Tuesday, March 28, 2006

On Calvinism pt. 2

From reading the comments on the last post, I can tell this is a divisive issue. I have to tell you that I am by no means completely certain about my position. I may sometimes act like I am certain, like I am wise and smart and all the rest, but that's more a defense mechanism than anything else. I'm as much adrift here as you are. I have arrived in this particular theological stance because I have been seeking Truth, and I seem to have followed it here. I may wake up tomorrow and find that Truth has inexplicably migrated, and if I am half as wise as I think I am I'll follow it out of the position I am now in. I hope not to convince you about the Rightness of where I am, but rather that you and I can look for truth together. Unlike some, I would rather seek Truth than be Right. If you and I are able to look for Truth together, then you are my friend, regardless of where you seek from. I hope that you see it the same way.

So. On to business. There are 3 people in particular that have affected me greatly when it comes to my position on predestination. All of these people were Calvinists, even though I am not really "one of them." The first person was George, whom you heard about last week. The second is my friend "Trevor," who has the dubious honour of being the only person I know who describes himself as a "Charismatic Calvinist." The conversation in particular that affected me took place during my third year at college, when I was married, commuting, and spending my free time waxing philosophical in the Commuter's Lounge. I walked in to catch the tail end of a tongue-lashing that Trevor was receiving from Margaret, a mutual friend of ours. Here, to the best of my recollection, is what followed.

"And I'll never look at you the same way again!" the woman's voice was audible through the heavy door of the Commuter's Lounge, but once opened it elevated to burning-bush decibel levels. I had obviously walked into an especially inopportune conversation, and I was about to beat a hasty retreat when the owner of that voice - Margaret, a fine-arts student - came round the corner towards the door and swooned dramatically past me. She spun on her heel and attempted to slam the door after her, but it had one of those hydraulic closing systems that are so popular with fire doors and simply refused to accommodate her. After a few brief, frustrating seconds, she gave a little sob, and disappeared. The door hissed shut apologetically a moment later.

"Hey, Trevor, having your customary luck with the ladies?"

He chuckled ruefully at my comment. "Nah, this wasn't a wife-finding attempt. I'm still a student, you know, and some of us don't go looking for our wives in 'bridal college.'"

I took the jab light-heartedly. "Still, you know what they say - if Bible College is the game-"

"Then seminary is sudden-death overtime, I gotcha."

"Right. So what was that all about?"

His face looked uncharacteristically glum. "Well, we were having a discussion about theology..."

"Ah."

"And I told her I was a Calvinist..."

"Ah."

"And then she just blew up. I didn't get to say anything else."

I frowned. "That doesn't sound like her. What about you being a Calvinist set her off?"

"I gather that her family are all non-Christians. I said 'Calvinist,' and she heard 'I believe that God has intentionally damned your whole family.'"

"Yikes!" I tried to be sympathetic, but to be honest with you I could see where she was coming from. Wasn't that what Calvinists believed? I thought I'd try and clear it up. "But isn't that basically what a Calvinist believes?"

Trevor got an Et tu, Brute? look on his face, but gamely responded. "I suppose they could, but they'd only be giving half the picture."

"What do you mean?"

"I mean that it isn't so 2-dimensional. 'God predestines people, therefore no one has a choice and we're just pawns.' Some people make it so cut-and-dried, and I think there's alot more to it than that."

"Like what?"

"I think it's more 3-dimensional. We are still real, choosing creatures, and our choices have consequences."

I held up a hand. "Hang on a second, Trevor. If God is predestining everything, then no one really has a choice, do they? And God's just making people and condemning them arbitrarily."

"Why did you pick a ham sandwich for lunch today?"

I looked down at my lunch, which was sitting on the table in front of me. "Uhh... I like ham?"

"So no one put a gun to your head and said, 'Grey Owl, if you don't take a ham sandwich today I'll kill you?'"

"No... but if God predestined everything, then I had no choice."

"Really? Did you feel coerced? Did God make you take a sandwich you didn't want today?"

This was starting to feel a little silly. "No, of course not."

"So deciding to take a ham sandwich was your decision? One that was made freely and without coercion? One that was made because of Who Grey Owl Is and What He Likes?"

"Yeah..." I was starting to see where this was going.

"Think about it like this. God creates the Universe. He has perfect foreknowledge about what the future holds. He creates humanity. And he creates every individual person unique and truly themselves."

"What do you mean, 'truly themselves?'"

"I mean that everyone makes decisions that are authentically theirs. They are decisions independent of coercion and force. God doesn't 'make them' do anything - he creates them with needs, wants, and choices to make that they will make authentically. God doesn't make the decisions for them - even if he does know what choice they will make."

I wasn't convinced. "I'm not sure I understand. If he creates them unable to respond to him, then isn't he responsible for their sinning?"

Trevor gave this some thought. "I don't think so. He created everyone as themselves. Let's take an imaginary person - Joe. Joe is born, has his life, and dies. Joe has likes, and dislikes. And Joe makes authentic decisions, independent of any interference. And one of those choices is to not repent - to stay as his is, and choose to be apart from God."

"How do we know that God isn't making him choose that?"

"Think about when you've sinned - when you make that decision knowing it's wrong. Is anybody but you making that decision?"

I was forced to admit he was right. "So what about the people who are saved? God just closes his eyes and picks at random the lucky ones he's going to save? The ones he's going to override? Because that's what it is, isn't it? He picks some and decides to ignore their choices and give them faith so they can be saved. Right?"

"Not at all. Think of it this way: You are a sinful person. Now you and Joe are different, because even though you aren't able to choose God because of your sin, you would if you could, because that would be an authentic choice of Grey Owl. But you can't choose God on your own, because your sin prevents you. So God enables you to choose him - gives you faith - so that you can be saved. Because you want to be saved, unlike Joe, who does not."

A light bulb went on in my head. I felt something slide into place and arrive with an almost audible "click." "So it's not that God just picks people at random to be saved, it's that he sees there are people who want to be saved, and he saves them. And he created them as real, authentic creatures, just like the ones who don't want to be saved, even if they could be. Neither group is forced into anything, they act completely as themselves. And despite their inability to save themselves, God saves the ones who truly desire to be saved. So everyone who wants to be saved, is saved." I paused for breath. "That seems to make sense. But this sounds suspiciously like 'Free Will' doctrine - what makes this any different? Because it seems to me once you introduce Predestination, the Free Will ground seems - well, iffy."

"That goes back to the problem I was saying before, about 2-dimensional ideas. Predestination and Free Will aren't mutually exclusive - only their 2-dimensional versions are."

"Huh?"

Trevor took a moment to sip from his water bottle. "It's like this: the problem with 'Free Will only' ideas - 2-dimensional ones - is that they make salvation up to us as humans. God extends salvation to everyone, but he doesn't get it all the way. We still need to choose under our own power, and 'make up' the distance that God couldn't cover. So really, God doesn't save anyone - we do. That's the problem when you refuse to consider the Predestination aspect of salvation."

"Right - and the problem with 2-dimensional Predestination is that it dehumanizes us - makes us not authentic beings. God doesn't pay attention to how he created us, he just arbitrarily picks and chooses who goes up and who goes down. It leaves no room at all for choice."

"Exactly! In a way, they must both be correct - and so we come back to the reason that I'm a Calvinist. John Calvin himself said this; 'Scripture affirms both Free Will and Predestination, and does not attempt to resolve the tension between the two.'"

I felt as though a heavy load had been taken off my back. Trevor and I sat there, awash in the afterglow of a rousing discussion that ended not badly after all. At times it had been the mental equivalent of trying to run through waist-deep mud, but we had arrived. I had to admit that my preconceived notions of Calvinism were far from accurate, and said so.

Trevor grinned. "Yeah, we're not all assholes, are we?"

I chuckled as I rose to leave. "Well, I think the jury'll stay out on that one for a while."

"Blessings, brother."

"You too. Cheers."

I had almost reached the door when another thought occurred to me - this one another serious stumbling block I had to the Predestination argument. With one hand on the door I turned back.
"Hey Trevor - one more question."

"Shoot."

"What about people the gospel never reaches - like bushmen in Africa, or the Incas, or... unborn children? What about them? Are they all in hell?"

Trevor actually shuddered at that. "Why on earth would you want to think about that?"

"It's just a question that's been on my mind. What do you think?"

"To be honest, I've never given it much thought. I can't help you there."

"Ah." I tried not to look disappointed, and turned the handle. Trevor's voice stopped me.

"But I think I can tell you who can."

to be continued...

28 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Grey Owl,

While I can see how you would find this more acceptable, but there are a few problems. First, I know many Calvinist who would reject this interpretation as "soft", not truly reflective of Calvinism at all. Further, this kind of "fancy foot work" seems only necessary because of the belief in total depravity, which I can never swallow.

At any rate, I will again withhold more until your next post.

Peace,
Jamie

Tue Mar 28, 06:23:00 p.m. 2006  
Blogger Grey Owl said...

Jamie - don't hold back, the next post doesn't deal with this exact issue. What's your beef?

I think you're right; there are many calvinists who would reject this as soft; but they are much more "calvinist" than calvin himself was. They would qualify as "2-dimensional" Calvinists, in my view.

How was it "fancy footwork", in your opinion?

Wed Mar 29, 12:04:00 p.m. 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, I am not sure I have the energy to go into here, but I feel as though Calvinists have to find a way to fit because they have to reconcile free will with- NOT with predesitination- but with total depravity. Somehow it diminishes God's sovereignty or elevates humanity too high. I think that is the problem. For me, total depravity is a concept I can never accept. I know that doesn't explain well, but it will have to do... for now.

Peace,
Jamie

Wed Mar 29, 07:09:00 p.m. 2006  
Blogger Arthur Brokop II said...

I wonder what Calvin, Luther, Wesley etc would have to say to modern Calvinists, Lutherans, and Wesleyans. Actually the concept of Predestination goes much futher back, to Augustine's take on Christianity. A fatalistic approach that came from his trying to reconcile Christianity with Greek phylosophys (excuse my spelling and typos, I'm on spring break). My search into this topic over the past year, has led me to look deeper into the Jewish roots of the Testaments, to ask the question, how would the disciples have understood these teachings. I linked to this discussion from my blog. I appreciate the spirit in which you are addressing this topic. Jamie, I am wondering if there isn't a difference between "total depravity" and "sin nature". I was surprised to hear a Christian say that because of the sin of adam, we were no longer made in the image and likeness of God, until we were saved. And my studies also showed that this particular form of theology, at least the "hard" form of calvinism is what led to the concept of Manifest Destiny, and the near distruction of the Native American people, who were ofcourse heathen, pagans, and predestined for damnation since they were living in a place where the gospel had not reached. A place set aside for the white, anglo saxan, protestants. One of the earliest english settlers was shipped back to england because he began to say it wasn't right to just steal the Indian's store of food, since they were humans with souls, that needed to be saved. write on brother grey wolf...

Thu Mar 30, 10:23:00 a.m. 2006  
Blogger Wanderer said...

There are still flaws. Ones that were glossed over by a very effective conversation technique. When you tell someone that their position is not fully formed (2 dimensional) and that you aren't correcting them, you are filling in what's missing (3 dimensional) they are inclined to believe that what you fill in was in fact missing. It was not.

In truth, the automaton versus free will thinker argument is a little simplistic. It is not the two dimensional approach though. Your ham sandwhich decision for example. Sorry, you didn't actually choose the ham sandwhich without coercion. The entirety of your life, the society you grew up in, the availability and prevalence of certain foods and a myriad of other things led you to enjoy ham and to be in the frame of mind you were in that wanted the sandwich.

This is not predestination, though. You see, predestination indicates that the ham sandwich was the only possible choice you would make. Would this not perhaps again be influenced if something else was on special, or a more favored food was introduced?

God making us who we are is not going to predestine our choices. Not unless he influences the choices around us. Who we are is influenced by many environmental factors. Either God continuosly molds us along the way, or we can become any of a number of things.

If God doesn't influence us on the way, you can say that his omniscience can monitor all existing persons and who they are at this point and time, and thus, every decision they will make and how each person will be effected. In short, he knows all of these environmental factors and can thus know that making you as you are you will be damned or not.

The problem in either scenario is this: If God creates you, knowing your fate, a fate that is irrevocable, then he is cruel. If God influences your decisions to lead you to a fate that is irrevocable, he is cruel. In either way he makes you for the express purpose of pain and suffering.

How could you worship that? No. There has to be a choice, or there is no sense in acknowledging God as anything but the playground bully.

So this interferes with concepts because it puts salvation in the hands of man? What is the problem with that? Is not the world created by God? Is not heaven created the same? Are not the rules created by God? Are not we created by God? In short, if we bring salvation to ourselves through his instructions and faithfulness, would this not simply heighten the glory of He who is superior?

Free will: God is a glorious God that gives us every chance to live right and have salvation.

Predestination: God is a cruel God who creates many for the express purpose of pain and torture.

Which church would you walk into?

Thu Mar 30, 12:14:00 p.m. 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow, i can see that you guys talk serious aroun dhere.

i think i'll join in for the moment.

this may take away from the current discussion, but could someone fill me in a little? what exactly is a "sin nature" and what exactly is this doctrine of "total depravity". sounds like spooky jargon to me (gentle humour implied).

on the current topic, i like what wanderer is saying best of all. however, i think that breaking it down into the last two points written, the summation of your take on both Free Will and Predestination, oversimplifies things.

i like this paragraph best of all. permit me to quote: "So this interferes with concepts because it puts salvation in the hands of man? What is the problem with that? Is not the world created by God? Is not heaven created the same? Are not the rules created by God? Are not we created by God? In short, if we bring salvation to ourselves through his instructions and faithfulness, would this not simply heighten the glory of He who is superior?"

i don't know much about all this, but am greatly intrigued. i have no religious background or training, but wish to learn about all beliefs.

From what I've seen/heard from Christians, does wanderer not hit the central point? that christians/humans exist to bring glory to their Maker, to God? if we are predestined either way, to choose or not to choose salvation, does this setup not negate any possibility of revealing his Glory?

if i made a people out of clay and breathed life into them and predestined some to choose to love me and some to choose not to, how could i 1)punish those who chose not to follow me, 2)feel loved and glorified by those who ended up loving me/serving me? after all, I MADE them love me. there's no choice in that. no love in that...

but if they CHOOSE to love me...

...musing...

it looks like i'm going to rest on the Free Will side of the fence for the time being anyway... grey owl, where are you going with this? because if you began by saying we might call you a calvnist... i'm looking forward to part 3, owl.

Thu Mar 30, 01:31:00 p.m. 2006  
Blogger Grey Owl said...

Jamie - I have issues with Total Depravity as well, although mostly with how it's generally explained/defined. Could you give us your understanding of what it is? If you have time, if not no big.

Maryellen - thanks for the plug. And I agree that the concept of predestination is older than Calvinism -whether it started with the church fathers (or, as I call them "Augustine and The Boys") or whether it's older can be questioned. I believe there is evidence for it in Ecclesiastes. I DO NOT agree with the christian you heard that said we are no longer in the image of God - and you'll get no argument from me over the atrocious nature of what many white calvinist christians have done in the past. Although I (like jamie) don't like the "white male" stereotype, there is no denying what occured on this continent. As far as the salvation of indigenous peoples go, tune in to part 3.

Wanderer - I appreciate your comments. Before I reply, it is worth mentioning that I am not the best/most articulate writer in blogdom. Please bear with my attempts to explain myself.

I knew the ham sandwich illustration was problematic, but I went with it anyway. I figured either you or Jamie would point it out.

I think you may have oversimplified the argument somewhat. Boiling down free will to "God=glorious" and predestination to "God=cruel" does a disservice to both positions. And I don't think that God creates people for the "express purpose of pain and suffering" - for starters, I think the views of hell we generally hold are flawed and overly "dramatic."

Think about it this way - God could just create the people who were destined for heaven. That would remove the people who would die and go to hell, so problem solved, right? But those people could exist, and if God doesn't create them, doesn't that almost make him a jailor? Better to live at all, wouldn't you think?

I don't have a problem with the idea of salvation in the hands of people, except that I don't think the Bible supports that. So I don't think I can support it fully, except in the case (as I said in my post) of free will and predestination being together, part of the same plan. I don't think you can have one without the other, because then you start running into the problems you were outlining (a cruel god) on the predestination side, and on the free will you have God not saving anybody, and taken to the logical end he doesn't know how this is going to end any more than we do. Who wants to worship a Cruel God? Not me, but I want to worship an incompetant one even less.

Am I making any sense here?

Thu Mar 30, 02:08:00 p.m. 2006  
Blogger Grey Owl said...

Watchman - thanks for joining in. A couple of things:

SIn nature - this is the christian belief that everyone is born with the (realized) potential for evil, and that this is as much a part of us as... I dunno, our genetic makeup. Freedom from the sin nature comes from faith in christ.

Total depravity - This doctrine states "that, as a consequence of the Fall of man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, apart from the grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to accept salvation as it is freely offered" - wikipedia. It is not a belief held by all christians, mostly due to its "spookiness."

I'm glad you're joining in/listening, and I hope my verbal attempts don't discredit Christ in your eyes.

Thu Mar 30, 02:17:00 p.m. 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In my experiences of conversations around this topic, the issue has always been God's foreknowledge. If God creates someone with the foreknowledge (knowing before, ahead of time) that this person will not choose to follow him, and as a consequence, is damned, then God is cruel. My question then becomes: Do we have an accurate understanding of God's ability to know things?

Typically, Christians assert their belief in God's omniscience. The popular Christian definition of omniscience is God's ability to know the answer to every question imaginable.

I wonder whether there are, in fact, questions to which the answers cannot be known. Could we say, perhaps, that God knows everything about everything that can be known? This would mean that God does not know that which cannot be known.

I also wonder whether God's foreknowledge and his act of creation might be inextricably linked, so that God knows and creates simultaneously and instantaneously. This would suggest that God's creation of someone occurs at the same time as his knowledge of someone (and their destiny). And vice versa, God's knowledge of someone begins at the same time as his creation of someone.

Thu Mar 30, 02:39:00 p.m. 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jon with no h, i see how you are putting it. and i like it. an omniscient God; i can see how that would be attractive to people.

"God knows everything about everything that can be known."

very interesting. i like it too, although i'm having trouble with your idea of God's knowledge being linked with his creation.

humourously, i picture God sitting at a table with a play dough machine. he lovingly puts together the dough, forms it into a tube, inserts it into the machine, starts to turn the crank, and--sploonk! "Damnit, another human who won't end up following me and is going too hell. I'm 0 for 3!"

not to demean or belittle, just had a funny mental image.

could you flesh that one out a little for me? i believe that in order for a diety to indeed be omniscient, he must be outside of time, or at least exist within time differently. just an idea i've encoutered in the past.

Thu Mar 30, 03:44:00 p.m. 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Watchman, I understand omniscience to mean "all-knowing". So when we say that God is omniscient, we're saying that God knows all. Many Christians often interpret "God knows all" as "God knows the answer to every question imaginable." The alternate interpretation that I'm suggesting is "God knows everything about everything that is possible to know."

My perception is that some Christians are uncomfortable with a statement like this because they perceive it as placing limitations on a God who, they believe, is totally unlimited. But God is "limited" in a number of ways. According to biblical belief and theology, God is incapable of evil. God is also incapable of self-contradiction. So to me, the idea that there are questions to which answers do not exist and God cannot know them because they do not exist, is not at all uncomfortable. It's quite logical.

About the idea of the link between creation and knowing... The belief that God somehow exists outside of our plane of time is fine with me. So, if God cannot know what does not exist on his plane, his knowledge of something can only begin with its creation (on his plane). Clear as mud?

Thu Mar 30, 04:51:00 p.m. 2006  
Blogger Grey Owl said...

That's an excellent question - what is the nature of God's foreknowledge? What is the nature of time? Becasue I agree with Jon with no H's assesment that the conversation seems to hinge on this.

Interesting point re: what God can and cannot do - perhaps this applies further to the argument. God is not capable of evil, or of contradicting himself, or of logical impossibilities (creating a square circle, for example). Is he similarly incapable of creating a world where everyone goes to heaven? Hmmm...

Thu Mar 30, 05:32:00 p.m. 2006  
Blogger Wanderer said...

Grey Owl - I myself have touched on a subject that spawned out of this. So here, by default, is a half-plug. With your permission, I will link to my associated comments here. Without it, this merely mentions that I have a blog with archived comments, which any of these people could figure out on their own. As such, I also have a response to you within there, which I will wait to provide pending your position on the plugging of my own article, which I am fairly certain you read already.

Thu Mar 30, 09:11:00 p.m. 2006  
Blogger Grey Owl said...

Wanderer - sure, go ahead. I look forward to your response, and I hope we (all of us) continue to dialogue at the same level of respect as usual.

Thu Mar 30, 09:28:00 p.m. 2006  
Blogger Wanderer said...

Well, Grey Owl, as it turns out, this post only addressed part of what I addressed later on, but there is way too much there for me to figure out where it is I finished it, or if I did. So here is the correlating starting point.

This ties into what has already been referenced by others here. That the omniscience of God merely implies knowing all that can be known. A far cry from knowing everything. The problem I addressed here is one that I see with the presentation of the predestination concept. It is a problem with some of the tenets that support it.

People are outrageously defensive when any limitation to God is suggested. They take offense to the concept that God is so much more incredibly powerful and knowledgeable than anything or anyone else could possibly comprehend, but this doesn't mean that he is without limitation.

People will cry out that this is demeaning and stealing from the glory of God. Think of this, though. If there is nothing that anyone existing now, or ever in the past or future can do or know that God does not, doesn't that make God a pretty impressive being? Why do we have to get jealous and say "There is nothing that God can't do. There is nothing that God can't know." Instead of "There is nothing that can be done that God cannot do, and there is nothing that can be known that God does not know.

The former creates fractures that even we puny mortals can recognize. The latter points to a glorious entity. So why do so many weaken God by insinuating that he is what He cannot be?

Thu Mar 30, 09:47:00 p.m. 2006  
Blogger Rob said...

whew!

Head-spinning stuff, here!

If I may be permitted to sound "postmodern" for an instant, and believe two seemingly paradoxical statements at the same time, could I suggest:

Is God totally soveriegn? Absolutely, yes.

Do we have a free will to choose whether or not to follow Jesus? Absolutely, yes.

What I found funny and pathetic at the same time, when I was in Bible college (a predominantly Arminian Anabaptist school where Grey Owl also went -- much later...), was the smug arrogance of the Arminians towards the "obvious errors" of calvinists, and later in seminary (a hyper-Calvinistic, God-ordained-your-choice-of-socks school), I found the same arrogance in referring to the "obvious flaws in Anabaptist thinking". They referred to anyone who was less than a five-point TULIP-sniffer as "semi-Pelagian". Ouch...

I avoid this discussion wherever possible because it tends to be divisive and results in something less than the fruit of the Spirit.

My shut up now.

Good on you, Grey Owl, for taking the time to write a very engaging discussion on this topic. It's a far better read than any other blog on this topic, that's for sure!

Fri Mar 31, 06:46:00 p.m. 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In all the Free-Will, Predestination debate, where is the mystery? I think this question can be asked of all systematic theology...we can't totally explain and systematize every aspect of God, his relationship with us, or Scripture. I am not saying we should not systematize or theologize because it is one way to gather with folks who believe like we do. The problem seems to be more in exclusion (usually based on non-biblical pricipals) and club-like atmosphere. The newsletter, "Critical Issues Commentary" speaks about some of the problems with Free Will (some comments of which follow): one of which is that the bible does not address "Free-Will" directly. Free will is assumed from passages that teach human responsibility. We are both responsible for our sin and in bondage to our sin. God's grace is necessary to deliver us from sin and for our sanctification as well. The definition of Free Will is also a problem. Luther saw that before have the Holy Spirit, we cannot make free choices because we are the servant and bond-slave of evil so we will always choose that which is sinful because it is in our nature. He also argued that the only truly free being in the universe is God. Edwards proposed a definition of freedom as "the ability to do as one pleases." If this is accepted then it would follow that no sinner would ever choose to come to God on his terms: "because the mind set on the fless is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God." Rom 8:7,8

The article also poses some questions regarding these topics too. Where does the bible say God is morally obligated to keep his creatures from sinning if he has the power to do so? Where does the bible teach that God has obligated himself to the principle of the creature's right to self-determination? Where does the bible asert that evil is due to some inability in God to prevent it? These questions all stem from philisophical speculations which may or may not be wrong to ask. It is wrong to demand that Christians believe teachings based on philisophical questions however.

This is where church people go wrong in my opinion, taking the mystery out and making every person subscribe to a certain philosophy or interpretation or be declared a heretic. It is likely because of the fact that we are still sinners while we are saints. Now of course there are BIBLICAL truths that are not based on philosophy and those would be boundaries that Christians must stay within.

Sat Apr 01, 08:42:00 a.m. 2006  
Blogger Linda said...

Grey Owl,
I wasn't exposed to the calvin/arminian debate until I started reading blogs.

I don't believe we can base our understanding of God on these doctrines, but rather must apply our knowledge of God to understanding the doctrines.

First, I'll admit to a pretty sketchy knowledge of some of the main points.

Total depravity, I don't think so. I hate the whole man-is-the-scum-of-the-earth mentality. I lean more toward - created in the image of God, but separated due to sin and unable to save ourselves without the grace of God.

Previent grace, yes I think God's grace is available and calling for each of us to be restored to relationship with Him.

Election, honestly my stomach turns whenever I read about it. There is nothing about it that squares with my understanding of God.

Those are just some of my feelings. I'll leave the more intellectual discussion to the smart guys.

Sat Apr 01, 09:38:00 a.m. 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In my pursuit of understanding, I will likely continue to speculate as to the nature of God and his foreknowledge (which I think is the key to the conversation). Though I must admit, I am becoming increasingly comfortable with paradox in my beliefs about God (along the lines of what Rob and Inheritor were saying - good comments, by the way).

I believe God is sufficiently complex and transcendent, and I am sufficiently simple and limited, that I may eventually be left no other option than to understand God and his ways in paradoxical terms. And when that time comes, (and indeed, it has already come) I think I'll be able to handle it.

Sat Apr 01, 12:15:00 p.m. 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's a 'pelagian?'

Sat Apr 01, 01:56:00 p.m. 2006  
Blogger Grey Owl said...

I think that jon with no h has summed up where I'm at the best - observing God in paradoxal terms. I affirm predestination/God's sovergienty because I see it in scripture, and I also affirm our choosing ability and our independance. Are those things opposites? I don't think so; instead I rather think that the two require each other in some way. How? Like inheritor of heaven said (insightful comment, that) said, we cannot explain every aspect of God, there is some mystery yet. As jon says again, I am becoming more comfortable with what I do not know - due in part to my belief that God is in control and I'm not.

wanderer and jon both are going in a good direction, in my opinion, with asking the questions they are - are we really limiting God by saying there are things he cannot do? No one gets bent out of shape when we say that God never does evil, and that does not seem to "limit" him... I truely think that our human understanding will always fall short in this regard. I'd encourage everyone to check out wanderer's post on a similar subject if they have not done so already.

Grace - I know how you feel. Before you encounter the debate, it never seems to mater, and afterwards, you seem to trip over it everywhere you go. Thanks for putting in your two cents/encouragement, it means alot. Rob - you too, glad that you stopped by to share your thoughts. Someone once told me that salvation is a house - on the outside, it says "All who Will may enter," but when you get inside and look over the door it says, "Chosen from the beginning of the world." Already and not-yet kind of stuff, but strangely comforting.

If I could add one more thing - perhaps truth is not quite what we think it to be. Perhaps these two seemingly paradoxal ideas are both true at once; not in any way that contradicts one another. If you look at a soccer ball, you can find a patch of white that has a black patch opposite it on the other side of the ball. Are these patches opposites? yes, but they are both part of the same ball....

Part 3 up on monday. I think I may extend this to 4 parts, just so I can sum it up. What do you folks think?

Sat Apr 01, 02:10:00 p.m. 2006  
Blogger Wanderer said...

Inheritor - "Where does the bible say God is morally obligated to keep his creatures from sinning if he has the power to do so? Where does the bible teach that God has obligated himself to the principle of the creature's right to self-determination? Where does the bible asert that evil is due to some inability in God to prevent it? "

All good questions. Personally I will reassert my position in regards to these questions. I have never attempted to say that God must fall into certain guidelines. I never claimed God had to have the slightest bit of fairness. All I have said in that regard is that we should assume some of this to be true if we are going to worship God. Because if they aren't true, and we assume as much, there is not point to worship. If we can't comprehend what God wants of us, if we can't see the pattern that leads to what we should or shouldn't do, what will or won't bring us salvation, it becomes a crapshoot. Why worship if you are just as likely either way to be screwed? This is why we have the philosophical arguments of what God will or will not do, and what is or isn't in our control. Many people complain that these are aesthetics that detract from the important stuff. They are wrong. This is the important stuff. If we can't buy it, if we can't understand the rules well enough to even attempt to play by them, we waste our time.

Also, as a side note, I must bring up my familiar complaint. You quote Paul on an issue of complex psychology, that barely touches on the religious aspect. I question whether we should assume his words were inspired, rather than the words of a holy man. This takes it a step further. Nowhere was Paul given credit as a Psychologist.

Grey Owl - I like your soccer ball analogy. You touch on an important aspect of my beliefs with this one. Odd how frequently you do this, considering we are standing on different paths.

Sat Apr 01, 03:38:00 p.m. 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wanderer: I think Paul's point is that there is nothing we do (aside from faith in Jesus) that saves us. That is one reason why we worship God, because he saves us. Another is simply because he is God.

Sun Apr 02, 08:36:00 a.m. 2006  
Blogger Arthur Brokop II said...

wow, I thought I'd just drop by before leaving for church, and found so much meat here that I can't spend enough time reading it through it. Jon's comment reminds be of the question so many agnostics liked to ask in the 60's
Can God create a Rock that he can't pick up. Can God know what can't be known? very interesting thread you got going here. I'll be back...

Sun Apr 02, 11:05:00 a.m. 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"God knows everything that is knowable"... YWAM has been in deep poo-poo in the past for putting this idea forward. It has merit, but anyone exploring it should be aware of what kind other theology is often lumped together with it. Moral Goverment Theology, as it is often called, is often a mix of some interesting ideas and dangerous compromises.

It is often equated with Armenian theology, but that is an over-simplification. While some Moral Gov't Theology is ok, some expressions of it posit that, in it's denial of substitutionary atonement, humans are fully capable of keeping the whole Law and have no intrinsic/inherited depravity. This goes too far for me.

Other equated it with Pelagianism, which is also not entirely accurate (not to mention that Pelagius actual teaching & Pelagianism are arguably different- Pelagius got a bad deal).

At any rate, this view of God's knowledge helps in a lot of areas. However, I am not yet convinced that we don't run into the Rubix Cube Theology problem- get a few key areas worked out, but end up hopelessly screwing up the rest. Worth the exploration

Peace,
Jamie

Sun Apr 02, 09:23:00 p.m. 2006  
Blogger Grey Owl said...

Wanderer - Yeah, it's funny how often we find common ground in these issues. And I was rather proud of the "Soccer Ball of Truth" analogy...

jamie - what's "Moral Goverment Theology?" Never heard of it...

Maryellen - I'm glad you still come around, even when its such a rough topic. Thanks! Just out of curiosity, were you one of those "agnostics from the 60's?"

Mon Apr 03, 10:58:00 a.m. 2006  
Blogger Chris P. said...

Confused
A pelagian is anyone who doesn't agree with me. :-)
Just kidding.
Read a bio of Pelagius. He advanced a theology that if taken to its extreme, would mean that we are able to save ourselves.

The issue is not free-will versus predestination. The prescient knowledge of God is at issue. If God is not completely prescient/omniscient, then we have a huge problem. We are running around creating havoc and He just can't seem to get a handle on his children. That would be a double standard, as a God who is not in control, gives us instructions(scripture) to control/discipline our kids and ourselves? Why should I discipline my kids? Don't they have "free-will" and the "loving" thing would be to let them act on it?
Such is not the case as we are told God disciplines those whom He loves.Hebrews 12:4-13 tells us that there are true sons and illegitimate ones. Kind of shoots down all the universal salvation theories which Pelagianism and hyper-arminianism lead to.
The Augustine/Greek philosophers argument is a simplistic strawman position made by those who are pushing a particular agenda. We know the damage done in the church by the forsaking of the "roots" However God knew beforehand and His plan takes all of that into consideration.
Torah still stands and always will according to Jesus. Matthew 5:17-20
However, I am not a Jew, I am one under the overarching covenant given in the garden, and to Abraham. (Genesis 3:15 and Genesis 15 the whole chapter.)

Check out my comments on this post related to God's prescient knowledge.

http://bibleseek.blogspot.com/2006/04/does-evil-exist-did-god-create-evil.html

Mon Apr 03, 11:29:00 a.m. 2006  
Blogger Grey Owl said...

Chrisp - wondered if you'd show up...

I think you're talking about something different entirely. I don't see how disciplining of kids has anything to do with the discussion.

"If God is not completely prescient/omniscient, then we have a huge problem. We are running around creating havoc and He just can't seem to get a handle on his children. That would be a double standard, as a God who is not in control, gives us instructions(scripture) to control/discipline our kids and ourselves? Why should I discipline my kids? Don't they have "free-will" and the "loving" thing would be to let them act on it?" - I have no idea what you're about. We're not talking about God being less than all-knowing, just about what exactly "all-knowing" means. Is it limiting of God to say that he cannot do evil or wrong? You're talking past the issue. And nobody even mentioned universal salvation, so I don't see why you brought it up. I'll gladly and cheerfully welcome you into the discussion, Chris, but we need to be talking about the same thing.

I appreciated the irony in stating, "The Augustine/Greek philosophers argument is a simplistic strawman position made by those who are pushing a particular agenda," considering it was itself a strawman statement. Was that intentional? I hope so, it made me chuckle.

Tue Apr 04, 02:54:00 p.m. 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home