertarian free will exists.

No proper Calvinist denies free will, that is the liberty to choose according to one's greatest inclinations at the moment one so chooses. We all will declare that this liberty of spontaneity (Biblical free will) exists because God has granted this very free will and God does no violence to the will of the moral creature via the outworkings of His Providence to render certain His volitional will (i.e., what God has decreed).

Persons constructing straw men of the Calvinist's views by claiming we operate from the same presuppositions they do and therefore believe about our beliefs what they believe about our beliefs leaves no hope for honest discussion.

If persons would avail themselves of a Scripturally accurate summary of our beliefs, e.g., WCF, with a nice exposition of the same here, much clarity would ensue. Unfortunately some prefer to just parrot others in discussion forums and not dig deeper.

Accordingly, before making wild claims about what Calvinists believe, avail yourself of what they actually believe. For example, on the matter of free will, see:
https://reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_IX.html

If you find small section above difficult reading, take up and read a nice exposition of the same:
https://reformed.org/documents/shaw/shaw_09.html

Both contain copious Scriptural support. If you do not like what you read therein, mount your complaints using the same Scriptural support shown and defend your personal conclusions.

That said, the years pass on and you remain unwilling to actually engage beyond the usual anti-Calvinist bromides:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...e-Reprobates&p=4496193&viewfull=1#post4496193

Do better. I know you are capable. Don't prove me wrong.

AMR

How does one PROVE something to someone who is so well-established (grounded) in their false doctrine? You believe what you believe and unless the Holy Spirit is successful in getting through the hardness of your chosen belief-system, you will remain in your present state of heart and mind. The same goes for other Calvinists who cling to this false belief system.

 

[Rosenritter]

How does one PROVE something to someone who is so well-established (grounded) in their false doctrine? You believe what you believe and unless the Holy Spirit is successful in getting through the hardness of your choosen belief-system, you will remain in your present state of heart and mind. The same goes for other Calvinists who cling to this false belief system.

In such cases it's seldom by using words like "their false doctrine" as that tends to have the opposite effect of solidifying the belief in the face of a perceived antagonist. One-on-one conversation with reason and gentleness and seeking to understand from both sides has the best chances.

 

[Clete]

Only people with free-will can reject Calvinistic determinism.
Is that a tautology or is it begging the question?

I think it's just a contradiction.

Most people are only willing to go so far with their religious beliefs.
They hear the teachings of their denomination, may question some of them, but then stop questioning and either accept or reject the rest of the teachings.

This was not true of me. I questioned everything and modified my beliefs according to whatever I felt at the time was the doctrine that best fit the biblical evidence. Since I was in 6th grade, I've thought this way. Some things I just rejected intuitively, like the idea that someone isn't saved if they haven't been dunked under water, which got me booted out of Sunday School class on more than one occasion. But other issue were more difficult and cost me more than a mere disagreement with my youth pastor or Sunday School teacher.

My approach to Christian doctrines is this one:

Acts 17:11 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.​

Because of this, I have had to stop believing many of the doctrines I was taught in my youth and believe other doctrines that fit the scriptures better.

Yep! That's exactly my way of thinking as well. Also, in addition to being biblically faithful, one's doctrine must be rationally sound. I just love the way Dr. Sanders worded it...

"The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders​

As you say, most people are just not willing to take their doctrine to a point that it alienates them from family or friends or even aquaintences for that matter. So far as I'm aware, there isn't a single soul within 500 miles of where I live that believes what I believe (outside of those in my household). Not that such people don't exist, I just have never come across them.

Clete

 

[Derf]

How does one PROVE something to someone who is so well-established (grounded) in their false doctrine? You believe what you believe and unless the Holy Spirit is successful in getting through the hardness of your choosen belief-system, you will remain in your present state of heart and mind. The same goes for other Calvinists who cling to this false belief system.

I tend to compare this to what it might be like coming from a different religion. If a Muslim, for instance, were to believe his own religion were true, I would expect him to argue for it. But if he never allows that any of it might be wrong, even in the face of inconsistencies and contradictions, then he will remain lost.

The same goes for a true Christian, though perhaps less catastrophic. If it is truth, then it will prevail no matter the onslaught against it, but since there are great possibilities that some of our own ideas of what God is like, as well as what the scripture means (as evidenced by even the most united of Calvinists disagreeing on some aspects of their doctrine), it is right for us to question our own ideas sometimes.

Because of this, I have had to stop believing many of the doctrines I was taught in my youth and believe other doctrines that fit the scriptures better.

I've found myself in [MENTION=4345]genuineoriginal[/MENTION]'s position numerous times in my life, as I've had to come to grips with the idea that I might be wrong in things I grew up learning. On the other hand, it is also possible that a new idea that conflicts with the old might be the wrong one (which is what the Bereans were seeking to avoid). So in either case we need to be diligent to study the scriptures for correct doctrine.

What's more, I see in my children things they grew up learning and have a hard time setting aside when evidence goes against it. There's a certain stubbornness of youth that is healthy in some respects (we don't want them chasing after every wind of doctrine) and unhealthy in others (even if we teach them something we believe to be true at the time, we want them to stand on our shoulders in coming to an even better understanding).

Can we ever lock down our theology and say we've got it all figured out?

 

[Derf]

"The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders​

While I agree with this sentiment, wouldn't every Christian say the same thing about his own beliefs?

 

[Clete]

How does one PROVE something to someone who is so well-established (grounded) in their false doctrine? You believe what you believe and unless the Holy Spirit is successful in getting through the hardness of your chosen belief-system, you will remain in your present state of heart and mind. The same goes for other Calvinists who cling to this false belief system.

This is a n excellent observation. I have found that reason does not work on a Calvinist. For a long time that bothered me until someone explained to me that reason won't persuade people away from the irrational because it wasn't reason that brought them to where they are in the first place. It's the equivalent to asking someone who arrived on an island by boat to leave the boat and swim back to the mainland. They see no motive for doing so. Swimming, after all, is hard work!

Also, there is an additional barrier for those like AMR who have invested tens of thousands of dollars and years and years of their lives into their doctrinal beliefs. The more time and money and effort someone has put into digging the particular hole they're in, the harder it is for them to even want to get out. The emotional inertia is enormous because its just too difficult to get over the hump that requires you to admit that all that time and money and effort was wasted. When I did family counseling, years ago, we would refer to this as being "entrenched" and it's all but impossible to overcome, except, as you say, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Clete

 

[Rosenritter]

While I agree with this sentiment, wouldn't every Christian say the same thing about his own beliefs?

Not necessarily. I have heard some doctrine justified that it cannot be rationally comprehended and we should not expect it to make sense.