On Calvinism: Interlude
I was planning on heading on to the next point today; that is, talking about the salvation of the unevangelized (as it was so eloquently shot down by George in pt. 1). However, the comments of last post have shown me that there are some things that need to be said before I continue.I was hanging out with Jon with no H last night, and he pointed out a flaw to me; namely, that I had mislabeled the "argument" that I was putting forward. When talking about the issue, I tended to refer to it as "Free Will VS Predestination." Since my point is not to pit the one against the other but rather to embrace the paradoxal nature of both, defining the discussion in this way was a mistake. So sorry for that, and please bear with me as we continue.
I commented on the last post, saying, "I affirm predestination/God's sovereignty because I see it in scripture, and I also affirm our choosing ability and our independence. 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." I think that if I had started there, it would have simplified your understanding of what I was saying. But I really wanted to walk you through the journey. For me, I can't separate my current theology from memories of George, Trevor, and all the rest. The thoughts and feelings I had then are just as much the reason I hold my current viewpoint as the logic I used to arrive there. Admittedly, I "adjust" the flow of conversation as I remember it to make it easier to read and comprehend; it is much easier for me to tell you the story of "one afternoon with Trevor" than it is to actually detail every conversation over the last 3 years that I've had with him and that became combined into understandable form in my post. For this, I hope you will forgive me.
I also want to point out to you that we are in the same boat. Not that we all have the same views - far from it - but that we all bring to the discussion our stories. You all bring here your own Georges and Trevors, your own ideas and opinions formed not just by logic but by emotion and experience. We arrive at our destinations for those reasons as much as any. You read what I write and hear someone else's voice float up from the past, and you react to that voice as well as mine. There's no shame in it, I am doing it constantly. But let us try to understand one another, and listen to each other's stories. Perhaps our differences will seem small and insignificant when we look at the paths the other has walked and say, "I have been there before, I know that place."
Next post will be in a few days, on the subject of "Salvation of the Unevangelized," an important subject much debated in this discussion and also connected to another Calvinist I've known. At that time I'll resolve the "cliffhanger" I left you with last time. If anybody noticed it...
Oh yeah. Just for kicks, here's the last two parts of the series edited by Gizoogle. Language warning. Snort.
Part 1
Part 2
posted by Grey Owl at 10:40 a.m.
24 Comments:
I hope we have not been too rough on you. Look forward to hearing more.
Peace,
Jamie
Funny cartoon - do you accept PayPal?
I've been following along, though not commenting.
I agree that the dual affirmation you suggest seems to me the scriptural path. I too see both taught in the Scriptures. There is mystery here - loads of it.
I have to be blunt, I really don't think that it matters what our personal opinions are on things, what matter is who God is and what His revealed word says about Him and us. All other statements are meaningless and when it comes to defining God in an "I feel" and "my experience" kind of way I think it is arrogance. I really am not trying to be mean I just hear this stuff too often.
As far as Calvinism goes it seems to me that scant attention has been paid to God's revealed word (which alone must be the standard)and more has been given to personal experience. I think this a very irresponsible way to do theology.
As far as total depravity goes it doesn't matter whether people "like" it, it matter whether that is what the bible teaches about man's nature. Ex:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." (Jn 6:53)
"The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Gen 6:5)
Note that this speaks of man in general, has man's nature changed?
"And you were dead in the trespasses and sins" (Eph 2:1)
"Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin...So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." (Jn 8:34-36)
Why do we need to be "set free" what are we being set free from? I think it's clear. We are set free through grace from a nature that previously was bent to sin and reject God. That is why it expressly says:
" God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will." (2 Tim 2:25-26)
How is it that it is God that "grants" repentance? Isn't repentance an act of MY will? Yes but the will of a slave of sin is bent to reject God therefore God by His grace intervenes in an eyeopening way causing a sinner dead in tresspasses to see God as now desirable, where prior to this God was seen as stupid, boring, or cruel.
This is calvinistic conversion in a nutshell. As far as any accusation of it being "unjust" of God to operate in such a way they are arbitrary. This is God we are dealing with here, He does whatever He wants. What standard of righteousness are we going to hold up to God and say "Whoah buddy you're NOT following the code!" there is none. God Himself is THE standard of right and wrong.
Sorry if I came off harsh,
Bob
Oh by the way the quote you have under the blog title:
What in me (that) is dark illumine, what is low raise and support; That, to the height of This Great Argument, I may assert eternal providence, and justify the ways of God to men. - John Milton
Such language rests upon a calvinistic view of depravity.
Jamie - no worries.
Scott - I believe young calvin will take cash or charge, but no personal cheques. Thanks for readin, and I hope you get something out of it.
Bob - I'll agree that our opinions don't affect the truth, but there are some cases (such as this) where scripture is unclear or at the very least fuzzy on the truth. Both sides of the argument are able to point to verses that support their positions. I'm not one to pit scripture against scripture, so I find the conversations we have here meaningful.
And saying, "God can do whatever he wants" may or may not be accurate, but it certainly isn't what God would say. He always tells people that he is loving, just, compassionate, righteous, etc., and that he ACTUALLY IS all those things, whcih is why we should be bowing to him. Saying it your way seems a little... vicarious.
Grey Owl,
I see what you are trying to say and I think it only leads to theological liberalism or relativism when it comes to scriptural interpretation. Scriptural teaching that one person like myself think is clear another thinks is unclear so it seems to result in a to each his own kind of theology study. Also "unclear" opens the door big time for bad teaching. For instance one can say he thinks the bible is "unclear" as to what it teaches in regard to how men are saved and develop a justification by works system.
Actually I think I know where you are getting that sort of thinking, Brian McLaren. McLaren when asked straight forward questions about wether he thought homosexuality was morally wrong responded "It's a complex issue and the bible really isn't clear". I think that is a case and point example of exchanging the love of the truth to be a man pleaser.
My point is that suddenly the bible becomes "unclear" in ever area that goes against the grains of contemporary culture. Our culture has a noble dignified view of man, total depravity then seems foreign and negative. Surely that's not what a "good" God teaches about us. The terms good, loving, righteous and just that are often ascribed to God are divorced from their biblical meaning and given humanistic ones. Thus people can say if God does "X" He is not good therefore God does not do "X" because God is good. That is absurd because it begs the very question of where the standard of "good" comes from.
My point is that we must rely on scripture and scripture alone when it comes to matters of doctrine and faith. And indeed I don't claim to exhaustive expository knowledge of God's word, and some things are hard to understand:
" There are some things in them (Paul's epistles) that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. " (2 Pet 3:16)
So to grasp interpretation of God's inspired word can be difficult and men will twist it but what are we as His people to do? Peter continues :
"You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen." (2 Pet 3:17-18)
This is a call to be vigilant for the truth of God, and when unstable men come with their perversions from the purity of the word we can stand with open bible and say "this is unorthodox", as opposed to "well that is their interpretation, I guess it is a bit unclear."
Oh what did you mean by "Vicarious"?
ok, i'm all caught up now. i'm really liking this discussion. to answer Grey Owl's quesion, in the 60s I was a good little catholic girl who desprately wanted to be a hippy, or else married to one of the Beatles (any one, I wasn't fussy). I was also very interested in the Spiritual...devoted to the Church, but also interested in Budahism and Wicca. I was somewhat more versed in Scripture than my peers because I had a stepfather who was a tongue speaking, Bible thumping, Catholic hater who would often challenge me to "find it in the Bible". But that's enough about me...
Maryellen - thanks for the history!
Bob - Quote - "For instance one can say he thinks the bible is "unclear" as to what it teaches in regard to how men are saved and develop a justification by works system" - well, I suppose they could, but they'd be really off. Reread what I wrote: in SOME cases scripture is unclear. Justification by works is not one of those cases.
Screw McLaren. Many people have said this before he came along, and many more will afterwards. It's not about being a "man pleaser" at all, it's about having humility for the things that God has chosen not to reveal to us in full (unlike salvation). What makes your interpretation of these other issues so right? And don't say "because it's true," that isn't an answer. And don't say "because all REAL christians have believed this," because you'll just declare everyone who disagrees with it as unchristian. That's not an answer either. Why is your interpretation right?
Quote - "The terms good, loving, righteous and just that are often ascribed to God are divorced from their biblical meaning and given humanistic ones" - I don't disagree with that, but I do believe that the biblical meaning can incorporate the "humanistic" ones. Ie. - love is not just the "warm fuzzy" feelings, but doesn involve God's compassion for us even as his is a just and righteous God. The true definitions of those words are always more than the humanistic ones, but never less.
By vicareous, I meant that God isn't just telling us he's loving and then not caring about suffering or whatever; I mean that he actually is loving. make any sense? Maybe I used the wrong word...
Grey Owl,
Thanks for your graciousness, I know I can be a little rough when it comes to disagreeing about theology. But hey I respect you more for disagreeing with me than for ignoring me... I look forward to hearing more of what you have to say.
In Christ
Bob
Bob - I was actually thinking that I had reacted harshly last comment, so I'm glad there's no hard feelings. I'm glad your reading, and even more glad you're involved in the conversation.
Cheers,
Grey Owl
Because I weigh in frequently enough, including getting in some serious debates, I figured I would put out an odd comment this time.
I have been accused at times of simply jumping in and disagreeing with folks because I don't like them or I got riled up. The support for this comes from the fact that nobody notices any significance when I don't comment.
So here goes: "On the grounds that my disagreement with several points made in the comment section are significant, but belong in my house, and not in Grey Owl's, I am not commenting here at this time out of respect for him and his other readers."
What do you think, Grey Owl? Should I keep a form letter of this sort for the various christian blogs I visit, or should I leave your blog the one recipient of my sarcastic venture?
Wanderer - I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "The support for this comes from the fact that nobody notices any significance when I don't comment." I always enjoy your weighing in, whether I agree with what you say or not, because I have grown to respect you and value your opinion. I believe that if you were to withhold comments when you have something to say, the conversation would be the poorer for it.
I think that as long as we disagree respectfully, there's no reason not to keep talking. And if a heated exchange gets going, there's no harm, as long as we can all shake hands afterwards. Symbolically, of course - it would be a long drive just to "press the flesh." So I say keep them coming; as long as you're willing and respecful you are welcome here, just like everyone else.
Although on blogs where one's welcome is less than sure, a "form letter" comment might be in order for more of us... I think I poke my head in too often in some places!
Grey Owl - I meant that it supported the argument that I will jump in just to get a rise out of someone. As, obviously, the points where I don't comment don't stand out, and the points that I do comment do.
Mostly I was just joking around, having nothing of importance to throw out there, and realizing that nobody notices when you remain silent. I suspect that is why people will jump in often as not without anything to say about the question at hand.
"scripture and scripture alone", eh bob?
what about the holy spirit? does he factor in at all in our theological understanding / growth in faith / pursuit of knowledge? aren't their some scriptureal verses a bout that in your book? i don't know which verse they are... sorry...
if everone's in this together, and trying to figure out truth, with a willing, searching heart, and an ear turned toward the holy spirit -- well, why get up in arms?
why attack others in their search or get riled up at all? if the search for knowledge is honest and the forum neutral, like this one seems too be trying to be, why come in and push and push and squash and throw your select scriptures around like clubs?
where's the love, people?! (that one had a smile in it) why can't we all just get along (OK, that one, too)
" There are some things in them (Paul's epistles) that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. " (2 Pet 3:16)
i couldn't believe you even touched this one, as i believe it may reflect more badly on you than on grey owl, the one at whom it was perhaps directed.
let us not destruct discussion, let us...
sheesh, sometimes i wunder what's the point with sorting through xianity at all when it becomes like this? my words may only be seen as twisting thnigs more -- may seem as i'm encouraging this theological liberalism as bob calls it -- may be interpreted as furthering relativism and encouraging discussion that divides "real" xians away from the "real" truth that is "only" found in scripture.
BOB QUOTE - This is a call to be vigilant for the truth of God, and when unstable men come with their perversions from the purity of the word we can stand with open bible and say "this is unorthodox", as opposed to "well that is their interpretation, I guess it is a bit unclear."
wow, wow, wow, grey owl, i would have been more harsh in my response than you are, but this is your domain, and i fear i'm ranting too much as it is.
let me end with -- did jesus not say somwhere that if you do not find your message well-received in a town, then walk on, move on? doesn't this ishow that he is more concerned with positive, encouraging language rather than divisive, accusatory language?
even inferring that someone else is "unstable" or using perversions, how the hell do you get off using that kind of language against a fellow searcher, a fellow believer...
honestly, you christians. sorry -- SOME christians. i gotta go. sorry 'bout this one, G. O.
Watchman-
I just have to say that I think you missed my point entirely. I say scripture alone is the authority or our standard or plumline when it comes to defining doctrine. I harped on this point because I noticed there was very little scriptural citation given when people were giving their thoughts on predestination. That is a problem. I don't care what Jane "thinks" or "feels" about certin doctrines I care wether or not the bible teaches them.
And yes you are absolutely correct the Holy Spirit is the revealer of truth, via regeneration. I am a Calvinist, so I don't think anyone comes to a knowledge of the truth apart from the sovereign work of the Spirit on the sinners heart.
As far as your beef with what I said about how suddenly the bible becomes "unclear" in certin areas so we are forced to refrain from it as authoritative, what I am attacking here is run of the mill theological liberalism. Suddenly passages like "I do not permit a woman to teach..." or passages about homosexuality are deemed unclear. Not to mention the extreme view that it is "unclear" as to who will escape the wrath of God, liberalism everyone who is a "good" person. So my point in writting this stuff was to defend the "Sola Scriptura" view, the bible alone is the final authority when it comes to matters of truth.
I see what you are trying to say when you bring up the Holy Spirit, I assume reffering to private leadings thus validating the opinions of everyone who is "on the path to truth." The problem comes when ones private leadings contradict scriptural truth. This ultimatly leads to a "True for you but not for me" view of truth or relativism. By relativism I mean the view that everyones claim on truth is equally valid and no one can claim to have THE truth. So yes there is a tinge of relativism in what you said Watchman.
I don't want to be naive Grey Owl made a good point when he asked "How do we know which interpretation of scripture is correct?" This is a very important question to raise. I have an answer for that but that would take a bit of writing and I am taking up enough of the comment spot responding to Watchman.
Oh and for the record Christ wasn't this wishy washy hippy who just sniffed flowers and said a bunch of dribble about love, he didn't get crucified by being gentle with people. I'll end by quoting scripture (both from Christ):
"You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44)
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves. "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred?" (Matt 23: 15-17)
You see, here is what I don't get. If God is in fact a wrathful God, a vengeful and jealous God, why on earth would you follow His commands? Why would you worship that?
God's wrath and hatred of sin make Him more desirable because He will not wink at injustice and simply sweep it under the rug. Frankly I couldn't worship a God without wrath, a God who would let injustices of the like performed by Stalin and Hitler go unaccounted for. Also we don't pick and choose what kind of God we get, as if choosing from ice cream flavors (I'll take a scoop of lovingkindness but hold the justice). Ultimatly God is desirable because He is the embodiment of perfection. His wrath is not arbitrary nor His justice capricious, but they are perfect giving glory to Him.
A stunning fact about God's wrath is that though now in our fallen nature it may seem unjust...yet, when we are free from the clouding effect of sin God's justice will seem most proper. Ultimatly however no one can raise any beef with the almighty and His judgements, we are but creatures He owns us.
"Also we don't pick and choose what kind of God we get, as if choosing from ice cream flavors"
"Ultimatly however no one can raise any beef with the almighty and His judgements, we are but creatures He owns us.
I certainly can, and I do, on a regular basis. Any who know me, or have read my White Wolf or Mother segments can point out that I do have a slight streak of irreverance that could probably use fixing, even in prayer.
Still, my point wasn't that one could just pick and choose who God was. Other than an obvious and primary decision making power. Whether or not to worship God. That is a choice we could make, and if God is what He is, and that is shown by jealousy and anger, why would you worship? If irrational weaknesses like these exist in God, it would be senseless to try to please Him. We might as well live our lives as we will, knowing that such an attempt would be pointless.
I still don't see God as being this weak and irrational individual, but then, that might be why we walk different paths.
Wanderer-
I see what you are saying a little more clearly now. As you said:
"I still don't see God as being this weak and irrational individual..."
I think you're absolutely right. But I ask is jealousy irrational? I think its hard for us to think of "good jealousy" but is there sych a thing? I think so, for instance when a wife is wandering from her husband to other men, is it irrational for the husband to be jealous? I don't think so, they (husband & wife) entered a covenant relationship only to have one of them leave the other to seek pleasure elsewhere. This is a case where jealousy is the right reaction, where it goes from there is seperate from the initial reaction.
So I think it is with God. Jealousy is just when God is ignored by men and treated as irrelecant in their lives when it is by His will they exist. In God alone is the fountain to which men may drink and be satified "In Your presence is fulness of joy and at Your right hand are pleasures forever more" (psalms) however rather than be satisfied in that which is infinitely satisfying men reject God and turn to finite fountains, (sex, tv, drugs, movies that have a lot of explosions) in these men seek to satisfy themselves. C.S. Lewis described this well as he said we are like children who choose to make mud pies in the slums because a holiday at the sea sounds boring. Scripture desribes this situation like this:
"Be appalled, O heavens, at this; be shocked, be utterly desolate, declares the LORD, for my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns that can hold no water" (Jer 2:12-13)
This is the evil of rejecting God, we are in effect saying of that which is infinitely glorious "boring...stupid" Thus if God is a lover of that which is infinitely good (namely His glory) holy wrath, and anger are very appropriate.
I think it is hard for us to comprehend the justice of jealousy and wrath because almost all the examples of jealousy and anger we see are clearly sinful and wrong. However, as I said before I think it would be evidence of "weakness" as you have put it if God was to treat His rejection by His creatures in a cavileer manner, flipantly pardoning them. He does not wink at sin, this is why Christ died. For God to be just and let the sun rise upon a rebelious land, as it did over Wisconsin today, requires the death of Christ. For the sake of Christ God can justly be merciful. And for the sake of Christ rebels like you and I can be reconciled as it is written:
"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (1 Cor 5:21)
In Christ we are brought back into fellowship with God and our sin becomes Jesus' and His righteousness ours.
Bob
"However, as I said before I think it would be evidence of "weakness" as you have put it if God was to treat His rejection by His creatures in a cavileer manner,"
So it would be weakness not to punish us for not worshipping Him? Rather than weakness to indicate He needs us to?
It would be weakness to not be jealous of us turning to others than Him for our pleasure? Rather than weakness to unleash his wrath on us because some may hesitate to believe men who speak his name, knowing that men are liars?
You see, the weakness in such things as jealousy isn't right there in the forefront. Especially if this jealousy springs from our reaction to admittedly faulty information. The word of man. (Yes, you will tell me that the Bible is the word of God, but you are man. You see the dilemma?)
No, I must still disagree. Jealousy and wrath as primary traits sound more like your devil than your God. I still say that too many people are giving God a bad wrap. Even if unintentionally.
"You see, the weakness in such things as jealousy isn't right there in the forefront. Especially if this jealousy springs from our reaction to admittedly faulty information. The word of man. (Yes, you will tell me that the Bible is the word of God, but you are man. You see the dilemma?)"
I see what you are saying, it's an epistemological problem. How do you know what you are being told is trustworthy seeing it comes from a source with a bad track record, man. That really is interesting and I will think more about it, I assume you mean in reference to the justice of punishment for wrong belief?
Well the bible says "The heavens declanre the glory of God and the earth his handiwork"
Thus nature bears witness to a Creator and men wilfully supress the worship of the Creator. That what Paul in Romans 1 argues in light of natures testimony, thus the condemnation is just.
Also God does not need us to worship Him, He alone rejoices and delights in Himself in the most proper manner for He alone is infinite. He is not angry because we wont worship Him and He is like a child throwing a tantrum because so and so didn't want to come to his party.
Rather, if God loves what is good He must love Himself, for He is the perfect embodiment of good. Therefore when men reject God they are rejecting that which is infinitely good, thus indirectly calling infinite good, bad. This is injustice of infinite proportions. Therefore if God loves what is good and justice He will punish that which is against the good.
I see what you are saying though wanderer, and it has definitely gotten me to think of the justice of Gods wrath more. But I think that it will be easy for God to show that wrath is the most just reaction to His rejection by men.
Excellent comments, everyone. I rolled in this morning after 3 days away from the net and saw all the back and forth, I wondered what all went down. I am very encouraged by the dialogue so far - nice job Wanderer and Bob, for engaging honestly and respectfully.
Next post up tomorrow at 2pm central time - adressing the issues discussed here, actually - if God is wrathful against those who reject the Truth of his existance, then what of those who have never heard of him?
Hey there you are, I was wondering why you were silent. Oh Paul answers your question in Romans 1.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen." (Rom 1:18-25)
"Well the bible says 'The heavens declanre the glory of God and the earth his handiwork'
Thus nature bears witness to a Creator and men wilfully supress the worship of the Creator."
Ah, but still the dilemma. I believe nature bears witness to the creator, and I worship as such. I don't worship the same God as you. Thus the true nature of my question regarding the bible and its trustworthiness, based on the testimony of man.
Would it be just to condemn me for giving honor to the creator, but not believing what man told me His name was?
"Rather, if God loves what is good He must love Himself, for He is the perfect embodiment of good. Therefore when men reject God they are rejecting that which is infinitely good, thus indirectly calling infinite good, bad. This is injustice of infinite proportions. Therefore if God loves what is good and justice He will punish that which is against the good."
Again, God created us. Wouldn't he therefore know our limitations? Wouldn't the why and the scope of our rejection matter? Wouldn't the way we dealt with this also matter? Surely God knows we don't have His knowledge, and thus are forced to deal with what we have as best as we are able.
Still if bothers me this wrath and jealousy thing. It is difinitive in nature. A crossing the line or not issue. Looking at who the subjects are and what we have to deal with, it would have to be graded on a curve, unless some of us were simply set up to fail. If that was the case, how does your infinitely good God justify this?
Post a Comment
<< Home