D: Brother Turtle, I'm simply not going to be able to take you seriously if you tell me that truly believe that a Calvinist CANNOT pray "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon me a sinner" meditatively and consciously...and thus experience the presence of the Trinity (Father's Love for Christ, Risen Christ Himself, Holy Spirit) within them as a part of living in the "sacrament of the present moment."

T: Sure, they can pray it meditatively. But what they can’t do is experience that moment as a moment of certainty regarding the unconditional love of God IF they also hold to Calvin’s view of election. That’s the point. Just look at what Calvin believed about God’s love. It’s unconditional (unearned and undeserved), yes. But it’s not universal. God doesn’t have it for all. He in fact has it for very few in comparison to the whole mass of humanity. MOST are not loved unconditionally by God. Most are created for the fire. And even many who believe themselves to be among the elect and evidence election in the reformation of their lives do end up falling away. Calvin’s explanation of this is that God decreed for them a false belief, an apparent (but false) reformation of character and a false sense of certainty. My God, D. How is one to aling one's experience of the moment as an experience of being loved unconditionally given such terms?

In the end, D, there’s no rational or theologically consistent way a Calvinist can experience any present moment as a moment of certainty regarding God’s love as genuinely unconditional love for them. If they DO believe it, they believe it AGAINST their Calvinism. And they certainly can’t justifiably interpret their moment as an empowerment to love others as unconditionally as they believe God loves them SINCE they believe God does NOT love the vast majority of human beings.

It’s a bit frustrating to argue about these things. If you don’t know Calvin on this, why are you defending the ability of his system of thought as beautiful enough to win honest hearts and minds?

But in the end, D, I don’t want to get off into saying what others can subjectively experience. I can only speak confidently about what “I” am able to subjectively experience. And I’m unable to offer loving obedience to Calvin’s God. You want to account for this by attributing it to a defect of character/will, i.e., I’ll only love and serve certain KINDS of Gods and not others. All I can say is that I agree that I’ll only love and serve certain KINDS of Gods. But I take this to be anything but a defect. I in fact thank God for the sensitivity and aesthetic disposition which draws me to the TRUTH about his acts of revelation in history.

D: At this point in my life now, that whole concept (Could God be the Devil?) seems irrelevant in the midst of one-story experience of the Uncreated and Created.

T: And in that case so is your question to Greg irrelevant. But I still think the one-story experience of the uncreated, in order to be an experience of certainty regarding unconditional universal love has to be grounded in some demonstration of God’s love.

Tom

************************************

Tom:
If you don’t know Calvin on this, why are you defending the ability of his system of thought as beautiful enough to win honest hearts and minds?

What the heck are you talking about? Who is trying to say that Calvinism is "beautiful" or anything like that? What?? I'm saying that Greg has conditions upon which he will accept and render honor to His Creator.  He is willing to judge the CHRISTIAN God as unworthy of worship in certain contexts (ie if John Calvin's personal view of election is true).  As does John Piper...and, it seems, you.  And that is just plain true.  You have directly said as much.

Hope that works out for y'all. 

"To take the stand that God is at fault for the presence of evil is implicitly to lose one's relation to God since one now becomes God's judge, which is the very position of evil."

PS: By the way, James Loder...an avid Kierkegaard lover...was a REFORMED theologian/minister.

Post Edited (One Love) : 2/8/2012 7:57:30 PM (GMT-6)

It doesn't seem in either case--Abe or Moses--that there was any captivity to some beauty seen in God's moral nature.  It seems to me that the Lord and Creator spoke to them,  told them to do things, and they obeyed.  They both basically believed that, as God, he could do what he promised, being faithful to his end of the covenant.  Cool.  But that's a LONG WAY from either Abe or Moses believing that God is unconditionally, universally loving BEFORE being willing to obey God's voice.

Post Edited (One Love) : 2/8/2012 7:51:27 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Tom) : 2/9/2012 8:44:27 AM (GMT-6)

"To take the stand that God is at fault for the presence of evil is implicitly to lose one's relation to God since one now becomes God's judge, which is the very position of evil. Thus, to lose one's relationship to God is to lose one's self to evil; to remain agnostic where God and evil are concerned is to lose one's own soul by refusing to choose and implicitly to admit to having a love of God that can be qualified or negated by that which is not God--and thus to confess one neither loves or even knows God."

D: Let's get this totally straight, ok? Greg said that he would not merely "be incapable" of bowing his knee to the "author-of-evil" God...he SPECIFICALLY said that he would tell this God to send him to hell because he couldn't enjoy God's Presence in "heaven" knowing that God had eternally predestined others to eternal torment. Get ALL of that in there. He would NOT be able to ENJOY GOD HIMSELF because of what God had done (ala ECT and EDF). If you say the same thing, hey, that's you.

T: Wait a sec. You’re telling me that God’s character OUTSIDE of your OWN experience of God is of zero interest to you? As long as God blesses YOU, and YOU experience unconditional bliss, you’re fine with him sending the entire race to hell? God’s actions outside of his actions toward YOU don’t affect your view of God whatsoever?

D: The argument I have is this: I don't see Abraham, Moses, or Job doing what Greg would do.

T: Of course we don’t see that. How could we? You asked what Greg would do in heaven upon discovering that God was the monstrous author of evil. We don’t see Abraham in heaven meeting that. We don’t even see Greg flipping God off now. All he said was what he believed he WOULD do in THAT situation. But we do see Abraham insisting upon SOME things about God—that he was just, that he could not possibly intend Isaac’s death to be permanent, etc. There are SOME ‘conditions of character’ that Abraham seems to count on. The question to ask is what Abraham would have felt were he to meet God in heaven like Greg and find out that God isn’t the just God who keeps his promises, etc.

I think it’s self-defeating to conjure up these imaginary scenarios in which we meet some monstrous perversion of God and them point our finger in judgment at people who won’t love him.

Plus, take Greg with a grain of salt. He KNOWS that if it’s Calvin’s God he ends up meeting then whatever he feels or does is determined by God—which kinda empties flipping him off of any meaning. Greg’s simply transporting what he feels now about that view of God to your imagined scenario.

D: If God being the Creator/Sustainer (and the benevolence seen within that) ain't enough for you and Greg, so be it.

T: Thank you for adding “benevolence”! That’s the whole thing. God’s being the unconditionally loving creator/sustainer is plenty enough! With that said, let's imagine your scenario. We show up in heaven on judgment day and discover God is NOT the unconditionally loving creator/sustainer? We find out God is Calvin's God, not the universally benevolent being but rather an UNbenevolent creator/sustainer? One who loves a small percentage of us but who hates the vast majority and enjoys seeing them roast? Is THAT enough for you? I’m just saying I can’t imagine myself getting with that. I can't imagine it NOW. Neither can you. So tell me what will change about judgment day that will change how I reason and feel about it? You're asking us what we'd feel THEN given where we are NOW, D. What ELSE are we supposed to say except that we'll feel and think THEN what we feel and think NOW? If that means my love of God is conditional, then I plead guilty as charged. I can only love love and justice and beauty. I can’t love less than those. Calvin’s God is less than loving and just and beautiful WHATEVER ELSE Calvin and I might agree upon.

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 2/9/2012 9:24:15 AM (GMT-6)

D: What I see is that you, Tom, and Greg really don't want Calvinism to even be considered authentically Christian in existential terms.

T: All we’re saying is that it’s can’t produce in US that which WE believe is authentically Christian.

D: Greg himself has said as much as he calls Calvinism straight up demonic.

T: I don’t need to do that. I mean, we don’t need demons to pervert the truth about God. We can do that without demons. I’m not sure what adding demons explains.

D: If Christ sees fit to manifest Himself to a Calvinist via the Jesus Prayer, how can either you or Greg disqualify that on the basis of a belief in double predestination?

T: Accommodation. Dude, it’s a testimony to the grace and love of God that he doesn’t without himself entirely from us just because we don’t get our theology straight. None of us has all our I’s dotted and T’s crossed.

But let me ask you this, D. Since incorporating what you admit is a more biblical view of God as infinite love, as never giving up on people even post-mortem, as unfailing love that now solidification into evil can shut out, as even loving Satan himself—has there been ANY increase of depth and intensity of experienced love with God? Do you attribute this increase in intensity of aesthetic enjoyment to your changed view of God? Yes or no?

You see the point.

Can a Calvinist experience bliss in the presence of God? Yes. Can a Calvinist be motivated by a conviction that God loves him to love others? As far as he’s able to ignore his belief that he may be decreed by God with a false sense of assurance of God’s love all the while being slated to fall away and suffering in hell (See the problem?), yes.

But more importantly, can his experience be improved upon by abandoning Calvinism and perceiving God as infinite and undying love universal in its scope? I sure think so yes.

Tom

Post Edited (One Love) : 2/9/2012 2:09:15 PM (GMT-6)

"To take the stand that God is at fault for the presence of evil is implicitly to lose one's relation to God since one now becomes God's judge, which is the very position of evil. Thus, to lose one's relationship to God is to lose one's self to evil; to remain agnostic where God and evil are concerned is to lose one's own soul by refusing to choose and implicitly to admit to having a love of God that can be qualified or negated by that which is not God--and thus to confess one neither loves or even knows God."

Post Edited (One Love) : 2/9/2012 2:41:34 PM (GMT-6)

D: If a person's SUPREME IMPORTANCE (ala Whitehead) is on the Creator such that all interests are focused on the Creator and the Creator's interest, then everything that is NOT the Creator will be relativized to the Creator. So, my own pleasure/delight in Creator God is NOT the fundamental importance; it is Creator God HIMSELF that is the central issue.

T: OK this is important, and maybe it’s where we’re approaching this differently. Look, the adjudication between different versions of God that I’m talking about (and I’m sure Greg too) takes place BEFORE one places his/her supreme importance upon God so that all interests are focused upon the Creator. This adjudication is HOW one comes to BE interested supremely in God. Why do we love God (Paul says)? Because God first loved us. So there is a REASON (God's loving us) why we love God supremely. What I’m saying is that SOME versions of God aren’t interesting to me. They’re not beautiful. They don’t attract the supreme devotion you’re talking about. “But some 5 pointers ARE devoted supremely to God” you might say. Really? How do you KNOW that? If someone can give their body to the flames, etc. (1Cor 13) and have not love, on what basis are you concluding that the devotion of a 5 pointer is what God wants it to be and for the REASONS God wants?

My point is we don’t first place our supreme importance upon God and his interests and THEN only start to negotiate the differences between competing versions of God. That makes the differences irrelevant and academic. I see them as crucial. We negotiate those differences in an attempt to offer our supreme devotion to that version of God who is worthy of such devotion--i.e. who 'capture' our interest. God made us that way. That's the aesthetic dimension.

D: Am I glad that God is unconditional, universal Love? Heck, yeah. But me finding God to be that way doesn't mean that I base my God-centeredness on that.

T: Then we just DO relationship with God differently. I’m not interested a God who unconditionally predetermines the majority to hell. Tell me HOW to be supremely in love with that, D. Piper claims to LOVE God that way and be as repulsed by my version of God as I am by his. So we’re just all idolaters?

D: Look at Loder's quote. For a person to say that they are willing to reject/resist God on account of how God treats Creation is NOT having supreme importance on the Creator. That's just seems obvious.

T: What’s obvious about it? Look, I think we can, based on philosophy and good reason, conclude that there is SOME sort of first-cause being out there upon whom we ought and truly want to set our supreme importance. That is arguably what’s “obvious” here. Let’s call that being “God.” Fine. But it doesn’t follow that all candidates fit the bill and deserve such supreme devotion JUST because they sprung to life within the Christian tradition.

D: I'd agree with you on 5 point Calvinism.

T: Then what’s the problem! You asked God about the 5-point God!

Dude, you’ve totally emptied theism and all argument for the existence and supreme importance of God of all aesthetic dimension!

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 2/9/2012 2:45:59 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (One Love) : 2/9/2012 2:53:54 PM (GMT-6)

Maybe God WANTED me to be a Theistic Bootlicker.  Yep.