The obligatory “cussing pastor makes Calvinism cool again” post
posted at 5:55 pm on January 10, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
We’re tossing grenades over it in Headlines, naturally, so I thought I’d move it to the front page for general consumption. Having watched a few of his videos on YouTube, I think the Times gave him a bad rap. For one thing, he didn’t curse. For another, they overplay the machismo angle. There are indeed preachers whose mission is to re-masculinize Christianity, but that theme was conspicuously absent from the eight or so clips I saw.
Or maybe I’m just watching the wrong clips.
God called Driscoll to preach to men — particularly young men — to save them from an American Protestantism that has emasculated Christ and driven men from church pews with praise music that sounds more like boy-band ballads crooned to Jesus than “Onward Christian Soldiers.” What bothers Driscoll — and the growing number of evangelical pastors who agree with him — is not the trope of Jesus-as-lover. After all, St. Paul tells us that the Church is the bride of Christ. What really grates is the portrayal of Jesus as a wimp, or worse. Paintings depict a gentle man embracing children and cuddling lambs. Hymns celebrate his patience and tenderness. The mainstream church, Driscoll has written, has transformed Jesus into “a Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ,” a “neutered and limp-wristed popular Sky Fairy of pop culture that . . . would never talk about sin or send anyone to hell.”
If you want to hear him discuss masturbation or oral sex, poke around here. The Times gives the impression that he’s some sort of heretic or shock jock, but every lesson I saw was entirely conventional. More interesting are these two vids. The first deals with predestination, which seems more mundane as he explains it than I thought it would be. God chooses the Christian, he insists, the Christian doesn’t choose God, but since the evidence of who’s “chosen” appears to be how devoutly one practices the faith, the distinction seems mostly semantic. In the second clip, we get into who’s “really” a Christian and who’s not. He justifies making fun of Mormons in yet another video, so I’m guessing they’re in the “not really” column.
Update: Actually, it’s not just semantic. Belated exit question: If God’s doing the choosing, how and when did he decide whom to save and whom to let burn?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
He is certainly someone on this blog that I respect, especially in terms of theology. Plus, the guy’s the consummate internet-forum gentleman, treating everyone respectfully.
nailinmyeye on January 10, 2009 at 7:16 PM
heh…I’m used to it. If I’m not getting dumped on over McCain, or gay marriage, it’s religion.
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 7:16 PM
Oh, and Coltsfan did have a number of comments in the headline item.
nailinmyeye on January 10, 2009 at 7:17 PM
Assuming the truthfulness of the worldview of atheism for a moment, on what grounds or criteria would you judge a “serial killer” to be wrong?
Atheist philosophers themselves, to be fair, are the same ones who have pointed out that moral relativism is one consequence of atheism.
I realize that the primary argument in support of atheism is the standard, “well, we don’t like this particular doctrine! Or we dislike why God did this or ordained that!!”
This is a fallacy in that it ignores the primary philosophical issue of, “does God exist?”; and instead substitutes the emotional issues of, “how do I feel about His decrees or laws?”
May I encourage our right-of-center HA atheists to inquire into why this former atheist is moving towards theism?
ColtsFan on January 10, 2009 at 7:17 PM
I’m sorry,the more I learn about Calvanism,the more it
sounds like Islam.
JetBoy on Jan 10,2009 at 6:58PM.
JetBoy: Accept for,
Beheadings
Stoneing’s
Suicide Bombings,El Ka-Blewy to smitherines.
Praying 5 times per day/towards Mecca.
And other Jihady activities that I’m sure
doesn’t impress G-D:) Jus Sayin.
canopfor on January 10, 2009 at 7:17 PM
I don’t think anyone here wants to make you cry. I think that JetBoy was simply pointing to something that Calvinists are famous for, viz. their rather gloomy outlook. If you want to see what I’m talking about, go back and read Jefferson’s letters to Adams (written in their later years). Jefferson was alway needling Adams regarding his “Calvinist doom and gloom”.
Calvinism’s adherence to the doctrine of predestination IS similar to Islam’s fatalism. It’s like the difference between a case of the sniffles (Calvinism) and a full blown case of pneumonia (Islam).
My collie says:
CyberCipher on January 10, 2009 at 7:17 PM
Which is how reformed theology presents it. Basically, we present scripture as it is and wrap our understanding, by His grace around IT, not the other way around. When the choice comes down between elevating man or elevating God the creator, I want to err on that side and submit my will (for libertarian free will…which is pretty preposterous if you think about our position before Him and our human sin nature)as opposed to diminishing His sovereignty, as if that were even possible.
Mommypundit on January 10, 2009 at 7:17 PM
I just logged back on, and I found this.
Thank you.
:-)
I will have your check in the mail!!
ColtsFan on January 10, 2009 at 7:18 PM
Oh, Cyber…I meant to add:
As a Catholic, I have studied many Protestant sects. Of course, with over 30,000 of them, it’s impossible to get ‘em all.
I dunno, the biggest “pit bulls” out there, for me, have been the SDA (Seventh Day Adventists). They believe the Catholic Church to be the “whore of Babylon”.
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 7:19 PM
hahhahahahahahahhahaaaaahhahahahahaaa
Mommypundit on January 10, 2009 at 7:20 PM
Oh, I just meant that I love the doctrines of grace so much and my Lord so very much and I have studied Islam, as well…so, the parallel was heartbreaking. I want to tell others that we are not gloomy!!! hahaha. We are so joyful…we just know our nature and are glad for salvation.
Mommypundit on January 10, 2009 at 7:23 PM
I’m not necessarily defending Jetboy’s evaluation of Calvinism, but you’re comparing the tenets of one (sect of a) religion to the activities/outcomes of another. Apples and Oranges.
baldilocks on January 10, 2009 at 7:24 PM
Check Number 2 will go out in the mail to ya Monday!!
Check 3!!
In other news this evening….
There have been reports of co-workers overhearing devout, passionate Peyton Manning fan audibly praying for over-time at place of employment…..
ColtsFan on January 10, 2009 at 7:25 PM
Ok, there are a lot of different ‘brand names” in Protestantism, but is that a bad thing? Whenever I change jobs or move to a different area or enter a new social circle, & when I meet a Christian, there’s a kinship of spirit that knits us together no matter where he or she goes to church.
jgapinoy on January 10, 2009 at 7:25 PM
Calvinism is like Islam basically for the way it controls your life.
There’s no “free will”…and Calvinist seem to simply reject the numerous biblical references to such. I don’t get it.
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 7:25 PM
Ellen White’s story is interesting in it’s own right. She was a Millerite — standing out on the hillside in New York in 1842/1843 waiting for the world to end. When it didn’t happen, and Miller was discredited, she started the Seventh Day Adventist church. I’ve been told that David Koresh’s Branch Dividians (the Waco fiasco) are an “offshoot” from that sect.
My collie says:
You should read her book some time. It reads like Mein Kampf. She falls into a seizure and chews on the carpet in alternating chapters (with her hatred for the Pope and Catholicism).
CyberCipher on January 10, 2009 at 7:26 PM
Muhammad copied a lot of things from Christianity to create his made up religion. Please don’t let his distortions succeed in distracting you from the truth.
pedestrian on January 10, 2009 at 7:27 PM
CC your such a heretic.
CyberCypher on Jan 10,2009 at 7:17PM.
CyberCypher: In the spirit of Life of Brian,
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BLASPHEMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BTW,If you don’t mind,I’m building a good ol’fashion
fire pit,with 2 stakes,for you and your beautiful collie!
No hard feelings,eh!The needs of the many outweigh the
needs of the few!(I’m kidding You)!Haha:)
canopfor on January 10, 2009 at 7:28 PM
I don’t understand the characterization of Calvinists as gloomy. The Calvinists I know are joyful, in no small part because they don’t live in fear of somehow disinheriting themselves from God’s grace or worrying about their worthiness to get into Heaven. Knowing that none are worthy of that grace has led Calvinists I know to live a life of thankfulness that God would choose anybody.
Lehosh on January 10, 2009 at 7:30 PM
Correct on all points. Yeah, I’ve been looking for a good “thinking” book to read…haven’t read one in a while. I may just have to read up on Ms. White.
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 7:30 PM
I don’t think I’m gonna watch the clips. Like I trust AP to choose clips that make Christianity look good? C’mon.
Try this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1EAmfOu9lE
jgapinoy on January 10, 2009 at 7:33 PM
heh…I got a chuckle outta THIS
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Calvinism is like Islam basically for the way it
controls your life.
JetBoy on Jan 10,2009 at 7:25PM.
JetBoy: Me thinks your digging yourself I nice hole,
may I suggest,
a spade
a Backhoe,
or at the rate your going,a Caterpillar,D-10
Bulldozer!
I’m just try’n to help!:)
canopfor on January 10, 2009 at 7:35 PM
But how did He get those vessles “prepared beforehand” MP?
Gal 3:24 – “Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.”
2 Tim 3:16-17 – “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
They are tutored by His Scripture, and those who obey it are “vessels of mercy.”
Sorry, no contradictions there.
TMK on January 10, 2009 at 7:36 PM
“Calvinism breeds a horrendous entitlement mentality”
I don’t think so. Didn’t everyone used to agree it bred hard work? Anyone come across the phrase “Protestant work ethic”?? Of course, it’s been long gone for a generation or more, but it was there for a few centuries! Entitlement mentality is not truly fed by Calvinism, and to say otherwise is to be ignorant of history.
G. Charles on January 10, 2009 at 7:39 PM
Well, as a Jew, I find Christianity to be a sick, twisted religion and I wouldn’t want to lead young men to it. I watched both the Mars Hill YouTube videos and the last one was so obsessed about issues of sexuality. Whenever I hear Christian preaching, I usually hear obsession bout sexuality to the point of perversion. Judaism has more or less the same sexual values of Christianity, but you don’t here us go on and on about it, like it was the most important idea in the religion. Conservative and Orthodox Jews will obsess about keeping Shabbat, and the Reformed about social justice. Both strike me as much more sane worries. And I do remind people that anyone can become a Jew. It’s much more challenging to become a Jew than a Christian or a Muslim, but I like to think of it as quality control. And looking at the Christian and Muslim faithful, you see why quality control is a good thing.
thuja on January 10, 2009 at 7:41 PM
How can THAT be? You’re Catholic, and I’m Wesleyen/Arminian Protestant? Can’t you at least tell me that I’m a heretic or somethin’?
Just kidding. My father had seven brothers and five sisters. I’ve got a LOT of Catholics, and Mormons, atheists and just about everything else married into my family (so I’ve had to learn to be diplomatic on these matters — I’ve got so many cousins I can’t count all of them).
My collie says:
I don’t like pedophiles period. I don’t care whether they’re Catholic or Protestant. I’ll be the first to point out that I’ve seen more cases of sexual abuse from leaders of Protestant sects than I care to remember. The only thing that I insist upon is that when that sort of thing is discovered, it needs to be dealt with swiftly and decisively, not covered-up or denied.
CyberCipher on January 10, 2009 at 7:41 PM
You meant this
Yes, Calvinism spawned a bunch of sad offshoots, like people using material wealth to prove to their neighbors that they are of the elect. Unfortunately people came to think that nuttiness is what Calvinism is actually about, and so now people reject it without understanding it. That is unfortunate, because what Calvin set out to do was to simply carefully say and live by exactly what it says in the Bible and nothing more.
pedestrian on January 10, 2009 at 7:45 PM
heh, I’ll be nice ’cause I don’t want your collie to bite me…
That, and I know well that Aminians and Calvinists have a bit of history of not getting along. And yeah, for the record, us Catholics rarely “bible-thump”. One’s relationship with God is a personal one anyway.
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 7:47 PM
It’s not just the Christians that are guilty of this sort of thing. Have you watched television lately? Sat in on biology class in a public school lately? The Protestants of the original 13 colonies were FAMOUS for their sexual repression. Ever hear of bundling?
What you are objecting to has been brought to us “courtesy” of the 1960’s. The pill, abortion on demand, and the MSM media’s constant bombardment of the populace with sex, sex, sex has turned us into culture whose sexual depravity matches that of the Roman Empire.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on January 10, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Thank you for proving the point I made at 7:33PM.
jgapinoy on January 10, 2009 at 7:53 PM
I was raised in a Reformed Jewish family, and I was brought up to think about Christians from the point of view of all the persecutions that had been done to Jews. Much later I learned that, as you say, there is no quality country in Christianity, and so anyone can proclaim themselves to be Christian while performing an atrocity. Only after I really studied what is in the New Testament did I learn to tell the difference between real Christianity and frauds. Sadly, I still cringe a little inside when I hear the name “Jesus” because of all the horrors done supposedly in his name.
pedestrian on January 10, 2009 at 7:55 PM
To Frank J. and all who question Calvinism:
If you sincerely want to understand modern Calvinism, Pastor John MacArthur of Grace Community Church is arguably the most authoritative Biblical scholar of our time and a forceful advocate of Calvinism. His interview, Answering the Key Questions About the Doctrine of Election, is a good starting point.
The debate between Arminians and Calvinists is strictly a matter of how we interpret God’s instruction book “for Dummies,” the Bible. God certainly gave Moses free will and he nearly exhausted His patience. Conversely, He knocked Paul of Tarsis off his horse into a life Paul didn’t chose, which ended in violent martyrdom.
I can tell you why I subscribe to the Arminian doctrine and reject Calvinism, but the best thing you can ever do for yourself is to read a MacArthur Study Bible.
Terrie on January 10, 2009 at 7:56 PM
I can see Job coming from an earlier tradition than the Pentateuch. Certainly the emphasis on God’s power to do things, rather than the morality therein seems very primitive in conception, although doesn’t lose it’s power simply due to that fact, because, especially in the realm of natural disasters and human sickness, believers often confront those issues of God’s hand in these events head-on even though our scientific mind sees simple natural processes at work.
venividivici on January 10, 2009 at 7:58 PM
Yes, and given the ending, it would seem that the only path to redemption is the recognition of one’s own status as an abhorrent creature. At least that’s the word that is used in the King James Version. That is certainly in keeping with the idea that humanity is not sovereign.
I find a remarkable parallel to some of the complaints in Job about the wicked prospering in today’s economic crisis, where it is undeniable that some people with very shady characters made out like bandits (literally!) while many decent people are suffering the consequences. Truly, Job is a timeless piece of writing.
venividivici on January 10, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Mommypundit, how do you deal with 1 Timothy 2:12? What you say makes good sense, but are you supposed to be saying it?
Buford Gooch on January 10, 2009 at 8:05 PM
What horrors would you be speaking of specifically?
NeverLiberal on January 10, 2009 at 8:05 PM
But a central idea of the Book of Job is God rejecting our imposition of our morality on him. God takes a blameless man Job and shows that he has a greater purpose for his use of man than simply to impose morality upon him. So whether it comes historically before or after the Pentateuch it is exploring the ideas of where morality fits into God’s plan.
pedestrian on January 10, 2009 at 8:09 PM
You can take a look at these lists:
70 to 1200 CE (skip down a little)
1201 to 1800 CE
1800 CE to the present time
pedestrian on January 10, 2009 at 8:15 PM
To start let me slightly agree with you. Judaism does teach some degree of sexual modesty that is at odds with the soft porn of the entertainment industry. But I think that is far as we go in agreement. Reformed and Conservative Judaism are serious about the importance of the environment, and any attack on the pill for the purpose of human overpopulation and hence environmental destruction is not going to go over well. I’ve had discussions with Chabbad rabbis about Orthodox birth rates, and they always justify their current pro-natalist policies by necessity due to the Nazi genocide and a possible Iranian nuking of Israel. Even I, as a strident environmentalist, can’t find it in me to object. More genocides have been attempted on the Jews than other people.
But what I have said so far is a minor point. The major point is that you, a Christian, have responded to my point that Christianity is sexually obsessed to the point of perversion, by talking more about sexuality! You’ve basically proved my point about the mental unhealthiness of Christianity as a religion. And by the way, you point about the Roman Empire and sexual morality is extremely counter factual.
thuja on January 10, 2009 at 8:16 PM
Then whence can it be said that man is created in God’s image, if we are to hold ourselves to an arguably higher morality, i.e., almost every tradition says that “might makes right” is not moral, yet that is essentially God’s justification for his actions in Job. Is there no justification for assuming that the standards God holds us to are to be at least as high for God?
In the business world, a CEO who doesn’t hold himself to the same standards (or higher) as his workers is often booted out of a job. If we don’t put up with it in a CEO, why would we put up with it from God, other than because we have no choice, which again puts it in the realm of “might makes right”. That isn’t an argument between two different concepts of morality (God’s and man’s), at least not by human standards. That’s an argument between morality and immorality.
venividivici on January 10, 2009 at 8:17 PM
So you think that Emperor Tiberius and Caligula were paragons of virtue then?
My collie says:
CyberCipher on January 10, 2009 at 8:21 PM
I saw and heard nothing in the videos that were bad.
If anything, his message was clear to love God.
gary on January 10, 2009 at 8:36 PM
The thing is that when Jews complain about Christian persecution, they are almost always referring to what the Catholic Church has done. And sorry, but the Catholic church is about as close to Biblical Christianity as Islam. Seriously, even the muslims claim that they follow Jesus and Jesus was a great prophet. Does that somehow put a stain on Jesus, because the muslims slaughter Jews and claim to be followers of Jesus? Now I understand that to an outsider, they might not be able to separate that difference but you say that you have read the New Testament and you still cringe when you hear the name of Jesus? Pretty much everyone on this list you cited also persecuted Bible believing Christians at the same time they were persecuting Jews. I think a lot of the Jews forget about all the Christians who were murdered during the holocaust. I also have no doubts that if the Jews had absolute power like the Catholic church did, that they would persecute Bible-believing Christians the same way. If you don’t think its true, then look up on youtube how orthodox Jews treat Christians over in Israel. Bible-believing Christians however have gone out of their way to protect Israel from the blood-thirsty United Nations.
NeverLiberal on January 10, 2009 at 8:37 PM
Yes, you exactly make my point. Tiberius and Caligula were the fourth and the fifth Roman Emperors. Caligula died in 47 CE. Rome fell in 410 CE, after Rome had official been a Christian Empire for a century. It seems odd in the extreme to blame Rome’s fall on the sexual perversion of emperors over three centuries earlier! If the United States falls fifty years from now, I’m blaming the Salem Witch Trials.
thuja on January 10, 2009 at 8:37 PM
Allah! Dude!
You just don’t get it because you have a fundamental hate of evangelical Christians.
If God’s doing the choosing, how and when did he decide whom to save and whom to let burn?
Buzz up!vote now
BlowbackNote from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air’s community of registered readers. Please don’t assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
I’d be very interested in what ColtsFan has to say. As someone else said, he’s by far the best read among the election crowd.
He is certainly someone on this blog that I respect, especially in terms of theology. Plus, the guy’s the consummate internet-forum gentleman, treating everyone respectfully.
nailinmyeye on January 10, 2009 at 7:16 PM
Oh, you are going to get SO dumped on for that remark (even though I happen to agree with you). You Catholics would do well to study the various Protestant sects. Calvinists are the “pit bulls” of the Protestant reformation. They practice a peculiar “Peter O’Toole” (Lawrence of Arabia) kind of evangelism.
CyberCipher on January 10, 2009 at 7:05 PM
heh…I’m used to it. If I’m not getting dumped on over McCain, or gay marriage, it’s religion.
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 7:16 PM
Oh, and Coltsfan did have a number of comments in the headline item.
nailinmyeye on January 10, 2009 at 7:17 PM
So’s a serial killer.
frankj on January 10, 2009 at 7:06 PM
Assuming the truthfulness of the worldview of atheism for a moment, on what grounds or criteria would you judge a “serial killer” to be wrong?
Atheist philosophers themselves, to be fair, are the same ones who have pointed out that moral relativism is one consequence of atheism.
I realize that the primary argument in support of atheism is the standard, “well, we don’t like this particular doctrine! Or we dislike why God did this or ordained that!!”
This is a fallacy in that it ignores the primary philosophical issue of, “does God exist?”; and instead substitutes the emotional issues of, “how do I feel about His decrees or laws?”
May I encourage our right-of-center HA atheists to inquire into why this former atheist is moving towards theism?
ColtsFan on January 10, 2009 at 7:17 PM
I’m sorry,the more I learn about Calvanism,the more it
sounds like Islam.
JetBoy on Jan 10,2009 at 6:58PM.
JetBoy: Accept for,
Beheadings
Stoneing’s
Suicide Bombings,El Ka-Blewy to smitherines.
Praying 5 times per day/towards Mecca.
And other Jihady activities that I’m sure
doesn’t impress G-D:) Jus Sayin.
canopfor on January 10, 2009 at 7:17 PM
This is not Islam. That almost made me cry…oh, this is precious, life giving, beautiful freedom. He was our substitute, JetBoy!!!! Now we can draw near!!!
Mommypundit on January 10, 2009 at 7:10 PM
I don’t think anyone here wants to make you cry. I think that JetBoy was simply pointing to something that Calvinists are famous for, viz. their rather gloomy outlook. If you want to see what I’m talking about, go back and read Jefferson’s letters to Adams (written in their later years). Jefferson was alway needling Adams regarding his “Calvinist doom and gloom”.
Calvinism’s adherence to the doctrine of predestination IS similar to Islam’s fatalism. It’s like the difference between a case of the sniffles (Calvinism) and a full blown case of pneumonia (Islam).
My collie says:
CC, you are such a heretic.
CyberCipher on January 10, 2009 at 7:17 PM
Here’s the way I see it. God exists outside of time. To Him the future and the past just are. He already knows if we are going to choose Him. Those He knows that are going to choose Him, He predestines to be conformed into the image of Christ. You have freewill of the individual along with the predestination of God.
Ordinary1 on January 10, 2009 at 7:04 PM
Which is how reformed theology presents it. Basically, we present scripture as it is and wrap our understanding, by His grace around IT, not the other way around. When the choice comes down between elevating man or elevating God the creator, I want to err on that side and submit my will (for libertarian free will…which is pretty preposterous if you think about our position before Him and our human sin nature)as opposed to diminishing His sovereignty, as if that were even possible.
Mommypundit on January 10, 2009 at 7:17 PM
He is certainly someone on this blog that I respect, especially in terms of theology. Plus, the guy’s the consummate internet-forum gentleman, treating everyone respectfully.
nailinmyeye on January 10, 2009 at 7:16 PM
I just logged back on, and I found this.
Thank you.
:-)
I will have your check in the mail!!
ColtsFan on January 10, 2009 at 7:18 PM
Oh, Cyber…I meant to add:
As a Catholic, I have studied many Protestant sects. Of course, with over 30,000 of them, it’s impossible to get ‘em all.
I dunno, the biggest “pit bulls” out there, for me, have been the SDA (Seventh Day Adventists). They believe the Catholic Church to be the “whore of Babylon”.
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 7:19 PM
DUDE I KNOW! Like, all those Calvinist suicide bombers and terrorists! Wait a minute …
Just the other day I heard one of those Reformed Death Squads TOTALLY wrote some strong letters to people! The horror!
TheUnrepentantGeek on January 10, 2009 at 7:15 PM
hahhahahahahahahhahaaaaahhahahahahaaa
Mommypundit on January 10, 2009 at 7:20 PM
I don’t think anyone here wants to make you cry. I think that JetBoy was simply pointing to something that Calvinists are famous for, viz. their rather gloomy outlook. If you want to see what I’m talking about, go back and read Jefferson’s letters to Adams (written in their later years). Jefferson was alway needling Adams regarding his “Calvinist doom and gloom”.
Calvinism’s adherence to the doctrine of predestination IS similar to Islam’s fatalism. It’s like the difference between a case of the sniffles (Calvinism) and a full blown case of pneumonia (Islam).
My collie says:
CC, you are such a heretic.
CyberCipher on January 10, 2009 at 7:17 PM
Oh, I just meant that I love the doctrines of grace so much and my Lord so very much and I have studied Islam, as well…so, the parallel was heartbreaking. I want to tell others that we are not gloomy!!! hahaha. We are so joyful…we just know our nature and are glad for salvation.
Mommypundit on January 10, 2009 at 7:23 PM
I’m sorry,the more I learn about Calvanism,the more it
sounds like Islam.
JetBoy on Jan 10,2009 at 6:58PM.
JetBoy: Accept for,
Beheadings
Stoneing’s
Suicide Bombings,El Ka-Blewy to smitherines.
Praying 5 times per day/towards Mecca.
And other Jihady activities that I’m sure
doesn’t impress G-D:) Jus Sayin.
canopfor on January 10, 2009 at 7:17 PM
I’m not necessarily defending Jetboy’s evaluation of Calvinism, but you’re comparing the tenets of one (sect of a) religion to the activities/outcomes of another. Apples and Oranges.
baldilocks on January 10, 2009 at 7:24 PM
I’d be very interested in what ColtsFan has to say. As someone else said, he’s by far the best read among the election crowd.
TheUnrepentantGeek on January 10, 2009 at 7:12 PM
Check Number 2 will go out in the mail to ya Monday!!
HotAir DOES have a few Calvinists mixed among the participants. Of those that I have encountered, ColtsFan is one of the better read individuals. I’d be interested in hearing his take on this guy.
CyberCipher on January 10, 2009 at 6:05 PM
Check 3!!
In other news this evening….
There have been reports of co-workers overhearing devout, passionate Peyton Manning fan audibly praying for over-time at place of employment…..
ColtsFan on January 10, 2009 at 7:25 PM
it’s impossible to get ‘em all.
Ok, there are a lot of different ‘brand names” in Protestantism, but is that a bad thing? Whenever I change jobs or move to a different area or enter a new social circle, & when I meet a Christian, there’s a kinship of spirit that knits us together no matter where he or she goes to church.
jgapinoy on January 10, 2009 at 7:25 PM
Calvinism is like Islam basically for the way it controls your life.
There’s no “free will”…and Calvinist seem to simply reject the numerous biblical references to such. I don’t get it.
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 7:25 PM
dunno, the biggest “pit bulls” out there, for me, have been the SDA (Seventh Day Adventists). They believe the Catholic Church to be the “whore of Babylon”.
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 7:19 PM
Ellen White’s story is interesting in it’s own right. She was a Millerite — standing out on the hillside in New York in 1842/1843 waiting for the world to end. When it didn’t happen, and Miller was discredited, she started the Seventh Day Adventist church. I’ve been told that David Koresh’s Branch Dividians (the Waco fiasco) are an “offshoot” from that sect.
My collie says:
But you are essentially correct, NO ONE hated the Catholic church more than Ellen White.
You should read her book some time. It reads like Mein Kampf. She falls into a seizure and chews on the carpet in alternating chapters (with her hatred for the Pope and Catholicism).
CyberCipher on January 10, 2009 at 7:26 PM
Calvinism’s adherence to the doctrine of predestination IS similar to Islam’s fatalism.
CyberCipher on January 10, 2009 at 7:17 PM
Muhammad copied a lot of things from Christianity to create his made up religion. Please don’t let his distortions succeed in distracting you from the truth.
pedestrian on January 10, 2009 at 7:27 PM
CC your such a heretic.
CyberCypher on Jan 10,2009 at 7:17PM.
CyberCypher: In the spirit of Life of Brian,
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BLASPHEMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BTW,If you don’t mind,I’m building a good ol’fashion
fire pit,with 2 stakes,for you and your beautiful collie!
No hard feelings,eh!The needs of the many outweigh the
needs of the few!(I’m kidding You)!Haha:)
canopfor on January 10, 2009 at 7:28 PM
I don’t understand the characterization of Calvinists as gloomy. The Calvinists I know are joyful, in no small part because they don’t live in fear of somehow disinheriting themselves from God’s grace or worrying about their worthiness to get into Heaven. Knowing that none are worthy of that grace has led Calvinists I know to live a life of thankfulness that God would choose anybody.
Lehosh on January 10, 2009 at 7:30 PM
CyberCipher on January 10, 2009 at 7:26 PM
Correct on all points. Yeah, I’ve been looking for a good “thinking” book to read…haven’t read one in a while. I may just have to read up on Ms. White.
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 7:30 PM
I don’t think I’m gonna watch the clips. Like I trust AP to choose clips that make Christianity look good? C’mon.
Try this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1EAmfOu9lE
jgapinoy on January 10, 2009 at 7:33 PM
heh…I got a chuckle outta THIS
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Calvinism is like Islam basically for the way it
controls your life.
JetBoy on Jan 10,2009 at 7:25PM.
JetBoy: Me thinks your digging yourself I nice hole,
may I suggest,
a spade
a Backhoe,
or at the rate your going,a Caterpillar,D-10
Bulldozer!
I’m just try’n to help!:)
canopfor on January 10, 2009 at 7:35 PM
“What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory” (Rom. 9:22-23)
Mommypundit on January 10, 2009 at 7:13 PM
But how did He get those vessles “prepared beforehand” MP?
Gal 3:24 – “Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.”
2 Tim 3:16-17 – “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
They are tutored by His Scripture, and those who obey it are “vessels of mercy.”
Sorry, no contradictions there.
TMK on January 10, 2009 at 7:36 PM
“Calvinism breeds a horrendous entitlement mentality”
I don’t think so. Didn’t everyone used to agree it bred hard work? Anyone come across the phrase “Protestant work ethic”?? Of course, it’s been long gone for a generation or more, but it was there for a few centuries! Entitlement mentality is not truly fed by Calvinism, and to say otherwise is to be ignorant of history.
G. Charles on January 10, 2009 at 7:39 PM
And using an unconventional method to lead young men to Christ is bad because…? I guess you can complain about anything if you want to.
I fail to see any victim in this. Can somebody help me out here?
Wino on January 10, 2009 at 6:00 PM
Well, as a Jew, I find Christianity to be a sick, twisted religion and I wouldn’t want to lead young men to it. I watched both the Mars Hill YouTube videos and the last one was so obsessed about issues of sexuality. Whenever I hear Christian preaching, I usually hear obsession bout sexuality to the point of perversion. Judaism has more or less the same sexual values of Christianity, but you don’t here us go on and on about it, like it was the most important idea in the religion. Conservative and Orthodox Jews will obsess about keeping Shabbat, and the Reformed about social justice. Both strike me as much more sane worries. And I do remind people that anyone can become a Jew. It’s much more challenging to become a Jew than a Christian or a Muslim, but I like to think of it as quality control. And looking at the Christian and Muslim faithful, you see why quality control is a good thing.
thuja on January 10, 2009 at 7:41 PM
Correct on all points…
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 7:30 PM
How can THAT be? You’re Catholic, and I’m Wesleyen/Arminian Protestant? Can’t you at least tell me that I’m a heretic or somethin’?
Just kidding. My father had seven brothers and five sisters. I’ve got a LOT of Catholics, and Mormons, atheists and just about everything else married into my family (so I’ve had to learn to be diplomatic on these matters — I’ve got so many cousins I can’t count all of them).
My collie says:
Yes, but you DID manage to p*ss off a lot of the Catholics with your remarks about pedophile priests.
I don’t like pedophiles period. I don’t care whether they’re Catholic or Protestant. I’ll be the first to point out that I’ve seen more cases of sexual abuse from leaders of Protestant sects than I care to remember. The only thing that I insist upon is that when that sort of thing is discovered, it needs to be dealt with swiftly and decisively, not covered-up or denied.
CyberCipher on January 10, 2009 at 7:41 PM
heh…I got a chuckle outta THIS
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 7:34 PM
You meant this
Yes, Calvinism spawned a bunch of sad offshoots, like people using material wealth to prove to their neighbors that they are of the elect. Unfortunately people came to think that nuttiness is what Calvinism is actually about, and so now people reject it without understanding it. That is unfortunate, because what Calvin set out to do was to simply carefully say and live by exactly what it says in the Bible and nothing more.
pedestrian on January 10, 2009 at 7:45 PM
How can THAT be? You’re Catholic, and I’m Wesleyen/Arminian Protestant? Can’t you at least tell me that I’m a heretic or somethin’?
CyberCipher on January 10, 2009 at 7:41 PM
heh, I’ll be nice ’cause I don’t want your collie to bite me…
That, and I know well that Aminians and Calvinists have a bit of history of not getting along. And yeah, for the record, us Catholics rarely “bible-thump”. One’s relationship with God is a personal one anyway.
JetBoy on January 10, 2009 at 7:47 PM
thuja on January 10, 2009 at 7:41 PM
It’s not just the Christians that are guilty of this sort of thing. Have you watched television lately? Sat in on biology class in a public school lately? The Protestants of the original 13 colonies were FAMOUS for their sexual repression. Ever hear of bundling?
What you are objecting to has been brought to us “courtesy” of the 1960’s. The pill, abortion on demand, and the MSM media’s constant bombardment of the populace with sex, sex, sex has turned us into culture whose sexual depravity matches that of the Roman Empire.
My collie says:
Don’t tell me that it was Christians (exclusively) that brought this about. Peoples from ALL religious sects have had a hand in it.
CyberCipher on January 10, 2009 at 7:52 PM
thuja on January 10, 2009 at 7:41 PM
Thank you for proving the point I made at 7:33PM.
jgapinoy on January 10, 2009 at 7:53 PM
Well, as a Jew, I find Christianity to be a sick, twisted religion and I wouldn’t want to lead young men to it.
thuja on January 10, 2009 at 7:41 PM
I was raised in a Reformed Jewish family, and I was brought up to think about Christians from the point of view of all the persecutions that had been done to Jews. Much later I learned that, as you say, there is no quality country in Christianity, and so anyone can proclaim themselves to be Christian while performing an atrocity. Only after I really studied what is in the New Testament did I learn to tell the difference between real Christianity and frauds. Sadly, I still cringe a little inside when I hear the name “Jesus” because of all the horrors done supposedly in his name.
pedestrian on January 10, 2009 at 7:55 PM
To Frank J. and all who question Calvinism:
If you sincerely want to understand modern Calvinism, Pastor John MacArthur of Grace Community Church is arguably the most authoritative Biblical scholar of our time and a forceful advocate of Calvinism. His interview, Answering the Key Questions About the Doctrine of Election, is a good starting point.
The debate between Arminians and Calvinists is strictly a matter of how we interpret God’s instruction book “for Dummies,” the Bible. God certainly gave Moses free will and he nearly exhausted His patience. Conversely, He knocked Paul of Tarsis off his horse into a life Paul didn’t chose, which ended in violent martyrdom.
I can tell you why I subscribe to the Arminian doctrine and reject Calvinism, but the best thing you can ever do for yourself is to read a MacArthur Study Bible.
Terrie on January 10, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Many Bible scholars believe that the book of Job is the oldest book in the Bible — i.e. that it was actually committed to papyrus BEFORE Moses wrote the Pentateuch.
My collie says:
Isn’t interesting that the VERY FIRST thing that was written down dealt with “the problem of evil/pain”.
Yes – and even though God tried to address the issue right up front, people still continue to whine “why do bad things happen to good people?”.
CyberCipher on January 10, 2009 at 6:58 PM
I can see Job coming from an earlier tradition than the Pentateuch. Certainly the emphasis on God’s power to do things, rather than the morality therein seems very primitive in conception, although doesn’t lose it’s power simply due to that fact, because, especially in the realm of natural disasters and human sickness, believers often confront those issues of God’s hand in these events head-on even though our scientific mind sees simple natural processes at work.
venividivici on January 10, 2009 at 7:58 PM
Job is an eloquent, poetic work, heartbreaking and terrifying but deals directly with the sovereign hand of God and the redemption there of.
Mommypundit on January 10, 2009 at 6:54 PM
Yes, and given the ending, it would seem that the only path to redemption is the recognition of one’s own status as an abhorrent creature. At least that’s the word that is used in the King James Version. That is certainly in keeping with the idea that humanity is not sovereign.
I find a remarkable parallel to some of the complaints in Job about the wicked prospering in today’s economic crisis, where it is undeniable that some people with very shady characters made out like bandits (literally!) while many decent people are suffering the consequences. Truly, Job is a timeless piece of writing.
venividivici on January 10, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Mommypundit, how do you deal with 1 Timothy 2:12? What you say makes good sense, but are you supposed to be saying it?
Buford Gooch on January 10, 2009 at 8:05 PM
Sadly, I still cringe a little inside when I hear the name “Jesus” because of all the horrors done supposedly in his name.
pedestrian on January 10, 2009 at 7:55 PM
What horrors would you be speaking of specifically?
NeverLiberal on January 10, 2009 at 8:05 PM
Certainly the emphasis on God’s power to do things, rather than the morality therein seems very primitive in conception,
venividivici on January 10, 2009 at 7:58 PM
But a central idea of the Book of Job is God rejecting our imposition of our morality on him. God takes a blameless man Job and shows that he has a greater purpose for his use of man than simply to impose morality upon him. So whether it comes historically before or after the Pentateuch it is exploring the ideas of where morality fits into God’s plan.
pedestrian on January 10, 2009 at 8:09 PM
What horrors would you be speaking of specifically?
NeverLiberal on January 10, 2009 at 8:05 PM
You can take a look at these lists:
70 to 1200 CE (skip down a little)
1201 to 1800 CE
1800 CE to the present time
pedestrian on January 10, 2009 at 8:15 PM
What you are objecting to has been brought to us “courtesy” of the 1960’s. The pill, abortion on demand, and the MSM media’s constant bombardment of the populace with sex, sex, sex has turned us into culture whose sexual depravity matches that of the Roman Empire.
CyberCipher on January 10, 2009 at 7:52 PM
To start let me slightly agree with you. Judaism does teach some degree of sexual modesty that is at odds with the soft porn of the entertainment industry. But I think that is far as we go in agreement. Reformed and Conservative Judaism are serious about the importance of the environment, and any attack on the pill for the purpose of human overpopulation and hence environmental destruction is not going to go over well. I’ve had discussions with Chabbad rabbis about Orthodox birth rates, and they always justify their current pro-natalist policies by necessity due to the Nazi genocide and a possible Iranian nuking of Israel. Even I, as a strident environmentalist, can’t find it in me to object. More genocides have been attempted on the Jews than other people.
But what I have said so far is a minor point. The major point is that you, a Christian, have responded to my point that Christianity is sexually obsessed to the point of perversion, by talking more about sexuality! You’ve basically proved my point about the mental unhealthiness of Christianity as a religion. And by the way, you point about the Roman Empire and sexual morality is extremely counter factual.
thuja on January 10, 2009 at 8:16 PM
But a central idea of the Book of Job is God rejecting our imposition of our morality on him. God takes a blameless man Job and shows that he has a greater purpose for his use of man than simply to impose morality upon him. So whether it comes historically before or after the Pentateuch it is exploring the ideas of where morality fits into God’s plan.
pedestrian on January 10, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Then whence can it be said that man is created in God’s image, if we are to hold ourselves to an arguably higher morality, i.e., almost every tradition says that “might makes right” is not moral, yet that is essentially God’s justification for his actions in Job. Is there no justification for assuming that the standards God holds us to are to be at least as high for God?
In the business world, a CEO who doesn’t hold himself to the same standards (or higher) as his workers is often booted out of a job. If we don’t put up with it in a CEO, why would we put up with it from God, other than because we have no choice, which again puts it in the realm of “might makes right”. That isn’t an argument between two different concepts of morality (God’s and man’s), at least not by human standards. That’s an argument between morality and immorality.
venividivici on January 10, 2009 at 8:17 PM
And by the way, you(r) (sic) point about the Roman Empire and sexual morality is extremely counter factual.
thuja on January 10, 2009 at 8:16 PM
So you think that Emperor Tiberius and Caligula were paragons of virtue then?
My collie says:
Because we mentioned the word sex in our comments, that somehow proves that Christianity is sexually depraved?
CyberCipher on January 10, 2009 at 8:21 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
Logged in as highhopes. Logout »
Allah! Dude!
You just don’t get it because you hate evangelical Christians.
Case in point of the above comment. God knew all from the beginning. There is no choosing about who should be saved involved when it comes to God.
highhopes on January 10, 2009 at 8:42 PM
Thank God that he sent us Thomas Aquinas to tamp down the predeterminist interpretation of Augustine.
tlclark on January 10, 2009 at 8:44 PM
I haven’t read all the comments, and normally I avoid long threads if they seem filled with disagreement, but I just wanted to add a couple things.
The comparison of Islam to Calvinism couldn’t be further from the truth. Islam teaches that it is your actions that earn you heaven, so much so that latecomers to the faith have almost no hope to reach it except by martyrdom, which is the ONLY guarantee any of them ever have. Calvinism, on the other hand, teaches the opposite – it has nothing to do with our actions, but it is only God’s grace that saves us, through our faith.
In other words, like most world religions, Islam is all about man trying to reach God. Calvinism, and more broadly, Christianity as a whole, is all about God reaching down to man, God himself being the bridge to our salvation.
OneGyT on January 10, 2009 at 8:56 PM
Long lists like that easily become abstract. In my family, the pain was from the Russian pogroms, because that is where they fled from. So the beating they received were probably from Russian Orthodox followers.
I’m happily a Christian now, as you can hopefully tell from my defense of Calvinism earlier in the comments. However, I don’t think it is wrong to remember all the bad things that have been done in Christ’s name. We are instructed to reach out to non-Christians, and the news of bad stuff that has been done will have reached them first, or will soon enough.
pedestrian on January 10, 2009 at 8:56 PM
This is a good philosophical question about the “Eternal Will.” God is not able to delay his will like humans are. We can want to do something, wait a while, and then do it; whenever God wants something to happen it just happens. Humans use this concept of divorce in conjunction with outside objects (when the car reaches the house I will go outside). A problem arises when we imagine God willing something to exist. God cannot delay his will so when he wants something to happen it just happens; consider this when dealing with the creation of the world (and the assignment of the good and evil people in it). How can God consciously will the world into existence at a specific time (the moment he says “let their be light”) when the very second he has the idea of an existent world the world must exist? But it’s hard to think about the creation of the world rationally when all religious creation stories (from the Enuma Elish to The Bible) are irrational.
If you like this subject I’d recommend any medieval Arabic philosopher out there (ibn Rushd or al Ghalazi in particular) and their detractors.
Nonfactor on January 10, 2009 at 9:00 PM
Non-sequitur. Your facts are uncoordinated. No one said anything about the fall of the Roman Empire or what caused it. No one said anything about the Salem witch trials. No one implied that the events of previous centuries caused the sexual depravity in modern day American culture. I don’t think you understood my earlier comments.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on January 10, 2009 at 9:03 PM
The fact that ANY are saved is straight up grace and mercy. We all deserve separation from God cause all our sinners. Holy to God is not our holy. His law is His holiness and we all have failed that.
Christ Jesus, who fulfilled all that the law required, not for himself, but for those who accept(/are elected),the gift, is MY righteosness that gets me to God.
Not what my hands can bring! Glory to God in the highest!
equip.org is a great resource and whitehorseinn.org too
Mercy4Me on January 10, 2009 at 9:11 PM
No, I did not make an non-sequitur. You played the sexual depravity as the fall of Rome card, and I showed it to be utter nonsense and then you claimed you didn’t play the card. Ok, let me just ask why did you bring the sexual habit of two emperors a century before the Roman Empire reached its peak in Emperors Trajan, Hadrian, and Marcus Aurelius? Hadrian, by the way, was a gay emperor in a way that the gay marriage advocates today would rejoice.
thuja on January 10, 2009 at 9:13 PM
Is that what Muslims believe? I suspect few if any Jews or Christian would believe that.
pedestrian on January 10, 2009 at 9:14 PM
You are correct that Calvinism is ALL about grace and Islam is a system of works. That much is true — and they could not be more different from each other in that respect.
The similarity is that in Islam, even good works is no guarantee of eternal reward. Allah saves whomever he wills. There are no guarantees, and there is no standard of measure for a Muslim’s works beyond what is necessary — sufficiency is an “unkown”. A Muslim can be a “good Muslim” and submit to Allah’s will, and Allah can send him to hell anyway.
Calvinism is similar in the sense that God’s sovereignty is paramount. He chooses whomever He wills (the elect).
My collie says:
CyberCipher on January 10, 2009 at 9:16 PM
ibn Rushd and al Ghazali were responding to the concept of the Eternal Will and how God could have created the universe given that he cannot delay his will. It was certainly a commonly accepted belief among Jews, Muslims, and Christians, at least during the time these two philosophers were writing, that the Eternal Will of God cannot be delayed like humans can delay our will, and it certainly cannot be delayed like humans can delay their will on condition of something physical happening considering nothing physical existed when God willed the world into existence.
Nonfactor on January 10, 2009 at 9:20 PM
The question is when did God decide to create the universe or when did he decide to assign the people of the world as good or evil. If it was at a specific time and if God is indeed a rational being then why wouldn’t God have created the universe or assigned people as good and evil a second or two seconds or ten years before or after he did it. Why would God do something at a specific time? It is irrational.
Nonfactor on January 10, 2009 at 9:23 PM
Judaism has no hell. Hell makes Hashem a pervert.
thuja on January 10, 2009 at 9:31 PM
Are you referring to the infralapsarian vs. supralapsarian debate?
I view God as existing outside our concept of time, so seconds and hours are not meaningful to describe his actions. He uses evenings and mornings as a description for a sequence, but that includes events before the Sun and Earth were created, so that suggests he was using those words in some other way than we use them.
However, your earlier point seemed to be that he could not want something to happen without making it happen. The people has extensive passages, to the delight of Arminians, that he wants us to do things a certain way, but he doesn’t make us do it that way.
pedestrian on January 10, 2009 at 9:41 PM
Emphasis on the name, GOD. It’s His creation, what He does with it (and us as a part of that creation) is entirely up to Him.
He says before we were in our mother’s womb, He knew us. He knows what He’s doing, it’s His work, we are His in a complete sense.
So He granted us all free will. That means, we are free to consider what He might do or even think about ways we can argue with Him, but, the point is, God’s the decider. We should have faith in that and stop trying to second-guess Him and argue the obvious.
S on January 10, 2009 at 9:46 PM
I don’t assign this to predestination but to a requirement to have faith — full faith — in God as the Alpha-Omega.
S on January 10, 2009 at 9:50 PM
What I mean by that is that if we maintain full faith in God AS GOOD, as the “one and only” Divine and Good beyond our understanding, and then rely on Him to be and do that Good on our behalf, that it removes the anxiety of doubting the outcome.
God’s promises eternal life if we _____________ (read His requests, the Bible, New Testament). If we only think of a tiny portion of just how good God is, it seems to me that He’s not going to play the jester on us as we pass from this world to the next. That’s where faith in Him enters into our experience.
S on January 10, 2009 at 9:53 PM
I don’t know how you can simply say that God exists outside of time when he so obviously does things within the constraints of time. Any time you say “God did this and then he did that” you are acknowledging that God is acting within time. If God is acting within time why would he do something at a specific time when it is just as rational to do something at another time; this makes God’s process of deciding on doing something (like create the universe or assign people as good or evil) irrational.
I’d never heard of the infralapsarian vs. supralapsarian debate but it sounds similar to Aquinas and I don’t think it has much to do with the Eternal Will or God’s actions in time (other than to show that God does act in time, if he didn’t the actions wouldn’t need to be numbered as they’d all simply occur).
Willing to do something is not the same thing as wanting something to happen. A pitcher may want to throw 100 miles per hour, but when he wills the ball out of his hand it may only travel 92 miles per hour. God is different from the pitcher in the respect that supposedly God can will whatever he wants and that God could not delay this will based on any external objects (like the pitcher can in delaying his will to release the ball until the batter is set in the batters box) because no external objects were in existence before he willed the universe into existence, thus whenever it was that God wanted the universe to exist it had to come into existence.
Nonfactor on January 10, 2009 at 9:54 PM
Q: If God’s doing the choosing, how and when did He decide whom to save and whom to let burn?
A: Second Timothy 1:9 tells us that God “saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ before the world began.”
knangle on January 10, 2009 at 9:55 PM
I don’t like to rip on Christians just because of their faith. I’m Atheist but I absolutely understand the Christian theological point of view. In a sense, it is a very beautiful one which I can respect in many ways.
However, the entire concept of Predestination honestly kills theology for me when I think about it. In the end, “you just have to have faith”, “God is mysterious”, “we’ll never understand or know” just doesn’t cut it with me. I’m sorry. =)
That’s where every religion, save for a few, really fall flat on their faces for me. You might as well say “it’s all up to god, let’s just keep living in a cave until we die and pray” because that’s all you can fundamentally amount to on a philosophical level if you really believe it.
I don’t think anyone here does. I don’t think any society can progress, invent, create, or do any other amount of amazing stuff in our entire history if they really, actually, believe that.
So yea, totally, predestination is something which makes me an Atheist. Not the only thing, but definitely a major fundamental philosophical problem I have with religion in general.
And the problem is, you can’t really argue your way out of it. If you take one view, you invalidate generations of Christian theology. If you take another, it’s the same. It’s a trap of theology’s own making and there is no answer. That’s the problem with an omnipotent god concept. Religions before the big Monos came out didn’t really have omnipotent gods. They may have alluded to it but they never really claimed it as inherent to their belief. Even Judaism didn’t start with an omnipotent god. If you read the bible at the beginning, there are various references to god (of the bible) being “more powerful” than other gods, or taking revenge on them. The entire concept of the early biblical god as being the god “of Israel” absolutely fits the style of religious beliefs back in the day when every set of tribes had their own tribal god. Only later do we see a gradual evolving into being “the only” god.
And it’s, again, not an argument I would use to rip on Jews or Christians (and again…I don’t consider Islam to be a “valid” religion…sorry). I understand that religion is a world view, a bigger picture, etc. But predestination hits at the heart of the problematic nature of monotheism (not that polytheism is any better… As I see it, monotheism was eventually arrived at to explain away the problems with polytheism).
=)
Summer on January 10, 2009 at 10:15 PM
Oh and when I say that it’s where every religion, save for a few, falls flat on their face: I don’t mean that I believe in other religions being more valid than Judaism or Christianity. I mean that some others don’t even make claims about it, so it’s not an argument that I can use “against” them to argue various points. They all, however, have logical inconsistencies. =)
Summer on January 10, 2009 at 10:17 PM
Our knowledge of time is limited to what we observe in the universe. For example, we can measure that time moves more slowly in locations of strong gravity and high velocities. These are aspects of the universe that he created. We can’t observe God, so we don’t know what he experiences. Genesis gives us a clue that he does do things in a sequence, which is a characteristic of time, but even then relativity shows us that even the sequence of some events may be perceived in a different order in time by different observers. The fact that God created all that suggests that what he experiences would be even more difficult for us to understand.
Something like time, but not our time.
I don’t follow you. If two alternatives are both rational, but you can’t do it both ways, why is it irrational to pick one and do it that way?
The supralapsarian position, which I feel a particular affinity towards, holds that God decided to reveal his Glory, and then created a universe that would do that. He was free to create our universe of time and space in any manner he wanted to achieve that goal. Until he created time, there was no time, so in that sense no time elapsed between when will time into existence and when the universe existed. But his existence is independent of the time that he created.
pedestrian on January 10, 2009 at 10:23 PM
Calvinism or what ever it is called. Sounds pretty creepy to me. I don’t know and don’t want to know about it. I am old fashioned. But to each their own.
sheebe on January 10, 2009 at 10:28 PM
I don’t think we’ll agree in regards to time and God’s place within it, but I do still find it curious that at least part of your faith is reliant on a conception of time that is, to be frank, completely irrational. Creating the world then creating man, even if you are to give The Bible the benefit of every doubt, still necessitates that God is acting within time, not acting within some special sort of time or doing something in some order that we can’t comprehend, he’s specifically acting within time as we know it.
Because by picking one rational thing you are not picking another rational thing, which is irrational. Think about it, for God not to do a rational thing would not be rational.
The process of creation is a process that must occur within time. You cannot create something outside of time just like you cannot build something or say something outside of time. You are free to attempt to redefine what time is in hopes of making God seem rational, but it just doesn’t work.
Nonfactor on January 10, 2009 at 10:32 PM
It seems like you are following an Islamic apologist’s explanation for their struggle with the irrationality of God, which is an outgrowth of Muhammad having to correct his mistakes. The are interesting and deep considerations about seemingly arbitrary choices, such as the Axiom of Choice, symmetry breaking, and quantum indeterminancy. But that observation that God does not exist with the universe he created, and time is a part of that universe, means that we don’t need to wrestle with how God chose the instant to create the universe.
pedestrian on January 10, 2009 at 10:34 PM
The concept of the “elect” doesn’t make a dime of sense anyway. If we cannot influence our final destination in any way, then the entire concept of morality breaks down into nothing.
AbaddonsReign on January 10, 2009 at 10:39 PM
He chose of His own accord, for His own pleasure, and it had absolutely nothing to do with those He chose.
spmat on January 10, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Thank you, that was very interesting. A bit “God of the gaps,” but a very thoughtful and well-informed version. And I agree with his points that, irrespective of the existence of God or the truth of any particular religion, Christianity and the figure of Jesus have some very worthwhile aspects, and, as such, have been responsible for much good in the world. Anything that can keep the commies down in Britain can’t be dismissed as un-worthwhile.
I do find it interesting that Calvinism does not seem to produce lassitude in its adherents, and would welcome comments as to why. If it’s all worked out beforehand, why muster the will?
Splunge on January 10, 2009 at 10:43 PM
That is the position that Islam found itself in because their concept of Allah has a fundamentally arbitrary will that is not governed by logic. The God of the Bible adheres to logic and laws and furthermore calls us to study the world to see and appreciate his glory. Because he follows laws, we can study one area and make predictions about another and use that as a basis for technology. The fact that he created all these wonders for us to discover does not diminish our joy in experiencing it, no more than the fact that some author wrote a book somehow diminishes our enjoyment of reading it.
pedestrian on January 10, 2009 at 10:45 PM
And yet THAT is PRECISELY what the physicist Stephen Hawkings has proposed regarding the big bang and the event horizon. Time did not exist before the big bang, and furthermore, time was indistinguishable from the three spatial dimensions at the inception of the universe. It was only after the rapid inflationary period that the axis of time “rotated” and became “orthogonal” to the three spatial dimensions — finally becoming what we recognize today as time. THAT is my understanding of what his theory says. Furthermore, the event hozizon was NOT conical (as depicted in most physics books), but was instead a three dimensional paraboloid.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on January 10, 2009 at 10:47 PM
I’m not denying that at all. =) I encourage this sort of thinking. I was, however, talking about Predestination. How does logic answer the problems presented by it? =)
It can’t. Hence my post about that particular line of thinking.
Summer on January 10, 2009 at 10:57 PM
then God is just a force of nature and we are non persons. Why save nonpersons? Face it, A Calvinist God can be omnipotent, but not benevolent since there is no criteria to his choice but his whim. There is no good or evil really, only his will.
Calvinism IS moral relativis..
tlclark on January 10, 2009 at 11:04 PM
The bible constantly calling people to repentance presumes that we have a choice. Unless one wants to claim God is playing games with those passages. Verses that are used to say otherwise are missing elements such as context, author’s purpose and audience that actually weigh against a predestined to good/evil or salvation with no regard for our own decisons.
aikidoka on January 10, 2009 at 11:06 PM
why do the powers that be continue to let ALLAH hyjack this otherwise greatly useful sight for HOLY WARS?
hashman on January 10, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Okay, I’ll grant you that the body of evidence suggests that people have a choice to repent.
Granted. You win.
Then explain, please, if God knows, or doesn’t know – since the beginning of time and God itself – who will or will not be saved. If God doesn’t know, how then is he Omniscient? If God does know, then why make us go through the motions?
The point is: God is either omniscient and cruel, or simply not omniscient and, hence, not omnipotent. Predestination makes you choose. People have tried to wriggle their way out of it to “expand the question” and explain away the inconsistencies in the two choices…but you really can’t. In the end, you have to choose. And, either way, the choice is not pretty for your faith or your concept of God.
Summer on January 10, 2009 at 11:10 PM
God knowing what we will do is cruel? God allowing us to make moral choices, to choose to love, rather than force us is cruel? Knowledge is not causation. We can pretty good knowledge of what someone will do just by knowing them very well. Does that make us cruel?
aikidoka on January 10, 2009 at 11:16 PM
No, you fundies don’t get it because you see serious questioning as discussion of faith as an attack on faith. You, by nature, consider those who disbelieve to be “heretics”, effectively the same as Muslims referring to nonbelievers as “kufr”. They are both insults you made up in your own code to refer to those who believe differently in a derogatory manner.
News flash: This country was set up to prevent the burning, stoning, etc of those who question, and it pisses a lot of people like you off.
MadisonConservative on January 10, 2009 at 11:17 PM
LOL well said—-almost as bad as Armrenianism—both extremes are more matters of philosophy and personality than theology–
John The Baptist on January 10, 2009 at 11:19 PM
I agree. Science, mathematics, and logic are just abstractions. The world is real and we can experience it directly, but only because God created it and us. God himself has an existence that does not depend on anything else.
There is nothing we know of that requires him to be benevolent. He says he is benevolent, but there is still suffering in the world. That is indeed a puzzle for Calvinists. The attempt to resolve that is called theodicy. Perhaps he created the world specifically design to conceal certain knowledge of his existence in order for us to fully grasp what it means to have a God. We see separation from God necessarily entails sin, and sin entails pain and death.
pedestrian on January 10, 2009 at 11:21 PM
“he” should be capitalized (even if you’re an atheist) and we cannot know the answers to these questions on this side of the “veil” (unless you’re Presbyterian and believe you’ve been pre-destined to be saved).
Jenfidel on January 10, 2009 at 11:29 PM
He hasn’t complained yet. =)
Summer on January 10, 2009 at 11:38 PM
To answer your response earlier pedestrian, I have no problem with pointing out all the wicked things the Catholic church and other pseudo-Christian groups have done. I just thought it was strange that you say you are a Christian and yet you “cringe” when you hear the name of Jesus, because of what these groups have done. I don’t understand that.
NeverLiberal on January 10, 2009 at 11:38 PM
No, but damning us for eternity while giving us false hope is, I think, quite cruel.
Maybe not in your universe, but it sure is in mine. =)
Summer on January 10, 2009 at 11:40 PM
Which “false hope” would you be referring to?
NeverLiberal on January 10, 2009 at 11:48 PM
Jetboy, just because all of you believe the one wrong thing, doesn’t make it any less wrong. It just means all of you believe the wrong thing.
Many protestants strongly oppose calvinism for it’s co-redemptrix mary worship, unbiblical traditions(which, conveniently, supersede scripture), and unbiblical regulations regarding eating meat and forbidding marriage.
TTheoLogan on January 10, 2009 at 11:51 PM
woops, that’s catholicism, not calvinism, that they oppose.
TTheoLogan on January 10, 2009 at 11:52 PM
I disagree. Morality from God’s perspective has never been about being good enough to gain His favor (an impossible task) but about obedience to His commands. This is why Christians who believe in election and/or eternal security continue to be moral individuals. Not because they believe that it in any way gains them standing with God but in obedience to his command and gratitude for his gift of salvation. So you see if you have a proper understanding of morality it does not disappear with election, it is enhanced because he who has been forgiven much, loves much, and seeks to do the Father’s will.
Govgirl on January 11, 2009 at 12:07 AM
I once had to talk a guy outta suicide because he was taught the “once saved always saved” teaching and putting a little of the fear of God’s judgment in him was the only thing that could sober him up. Its possible to live morally while believing in that unscriptural teaching but then you are left with the same problem the atheist has. Why live morally if I don’t have to.
NeverLiberal on January 11, 2009 at 12:18 AM
I find it interesting that protestants follow Augustine–a catholic leader then and now ininluence—so closley, yet claim to reject Catholicism. Ecclisiastically I suppose…..
As one who left Calvinism I saw it for what it was, which is just as bad as the Arminianism it opposes.
Over emphasis on the Father gives Calvinism
Over emphasis on The Holy Spirit–Charismaticism
Over empasis on Mary–Catholicism
Over emphasis on Christ—of which there can be no such thing —Christianity!
Denial of all the above-Judaism, and hatred of allthe above (inlcuidng…especially including…..Judaism)- Islamism.
It’s really not that complicated if you look at it objectivally and not subjectivallly, but then, THAT is hard.
Took me years.
God bless you all no matter.
Have a great Sunday–even all you athiests out there!
John The Baptist on January 11, 2009 at 12:21 AM
I don’t think you understand the point I’m trying to make, which could just be the fact that I didn’t explain it well enough. =)
Let me put it another way: God is omniscient. That means He knows who will be saved and who won’t be saved since before time began.
Which also means that before you were born, He knew the choices you would make and whether or not you would be damned.
Which basically means that regardless of how you choose, it may not be pre-determined by God, but it is at least known by God what you will do. Hence your being damned is particularly offensive as He could actually intervene to save you….but He doesn’t. And even if He did, He would know that He would, before he does it. Hence, anyone who is damned, thinking that they might go to heaven and ending up in hell, is in for a bit of a shock. God always knew where you would end up.
It’s circular. You can’t have an omniscient loving God and have the world we live in. If God is omniscient, and good, then the world would be perfect. But it isn’t perfect. Hence, God is either omniscient and cruel (or at least uncaring to an extreme degree), or He simply is not omniscient.
Either choice invalidates two thousand years of built-up Christian theology based on the entire premise that God is perfect and good, all knowing, all seeing, all powerful. You can’t have a God who is that way and have people dying, and be damned. It doesn’t work. It’s a problematic fallacy in Christian doctrine. You can’t solve it. Nobody can solve it. That’s why it is still argued to day, quite uncomfortably, by members of various clergy as some sort of esoteric exercise in faith.
But arguing however you like, the point is that nobody has been able to find a solution to this grave theological inconsistency, and as far as we know, nobody ever will.
Summer on January 11, 2009 at 12:22 AM
He already DID intervene to save us. doing more would violate our free will.
and you get to judge God…nice. do you think God was cruel when He told the Israelites to kill the amorites…men, women and children??
a bit presumptuous are we??
right4life on January 11, 2009 at 12:26 AM
Again, I hear this argument all the time.
I am an Atheist who lives by a very moral code in many respects, okay? =) I’ll defend Israel to the death – literally. I will defend our nation in the same way. I will always fight against racism, communism, Nazism, anti-Semitism. I’m often eviscerated by both sides for my views, but I stick to them. I could cave in, it has caused me problems when I haven’t caved in sometimes, but I don’t cave in.
I’m sorry, but that argument you bring up just doesn’t hold water. It is an incredibly insulting and stupid argument. Please use another one.
Thank you. =)
Summer on January 11, 2009 at 12:26 AM
You’re missing the point. Again: if we have true free will, does God know what we will do in advance or not? If he knows, why let us be damned in the first place? Why let a billion Indians be born, live, and die, knowing they will go to Hell? Did he even know this before Christ was born? If God knows everything we will do, why punish us when he could help us? Why let some of us suffer? What’s the point?
Your entire argument is based upon fatalism with an extreme form of hubris as a panacea called “free will”. If God knows everything you will ever do – even before time began – why make you go through the motions anyway?
And yes, I judge God. I judge everything. If God gave me that capacity, then I use it. You say we have free will? I have free will to judge God in return. That’s part of my free will.
And now you, and God, would damn me for it? God has always known I would judge him. And now, having known this, he will punish me for it anyway. Instead of saying “Hey you know, maybe you don’t know this, but you’re going to be punished for this…maybe I can help you.”, He’s saying “You’re going to Hell because I gave you the chance to judge me, and you took it, and I always knew you were going to take it, I always knew you would be a bad little girl, I always knew you would come out against me, you never had a chance even if you tried. I could have told you, but I didn’t tell you – I acted like I couldn’t care less. So off to Hell you go, little girl.”
That’s a great moral stance for God to take, isn’t it?
And, by the way, before you start arguing with me about how wrong I am to hold this argument, you might want to consult with some various Theological scholars whom have debated this for a few thousand years. You know, people who sorta created your entire faith based on the explanation of this conundrum. Maybe that might help explain the problem with it in more detail to you.
Summer on January 11, 2009 at 12:34 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »