Hi all,
this is my first topic started on family forum and so I hope it does not irritate or push people in a un-edifying direction. I tend to think due to the dominance of Arm. views no one will be offended as I find less arrogance here than other forums.
I recently argued on T-Web for which I my statement was called "stupid"
I do believe at this time that calvinism has alot in common with racisim. That is that God in some form shows favor over another for ANY REASON.
It seems clear to me that Noah found favor in the eyes of God. Mary did as well in the new testament.
The calvinist pushes a system of which God does indeed show favoritism. Now when paul makes these claims it is based of a jew/gentile difference.
But I am arguing that God choosing some to love and some to hate (Jacob and Esau) for other reasons is EXACTLY the same as CHOOSING them for being black or white skinned.
The calvinist defense is that there is nothing in and of the person selected for love what caused God to love them therfore God is not showing Racism but God does show favoritism (to them fav is synonmous with racisim).
I would argue that God selecting one person to love for no internal or external reason, still constitutes favoritism if the other person (selected for hatred) receives less of a reaction from God.
If I select 10 rats to keep well and feed well and take care of but 100 rats I select to skin alive and give misery to on purpose than have I shown favoritism to 10 rats or not?
Sure it is not racisim calvinists are arguing. But the point is that the principal of racisim is what is evil.
This is why exculisvism is abhorant to me. God loving some and hating others is to me as BACKWARDS as the character of Jesus is proven (in my understanding) of scripture.
The character of God is that the principal of showing favoritism is NOT FOUND IN GOD. For God is good.
Now if one argues to qualify that God does exhitbit favoritism and the favoritism not found in God is Racisim (jew/gentile), then I would agree with calvinism that God may indeed love whites and hate blacks (not because they are jewish or gentile) but because one has dark skin while another fair skin.
If the argument can be twisted to demonstrate that "favoritism" is synonomous with "jew or gentile" only then one could argue that favoritism does not include the COLOR of ones skin. So God hating blacks is not becuase they are GENTILES OR JEWS FOR GOD DOES NOT SHOW FAVORITISM. BUT GOD COULD HATE HIM BECAUSE HE IS BLACK OR HATE HIM BECAUSE HE IS WHITE.
I find the notion that Calvinists do not believe God chose the person for anything internal, to not ESCAPE that God does indeed show favoritism.
In fact it seems that God keeping a remnant is built on the VERY same prinicpal as racisim. For what would be the problem if God says The jew I love and the gentile I hate (they are not my people) if God says I chose the jew NOT BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY DID OR ARE but by my own sov. choice.
if someone would like to make a defense as to why racism and calvinism ARE NOT equals then I would like to hear it.
Again, I am asking here because I find the heart of most posters here to be much more patient and less accusing. I'm sure it happens here but on T-Web mud slinging is a first defense : )
Aug
God shows no favoritism
God shows no favoritism
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Re: God shows no favoritism
Oh good grief.auggybendoggy wrote: if someone would like to make a defense as to why racism and calvinism ARE NOT equals then I would like to hear it.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Re: God shows no favoritism
I must say, that is a great defense.bshow1 wrote:Oh good grief.auggybendoggy wrote: if someone would like to make a defense as to why racism and calvinism ARE NOT equals then I would like to hear it.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
God Bless
I'm not sure what "Oh good greif" means except I'm out of my mind.
I do tend to see them as similar. That is God finds favor with one group over another before they ever do anything good or bad, he determines whom he will love and whom he will hate.
I reailize in Racisim it's a racial divide. Well allegorically speaking is this not what the calvinistic Isreal is all about? God chose a certain race (nation) of people whom he loves and hates the cannanites.
Now I realize it may sound absurd, but it sounds very logical to me and it really is a core reason (I believe) as to why so many people reject the reformed view of God. Justice is God's nature. Love is God's nature so how can it be that God commands us to love our enemies but he does not?
Aug
I do tend to see them as similar. That is God finds favor with one group over another before they ever do anything good or bad, he determines whom he will love and whom he will hate.
I reailize in Racisim it's a racial divide. Well allegorically speaking is this not what the calvinistic Isreal is all about? God chose a certain race (nation) of people whom he loves and hates the cannanites.
Now I realize it may sound absurd, but it sounds very logical to me and it really is a core reason (I believe) as to why so many people reject the reformed view of God. Justice is God's nature. Love is God's nature so how can it be that God commands us to love our enemies but he does not?
Aug
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
bshow1,
Sorry if it comes off offensive. I don't truly mean to be. I do find it odd that our nations (usa) forefathers made biblical cases (like exodus 22)
for slavery. I see the same type of mentality from the calvinists.
It seems that God has bound everyone in slavery to sin and then only plans to release his chosen group because it's his right to do so. This sounds more like zuess than Jesus.
If Jesus' character is a perfect image of God than I think we should carefully note what and who God is from his life and teaching.
It seems then that the prayer on the cross for ignorance in the eyes of calvinist lead me to believe that Jesus dying for us while we were yet sinners is DEMEANED as he died for us while we were elect...
The THRUST of pauls point is that WHILE WE HAD NO HOPE (This is the markings of a reprobate) Christ died for us. For the Elect have one thing good about them which is not of themselves......ELECTION. So when Jesus died for the elect he did so because they are elect and are not destined for hell.
I find this to be COMPLETELY backwards of pauls point. His point is ALL mankind is reprobate (lost) and he died for the reprobate that they can live.
So if this is offensive then so be it but I do believe that calvinism does not offer much to teach the character of God to it's learned but rather teached them to be like their father in heaven...a discriminator.
Aug
Sorry if it comes off offensive. I don't truly mean to be. I do find it odd that our nations (usa) forefathers made biblical cases (like exodus 22)
for slavery. I see the same type of mentality from the calvinists.
It seems that God has bound everyone in slavery to sin and then only plans to release his chosen group because it's his right to do so. This sounds more like zuess than Jesus.
If Jesus' character is a perfect image of God than I think we should carefully note what and who God is from his life and teaching.
It seems then that the prayer on the cross for ignorance in the eyes of calvinist lead me to believe that Jesus dying for us while we were yet sinners is DEMEANED as he died for us while we were elect...
The THRUST of pauls point is that WHILE WE HAD NO HOPE (This is the markings of a reprobate) Christ died for us. For the Elect have one thing good about them which is not of themselves......ELECTION. So when Jesus died for the elect he did so because they are elect and are not destined for hell.
I find this to be COMPLETELY backwards of pauls point. His point is ALL mankind is reprobate (lost) and he died for the reprobate that they can live.
So if this is offensive then so be it but I do believe that calvinism does not offer much to teach the character of God to it's learned but rather teached them to be like their father in heaven...a discriminator.
Aug
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Aug,
To me it seems that the God pictured by the Calvinist and the one I read of in the bible are quite different. I am reminded of Ezekial 18:
Ezekiel 18:1-3 (New King James Version)
1. The word of the LORD came to me again, saying, 2. “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying:
‘ The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
And the children’s teeth are set on edge’?
3. “As I live,” says the Lord GOD, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.
I suspect God's view of Calvinism is the same as the proverb He spoke of through Ezekial; a proverb that could fit right in the Calvinist dogma.
To me it seems that the God pictured by the Calvinist and the one I read of in the bible are quite different. I am reminded of Ezekial 18:
Ezekiel 18:1-3 (New King James Version)
1. The word of the LORD came to me again, saying, 2. “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying:
‘ The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
And the children’s teeth are set on edge’?
3. “As I live,” says the Lord GOD, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.
I suspect God's view of Calvinism is the same as the proverb He spoke of through Ezekial; a proverb that could fit right in the Calvinist dogma.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
Homer,
yes, I agree and probably could find many scriptures that contradict the notions that calvinism refers to.
I am at this point influenced by an article written by Thomas Talbott in the reformed journal back in the eightys.
John Piper and Thomas Talbott got into a debate within the journal and the articles were published.
In my opinion Talbott COMPLETELY OWNED piper. It seems that the two have a real disconnect in their approach to scripture. For this reason I feel they have a hard time with each other. However I feel Talbott understands pipers approach and thus pushes in certain directions for which I do not see piper owning up to.
Talbott (being a christian philospher) CLEARLY believes that scripture should make sense to the reader. In other words, to Talbott, when Jesus says Hate your father and mother, he believes it needs to be understood philisophically and not taken literally.
Piper has the ability to follow this on such a verse however when it comes to romans 9 that GOD HATES ESAU Piper abondons the practice of letting scripture interpret scripture. Though God's nature is love it seems God's nature to piper is also hate (sort of like taoism).
In the article (I will post the link of the article at the end of this post).
Talbott makes a statement that I felt was eleoquent and extremely pointed.
He illustrates that a racist who hates his black neighbor has a moral defect. He then states that if the racist ever comes to the realization and understanding to obey Jesus' command to love thy neighbor as thyself then he will find that he is no longer a racist. And like wise if John Calvin could learn the command to love Servetus as much as himself, then we would find he is no longer a calvinist.
Now it sounds a bit of a strawman but I think Talbott is correct that for a man to discriminate one person over another FOR the self glory (Which Jesus does not do) would defeat the character of God. In other words God did not make some men for hell for his own pleasure. For such a person is on par with the racist who (like the calvinist god) hates his enemies.
How can God hate Esau but love Jacob? If both are sons of Isaac yet God hates one of Isaacs sons?
I'll get that article posted.
Aug
yes, I agree and probably could find many scriptures that contradict the notions that calvinism refers to.
I am at this point influenced by an article written by Thomas Talbott in the reformed journal back in the eightys.
John Piper and Thomas Talbott got into a debate within the journal and the articles were published.
In my opinion Talbott COMPLETELY OWNED piper. It seems that the two have a real disconnect in their approach to scripture. For this reason I feel they have a hard time with each other. However I feel Talbott understands pipers approach and thus pushes in certain directions for which I do not see piper owning up to.
Talbott (being a christian philospher) CLEARLY believes that scripture should make sense to the reader. In other words, to Talbott, when Jesus says Hate your father and mother, he believes it needs to be understood philisophically and not taken literally.
Piper has the ability to follow this on such a verse however when it comes to romans 9 that GOD HATES ESAU Piper abondons the practice of letting scripture interpret scripture. Though God's nature is love it seems God's nature to piper is also hate (sort of like taoism).
In the article (I will post the link of the article at the end of this post).
Talbott makes a statement that I felt was eleoquent and extremely pointed.
He illustrates that a racist who hates his black neighbor has a moral defect. He then states that if the racist ever comes to the realization and understanding to obey Jesus' command to love thy neighbor as thyself then he will find that he is no longer a racist. And like wise if John Calvin could learn the command to love Servetus as much as himself, then we would find he is no longer a calvinist.
Now it sounds a bit of a strawman but I think Talbott is correct that for a man to discriminate one person over another FOR the self glory (Which Jesus does not do) would defeat the character of God. In other words God did not make some men for hell for his own pleasure. For such a person is on par with the racist who (like the calvinist god) hates his enemies.
How can God hate Esau but love Jacob? If both are sons of Isaac yet God hates one of Isaacs sons?
I'll get that article posted.
Aug
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Thank you very much, Aug, for that link! I hadn't known that this exchange ever took place. I printed out the entire exchange. You have given me a precious gift!
I have several copies of Talbott's The Inescapable Love of God in order to loan it to others for their consideration.
I also have a copy of Universal Salvation? The Current Debate.
1. In the first section, Mr. Talbott presents the case for Christian Universalism.
2.In the second, "Biblical Responses" are given by Howard Marshall and Thomas Johnson.
3.In the third "Philosophical Responses" are given by Jerry Walls, and Eric Reitan.
4. In the fourth "Theological Responses" are given by Daniel Strange and John Sanders.
5. In the fifth, "Historical Responses" are given by Morwenna Ludlow and David Hilborn & Don Horrocks.
6. In the sixth and final section, Thomas Talbott responds to his interlocutors.
I have several copies of Talbott's The Inescapable Love of God in order to loan it to others for their consideration.
I also have a copy of Universal Salvation? The Current Debate.
1. In the first section, Mr. Talbott presents the case for Christian Universalism.
2.In the second, "Biblical Responses" are given by Howard Marshall and Thomas Johnson.
3.In the third "Philosophical Responses" are given by Jerry Walls, and Eric Reitan.
4. In the fourth "Theological Responses" are given by Daniel Strange and John Sanders.
5. In the fifth, "Historical Responses" are given by Morwenna Ludlow and David Hilborn & Don Horrocks.
6. In the sixth and final section, Thomas Talbott responds to his interlocutors.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald