Calvin vs. Arminius

[st. Worm]

Horizoneast, everything in your post is just another strawman and a misrepresentation that is typical of all of your posts and is not worthy enough to be seriously addressed. It is necessary for you to do that because you have nothing worthwhile to say. Others have discovered the same in you. You creat caracitures of what others are saying in order to avoid dealing with what they really said. Further you have done it too many times for it just to be accidental or inadvertant. Either you are so ignorant you can't see it or you willing to continue sinning in your dishonesty. Others here have called you intellectually dishonest. Please add me to that growing list.

sw

[EricH]

Worm

[EricH]

You just figured that out? I believe in causality, not predestination.

This is actually a meaningless statement. Predestination is causality. We are not disagreeing that there is causality. Where we are disagreeing is what is the nature of the cause

Free will and open theism have nothing to do with each other. God is ABSOLUTELY sovereign. Man's will does NOT supercede's God's will. I believe it is God's will that Man should have the power of choice. How is this problematic? On the other hand, predestination makes God out to be a divine Tyrant. I don't expect you to answer this question (you've evaded all of my questions so far), but how can God ordain sinful actions?

There are several issues with your statements above.

1. Free-will is at the heart of the doctrine of Open Theism. Open theism holds that for human choice to be truly free (in a libertarian sense) God cannot ordain it or even know what the choice will be. The idea of libertarian free will (which is not biblical) was the driving force behind the development of Open Theism

2. You have a contradition in your position. You state that sin entered the world outside of God's will and control, then state that He is absolutely sovereign. According to your posiiton He is not. According to you, sin came into the world in spite of His wishes that it would not. If it was not God's will that sin enter the world, and it did, then by definition you have a limiting factor on God's sovereignty. The oldest armenian response to this is that this is because it was more important to God. Namely that man-kind have a libertarian free will. The problem is that this is in no place stated in scripture. This is a logical outgrowth of the armenian theological position. In no place does it state that God desired humans to have the ability to act in a libertarian way, and that this was more important to Him than restraining sin.

3. You also hold that God in no place in scripture ordains sinful actions. Consider the following passages:

Now again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah."

2 Samuel 24:1 NASB

Then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel.

1 Chronicles 21:1 NASB

Now David's heart troubled him after he had numbered the people. So David said to the LORD, "I have sinned greatly in what I have done. But now, O LORD, please take away the iniquity of Thy servant, for I have acted very foolishly."

2 Samuel 24:10 NASB

In these three passages we see something remarkable regarding the same event:

a. The passages state that God incited David to number Israel

b. The passage states that God used the secondary agency of Satan to incite David

c. David takes personal responsibility for the sin

[st. Worm]

from horizoneast:

Worm

[EricH]

This really does not prove the biblical correctness of His position. It just proves he was a sinner. It is a logically falacious way of arguing ones position. It actually demonstrates that the person who uses this argumentation does not have a strong position, because the are forced to attack the person rather than the arguments.

I don

[st. Worm]

For those who might be deceived by the ignorant barking of Horizoneast, below is the applicable section from Foxes Book of Martyrs concerning the Calvin-Servetus episode. Note how many Christian leaders of the time laud what Calvin did. Also note how horizoneast previously characterized Calvin as some type of sadist who took great joy in Servetus's punishment which of course is more slander. Horizoneast has clearly disgraced himself once more, even after my prior attempts to lead him away from his nonsense and slander of an important church leader.

sw

FROM FOXES BOOK OF MARTYRS:

It has long been the delight of both infidels and some professed Christians, when they wish to bring odium upon the opinions of Calvin, to refer to his agency in the death of Michael Servetus. This action is used on all occasions by those who have been unable to overthrow his opinions, as a conclusive argument against his whole system. "Calvin burnt Servetus!--Calvin burnt Servetus!" is a good proof with a certain class of reasoners, that the doctrine of the Trinity is not true-that divine sovereignty is Antiscriptural,--and Christianity a cheat.

We have no wish to palliate any act of Calvin's which is manifestly wrong. All his proceedings, in relation to the unhappy affair of Servetus, we think, cannot be defended. Still it should be remembered that the true principles of religious toleration were very little understood in the time of Calvin. All the other reformers then living approved of Calvin's conduct. Even the gentle and amiable Melancthon expressed himself in relation to this affair, in the following manner. In a letter addressed to Bullinger, he says, "I have read your statement respecting the blasphemy of Servetus, and praise your piety and judgment; and am persuaded that the Council of Geneva has done right in putting to death this obstinate man, who would never have ceased his blasphemies. I am astonished that any one can be found to disapprove of this proceeding." Farel expressly says, that "Servetus deserved a capital punishment." Bucer did not hesitate to declare, that "Servetus deserved something worse than death."

The truth is, although Calvin had some hand in the arrest and imprisonment of Servetus, he was unwilling that he should be burnt at all. "I desire," says he, "that the severity of the punishment should be remitted." "We wndeavored to commute the kind of death, but in vain." "By wishing to mitigate the severity of the punishment," says Farel to Calvin, "you discharge the office of a friend towards your greatest enemy." "That Calvin was the instigator of the magistrates that Servetus might be burned," says Turritine, "historians neither anywhere affirm, nor does it appear from any considerations. Nay, it is certain, that he, with the college of pastors, dissuaded from that kind of punishment."

It has been often asserted, that Calvin possessed so much influence with the magistrates of Geneva that he might have obtained the release of Servetus, had he not been desirous of his destruction. This however, is not true. So far from it, that Calvin was himself once banished from Geneva, by these very magistrates, and often opposed their arbitrary measures in vain. So little desirous was Calvin of procuring the death of Servetus that he warned him of his danger, and suffered him to remain several weeks at Geneva, before he was arrested. But his language, which was then accounted blasphemous, was the cause of his imprisonment. When in prison, Calvin visited him, and used every argument to persuade him to retract his horrible blasphemies, without reference to his peculiar sentiments. This was the extent of Calvin's agency in this unhappy affair.

[st. Worm]

latest rant of horizoneast:

You can see how some people react when their sacred cows are lowered down off their pedestals

[Oh No Melon]

This is actually a meaningless statement. Predestination is causality. We are not disagreeing that there is causality. Where we are disagreeing is what is the nature of the cause

Causality: Each of our actions comes packaged with consequences.

Predestination: God ordains all that comes to pass.

1. Free-will is at the heart of the doctrine of Open Theism. Open theism holds that for human choice to be truly free (in a libertarian sense) God cannot ordain it or even know what the choice will be. The idea of libertarian free will (which is not biblical) was the driving force behind the development of Open Theism

Just because you know an event will occur and you plan accordingly, does that necessarily mean you make it happen? Of course God knew that Adam would eat of the forbidden tree, but it's positively absurd to suggest that God forced him to rebel. What kind of Father would give His child a rule, make him break it, then curse him because he disobeyed? By no stretch of the imagination is that a "just" punishment.

Open theism limits God and redefines His nature. God is only limited when He chooses to limit Himself. How? Mainly by His Word. "God cannot destroy cthe world again by flood." Does this statement challenge God's sovereignty? Of course not. Why? Because God promised Noah He would never destroy the human race again with water. God is bound to His Word. It is against His nature to break His Word. Therefore, God CANNOT destroy the world again by flood.

2. You have a contradition in your position. You state that sin entered the world outside of God's will and control, then state that He is absolutely sovereign. According to your posiiton He is not. According to you, sin came into the world in spite of His wishes that it would not. If it was not God's will that sin enter the world, and it did, then by definition you have a limiting factor on God's sovereignty. The oldest armenian response to this is that this is because it was more important to God. Namely that man-kind have a libertarian free will. The problem is that this is in no place stated in scripture. This is a logical outgrowth of the armenian theological position. In no place does it state that God desired humans to have the ability to act in a libertarian way, and that this was more important to Him than restraining sin.

You fail to see the crucial difference between an allowance and a mandate. God permits us to sin against Him. He does not ordain us to sin against Him. That's just sick. You may believe that it is limiting God's sovereignty to say that we have the ability to act outside of His will, but I find it unfathomable that "believers" have the audacity to suggest God mandates all of the horrible things that go on in the world. Men are tortured and maimed; women are beaten and raped; innocent children are abused. Tell me, what sadistic god would ordain such evil deeds? These are offenses against Almighty God. How could a Christian in his right mind suggest this is His perfect will?

3. You also hold that God in no place in scripture ordains sinful actions. Consider the following passages:

Now again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah."

The people of Israel had invoked the wrath of God. God did not invoke His own wrath. If God had caused Israel to rebel, then He would be invoking His own wrath. I don't call that "sovereignty". I call that a personality disorder.

Cause: Israel becomes disobedient.

Effect: God issues punishment.

2 Samuel 24:1 NASB

Then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel.

Are you suggesting here that Satan is NOT working against God? It would appear that you believe God ordained a Satanic attack against King David. If God dictates every attack of the Enemy, then one must conclude that both God and Satan are working on the same side. God allows bad things to happen to us, certainly, but those bad things don't originate with Him. Consider this syllogism:

1. God is omnibenevolent, all-good in every respect.

2. No evil can originate with an all-good Entity.

3. Evil occurs.

4. God cannot cause evil to occur because of (2).

5. God is not the cause of all that occurs because of (4).

___________________________________________

Therefore: Predestination is logically impossible.

Edited May 4, 2006 by Oh No Melon

[EricH]

Causality: Each of our actions comes packaged with consequences.

Predestination: God ordains all that comes to pass.

Again you have not stated anything new here. Either our actions have consequences apart from God's sovereignty (our actions are the ultimate cause), or God has sovereign control over all events (he is the cause). Both are causal.

Just because you know an event will occur and you plan accordingly, does that necessarily mean you make it happen? Of course God knew that Adam would eat of the forbidden tree, but it's positively absurd to suggest that God forced him to rebel. What kind of Father would give His child a rule, make him break it, then curse him because he disobeyed? By no stretch of the imagination is that a "just" punishment.

The doctrine of predestination does not state that God forced Adam to do anything. Adam was free to act according to His own desires. Predestination states that God worked in such a way to achieve HIs goals while preserving Adam's freedom to do "what he desired". Since God knows all events actual and possible, He also knows how individuals will respond given a certain set of circumstances. All that is required for God to ensure that Adam do exactly as He wants is that God bring a certain set of circumstances to bear so that Adam will decide exactly as God desires. God did not brainwash Adam. he presented Him with a situation in Which He knew exactly how Adam would respond.

Open theism limits God and redefines His nature. God is only limited when He chooses to limit Himself. How? Mainly by His Word. "God cannot destroy cthe world again by flood." Does this statement challenge God's sovereignty? Of course not. Why? Because God promised Noah He would never destroy the human race again with water. God is bound to His Word. It is against His nature to break His Word. Therefore, God CANNOT destroy the world again by flood.

Yes, and its creation as a doctrine came as a result of individuals trying to come to terms with Free-will. I agree with you that it is unscriptural, but it comes out of unbiblical notion of libertarian free will. It is the fruit of a wrong idea. Your example of God's promise to not flood the world again is not really germain to what we are discussing. It is not that God cannot destroy the world again with a flood. That implies a disunity in the purposes of God. God promised He would not destroy the world because it is not His purpose (and never will be again) to do so. You make it sound like His word is something outside Himself that He is bound to.

In addition, there is no place in scripture where it states that God has limited Himself so that humans can retain libertarian freedom. That is a logical deduction.

You fail to see the crucial difference between an allowance and a mandate. God permits us to sin against Him. He does not ordain us to sin against Him. That's just sick. You may believe that it is limiting God's sovereignty to say that we have the ability to act outside of His will, but I find it unfathomable that "believers" have the audacity to suggest God mandates all of the horrible things that go on in the world. Men are tortured and maimed; women are beaten and raped; innocent children are abused. Tell me, what sadistic god would ordain such evil deeds? These are offenses against Almighty God. How could a Christian in his right mind suggest this is His perfect will?

I understand the constructs of allowance and mandate. The problem is that you are not applying the concept in a way that does justice to the text. You have arrived at conclusions based on what you find acceptable in your own mind rather than wrestling with what the text actually says (see my comments below on your response to the texts I provided.)

By the way, I am a moderator here. You will please refrain from statements like:

"Thats just sick"

"audacity"

"believers" in quotes with the idea that they are not.

If you cannot use the text alone to prove your point, your point is not that strong. Attacking someone personally is unbiblical and is not tolerated here.

To return to the point. If we as individuals have the power to thwart God's purposes, He is not completely soveriegn.

The scriptures paint another picture:

1. God is sovereign over nature and the nations (Isaiah 44:24-27)

2. God demonstrated sovereign control over Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28-45:4)

a. God names Cyrus his shepher and his annointed (44:28, 45:1 etal)

b. God governs the life and activities Cyrus (a pagan) (44:28-45:3)

3. God governs the full spectrum of life including good and evil (Isaiah 45:5-7)

God's control of evil differs from His control of good. Goodness emminates from God. It comes from His being. Evil on the other hand does not emminate from God. He must use secondary agents to achieve what He desires. In these cases God manipulates circumstances so that the being freely chooses according to their desires. God is thus not responsible for the act, but also ensures that He has control over eveil and uses it to achieve His ends.

Are you suggesting here that Satan is NOT working against God? It would appear that you believe God ordained a Satanic attack against King David. If God dictates every attack of the Enemy, then one must conclude that both God and Satan are working on the same side. God allows bad things to happen to us, certainly, but those bad things don't originate with Him. Consider this syllogism:

1. God is omnibenevolent, all-good in every respect.

2. No evil can originate with an all-good Entity.

3. Evil occurs.

4. God cannot cause evil to occur because of (2).

5. God is not the cause of all that occurs because of (4).

___________________________________________

Therefore: Predestination is logically impossible.

This response is what I consider the main weakness of your position. You are presented with scriptures that clearly present an issue for you. Rather than speaking to them directly, you resort to your own logic to solve the problem for you. Clearly I provided scriptures that made three statements about the same event:

1. God incited david to count

2. Satan incited David to count

3. David personally chose to count.

I am still awaiting your explanation of these texts

Predestination holds that God is in control of all things (Good and Evil). His control over good differs from His control over evil, but He controls them none-the-less.

That is why He can promise:

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

Romans 8:28 NASB

[hopper]

Edited April 17, 2008 by hopper