 |
 | 
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 5/25/2004 10:13 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
When God executes judgment, it is always deserved. But does that mean EVERY slaughter is deserved? Calvin would say yes.
John,
If you are correct about what John Calvin would say, would you kindly demonstrate that you are correct by showing where John Calvin says that every slaughter of every human is deserved by the human who is slaughtered? Have you read John Calvin's works sufficiently to know everything that he would say or has said? Are you a Calvin scholar?
Thanks.
Gerry
P.S. I'm interested in what John Calvin has said, but I'm far more interested in what God's Word says, such as what Jeremiah says in Lamentations. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/25/2004 10:31 AM (GMT -6) | | The following quotes are verbatim, directly from Calvin's Institutes:
"But since he foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place, they vainly raise a quarrel over foreknowledge, when it is clear that all things take place rather by his determination and bidding." Bk 3, Ch 23, s. 6
"Even though by God's eternal providence man has been created to undergo that calamity to which he is subject, it still takes its occasion from man himself, not from God, since the only reason for his ruin is that he has degenerated from God's pure creation into vicious and impure perversity." Bk 3, Ch 23, s. 9
"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 | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 5/25/2004 10:40 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
The following quotes are verbatim, directly from Calvin's Institutes:
"But since he foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place, they vainly raise a quarrel over foreknowledge, when it is clear that all things take place rather by his determination and bidding." Bk 3, Ch 23, s. 6
"Even though by God's eternal providence man has been created to undergo that calamity to which he is subject, it still takes its occasion from man himself, not from God, since the only reason for his ruin is that he has degenerated from God's pure creation into vicious and impure perversity." Bk 3, Ch 23, s. 9
John,
You did not answer the question I asked of you on account of the statement you made. Here is the note in which I asked the question concerning the statement you made.
Gerry
quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
When God executes judgment, it is always deserved. But does that mean EVERY slaughter is deserved? Calvin would say yes.
John,
If you are correct about what John Calvin would say, would you kindly demonstrate that you are correct by showing where John Calvin says that every slaughter of every human is deserved by the human who is slaughtered? Have you read John Calvin's works sufficiently to know everything that he would say or has said? Are you a Calvin scholar?
Thanks.
Gerry
P.S. I'm interested in what John Calvin has said, but I'm far more interested in what God's Word says, such as what Jeremiah says in Lamentations.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/25/2004 10:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Below is verbatim from book III of Calvin's Institutes:
11. It is proper that this mode of confession should both be ordinary in the Church, and also be specially employed on extraordinary occasions, when the people in common happen to have fallen into any fault. Of this latter description we have an example in the solemn confession which the whole people made under the authority and guidance of Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh. 1:6, 7). For their long captivity, the destruction of the temple, and suppression of their religion, having been the common punishment of their defection, they could not make meet acknowledgment of the blessing of deliverance without previous confession of their guilt. And it matters not though in one assembly it may sometimes happen that a few are innocent, seeing that the members of a languid and sickly body cannot boast of soundness. Nay, it is scarcely possible that these few have not contracted some taint, and so bear part of the blame. Therefore, as often as we are afflicted with pestilence, or war, or famine, or any other calamity whatsoever, if it is our duty to retake ourselves to mourning, fasting, and other signs of guiltiness, confession also, on which all the others depend, is not to be neglected. That ordinary confession which the Lord has moreover expressly commended, no sober man, who has reflected on its usefulness, will venture to disapprove. Seeing that in every sacred assembly we stand in the view of God and angels, in what way should our service begin but in acknowledging our own unworthiness?
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/institutes/bookiii/bkiii08.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 | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/25/2004 2:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee,
quote:
Men are involved in their sin, therefore they are accountable, Pharaoh hardened his heart. But God is in control, even of sinful actions, God hardened Pharaoh's heart, and raised him up, to show his glory.
You say God controls sinful actions. Previously, in another thread, you said:
quote:
Here I have to disagree, though. I don't believe that evil is a violation of God's will, though he does hate evil, he also includes even sinful actions as part of his plan:
GE 50:20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good.
Now I don't believe in two wills in God, and I wouldn't say "wills evil," but I believe that God does will even evil actions, though not the evil per se:
If God controls sinful actions, but God does NOT will the evil per se that those actions result in, then aren't you saying God can't have ALL of His will/wish? And if not, then God would be limited somehow in his power, wouldn't He??
The OV says that the conditions were created whereby ALL of His wish was possible, but not inevitable. You seem to be admitting that your view of Calvinism has it's own limits on God, just as the OV does. But whereas Calvinism portrays God's moral nature in a completely counter-intuitive way, the OV doesn't.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 5/25/2004 3:08 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Below is verbatim from book III of Calvin's Institutes:
11. It is proper that this mode of confession should both be ordinary in the Church, and also be specially employed on extraordinary occasions, when the people in common happen to have fallen into any fault. Of this latter description we have an example in the solemn confession which the whole people made under the authority and guidance of Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh. 1:6, 7). For their long captivity, the destruction of the temple, and suppression of their religion, having been the common punishment of their defection, they could not make meet acknowledgment of the blessing of deliverance without previous confession of their guilt. And it matters not though in one assembly it may sometimes happen that a few are innocent, seeing that the members of a languid and sickly body cannot boast of soundness. Nay, it is scarcely possible that these few have not contracted some taint, and so bear part of the blame. Therefore, as often as we are afflicted with pestilence, or war, or famine, or any other calamity whatsoever, if it is our duty to retake ourselves to mourning, fasting, and other signs of guiltiness, confession also, on which all the others depend, is not to be neglected. That ordinary confession which the Lord has moreover expressly commended, no sober man, who has reflected on its usefulness, will venture to disapprove. Seeing that in every sacred assembly we stand in the view of God and angels, in what way should our service begin but in acknowledging our own unworthiness?
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/institutes/bookiii/bkiii08.htm
John,
You still have not addressed the question I asked of you. Here is what you originally claimed and to which I responded.
"When God executes judgment, it is always deserved. But does that mean EVERY slaughter is deserved? Calvin would say yes."
I did not ask whether John Calvin claims that God foreordained all things, including every human slaughter. Nor did I ask whether John Calvin claims that all humans are culpable for sin. I asked a different question. Here is the question I asked:
"If you are correct about what John Calvin would say, would you kindly demonstrate that you are correct by showing where John Calvin says that every slaughter of every human is deserved by the human who is slaughtered?"
Gerry | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/25/2004 3:16 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
John,
You still have not addressed the question I asked of you. Here is what you originally claimed and to which I responded.
"When God executes judgment, it is always deserved. But does that mean EVERY slaughter is deserved? Calvin would say yes."
I did not ask whether John Calvin claims that God foreordained all things, including every human slaughter. Nor did I ask whether John Calvin claims that all humans are culpable for sin. I asked a different question. Here is the question I asked:
"If you are correct about what John Calvin would say, would you kindly demonstrate that you are correct by showing where John Calvin says that every slaughter of every human is deserved by the human who is slaughtered?"
Gerry
If the quotes I have posted aren't enough to satisfy you, I doubt anything I could quote would. Do you somehow deny that all human beings deserve nothing from God but wrath, condemnation and hell due to their inherent depravity? Are you meaning to imply that God wills a slaughter that the victim doesn't deserve?
If God has ordained all things, then all things are WILLED by Him (Calvin says all things come to pass according to His determination and bidding). If all things are willed by Him, and He is truly JUST, then no one suffers who does not deserve it.
"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 | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/25/2004 3:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
John: When God executes judgment, it is always deserved. But does that mean EVERY slaughter is deserved? Calvin would say yes.
I think in a sense he would say yes, and in a sense he would say no. Here is the sense in which he would say yes:
DA 9:18 We do not make requests of you because we are righteous, but because of your great mercy.
RO 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.
RO 5:12 ... in this way death came to all men, because all sinned...
And here is the sense in which he would say no:
ISA 59:7 Their feet rush into sin; they are swift to shed innocent blood.
EZE 13:19 You have killed those who should not have died and have spared those who should not live.
But when people see God, they always marvel that they did not die:
EX 24:11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.
GE 32:30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."
quote:
Jeff: If God controls sinful actions, but God does NOT will the evil per se that those actions result in, then aren't you saying God can't have ALL of His will/wish? And if not, then God would be limited somehow in his power, wouldn't He??
No, those actions actually result in good:
GE 50:20 "And as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good..."
So he does have all his wish, the evil action does exactly what he intended, and the result is good. And thus his power is not limited, every deed serves the will of God:
PS 119:91 ... for all things serve you.
quote:
John: If all things are willed by Him, and He is truly JUST, then no one suffers who does not deserve it.
Again, yes and no:
JOB 41:11 Who has a claim against me that I must pay?
1PE 2:20-21 But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
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 | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 5/25/2004 4:13 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
quote:
John,
You still have not addressed the question I asked of you. Here is what you originally claimed and to which I responded.
"When God executes judgment, it is always deserved. But does that mean EVERY slaughter is deserved? Calvin would say yes."
I did not ask whether John Calvin claims that God foreordained all things, including every human slaughter. Nor did I ask whether John Calvin claims that all humans are culpable for sin. I asked a different question. Here is the question I asked:
"If you are correct about what John Calvin would say, would you kindly demonstrate that you are correct by showing where John Calvin says that every slaughter of every human is deserved by the human who is slaughtered?"
Gerry
If the quotes I have posted aren't enough to satisfy you, I doubt anything I could quote would. Do you somehow deny that all human beings deserve nothing from God but wrath, condemnation and hell due to their inherent depravity? Are you meaning to imply that God wills a slaughter that the victim doesn't deserve?
If God has ordained all things, then all things are WILLED by Him (Calvin says all things come to pass according to His determination and bidding). If all things are willed by Him, and He is truly JUST, then no one suffers who does not deserve it.
John,
Why is the question I asked so difficult to understand or to answer? You made a statement about what John Calvin would say. I challenged your claim. You have answered questions that I did not ask of you, but you have not answered the question I did ask of you.
My question was not whether everyone who suffers deserves suffering. The reason I did not ask that question is that you did not make that assertion. Instead, to quote you once more, you claimed, "Does that mean EVERY slaughter is deserved? Calvin would say yes." Where does John Calvin make such a claim?
I do not believe you can sustain your claim from anything John Calvin says, for Calvin would not be so foolish as to make such an assertion as the one you attribute to him. Otherwise, John Calvin's theological understanding could not account for martydom of Christians.
Gerry | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/25/2004 4:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Gerry,
Why are my responses, which are based on Calvin's assertion that all things happen according to God's "determination and bidding," so hard for you to understand? My statement follows necessarily given Calvin's determinism and his view that all mankind are by nature deserving of nothing but God's wrath and condemnation. But if you want to be persnickety, I will continue to search for a more precise quote, as you apparently don't get what I'm trying to say. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 5/25/2004 4:23 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Gerry,
Why are my responses, which are based on Calvin's assertion that all things happen according to God's "determination and bidding," so hard for you to understand? My statement follows necessarily given Calvin's determinism and his view that all mankind are by nature deserving of nothing but God's wrath and condemnation. But if you want to be persnickety, I will continue to search for a more precise quote, as you apparently don't get what I'm trying to say.
John,
I'm not being persnickety. I understand what you are saying. I even agree with John Calvin. You, however, are not understanding the necessary distinction between the question I have been asking you and the answer you keep giving.
See my addition to my previous note. Here it is again.
quote:
I do not believe you can sustain your claim from anything John Calvin says, for Calvin would not be so foolish as to make such an assertion as the one you attribute to him. Otherwise, John Calvin's theological understanding could not account for martydom of Christians.
Gerry | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/25/2004 5:06 PM (GMT -6) | | If, in view of their inherent depravity, all people deserve nothing but God's righteous indignation, condemnation, wrath and hell, then the question of temporal calamity is rather insignificant, don't you think? No sinner can deserve anything good from God, including being delivered from the day of slaughter.
Calvin (and Gerry) might try to make this out to be merely God's sovereign withholding of divine grace and mercy, and thus letting people go to their appointed end that they have duly earned, but as in the Calvinistic system the withholding of grace necessarily equals non-election, non-justification, non-regeneration, and thus damnation, it seems to be a completely pointless distinction to try to say God merely withholds salvific grace from the damned.
Withheld grace can equal nothing but hell in the Calvinistic system, and as such withheld grace does not differ from unconditional predestination to hell.
"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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/25/2004 5:38 PM (GMT -6) | | John-
You're missing Gerry's point. Since you say Calvin teaches that everyone who suffers deserves to suffer, you're claiming that Calvin teaches that Christian martyrs deserve to suffer, that Jesus deserved to suffer, that there is NO innocent suffering on the part of believers. I don't think Calvin taught THIS, even if he DID teach that God determined such suffering. God may determine suffering for someone (like Joseph) whom God knows does NOT deserve such suffering. Gerry's right with respect to the specific question, but he IS nitpicking (in my opinion) in that the essential point remains: Calvin taught that God decrees or determines all things. If God's decrees are also unconditioned by anything outside God, then I think it also follows that NOBODY deserves ANYTHING they suffer, including Hitler. To say a person deserves something is to say the something logically FOLLOWS, or is conditioned by, or is a response to, what they did. But the Calvinist's doctrine of secondary causes doesn't in fact assert this. God didn't determine that agent S suffer X because he did Y and so deserves X. God's decrees for S are not conditioned by anything outside God. So there is no explanatory because outside of God. He determines both that agent S do Y and suffer X without reference to anything outside his own good pleasure.
I'm wondering too why Gerry and other Calvinists should have such a reaction to useing the word "determine(s)" when it is at the heart of Calvin's own explanation of his system.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/25/2004 5:55 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
John-
You're missing Gerry's point.
Hi Tom,
I realize there is a distinction between deserving something and receiving something. However, I honestly don't see how it can be denied that in Calvin's system, no one deserves anything BUT hell because of their depravity. It is entirely possible that I have been reading Calvin wrongly on this point, but I really don't see how it is not true that Calvin's position in fact teaches that all people, due to their inherent depravity deserve God's indignation, condemnation, and wrath.
As to Christians suffering, I do see your point; but again, in Calvin's system NO ONE deserves anything but hell from God. Therefore, if even a Christian suffers, it is only what he deserves, even if only a portion of what he deserves.
"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 | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 5/25/2004 6:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom and John,
I give up. Old age must be taking a severe toll on this geezer. Evidently I can't make my points adequately clear anymore to have a reasonable conversation. I'll take the blame for lack of clarity. I'll talk to myself. At least I can make my thoughts clear to myself. 
Gerry | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/25/2004 6:45 PM (GMT -6) | | John: I realize there is a distinction between deserving something and receiving something. However, I honestly don't see how it can be denied that in Calvin's system, no one deserves anything BUT hell because of their depravity.
Tom: Right. Everybod deserves hell. But God elects some and forgives them. God can sometimes determine that THESE suffering undeservedly. So, technically, not all "deserve" what they get. True, all that go to hell deserve hell. But not all Christian martyrs deserved to burn alive.
John: As to Christians suffering, I do see your point; but again, in Calvin's system NO ONE deserves anything but hell from God. Therefore, if even a Christian suffers, it is only what he deserves, even if only a portion of what he deserves.
Tom: I'm pretty sure Calvin would not describe the suffering of the elect this way. So I still think Gerry has a point. But it's not what the issue really is here.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/25/2004 6:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Gerry: Tom and John, I give up. Old age must be taking a severe toll on this geezer. Evidently I can't make my points adequately clear anymore to have a reasonable conversation. I'll take the blame for lack of clarity. I'll talk to myself. At least I can make my thoughts clear to myself.
Tom: Don't give up!
Since he has already pulled together examples from Calvinist authors, it’s easier to just quote from Jack Cottrell [“The Nature of the Divine Sovereignty” in The Grace of God and the Will of Man]:
----------------------
…My thesis is first that consistent Calvinism has a deterministic view of sovereignty that sees the unconditioned will or decree of God as the only true cause of every event without exception, with the corollary that the human will is not truly free. Although most Calvinists would repudiate determinism and affirm some form of free will, I content that this is inconsistent with the view of an unconditioned decree, which all Calvinists seem to include in the essence of sovereignty.
Consistent Calvinism
…As John Feinberg observes, “Calvinists are usually deterministic.” This determinism is inherent in the doctrine that is the most significant embodiment of divine sovereignty for consistent and inconsistent Calvinists alike, namely, God’s eternal decree (purpose, plan, or will). It is called eternal because it was made in eternity past, before the creation and existence of anything outside of God. It is also called comprehensive or universal, embracing “whatsoever comes to pass,” as the Westminster Confession of Faith (III:1) says. As Zanchius put it, “All being whatever, from the highest angel to the meanest reptile, and from the meanest reptile to the minutest atom, are the objects of God’s eternal decrees.” Toplady affirms concerning the sparrow that God’s “all-wise Providence hath before appointed what bough it shall pitch on, what grains it shall pick up, where it shall lodge, and where it shall build; on what it shall live, and when it shall die.” Also, God guides the movements of the “motes and atoms wandering up and down in a sun-beam.” Indeed, “not a dust flies in a beaten road but God raiseth it, conducts its uncertain motion, and by His particular care, conveys it to the certain place He had before appointed for it.” The “all-embracing decree,” says Boettner, includes everything in the course of nature and “the course of history even down to its minutest details.” This includes all human decisions, even sinful ones.
To say that God has an eternal plan that includes “whatsoever comes to pass” is not in itself objectionable. What makes the concept of the decree distinctively Calvinistic and deterministic is the addition of two other qualifiers, namely, that it is both efficacious and unconditional. To say that the decree is efficacious means that whatever happens happens by virtue of the fact that it was included in the decree. It is the effect of “the totally efficacious word of the divine will.” Murray speaks of God’s “all-pervasinve and efficient sovereignty,” which “he exercises with omnipotent and irresistible efficiency.” Sproul says, “What we mean by the sovereign or efficacious will of God is that determination by which God sovereignly wills something to come to pass which, therefore, indeed does come to pass through the sheer efficacy, force, or power of that will.” Thus, in Bavnick’s words, “The final answer to the question why a thing is and why it is as it is must ever remain: ‘God willed it,’ according to his absolute sovereignty.” Thus to the degree the decree is said to be efficacious, it is also deterministic.
The other deterministic element in the decree is its unconditionality. This means that nothing in the decree has been conditioned by anything outside of God; God did not include anything in the decree as a response to or reaction to something. “God initiates all things;” what he decrees and does in no way depends upon the creature. “A conditional decree would subvert the sovereignty of God and make him…dependent upon the uncontrollable actions of his own creatures,” says A. A. Hodge.
When all of these factors are taken together—i.e., when the eternal and comprehensive decree is also said to be efficacious and unconditional—the only possible result is a theistic determinism. Consistent Calvinists acknowledge this and accept its implications, even to the point of denying human free will. They freely affirm with Storms that “human free will is a myth.”
Inconsistent Calvinism
Most Calvinists, however, have faltered when it comes to drawing the conclusions consistent with their concept of an efficacious, unconditional decree. They want to deny that God as caused the Fall and other human sins. To this end they also want to defend some concept of free will or free agency. Most eschew the label “determinism,” though some accept it while defending a view of free will they feel is compatible with it.
Those who argue for both determinism and free will are sometimes called compatibilists…. An example is John Feinberg, who argues for “a view of freedom which is deterministic in nature.” All free human actions, including sin, are “causally determined.” Most Calvinists, however, reject the deterministic label while still using its language and sounding quite deterministic. For example, Geisler rejects Feinberg’s view as “a strong Calvinisitic determinism,” yet himself says that God predetermines all things, even our future free-will choices. He says, for example, that “God determined that Judas would freely betray Christ.” Indeed, “the future can be absolutely determined and yet some events can be totally free.” Berkhof says, “Reformed theology stresses the sovereignty of God in virtue of which He has sovereignly determined from all eternity whatsoever will come to pass.”
While defending a kind of free will, these Calvinists still ascribe to the divine decree the same attributes characteristic of determinism, namely, unconditionality and efficacy (though the latter is somewhat modified). Charles Hodge affirms that God’s decrees are free, meaning they are “in no case conditional”; and they are “certainly efficacious, that is, they render certain the occurrence of what He decrees.” Shedd and Berkhof likewise speak of the decree as unconditional and efficacious.
------------------------
There is no doubt that to our human reasoning (which is the only reasoning machine we have) an eternal, comprehensive, efficacious, and unconditioned decree of all things amounts to theistic determinism. There is also no analogy to date that makes coherent the claim that actions determined in such a way for an agent by some other person are the moral responsibility of the agent doing the actions.
Now, Gerry may continue to accuse those who describe Calvinism as ‘determinisitc’ of not understanding Calvinism or of caricaturing it. But the number of Calivinist authors and authorities who agree that such a decree amounts to theological determinism, in addition to John Calvin’s own use of the word, hardly means that I misunderstand Calvinism because I describe it as “deterministic.” Gerry may not like the implications of admitting that such a decree amounts to a deterministic view of sovereignty, but what he cannot do is claim that those who point out these implications caricature Calvinists.
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/25/2004 6:59 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
John: I realize there is a distinction between deserving something and receiving something. However, I honestly don't see how it can be denied that in Calvin's system, no one deserves anything BUT hell because of their depravity.
Tom: Right. Everybod deserves hell. But God elects some and forgives them. God can sometimes determine that THESE suffering undeservedly. So, technically, not all "deserve" what they get. True, all that go to hell deserve hell. But not all Christian martyrs deserved to burn alive.
And all that go to heaven actually deserve hell. Grace means they don't get what they deserve with respect to salvation. Since everyone deserves eternal torment in hell, any suffering in this life even the elect may have to endure is still part of what they deserve for being wicked, depraved humans. (Though it was in fact God's will that they be wicked, depraved humans). 
"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 | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 5/26/2004 3:02 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
…My thesis is first that consistent Calvinism has a deterministic view of sovereignty that sees the unconditioned will or decree of God as the only true cause of every event without exception, with the corollary that the human will is not truly free. Although most Calvinists would repudiate determinism and affirm some form of free will, I content that this is inconsistent with the view of an unconditioned decree, which all Calvinists seem to include in the essence of sovereignty.
Tom
Tom,
I won't be able to hang around for long, nor would there be much value for me to do so, given the way this conversation has gone around in circles. But I thought I would make one more attempt at helping you understand the difference between calling Calvinism determinism and Calvinists using words such as determine, predetermine, determined in advance, foreordained, etc.
Indeed, John Feinberg claims that "most Calvinists are deterministic." (To be deterministic is to subscribe to the philosophy called determinism.) I was alluding to him in an earlier note when I said that there are, unfortunately, some Calvinists who claim that Calvinism is determinism. I respectfully disagree with Feinberg. He, after all, is a philosopher, not truly a theologian. His PhD is in philosophy. His writing is philosophical.
Here is the definition of determinism: "The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs." This does not describe Calvinism. This definition does not describe John Calvin's teaching concerning God's predetermination of all things. Trust me. This old geezer has spent his life cherishing, treasuring, and teaching the biblical doctrine of God's predetermination of all things. Calvin's beliefs are theological, and his terminology derives from Scripture. The philosophy called determinism is most definitely not what John Calvin or Martin Luther or Augustine believed and taught. So what if John Feinberg says that most Calvinists are deterministic! He is regrettably mistaken to interject philosophical determinism into the stream of theological belief called Calvinism. He's simply wrong.
Now, simply because we Calvinists use biblical language, such as, predetermine, determine, foreordain, etc. hardly means that our use of these terms renders us deterministic, which is to say, subscribers to determinism. The fact that deterministic and determinism derive from and are built upon the same linguistic root as the words predetermine or determine hardly means that they share the same conceptual root or that they share the same philosophical root. Such notions are unfounded and silly.
Do you see why the charges that you and Cottrell and others lay at the feet of Calvinism are silly? Here is why. To claim that Calvinism is determinism because Calvinists use predetermine and determine to describe God's decisions before he created all things is to argue too much. It argues too much because if use of words, such as, predetermine and determine renders the user a subscriber to determinism, then the Bible writers subscribed to determinism because the Bible writers used these words. So also everyone who embraces the Bible as true would also subscribe to determinism because to embrace the Bible as true is to embrace and use the words of the Bible, including predetermine and determine . This would mean that Arminians, including Jack Cottrell, subscribe to determinism. Unless you cut out the words from the Bible and refuse to use them, you also subscribe to determinism, given your claim that to use words, such as, predetermine and determine renders the user a subscriber to determinism.
Do you recognize how silly the charge is that use of certain words renders the use a subscriber to a philosophical view called determinism? Such a charge comes back directly upon you, upon every open theist, and upon every Arminian who claims to believe that the Bible is God's Word. I'm rather surprised that you plunged into such a word fallacy, Tom. As long as I've been reading these discussions (since last December), my sense has been that you have been too careful a thinker to fall victim to such a rudimentary word fallacy as this one.
Just a few thoughts to temper silly accusations germinated from an elementary word fallacy. 
Gerry | | Back to Top | | |
| 171 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:06 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 |
|
|