Calvinism preaches a God of love, and yet…
The central objection to Calvinism has always been, and will always be, that God’s decision to elect some people to salvation whilst leaving (or electing) others to damnation is inconsistent with the notion of divine love.
But Calvinists are not without their rebuttals. One common rejoinder is to argue that our understanding of love is imperfect. It is all too human. It is corrupt. It is our failure to understand the perfect nature of divine love that leads to our mistaken conclusion that there is some kind of inconsistency here.
If you say so.
[Pensive, brooding interlude.]
I am reminded here of the great eighteenth century Japanese poet Kobayashi Issa.
After two of his children died Issa wrote a famous haiku to give expression to his pain. According to the Buddhism he had been taught, all suffering — including the suffering he himself was experiencing — was caused by desire. If he could only detach himself from worldly concerns, including the longing for his deceased children, if he could only realize that the world is but dew, an ephemeral, vanishing dream, then he would find release from his pain.
But try as he might, it would seem he could not quite persuade himself that release was found in denying his longing for his children. The conflict is captured in that famous haiku:
“The world of dew
is the world of dew.
And yet, and yet–”
That is basically my response to the Calvinist’s rejoinder that we don’t understand love enough to know that God’s infinite love is consistent with his choosing some for damnation:
“God’s electing love
is God’s unlimited love
and yet, and yet—”
The problem was stated succinctly (if not quite as poetically) by Philip Melanchthon, good friend and colleague to Martin Luther, upon the death of Luther’s beloved daughter:
‘The feelings of parents are a likeness of divinity impressed upon the human character. If the love of God for the human race is as great as the love of parents for their children, then it is truly great and ardent.”
Although Luther was often torn by the existential angst of the unknown God of the hidden decree, Melanchthon saw in the moments of Martin’s grief the face of a God who has the same unconditional love for all his children. In other words, Luther’s love was a pale token of the divine type. And surely it must be this way, for if we shall not find love in the face of a parent for their child, then where in this fallen creation shall we find it?
But this is a dangerous starting point for Calvinism. For if we accept the unconditional love of a parent for a child reflects a candlelight glimmer of the blazing solar furnace of the divine love for creation, then what shall be left of an electing love that turns some over to the most unimaginable horrors of eternal damnation?
Tags: Calvinism, divine love, election, Kobayashi Issa, Martin Luther, omnibenevolence, Philip Melanchthon, providence
69 Comments
4 Trackbacks
-
[...] More from Google Blogs]: Calvinism preaches a God of love, and yet… [...]
-
[...] Dr. Rauser’s article here: Randall Rauser, “Calvinism Preaches a God of Love, and yet…” This entry was posted in Calvinism, Election, General and tagged Calvinism, Election. Bookmark [...]
-
[...] the whole article here: Calvinism preaches a God of love, and yet… By Editor, on August 5, 2011 at 11:39 am, under calvinism, Feeds. Tags: 10f-function, [...]
-
[...] “Calvinism Preaches a God of Love, and Yet . . .” by Randal Rauser at his blog, expressing doubt that the Calvinist image of God adequately reflects the love of God. [...]
Post a Comment
Subscription Options:
The Atheist Missionary says:
Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 12:59pm
What shall be left of an electing love that turns some over to the most unimaginable horrors of eternal damnation?
Nada. Electing love, if true, is divine discrimination which is reprehensible and evil. This is precisly why I believe that, in the unlikely event the Calvinist God exists, He is malevolent.
On a somewhat related note, I was listening to Frank Turek’s most recent Cross Examined podcast yesterday, entitled Why Are Atheists So Angry?. He had reviewed the youtube comments on a debate between Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig. Apparently, the nasty comments hurled at Craig outnumbered those aimed at Hitchens more than 10 to 1 and he wondered why. Although I certainly don’t consider myself to be an “angry atheist”, I must admit to finding the very thought of the Calvinist God offensive. This leads me to recommend a recent article by Oxford University philosopher Guy Kahane Should We Want God to Exist?, Philosophy and Phenomenology Research, Volume LXXIII No. 3, May 2011*. The article is somewhat highbrow but, if I can get through it, anyone else reading this blog probably can. Kahane examines Thomas Nagel’s famous assertion: “I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.” Kahane’s paper is aimed at showing that Nagel’s hope (though counter-intuitive to theists and even many atheists) can be coherent and justified.
* I don’t believe that this article is available online to those who don’t subscribe to the journal. I have emailed a copy to Randal and would be happy to extend the same courtesy to anyone else who is interested.
PM says:
Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 1:00pm
Dr. Rauser,
Of all the things I could say, I’ll say this: you have the same problem. Your God created this world knowing some would be damned—through their own free choices or not. He knew some would be raped, murdered, molested—through free choices or not. He has the power to stop this. Tell me this. You have children, if your child was going to be raped, and you knew about this and could stop it, would you? If you didn’t, would this reflect negatively on you as a father? Would we call you a loving father? Whence ariseth God as loving father, then?
God loves all
God cares for all
and yet, and yet . . . some are raped, tortured, beaten, abused, belittled, hurt, starving, etc.
Look, if YOU could right now snap your fingers and rid the world of hunger, would YOU? Wouldn’t this be the thing a person who loved others would do for them? What would you think of me if you heard I had the power to snap my fingers and heal anyone, feed anyone, protect anyone yet I refused to do anything when tsunami’s hit, when genocide was happening. You would be indignant. What would you say if I said, “I love all men, especially the starving children in Ethiopia.” You might laugh, you might cry, you would definitely say my (lack of) action was inconsistent with my professed love for them.
One of my Calvinist rejoinders to these arguments is to show that every argument they bring against me can be brought against them. This was clearly made in my debates witg Victor Reppert on the subject
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/calvinism-vs-arminianism.html
and in my review of Roger Olson’s book
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/01/arminian-theology-myths-and-realities.html
randal says:
Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 2:39pm
Arminians don’t have the SAME problem. They have a DIFFERENT problem. The Calvinist problem is either that God loves only some people whilst hating others or that his love for all is expressed in willing the damnation of some. No Arminian I know faces that problem.
By the way, I posted this because you’ve been around the last couple days and I thought you might like the Haiku.
Linda says:
Friday, July 29, 2011 at 7:11am
But Arminians do have the same ultimate problem in that no matter if you are Calvinist or Arminian the Bible is clear that not all people are going to Heaven, so the end result is that many people do go to Hell.
Matthew says:
Wednesday, August 3, 2011 at 7:59pm
Linda I disagree… they don’t have the same ultimate problem. Yes in Calvinism and Arminianism some folks will go to hell. The difference though is the Arminians believe those that go to hell do so of their own free will. Calvinisms God purposefully chose who would go to hell, determined who would go to hell, chose not to draw or woo them, and is happy they are in hell. The Arminians view of God is that while some will end up in hell, God will woo them, draw them, and hurt for them… not feel pleasure in their burning in hell forever.
The Arminian God desires that all be saved (and hence avoid Hell) while the Calvinist God enjoys sending folks to hell.
The in essence, Arminians believe folks will suffer in hell because of their rejection of Christ, while Calvinists believe they will suffer in hell forever because of God’s choice and good pleasure (… yes they might say those in hell chose to be there, but is a choice a choice if there is not an alternative and God purposefully works and determines who will go there?).
davidstarlingm says:
Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 2:28pm
Who are the children of God?
PM says:
Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 3:06pm
Dr. Rauser,
No, the SAME problem vis-a-vis apparent actions that SEEM inconsistent with a “good” God. You say, “If God loves all men, how can it be that he leaves some in a sinful state leading to damnation.” I say, “If God loves all men, how can it be that he allows little girls to be rapped without stopping it.” At some point I will make the Arminian resort to some kind of appeal to inscrutability, then I’ll ask why there’s a problem with my appeal to inscrutability.
Moreover, what sense does it make to say on the Arminian system that God doesn’t intend or will to damn some yet also love all? He knew people would be damned if he went ahead and created, yet he did so anyway. What does it mean to say he didn’t in some sense desire or will that outcome? Some Molinists, like Craig, claim that God did what was best over all, achieving the best ratio of saved to damned. This is the Roger Dorn theodicy, i.e., the “take one for the team” theodicy. God instantiates a world where some are in circumstances that they will reject God. In hell they cry out, “Why did you put me in these circumstances, there was a possible world where I choose you!” God replies, “Yeah, but I got the best ratio with this world, the saints in heaven thank you, Dorn.”
As far as Calvinism, the Bible seems to teach that the children of God are those adopted, not all men whoever. And yes, I don’t believe God savingly loves all men. In fact, I also am not sure universalism is all things considered possible in a fallen world. If not, then God cannot create a world where he saves all, thus there’s no inconsistency. In fact, when people talk about some alleged inconsistency, I have to admit that I have never seen this *derived* via true premises and valid inference steps. So I’m not even sure this inconsistency can be *logically* spelled out, and I’m not going to take Arminians’ word for it
I admit that *on Arminian assumptions* the inconsistency can be spelled out, but why should *that* be persuasive? I also saw Jerry Walls try to do something, yet he did it in sentential logic when the propositions all contained modalities, epistemic, moral, etc., and so I’m not even sure the argument would be valid if formalized properly.
randal says:
Thursday, July 28, 2011 at 5:46pm
Paul, I’m going to respond to your comments in a blog post.
PM says:
Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 3:14pm
Or, SAME problem:
Arminianism teaches a God of love, . . . and yet.
Robert says:
Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 4:14pm
Hello Randal,
Perhaps you can answer a question for me.
I have observed that when the obvious problem of God’s lack of love (or more properly the outright hatefulness if you believe in the calvinist concept of reprobation where most of humanity is chosen beforehand to be rebellious sinners, their every sinful thought and action is preplanned, they are then necessitated to do their every sinful action, then at the final judgment they are informed they are hell bound for being and doing exactly what God preplanned for them to be and do, and then eternally punished for being exactly and unavoidably what God preplanned for them to be) in the calvinistic system is brought up by non-Calvinists. Paul Manata’s response is always to then respond to the non-Calvinist by attempting to saddle him with the same problem (the non-Calvinist points out a problem with calvinism, say X, then Manata responds with: but you have the same problem with X, so Randall you bring up the lack of love on the part of the Calvinist God and Manata then brings up, but if you really loved children wouldn’t you prevent the rape of children, the non-Calvinist God does not prevent all evils therefore he must not be loving as well).
As you point out Randall the non-Calvinist/Arminian does not have the same problems as the calvinist.
But my question for you Randall is why in your opinion, do you think that Manata a professing Christian, sounds just like the atheists (who also appeal to the so-called “problem of evil” to attack Christianity) when he is attacking non-Calvinism?
I cannot tell you how many times when dealing with an atheist I hear arguments and hypothetical scenarios just like those coming from Manata when he is attempting to defend his cherished calvinism. It appears that Manata would rather attack non-Calvinists with the problem of evil in precisely the same way that atheists attack Christians with the problem of evil: rather than dealing with the problems of calvinism.
It appears the calvinists cannot deal with their problems so their response, as typified by Manata is to just “throw it back at cha”.
When someone sounds just like the atheists when attacking Christianity with the problem of evil, there is something wrong with that picture.
Robert
Jerry Rivard says:
Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 5:12pm
I will echo, as an atheist, that I too found that PM’s comments seemed as if written by an atheist. As I was reading them I almost wondered whether he’d had a change of mind.
randal says:
Thursday, July 28, 2011 at 5:49pm
“why in your opinion, do you think that Manata a professing Christian, sounds just like the atheists (who also appeal to the so-called “problem of evil” to attack Christianity) when he is attacking non-Calvinism?”
To be honest, it is difficult for me to critique Paul Manata on these grounds since there are some Christians who think that I argue like an atheist. I am going to respond more fully to Paul’s challenge in the blog shortly.
Sean R Reid says:
Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 4:29pm
Here’s my head-scratcher;
If we dont’ have free will then we’re little more than automatons. In which case, it doesn’t matter what I do. So, in that case, it’s no big deal if I live a life of hedonism b/c I’m either “elect” or I’m not. I’m ultimately not accountable for my actions since I’m simply playing out my elect/un-elect role, as determined by God, accordingly.
Whereas, if we have free will (or, limited free will, since I realize this is a contentious topic in it’s own right), then a hedonistic lifestyle is *my* choice for which I can be held accountable.
I personally believe that freedom is the best means to delver the greatest possible good for the greatest amount of people. However, it does mean that people are free to do bad/evil things. But, I contend it takes MORE power for God to allow for free will than it does to “snap His finger” and correct/remove evil acts from the world. Accordingly, it doesn’t mean God is impotent so much as it does that, much like a parent, at some point He decides that we’re responsible for our choices and we should know that we’ll be held accountable.*
*I haven’t worked out my feelings on “final judgement” entirely, I do believe (hope?) that justice will be done, either in this life or the next.
Damian says:
Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 8:48pm
Just a bit of a clarification on a common misunderstanding about the consequences of non-free will:
If we don’t really have free will the big difference between us and an ‘automation’ is that we receive and are influenced by feedback from our environment. It *does* matter what we do and having the ability to predict the consequences of our actions in turn often influence our actions. If I don’t have free will but my complex and mechanical brain learns that stealing from that person will in turn cause others to cause me to suffer then my actions will change. And when my mechanical brain learns that when I help others out they are more likely to benefit me by helping me out too then my actions will change.
We’re not really quite as cynical as this though. We are hardwired to kindness as well as violence and so many of these actions occur naturally. (Think here of a lioness and how gentle she is with her cubs but how ruthless she is with an antelope).
I don’t really know whether we have free will or not but the misunderstanding that it wouldn’t matter what we did isn’t really a valid argument against it. This applies for the Calvinistic understanding of free will too but only while we’re alive; after that you’re pretty much poked.
Robert says:
Thursday, July 28, 2011 at 3:48pm
Hello Sean,
“Here’s my head-scratcher;
If we don’t’ have free will then we’re little more than automatons. In which case, it doesn’t matter what I do. So, in that case, it’s no big deal if I live a life of hedonism b/c I’m either “elect” or I’m not. I’m ultimately not accountable for my actions since I’m simply playing out my elect/un-elect role, as determined by God, accordingly.”
It depends on the type of control over us that God has if we do not have free will. If he directly, completely and continuously controls our every thought and action, then there would be little difference between us and puppets or automatons. We would exercise no independence of thought, we would only think and do what God controlled us to think or do.
In such a world (which is what calvinism amounts to) God could still choose to hold us accountable because the ascription of moral responsibility and the evaluation of moral responsibility are not the same thing (though most people are talking about both when using the concept of “moral responsibility”).
If I choose to hold you responsible for something. First I ascribe some conduct to you and not some other person. That is a choice that I make and base it upon believing that you (not someone else) did X. Once I ascribe responsibility to you I then evaluate your responsibility by considering issues that will result in blame (you could and should have done otherwise but instead you did X) or praise (you could have done otherwise but instead chose to do what you did, X).
In calvinism God can (and they would say does) ascribe responsibility to us for our actions). But he does not evaluate and conclude with blame or praise based upon the fact we could do otherwise/or should have done otherwise (in calvinism there is no such thing as doing otherwise, as all of your actions are necessitated, you only and always do exactly what God decided beforehand you would do).
Free will as ordinarily understood cannot exist if God controls us like puppets or automatons (i.e. if calvinism is true).
“Whereas, if we have free will (or, limited free will, since I realize this is a contentious topic in it’s own right), then a hedonistic lifestyle is *my* choice for which I can be held accountable.”
Right and your actions can both be ascribed to you making you responsible for them and they can be analyzed in terms of doing otherwise. So say a person chooses the “hedonistic lifestyle” and should have done otherwise, they are then to blame for their “hedonistic” choices.
“I personally believe that freedom is the best means to deliver the greatest possible good for the greatest amount of people.”
If the greatest good is being in a personal relationship with God (which is my belief). A relationship in which we freely choose to love, trust and worship God. Then free will as ordinarily understood will be a necessary precondition to make this possible.
In order to choose to worship God rather than false gods, I would need to have the capacity to have personal preferences which are my own choices. So I choose the true God, the God of the bible over other gods say material things or hedonistic pleasure. But if I have the capacity to choose and prefer the true God, worship Him, rather than false gods. Then I also have the capacity to choose false gods as well.
God knows that the greatest good possible for humans is to be in personal relationship with Him. So he created us, or if you prefer, designed us with the capacity to choose to worship Him and prefer Him over all other things. But that capacity can be a double edged sword.
The same capacity to have and make our own choices may result in me using my car to take someone for a Doctor’s visit or use my car to run them over and send them to a Doctor. That same capacity may result in a person worshipping the true God or rejecting the true God and worshipping something else (everyone has an “our ultimate concern”, something or someone they place above all others, Dr. House On TV says “everybody lies” he should also add “and everybody worships something or someone”).
“However, it does mean that people are free to do bad/evil things.”
Right that is the double edged sword aspect of the capacity to make our own choices. Choices that are up to us, determined by us, in which our thoughts and actions are not controlled by another person including God. If we can choose to do good we can also choose to do evil.
“But, I contend it takes MORE power for God to allow for free will than it does to “snap His finger” and correct/remove evil acts from the world.”
Sean I have a question for you here.
Many people assume that God being omniscient means that he literally can do anything. But that is not quite accurate as God cannot do some things such as lie.
He also does not and will not contradict his own purposes.
If one of this purposes in creating human persons was to create a being capable of a loving and personal relationship with Him in which the human person freely chooses to worship Him and not other gods. Then God’s purpose in this instance will be to create a human person with the capacity of having and making their own choices.
If that is one of His purposes: is He going to contradict His own design plan?
If He “snaps his finger” and prevents people from choosing to do evil actions, isn’t he then contradicting His own purpose?
Sean do you believe that He ever contradicts His own purposes and plans?
If not, then if He purposed for us to have this capacity to have and make our own choices, then He is not going to snap his fingers and eliminate free will to eliminate all evils instantly.
“Accordingly, it doesn’t mean God is impotent so much as it does that, much like a parent, at some point He decides that we’re responsible for our choices and we should know that we’ll be held accountable.”
I agree with the aspect of Him being like a parent who gives their children certain space and then holds them responsible for how they use that freedom. I would just add that it also involves his own design for human persons. He will not go against His own design for human persons. We don’t suddenly receive the ability to fly unaided and that does not bother people much as they understand that is not human nature.
But the same people, who don’t expect a sudden capacity to fly, get rankled and argue that God should, if He were good and loving, take away our capacity to have and make choices. Seems to me that if one is human nature (not flying unaided), then so is the other and so we cannot expect Him to change either one. To do so He would have to deny Himself something we are told in the bible He cannot do.
Thanks for bringing up the reality of free will as an issue Sean. It certainly is a very important reality to consider.
Robert
Robert says:
Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 4:50pm
Hello Randal,
It is relatively easy to show that under Calvinistic premises that if these premises are true then God is not only not loving he is outright hateful towards most of the human race (i.e. what God does with and to those unlucky enough to be chosen to be “reprobates” is the worst and most hateful thing that could be done to a human person). The Calvinistic conception of reprobation completely contradicts both the character of God as well as explicit scriptures (e.g. John 3:16) which must be either rejected or reinterpreted by the calvinist necessatarian.
One calvinist pastor that I have heard is quite honest on this, he openly admits that if calvinism is true then God hates the reprobates and reprobation is the most hateful thing that could be done to a human person.
Many calvinists try to obscure this by emphasizing the mercy of God towards the elect. But this rings hollow if most of the human race is reprobate and in fact under Calvinistic premises God could save every human person (but intentionally chooses not to).
In response Manata who desires to defend calvinism at any cost (including borrowing arguments from atheists especially their problem of evil arguments) wants to argue that God is not loving under Arminian premises.
Now I do not understand this because if Arminian premises are true then God most certainly has love for all human persons as he desires the salvation of all human persons. If the ****best and greatest thing that a human can experience**** is personal and saving relationship with God. And if God desires this for all human persons and provides the possibility of this for every person: how is that not loving? Both the character of God and explicit statements in scripture show that indeed this is reality: God desires the salvation of all human persons and provides the atonement of Christ for all human persons. That **is** love and flows out of God’s character which is as the apostle John says: God is love.
The apostle Paul in Romans 8:32 speaks to believers and one of his arguments is that if God does not spare his best because of his love for us, then we can trust him with lesser goods as well. The argument is predicated on the fact that God’s love is seen in Him not withholding but outright giving his best which is the atonement of Christ for sinners. Paul is saying that if God is willing to give you the best gift, then you can trust Him with the lesser gifts as well.
Now we could add that due to sin no sinner deserves to have Christ die for them (but he did and that is called grace or unmerited favor from God). If we all got strict justice we would all get eternal separation from God instantaneously when we sinned. But God who is rich in both love and mercy, does not operate according to strict justice (sinners are not automatically sent to hell the moment they sin). We are told in scripture that one of the reasons God delays the final judgment is in order to allow more persons to have the opportunity to be saved.
If we look at God’s dealings with people both in the Old and New Testaments we see case after case of God being merciful, being patient with rebellious and sinful people, constantly and repeatedly desiring their turning from sin and turning to Him for salvation. So any Christian aware of the biblical evidence as well as having experienced the love of God themselves should have no problem seeing that God is both loving and good.
Manata is aware of these things as well and so his attack against non-Calvinists is not from scripture but from borrowing the same arguments from evil that atheists routinely use. Manata cannot argue from scripture that under non-Calvinistic premises God is neither loving or good. So he has to borrow from the nonbeliever to attempt to make his case.
I will make some observations concerning his argument that God is not loving since he does not prevent all evils from occurring in a separate post.
Robert
Walter says:
Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 6:22pm
Despite how much I thoroughly despise Calvinism, I would say that Manata has a point with his tu quoque. Maybe it is a good indication that both Calvinists and classical Arminians ought to rethink what they believe.
The suffering in this life is bad enough, but when you pile on the traditional concept of an eternal punishment in hell awaiting the majority of the world’s population throughout history, then I have a hard time considering the Abrahamic deity as the “maximally good” being that the philosophers argue for.
PM says:
Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 6:27pm
Hi Dr. Rauser,
Now that “Robert” has found me/this place, I’ll have to bow out. I could go into all the reasons why, but I won’t. I really have nothing to say to Robert and don’t choose to spend any more time talking about him.
I do trust it is clear to you the approach I’m taking here. And frankly, I find it odd that those who issue problems of evil to Calvinism complain that I am acting like an atheist when I push the argument back in their face.This objection you and Robert) raise against Calvinist is the exact same argument atheists raise against Calvinists! Yet I am told I’m acting like an atheist and borrowing their arguments. In fact, my argument is more subtle, as I don’t think the atheist arguments from evil land, and would gladly defend theism with my Arminian brothers. My argument is, if I can’t answer my problem of evil, then you can answer your problems of evil. At the end of the day, it is my considered opinion (which I will argue for at a later date and another time) that non-Calvinist systems do not offer an advantage in this area, or if they do they are decidedly unbiblical, and that any *ultimate* resolution the non-Calvinist can appeal to, I can appeal to too.
Anyway, I’ll leave you with Robert. C-ya.
PM says:
Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 6:35pm
Thanks Walter. I do wonder if people who accuse me of aligning with atheists consider that atheists are far more turned off by the God of Calvinism than they are the God of Arminianism. It’s rather what I would expect when natural man is confronted with the true nature of God apart from regenerating grace. This isn’t an argument, I’m just sayin’
Jerry Rivard says:
Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 8:05pm
I can’t speak for Robert, but my comment echoing his observation was absolutely not intended to be a criticism. On the contrary, I found your statement to be very moving and well written, and I was impressed by your understanding of that perspective.
I did not mean to offend you by saying that it came off to me sounding like an atheist, and I’m sorry if I did. Understand that, as an atheist, I don’t see anything offensive about the comparison. (And had any of my remarks been compared to those of a Calvinist, I’d be very surprised – but not offended.)
PM says:
Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 8:46pm
Hi Jerry, you didn’t offend me; Robert did, and does. He thinks poisoning the well is a good approach to dialogue. He thinks guilt by association is a good way to argue. Moreover, I’d say that if an atheist has a good argument, then he has a good argument. I don’t know why being a Christian means that you can never argue like an atheist, i.e., use the same premises and the same logical structure. As you point out, look where we are as humans. No doubt, atheists have been right in there with the rest of us in discovering facts about the world. Suppose an atheist invented the television. Would Robert chastise me for watching T.V.?
Now, for your comment, it is true that Calvinism does teach total depravity, but I would hope all Christians do. This simply means, though, that sin affects ever aspect of your being, not that you’re as sinful or irrational or whatever as you could be. So, total depravity doesn’t teach that men won;t invent T.V.’s and cars and antidotes. However, suppose you invented a cure for cancer. You would not give thanks to God for giving you the abilities to do this, for example. This would show that you’re affected by sin. Total depravity states that we can do no spiritual good, and that we do not love God in our heart, soul, and mind the way we ought to. So your cognitive faculties, your emotive faculties, your psychological faculties, etc., are all affected by sin in this way. They are not, though, affected as bad as they could be, and due to common grace, humans make all manner of great medical, technological, informational, etc., advances in the world. Thus, what you noted isn’t empirically inconsistent with total depravity.
Jerry Rivard says:
Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 8:16pm
And for the record, I indeed am “far more turned off by the God of Calvinism than they are the God of Arminianism” (as I interpret those concepts from this blog). At least the God of Arminianism gives us a chance.
But what I’m turned off most by about religion is a prevailing attitude that man is rotten, which seems to be most pronounced in Calvinism. I happen to think we’ve done a wonderful job with what we’ve been given to work with on this planet. Far from perfect, but amazing and continually improving.
PM says:
Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 8:50pm
Yes, I wonder what that tells us given Robert’s M.O. that an atheist is far more turned off by the God of Calvinism than the God of Arminianism. If I’m using the arguments of atheism, is he defending the desired God of atheism?
Robert says:
Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 10:26pm
Manata wrote:
“I do wonder if people who accuse me of aligning with atheists consider that atheists are far more turned off by the God of Calvinism than they are the God of Arminianism.”
For the sake of clarification I do not claim that Manata aligns himself with atheists. If he did so he would be an atheist not the professing Christian that he is. No, my point (and it has been confirmed by other commentators here already) is that I find it sad that Manata appeals to the same arguments and type of hypotheticals that I regularly hear from atheists who are attacking the Christian faith. I find this a bit disconcerting. From listening to atheists and reading them they seem to believe the so-called “problem of evil” is their best argument against biblical Christianity. Then Manata comes along when he feels his cherished calvinism is under attack and then uses the atheistic arguments against non-Calvinism (which is actually attacking biblical Christianity in order to defend his false theological system of calvinism).
Regarding his comment that they are “far more turned off by the God of Calvinism than they are the God of Arminianism” that only demonstrates that atheists have the moral sense and rationality to see a clear contradiction between what the bible says about how God is versus what a man invented theological system says about God.
If people reject the God of the bible that is one thing, if they reject the God of the bible because of a theological system that makes his character appear to be sadistic and cruel (again carefully examine the Calvinistic doctrine of reprobation). A system that contradicts explicit and clear scriptures, that is another thing.
Manata adds concerning the rejection of calvinism by so many:
“It’s rather what I would expect when natural man is confronted with the true nature of God apart from regenerating grace. This isn’t an argument, I’m just sayin’”
The problem with this statement is that the vast majority of Christians across all theological traditions (including Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants and Independents) have all rejected calvinism throughout church history. It is not merely the “natural man” who rejects calvinism: it is the vast majority of bible believing Christians. You will not find calvinism present in early Church history and you will find it opposed and rejected by the majority of Christians at all times in church history in which it appears. Non-Calvinist Christians who have been regenerated and experienced “regenerating grace” have nevertheless soundly and repeatedly rejected calvinism (a great example being John Wesley) for biblical, theological and philosophical reasons. So it is not just atheists who are “turned off” by calvinism it is the majority of Christians as well.
Robert
PM says:
Thursday, July 28, 2011 at 12:25am
“Regarding his comment that they are “far more turned off by the God of Calvinism than they are the God of Arminianism” that only demonstrates that atheists have the moral sense and rationality to see a clear contradiction between what the bible says about how God is versus what a man invented theological system says about God.”
Yes, atheists only have the moral sense and rationality to see that what the Bible says about God contradicts the man invented system of Calvinism. When it comes to shoe being on the other foot, and the Calvinist uses arguments developed by the moral sense and rationality of the atheist *against the man invented theological system of Arminianism*, somehow they magically turn into poor benighted fools who only say what they say because they live in darkness and hate the one true Arminian God.
Moreover, the arguments Robert gives against Calvinism are the same ones I find from atheists against Calvinism. It is the atheist who considers God to be immoral and his actions in need of a defense in light of things we consider evil. So when the Arminian argues thus, he brings the atheistic “problem of evil” against the Calvinist, i.e., “How can God be good given what we see.” Thus it is odd that Robert would be “concerned” with my approach when he does the same thing. No doubt, Robert will, as above, justify his own approach as just because it stems from his pious heart.
Btw, as a piece of historical curiosity, the objections I use here have been used for hundreds and hundreds of years. Augustinian-Calvinists have pointed out that the same problems arise for versions of free will theism. It doesn’t take an atheist to see that a God who loves the world and lets little girls get rapped and allows little children to starve sure, due to libertarian freedom or not, has some ‘splainin to do. If Robert could snap his fingers and create food ex nihilo for starving children, he would. Why? Because Robert is good, kind, and loving. In fact, *if* Robert *could* so snap his fingers and create Big Mac’s ex nihilo, and he did not do so when confronted with children draped in paper-thin skin and eyes sunk into their head like a skeleton, we wold rightly consider Robert *unloving*. Robert’s God knew that millions (billions?) would suffer in hell if he created, yet he went ahead and did so. He must have in some sense desired or willed this outcome. I know people will differ (just like *I* differ!), but I see now way around these arguments if there is no way around it for the Calvinist.
Furthermore, it should be noted that I appeal to *Christian libertarian philosophers’* in my overall defense of Calvinism. I appeal to skeptical theism arguments, developed and defended by libertarians like Alston, Howard-Snyder, Plantinga, and Wykstra. What shall the response be? Atheists began the criticisms of the ST arguments. Will Robert join hands with those atheists in critiquing appeals to ST? This whole line of attack Robert chose to take is certainly odd.
Lastly, it’s not like you find “Arminiamism” in church history. However, as church historians have pointed out, we do see double predestination, deterministic ideas, God’s aseity, and other elements of Reformed theology throughout history. In fact, Calvin et al. thought they were in-line with the Church. Their metaphsyic often assumed Thomistic or Augustinian categories. As Paul Helm has argued (e.g., Perspectives on the Doctrine of God), their doctrine of God is nothing but the historic Christian doctrine of God. It is the Arminians who parted ways with this notion.
AFriend says:
Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 6:54pm
As a parent of two living and one deceased, I empathize greatly with this post. I agree fully with the sentiments expressed, that the love a parent feels for their child is but a shadow of the love God feels for His children (which is all people).
And yet
,as I read in Bible last night in Isaiah 59:1-2 “Surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear. But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear”.
Verses 12-14 go on to say, “For out offenses are many in your sight, and our sins testify against us. Our offenses are ever with us, and we acknowledge our iniquities: rebellion and treachery against the Lord, turning our backs on our God, fomenting oppression and revolt, uttering lies our hearts have conceived. So justice is driven back, and righteousness stands at a distance; truth has stumbled in the streets, honesty cannot enter”.
Finally, verse 20 says, “The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins, declares the Lord”.
It isn’t so much being “elected” as I see it (I’m no Calvinist, anyway), but what can a good parent do when their child-despite the best care, discipline, education, etc.-turns from them and runs away? Think Prodigal Son. The Father in that story was broken-hearted that his son basically said, “Dad, I wish you were dead so I could have your money”. But, Dad gave it to him, the son never looked back, squandered it, and finally realized he was not worthy anymore to be called his Father’s son. When he came back he wasn’t looking for forgiveness or mercy, just a decent job. He knew he had been wrong (admitted his sin), asked forgiveness (repented), and was surprised to be fully restored to his Dad’s house.
No one is without sin, and sin is rebellion to God in which we turn and run from Him. I don’t like the idea of anyone going to hell, and neither does God, “For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!” (Ezekiel 18:32)
In summary, whether people end up in heaven or hell is not a reflection of God’s character, but our own.
Walter says:
Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 8:10pm
“No one is without sin,”
While I will heartily agree that every one of us has a dark side to our nature, it bothers me that Christianity makes it a crime to be born human. The normal range of human emotions seem to be enough to qualify us for eternal torments. Look at a pretty girl with a normal feeling of lust and I have just committed a sin that qualifies me for never-ending suffering. I mean really, c’mon.
I don’t like the idea of anyone going to hell, and neither does God…
The Christian God doesn’t seem to have a problem with Hell since He is the one that created it in the first place, right? And as far as the story about the prodigal son: even if my son hated me and never came back to me, I would not hunt him down and submit him to all manner of torments, particularly torments that never, ever cease.
AFriend says:
Thursday, July 28, 2011 at 5:21pm
Walter and pf,
Please read the scriptures I cited again. The point is people sin and turn from God. All He asks is that we stop and follow the laws He set forth. Laws like “do not murder”, “honor your mother and father”, “do not lie”, etc. When someone breaks those commands and their murderous deeds are made public, it is easy to point and be thankful we’re not as bad as that.
God is both unending love and just. What would you do/how would you feel if someone even seriously thought (but didn’t do it) about killing your kid, or having sex with your spouse? How do you feel when others lie to you? It hurts! It usually makes people feel angry and indignant (and rightly so!). God will not abide His creations hurting one another. Would you want to serve a God who did?
Heaven is where God is in full. Earth is where God is in part (through Christians). Hell is where God is not. It is torment, because there is none of God’s love, light, or goodness. But many people show on Earth they don’t want any part of God. They don’t want to follow His rules, they want things their way. Since it is appointed that all men should die once, God sadly turns them over fully to their own desires. He did not force them to love Him on Earth, why would He force them to love Him after death in Heaven? And why would He reward those who disobeyed (sin) without remorse and hurt His other creations?
pf says:
Thursday, July 28, 2011 at 7:53pm
Friend, your sincerity is touching, but you haven’t answered the points I raised.
If someone lies, you seem consider that justification for god to make them suffer for eternity. I get that, even though I think that is a morally bankrupt stance from someone who asks us to forgive others.
But putting aside the hypocracy, but can you then say that god loves the person he subjects to eternal torment?
pf says:
Thursday, July 28, 2011 at 2:44pm
Sorry about the loss of your child, but is there anything bad enough he/she could have done that would have made you torture them daily for eternity?
If you loved your child, you wouldn’t sentence him/her to suffer eternal torment. And if you sentence someone to eternal torment, you don’t love them. It’s not complicated.
Yet christianity in its various iterations teaches that god loves people unconditionally while punishing them with unspeakable horrors if they don’t meet his conditions. It makes as much sense as the Trinity.
bob says:
Thursday, July 28, 2011 at 5:41pm
What about the trinity doesn’t make sense?
It is comparable to government today in the United States. Just look at the Local, State and Federal level. They are all different entities yet still compromise the same system.
I took a guess at what you find confusing. I might be wrong.
pf says:
Friday, July 29, 2011 at 4:22pm
Bob, you are a funny guy. Comparing god to the US government would get you excommunicated at 99% of evangelical churches. And through much of history your explanation would have gotten you burned at the stake or beheaded.
Seriously, your example of god as a collective singular has been floated throughout history, but is has huge flaws. Yes, we often refer to the three branches of government as one unit, but those units are comprised of multiple individuals. We don’t think of John Beohner and Harry Reid and Barack Obama as one person, even though they can collectively be called leaders of a single government.
What’s more, all the thousands of references to god in the bible, in none of them does the surrounding language assume a collective singular noun. (There is a technical term for this that is escaping me.)
davidstarlingm says:
Friday, July 29, 2011 at 4:36pm
That’s where you’re decidedly incorrect. Throughout Torah, the plural “elohiym” is used with singular verbs and adjectives. It’s the Hebrew equivalent of saying “they is” or “we am”.
One example: Shema Y’israel, Deuteronomy 6.
Shema y’israel, YHWH elohiym echad YHWH. “Hear O-Israel, YHWH our-gods is-one YHWH.”
The plural elohiym is used along with the singular YHWH throughout Torah. They always retain singular pronouns and verb forms.
bob says:
Friday, July 29, 2011 at 5:12pm
Good sir,
I must ask how you come by this knowledge. Are you perhaps Jewish or a linguist? (i mean that in all seriousness, no disrespect). Gah, I am so uneducated lol. What i mean is, where/how etc did you find these terms and applications etc etc
davidstarlingm says:
Friday, July 29, 2011 at 5:33pm
I am, actually, Jewish, though I sadly cannot speak Hebrew fluently. I only know this information because I’ve researched this stuff for a long time.
Although English translations rarely (if ever) reflect the plural nature of the noun elohiym, verb phrases and pronouns sometimes do. Most translations of Genesis 11:7 say “Let us go down”, matching the plural verb form (I’d write it in, but Randal’s comment system doesn’t recognize Hebrew characters). Similar usage occurs in Genesis 1 and several other places.
If you’re interested in examining these relationships, either to test my assertions or for your own information, I’d suggest using a simple lexicon and interlinear like BlueLetterBible. You can also use Google Translate to look at different possible meanings.
pf says:
Friday, July 29, 2011 at 5:46pm
David: This is where a little bit of common sense trumps knowledge (or whatever word describes what you are saying).
If the Hebrew writings were meant to describe a trinity, then Jews would have worshipped god as three in one. Not only did they not do that, but the entire concept was completely foreign to Jews.
What you seem to be saying is that Jews wrote literature that taught an idea of god not only of which they were not aware, but one that they would have fought to the death to deny.
In your bible, neither the writers nor the original readers had any idea of the meaning of the words they considered sacred. How likely is that?
davidstarlingm says:
Friday, July 29, 2011 at 6:30pm
There is nothing particularly odd about suggesting that the ancient Hebrews knew less about the God they worshiped than Paul. That’s the nature of progressive revelation. Every new understanding gives us a better understanding of the understanding we understood before. Understand?
The Jewish understanding of monotheism is more defined by what it is not than what it is. It is not ditheism, polytheism, kathenotheism, or henotheism (the verses which appear to be mildly henotheistic are very thoroughly explained by the many passages mocking the inability of other “gods” to speak, breathe, or interact with humanity in any way). The concept of a tritheistic unity maintaining a single will and essence was neither broached nor denied in ancient Israel.
pf says:
Friday, July 29, 2011 at 9:17pm
Actually it is more than odd, it is almost insane.
Look at it this way: God speaks directly to Abraham, Moses, Noah, the prophets, etc., etc. They are led to believe that god is a certain being, and they set up a religion devoted to worshipping god as they believe him to be.
Now god knows they are mistaken, but he waits 1000-plus years to act to alert them. And yet when the “son” portion of the fully-deity being visits the earth, he doesn’t even think to clearly tell anybody that god is not one, that he is three persons in one. In fact, it almost certainly never came up, and his disciples remained Jews in good standing for four full decades afterwards.
So how could Israel be faulted for not changing its 1000-year-old belief? God had given them revelation, someone comes along and says they are wrong, they should just flip on a dime? Would you do the same?
If progressive revelation is true, how do you know Joseph Smith is wrong? Or David Koresh or Sun Yung Moon?
bob says:
Friday, July 29, 2011 at 7:30pm
Thanks!
The Atheist Missionary says:
Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 7:03pm
I revel in being a reprobate.
Robert says:
Thursday, July 28, 2011 at 10:08pm
The “Atheist Missionary” wrote:
“I revel in being a reprobate.”
I take it that this was intended to be a humorous comment.
For analyzed logically the statement makes no sense, it is irrational.
It first assumes that the Calvinistic concept of a reprobate is true (i.e. there are people chosen from eternity to be unbelievers, people who have no chance of being saved in this life, whose unbelief and sinful actions are completely predecided by God, they are fatalistically unbelievers with it being impossible that they not be unbelievers). This concept is questionable as the bible never presents this concept. It is a calvinistic invention. But “Atheist Missionary” in making this statement must assume the Calvinistic conception of reprobation to be correct.
But if it is correct then there is no way that he/she could know that he/she really is reprobate.
Assuming calvinism, where God decides beforehand who will be damned (the reprobates) or saved (the elect): you could not know that you were a reprobate until the final judgment when this was revealed to you. This is the case because say that God had predetermined for you to be an unbeliever all the way up to your deathbed where you had a “death bed conversion” and became one of the elect. Prior to the death bed conversion you would live as an unbeliever, as that is what God had prescripted for you at that time(and it is impossible for you to do otherwise than what God has prescripted for you if all is prescripted). Then at your death bed moments before you entered eternity God would save you whether you wanted to be saved or not (recall that according to calvinism a person is regenerated first and then this regeneration produces/necessitates that they have faith: but this faith is something necessitated not freely chosen). And lo and behold you would be saved after all!
If calvinism is false then the concept of reprobation as espoused by calvinists is false and so there is no such thing as “reprobates”.
So “Atheist Missionary” could not be a reprobate and also could yet be saved during his/her lifetime, so they could not **know** they were “a reprobate.” If calvinism is true, then “Atheist Missionary” also could yet be saved during his/her lifetime, if according to the script God had chosen him/her to be one of the elect, so they could not know they were “a reprobate.” Because things could change drastically from one moment to another according to the prescripted total plan that would be in effect if calvinism were true. Either way: under calvinism or non-Calvinism, he/she could not know that they are a reprobate. So the statement makes no sense logically speaking.
And if it was meant to be funny. This is sad because if the bible is true and there is eternal separation from God, then that is not something that you want to experience. If it is real then it is no joke. The biblical descriptions while not always literal certainly present an option (that if it is real and the bible is correct) that a person would not want to experience. Perhaps he/she means only that they believe themselves currently to be “hell bound”. And so they are reveling in their condition of being separated from God and hell bound. But only a masochist could actually revel in this fate. I assume that he/she is not a masochist; they are just trying to be funny. But going to hell is no joke. And the good news is that there is still hope for “Atheist Missionary” to be saved. And He/she does not need to wait until their death bed for this to occur.
Robert
Friarg says:
Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 9:09pm
Atheist Missionary — thank you for the statement — “I revel in being a reprobate.”
If it is an honest statement. If not your humour is what it is.
I will seek a copy of the article from the journal — it sounds interesting.
Friarg says:
Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 9:11pm
“then what shall be left of an electing love that turns some over to the most unimaginable horrors of eternal damnation?”
While an interesting comment I am left pondering who are we to talk back to God?
bob says:
Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 9:44pm
Romans 9:15-21
What say you concerning this passage?
The Atheist Missionary says:
Thursday, July 28, 2011 at 12:21am
bob’s my uncle! Love that Romans passage – to paraphrase: “I made you and I’ll smite you if I damn well please”.
Dear God, the Children’s Aid Society would like to have a chat with you.
The Atheist Missionary says:
Thursday, July 28, 2011 at 12:28am
Here’s another gem: Gregory Paul, THEODICY’S PROBLEM: A STATISTICAL LOOK AT THE HOLOCAUST OF THE CHILDREN, AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF NATURAL EVIL FOR THE FREE WILL AND BEST OF ALL WORLDS HYPOTHESES Philosophy & Theology 19, 1–2: http://gregspaul.webs.com/Philosophy&Theology.pdf
Just spreading the good news – Hallelujah!
bob says:
Thursday, July 28, 2011 at 12:59am
I would like to point out to you that it is not the innocence of a person that grants them the right to heaven but rather the Grace of God. To answer the question of a loving God who allows children to die etc etc before being able to exercise free will etc i would like to point you to 2 Samuel 12:14-23 and pay special attention to verse 23 and what it means. (Hint: David isn’t going to hell, yet he is going to see his son again).
The Atheist Missionary says:
Thursday, July 28, 2011 at 2:00am
Thanks for the cite bob – yet more proof that the Bible is God’s greatest gift to atheism. I sincerely wish more people would read it. I also understand perfectly well why the Catholic Church frowned on that practice for centuries.
bob says:
Thursday, July 28, 2011 at 3:19pm
You are welcome. Thought you would love learning about the mercy and grace of God towards children of a young age who don’t have the chance to exercise their free will as stated by your posting and link.
bob says:
Thursday, July 28, 2011 at 1:25am
Church starts in 30m here
Check you later 
amado says:
Thursday, July 28, 2011 at 10:01pm
pf, if people reject God and want to have nothing to do with Him, they move to an eternity without having to be in His presence. isn’t that what they wanted? daily torture is more of a scary comic book interpretation of eternal separation from God (think of jack chick, it’s good graphically but maybe not so well-supported in scripture).
Walter says:
Friday, July 29, 2011 at 12:36am
pf, if people reject God and want to have nothing to do with Him, they move to an eternity without having to be in His presence. isn’t that what they wanted?
Not believing is not the same thing as rejecting. I don’t believe in the Greek pantheon of gods, does that mean that I am rejecting them? And no sane person wants an eternity of suffering, so lets lay to rest this nonsense about hell being what unbelievers *want*.
Friarg says:
Saturday, July 30, 2011 at 12:38am
Walter — if we don’t believe we are still rejecting something or someone. And those who rejecy do despise what God offers and who God is and so out of their own mouths condemnation comes.
pf says:
Friday, July 29, 2011 at 3:56pm
Forget the eternal torment part for a minute.
If you have children and they disobey your royal commands, would you banish them from your presence forever? If you did, could you be said to love them? Emphatically no.
Robert says:
Friday, July 29, 2011 at 5:01pm
I want to address a couple of comments that “PF” has made. If you are going to criticize Christianity then please don’t take a snippet and attack that while (intentionally or unintentionally) leaving out big pieces of the puzzle.
“If someone lies, you seem consider that justification for god to make them suffer for eternity. I get that, even though I think that is a morally bankrupt stance from someone who asks us to forgive others.”
God’s standard is perfection. And we all sin so we all fall short of perfection. If someone lies they are worthy of separation from God due to his perfect standard. If God acted according to strict justice without mercy whatsoever, then the moment a person sinned they would be eternally separated from God. But God does not operate from strict justice alone.
God sends Jesus into the world (the technical term is “Incarnation”, meaning that God came in the flesh to planet earth) who dies on the cross for the sins of everyone (Jesus was God in the flesh, so when Jesus dies on the cross that is God clearly demonstrating His love for us by his willingness to undergo that pain and suffering on our behalf). So rather than leaving us in our sinful condition and then automatically condemning us for sin (strict justice). God offers mercy through Christ. A mercy that he offers to people. By the work of Christ a person may have all of their sins forgiven and they may then enter in a personal relationship with God.
My point is that if you are going to properly and fairly represent Christianity then you have to include both the incarnation and the death of Christ on the cross when wondering whether or not God truly loves us. If he acted according to strict justice and did not love us he could have simply condemned human persons the moment they sinned. But precisely because He does in fact love us the incarnation and the death of Christ occurred.
It seems to me that PF’s comments **completely leave out** both the incarnation and the death of Christ for human person’s sins. It would be like talking about a quarter while only talking about the heads side (if you leave out the tails side you are not properly talking about, or representing a quarter).
PF talks about God and hell and completely leaves out the love of God shown in both the incarnation and death of Christ on the cross. And not only is God merciful in not automatically condemning us when we sin, he also comes in person to deal with the sin problem and make a restored relationship with us possible. He then offers this forgiveness through Christ to some repeatedly. Only after they have chosen to repeatedly reject God and his offer of forgiveness through Christ: would a person find himself eternally separated from God. And So PF also leaves out this repeated rejection of God from his presentation of Christianity.
PF also said:
“But putting aside the hypocracy, but can you then say that god loves the person he subjects to eternal torment?”
Because God came in the flesh (the incarnation) died on the cross for the sins of the world (the death of Christ) and then offers forgiveness to people through Christ (that is the gospel the good news of salvation through Christ). So God takes care of the sin problem Himself, meeting his perfect standard through Christ. And God did not have to do any of it. He did it out of love for human persons.
A person only experiences eternal separation from God if they repeatedly and for their entire lifetime keep rejecting God and His love.
I emphasize that PF completely left out crucial Christian doctrines (the incarnation, the death of Christ, the offer of forgiveness through Christ) the very realities that most clearly demonstrate the love of God for human persons.
PF went on to say:
“Forget the eternal torment part for a minute.
If you have children and they disobey your royal commands, would you banish them from your presence forever? If you did, could you be said to love them? Emphatically no.”
But if I was God and these “children” disobeyed my commands which according to strict justice would result in their eternal separation from Me. And yet I did not automatically condemn them. But came and went through incredible pain and suffering out of love for them, in order to restore our relationship. And then kept offering forgiveness to them over and over and yet they kept repeatedly rejecting Me and what I had done for them. And they choose to reject Me, then I give them over to what they have chosen.
Now perhaps PF is unfamiliar with Christianity (in that case he/she needs to carefully consider what the implications of the incarnation and death of Christ have for him/her in terms of revealing whether or not God loves them). If PF is familiar with Christianity, then PF needs to not leave out the crucial doctrines that most demonstrate the love of God when considering whether or not God loves people.
Robert
pf says:
Friday, July 29, 2011 at 11:03pm
Robert, I feel sorry for you, I do.
Listen, I’ve attended church for more than four decades, I graduated from a christian college, been active in churches and preached sermons, and have written occasional articles for christian publications.
Bottom line is I know a hell of a lot more than you do about this bible thing. Cause all you got is platitudes that they teach in the kids’ sunday school classes.
Your answer seems to be that god loves me even if he sends me to hell because jesus died for my sins. But you avoid all my questions. Would you do that to your own children? NO! And if you did, you would be a bad parent.
Friarg says:
Saturday, July 30, 2011 at 12:36am
PF — interesting — do they not call that an argument from authority because you have done these things you know more …. And maybe you do.
Yet, it seems that your complaint against what God might or might not do is what it is — a complaint that demands an answer and none was given to JOB so why are you owed one?
I am not saying that we cannot wonder and ask questions and struggle, it is where all of this leads that concerns me.
And now to add the dubious argument from authority — I am a practicing Christian and a pasotr for some 22 years now.
pf says:
Saturday, July 30, 2011 at 1:19am
Friarg:
Most decidedly I am NOT making an argument from authority. People smarter than me and dumber than me come down on both sides.
I was ezxpressing the inevitable frustration I feel whem I come up against pious stupidity. I’m happy to discuss, that’s why I’m here, but spouting platitudes with a “tut-tut” tone without answering my questions is a waste of my time.
Christianty is completely irrational. Believe it if you want, and I did, but it doesn’t stand up to any rational scrutiny on either the micro or macro level. There is no reason god needs somebody to die to forgive. He could forgive people without blood, if he so chose. Which is a big tip-off. Ancient people believed deities were satiated by blood. It is a crazy idea that lives on through religion. It is barbaric. It aint true.
Linda says:
Friday, July 29, 2011 at 7:21am
God’s electing love is truly amazing, enjoy the song…
http://youtu.be/c1ZmGslkPJo
Chuckt says:
Friday, July 29, 2011 at 12:26pm
Randal,
I skipped much of your post because there wasn’t any scripture. Without scripture to back up what you are saying, you don’t have an authority.
Chuck
Gene says:
Friday, July 29, 2011 at 3:21pm
Nice to meet you Randall. I was brought here via the Tribe and have enjoyed the dialogues.
I agree with you. There’s so much to say on this subject that it makes discussions like this difficult. On one hand the definition of God’s love becomes hazy. Somehow God becomes like man having an unconditional love (for his own children) , conditional love (for friends), informal love of kindness but no saving qualities (acquaintances) and hatred (enemies), and so on.
However, I’m not too blind to say that PM does not make some good points. I’m open to the Calvinist God being true, at this time I just don’t see it. Universalism makes far more sense of a God who calls himself love then Calv.
I do hope that Christians will learn to see that we all have to “plug in” our own definitions on these terms (ie love, election, world, all) and humbly approach each other to help each other out rather than just yell out “Heretic!”
bob says:
Friday, July 29, 2011 at 5:39pm
“I do hope that Christians will learn to see that we all have to “plug in” our own definitions on these terms (ie love, election, world, all) and humbly approach each other to help each other out rather than just yell out “Heretic!”
The problem with this is that this allows error to creep into the teaching of truth, and error and truth cannot coexist. Something cannot be true yet in error. By applying your own defition to a word, you take truth and turn it into error because of the definition applied (if that definition is false/or in error)
Gene says:
Friday, July 29, 2011 at 9:54pm
“The problem with this is that this allows error to creep into the teaching of truth, and error and truth cannot coexist. Something cannot be true yet in error. By applying your own defition to a word, you take truth and turn it into error because of the definition applied (if that definition is false/or in error”
Bob, certainly this is a dilemma no doubt. But isn’t it unavoidable if the translator (us) are defective? Now Jesus had an impeccable interpretation, but what about us. Who can say that when John writes “For God so loved the world” that he really meant “elect”. Or that when Jesus said “love your enemies” that he used a poor choice of words and really should have used “be kind to your enemies”. We Universalists are no different. I have to look at passages, which teach damnation and make some sense of it. But certainly, if this is a problem then EVERYONE has it unless we have a papal authority to interpret it for us.
My point is that we all have defective views and that poses a problem for all. Calv, Arm and Univ. are all subject to srcutiny, some just are not good at allowing it.
bob says:
Friday, July 29, 2011 at 10:41pm
I have to ask you a quick question.
When you say you are a Universalist, are you saying you are one who promotes the idea/concept/belief of Universalism?
Universalism conflicts with Christianity is why I am asking.
Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father except through me”.
As for when Jesus said “love your enemies” you do the word love a grievous injustice when you compare it to the word kind. The Greek word for love there is Agapao. This love is a love that seeks the betterment or extends itself to another person and doesn’t serve oneself at all. So, “love your enemies” is much more than be kind to them.
Universalism includes other religions which would therefore contradict what Jesus says. Because other religions have another way to the Father or God.
The Greek word for world there is kosmos and is a metonymy which represents mankind.
Finally…. No one is ever 100% correct concerning the Word of God
but there are some things in the Word of God, that no matter if you are Calvinist or Arminian they mean the same thing.
As for Universalism it contradicts itself by its inclusion of conflicting relgious beliefs.
Finally, much of what i say is what i believe to be true from my own studies. I have been a Christian for 3-4y (so not very long)
To everyone on here, i enjoy reading your views points and counterpoints etc.
Gene says:
Saturday, July 30, 2011 at 2:41pm
Bob,
Universalism has many faces, so the Universalism we Christians speak about is the work of Christ done on behalf of the world – that is God reconciled the world to himself via the life, death and ressurection of Christ – no other way.
It’s the view that God will eventually save all people. Thus we hold that the traditional view of hell being without end is invalid.
We believe Jesus is the only way by which the world or “man” could be saved and there is no other way.
Basically, we’re Christians who believe scripture teaches that the love of God will not fail in it’s attempt to bring people to salvation. Eveyone will praise God, all things reconciled.
We do not see it as any religion leading someone to God but rather that Christ Jesus has reconciled his enemies while they’re in unbelief which assures us that we’ll be saved.
Hope that helps.
bob says:
Monday, August 1, 2011 at 12:35am
Hmm… “It’s the view that God will eventually save all people. Thus we hold that the traditional view of hell being without end is invalid.”
I am guessing because God is so compassionate you argue hell couldn’t last an eternity, but that is dangerous. If you argue that then lets evolve that thought and go a little deeper… That the angels that fell won’t remain in hell for eternity or the devil for that matter, after all they are all his creation and He is a God of compassion right? Why would you believe there is bliss for eternity but not damnation for eternity?
Gene says:
Monday, August 1, 2011 at 3:39am
Bob,
I usually read Paul as argying in Romans 9 that God could render mercy to ven to satan and there’s not a thing any of us could say about it. Now most of us don’t think so because we’re confident of our flawless interpretation – that is that Hell is forever.
I doubt those interpretations. Yes I believe God is so compassionate. I believe where sin increases, Grace increases all the more. Do you? I believe that true love (as in Cor 13 which is God’s love) ENDURES ALL THINGS and NEVER FAILS. I see that it always protects. But God must not have loved those fallen beings before they fell, otherwise he would have endured their failures. So being that God does not love them, then before they fell he must not have loved them with the love of Cor 13.
I don’t believe God has lesser loves for some. So I believe that his nature, love, is perfect and is for all. So yes, when Col 1 says God was pleased to reconcile unto himself all things, whether it be things on Earth or in Heaven, I believe it means he’s going to restore all things.
So while I believe in the compassion of God, in the love of God that never fails, and the sov. of God to restore everything, I believe God binds us all over to disobedience that he might have mercy on us. Perhaps I’m wrong about it, but telling people God loves you and you better love him otherwise he’s gonna gut you like a dead fish, makes no sense to me any longer. I read the scriptures as stating, he loves us and takes care of us and the more we love him the less we fear him.
Gene
bob says:
Friday, July 29, 2011 at 5:32pm
I keep seeing people argue that a God of love couldn’t/wouldn’t send people to hell etc etc and Pf you use the comparison of a parent loving their child and banishing them forever because of disobediance but that isn’t applicable to God because not everyone is a child of God. We are all children of wrath until we are adopted (by being in Christ) unto the Father.
To address the love issue… One must admit that we are all sinners and if we are all sinners then we are all deserving of death/judgement/hell, but because God does love us and is full of grace and mercy there is salvation and redemption for those whom believe in Christ. Doesn’t matter if you are a Calvinist or Arminian, that is something both agree upon.
If you want scriptures for reference: John 8:34-47, Ephesians 2:3, Galations 3:26, Romans 9:8,Romans 8:15, Romans 3:23 and finally Romans 6:23. The verses are in no particular order, sorry about that.
Time for work
seeya ^^/
Albert Boykin says:
Saturday, August 6, 2011 at 4:59am
Is the argument about Calvinism or non-Calvinism? It is some what motivating to look at the argument, so I can see what the Bible teaches is the right way. Here is a lens to use to find out what the Bible really teaching about God not willing that any should perish but all come to repentance. Do all repent? Well not in this life, that is too clear. So if all are going to repent, then how? Well not in this life, that is the logical conclusion. Use this lens to examine the Calvinistic argument, I believe the Scripture will open up for you like a beautiful rose and your passion for Christ’s love, which, if he is lifted up, will drag all people to himself. Was he lifted up? Yes. Have all been drug to him? No some have died and others are yet to be born and many of them will not be visibly drug to him in this life. So this still occurs after the non-drug person dies? Yes. Again, there is a lens that can open up this door, and it is fortunately found in a book written by a dental missionary, who takes teams of lay people, who are trained in dental prep, to go with him to third world countries and takes care of people who would never find help for their dental needs. He has written a book Hope Beyond Hell, which can be downloaded for free at http://www.hopebeyondhell.net or you can download it on your Kindle for one dollar off Amazon. You will be blessed for reading it. Please let me know what you think.