Calvinism is Strange Indeed

User avatar
Ian
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:26 am

Re: Calvinism is Strange Indeed

Post by Ian » Sat Apr 04, 2015 10:20 am

A good Amazon review of the book Theology of the Pain of God which pertains to Calvinism, which I though I`d paste here:
Up until two years ago I was a convinced Calvinist, the typical "angry young man" you often find in Reformed circles, confident beyond measure that God had determined everything that had come to pass, even the evils that take place in our world. But then a crisis occurred in my family that caused me a tremendous amount of pain, and I found that my magesterial, sovereign God was of little help or comfort to me. I think part of me despaired of my faith. But then, while browsing through a dictionary of theology where I looked up the word "pain" I came across a reference for Kitamori's book. I was intringued, found a copy in my local library, and read it eagerly. It would not be an exagerration to say that my views about God, about his relationality, his love, and his pathos, began to change. Reading Theology of the Pain of God revolutionized by relationship to him, increased my faith, and helped me to understand that God was with me, even in those darkest moments of my life, not because he decreed that they should happen (as in Calvinism), but because he was suffering with me. He knew what I was going through, not because he had ordained it, but because he too knows what suffering is. Somehow, those were the words my soul needed to hear, and my faith was strengthened. I had a renewed love for my Lord. I would recommend this book to anyone, whether or not you've gone through a similar situation, because it may provide a much needed corrective to your current understanding about God.
Summary: Calvinism is all very well until suffering strikes.

User avatar
Candlepower
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:26 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: Calvinism is Strange Indeed

Post by Candlepower » Sat Apr 04, 2015 11:19 am

It would not be an exagerration to say that my views about God, about his relationality, his love, and his pathos, began to change. Reading Theology of the Pain of God revolutionized by relationship to him, increased my faith, and helped me to understand that God was with me...
Very good post, Ian. Thank you.

Calvinism reduces God's love to luck; it replaces faith with fate.

CThomas
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:28 am

Re: Calvinism is Strange Indeed

Post by CThomas » Sat Apr 04, 2015 6:57 pm

I think it's a terrible idea to base your theology on an emotional response to a stressful event. I would say the same thing to the many, many Calvinists who have drawn the precisely opposite emotional lesson from the one you quote above. The fact is that different people have different emotional responses to trying times. Neither this one nor the opposite are any more likely to lead to the truth than the other. So there's at least two points here. First, if some people have this emotional response in favor of non-Calvinism and others have the identical response to Calvinism, then the argument is a wash by its terms. And second, even if everyone on Earth shared this aithor's emotional reaction (which obviously isn't the case), there is still no guarantee that the truth correlates to whatever make us happiest.

dizerner

Re: Calvinism is Strange Indeed

Post by dizerner » Sat Apr 04, 2015 7:03 pm

I agree, basing doctrines on emotions is a presumptuous and foolish thing to do. One can't even count the amount of erroneous things people end up believing just because it feels good to them.

User avatar
psimmond
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Sharpsburg, GA
Contact:

Re: Calvinism is Strange Indeed

Post by psimmond » Sat Apr 04, 2015 10:06 pm

Thanks for pointing out that review, Ian. It reminds me of some of the stuff Jürgen Moltmann wrote on the suffering of God.

God's sovereignty and love, and the fact that he causes all things to work together for good to those who love him and are called according to his purpose, helps me trust him through the tough times.
Let me boldly state the obvious. If you are not sure whether you heard directly from God, you didn’t.
~Garry Friesen

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Calvinism is Strange Indeed

Post by TheEditor » Sat Apr 04, 2015 11:42 pm

So the first question, it seems to me, is how you think God should treat His children. Would you envision a good father as one who protects his children and takes care of them or as one who simply says what the right thing is and then let the chips fall where they may, even if the child rushes headlong to his doom? I ask this because this was the premise of your own challenge to me. You questioned the morality of a father who would allow this to happen, and my only response here is that it's a description of the view you hold, not mine. You don't answer that point in your latest response.


Hi CT,

It appears to me that we both have the same problem, and yet, the only other option to the one I put forth (in my analogy) is the Calvinist model, which adds (to my mind) another layer of absurdity to the conundrum. For example, in the Arminian camp you have it as you say; God "says what the right thing is and then let[s] the chips fall where they may, even if the child rushes headlong to his doom". In the Calvinist camp, God says what is right, and then inflicts the catastrophe upon the child for no apparent reason, and expects the child to view it as "providential". Neither choice is eminently satisfying, but I would say the former is a tad less bitter than the latter. The former is negligent; the latter is sadistic.

I think the real moral question that is driving you here is one that has nothing to do with Calvinism, since it exists on both the Calvinist and non-Calvinist view equally. It is rather the question of the ultimate fate of the lost.


Yes, this does come into play. But the issue of theodicy (which is always hunkered down in the corner of any of these discussions) is probably more germane.

Some would argue that the world is a place to learn and develop character. Characer for what exactly? There are many ideas that I find satisfying to some extent, but none that is specifically laid out in Scripture. It may be that this is the way God intended it; just as He did not lay out in clear language from beginning to end His plans regarding Christ, still, the "hints" were there. Hindsight and divine revelation are the only things that made them apparent after the fact.

So to, perhaps there are things "hinted at" that will become apparent to us, after the fact, and then all of these loose ends can be tied up. In the meantime, we are stuck with what little information we have. In light of all of this, I still bristle at the image of God in the light of Calvinist theology. Summarily dismissing objections as "human emotion" or "feel-goodism" is a cheap cop-out from the heavy lifting. God would be unreasonable and capricious to ask us to pray for our enemies and love those who do us harm, and fail to do so himself. Frankly, I don't believe most Calvinists have really faced head-on the God they say they worship. If they have, and they're still happy about it, Mazel tov. :lol:

Regards, Brenden.

[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

User avatar
psimmond
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Sharpsburg, GA
Contact:

Re: Calvinism is Strange Indeed

Post by psimmond » Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:33 pm

The Editor wrote: It appears to me that we both have the same problem, and yet, the only other option to the one I put forth (in my analogy) is the Calvinist model, which adds (to my mind) another layer of absurdity to the conundrum. For example, in the Arminian camp you have it as you say; God "says what the right thing is and then let[s] the chips fall where they may, even if the child rushes headlong to his doom". In the Calvinist camp, God says what is right, and then inflicts the catastrophe upon the child for no apparent reason, and expects the child to view it as "providential". Neither choice is eminently satisfying, but I would say the former is a tad less bitter than the latter. The former is negligent; the latter is sadistic.
God allows his children, those who have placed their faith in him, the free will to make their own decisions. Yes, he does influence our decisions in various ways, but he doesn't set our nature in a way that is fixed and limits our choices. Our choices change who we are, which in turn affects our choices.

Now, if some of God's children freely choose to rush headlong to their doom, how would that make God negligent? He promised to give eternal life to those who persevere in the faith. He never promised to protect us from hurting ourselves (or from getting hurt by others).
Let me boldly state the obvious. If you are not sure whether you heard directly from God, you didn’t.
~Garry Friesen

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Calvinism is Strange Indeed

Post by Paidion » Sun Apr 05, 2015 3:27 pm

Brenden wrote:So, whereas at Exodus 1:17 the original Hebrew text literally says that the midwives "caused the male children to live," in reality they permitted them to live by refraining from putting them to death. After quoting Hebrew scholars M.M. Kalisch, H.F.W. Gesenius, and B. Davies in support, Rotherham states that the Hebrew sense of the texts involving Pharoah is that "God permitted Pharoah to harden his own heart--spared him--gave him the opportunity, the occasion, of working out the wickedness that was in him. That is all."---The Emphasised Bible, appendix, p. 919; compare Isa. 10:5-7.
Actually some Hebrew lexicons state that the Hebrew word means "to preserve alive." This meaning corresponds to the Greek Septuagint in which the the translation of the word in its lexical form is "ζωγονεω". This word means "to preserve alive" or "to keep alive." Here are two sentences in the New Testament (ESV) which contain the same word.
I have reddened the English translation of that word:

Luke 17:33 Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will keep it.
Acts 7:19 He dealt shrewdly with our race and forced our fathers to expose their infants, so that they would not be kept alive.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Calvinism is Strange Indeed

Post by TheEditor » Sun Apr 05, 2015 4:56 pm

@psimmond

Yes, I was speaking more in terms of the framework of my analogy. Point taken. However, this seems to be more of a discussion of theodicy, which could be a seperate thread I suppose.

@Paidion,

I suppose I was thinking more in terms of the proactive nature of "cause" as opposed to the passive "allow". I "caused" you to stumble by deliberately tripping you, versus I "caused" you to stumble by not grabbing you while you were falling.

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Calvinism is Strange Indeed

Post by Homer » Sun Apr 05, 2015 5:32 pm

Brendon wrote:
God would be unreasonable and capricious to ask us to pray for our enemies and love those who do us harm, and fail to do so himself. Frankly, I don't believe most Calvinists have really faced head-on the God they say they worship. If they have, and they're still happy about it, Mazel tov.
It seems to me our arguments utilizing human father analogies are inadequate. Though Jesus often referenced God as Father I do not think He meant the same thing by it that we do today, and as a result our analogies fall short. As I pointed out over in the thread about 1 Timothy 4:10, if God is like our modern father concept then surely something like Unitarian-Universalism would be true.

But God is not quite up to our standard. He can demand that we pray for our enemies and love those who do us harm, and at the same time forbid us from judging and taking revenge as that is His prerogative, and His alone. He is God and we are not.

Post Reply

Return to “Calvinism, Arminianism & Open Theism”