The 6 common misconceptions about what is called 'Calvinism'

[ArcticFox]

To my brothers and sisters in Christ, for the sake of unity, I wanted to clarify why the most common arguments against Calvinism reveal a misconception (misunderstanding) about what Calvinism teaches.

I want to address 6 popular misconceptions, and hopefully help others to see the beliefs of their brothers and sisters more clearly. Please remember that although you have every right to question these beliefs, please reference Scripture if you believe we are misguided.

Misconception #1

If Calvinism is true, then God is not loving

Presentation: This argument goes something like this: Calvinism teaches us that God is going around picking who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, and he doesn't give everyone an equal chance. This is not the loving, compassionate God that we see in the Scriptures. Quoted verses include John 3, and 1 John 4:8.

Clarification: This argument seems logical, but it is more emotional than Scriptural. It assumes that the believer already knows what love is, and then applies this concept of love to God to see if he 'measures up;' of course, the God of Calvinism fails to measure up to the believers' standard of love, and is dismissed.

The response we must take is simple: God is love. Therefore, whatever God does is ultimately motivated out of a sense of love. We must also remember that the flip side of God's love is his wrath as well. Either way, God defines love, not us. Therefore, we are NEVER able to judge whether God is loving or not, because if the Scriptures teach that God does something, we know then that it comes from a loving God.

We believe firmly that God raised dead, lifeless sinners from their prison of death, and does so lovingly. If it were not for his actions, we would remain in our death; this makes God ultimately wonderfully loving.

Misconception #2

Calvinism turns people into robots

Presentation: If God is completely sovereign like you say he is, and he is choosing people to come into salvation, than he is turning people into robots, devoid of a will.

Clarification: I'm not sure who popularized this phrase, the concept of a 'robot,' but it is still not a Scriptural argument against Calvinism.

This argument assumes that there is such a thing as a free will in which people ultimately make their own decisions and decide their own destiny; this assumes that free will not only exists, but that it exists in such a way that man is ultimately in charge of his own fate (in terms of his own choices). This concept of free will is foreign to the Scriptures.

Calvinists believe that people have their own will; really we do:D ! However, we do not believe that these wills are completely free to do whatever can be done. Instead, we believe that we are only able to do what our nature allows us to do; if our nature is sin, we can only sin. If our natures are regenerated by God, we are 'freed' to live in righteousness; but ONLY if God regenerates our hearts.

Our condition prior to regeneration:

1) Dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1)

2) Walking according to Satan's ways (Eph 2:2)

3) Indulged in our fleshly desires (Eph 2:3)

4) Separated from Christ (Eph 2:12)

5) Spiritually unable to discern truth (1 Cor 2:14)

6) Having a heart of stone (Ezekiel 11:9)

7) Spiritually unable to come to Christ without the Father drawing us (John 6:44)

8) Slaves of sin (Romans 6:20, John 8:34)

Consider #1 as the strongest point of our argument: a dead man can do nothing, just as a spiritually dead man can do nothing spiritually.

We are never robots, but have a will that needs fixing. It is not that we want bad things, its that we need our 'wanter' fixed.

Misconception #3

Calvinism denies the human will

Presentation: This is basically the same as argument misconception #2, but it is slightly different. It says that Calvinism fails to acknowledge that we make decisions all the time. I can choose to eat ramen, or I can choose to eat yakisoba. I can choose to do my laundry today, or I can choose to play soccer. I can choose to ignore replying to this post, or I can choose to do so. See? I clearly have a free will to do what I choose to do. Calvinism denies this.

Clarification: Calvinism addresses that there is indeed a will in people, and that this will is present in that person's decisions. There is no evidence contrary to Calvinism that people choose to do things, as clearly any Calvinist knows this very well.

The true argument still lies in the nature of the teachings of God's sovereignty and our wills. We do not have 'free wills' in the sense that we can choose anything we want. Our wills must be 'fixed.' Here is how God fixes us, not in particular order:

1) He chooses us before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4, John 15:16-19, 1 Thess. 1:4)

2) He calls us (Matt. 22:14)

3) He regenerates us by enlightening our hearts to his glories, and swapping our heart of stone for a heart of flesh (Eph. 1:18, Ezekiel 11:19, Eph 1:18)

4) Makes us alive by raising us from our death in order to do good works that he has prepared for us (Eph 2:5-6, Eph 2:10)

4) Seals us with the Holy Spirit, promising us our inheritance (Eph 1:13)

5) Promises never to lose us, but to keep us (John 6:39, John 10:28, Phil 1:6, Eph 1:13, John 6:47, Heb. 12:2)

6) Enslaves us to righteousness (Romans 6:18)

I hope this clarifies a key confusion on what a Calvinist believes the Scriptures teach about the will of man.

Misconception #4

If Calvinism is true, then he must be cruel; he's preventing people from coming to him for salvation!

Presentation: If God chooses who comes to him and who doesn't, than surely there will be people who want to come to God, and he will turn them away. The Bible clearly teaches that God will not turn away anyone who comes to him!

Clarification:This statement shows a profound misunderstanding of Calvinism. Calvinism teaches that are completely unable to come to God because we do not want to come to God. The only thing that can make us want to come to God, is not ourselves, but God. Without God, we will always desire sin. Romans 14:23 teaches that whatever does not proceed from faith is sin, and since we are to glorify God in EVERYTHING we do (1 Cor 10:31), everything we do apart from Christ is sin; we are unable to do anything but sin apart from being regenerated by Christ.

You see, even if we give to the poor and sacrifice our life to save another, it is not done out of faith in God and for his glory, and thus, by the Bible's definition, it is a sin. Please read carefully Romans 14, especially verse 23, the last verse.

Therefore, God does not prevent anyone from coming because no one seeks for God apart from God working in their lives. See Romans 3:11, that no one seeks for God, and furthermore all have turned aside and become worthless (Romans 3:12).

Contrary to what the misconception says, Calvinism teaches that God, while people are dead in sin and unable to do anything to love him or come to him, raises up people to come to him and love him. He does this by showing them how wonderful and amazing he is.

I loved the analogy another poster used about onions and liver. I'll make my own. Say you come to Japan, and you are fed some raw liver (yes, they eat it here). You HATE it. You can't stand the smell, the taste, the look. But one day, someone comes to you and touches your tongue and says, 'You will taste and see now.' The next day, at the restaurant you visit with a friend, you see a picture of raw liver. What's going on? You hated it yesterday, but now you WANT to try it again. You order it, thinking it can't be good, but take a whiff. It smells WONDERFUL. You take a bite... Unbelievable! What you hated yesterday, you LOVE today. You absolutely adore the smell and taste of raw liver, and you can't get enough.

This is our nature before and after being regenerated. Before Christ, we hate the things of God, even if we mask it under a thin veil of piety ('oh, God is ok with me, I just don't want to comitt my whole life to him'). Then, after having our 'wanter' fixed, we learn to love and desire him the way we should. Who fixes it? We believe God is the only one who can fix our broken 'wanters' (our wills, what we desire, are crooked until God makes them straight).

We believe whole-heartedly in the truth of John 6:37, that whoever comes to Christ he will by no means cast out (provided that coming is in faith; some will come not in faith and Christ will tell them that he NEVER knew them, Matt. 7:23).

Misconception #5

Calvinism makes people prideful, because they believe that God favors them and specifically chose them rather than others.

Presentation: If you believe that God chose you and not another, you will become prideful and think that you are somehow special or more worthy than the other person.

Clarification: This is not a Bibilical argument, but an opinion. It assumes that God chooses us for our own merit. The Bible clearly teaches that we are not chosen because we are more worthy, or better. In fact, the Bible teaches that God chooses the despised things of this world to bring down the high and mighty (haughty) (1 Cor. 1:28).

We believe we are chosen not because we were good, for no one is good but God (Mark 10:18). We believe we were chosen because God simply chose to do it (Romans 9:14-16, especially 16). Note how God speaks to Israel about their chosen status:

Deuteronomy 7:6 “For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. 7 It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, 8 but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers ...

We believe God chose us because he loves us, and he loves us because he does (circular logic there, but that's okay; it's biblical).

So, with this evidence, we are now forced to realize our complete helplessness prior to Christ, and our total lack of worthiness of what we have been called into. We are forced down onto our knees to beg for additional mercy and grace, for we know we are undeserving and lowly, having no grounds for boasting but the Lord himself.

We have nothing to be prideful about. In fact, if you believe that you chose God and another didn't, you might begin to think that you 'get it' and the other doesn't it. Maybe you're smarter? Maybe you're wittier? Who knows, but if you are the one who made the good choice, there is some possibility for pride there. But with Calvinism, the possibility for pride lies only in a misunderstanding of the doctrines of grace.

Misconception #6

Calvinism is a product of intellectualism and theologians in ivory towers. It isn't something that the average person would ever believe without these intellectuals like John Calvin

Presentation: As the misconception says, Calvin is just an ivory tower theologian who strokes his long beard while pouring over theology books, disconnected from the real world and how things really work.

Clarification: I won't repeat all of the verses I've quoted so far, for they are sufficient to be quoted once (some were quoted twice or thrice). This is not the product of mere intellectualism, and Calvin wasn't the first to 'think it up.' In fact, we believe these teachings are present in the Old Testament in amazing ways; you can see many of my OT verse quotes throughout. Check out Proverbs 16:33, 21:1, 16:9, 20:24. Check out Exodus 7:3, or Daniel 4:35.

We believe that this is of vital importance for regular believers. There is great comfort and joy in knowing God's sovereignty, especially his sovereignty over our salvation, for we can be sure that he will work out his good in our lives (Romans 8:28). We can be sure he will brings us into completion (Hebrews 12:2, Romans 8:29-30).

When a loved one passes away, or when a tradgedy strikes, it is of little comfort to say, 'This is not God's will, but he can make something good come of it.' But if your distress is of God, then you know that it is for your good, and that everything is under control, and that God will bring about his ultimate purposes for his glory (Isaiah 55:11). He is jealous for his glory (Exodus 34:14, Isaiah 42:8), and we should never think to give his glory to something such as 'chance' or 'human free will.'

-----------------------------------------------------------

I hope this post does amazing good to clarify some common misconceptions, and that the people of God can begin to better fellowship because of it (at least in some small way here on this little messageboard).

[UMP]

To my brothers and sisters in Christ, for the sake of unity, I wanted to clarify why the most common arguments against Calvinism reveal a misconception (misunderstanding) about what Calvinism teaches.

I want to address 6 popular misconceptions, and hopefully help others to see the beliefs of their brothers and sisters more clearly. Please remember that although you have every right to question these beliefs, please reference Scripture if you believe we are misguided.

Misconception #1

If Calvinism is true, then God is not loving

Presentation: This argument goes something like this: Calvinism teaches us that God is going around picking who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, and he doesn't give everyone an equal chance. This is not the loving, compassionate God that we see in the Scriptures. Quoted verses include John 3, and 1 John 4:8.

Clarification: This argument seems logical, but it is more emotional than Scriptural. It assumes that the believer already knows what love is, and then applies this concept of love to God to see if he 'measures up;' of course, the God of Calvinism fails to measure up to the believers' standard of love, and is dismissed.

The response we must take is simple: God is love. Therefore, whatever God does is ultimately motivated out of a sense of love. We must also remember that the flip side of God's love is his wrath as well. Either way, God defines love, not us. Therefore, we are NEVER able to judge whether God is loving or not, because if the Scriptures teach that God does something, we know then that it comes from a loving God.

We believe firmly that God raised dead, lifeless sinners from their prison of death, and does so lovingly. If it were not for his actions, we would remain in our death; this makes God ultimately wonderfully loving.

Misconception #2

Calvinism turns people into robots

Presentation: If God is completely sovereign like you say he is, and he is choosing people to come into salvation, than he is turning people into robots, devoid of a will.

Clarification: I'm not sure who popularized this phrase, the concept of a 'robot,' but it is still not a Scriptural argument against Calvinism.

This argument assumes that there is such a thing as a free will in which people ultimately make their own decisions and decide their own destiny; this assumes that free will not only exists, but that it exists in such a way that man is ultimately in charge of his own fate (in terms of his own choices). This concept of free will is foreign to the Scriptures.

Calvinists believe that people have their own will; really we do:D ! However, we do not believe that these wills are completely free to do whatever can be done. Instead, we believe that we are only able to do what our nature allows us to do; if our nature is sin, we can only sin. If our natures are regenerated by God, we are 'freed' to live in righteousness; but ONLY if God regenerates our hearts.

Our condition prior to regeneration:

1) Dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1)

2) Walking according to Satan's ways (Eph 2:2)

3) Indulged in our fleshly desires (Eph 2:3)

4) Separated from Christ (Eph 2:12)

5) Spiritually unable to discern truth (1 Cor 2:14)

6) Having a heart of stone (Ezekiel 11:9)

7) Spiritually unable to come to Christ without the Father drawing us (John 6:44)

8) Slaves of sin (Romans 6:20, John 8:34)

Consider #1 as the strongest point of our argument: a dead man can do nothing, just as a spiritually dead man can do nothing spiritually.

We are never robots, but have a will that needs fixing. It is not that we want bad things, its that we need our 'wanter' fixed.

Misconception #3

Calvinism denies the human will

Presentation: This is basically the same as argument misconception #2, but it is slightly different. It says that Calvinism fails to acknowledge that we make decisions all the time. I can choose to eat ramen, or I can choose to eat yakisoba. I can choose to do my laundry today, or I can choose to play soccer. I can choose to ignore replying to this post, or I can choose to do so. See? I clearly have a free will to do what I choose to do. Calvinism denies this.

Clarification: Calvinism addresses that there is indeed a will in people, and that this will is present in that person's decisions. There is no evidence contrary to Calvinism that people choose to do things, as clearly any Calvinist knows this very well.

The true argument still lies in the nature of the teachings of God's sovereignty and our wills. We do not have 'free wills' in the sense that we can choose anything we want. Our wills must be 'fixed.' Here is how God fixes us, not in particular order:

1) He chooses us before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4, John 15:16-19, 1 Thess. 1:4)

2) He calls us (Matt. 22:14)

3) He regenerates us by enlightening our hearts to his glories, and swapping our heart of stone for a heart of flesh (Eph. 1:18, Ezekiel 11:19, Eph 1:18)

4) Makes us alive by raising us from our death in order to do good works that he has prepared for us (Eph 2:5-6, Eph 2:10)

4) Seals us with the Holy Spirit, promising us our inheritance (Eph 1:13)

5) Promises never to lose us, but to keep us (John 6:39, John 10:28, Phil 1:6, Eph 1:13, John 6:47, Heb. 12:2)

6) Enslaves us to righteousness (Romans 6:18)

I hope this clarifies a key confusion on what a Calvinist believes the Scriptures teach about the will of man.

Misconception #4

If Calvinism is true, then he must be cruel; he's preventing people from coming to him for salvation!

Presentation: If God chooses who comes to him and who doesn't, than surely there will be people who want to come to God, and he will turn them away. The Bible clearly teaches that God will not turn away anyone who comes to him!

Clarification:This statement shows a profound misunderstanding of Calvinism. Calvinism teaches that are completely unable to come to God because we do not want to come to God. The only thing that can make us want to come to God, is not ourselves, but God. Without God, we will always desire sin. Romans 14:23 teaches that whatever does not proceed from faith is sin, and since we are to glorify God in EVERYTHING we do (1 Cor 10:31), everything we do apart from Christ is sin; we are unable to do anything but sin apart from being regenerated by Christ.

You see, even if we give to the poor and sacrifice our life to save another, it is not done out of faith in God and for his glory, and thus, by the Bible's definition, it is a sin. Please read carefully Romans 14, especially verse 23, the last verse.

Therefore, God does not prevent anyone from coming because no one seeks for God apart from God working in their lives. See Romans 3:11, that no one seeks for God, and furthermore all have turned aside and become worthless (Romans 3:12).

Contrary to what the misconception says, Calvinism teaches that God, while people are dead in sin and unable to do anything to love him or come to him, raises up people to come to him and love him. He does this by showing them how wonderful and amazing he is.

I loved the analogy another poster used about onions and liver. I'll make my own. Say you come to Japan, and you are fed some raw liver (yes, they eat it here). You HATE it. You can't stand the smell, the taste, the look. But one day, someone comes to you and touches your tongue and says, 'You will taste and see now.' The next day, at the restaurant you visit with a friend, you see a picture of raw liver. What's going on? You hated it yesterday, but now you WANT to try it again. You order it, thinking it can't be good, but take a whiff. It smells WONDERFUL. You take a bite... Unbelievable! What you hated yesterday, you LOVE today. You absolutely adore the smell and taste of raw liver, and you can't get enough.

This is our nature before and after being regenerated. Before Christ, we hate the things of God, even if we mask it under a thin veil of piety ('oh, God is ok with me, I just don't want to comitt my whole life to him'). Then, after having our 'wanter' fixed, we learn to love and desire him the way we should. Who fixes it? We believe God is the only one who can fix our broken 'wanters' (our wills, what we desire, are crooked until God makes them straight).

We believe whole-heartedly in the truth of John 6:37, that whoever comes to Christ he will by no means cast out (provided that coming is in faith; some will come not in faith and Christ will tell them that he NEVER knew them, Matt. 7:23).

Misconception #5

Calvinism makes people prideful, because they believe that God favors them and specifically chose them rather than others.

Presentation: If you believe that God chose you and not another, you will become prideful and think that you are somehow special or more worthy than the other person.

Clarification: This is not a Bibilical argument, but an opinion. It assumes that God chooses us for our own merit. The Bible clearly teaches that we are not chosen because we are more worthy, or better. In fact, the Bible teaches that God chooses the despised things of this world to bring down the high and mighty (haughty) (1 Cor. 1:28).

We believe we are chosen not because we were good, for no one is good but God (Mark 10:18). We believe we were chosen because God simply chose to do it (Romans 9:14-16, especially 16). Note how God speaks to Israel about their chosen status:

Deuteronomy 7:6 “For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. 7 It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, 8 but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers ...

We believe God chose us because he loves us, and he loves us because he does (circular logic there, but that's okay; it's biblical).

So, with this evidence, we are now forced to realize our complete helplessness prior to Christ, and our total lack of worthiness of what we have been called into. We are forced down onto our knees to beg for additional mercy and grace, for we know we are undeserving and lowly, having no grounds for boasting but the Lord himself.

We have nothing to be prideful about. In fact, if you believe that you chose God and another didn't, you might begin to think that you 'get it' and the other doesn't it. Maybe you're smarter? Maybe you're wittier? Who knows, but if you are the one who made the good choice, there is some possibility for pride there. But with Calvinism, the possibility for pride lies only in a misunderstanding of the doctrines of grace.

Misconception #6

Calvinism is a product of intellectualism and theologians in ivory towers. It isn't something that the average person would ever believe without these intellectuals like John Calvin

Presentation: As the misconception says, Calvin is just an ivory tower theologian who strokes his long beard while pouring over theology books, disconnected from the real world and how things really work.

Clarification: I won't repeat all of the verses I've quoted so far, for they are sufficient to be quoted once (some were quoted twice or thrice). This is not the product of mere intellectualism, and Calvin wasn't the first to 'think it up.' In fact, we believe these teachings are present in the Old Testament in amazing ways; you can see many of my OT verse quotes throughout. Check out Proverbs 16:33, 21:1, 16:9, 20:24. Check out Exodus 7:3, or Daniel 4:35.

We believe that this is of vital importance for regular believers. There is great comfort and joy in knowing God's sovereignty, especially his sovereignty over our salvation, for we can be sure that he will work out his good in our lives (Romans 8:28). We can be sure he will brings us into completion (Hebrews 12:2, Romans 8:29-30).

When a loved one passes away, or when a tradgedy strikes, it is of little comfort to say, 'This is not God's will, but he can make something good come of it.' But if your distress is of God, then you know that it is for your good, and that everything is under control, and that God will bring about his ultimate purposes for his glory (Isaiah 55:11). He is jealous for his glory (Exodus 34:14, Isaiah 42:8), and we should never think to give his glory to something such as 'chance' or 'human free will.'

-----------------------------------------------------------

I hope this post does amazing good to clarify some common misconceptions, and that the people of God can begin to better fellowship because of it (at least in some small way here on this little messageboard).


WELL DONE !!:thumbsup:
My only suggestion is to switch out the word "calvinism" and replace it with these words: "the truth as taught in the word of God"

[willard3]

WELL DONE !!:thumbsup:
My only suggestion is to switch out the word "calvinism" and replace it with these words: "the truth as taught in the word of God"

That, my friend, is a matter of opinion right now. For the record, I'm willing to treat Catholicism as a matter of opinion for the sake of argument, even though I have different feelings on the issue. Basically, what I get from that phrase is that all non-Calvinists are doomed.

Good OP, btw. Very informative.

[vrunca]

First of all...thank you Articfox for posting all of this information!! I read it once and I am going back right after to re-read it, so I can get a better understanding of my Calvinist brothers and sisters. I asked about it before a long time ago, but just got arguments and people other than Calvinists putting in their opinions. This is really good!

WELL DONE !!:thumbsup:
My only suggestion is to switch out the word "calvinism" and replace it with these words: "the truth as taught in the word of God"

This one I am going to comment on too...it's the last phrase..."the truth as taught in the word of God".

It is refreshing to see that a Calvinist believer truly feels this about what you are being taught and what you believe! I don't see this as arrogant or wrong for you to say this at all...in fact I was truly excited for you!!

What is hard for me to understand is why is it that when someone verbalizes how strong their convictions are toward their faith, like making a comment like that, they are being very arrogant? To me, it's like when Catholics say that we are the one true Church. That is how strong my faith is in the Church...and obviously by saying that what was said earlier about what Arcticfox wrote is "the truth as taught in the word of God", is a very positive statement about your faith. Shouldn't we all feel that way about our church, no matter which one we choose to belong to? Shouldn't we all be able to say that the church I belong to is the one true Church, or teaches the truth as taught in the word of God? I don't know but if my own faith was not strong enough in the faith that I follow, then I would be out finding another church! But it is so nice to see that you feel that strongly about you faith UMP to stand up and make a comment like that!!!

[UMP]

Basically, what I get from that phrase is that all non-Calvinists are doomed.


Which is exactly why I don't like the label of "calvinism".

First of all, I am no mans judge. God is the final authority and His judgements are not only final but eternally just, whether I currently understand it or not.

Now, if one reads the Bible (the inspired word of God) and comes to the conclusion that it teaches that some people are, as you put it, "doomed" (justly, might I add), is it the truth or not?
If it is the truth, what would you like me to "name" said truth? If I call it something other than "the truth as taught in the word of God", it's much easier to dismiss as nonsense, n'est pas?

Just something to chew on.

[ArcticFox]

Thanks for the feedback.

Calvinists (those who believe in what are called the 'doctrines of grace') have never believed, and do not believe now, that one must call themself a Calvinist or even believe in these truths to be saved.

However, we would hope that EVERYONE would come to this knowledge of what we believe to be the truth, so that all can give glory to God and offer wondrous praise and thanks for all that God has done. We believe that anyone, convicted of these truths from the Holy Scriptures, will grow in love for God, in their courage to live out the Christian life, and overlow in praise to God in worship.

Although yes, I believe this to be the 'one truth,' I wouldn't assign this one truth to any particular church.

For more information about Calvinism, I would recommend the following websites:

Desiring God - Ministry of John Piper (http://www.desiringgod.org)

Monergism - Very scholastic resource (http://www.monergism.com)

Reformed.org - Another somewhat scholastic resource (http://www.reformed.org)

A really good, but slightly long article, is found here:

Desiring God Ministries' Beliefs about Calvinism (http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1985/1487_What_We_Believe_About_the_Five_Points_of_Calvinism/)

A good article that is somewhat subjective in what Calvinism does for a person is found here:

Ten Effects of Believing in the Five Points of Calvinism (http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/2002/1519_Ten_Effects_of_Believing_in_the_Five_Points_of_Calvinism/)

And, just for the recorded, I'm not dogmatic about the L in TULIP:

T = Total Depravity (we are corrupt in every part of our nature, but not as corrupt as we could be)

U = Unconditional Election (God chooses us for salvation not based on anything we are or did, but on his reasons alone)

L = Limited Atonement (Christ died only for the elect, those who will be saved)

I = Irresistible Grace (once God converts our hearts, we come to him because he is so lovely and glorious that we can't help but come to him in faith)

P = Perseverance of the Saints (God will continue the good work he began in us until the day of completion, not losing a single one of us)

The L point is still an area where I find little Scriptural support. It is not, however, a crucial point, since the L point of TULIP is more a logical outworking of the system of doctrine than it is a doctrinal teaching from the Scriptures. There is some evidence, but attempting to address verses that speak to the contrary make it difficult for me to respect my Bible translation method when I am seemingly twisting words around. I just feel that I have to go to some extreme means to justify the L point of TULIP, whereas the others I can now easily see the justification for it, and I can find evidence for them throughout the Scriptures as I do my daily reads.

But believing in the L point is sometimes quite moot; regardless, the atonement only ends up applying to those who come to Christ for salvation.

I love these truths so much. I would be greatly pleased if my Christian brothers and sisters of a different conviction would take a look at these truths and research them from the Scriptures. I would encourage people to pursue these things, and to ask the tough questions of the Scriptures; by searching the Scriptures diligently, these doctrines can become a rock-solid foundation for ministry, including evangelism, missions, care-taking, resolving disputes, etc.

[willard3]

Sorry if I sounded snippy. It's hard to gauge emotions over teh Intarweb. Maybe emoticons would have helped.

It just seemed arrogant to me, and that you were implying that non-Calvinists are morons who can't read the Bible according to your/Calvin's interpretation.

Yes, I know Catholics do the same, and I am one of them sometimes. I'm really trying hard to work on that.

I agree with Vrunca now that I think about it.

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/577/miscmadpropsfv5.th.jpg

[Iosias]

The L point is still an area where I find little Scriptural support.

You may find the following helpful: http://www.christianforums.com/t4203742-a-defense-of-limited-atonement.html

[JAL]

You argue that to accuse the Calvinistic God of being unloving is to judge God by human standards of love. You say it is wrong to judge God by human standards:
God defines love, not us. Therefore, we are NEVER able to judge whether God is loving or not, because if the Scriptures teach that God does something, we know then that it comes from a loving God. Without getting into my opinions as to whether Calvinism is true or not, this particular statement is actually fallacious, logically. The theologian is indeed SUPPOSED to judge God by his own human standards of ethics and love, for to do otherwise would culminate in relativism and/or logical inconsistency. Stated succinctly, we cannot espouse a double standard of love consisting of one standard for God and another for men. Allow me to explain why.


If virtues such as love have a different meaning for God than they do for men, the promises of Scripture are worthless and self-contradictory. Take for example the promise that He will love us for all eternity. If "His love" could entail the type of behavior that I myself would currently dissociate with love (such as putting an innocent man in hell), then the promise that God will "love" me for all eternity ought to TERRIFY me rather than CONSOLE me. Thus the promises become self-contradictory, because they purport to give us ground for reassurance but actually give us cause for alarm.

Thus, to be logically consistent, any ethic that I would currently apply to myself, I must also apply to God. One way to do this is to imagine how I would act if I were a judge. If I would deem it wrong to condemn an innocent man, I cannot then have a “God of justice” condemning the innocent.

I'm not expressing any opinions here as to whether Calvinism condemns the innocent. I'll let the reader(s) decide that for themselves. All I'm doing is pointing out that we need to be logically consistent.

Not that this is going to change your view on the matter. My experience in this forum is that virtually no one changes their views regardless of how many logically fallacies are pointed out to them. I am just writing this out of boredom...

[ArcticFox]

You may find the following helpful: http://www.christianforums.com/t4203742-a-defense-of-limited-atonement.html

Thank you, I did find it helpful. It reminded me of the verses that seem to speak of a limited atonement, especially powerful are the verses about Jesus laying down his life for the sheep.

However, it could easily be argued that none of these verses are overtly exclusive. The verse about Jesus prayer is exclusive for sure (he prays for his people, and specifically says he's NOT praying for the world). However, there is no such specificity in the verses about the atonment. It would be grand if there were a verse saying, 'I lay my life down for the sheep. Not for the world do I lay my life down ...'

Such a verse does not exist. We must also address some other verses that seem to speak to the contrary of the doctrine of Limited Atonement. Here are a handful:

1) 1John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

2) John 3:16 “For God so loved the world,* that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

3) 2Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

Other verses are sometimes used, but they are not problematic (for example, verses that say that 'Christ died for the ungodly' do not insinuate he died for ALL of the ungodly, and so are not a problem for a Limited Atonement view).

[ArcticFox]

[/SIZE]If virtues such as love have a different meaning for God than they do for men, the promises of Scripture are worthless and self-contradictory. Take for example the promise that He will love us for all eternity. If "His love" could entail the type of behavior that I myself would currently dissociate with love (such as putting an innocent man in hell), then the promise that God will "love" me for all eternity ought to TERRIFY me rather than CONSOLE me. Thus the promises become self-contradictory, because they purport to give us ground for reassurance but actually give us cause for alarm.

Thus, to be logically consistent, any ethic that I would currently apply to myself, I must also apply to God. One way to do this is to imagine how I would act if I were a judge. If I would deem it wrong to condemn an innocent man, I cannot then have a “God of justice” condemning the innocent.[SIZE=3]

I see what you are trying to say, but I disagree that it is a logical fallacy. In fact, I think it is dangerous to assume that we can judge God's character.

Here is why:

Let's say a friend comes to you and says that he wants to give you the money that he got from selling his gun collection. You're glad he's sold them, and tell him it's not necessary for him to give you the money. He said he's so glad to be free of his collection that he was idolizing, that he wants you to have the money. You take it; it's $3400

The next day, you stumble upon a mutual friend who tells you that your other friend sold the gun collection for $5600. You now know your friend lied to you, because he told you that's how much he sold them all for.

You go back to your friend and, in a morbid moment of irony, shoot him dead.

Did you act righteously? Were you justified in your killing? If you answer yes, I think you are probably not living in accordance with your beliefs. If you answered no, and say that it is overly harsh to kill your friend over lying about how much he sold something for, than you put yourself in the place of judging God (remember Ananias and Saphira, Acts 5?), since you say that we judge God by our standards.

Another example:

You and your friends go to Las Vegas, NV (USA) for the weekend. You expect to have a great time. When you get there, you quickly realize that you feel it's a place of rampant sexual sin and immoral gambling activity. You feel it is a dark and wicked place, and command all of your friends to leave. You all leave together, and you instruct NONE of them to look back at all, but to drive away looking forward. One friend in your guy turns around and gazes at the lights of Las Vegas, and you promptly pull over and end his life, then press onward.

Did you act righteously? How would your human standard judge this behavior? Contrast it with the story of Lot's wife (Genesis 19:26).

To judge God by what WE would consider justice or love is a huge error. God is the all supreme judge, and he has all authority to administer his justice. Just as you would not think yourself fit to dish out sentences to criminals unless you were a judge, so we are not fit to do many things that God is entirely righteous to do.

Please judge the following commands/stories by your standard of human love, compassion, and justice:

Genesis 7 -- God kills all human and animal life sparing those on the ark

Genesis 22 -- Abraham, rather than question God's goodness, decides he will go ahead and sacrifice his son (though he is stopped)

Exodus 12 -- God kills all the firstborn of Egypt, including many very, very young children

Deut 21:18-21 -- Death pentalty for children who are disobedient to parents

I think we must acknowledge that there is indeed a double standard for humans and for God (and I would hope so).

[JAL]

I see what you are trying to say, but I disagree that it is a logical fallacy. In fact, I think it is dangerous to assume that we can judge God's character.

Here is why:

Let's say a friend comes to you and says that he wants to give you the money that he got from selling his gun collection. You're glad he's sold them, and tell him it's not necessary for him to give you the money. He said he's so glad to be free of his collection that he was idolizing, that he wants you to have the money. You take it; it's $3400

The next day, you stumble upon a mutual friend who tells you that your other friend sold the gun collection for $5600. You now know your friend lied to you, because he told you that's how much he sold them all for.

You go back to your friend and, in a morbid moment of irony, shoot him dead.

Did you act righteously? Were you justified in your killing? If you answer yes, I think you are probably not living in accordance with your beliefs. If you answered no, and say that it is overly harsh to kill your friend over lying about how much he sold something for, than you put yourself in the place of judging God (remember Ananias and Saphira, Acts 5?), since you say that we judge God by our standards. This misses my point. You are getting into specific examples of applied ethics. My point was more broad than that. I was saying that, REGARDLESS of how a particular theologian applies ethics, he must apply the same standard to God in order to be logically consistent (with himself). For example, if he says that it is okay for he himself, in some situations, to tell a "white lie", he cannot then say it is always wrong for God to tell a white lie. That would be a double standard (relativism). Let's now look at your example. If a theologian analyzing your example concludes that he himself would be justified in killing the guy who lied about the price, then he needs to be consistent, that is, he must also say that it is okay for God to manifest the same type of behavior. I was only arguing for consistency, I wasn't dealing with specific ethical questions such as "is a white lie okay?". Since the rest of you examples, in the same way, completely miss my point, I won't address them individually. You finally conclude,

I think we must acknowledge that there is indeed a double standard for humans and for God (and I would hope so).Nope. A double standard is relativism, and it results in logical inconsistency for reasons stated.

Since you have opened the door to applied ethics, I may as well point out one unfortunate corollary of my argument, namely that the traditional way in which original sin is extrapolated is unacceptable.
In fact the more candid Reformed thinkers such as Berkouwer have admitted that the Reformed extrapolation of Adam's fall doesn't make sense. It is not that Berkouwer denies original sin in Adam. But he wrote a 600 page book called 'Sin' where he demonstrates the inadequacies of the Reformed extrapolation. Berkouwer has no solution. The REASON mainstream Christianity cannot solve this problem is an unwillingness to be open-minded to a few non-traditional assumptions. I have a solution, not because I'm smarter than mainstream theologians (I'm a lot dumber, actually), but because I'm open to a few possibilities they won't entertain.

Briefly, I'll summarize the problem. If I were a judge, I would not condemn one man for the sins of another. To be consistent, therefore, I cannot have God condemning men for the sins of Adam. Again, I am not denying original sin in Adam. I am merely pointing out that federalism (representationalism) doesn't make sense. Our understanding of Adam needs to change.

I'm well aware of the arguments cited by Charles Hodge and others in support of federalism. I'm sure you'll begin listing them, but I can EASILY refute them one by one, because these arguments are logically self-contradictory. But I probably won't bother, because Reformed theologians such as Berkouwer have already refuted the Reformed defense of federalism and, indeed, have probably done a better job than I could do.

Oh, what the heck, I was going to stop there, but I will look at one of your examples of applied ethics because you apparently imagine that I do, indeed, make exceptions for God. How little you know about me. You suggest that no one, not even I myself, could conclude, from the following example, that God and men can have and should have the same ethical standards - here is your challenge to me:

Please judge the following commands/stories by your standard of human love, compassion, and justice...
Genesis 7 -- God kills all human and animal life sparing those on the ark As for the human beings, they all deserved judgment/hell in Adam, so I don't see the problem there. What about the animals? Indeed, I myself am an Old Earth Creationist. How do we justify millions of years of animal suffering? Why would God allow innocent suffering? Isn't that unjust? I asked myself that question a long time ago. My conclusion: "Innocent suffering is normally unjust, with only two exceptions." The first exception is voluntary suffering. The second exception is much too complex to discuss here. The trouble is, I wasn't completely convinced that animal suffering falls under even the second exception. So I now hold a non-traditional theory of animals, as follows. (That is to say, since I as a judge wouldn't likely enforce innocent suffering, I am most consistent if I say that God wouldn't allow innocent animals to suffer).

The brain and body can and does have a huge impact on our mind, it largely determines our pscychology. If an animal brain does not allow for a sense of right and wrong, therefore, an animal cannot really be regared as evil. Thus animals are not, in my view, evil even when they kill others somewhat capriciously. However, the fact that a given animal is not currently performing evil tells us nothing about the behavior of its soul BEFORE it was placed into the animal body. A simple way to justify animal suffering, therefore, is to argue that their souls are actually fallen angels. They suffer because they deserve it, and will eventually be thrown into the lake of fire. Jesus Himself furnished a graphic example of the kinship of animals and demons when He cast the 2000 demons out of the demoniac into a herd of 2000 pigs. He wasn't being cruel to "innocent animals" - He was just grouping the demons with their own kind.

As for the other biblical challenges raised, I've already considered them. In each case I could show, had I the time, that I am quite consistent, that I do not apply a double standard of ethics to man and God. I'm disappointed that you would propose a double standard that defines God as an enforcer of innocent suffering. I see Him as a God of love, mercy, justice, and compassion.

[ArcticFox]

Hi JAL,

You posted a long and thoughtful message. However, because it contains no references to Scripture, and seems to be an entirely (or mostly) philosophical argument, I would like to side-step the discussion at this point.

Although I don't condemn all philosophical 'ramblings' about the nature of God (C.S. Lewis certainly produced some that many consider helpful), I don't consider them necessary. In fact, I prefer to stay away from Bible-informed philosophy and stick to Bible study itself.

Thanks for the reply:)

[CSMR]

[B][SIZE=3]For example, if he says that it is okay for he himself, in some situations, to tell a "white lie", he cannot then say it is always wrong for God to tell a white lie. That would be a double standard (relativism).
Double standards are not relativism. Relativism involves a lack of objectivity in understanding ethics whereas double standards do not involve a lack of objectivity.

Human ethics is not a concept that applies to God. If you want to have something called divine ethics you will have to invent it. The rather infinite and categorical differences between God and man disallow one from making the easy analogies between human ethical statements and divine ethical statements whatever they are.

Human ethical action is the demonstration of saving faith in Jesus Christ. Note that God does not posess saving faith in Jesus Christ.

Or thought of another way, human ethical action is the obedience of the command of God. To extend the bounds of this statement and apply it to God you would have to have a notion of God commanding himself.

(Moreover you would need to define before making arguments what double standards are. I have taken that double standards is to deny that if man should do x then God should do x, where x can be one of the statements above and has the same structure in both cases. You would need to say what statments x can be and why this results in inconsitency.)
Briefly, I'll summarize the problem. If I were a judge, I would not condemn one man for the sins of another. To be consistent, therefore, I cannot have God condemning men for the sins of Adam. Again, I am not denying original sin in Adam. I am merely pointing out that federalism (representationalism) doesn't make sense. Our understanding of Adam needs to change.
Oh quite likely. But if one understands Adam as that person (existing or symbolic) whose nature we posess then we can easily say that we are condemned in Adam as we are condemned in our nature. Is that not representation?
I see Him as a God of love, mercy, justice, and compassion.
Calvinism can be thought of as love to some, justice to others. But perhaps also as love and justice which is to some condemnation and to others salvation. The love of God brings us to him, but also shows us up and reveals our hate.

[CSMR]

Arctic fox: good OP. I find that misunderstandings over free will generally arise from having both "free choice" and "free will" in mind and swapping them over at inappropriate moments. I am not sure why this distinction is hard to grasp.

That said even though I work with choice all the time as a student of economic theory I find it difficult to define. My thinking now is that choice is not necessary for Christianity but that the (common perhaps vague) notion of choice is not incompatible either, but if it is used, it should be distinguished from free will.

[CalvinistSamurai]

Awesome post. I fear that most people don't go the extra mile to not just learn what they believe, but learn what they don't believe as well. For instance, I think I've got a firm grip on why I don't believe in Catholicism, Wesleyan Theology- or Mormonism for that matter. Having an understanding of what you don't believe makes your understanding of what you do believe fuller.

I think JAL's interpretation is the biggest danger to modern theology, whether protestant or catholic. Trying to understand God through the mind of man by applying man's nature to God underwrites who God is. In the OT, God said to people that they should know Him because He says things before and they happen later (Is 41:22-23, 42:8-9, 45:21, 46:9-10). Jesus said the same of Judas(Jn 13:19, Jn 13:21, 13:26-27, Jn 6:64. Its the proof that He is God. This is definitely a double standard, in that it is something that applies to Him but not to us.


Shalom.

[JAL]

Hi JAL,

You posted a long and thoughtful message. However, because it contains no references to Scripture, and seems to be an entirely (or mostly) philosophical argument, I would like to side-step the discussion at this point.

Although I don't condemn all philosophical 'ramblings' about the nature of God (C.S. Lewis certainly produced some that many consider helpful), I don't consider them necessary. In fact, I prefer to stay away from Bible-informed philosophy and stick to Bible study itself.

Thanks for the reply:) Exposing logical contradictions in YOUR supposedly biblical arguments proves that they are not biblical, because truth is not self-contradictory. You need to deal with that fact.

[JAL]

Double standards are not relativism. Relativism involves a lack of objectivity in understanding ethics whereas double standards do not involve a lack of objectivity.

Human ethics is not a concept that applies to God. If you want to have something called divine ethics you will have to invent it. The rather infinite and categorical differences between God and man disallow one from making the easy analogies between human ethical statements and divine ethical statements whatever they are.

Human ethical action is the demonstration of saving faith in Jesus Christ. Note that God does not posess saving faith in Jesus Christ.

Or thought of another way, human ethical action is the obedience of the command of God. To extend the bounds of this statement and apply it to God you would have to have a notion of God commanding himself.

(Moreover you would need to define before making arguments what double standards are. I have taken that double standards is to deny that if man should do x then God should do x, where x can be one of the statements above and has the same structure in both cases. You would need to say what statments x can be and why this results in inconsitency.)

Oh quite likely. But if one understands Adam as that person (existing or symbolic) whose nature we posess then we can easily say that we are condemned in Adam as we are condemned in our nature. Is that not representation?

Calvinism can be thought of as love to some, justice to others. But perhaps also as love and justice which is to some condemnation and to others salvation. The love of God brings us to him, but also shows us up and reveals our hate. This is just a bunch of rambling. You need to deal with the specific objections raised in my initial post. Otherwise you are just expressing a bias. The world is full of religions because there is plenty of bias, but precious little coherence (logical consistency).

Again, if "love" and "justice" mean something different for God than what they mean to me, how can I take comfort in the hope of His love and justice? If He violates integrity such as I understand it, what hope do any of us have?

You need to deal with that problem.

[JAL]

The biggest self-conrtradiction in the posts recently posted against my argument is that they deem my position as philosophical.

In a philosophical debate, there are two opposing sides. So if you oppose my position, guess what? That only makes you equally philosophical.

No theologian can evade philosphy, because it is all-embracing. The most he can do is try to avoid hollow and deceptive philosophy.

[ArcticFox]

Exposing logical contradictions in YOUR supposedly biblical arguments proves that they are not biblical, because truth is not self-contradictory. You need to deal with that fact.

If you'd like to provide Biblical arguments from the texts of Scripture, supported by proof texts, I would be willing to address those.

Other than that, I have no need to deal with that fact. :P

[JAL]

There is a second problem with the notion that God's virtues are at best analogical to human values, the notion that we cannot understand His values.

Suppose you attended a science convention with the world's greatest minds and announced, "I have a great new scientific theory, and I think we should publish it and hold it in high regard. It solves an important problem." They say, "OK, tell us about your theory." You reply, "Well I would, but the problem is that it is beyond human understanding." At this point they might be inclined to throw you out! They might listen to you a little longer only if they themselsves had found no other solution to that problem.

Stated differently, to claim that one's doctrine is beyond understanding is essentially to have made no claim at all. No content can be associated with such doctrine, if it such content is outside the domain of human comprehension. The theologian who says, "My views cannot be understood" might as well shut up. For example, even though I don't understand all the details of how a computer works, I can still say honestly that I know how a computer works. So am I not saying that we have to understand all the details of a doctrine prior to publishing it, but it should at least be logically coherent. It should make some general sense.

What then of Paul's claim that God's judgments are unsearchable? There are several things Paul may be alluding to here. For example, God has not revealed all the specifics of His plans, nor all the specifics of how He has worked in the past. Secondly, God's will take into account billions of factors unknown to men, so we can never fathom His rationale. For example, He has a full grasp of the factors influencing the world economy. Hence His judgemnts in this area are unsearchable. However, the fact that He is smarter than we are does not allow us to conclude that His virtues are the opposite of what we would call virtue. Thirdly, another sense in which God transcends our understanding is that He is MORE virtuous than we are. This is not a different kind of virtue but of higher intensity than we can currently fathom. Here I'm speaking specifically of His love, mercy, compassion, and zeal.

[JAL]

If you'd like to provide Biblical arguments from the texts of Scripture, supported by proof texts, I would be willing to address those.

Other than that, I have no need to deal with that fact. :P

Ok, here's an example. To prove your theory of a double standard, you cited biblical texts suggesting that God has, in fact, done injury to the innocent and Has commanded men such as Abraham to do the same. You also hold, I would imagine, to the traditional view of original sin, namely that God punishes us for what Adam did, which would be another example of doing injury to the innocent. I'd like to see how you reconcile this with Ezekiel 18 which describes God's justice as fairness, and specifically provides the example that God would not punish a son for the sins of his father.

If children should not be punished for the sins of their father, how can we say, without contradicting Scripture, that Adam's offspring perish for his sins? And why is it that Ezkekiel has expressed here a very human concept of justice if God is not so bound?

(Again, I have a different view of Adam that allows for a solution, so this isn't a problem for me).

[ArcticFox]

Ok, here's an example. To prove your theory of a double standard, you cited biblical texts suggesting that God has, in fact, done injury to the innocent and Has commanded men such as Abraham to do the same.

Not so. I did not say, nor mean to imply at all, that God punishes the innocent, for I believe that ALL are guilty (Romans 3), and they are guilty from birth (Psalm 51:5)

You also hold, I would imagine, to the traditional view of original sin, namely that God punishes us for what Adam did, which would be another example of doing injury to the innocent. I'd like to see how you reconcile this with Ezekiel 18 which describes God's justice as fairness, and specifically provides the example that God would not punish a son for the sins of his father.


I would not say it the way you said it, but I believe that we are all guilty of sin, and therefore all incur God's wrath. This guilt is imputed from Adam, and manifests itself in our life through our sinful nature, which we show forth from the earliest ages.

If children should not be punished for the sins of his father, how can we say, without contradicting Scripture, that Adam's offspring perish for his sins? And why is it that Ezkekiel has expressed here a very human concept of justice if God is not so bound?


Again, this is answered simply by the fact that we are not being held guilty for one man's actions, but we are held guilty for having a sinful nature in which we constantly sin. Even if you didn't believe the Bible taught that we inherit a guilty sin nature, sin manifests itself as soon as we are able to perform actions.
(Again, I have a different view of Adam that allows for a solution, so this isn't a problem for me).


Not a problem for me, either. :thumbsup:

There is a second problem with the notion that God's virtues are at best analogical to human values, the notion that we cannot understand His values.

We can understand his values. JAL, I think you may have misunderstood the nature of the argument here. It seems we are arguing but not arguing each other's position, but a position that neither of us holds.

Otherwise, I have no idea what you're trying to argue here :scratch:

[JAL]

Not so. I did not say, nor mean to imply at all, that God punishes the innocent, for I believe that ALL are guilty (Romans 3), and they are guilty from birth (Psalm 51:5)



I would not say it the way you said it, but I believe that we are all guilty of sin, and therefore all incur God's wrath. This guilt is imputed from Adam, and manifests itself in our life through our sinful nature, which we show forth from the earliest ages.



Again, this is answered simply by the fact that we are not being held guilty for one man's actions, but we are held guilty for having a sinful nature in which we constantly sin. Even if you didn't believe the Bible taught that we inherit a guilty sin nature, sin manifests itself as soon as we are able to perform actions.

Not a problem for me, either. :thumbsup:

We can understand his values. JAL, I think you may have misunderstood the nature of the argument here. It seems we are arguing but not arguing each other's position, but a position that neither of us holds.

Otherwise, I have no idea what you're trying to argue here :scratch:
[/size] You are saying that we are condemned for having a sinful nature. Why do we have a sinful nature? Becuase Adam sinned, in your view. Logically, then, Adam is the cause of our guilt, in your view (the traditional view). So we who have not sinned are punished for our father Adam who has sinned. Reconcile this with Ezekiel 18, please.

[JAL]

Do you consider youself Reformed? You wrote:
Again, this is answered simply by the fact that we are not being held guilty for one man's actions, but we are held guilty for having a sinful nature in which we constantly sin. Do you realize this statement denies federalism's claim of Adamic representation? You are essentially saying that Adam's behavior did not determine the verdict of the human race? It's only an individual issue, that is, how much each of us sin?

Also, you can square this notion with Romans 5?

[JAL]

ArcticFox, you say that I have to prove something from Scripture to make any kind of a claim in this discussion. Let me explain why that's kind of silly.

Suppose you visit a church only to find out that the pastor seems confused as to whether Jesus is divine. He holds two services. In the first service, he denies divinity and cites a number of verses, in support of this denial, which cast a least a modicum of doubt upon it. In the second service, he cites Scripture supporting His divinity.

Here is a man who has cited plenty of Scripture, but with no logic to it. He is contradicting himself. Citing scripture is not, therefore, sufficient to make a biblical argument. One must not contradict himself nor other scriptures. For example, one must not contradict Ezekiel 18.

Why does Ezekiel 18 contradict your view? You suggested that God isn't bound to human concepts of justice. But Ezekiel 18 belies this. It argues, just as any (Christian) human would, that the innocent should be held harmless, and the guilty punished.

Ezekiel 18 also contradicts the Reformed view of original sin. And I also explained why your claim that God isn't bound to human standards is internally self-contradictory.

If you claim that there is no logical problem here for you to deal with, I think you're in plain denial - which seems to be par for the course around here.

You said you're not sure what we are arguing about. Hope this helps.

[JAL]

Not so. I did not say, nor mean to imply at all, that God punishes the innocent, for I believe that ALL are guilty (Romans 3)

Suddenly you seem eager to defend God's fairness. What happened to the double standard?

and they are guilty from birth (Psalm 51:5) As I said, quoting Scripture is not enough to make an argument. You must also demonstrate logical consistency with yourself, and with other scriptures. Otherwise you merely demonstrate your ability to misinterpret the very Scriptures that you cite.

You read the above Scripture as God having men born guilty and/or sin-stained resulting in wrath. How does that square with your claim that God does no injury to the innocent?

How can you say, without contradiction, that a child is born guilty?
If you say, "on account of father Adam," how do you reconcile this with Ezekiel 18?

[ArcticFox]

Suddenly you seem eager to defend God's fairness. What happened to the double standard?

As I said, quoting Scripture is not enough to make an argument. You must also demonstrate logical consistency with yourself, and with other scriptures. Otherwise you merely demonstrate your ability to misinterpret the very Scriptures that you cite.

You read the above Scripture as God having men born guilty and/or sin-stained resulting in wrath. How does that square with your claim that God does no injury to the innocent?

How can you say, without contradiction, that a child is born guilty?
If you say, "on account of father Adam," how do you reconcile this with Ezekiel 18?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'suddenly.' And, most importantly, I do not want to defend God's 'fairness.' I don't think God is fair in the human sense of the word. We have a wholly different concept of fair.

Quoting Scripture may not be the entirety of the argument, but going through a process of quoting all relevant Scripture, explaining the consistency, addressing seemingly contradictory Scriptures, and then tying it all together is a long process. I did the first part of that by posting this thread. However, I did not address seemingly contradictory verses, since this was not primarily a defense of the Calvinistic doctrines, but an explanation.

We are not punished for Adam's sins in the way that sons are punished for the father's sins.

So we who have not sinned are punished for our father Adam who has sinned.This is not an issue because there is no 'we who have not sinned.' Such a group does not exist, and therefore this 'what if' scenario cannot be squared with Scripture because Scripture does not address fantasy scenarios, but the reality of our sinfulness.

Furthermore, there ARE cases indeed where people are punished for their father's sins (father meaning more than just immediate paternal father, but ancestors):

Exodus 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,

Exodus 34:7 keeping steadfast love for thousands,* forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

Numbers 14:18 ‘The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation.’

[Emphasis mine in all verses]

You asked how people being born into sin (with a sin nature) squares with God doing no harm to the innocent. I'm not sure that's even an issue here. :scratch: You'll have to explain what problem you are seeing in this.

How can I claim that a child is born guilty?

The following verses:

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

....


Romans 5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

[This does not have to be interpreted as 'we are judged for Adam eating the fruit,' and thus explains my comment that we are not punished for eating a fruit ourselves]

Furthermore:

Romans 3:10 as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”

No exclusions/exceptions are made for children. There is no distinguishing of age here. The Scriptures could not be clearer -- there is NO ONE righteous, NO ONE who hasn't become worthless/turned aside.

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

All includes children and babies. Romans 3 leaves little wiggle room to claim exceptions, except for one man (Hebrews 4:15).

Also, life experience confirms these truths. What are some of the first words a child is able to learn? They are words that define what is theirs. What is a child unable to understand until later in life? Another's point of view, and others' needs.

Do you have to teach your children to be selfish? Do you have to try hard to get them to share? We all know that children are far from innocent. As one man once said, and I lack the proper information to give him credit, 'Babies and children do not lack the will to do evil, they just lack the capacity; as soon as they get the capacity, they'll start doing evil things.'

Some argue that children don't understand what they are doing is wrong. Why then does little Mary hide her stolen cookie behind her back as she denies taking anything from the cookie jar?


BTW:

What happened to the double standard? It's always been there, and still is. I hold entirely to that.

Your story about the pastor quoting verses does not relate. It is clearly a story of nonsense. If you think my posts are such clear non-sense, you are welcome to stop replying.

If you claim that there is no logical problem here for you to deal with, I think you're in plain denial - which seems to be par for the course around here. Guilty as charged :wave:. Plain denial, what can I say.

Ezekiel 18, you must remember, is contextual, as all of the Scriptures are. It is also the Old Testament, which is the old covenant. It still, however, presents no problem.

Ezekiel 18 teaches that a son is not held guilty for the sinful actions of his father. This is true in a certain sense. God also visits the sins of the fathers on the children; this is also true in a certain sense.

Rather than re-invent the wheel, please see this article that addresses your concerns about this particular issue (sins of the fathers held against sons):

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2000/1149_Does_God_Visit_the_Sins_of_the_Fathers_on_theChildren/

Since this article answers it better than I can, you may dispute the article in a new thread if you'd like. I might even post there, if you keep the gloves on ;).

One prominent atheist-become-Christian once said that what led him to Christianity was not the defense of it, but the offenses made against it. He said that he saw Christianity being attacked from both sides of every issue, some claiming it was too pacifist, some claiming it was too war-mongering. Some claimed it was too judgmental, others claimed it was too forgiving. He decided, then, that if people see problems from both angles of every issue, that perhaps this is the one religion that has got the balance right. He was indeed correct in his assumption!

As long as we stay focused on the issue of original sin, a Calvinistic concept (though Calvin was neither the first nor the only), I will continue the debate. If we stray into areas of philosophical debate, I'll side-step the issue. Just letting you know ahead of time! So please post Scripture in support. Thank you!

[JAL]

To even sugest that we are punished for ous sins contradicts the notion of Adam as our representative. If our sins even count, then we are individually accounted versus federally accounted. Much of what you say only exposes more problems with the federal view.

That's sort of like saying that we go to hell anyway, because of our individual sins, even though Christ represents us.

Representation and individual accounting are polarized concepts. They cannot be reconciled.

[JAL]

Furthermore, there ARE cases indeed where people are punished for their father's sins (father meaning more than just immediate paternal father, but ancestors):

Exodus 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,

Exodus 34:7 keeping steadfast love for thousands,* forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

Numbers 14:18 ‘The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation.’

This is no problem to explain if we are guilty in Adam, deserving of hell. There is nothing wrong with God punishing us for the sins of our fathers if the REAL justification for that punishment is prior deserving of hell. The sins of our fathers are not, therefore, the justification, but a provocation of His wrath, reducing some of His present mercy. And these are earthly judgments. Quite another matter to say that God puts people in hell for Adam's sin!

[JAL]

[Quot] How can I claim that a child is born guilty? [/quote] You then cite a bunch of verses. No, that wasn't my question. You omitted the last part. My question was this:

How can you claim that a child is born guilty WITHOUT CONTRADICTION?

[JAL]

And, most importantly, I do not want to defend God's 'fairness.' I don't think God is fair in the human sense of the word. We have a wholly different concept of fair. Again, how can I have hope if virtues such as fair don't necessarily mean what I HOPE they would mean?

[JAL]

So please post Scripture in support. Thank you! And that's enough, contradictions don't matter? You also said that my analogy about the pastor is silly. I just don't get it. Let's try this again

You go to a church. In the first service, the pastor defends Calvinism, citing lots of verses. In the second service he defends Arminianism, citing lots of verses. But he is contradicting himself.
Isn't this a problem?

Can we really afford to value Scripture to the exclusion of valuing the law of noncontradiction?
I think not.

[ArcticFox]

Can we really afford to value Scripture to the exclusion of valuing the law of noncontradiction?

We are not put in that position.

But if we were, the answer is yes, we can value Scripture to the exclusion of the 'law' of non-contradiction if we lack appropriate knowledge and/or ability to put into words the truths of Scripture (Trinity comes to mind as one example, as well as the nature of God's absolute sovereignty over all things, and human moral responsibility).

As for the other arguments, we appear to be going in circles. I think we just disagree about how to interpret Scripture on this matter. Best case scenario is that we are disagreeing because are communicating similar truths with different words.

After all, it would appear that a slight variation in the definition of 'philosophy' can lead one to believe it is essential for Scripture reading, and another to think it is damaging.

[JAL]

We are not put in that position.

But if we were, the answer is yes, we can value Scripture to the exclusion of the 'law' of non-contradiction if we lack appropriate knowledge and/or ability to put into words the truths of Scripture (Trinity comes to mind as one example, as well as the nature of God's absolute sovereignty over all things, and human moral responsibility).

As for the other arguments, we appear to be going in circles. I think we just disagree about how to interpret Scripture on this matter. Best case scenario is that we are disagreeing because are communicating similar truths with different words.

After all, it would appear that a slight variation in the definition of 'philosophy' can lead one to believe it is essential for Scripture reading, and another to think it is damaging.
No, it's not that we are going in circles. You just are unwilling to admit three facts. (1) The Reformed presentation of origianl sin contradicts the notion of a just God, and some important Reformed theologians have already admitted this fact. They have no solution - simply because they are unwilling to consder a few non-traditional assumptions.
(2) Your claim that we shouldn't judge God by human standards contradicts the promises of Scripture. Those promises connote reassurance, whereas in your paradigm which allows a double standard of virtue, they do not and cannot connote reassurance. Stop trying to construe this is a philosophical issue - that's just a cheap tactic to exempt yourself from facing the issue. The issue here is not some extrabiblical "philosophy" but the issue of biblical interpretation. You want relevant Scripture? Just look at basically every promise in the Bible and every verse where a divine virtue is mentioned - I could find several hundred of them. All these verses become antithematic within a double-standard framework. (3) The notion that biblical terms (here I speak of all biblical terms, not just virtues) can have meanings unintelligible to human beings contradicts the assumption that Scripture aims to convey truth to men. What good is Sola Scriptura if we cannot rely on the language used to convey meaning?

[ArcticFox]

No, it's not that we are going in circles. You just are unwilling to admit three facts. (1) The Reformed presentation of origianl sin contradicts the notion of a just God, and some important Reformed theologians have already admitted this fact. They have no solution - simply because they are unwilling to consder a few non-traditional assumptions.

First, I should tell you that I am only 'Reformed' in so much as I believe it confirms the truth of Scripture; wherever they diverge, I hope to follow Scripture and not a man-made tradition.


(2) Your claim that we shouldn't judge God by human standards contradicts the promises of Scripture. Those promises connote reassurance, whereas in your paradigm which allows a double standard of virtue, they do not and cannot connote reassurance. Actually, it doesn't 'contradict' anything. You claim that it's a contradiction because if what I believe is true, than the promises could be something other than what we think they are. This is just your argument, but is not a contradiction.

Stop trying to construe this is a philosophical issue - that's just a cheap tactic to exempt yourself from facing the issue. The issue here is not some extrabiblical "philosophy" but the issue of biblical interpretation. You want relevant Scripture? Just look at basically every promise in the Bible and every verse where a divine virtue is mentioned - I could find several hundred of them. All these verses become antithematic within a double-standard framework.

I think you critically misunderstand what I mean by double standard. This is NOT relativism, or anything even close to it. God is the standard of justice, love, mercy, and grace. God does not fit a standard of justice, but IS that standard. However, God cannot violate his own promises, as he would be violating his own nature. I am not saying that any promise could mean anything, what I AM saying is that God's love is not our love, and God's justice is not our justice.

I think you'd do well to remember this verse:

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.

Attempting to get an idea of God's justice by thinking, 'Hmm, what would we as humans consider justice?' is absolutely wrong. Instead, we must seek what God considers justice. Furthermore, because God is the judge, he is able to do things we are not. Compared to a Republic such as that of the USA, God is the judge, jury, prison warden, and executioner. :bow:

God's justice is perfect, and his love is perfect love. Therefore, God's promises have infinitely greater value than if we both had the same standards. :thumbsup:

Do the teacher and the student have the same authority in a school? Do the police and the criminals have the same authority? Of course not! It would be absolutely silly to allow the police to do everything a regular citizen can, and a regular citizen everything an officer can do. Such would be anarchy! :mad:


(3) The notion that biblical terms (here I speak of all biblical terms, not just virtues) can have meanings unintelligible to human beings contradicts the assumption that Scripture aims to convey truth to men. What good is Sola Scriptura if we cannot rely on the language used to convey meaning?Who said they have meanings unintelligible to humans? I have NO idea what you are trying to argue here. Are you sure you are arguing points I brought up? I'm completely at a loss as to why you are trying to convince me of what I am already convinced of, and have never argued against :scratch:

[JAL]

Actually, it doesn't 'contradict' anything. You claim that it's a contradiction because if what I believe is true, than the promises could be something other than what we think they are. This is just your argument, but is not a contradiction.
Actually, it's a clarification of your position that don't want to own up to. And I will re-demonstrate the accuracy of my reading of you right now.
Who said they have meanings unintelligible to humans? I have NO idea what you are trying to argue here. Are you sure you are arguing points I brought up? I'm completely at a loss as to why you are trying to convince me of what I am already convinced of, and have never argued against :scratch: Who said it? You did. Stop trying to pretend that you don't see the force of my argument.
Who said it? You said it like this, for example:
What I AM saying is that God's love is not our love, and God's justice is not our justice. When I think of justtice, I think of fairness. You just said that God's justice is NOT what we understand as justice (by implication it is unintelligible, it is something we don't understand). The implications of that are pretty frightening. And I suppose His integrity is not our integrity? Equally frightening, because integrity to us means honesty. In support of this apparent insanity, you cited the following verse:
Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
But this type of exegesis is precisely what I hav e warned about. When we as exegetes fail to properly esteem the law of non-contradiction, we only manifest our inability to misinterpret the verses, as I warned. This verse need not be interpreted the way YOU want to interpret it. Probably the main thrust of the verse is the fact that no one, at least not in this life, has attained or will attain to ascended to God's level of holiness.

I think you critically misunderstand what I mean by double standard. This is NOT relativism, or anything even close to it. God is the standard of justice, love, mercy, and grace. God does not fit a standard of justice, but IS that standard. However, God cannot violate his own promises, as he would be violating his own nature. I am not saying that any promise could mean anything, what I AM saying is that God's love is not our love, and God's justice is not our justice. First, I don't really see the need to get into a semantic debate about what "relativism" means. The fact that your position is a kind of insanity is sufficient ground to reject it. In any case, my understanding of relativism is the absence of an absolute standard. By absolute standard is usually meant an ethical principle independent of the persons involed. Thus they can't arbitriarily SET their own standard but rather must CONFORM TO the standard. If there is no standard outside the persons involved, we are still in relativism. Your words suggest that at least one of the persons, God, SETS the standard instead of CONFORMING TO the standard.
God does not fit a standard of justice, but IS that standard. So God isn't bound to a standard? He just makes it up as He goes along? Frightening.
Attempting to get an idea of God's justice by thinking, 'Hmm, what would we as assumes consider justice?' is absolutely wrong. Instead, we must seek what God considers justice. There may be some merit to this statement, but it still misses my main point - that we have to be consistent. That is to say, if I conclude that God's justice means such and such, my values must align with that. Thus, again, if I say that God condemns the innocent, then I must also tell the world, "Hey guys, I'm running for judge, and if you guys elect me, I'll be sure to condemn the innocent." And I must also admit that the biblical promises offer me no hope - woops, now we have a contradiction, because they PURPORT to offer hope. Oh, I know a way to avoid the contradiction. Just say that what God means by "hope" is not what we humans mean by hope. So it could be that we are all going to hell (since integerity means something different for God than for man), but He has every right to call it hope since HE sets the standard, not us.
Furthermore, because God is the judge, he is able to do things we are not. Compared to a Republic such as that of the USA, God is the judge, jury, prison warden, and executioner. :bow: And He is also the God of Relativism if He makes up the standard as He goes along.

God's justice is perfect, and his love is perfect love. Therefore, God's promises have infinitely greater value than if we both had the same standards. :thumbsup: Nope. I have just redemonstrated that what we have here is insanity, as I had already shown in my initial post.

Do the teacher and the student have the same authority in a school? Do the police and the criminals have the same authority? Of course not! It would be absolutely silly to allow the police to do everything a regular citizen can, and a regular citizen everything an officer can do. Such would be anarchy! :mad: But why would you assume that my ethic counsels rebellion against authority? I have merely stated that ethics must be consistent and humanly intelligible if we intend to have a theological discussion. Far from counseling rebellion against authority, I would point out that even Jesus submitted to the Father's authority. You erect a strawman and knock it down. Congratulations on your success.

[ArcticFox]

I'm sorry JAL, but you are misconstruing what I am saying. You are taking my statements and making them some sort of extremism that even I find repulsive. :sigh:

This debate cannot continue unless you will only take my words at their face value. As such, our conversation must end. This is the third post where I have attempted to tell you that you are not understanding my posts. However, you stick to your guns that you are understanding them perfectly and that I am somehow just changing my story over and over to fit my immediate need. It's very disrespectful to me and to the nature of the debate. :sick:

You can get the last post in if you want, but our debate in this thread is finished. :cry:

[JAL]

I'm sorry JAL, but you are misconstruing what I am saying. You are taking my statements and making them some sort of extremism that even I find repulsive. :sigh:

This debate cannot continue unless you will only take my words at their face value. As such, our conversation must end. This is the third post where I have attempted to tell you that you are not understanding my posts. However, you stick to your guns that you are understanding them perfectly and that I am somehow just changing my story over and over to fit my immediate need. It's very disrespectful to me and to the nature of the debate. :sick:

You can get the last post in if you want, but our debate in this thread is finished. :cry: I seem to recall at one point where I accused you of changing your story. And I don't even recall whether or not you exonerated yourself of that charge.
The fact that I may have mentioned it only once, and can't even recall it, shows that such accusation has NOT been the bulk of this discussion. So the notion that I am disrespectfully accusing you over and over again of changing your story has little foundation here.

Rather, at least 90% of it has been my accusing you of a fundamental logical inconsistency. You have kept trying to show your position logical and scriptural, I have tried to show it illogical and unscriptrual.

I see nothing different, therefore, in this debate versus other debates I've seen on this forum. And frankly I disagree with your insinuation that I am not playing fair in this debate. I have stuck to logic and Scripture, not polemics.

I've seen a lot of underhanded debaters on this forum. These are people who can never, for example, admit the opposition has made a good point. One example where I submitted to opposition is the fact that I originally came to this forum as a YEC and soon became OEC.

Also, underhanded debaters constantly misrepresent the other person's statements. I have tried to ramify your position, not misrepresent it. In a debate, one of the best ways to allege a fallacy is to ramify a position to show where it leads.

[JAL]

I'm sorry JAL, but you are misconstruing what I am saying. You are taking my statements and making them some sort of extremism that even I find repulsive. :sigh: No, what I am saying is that your position ALLOWS FOR extremism. Once you hold that God doesn't mean words in the same way men mean words, you essentially allow for ANYTHING including extremism.

[Rick Otto]

Jal, I love your persistance and attention to and capacity for, detail.

I think a first point of divergence was AFox's use of "double standard", the reality being God's standard is simply "higher".
And by that, I simply mean that He doesn't suffer, like us, from mixed motives that can taint our perception of definition & result in coloration (think 'glass darkly') of what we consider to be conceptual clarity that fosters logical consistency.
Are you familiar with Isaiah 45:7? And bear in mind, that like ArcticF., I'm not defending an established position of anybody else's - knowingly, although I do appreciate your referencing them - it edifies me for you to school me that way.
And I appreciate the ideal of the universality of philosphy's practicality, as applied to logical consistency, but terms are mission critical, and besides the (what I consider to be a) gaff of using the term "double standard", I'm thinking your definition of "innocent" is not in parallel with ours (me 'n AF), "federalism" being the sore point for you, on the issue of "fairness" - a term I do not necessarily equate with "justice".
Fairness, as I percieve it, implies an equality before a law (of contradiction even), but God's justice is about righteousness (His), and has nothing to do with fairness.

"All things being equal", fairness would equate with justice. But all things, if we include The Creator, are not equal. The reson hy chaos does not rule, is because it too, is created & therefore in control of a axiomaticaly Good God.

So as Isaiah provokes in 45:...
7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

...God is not to be judged by His action, rather His motivation. His motivation is pointed out in Romans 9:
21: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22: What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

So "innocence" needs to be defined in terms of God's purposes to maintain logical consistency in percieving original (federal) sin.
That sin & guilt we inherit isn't specific except in format & consequence. Adam geneticaly formatted the entire race, leaving the "seed of the woman" the only one fit for divine incarnation.
In this sense, only Jesus was innocent.

[JAL]

Rick, let me say for starters that I admire your politeness and respect on this forum. I need to learn from your example. Part of my problem is that I feel that many Protestants have for 500 years touted as fact, as though it were the plain teaching of Scripture, various doctrines which are not in plain, indeed are quite problematical. I’m just sick of it and hence I lose patience when I feel that a debater is persisting in a contradiction wiithout admitting that there is even a problem that needs addressing. What bothers me about it as that I see the church moving in the wrong direction resulting in a loss of billions of souls. Also I feel that if Protestants were more candid about the problems in their theology, they would have found solutions 500 years ago. In a moment I’ll examine some of your comments on the issues of this debate.

[JAL]

Jal, I love your persistance and attention to and capacity for, detail.

I think a first point of divergence was AFox's use of "double standard", the reality being God's standard is simply "higher".
And by that, I simply mean that He doesn't suffer, like us, from mixed motives that can taint our perception of definition & result in coloration (think 'glass darkly') of what we consider to be conceptual clarity that fosters logical consistency. Again, if God’s standard of “honesty” is “higher” than mine such that it allows for the possibility of what I would, by my standard, call dishonesty, the promises of Scripture are worthless. Similarly if God’s standard of “justice” is “higher” than mine such that it can possibly violates my definition of it as “fairness”, such that the innocent may be condemned (declared guilty), I can have no eternal hope. Because even if I am CURRENTLY innocent by virtue of God’s blood, once we allow that the innocent can be declared guilty, my current innocence is placed in jeopardy.

More to come…

[OnTheWay]

Let's think about TULIP for a moment without using the fluff modern terms people use to mask some of Calvin's really nasty ideas.

T = Total Depravity

Are people really devoid of all good? The fact that large soceities function is by itself proof that this is false doctrine. Calvin was a man that spent most of his life quite sick, that tends to make people a bit nasty. You don't order people burned at the stake because you're good natured.

U = Unconditional Election

The modern Calvinist doesn't like to hear the term reprobate used anymore. But facts are facts, in the Calvinist system most people are junk God created solely for the purpose of sending them to hell.

L = Limited Atonement

In the words of St. John the Theologian:

My children, I am writing this to prevent you from sinning; but if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the upright. 2He is the sacrifice to expiate our sins, and not only ours, but also those of the whole world.
1 John 2:1-2

This is directly refutes the Calvinist system, and like any other system if one part is wrong then then construct is wrong.

I = Irresistible Grace

A complete denial of the free will of men. The elect cannot being anything else and the reprobates cannot be anything but reprobates. As such the reprobates have no responsiblity to follow any of God's teachings, they couldn't even want to do so. It renders the great commission meaningless, the saved will walk into a Calvinist church whether they want to or not and the damned are damned regardless of who preaches to them. It's sadistic and cruel, not much in line with a God that loves the world so much He sent His only begotten Son to die for it.


P = Perseverance of the Saints

The nature of God presented to us in Calvinism is not the loving father of man, but the cruel dictator and overlord of man. You can't call it perseverance simply because no one under the Calvinist system can do anything of the sort. The game is rigged, you're either saved or damned and have been so since the moment you were conceived. Perserverance would mean coming through despite resistance. Well if you're one of the elect you cannot be resisted. If you are a reprobate you cannot be saved, Jesus didn't even die for you.

[JAL]

Are you familiar with Isaiah 45:7?… I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Some years ago I briefly examined some commentaries on this verse and came away feeling confident that “evil” is neither the necessary nor the best translation here. Why did I conclude? As I recall, it is because the verse polarizes “peace” and – what? Evil? The opposite of peace is not evil. It’s turmoil, or war, or something like that, I would imagine. But there is a much better reason to question this interpretation. A prominent theologian once stated, and I agree with him, that hermeneutics “not only informs the exegesis, it dictates the interpretation.” That is to say, the exegete has to begin with some assumptions called hermeneutical assumptions. He cannot then draw a conclusion inconsistent with those hermeneutical assumptions (although he can, indeed, reject the assumptions and start all over again with a new set of assumptions). The main assumption, for me, is that we cannot violate the law of noncontradiction. To associate God with originating evil would contradict my present confidence in His promises. Following this principle, I would take a similar approach to another passage you cited:

...God is not to be judged by His action, rather His motivation. His motivation is pointed out in Romans 9:
21: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22: What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Let me say about the above passage (I’m surprised ArcticFox didn’t mention it), this is probably the only passage that I can think of that offers a fairly solid ground for a doctrine of condemned innocents. Unlike so many underhanded debaters, I’m not one to reply, in the face of such evidence, “That’s a silly argument.” No. This passage is very tempting evidence to conclude that God would, in fact, condemn the innocent.

However, once again, “hermeneutics not only informs the exegesis, it dictates the interpretation.” I cannot subscribe to a contradiction. Therefore I must either abandon my original assumptions about God (at loss of eternal hope) or look for another interpretation. The question I would ask is this: Is the clay here already marked burnable? If it is already guilty in Adam, and if God foresees it won’t be saved, He can do anything He wants with it in harmony with merited judgment, he can use it for his own glory. Notice that Paul distinguishes in this passage between “the vessels of his mercy” versus “the vessels of His wrath.” Mercy and wrath betoken prior guilt. It is the guilty who incur wrath and need mercy. Paul is dealing with burnable clay here, not innocent clay.

[CSMR]

This is just a bunch of rambling. You need to deal with the specific objections raised in my initial post. Otherwise you are just expressing a bias. The world is full of religions because there is plenty of bias, but precious little coherence (logical consistency).
You were espousing the notion that the same things should be said about God's goodness as about our goodness. I pointed out examples where you will surely agree this does not hold? I also challenged you to epress your argument in a coherent way which is both exact and hopefully does not allow these examples.

Your first post about "Human and divine standards" is a tangential argument. I wasn't disputing with you here. I would say to talk about either human or divine love or justice we need divine standards by the revelation of the holy spirit. We shouldn't apply a divine standard to God and a human standard to ourselves. That does not mean that the same thingscan be said about God's love as about human love etc.. (I don't deny however that there are very important connections and would say that human goodness/love/justace is derived from divine goodness/love/justice but derivatively, not simplistically saying "What is good for God to do is good for me to do" and vice versa.)
Again, if "love" and "justice" mean something different for God than what they mean to me, how can I take comfort in the hope of His love and justice? If He violates integrity such as I understand it, what hope do any of us have? You need to deal with that problem
Hopefully you do understand the goodness of God, even though it is something different from the potential goodness of people, and can take comfort in it as the power that leads you to repentance and salvation.

[JAL]

…"federalism" being the sore point for you, on the issue of "fairness" - a term I do not necessarily equate with "justice".
Fairness, as I perceive it, implies an equality before a law (of contradiction even), but God's justice is about righteousness (His), and has nothing to do with fairness. God’s justice “has nothing to do with fairness”? Huh? You lost me on that one. You continue;
"All things being equal", fairness would equate with justice. But all things, if we include The Creator, are not equal….God is not to be judged by His action, rather His motivation. His motivation is pointed out in Romans 9 Ok, there may be an argument here. For example, if a person commits an act of violence to save his life, we could exonerate him if we felt he lost control as a result of the circumstances. That is to say, his felt need for survival was so great that he couldn’t help but do what he did. And I would agree that if God’s need for glory were so great that He finds Himself compelled to seek it even at the expense of innocent human suffering, we couldn’t blame Him for this. But there are two problems with this. First, the mainstream views God as plenally self-sufficient, He has no needs (I personally disagree). On this mainstream assumption it is indeed difficult to justify creation. Why take the risk of creating sin-prone angels and men whose actions might lead to hell if He has no needs? (2) The Bible specifically declares that He does not condemn the innocent (Ezek 18). He is a god of mercy, not a god of innocent suffering.

You end with a summary of the federal position. I don’t see how your wording clarifies it, though:
So "innocence" needs to be defined in terms of God's purposes to maintain logical consistency in percieving original (federal) sin.
That sin & guilt we inherit isn't specific except in format & consequence. Adam geneticaly formatted the entire race, leaving the "seed of the woman" the only one fit for divine incarnation.
In this sense, only Jesus was innocent. As I said, Scripture speaks of accounting for individual sin, and the problem is that the notion of a universal representative (Adam or Christ) contradicts individual accounting.

Here is another problem. Are you aware that federalism logically contradicts the atonement? Let me explain. Adam’s descendants don’t have to individually choose to accept him as their rep, in federalism. Rather, his position as rep automatically confers his status to them. If his status were innocence, our status would be innocence. It is only when he sins that we lose innocence. Federalism maintains that Christ is our new rep. It follows that the moment God appointed Him as our rep, our status became innocent, because He had never sinned. As long as He avoids sin, we remain innocent. There is no need to atone for sin because there is no guilty state if the rep remains innocent.

And this leads to another problem. If Christ really were the rep in the same sense as (federal) Adam, men wouldn’t need to accept His representation. Just as all men are said to be guilty in Adam (like it or not) in virtue of His role as rep, so too all men would be innocent in Christ (like it or not) in virtue of His role as rep. No human being would go to hell. This makes it clear that Christ was NOT our federal rep and, by parity of reasoning, neither was Adam.

[JAL]

Human ethics is not a concept that applies to God. If you want to have something called divine ethics you will have to invent it. The rather infinite and categorical differences between God and man disallow one from making the easy analogies between human ethical statements and divine ethical statements whatever they are. And this statement is antithetical to hope. As I stated, if the way that God is going to "love" me for all eternity can contradict the essence of what I consider to be love, I can have no hope. I freely admit that we fail to understand His love in a quantitative sense. But we MUST be able to understand it in a qualitative sense, for otherwise it confers no hope. So this notion that there are no clear "analogies between human ethical statements and divine ethethical statements" is, in a nutshell, hopeless.

Human ethical action is the demonstration of saving faith in Jesus Christ. Note that God does not posess saving faith in Jesus Christ. Apparently you take God's lack of saving faith as proof that His virtues deviate from we consider to be virtues? That's a non-sequitir. It doesn't follow. It is precisely because He is righteous and fair that He doesn't need SAVING faith. He doesn't need to be saved because He hasn't sinned. Had He chosen to sin, He would indeed need someone to atone for Him in order to be exonerated. Stop trying to artificially create a double standard, one for men, and another for God. It is only leads to contradictions.

Or thought of another way, human ethical action is the obedience of the command of God. To extend the bounds of this statement and apply it to God you would have to have a notion of God commanding himself. This is a reasonable argument but is insufficient proof of a double standard. Allow me to explain. Let's suppose men had no way of knowing God's will, in essence they are just animals. Would it be just for God to condemn them? What kind of God do you folks believe in, anyway? According to Paul men stand condemned based on their knowledge of God's will implanted in their conscience. In my view, conscience is an inherently obligatory concept. Precisely what makes God righteous is His fidelity to His own conscience. True, the specifics of His conscience differ from ours in one sense - and only one sense (His conscience tells Him that He is Lord), but the general principles (the virtues) remain the same.

I see no need for a double standard. Both man and God submit to conscience.

[Rick Otto]

You said:
"Again, if God’s standard of “honesty” is “higher” than mine such that it allows for the possibility of what I would, by my standard, call dishonesty, the promises of Scripture are worthless. Similarly if God’s standard of “justice” is “higher” than mine such that it can possibly violates my definition of it as “fairness”, such that the innocent may be condemned (declared guilty), I can have no eternal hope. Because even if I am CURRENTLY innocent by virtue of God’s blood, once we allow that the innocent can be declared guilty, my current innocence is placed in jeopardy."

>>>We can only value the promises of scripture as much as we can honestly understand them. By creating Evil, if only in potentiality, God allows us to be dishonest with ourselves as a crisis-inducing ingredient to motivate character developement in both or either, ourselves & others.
The commandment 'not to lie' was specificaly about one kind of lie only - witness against one's neighbor, like Jacob's deception against Esau, not like Rahab's cover-story for Joshua's spies in Jericho. God Himself puts a lying spirit in the mouth(s) of Samaritan prophets in:
1Ki 22:22 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=1ki+22:22&version=kjv&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1) - And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
23 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=1ki+22:23&version=kjv&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1)Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

Only to illustrate the unfairness in judging action without regard to motivation, as a preface to re-examine the notions of "guilt & innocence" in relationship to responsibility & motivation.

Adam is responsible for what we are born guilty of - posessing the contraband of sin bondage on our motivation (the description of a soul with a stillborn spirit). You might recall sin did not enter the world upon Eve's perpetration, it waited until Adam, the responsible party, chose to become complicit.

You are "presently" not innocent by virtue of God's blood until you believe. You are predestined to be innocent if elect, but only in eternity, until God actualizes that condition here in time.

Having eternal hope isn't a condition we can choose, only fake or deny, according to how honest we (God willing)are capable of being with ourselves.

So being innocent of an immoral act by virtue of infancy, isn't the same as being innocent of posessing an immoral nature. Christ alone posessed that kind of innocence, making Him the only candidate available to accept undeserved judgement, and therefore the only one capable of making perfect sacrifice... He owed no penance.

The "higherness"(sounds like "truthiness" lol) part of God's standard is the axiom God is good.
For me, the standards for establishing logical consistancy & non-contradiction in exegesis are these:
Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Omnipresence. I believe any fair minded philosopher could find hours of delight in those reference points for triangulating on scriptural truth.

I hope I haven't been pedestrian. I gotta a gig at an art gallery opening & I'm a little late. I hope I get back to you soon.

[JAL]

Here's an another problem with federalism. Consider the claim that God can change our reps, first Adam,then Christ. First, it suggests that God is contradicting Himself, since federalism conditions the status of men on Adam. To change our rep such that our status is NOT conditioned upon Adam contradicts God's (supposed) claim that Adam had a determinative effect on our status.

Second, if changing our rep is consistent with divine justice, then one day God can say to us in heaven, "I've decided that your rep will now be Hitler (or, Stalin or Satan or some other evil being). Therefore you are all guilty and will be transferred to hell immediately."

[JAL]

Federalism's incompatibility with justice can be seen in the garden. The claim is that if the rep lives his entire life in innocence, the rest of us are innocent by representation. Now consider Eve's situation after she ate the fruit. On this assumption she should not have allowed Adam (the rep) to partake. She should have murdered Adam before he had another chance to eat the fruit. Since the rep dies innocent, she too, by representation would remain innocent.

A theodicy that construes wanton murder as the key to innocence must have a logical problem SOMEWHERE. In a nutshell, federalism is an inherently unjust concept.

[ArcticFox]

Let's think about TULIP for a moment without using the fluff modern terms people use to mask some of Calvin's really nasty ideas.



Are people really devoid of all good? The fact that large soceities function is by itself proof that this is false doctrine. Calvin was a man that spent most of his life quite sick, that tends to make people a bit nasty. You don't order people burned at the stake because you're good natured.

I should have included this under my common misconceptions. Total Depravity does NOT mean that people are as evil as they could be, or that everything people do is evil by human standards. What it DOES mean is that sin has reached every aspect of our being, and that we are unable, apart from faith in Christ, to please God. See Hebrews 11:16, Romans 3:10-18, Romans 14:23.


The modern Calvinist doesn't like to hear the term reprobate used anymore. But facts are facts, in the Calvinist system most people are junk God created solely for the purpose of sending them to hell. A