You seem incapable of reading me at all. What could I possibly have written that would lead you to make such a conclusion?
I consider any Non-Catholic Christian who believes either that God predestined everything or is in control of all that happens, to be a Calvinist, whether they call themselves that or not. The degree to which they disagree on this or that detail is the degree to which they are either ignorant or stupid and have failed to think through the implications of their doctrines and to understand how they are interconnected.
Might?
Is there anything that you are willing to make an emphatic statement about?
Awe, come'on Clete. You knew. I've been very clear I have been closely Amyraldian most of my life (not Catholic). What about you? Do you agree with any 5 points?
That different way being a completely meaningless way since the implication here being that there is no preset limit to the number of people included in "whoever will become a believer" as the term "Limited Atonement" specifically means.
Which means I likely am not a Calvinist, right?
No it isn't a disqualifier except maybe in academic circles. Normal people do not sit around hashing this stuff out like we do here on TOL and it makes no sense to start discussing things as though we are lawyers making arguments in a court. In the general population, the dividing line has to do with whether you believe we have a free will or not. If not, then you're going to be one flavor or another of Calvinist in a overwhelming majority of cases.
My first disagreement this set: "Free" and 'bound' are so closely tied together, that one can not be 'freewill' simply because of the gross overstatement of the term, without being a Calvinist. A 'freeway' isn't actually free for much. It is free from lights, but there are all kinds of restrictions, even if you are on the Autobahn. I'm just saying that I don't think I have to be Calvinist
just because I am not freewill (persay). Like you said, though, perhaps in but academic circles
The same goes for doctrines surrounding any form of "fate". If you go around thinking that God has a specific plan for everyone's life and that there was a reason that God had your daughter's dog die the weekend of her birthday and if you sit around wondering what God's reason was for having your neighbor's Grandmother burn to death in a house fire or any other such thing, then you are a Calvinist, whether you know or acknowledge it or not.
Fate and will-of-God aren't the same that I'm aware of. James 4:13-17 talks about not being presumptuous about what we will do, but that God allows it. Romans 8:28 says all things God works for good. Does it only work for good if the thing is good in the first place? I'm not sure either Open Theism nor Calvinism has the corner on the market regarding God working in our lives. It is why the Calvinist says everyone else 'prays like a Calvinist' and Open Theists say 'everyone prays like an Open Theist.' A 'relational God' would be seen as 'more relational' by being more relational. Fate vs. God's intricate interaction with us. The tension is between how much we are 'free' and how much we are bound to God for existence. Would you agree we are discussing such tension and that the conversation is good and necessary for all of us, respective of our appreciation in God our Father and relationship with one another?
Lon, I read less than 10% of what you write and I start to get close to taking you off ignore and then you post a lie like this. This was a flat out lie!
Let's visit it together:
Do you think that this forum is the only place I've presented those quotes from Calvin? It isn't! I've asked literally dozens of Calvinists both on internet forums and in person whether they agree with some or all of a whole list of such quotes and I have yet to find a single person who calls himself a Calvinist who disagreed with any of them at all.
AMR was a staunch Calvinist but did tell me he didn't agree with all Calvin said. It 'looks' like it is not a lie to me, but I'll entertain the idea a few moments. It 'seems' like you are jumping to a conclusion but it also seems like your interaction is somewhat extensive. Enlighten and correct me on the matter.
There are plenty of people who disagree with them but none who self-identifiy as Calvinists. I don't even have to tell them that its a quote from Calvin. I just read the quote without mentioning Calvin or "Institutes" and sometimes I'll paraphrase the quote and intentionally put it in terms that are intended to make it sound radical and I still haven't found a single Calvinist who ever even wanted to "qualify" a single one of them. Arguments about justice and God's righteous character have no impact, comparing God to the arsonist who sets your house on fire and then comes to rescue you but arbitrarly leaves your wife and kids to die in the flames has no impact. They do not care about such consideration and blow all such objections off as "human reasoning".
Okay, what about the quotes you've given in thread prior this last week? I believe they were all direct quotes? I've read Calvin believed in 'real presence' of communion. If a Calvinist agrees with Calvin on that, there are some huge issues.
So, tell us Lon, where have any of the quotes I've presented been "qualified" by Calvin. I've presented the precise referrence where the quations are located in his writings. Please, by all means, show us were Calvin softened his doctrines in these areas!
Here is one to start with:
"From this it is easy to conclude how
foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be
not by [God’s] will, but merely by his permission. Of course, so far as they are evils, which men perpetrate with their evil mind, as I shall show in greater detail shortly, I admit that they are not pleasing to God. But it is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing but
the author of them.” (John Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God, 176).
But then look at Calvin's Genesis 3 commentary:
"Here, indeed, a difference arises on the part of many, who suppose Adam to have been so left to his own free will, that God would not have him fall. They take for granted, what I allow them, that
nothing is less probable than that God should be regarded as the cause of sin, which he has avenged with so many and such severe penalties. When I say, however, that Adam did not fall without the ordination and will of God, I do not so take it as if sin had ever been pleasing to Him, or as if he simply wished that the precept which he had given should be violated. So far as the fall of Adam was the subversion of equity, and of well-constituted order, so far as it was contumacy against the Divine Law-giver, and the transgression of righteousness,
certainly it was against the will of God; yet none of these things render it impossible that, for a certain cause, although to us unknown, he might will the fall of man. It offends the ears of some, when it is said God willed this fall;
but what else, I pray,
is the permission of Him, who has the power of preventing, and in whose hand the whole matter is placed, but his will?"
Here it seems Calvin is saying the same thing I've heard Calvinists say: God knows 'when' something evil is happening and can stop it. Why does He not? For Calvin, it is 'according to His will' but not the cause, if I am reading correctly. It'd seem, with only the first quote, one might believe something different than what Calvin believed?
You won't do it because it cannot be done because no such "qualifying" exists. In fact, to my memory, you are the only person I've ever encountered that even made such a claim. I believe you knew it was false when you made it. You aught to be ashamed of yourself.
Should I be ashamed? Please read some of these with me and do enlighten? I 'like' these discussions. I do realize I tax you. Never-the-less, when you are on your game, I enjoy your input and I'll thank you and voice appreciation ahead of time. -As Iron sharpens Iron, Lon
