 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > God’s Two Wills in Openness – March 19 debate | Forum Quick Jump
|
|  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 4/3/2004 4:35 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote: Originally posted by Lee Merrill
Hi POW!
quote: Turns out that "wrath" is a bad translation that keeps being perpetuated.
Well, "thumos" can mean "passion" or "heat," but it does also mean "anger", and I think it means "anger" in Revelation, especially.
Lee, see the post at the top of this page. It says:
quote: The early Latin translations of thymos was ardentio (ardent striving) and/or passio (passion). Later, in the middle ages after Anselm, iracundia (wrath, irate) and furor (anger) came into usage to interpret the Latin Bible's ardentio and passio christi. Protestants naively picked it up even despite the fact that a few of their Greek scholars pointed out it was wrong (bad theology drove scriptural mistranslation).
I think that while it is obviously common for Western traditions to be very used to that "anger" translation, the historical usages RULE. See, above, the various examples the source used!!!!! | | Back to Top | | |
 |  johnmd Registered Member
 Date Joined May 2002 Total Posts : 154 | Posted 4/3/2004 7:17 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi Lee
I appreciate your questions and comments
Lee said I believe that believers can make real choices, if that's where you're stuck. What do you mean by "a real battle" if the outcome is certain? Do you mean the overall outcome, and not the outcome for each participant?
John Says Real or genuine ability to choose defines the nature of man granted by God. A real choice is to rebel against God. Hence, wallah, we have a “real battle.” Real battles produce real pain and real death. Remember the WAR motif was the Spirit's choosing to communicate to man the nature of the case of this world. That is just what Scripture says. There is no such thing in man’s experience as a war where battles are not lost. Even with a far superior protagonist (cp. USA vs Iraq). Scripture and history are replete with “casualties” and martyrs. A man with his head cut off for the sake of the gospel has just encountered a “real battle.” If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. If it looks like a war it is a war.
The only thing that is certain is that God will never leave one who lives by faith. And that in doing so we are participating with God in redeeming the fallen universe. There is really no security that can beat the presence of God. “Lo I am with you always” is the only guarantee one needs regardless of what Satan and evil may bring our way.
Calvin had the same problem that Job’s friends had in trying to find security in a perfect world of concrete order where God’s “will” is always done. They could not handle that evil could just happen. That ambushes could happen. That battles could be lost. Surely Job must have sinned. Surely Job brought this upon himself. And they were all sharply rebuked by the Almighty for their ridiculous theology that disallows arbitrary evil.
Your only other option is that man’s experience is a charade and the free will that you are accountable to God for is an illusion. This renders you a glorified puppet.
Lee said: If the outcome for each participant is not certain, then how is the battle certain?
John says: Great question… 1. Because God declared, “I AM the Almighty.” God is infinitely superior in intellect, wisdom, and power. He WILL win. But He will win fair and square without unfair advantage or orchestration of events or using the torture techniques of the enemy. There is NO darkess AT ALL in the Godhead. 2. Calvary/Easter was ‘The Battle of Armagedon.” God is just now “mopping up.” The war has already been won. Like in Iraq (sort of). But there are still casualties even when cleaning up the mess in war. 3. Consider World War II. Was the outcome ever in doubt after we developed the Atomic Bomb? God has an atomic bomb. His weapon is love. The outcome is certain 4. If one concedes a “God” exists then He will win by definition. He does not need to strong arm His opponent with “omnipotence” although He could. He does not need to know His opponents next move, although He could orchestrate this too. Rather the nature of the case of this world as revealed in Scripture is a fallen world riddled with spiritual warfare. God did not ask for the war. God did not create the war. God does not even “allow” the war. He is responding to the war and redeeming the war in order to prove to the moral universe that only benevolence and not selfishness is the only virtue that will last into eternity. If God sets things up unfairly He violates His credibility and instead of voluntary benevolent fellowship, the moral universe serves Him out of fear, or compulsion, or even worse as robots. There is no fellowship here. There is no genuine love here only God manipulating his creatures to do what He wants them to do. 5. Just trust God to win the war. We limit God when we force Him into a box that declares that He cannot win the war if He does not win each and every battle. Now what He does do is stand in waiting to redeem even the lost battles for those who turn to Him even in defeat and participate in His purpose. We limit God when we trust Him only because of His sheer power or foreknowledge. God does not have to know your next move in order to “win.” God does not have to muscle you into submission in order to win. The modus operandus of God in Scripture is His infinite Wisdom and love. If the definition of God is omniresourceful and omnibenevolent there can be no doubt that good will triumph precisely at the right moment once and for all. We limit the sovereignty of God when we require God to operate in particular way or according to a particular process. Just let God be sovereign without tying Him down to sheer omnipotence. No one could have ever imagined that omnipotence would look like Calvary. He out smarted us all. The power of God to accomplish His purpose is in genuine love—Not the manmade notion of aristocratic dominion and “will.”
Lee says: 1CO 15:24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.
The battle is the Lord's primarily, we get to participate, but it's really his battle. And that's no contest...
John says; Well God does call us colaborers with Him in Scripture. Is this term disingenuous or are we really what God says we are? Is our participation real or not. If not what is the point of our participating. What is the point of calling us colaborers? The process IS a real contest or proving ground for man to declare his loyalty to God and His way of benevolence.
Lee says You seem to say that God experiences defeat if an unbeliever dies. Maybe not, though! I think we may hope that God will bring everyone to repentance and faith.
1TI 2:4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
And I don't believe God will be frustrated...
John says That is Universalism. Hence our assumptions and exegesis of Scripture are so vastly different that there can not be meaningful debate with this one. Sure God wants and hopes all will come to repentance and faith. Indeed, He does everything He can to bring this to pass. But hope is different from certainty. Hence if there is one person in Hell, then God does not get His way. The gospel writer documents "the rich man" in hell. Did God cause that or determine that? Revelation tells us there will be many cast into the lake of fire. In doing this the Father destroys all dominion and authority and power of selfishness and evil to challenge the way of benevolence. That is my take on I Cor 15:24…Not that all men will be saved. And what of Satan the most beautiful of all the angels? Yet he rebelled. Did God cause Satan to rebel? Did God want Satan to rebel? No. God did not even allow Satan to rebel. Couching the discussion in these sorts of terms (esp. “allow”) misses the point, begs the question, and is counterintuitive. Saying God allowed Satan or man to rebel is no more meaningful than saying I “allowed” my daughter to kill someone in an accident by allowing her to drive.
Furthermore God is grieved at sin and when one of His created beings chooses to rebel and go to Hell. Is God being disingenuous when He tells us He is grieved for that which He caused
God created an environment in which love is possible. That is God’s one and only will. That is the will of God that Jesus prayed would be done on earth as in heaven. God created the environment rendering genuine love and fellowship possible because love is a good thing. The buck stops there. Man screwed up the environment and all of history is a testimony of the all wise and loving God responding to and redeeming His creation so that the moral universe can fellowship with Him in holy benevolence for all eternity.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  johnmd Registered Member
 Date Joined May 2002 Total Posts : 154 | Posted 4/3/2004 7:53 PM (GMT -6) |   | Spen Lake I missed your response again
Spen Lake said: Are you saying that God only responds to evil to mean that he is only "reactive" and not "proactive?" If this is the case, it doesn't change the basic argument. Take something like a "time bomb" that a man used his freewill to construct and plant. The man's sin of the act of bombing is completed before the bomb explodes. If God knows (with present knowledge only, no foreknowledge) that this bomb will explode and kill innocent women and children, and He doesn't intervene, He has allowed this evil act to occur even in your "reactive" solution. It seems that this reactive response is just another attempt to hide the "allowing will" behind a smokescreen. You do have the option to claim that God isn't powerful enough or able to intervene, but that would redefine God and make him un-god.
You are free to believe in whatever you wish, but your arguments declaring that you don't believe in an "allowing will" but do believe in an all powerful God who can intervene if He chooses seem feeble and hollow. "Responsive reacion" is no answer.
John says: See my response to Lee Above. “Allow” is a meaningless term in the environment God created. God created an environment that has been corrupted against His will. He has since been actively, proactively, responsively, etc. responding to evil, prophylaxing against evil, drawing man to repentance with His kindness, judging man for evil, etc., etc., etc., and redeeming His creation to His glory in achieving His desired end of sharing genuine fellowship and love eternally with man. That is His one “will.” And He “allows” nothing that would deter His one will. Rather, He has brought, is bringing, and continues to bring all the power of heaven to bear against anything deters from His ONE will.
A corrupt world where bombs explode is the nature of the case God is fighting to redeem. Rote intervention as you propose does not account for God’s stated purpose in creation which does not give God the option of intervening at every turn if genuine love and fellowship with man is to be accomplished in creation. MAN MADE THE CHOICE FOR THE TIME BOMB. Now man must choose God in the environment of the time bomb in order to participate with God in redemption of the fallen world. God certainly could choose to intervene at every turn, hence His power is not limited. However, that would redefine the world that He created and render His purpose in creation defeated. God does not “allow” that which He is fighting to redeem. You see. The term applied in this context is meaningless and nonsensical.
Now in Calvin’s robotic world God intervenes, manipulates, orchestrates, determines and causes. Those are the rules of creation for Calvin’s God. However, genuine love and fellowship with God intuitive to man’s experience of love is not possible in this kind of world. That is the smoke screen of Calvin—A robotic world which makes a counterintuitive and nonsensical claim of love.
Blessings
John | | Back to Top | | |
  |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 4/4/2004 2:29 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote: Originally posted by johnmd
Now in Calvin’s robotic world God intervenes, manipulates, orchestrates, determines and causes. Those are the rules of creation for Calvin’s God. However, genuine love and fellowship with God intuitive to man’s experience of love is not possible in this kind of world. That is the smoke screen of Calvin—A robotic world which makes a counterintuitive and nonsensical claim of love.
I just HATE strawmen! (I'm sure that your descriptions fit some "Calvinists" you've known. But that's NOT John Calvin!)
Of Calvin, "His own personal world, therefore, as well as the cosmos at large, remained ever uncertain."
.......From Spirituality as the Performance of Desire: Calvin on the World as a Theatre of God's Glory, by Belden C. Lane, Saint Louis University...............
quote: In his eloquent commentary on Romans 8:19-23, Calvin pictured every part of creation as engrossed in longing for a common wholeness not yet revealed. 61 "There is no element and no part of the world which, touched with the knowledge of its present misery, is not intent on the hope of the resurrection."
quote: Although the purpose of this world theatre, as Calvin conceived it, was the evocation of praise, it was a praise nonetheless rooted in a deep sense of precariousness. Susan Schreiner points out that Calvin's conception of the world as theatre of God's glory is inseparably related to his understanding of the terrible effects of the Fall on the natural world. Reading passages like Psalm 104:5-9, Calvin perceived the cosmos as profoundly fragile, constantly on the verge of chaos as a result of human sin. Only God's immediate restraining hand is what holds back, at any moment, for example, the threat of the waters of oblivion. 28 A medieval cosmology underlay his thinking at this point, convincing him that water is an element inherently lighter than earth. The natural tendency of the world's oceans, therefore, is to overwhelm the land. Only the continual commandment of God is what preserves the existence of dry earth as a virtual miracle from one moment to the next. 29
There is no evidence that Calvin ever saw the sea, yet storms on Lake Geneva coming down from the Alps certainly stirred his anxious imagination about the instability of the natural order. He wrote of the ocean's "great surges and hideous waves," saying that, "nothing is more terrifying than a tempestuous sea," a horror "so frightening that one's hair stands up on one's head." 30 Thunderstorms similarly occasioned the sense of numinous awe that he knew to lie at the heart of all authentic religious experience. "We only praise God aright when we are filled and overwhelmed with an ecstatic admiration of the immensity of his power." 31
Anxiety and praise were intimately interconnected in Calvin's experience. Bouwsma speaks of him as "a singularly anxious man," viewing human existence as a perpetual crisis of anxious indecision, echoed even in the deep contingency of nature itself. 32 Throughout his life, Calvin searched for assurances of God's order in the fragile world around him. His mother had died when he was but four years old, his father quickly remarrying and shunting him off to a neighboring family where he received his earliest education. Exiled in later years from France, the home and country he most loved, he never felt fully at home in Geneva. Moreover, he and his wife lost in infancy all three of the children born to them. His own personal world, therefore, as well as the cosmos at large, remained ever uncertain. 33
.
Nasty Strawmen........"hupmphredustublutisthymusdz"........... | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 4/4/2004 2:34 AM (GMT -6) |   | Lane, of Calvin:
quote: The theatre of God's glory invites us beyond ourselves, at last, to an awe that intensifies at the wonder of species added to species. Multiplicity in creation contributes to the arithmetic of praise. "If we compare a hawk with the residue of the whole world, it is nothing," Calvin said. "And yet if so small a portion of God's works ought to ravish us and amaze us, what ought all his works do when we come to the full numbering of them?"(Sermon on Job 39:22-35, CO 35:432.) Ravishment, in the end, is God's purpose in bringing the whole world "to its feet" in ecstatic applause as the curtain falls on God's own passionate performance of desire. Smitten by longing, we stand at the end in speechless awe, madly clapping our hands in hope of another encore, determined--if we can help it--that the performance never end. We cannot imagine (much less even hope) that God in God's astounding love, is all the while a sucker for such longing, that God is just as eager to continue to perform as we are to enjoy. Held indefinitely in that strange and awesome embrace, in the joyous meeting of God's desire and our own, we and the whole world with us are sustained by praise.
| | Back to Top | | |
  |  johnmd Registered Member
 Date Joined May 2002 Total Posts : 154 | Posted 4/4/2004 4:36 AM (GMT -6) |   | John posted earlier:John: A corrupt world where bombs explode is the nature of the case God is fighting to redeem. Rote intervention as you propose does not account for God’s stated purpose in creation which does not give God the option of intervening at every turn if genuine love and fellowship with man is to be accomplished in creation.
Spenlake said: Thus you have "ungodded" God and state that God cannot intervene to prevent evil. I ask a question, "Can God create a rock so big He couldn't lift it." Your solution poses the identical implications. Can God will somthing so separated from His will that He couldn't intervene with His will." Rote intervention accounts for the creator's unique and unaltered right to intervene in His creation.
John says: Actually it is Calivinsim that disconnects God from logic. God doesn’t will anything separate from His will like creating a robotic world and calling it love. Let’s take your abstraction (this is a stretch) and bring it down to earth. God wills to create a free will environment for the purpose of love and He “wills” to respect the rules and implications of His decision. That is His will…To achieve love in a free will environment. Only God can do that and He in fact has done that. His will is not schizophrenic to “intervene” in that which He willed in the first place. You limit God’s sovereignty if you say this can’t be done.
GOD chose to create the world as it is to achieve His pupose of love. There are many things God cannot do. For example, He cannot lie. He cannot love sin. He cannot create square circles. Just because God can't do something does not un-god Him. He can change the definition of a circle such that it now looks like a square but that just begs the question.
Likewise, God cannot save a man in the context of a genuinely free world who choses to rebel against Him. He can violate his genuine freedom but then again that would be Calvin's world and not the world God created as revealed in Scripture. Calvin, ignoring genuine free will detaches God from what is revealed in Scripture of the nature of man.
You have placed God in a box and limited His sovereignty by submitting that He cannot accomplish His will in the free will environment that HE CHOSE TO CREATE.
Again, the modus operadus of God as revealed in Scripture is LOVE not the rote power you describe. Calvin's God looks more like Zeus than Jesus.
Your "rock" question is nonsensical. So you explain to me HOW God creates a rock so big He can't lift it. Your anticipated response... He just does because He is God begs the question. You echo a hollow argument. God simply cretaes the rock He wants to create according to whaT HE DEFINES A ROCK TO BE. IF He CHOSE TO CREATE A ROCK SO BIG HE COULDN'T LIFT IT tHAT WOULD SIMPLY BE UP TO HIM.
I concede the robotic world of Calvin is a viable and logical possibility. I just do not believe that God chose this option. For a world of compatablistic robots is not the revelation of Scripture and does not achieve God's stated purpose of love.
The difference between me and you at least according to the exercise of rheatoric is that I respond meticulously to your every sentence in the context you provide. You on the other hand respond with these "hit and run" vineetes ignoring the mountain of other data provided in the context that I provide. Am I to assume you agree. If so we are not very far apart.
Sorry for the rant.
God simply established creation with certain rules that HE ALSO CHOSE TO ABIDE BY. That was simply His choice. He could choose otherwise. I assume that His choice is a good won and is perfectly consistent with being God. After all God only does God-things. To violate the rules He established and chose to abide by renders the schizophrenic (hidden) God Calvin proposes. Again He COULD violate His rules but that would be a different world that He reveals to man in Scripture.
Blessings, John
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  feelinahole Registered Member
 Date Joined Jan 2004 Total Posts : 754 | Posted 4/4/2004 6:11 AM (GMT -6) |   | Lee: I think JohnMD pointed something out very important. Your use of "allow" shows that you want to be a Calvinist with the benefits of an Arminian. You need to crouch your arguments as a pure Calvinist, if that is what you claim to be. God doesn't "allow" anything, but plans everything. Again, whether or not God is "primary," or not,God not did not "allow" Joesph's brothers to sin. He predestined it because he wanted it. Therefore God authored and is responsible for their sin. How can a God do something with good intent when he makes someone sin? | | Back to Top | | |
 |  feelinahole Registered Member
 Date Joined Jan 2004 Total Posts : 754 | Posted 4/4/2004 6:15 AM (GMT -6) |   | | POW: the strawman is real...and JohnMD is discussing the belief system predominantly. Get with the program, man! | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 4/4/2004 8:11 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote: Originally posted by feelinahole
POW: the strawman is real...and JohnMD is discussing the belief system predominantly. Get with the program, man!
Lane: "Anxiety and praise were intimately interconnected in Calvin's experience. Bouwsma speaks of him as "a singularly anxious man," viewing human existence as a perpetual crisis of anxious indecision, echoed even in the deep contingency of nature itself."
Calvin on the "openness" of nature, its contingency...
(Harold, read Lane!) | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 4/4/2004 8:29 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote: Originally posted by feelinahole
...to be a Calvinist ... as a pure Calvinist ... plans everything ... predestined it because he wanted it.
GET TO KNOW THE REAL CALVIN -- The one that never imagined "TULIP."
quote: Calvin's Theology of Nature: The Fragility of the World and the Necessity of Performative Praise
Although the purpose of this world theatre, as Calvin conceived it, was the evocation of praise, it was a praise nonetheless rooted in a deep sense of precariousness. Susan Schreiner points out that Calvin's conception of the world as theatre of God's glory is inseparably related to his understanding of the terrible effects of the Fall on the natural world. Reading passages like Psalm 104:5-9, Calvin perceived the cosmos as profoundly fragile, constantly on the verge of chaos as a result of human sin. Only God's immediate restraining hand is what holds back, at any moment, for example, the threat of the waters of oblivion
. . .
Calvin knew that all that keeps the world at large from falling apart in any instant is the intimate and immediate act of God's continual creation--an astounding performance unceasingly witnessed by the rest of creation and evoking its praise. He argued that, "Unless the Spirit of the Lord attracts everything [subtraho: "drawing it up from beneath"], it all lapses back into nothingness." 35 God sustains what God creates by the very act of taking delight in it. As Calvin put it, "The stability of the world depends on the rejoicing of God in his works."(Comm. Ps. 104:31. CO 32:97; CTS 11:170. ) The answer to anxiety, as he understood it, is found not only in the order that God establishes, but also in the desire that God expresses (and elicits from others). The latter makes possible the former. The world is a theatre of desire, where the display of God's own continual longing is met by the thunderous applause (and yearning) of creation itself. Humans, in turn, are meant to lead the rest of creation in praising the One for whom they all yearn yet know they cannot possess. Such, after all, is the nature of praise--a cry of ceaselessly unsatisfied longing, contributing to the very wholeness it seeks.
Calvin could even say, "If on earth such praise of God does not come to pass . . . then the whole order of nature will be thrown into confusion and creation will be annihilated." 36 The continuity of the earth rests on the capacity of the created world to participate in the perfect delight that God takes in all God has made. If God's creation of the universe is not consciously and deliberately celebrated, it remains radically at risk. From Calvin's perspective, then, what we would call ecological viability depends upon the exercise of praise. The world is sustained by worship.
Not the role that God has ordained man to play -- where God's will in Creation is hostage (Not his glory or his ultimate will -- but a definite "openness" here; in Calvin!) to our participation.
Reformed thinkers divide this into "Structure" and "Direction." And in our being image-bearers, our bearing the image" is the enduring creational "structure" dispite sin; while the failure and dis-ability to escape sin (the "totality"-in-extent of depravity) is the mis-"direction" (away from God) that sin causes, and which also sustains sinning.
"Reformed" thought is close to Orthodox; while popular "Calvinism" (NOT Calvin himself) is not. (Calvin's "Institutes" was, in his consideration, not a theological work but a guide to piety!)
More about the REAL John Calvin:
quote: While the maintenance of the world does not rest (as such) on the prayers of the faithful, God nonetheless solicits from God's creation a prayerful longing for interconnectedness that tends to engender its own reality.
And:
quote: The Genevan Reformer's sense of God's intimate relation to the natural world was so intense--he perceived God's radiant glory to pervade and uphold the world so completely--that in an extravagant stretch of language he could even declare the radical unity of nature and God.
. . . It can be said reverently, provided that it proceeds from a reverent mind, that nature is God; but because it is a harsh and improper saying, since nature is rather the order prescribed by God, it is harmful in such weighty matters, in which special devotion is due, to involve God confusedly in the inferior course of his works. 40
The world, for John Calvin, is permeated with God's Shekinah glory. Even though God's "unveiled essence" can never be discerned there, nature is nonetheless shot through with the energies of God's glory. 41 In thus connecting God so closely with the natural world, Calvin readily identified himself with a Stoic conception of nature, affirming (with his beloved Seneca) that God's providential hand could be observed everywhere in the universe. 42 By contrast, he repudiated an Epicurean view that sharply distanced nature from the divine. 43 Calvin claimed that
. . . to make God a momentary Creator, who once for all finished his work, would be cold and barren, and we must differ from profane men [the Epicureans] especially in that we see the presence of divine power shining as much in the continuing state of the universe as in its inception. (Institutes I.16.1.)
His theology (and spirituality) of nature took seriously the frailty of the world, but he found hope for the whole of creation in the sustained celebration of God's glory continuously pervading every single part of it.
You've got a friend in John Calvin!
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  johnmd Registered Member
 Date Joined May 2002 Total Posts : 154 | Posted 4/4/2004 9:33 AM (GMT -6) |   | POW Posted Posted - 04/04/2004 : 07:29:44 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by johnmd
Now in Calvin’s robotic world God intervenes, manipulates, orchestrates, determines and causes. Those are the rules of creation for Calvin’s God. However, genuine love and fellowship with God intuitive to man’s experience of love is not possible in this kind of world. That is the smoke screen of Calvin—A robotic world which makes a counterintuitive and nonsensical claim of love. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just HATE strawmen! (I'm sure that your descriptions fit some "Calvinists" you've known. But that's NOT John Calvin!)
Of Calvin, "His own personal world, therefore, as well as the cosmos at large, remained ever uncertain."
.......From Spirituality as the Performance of Desire: Calvin on the World as a Theatre of God's Glory, by Belden C. Lane, Saint Louis University...............
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In his eloquent commentary on Romans 8:19-23, Calvin pictured every part of creation as engrossed in longing for a common wholeness not yet revealed. 61 "There is no element and no part of the world which, touched with the knowledge of its present misery, is not intent on the hope of the resurrection." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John says Well, as they say, "The acorn does not fall far from the tree. Calvin's immediate successor embraced rabbid double predestination.
Your references and declarations of Calvin begs the question.
That Calvin "pictured every part of creation as engrossed in longing for a common wholeness not yet revealed," is common sense for even an 8 year old who watches the news.
The question is not the ability to perceive that all creation groans. The question is who did that. Calvin and his successors proposed a theodicy and contorted view of sovereignty in which there is a "hidden" God ultimately driving the whole system. Ultimately Calvin's God brings about the groaning of creation and then grieves over what He has brought about.
Michael Servantes did not "have a friend" in Calvin as Calvin ordered the green wood to be lit. With friends like Calvin who needs enemies. With a God like Calvin's who needs a Satan. Satan becomes superfluous to the plot. He is a mere puppet.
Now Calvin's "hidden" God is certainly no "straw man" in Calvin's mind and proposals. And it is the hidden God that creates the paradox (actually the contradiction)of Calvin's system. Ultimately it is the agenda of the Calvin's hidden God that is what I have been addressing in various forms on this board. That is the concern.
What I hate is cavalier use of the "straw man" argument with a rebuttle that does not even address the "straw man" but chases a stray rabbit. You have regurgatated quotes from sources attempting futily to "reconstruct" Calvin. We need others to help us exegese the Scripture. What is the point of others helping us to exegese the "exegeser." We have his INSTITUTES. and they are clear. Where they are not clear they are irrelevant as are other commentaries that require clarification. That is the goal of a commentary--to clarify--not require clarification themselves.
Regardless, even if Calvin was as you say do you agree that the Calvinism that has emerged directly from his teachings is a contortion of Scripture? That is my concern more so than the man himself because of what Calvinism does to the holy character of God.
Blessings
John
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 4/4/2004 11:46 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote: Originally posted by johnmd
John says Well, as they say, "The acorn does not fall far from the tree. Calvin's immediate successor embraced rabbid double predestination.
But Calvin's writings -- his own -- concerned themselves with aiming at piety, with devotion, and with stirring it up in others.
Part of his greatest contribution to the Reformation was his return to the CREATION part of Creation/Fall/Redemption picture. The Kuyperian line of thinking continues that. And THAT is a medicine to help lessen the TULIP rash! The Canon's of Dort suffer from that; while the Heidelberg Confession does have a Creational emphasis that needs nurturing. Calvin's commentary on Genesis is well worth reading.
The actual Synod of Dort refuted the "double predestination" position, BTW!!! And its focus, too, was not to dictate who was saved -- it made stern warning against doing so!!! The Canons's are largely a pastoral document for offering encouragement for those who's self-condemnation needs redirection to take comfort in God's love and aid.
quote: Originally posted by johnmd
Regardless, even if Calvin was as you say. . .
John says that he does won't be concerned with the man himself -- that does not interest him -- but that his interest is in building a case from what a mob alleges.
.
That what I just wrote is not for johnmd--by his own selected tone--seems likely.
But there are many others here, both "pro-'Calvinism'" and "anti-" who's free reading and consideration he cannot affect. And they have read.
.
quote: Calvin spoke of the psalms as teaching him to "bear the cross" as well as to be "inflamed with desire." He found in the psalter "all the griefs, sorrows, fears, doubts, hopes, cares, perplexities, in short, all the distracting emotions with which the minds of men are wont to be agitated." Preface to the Psalms Commentary, CO 31:15-16, CTS 8:xxxvii-xl.
But it is necessary to put this dreadful 'predestination' business "in its place!"
quote: The Metaphor of the Theatre in Calvin's Thought
Recent scholarship in Calvin Studies has emphasized that the sixteenth-century Genevan Reformer's theology was not so much governed, as traditionally thought, by an over-arching "system" centered on a unifying doctrine of (for example) predestination, as it was by "the constant reappearance of favorite images, metaphors, or figures of speech." 11 Formed by his training as a Renaissance humanist, Calvin's language was consistently more rhetorical than it was dialectical. The metaphor of the theatre, for instance, was one of his favorite ways of summarizing the sweeping epic of Christian salvation. "In the vast theater of heaven and earth," Ford Lewis Battles says of Calvin, "the divine playwright stages the ongoing drama of creation, alienation, return, and forgiveness for the teeming audience of humanity itself." 12 The theatre in which the drama unfolds is, in its broadest sense, the whole created world. There, through a display of astounding beauty, God summons all creation to take delight in common praise. More narrowly, however, the theatre of God's glory is the church, that particular company of players who most fully have grasped (and been grasped by) the drama enacted on the wider stage. They are the ones who apprehend worship as the audience's most appropriate response to God's dramatic performance.
In this way, the image of the theatre became an organizing metaphor in Calvin's thought, putting worship at the heart of his theology. 13 The human adoration of God, and its extension throughout the rest of creation, was, in fact, the stated purpose toward which Calvin originally directed his Institutes of the Christian Religion. His theological masterpiece might best be read as a summa pietatis rather than as a summa theologica. In the long subtitle of the first edition of the Institutes (1536), Calvin described his book as "encompassing almost the whole sum of piety [pietatis summam] and whatever it is necessary to know about the doctrine of salvation, a work most worthy to be read by all who are zealous for piety." (OS I:19) Doxology was for him the chief goal and delight of all created beings. He knew that theology remains unfinished until it concludes itself in spirituality.
THE FOCUS MUST BE ON GOD, AND ON OUR PARTICIPATION WITH GOD WHILE IN THE CHURCH AND IN THE WORLD. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  johnmd Registered Member
 Date Joined May 2002 Total Posts : 154 | Posted 4/4/2004 11:56 AM (GMT -6) |   | POW Certainly there are grains of truth amongst Calvin's writings. I have read them thoroughly and continue to reference them. But that was not the issue.
The issue for me is Truth particularly as it has been corrupted by the "TULIP rash." On this we agree then? TULIP is a "rash" that needs the ointment of truth.
Even conceding your proposition of a kinder gentler Calvin that does not murder people over petty theological differences, Calvin is just a little too close to this bankrupt theology for me to view his other stuff without a jaundiced eye--I just advise being very careful when reading Calvin in a search for other truths that he does offer in his writings.
Blessings John
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 4/4/2004 12:05 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote: "If ever there was a theologian who saw the universe sacramentally it was Calvin," writes Nicholas Wolterstorff. "For him, reality was drenched with sacrality. . . . Calvin's reforms meant a radical turn toward the world. But for him . . . the world to which one turns is a sacrament of God."
For those atune to what Calvin really intuited, and found in the Fathers, there is not a dualism of two minds. Rather there are two directions. And it is man who either entertains the "antithesis" (Calvin's word) or lives the "thesis" (as in 'theo') of God's world in worship and praise, and communion with God and man.
No sacrament can be double-minded. The world and life itslef is "sacramental" (in both Reformed and in Orthodox understanding). There ARE "two minds" -- but they are for OUR mind; not God's.
Will WE have the mind of Christ? Or will we follow the mind of original sin?
"Decide this day whom ye shall serve." | | Back to Top | | |
 |  johnmd Registered Member
 Date Joined May 2002 Total Posts : 154 | Posted 4/4/2004 12:58 PM (GMT -6) |   | POW if ever there was a theologian who saw the universe sacramentally it was Calvin," writes Nicholas Wolterstorff. "For him, reality was drenched with sacrality. . . . Calvin's reforms meant a radical turn toward the world. But for him . . . the world to which one turns is a sacrament of God."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For those atune to what Calvin really intuited, and found in the Fathers, there is not a dualism of two minds. Rather there are two directions. And it is man who either entertains the "antithesis" (Calvin's word) or lives the "thesis" (as in 'theo') of God's world in worship and praise, and communion with God and man.
No sacrament can be double-minded. The world and life itslef is "sacramental" (in both Reformed and in Orthodox understanding). There ARE "two minds" -- but they are for OUR mind; not God's.
Will WE have the mind of Christ? Or will we follow the mind of original sin
"Decide this day whom ye shall serve." John says: Was Michael Servantes life part of the sacrement of the world when Calvin burned him? Was Calvin being doubleminded when he ordered his death? Was Calvin living the "thesis"
I say Calvin was teaching and living his own thesis in contradistinction to the thesis of Scripture.
You are talking around me and regurgatating commentary on Calvin that continue to beg the question. Actions speak louder than words. Abstract commentary is virtually meaningless in contrast to the life one lived. And Calvin's life is not a pretty sight.
I don't expect theologians to be perfect...But in any culture murder over such petty differences is so removed from the revelation of God that Calvin purports to expound that I just have to be skeptical not necessarily of his every thought but certainly of his system of thought that drove him to such extreme pagan practice. Where orthopraxy veers off course orthodoxy cannot be far behind.
Blessings John | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Lee Merrill booted

Date Joined Jun 2001 Total Posts : 723 | Posted 4/4/2004 1:56 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi John,
quote: Remember the WAR motif was the Spirit's choosing to communicate to man the nature of the case of this world. That is just what Scripture says. There is no such thing in man’s experience as a war where battles are not lost.
Scripture says "there was war in heaven" (Rev. 12:7), and that was a complete victory, apparently, no mention of any success by the devil there.
quote: A man with his head cut off for the sake of the gospel has just encountered a “real battle.” If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. If it looks like a war it is a war.
REV 12:11 They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death.
They were killed, and "they overcame him," that's a victory, and not a defeat!
quote: Calvin had the same problem that Job’s friends had in trying to find security in a perfect world of concrete order where God’s “will” is always done. They could not handle that evil could just happen. That ambushes could happen. That battles could be lost. Surely Job must have sinned. Surely Job brought this upon himself. And they were all sharply rebuked by the Almighty for their ridiculous theology that disallows arbitrary evil.
God says to Job's friends "my servant Job, my servant Job." I think his rebuke to them was that Job was righteous, though his friends insisted he must be wicked. Evil doesn't just happen, either:
JOB 1:15 ... and the Sabeans attacked and carried them off. JOB 1:21 ... and the Lord has taken away.
The Sabeans did it, God did it...
quote: Your only other option is that man’s experience is a charade and the free will that you are accountable to God for is an illusion. This renders you a glorified puppet.
I believe that God's children have real freedom, that God's will allows real choices (John 8:36). But unbelievers are slaves to sin (Tit. 3:3), they are not free (John 8:34), they are puppets (2 Tim. 2:26), not glorified, either!
quote: No one could have ever imagined that omnipotence would look like Calvary. He out smarted us all. The power of God to accomplish His purpose is in genuine love—Not the manmade notion of aristocratic dominion and “will.”
Yes, Paul calls the cross the weakness of God, ad the demonstration of God's love, but also the power of God, stronger than man's strength (1 Cor. 1:25). The weakest God can get, he overcomes with power, and it was his will (Acts 4:28).
quote: Sure God wants and hopes all will come to repentance and faith. Indeed, He does everything He can to bring this to pass. But hope is different from certainty.
I believe all God's desires will be fulfilled, that he won't be frustrated. I don't think it's good to state categorically that all will be saved, for there are verses that lead us to fear that some will be lost forever. I'll let God work out the details! But I do think we may take the assurances with the warnings, and still hope that all will be saved.
quote: Revelation tells us there will be many cast into the lake of fire. In doing this the Father destroys all dominion and authority and power of selfishness and evil to challenge the way of benevolence. That is my take on I Cor 15:24…Not that all men will be saved.
1CO 15:28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
"All in all" implies more to me than just unwilling subjection and punishment of unbelievers, though. It might mean that. But it might mean more...
quote: God did not even allow Satan to rebel. Couching the discussion in these sorts of terms (esp. “allow”) misses the point, begs the question, and is counterintuitive.
I agree, I try to be careful not to say or imply that.
quote: Is God being disingenuous when He tells us He is grieved for that which He caused.
I can discipline a child, cause the punishment, and yet be grieved.
quote: From a comment to Spen: For a world of compatablistic robots is not the revelation of Scripture and does not achieve God's stated purpose of love.
I think God's children love him freely, we love our brothers and sisters freely, for sure:
GAL 5:13 You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love.
quote: FIH wrote: Again, whether or not God is "primary," or not,God not did not "allow" Joesph's brothers to sin.
This is a misunderstanding, I agree, God does not just allow sin. I think Scripture teaches that God is the primary cause of sin, with secondary causes being the source of the sin. Which we have discussed!
quote: POW: Doxology was for him the chief goal and delight of all created beings. [Calvin] knew that theology remains unfinished until it concludes itself in spirituality.
This is certainly true. But my examples of sinful actions having God as the primary cause comes from Calvin, actually. John's comment is certainly apt here, I think, is the current understanding of Calvinism true?
Blessings, Lee ================================================== "Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
 |  feelinahole Registered Member
 Date Joined Jan 2004 Total Posts : 754 | Posted 4/4/2004 1:59 PM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
  |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 4/4/2004 3:25 PM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |  feelinahole Registered Member
 Date Joined Jan 2004 Total Posts : 754 | Posted 4/4/2004 5:42 PM (GMT -6) |   | Lee: simply asserting that God is the primary cause, yet is not responsible for sin is not going to work for me no matter how many bible verses you quote (given that, a)scholars who were/are dedicated Christians have disagreed over the nature of God's sovereighty and, therefore, b) I consider this a problem of logic, rationally and common sense, not a biblical problem), interpreted through what I consider a wrong view of God's sovereigty (I can NEVER spell that word right!). I, for one, believe God is the primary cause of everything. He causes us by his power, allowing us to assert ourselves by his power, allowing us to be independant of him by his power. However, that is not what Calvinists believe. They believe that by God's own will, and by nothing we would or could do, he predestined what each of us will do. Yet he is not responsible for our sin. You assert this. You do not prove this. Therefore you have not proven anything. I can say, for instance that A) I made a robot to kill, yet B) I did not kill, the robot actually killed so I am not responsible. Yet no judge would accept this. You need to, A), show how this is possible logically, rationally, and with common sense, not simply quote another bible verse you interpret through a calvinistic paradigm (which I don't accept), or B) admit in reality you are arminian and use the word "allow" for how God deals with sin. It isn't a wave of the hand by which I dismiss what you have said. It is with a wave of logic. You have simply quoted a very selective number of bible verses, ignored others have show that God changed his mind, etc., and claim this shows your point of view. It doesn't. There are no secondary causes when a person predestines someone to do something. There is only God in all...or Christian pantheism. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  John Earp Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 1715 | Posted 4/5/2004 12:48 AM (GMT -6) |   | Compare Calvin's "kinder, gentler religion" with the religion of Jesus of Nazareth:
Jesus Christ: "Love your enemies, do good to them..."
John Calvin: "Suppress your enemies, have them burned at the stake..."
(Originally posted last year by Laika) :
John Calvin's bodycount
I did a BODY COUNT on John Calvin's reign of terror.
The victims are listed, followed by references, (A)...(L), the URLs of which are at the bottom. Have fun!
A. Execution
1. Jacques Gruet (A)"Thus the State issued dogmatic decrees, the force of which had been anticipated earlier, as when Jacques Gruet, a known opponent of Calvin, was arrested, tortured for a month and beheaded on July 26, 1547, for placing a letter in Calvin's pulpit calling him a hypocrite. Gruet's book was later found and burned along with his house while his wife was thrown out into the street to watch." (C)"Calvin cut off the head of Jacques Gruet "for having written impious letters, libertine verses, and for working to overthrow ecclesiastical ordinances." (D)Quoting Stephan Zweig's "The Right to Heresy": "Jacques Gruet was racked and then executed merely for having called Calvin a hypocrite." (E)"This regime was resisted by a party incorrectly described as 'Libertines', which Calvin succeeded in overcoming by force. Among the opponents executed after torture were Jacques Gruet (1547), Raoul Monnet (1549), and, best known, Michael *Servetus (1553)." (F)"Even eminent men were not safe from Calvin's control. Jacques Gruet was beheaded for blasphemy, treason, and a threat to the ministers." (J)
2. Giovanni Valentino Gentile (A)and(G)"Another victim of Calvin's fiery zeal was Gentile of an Italian sect in Geneva, which also numbered among its adherents Alciati and Gribaldo. More or less Unitarian in their views, they were required to sign a confession drawn up by Calvin in 1558. Gentile signed it reluctantly, but in the upshot he was condemned and imprisoned as a perjurer. He escaped only to be twice incarcerated at Berne where, in 1566, he was beheaded." (H) & (I) Very full accounts of Gentile
3. Michael Servetus Is much needed about him? Is there any debate about his murder? (A) (C)"Seven years before the conference which was now to take place in Calvin's house on the proposals of the queen-mother, Michel Servet, a Frenchman, travelling through Switzerland, was arrested at Geneva, tried, condemned, and burned alive, on Calvin's accusation, for having "attacked the mystery of the Trinity," in a book which was neither written nor published in Geneva." (E)(J)
4. Raoul Monnet (E) (J)page 223 "This regime was resisted by a party incorrectly described as "Libertines, which Calvin succeeded in overcoming by force.Among the opponents executed after torture were Jacques Gruet (1547), Raoul Monnet (1549), and best known, Michael Servetus (1553). By 1555, however, all resistance had ceased and Calvin was the uncontested master of the city."
5. Others (A)"Calvin also had twenty women burned at the stake after accusing them of causing a plague that had swept through Geneva in 1545." (A)"Calvin did not shrink from his self-appointed task. Within five years fifty-eight sentences of death and seventy-six of exile, besides numerous committals of the most eminent citizens to prison, took place in Geneva." (F)"A heretic who also was an anti-Trinitarian was burned at the stake." NOTE: Probably Servetus
B. Banishment (mere banishment!)
1. Castellio (A)"Gruet's death was more highly criticized by far than the banishment of Castellio or the penalties inflicted on Bolsec -- moderate men opposed to extreme views in discipline and doctrine, who fell under suspicion as reactionary." (B) (K) Very full account of Castellio
2. Bolsec (A)(B)(F)"Jerome Bolsec, a physician who attacked Calvin's doctrine of predestination, was banished." (L)
3. Others (A)"Calvin did not shrink from his self-appointed task. Within five years fifty-eight sentences of death and seventy-six of exile, besides numerous committals of the most eminent citizens to prison, took place in Geneva."
A. http://www.biblelife.org/calvinism.htm B. http://www.gospeltruth.net/heresy/heresy_chap5.htm C. http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/lit/debalzac/CatherinedeMedici/chap16.html D. http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/calvin.htm E. http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/HERITAGF/Issuenos/chl047.shtml F. http://www.churchlink.com.au/churchlink/worldscope/voice/calvin.html G. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03195b.htm H. http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/hcc8/htm/iv.xv.xiv.htm I. http://online.sksm.edu/ouh/chapter/13_XIII.html J. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church; F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone; Oxford University Press; K. http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/hcc8/htm/iv.xv.ix.htm (different page from H) L. http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/hcc8/htm/iv.xv.viii.htm
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 4/5/2004 1:15 AM (GMT -6) |   | John, a "body count" of an acting-Governor of a powerful city, sometimes carrying out capital punishement on crimes condemned by the Empire is COMPLETELY BESIDES THE POINT. Except to you.
You are not going to be worth trying to reason with. | | Back to Top | | |
  | 262 posts in this thread. Viewing Page : | | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:50 PM (GMT -6) There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads. In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3 dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|