Calvinism is Strange Indeed

[steve7150]

steve7150, Arminians and Calvinists both recognize two different wills in God. For example, God allows people to sin although he desires righteousness. Why? Arminians say it's because God's desire for humans to exercise free will is greater. In a similar way, those who are reformed say God desires that all would be saved, but his greater desire is to bring glory to himself and this, apparently, is achieved by withholding his grace from certain people.
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/are ... lls-in-god






Hi Psimmond,
This two will understanding, could it be a man made doctrine to justify inconsistencies? Calvinism says God's will is irresistable and Paul explicitly says God's will is that everyone s/b saved. Do we find another verse about God explicitly stating his will is to glorify himself? We do see various statements about God creating us for his glory but that doesn't contradict his stated will IMHO.
So this limited atonement doctrine seems to me that it flatly contradicts God's stated will, or am i missing something?

[psimmond]

steve7150, Since God, being all-knowing, chose the elect before the foundation of the world, limited atonement doesn't really present a problem; however; I think limited atonement does contradict several passages in scripture, which is why I don't accept it.

As far as Piper's article that I linked to, I think it does a decent job of explaining the difference between how Arminians view God's two wills vs how Calvinists do:

The difference between Calvinists and Arminians lies not in whether there are two wills in God, but in what they say this higher commitment is. What does God will more than saving all? The answer given by Arminians is that human self-determination and the possible resulting love relationship with God are more valuable than saving all people by sovereign, efficacious grace. The answer given by Calvinists is that the greater value is the manifestation of the full range of God's glory in wrath and mercy (Romans 9:22-23) and the humbling of man so that he enjoys giving all credit to God for his salvation (1 Corinthians 1:29).

And I agree with you that our reformed brothers and sisters have interesting ideas about God's strong desire to glorify himself and how He goes about doing it.

dizerner, I'm comfortable talking about God's two wills (antecedent/consequent) or talking about two conditions or aspects of God's will.

[dizerner]

Piper just wants to imply his Calvinist two will doctrine is just a similar variation to what Arminians believe, but it's not so. Under Arminianism God doesn't hide a secret will or hide a secret purpose that contradicts what God himself says. God doesn't hold his hands out all day long begging Israel to return to him, but secretly decreeing and preventing them from doing so. Under Arminianism God actually means what he says at face value, under Calvinism the prescriptive will of God is just a disguise for the ulterior decretal will. Two conditions does not in any conceivable way equal two wills. Whereas if you unconditionally love and hate something you're both schizophrenic and deceitful. Sorry, Piper, we're not just another variation of two wills in God. If I tell my child "Clean your room or your grounded" that's one will not two wills. But if I tell my child "I want you to clean your room but I also don't want you to clean your room" that's two wills.

[CThomas]

(Also, if the non-Calvinist answer is that God allows people to exercise their free will, then why doesn't God at least repair their fallen natures and then let them act freely with a non-fallen nature, where they would be much likelier to repent and be saved?)

Hi CThomas, and God Bless,

Your above quote is quite interesting, for I believe, post resurrection and onward, God in-fact eludes to repairing man's inability to respond to Him of their own "free-will" unfettered. See the following passage:

John 12:32 (YLT) and I, if I may be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.

Therefore, can we at least entertain that Calvinism should bend it's 'Point 3. Limited atonement' in light of John 12:32?

God Bless.

Interesting, Robby. Not quite sure I could go that far, given that presumably the post-resurrection conduct you describe will be limited to the saved, and will not extend to the lost, but it's an interesting set of issues to think about.

Best,

CT

[CThomas]

CThomas,
How did I know you would read that paragraph and then say, "I really don't see the moral point you think is so obvious"?

I think you're right that some non-Calvinists also hold views that fall apart under scrutiny. Unlike Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc., I don't think the Bible teaches that we are born with a fallen nature. I do believe we have a desire to gratify the flesh, but when we place our faith in God, He gives us his Spirit to help us resist sin/die to our sinful desires.

I believe God loves all people (and when I say "love" I mean it in the sense that Jesus and Paul used it). And I believe that God draws all men to him and desires all to be saved. I also believe that this drawing can be, and often is, resisted and rejected. I do not believe the Bible teaches that God creates some people spiritually blind and deaf and through purposeful neglect keeps them in that condition until they die. And then violently punishes them for being spiritually blind and deaf. You seem to think this would demonstrate God's sovereignty and holiness, but I think most people would agree that this would demonstrate God's cruelty and injustice.

Fair enough, my friend. But then this really becomes less of a Calvinist/non-Calvinist issue and more of a question of other doctrinal principles.

[CThomas]

Hi, Brenden. Of course I wouldn't accept your analogy to a ball-bearing rolling down a plane, because a ball-bearing is a non-conscious inanimate object incapable of deliberation and reflection. That is not true of a human being, and that difference is obviously the critical one for purposes of having or lacking moral responsibility.

Hi CT,

You wrote:

The entire point of my argument was to distinguish between two different types of causes, one of which involves external coercion and the other of which involves "causing" by simply creating with certain proclivities and then "allowing" the behavior to occur without supernaturally altering those proclivities. . . .My entire point was to distinguish between causation by coercion and causation by creation-plus-allowance

So, to make it more apparent, you would use the analogy of a man creating a ball-bearing, and then placing that ball-bearing on an incline and allowing physics to take it's course? Okay. But then, to imply that the ball-bearing has culpability for rolling off of the precipice is where I take issue. God has imbued his creation with reason, love and compassion. None of these qualities square with a Creator that would melt the ball-bearing in a furnace (or more accurately, put the sentient ball-bearing into a furnace and make sure it cannot melt, hence intensifying it's suffering) for rolling off said precipice.

P.S. I have no clue why you place a parenthetical question mark after the word exegesis.

Simply, because I do not see Augustine as having engaged in it to achieve his theological paradigm. I believe the record supports that his polarizing idea was born out of a reaction to Pelagius, which caused him to fall back on his pre-conversion paradigm of Greek Determinism. Augustine likely tried to graft Gnostic determinism into Orthodoxy, by dumping the "duality" notion of the Gnostic Manichaeans (with whom he fraternized for a decade), and making the deterministic "cause" monistic.

Regards, Brenden.

[TheEditor]

Okay CT the Adroit, try this one:

You have a child with ADHD. You have a busy road in front of you. You know your child has a fondness for baseballs. A baseball rolls in front of you and into the busy street. You let go of your child's hand and let natural inclinations take their toll. You are a bad Father and certainly not loving. Getting warmer?

Regards, Brenden.

[psimmond]

CThomas wrote: Fair enough, my friend. But then this really becomes less of a Calvinist/non-Calvinist issue and more of a question of other doctrinal principles.

Just to be clear (in case my earlier posts left some doubt), I believe Calvinists' definition of Total Depravity is just one of many flaws in their system. I also think they are wrong when it comes to Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints.

And as I said in my earlier posts, I also disagree with many non-Calvinists, such as the Church of Christ on their view of baptism; Lutherans on their view of Sola fide, infant baptism, and communion; Baptists on their OSAS view, etc., so I don't just pick on the Reformed.

I think Classical Arminianism falls short trying to explain predestination and providence, but overall I think as a system it has much more biblical support than Calvinism.

[CThomas]

Okay CT the Adroit, try this one:

You have a child with ADHD. You have a busy road in front of you. You know your child has a fondness for baseballs. A baseball rolls in front of you and into the busy street. You let go of your child's hand and let natural inclinations take their toll. You are a bad Father and certainly not loving. Getting warmer?

Regards, Brenden.

Definitely getting warmer, but I actually think this one cuts strongly in favor of Calvinism rather than the other way around. Let me try to explain why I think so. I believe that the father in your hypothetical would be a bad father. I believe that a good father would make absolutely sure that his son was saved from the danger of being hit by an automobile, to the extent that it was in his power to do so. Now on which view of God -- Calvinist or non-Calvinist -- is that true of God? Not on the non-Calvinist view, surely. What you have described is exactly what the non-Calvinist says that God does with people. He creates them with this proclivity to sin (fondness for baseballs), then puts them in a world full of baseballs and it's up to them whether they follow their natural inclination or come to their senses and do what they should do. Contrast this with the Calvinist picture. Here, God does exactly what we agree a good father should do. He absolutely preserves and assures the salvation of every last one of His children. (The unsaved are God's creations, but certainly not His children, as Paul repeatedly makes clear, e.g., at Galations 4, where he explains that the saved are adopted to become God's children, plainly showing that we were not His children already.) So I think this analogy supports Calvinism rather than undermining it.

CT

[psimmond]

CT,
I have to say that was a nice comeback