To steal Mike Jensen's thunder...Being convinced of predestination is also a good reason to commit to confessional Anglicanism. The 39 Articles uphold predestination as a doctrine of "sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort" (art. XVII). Interestingly, the articles also indicate that acceptance of the doctrine of predestination is a sign of Christian maturity, while it's the "curious and carnal" person who has trouble with it.

Craig [and others].

How do you help who thinks that if God chooses people, I know he'd never choose me? I cannot be one of the elect.

David,

I must admit to being totally confused as to where you're coming from. At a couple of points, Paul makes a fairly strong case that (from a human perspective) he's about as far outside the kingdom of God as you can get. Yes, it is probably possible to top deliberately murdering God's people, but you'd have to try pretty hard and I expect that you (David) are not anywhere near there.

I'm not sure I want to claim that a doctrine of "free will" is antithetical to a doctrine of grace, but a doctrine of predestination fits hand in glove with grace. It's the ultimate expression of "grace, not merit". "Worthiness" is about God, not you (generic).

While I can understand the emotional side of your statement (grounded in our own feelings of unworthiness), from an intellectual/theological perspective it's nonsense ("I'm too unworthy to be chosen on the basis of my unworthiness.").

How do you help who thinks that if God chooses people, I know he'd never choose me?

I would preach the gospel to them - Christ and Cross. They can worry about predestination later...

@Martin - full agreement

I'm thinking David's question is not about himself, but one of those "granted that God is sovereign and sets His love upon His children from before the world begun (ie the chosen issue), then how do you deal with a person with such and such a problem....." hypothetical’s.

The simple answer is the situation is a pastoral one which will almost certainly depend on knowing more about the person. Personally speaking election belongs more to the meat of the word, so I would be exploring texts like Mark 1:15, John 3:16, 5:24, John 6:37, John 10:28 and asking God to open the person's spiritual eyes, etc.

I fought against God's sovereignty/election until someone trumped my quoting of Phil 2:12 with Phil 2:13 - it was simple as that, the scales fell from my eyes.

BTW, I suppose everyone realises that only in Sydney Diocese (Armidale, may be one or two others?) in the Anglican Communion would an article like this appear on an official diocesan website. Anywhere else anyone arguing Why I am a Calvinist (and you should be too) would be a member of the Presbyterian/Reformed Church family, I discount reformed Baptists because they inexplicably slip up on baptism (shush, don’t alert Murray Campbell).

How good of God to predetermine the failure and wholesale torture of his creatures, just so a plucked few can feel secure in their "unspeakable comfort".

For every cosseted Calvinist lamb (all white with doctrinal rectitude) there are 99 vile, flyblown mutton, whom God - in His justice - has brought into being simply to vent His pure ire. Rest assured, every last one of them deserves the fate-worse-than-flaying the Good Shepherd has in store for them. After all, He has pre-decreed that they freely choose it...

God rest ye, merry gentlemen.

Ahh Grant, what a cynic you are.

But I am curious

…that who-so-ever (anyone & everyone) believeth in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting Life

I grew up in a Melbourne Anglican Church which focussed on Jesus and the Gospels, not Paul and the ancillary books of the New Testament.

Craig,

Please excuse my ignorance, but perhaps you might inform me of where in the Gospels, Jesus explains that Salvation will only be available for some and not all.

Thanks

Rob

PS May I take this opportunity to wish everyone at Sydney Anglicans a Merry Christmas.

Christmas wishes to you too Rob. (When my atheist relos are trying to aggressively proslytise me this Christmas with their Ditchkeninism I'll say a secret toast to you. I miss our pleasant chats on the old forums. Always thought provoking.)

Of course Evangelicals would argue/assume you can't separate the epistles and the gospels like that. Without that level of common assumption the Calvinist/Arminian debate is effectively a secondary matter.

Hi Rob, on hols & browsing while waiting for a search for accommodation. But with no promise of being near a computer again to discuss exegesis, try...

Matt 11:27 (NIV)~ All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

From another Gospel, in John 6...

37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

[...] Jesus answered. 44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. [NIV]

And negatively, as Jesus speaks of a dual purpose to his parables bringing understanding to some and judgment to others, in fulfilment of Isaiah...

Mark 4:11-12 (NIV) ~ 11 He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that,"'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!' "

"they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!"

So, with Jesus' fulsome endorsement, God deliberately excludes the many. He doesn't want any of the unchosen repenting, else they'd have to be forgiven. Clearly, membership in the Christ-clique is exclusive and by invitation only.

Wherefore "good news"?

I must confess that the doctrine of forensic righteousness is pretty depressing. This, combined with that sinking feeling that grace seemed to be an intellectual concept rather than a life-changing reality for most Calvinists I'd associated with led to me determining that the good news did not lie in Calvinism. My liberation lay in recognising that God wanted something so much more for me than a mere forensic or declaratory righteousness - rather God wanted a righteousness that existed in state, as well as in status. Through God's work in me and not through my own efforts, I am transformed from glory to glory.

Joshua,

I see you are both not a Calvinist and a Calvinist.

Don't let it worry you, so long as we repent and believe every day (Mark 1:15) and understand our salvation is all of God through the atonement wrought by the death and resurrection of the second person of the Trinity, our only Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, that is sufficient - thank God!

I wish you a happy Christmas

David

@Grant - these are hard truths even for the faithful sometimes, so I don't expect an outsider to hear these words with joy. Still, I'm always astounded at your anger towards a being you claim does not exist.

@Rob - the whole of Scripture is the Word of God, breathed out by the Holy Spirit of Christ Himself. You want to know what Jesus says about predestination? Read Ephesians 1, quoted above.

But for the sake of argument, I'd point you to the passages Sandy quoted above, especially John 6:44.

Merry xmas to you as well!

I must confess that the doctrine of forensic righteousness is pretty depressing

Really?? I find it delightful beyond description. But I'm not really focusing on forensic righteousness here, as worthy a topic as that is.

@Sandy - many thanks for the comments. I always find your words helpful and encouraging.

Sandy @ #10: The most that those verses tell us is that God the father points people to Christ. They say nothing about the criteria that God applies in deciding whether to point someone to Christ.

I am yet to see anyone point me to a text that demonstrates conclusively that people only come to Christ as a result of election, though there are many texts that make it clear that some people do come to Christ in this way.

Philippians 2:12-13, and Ephesians 1 for that matter, seems to me to have more to do with Spiritual blessing, and with Christian living, than with conversion.

Mark 4 seems to me to say no more than that the parables are not designed to convince anyone to become a believer. It says nothing about other means by which this may occur.

@David, I reckon the passages Sandy quotes are more convincing than you allow. They certainly don't hint at any role for "free will".

But check these out as well -

He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. (John 1:11-13)

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. (Romans 9:14-16)

Ephesians 1 is clearly all about conversion. Consider -

He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace...

The Scripture is so clear. I would be amazed that anyone can deny this teaching - except that I was where you are once.

Joshua,

I see you are both not a Calvinist and a Calvinist.

Perhaps the designation "Molinist" is the most accurate in the circumstances?

Really?? I find it delightful beyond description. But I'm not really focusing on forensic righteousness here, as worthy a topic as that is.

Well, from my perspective, the legal fiction of forensic righteousness proved to be rather unsatisfying for me. Is it not much more wonderful to say that God actually makes us righteous, as opposed to God merely declaring us to be righteous, even though by any proper understanding of the term, we are not?

Craig, I'm glad that you seem to be happy as a result of your testimony, but I do wonder if you could have had so much more if you had not incorrectly believed all those years ago that your only alternative to Calvinism was a passive, almost deist God.

Oh, I knew it was not the only alternative. This short post simplifies about 10 years of spiritual walking. I actually spent 6 years in an Arminian evangelical church, and another couple of years at a huge pentecostal church (wonderful Christian folk at both places too). I also spent a couple of years deeply enamoured with Lutheranism. I'm afraid your mate the Pope never held much appeal, though.

The point is, Calvinism was far from the only alternative I looked at...

Craig, thank you for this frank and open exchange. I want to make sure that you realise that my criticisms are directed towards Calvinism and not towards yourself. And rest assured that despite the fact that you are a "separated brother" and yet to come to the fullness of the truth (here's hoping!), you are a valued brother in Christ nonetheless.

In my discussions with a Catholic theologian some time back, he mused that ironically much more so than Catholics, Calvinists are stuck both in a cycle of salvation by works and a faith based upon subjective experience. Throughout the history of Calvinism, many Calvinists have spent sleepless nights trying to work out whether they were a part of the elect or not. This led to what Weber identified as the "Protestant work ethic", where industriousness and financial security was seen as evidence of God's favour upon an individual and hence one's status as one of the elect. The other approach was to appeal to a subjective impression, a "conviction by the Spirit" that one was part of the elect. The bizarre thing is that this approach is almost identical to that believed by the Latter Day Saints and written in Moroni 10:3-5 of the Book of Mormon.

Craig

I am not arguing from a "free will" perspective, as I don't think that the "will" is the correct source of human decision making. I am thinking more along the lines of what could be called "free desire" - ie the idea that it is possible for someone to sincerely desire to know God without any form of "election" being involved.

The John 1 and Romans 9 passages do not prove universal predestination / election. John 1 merely talks about those who receive Christ, without going into any detail about how this happens. Romans 9 is dealing with the specific situation of the people of Israel - it is merely one specific example of election, not a universal principle.

Ephesians 1 is ambiguous at best - it could equally taken as saying that all those who come to Christ will become holy and blameless sons and daughters through Christ, rather than as dealing with how people come to Christ in the first place.

Finally, I don't think you meant it this way, but your last sentence - "except that I was where you are once" is incredibly patronising. It assumes that I haven't already given it the same level of consideration as you have.

thanks for all the great posts this year craig. love your work.

@David - cheers mate, looking forward to catching up soon.

@Joshua - thanks mate. What do Catholics believe about predestination? What is official church teaching about the doctrine?

@DavidB - thanks for your comments. We could go back and forth on those scriptures, but I don't know that there is much point. From my perspective, you are engaging in special pleading to try and escape the plain teaching of the verses. I totally understand it, because I was making similar arguments 15 years ago - that is what i meant by "I was where you are once".

I don't mean that to be patronising. At the same time, I don't believe your position is sustainable in the long run, and I think most people asking the sorts of questions you are asking, and making the sort of arguments you are making, eventually move forward into Calvinism.

I agree with Martin and the Articles that acceptance of predestination is a mark of maturity, and that our struggles with this doctrine come from the flesh.

Craig - we will have to agree to disagree on the substance of this, but I must categorically reject your assertions that this is an issue of maturity, or that I am engaging in special pleading.

There is a strong contrary strand in scripture that says that all those who seek God, and who therefore put their faith in Christ, will be saved. In the context of the scriptures as a whole, and whilst I can see the interpretative attractiveness of the Calvinist view of the verses you mention, I do not think that is is appropriate to use those verses to support a generalised proposition that all salvation is elected.

I prefer to give those verses a more limited meaning than the Calvinist view requires, because it seems to me that the scriptures as a whole require us to do so.

Hi Craig,

You probably should have left Why I am a Calvinist (and you should be too) simply as Why I am a Calvinist.

The title by the additional words challenges a response by non Calvinists who feel a compunction to defend cherished arminian, catholic, other views.

I recall that doughty campaigner, Donna Green who finding what she considered to be caricatures of Catholicism voiced on other threads last year, mounting a spirited and well constructed defence of (conservative) Catholicism.

In the same way, going in the opposite direction, Joshua Aldersley (post #22) provides a caricature of Calvinism, presumably one common in Catholicism, that simply does not accord with my 45 years of Christian profession/life that has been deeply impacted by the reformation and Calvinism in particular. I could go further and say that it is offensive, but ‘tis the season of good cheer and besides, our Lord will sort out the differences in His own good time.

Thank you Craig for all your posts this year and may you return in fine fettle in the New Year.

There is a strong contrary strand in scripture that says that all those who seek God, and who therefore put their faith in Christ, will be saved.

David, I don't think this is a "contrary strand" - I believe it fits in perfectly well with Calvinism. We Calvinists believe that it is only the Holy Spirit that can cause a heart to turn and seek God.

Here is a question that really challenged me when I believed as you do - why is it that some people believe in Christ, and some don't? To use your words, why is it that some "seek God", while others don't? How would you explain that?

You probably should have left Why I am a Calvinist (and you should be too) simply as Why I am a Calvinist.

That would have been much less fun... ;-)

The title by the additional words challenges a response by non Calvinists who feel a compunction to defend cherished arminian, catholic, other views.

True enough - though I've been glad to hear from them all!

Craig

It seems to me that there are a myriad of reasons why some people seek God, whilst others do not, but that most of them boil down to pride v humility.

Where I disagree with Calvinist logic is that I don't think that God's intervention in the "election" sense is a necessary prerequisite for a proud person to become humble and to genuinely start seeking God. In particular, it is false logic to say that all assertions of humility necessarily themselves involve an element of pride and are therefore necessarily false.

Sandy and Craig,

Thanks for your comments and passages, though I remain to be convinced (that that was Jesus's intent).

Jeremy,

Hah! And likewise I shall drink a private toast to you (though it may be non-alcoholic as I'm spending Christmas with my Islamic Nephew-in-Law! What a marvellous place Australia is.)

Rob

I find Richard Swinburne's presentation helpful ("Responsibility and Atonement, Clarendon, 1989, p194), echoing Rev. 3:5. "God predistines in the sense of 'intends as their destiny' the salvation of all men; and he helps them towards that savlvation, but he does not force it upon them. Our names may be in the book of life, but it is up to us whether they stay there."

@Joshua - thanks mate. What do Catholics believe about predestination? What is official church teaching about the doctrine?

Well, in practice, Catholicism is a broad church with many differing opinions on the subject, but I'm sure you knew that. Historically though, Catholics who have wished to stress God's sovereignty have fallen into one of two camps - the Thomist, or the Molinist schools of thought. As you may know, Aquinas had quite a robust view of predestination that in many respects is not too similar to Calvinism. Molinists, on the other hand, take issue with the Calvinist distinctive of "unconditional election" while wishing to retain God's sovereignty through what is known as His "middle knowledge". Perhaps the closest Calvinists come to recognising this reality is by their contention that humans are not simply passive robots who are not responsible for their actions. If this is not free will, then I don't know what is. Actually, I think that part of the failure with most Calvinists is that they fail to bite the bullet and become Hypercalvinists because they have a sneaking suspicion about the illegitimacy of the belief system.

With respect to the official Church teaching, the following paragraphs from the Catechism are instructive:

God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. - Paragraph 1037

All men are called to this catholic [universal] unity of the People of God…. And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation. - Paragraph 836

To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination’, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: ‘In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place [Acts 4:27-28]. For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness. - Paragraph 600

Hope this helps.

In the same way, going in the opposite direction, Joshua Aldersley (post #22) provides a caricature of Calvinism, presumably one common in Catholicism, that simply does not accord with my 45 years of Christian profession/life that has been deeply impacted by the reformation and Calvinism in particular. I could go further and say that it is offensive, but ‘tis the season of good cheer and besides, our Lord will sort out the differences in His own good time.


David, I must confess that I find it rather unfortunate that you see fit to take this kind of swipe at me and particularly in the manner that you have. I don't mind you making an accusation that I am creating a caricature of Calvinism, but I do think that having done so, the courteous way to proceed is to explain exactly how I have done this. Otherwise, your comments simply hang around the air as an unsubstantiated slur that unfairly brings my name into disrepute. Hopefully, none of this sounds too harsh, since I remember that I was once where you are and still would be, but for the grace of God. In this respect, it is not for me to pass judgment.

In saying all of this, I think my concern still stands. It seems to me that Calvinists seem to face some angst over the nature of their status in the elect and that the means by which they attempt to resolve this angst is through resort to external signs or by subjective experience, which does not seem to me to be a reliable basis for one's faith. Perhaps you took issue with me comparing the "internal testimony of the Holy Spirit" that Calvinists claim with the "burning in the bosom" claimed by Latter Day Saints? All I can suggest is that I find the similarities to be striking and that in view of the competing truth claims by Calvinists and Latter Day Saints, the veracity of their respective subjective experiences seems somewhat suspect to me.

It seems to me that there are a myriad of reasons why some people seek God, whilst others do not, but that most of them boil down to pride v humility.

Thanks David. And this is where the problems with the arminian position start for me.

If one man's pride causes him to reject God, and another man's humility causes him to pursue God, then I want to know why the one man is proud and the other man is humble. Experience and our modern psychology tell us that there are many factors involved - physiology, upbringing, peer experience and so on.

Now, is it fair and reasonable that the eternal destiny of the two men hangs upon so many things beyond their control? If Fred rejects God and Joe accepts God, might not Fred accuse God at the last day, and say, "Look, Joe's whole life made it easier and more conducive for him to accept you, whereas my life was the opposite. How is it fair that Joe gets rewarded and I get punished?"

I think Fred would have a fair case.

@Joshua - agreed, I think Aquinas and Calvin were fairly close on this doctrine in many respects. You would, I assume, concede that Calvinistic predestination accords very closely to Augustine's beliefs.

Reading the catechism, it seems to me that modern Catholicism is what we protestants would call Arminian.

But Craig, Fred would equally have a fair case on the Calvinist view, as on the Calvinist view the destiny of the two men also hangs on circumstances beyond their control (ie whether God has pre-destined them or not). So I don't think that your example takes the discussion very far at all.

I also don't think that external circumstances matter anywhere near as much as you suggest. Everyone has factors in their lives that could lead to pride, and everyone has factors that could lead to humility. The factors themselves may be outside of their control, but what each person makes of them remains their own responsibility.

David, I notice your first inclination wasn't to deny the problem that I was highlighting, but merely to say that Calvinism has the same problem. I don't agree with the latter though, and we can discuss that a bit further on.

Regarding human behaviour, I'm far less convinced than you that it is essentially free. It seems plain to me that all human beings are a complex amalgam of nature and nurture, and these factors largely determine their behaviour - including their attitude toward meta-physical reality.

You seem to suggest that it is a level playing field - that the proud person is proud because they choose to be proud, and the humble person is humble because they choose to be humble. I don't know how old you are, but that seems like a young man's view of the world (I say that without malice).

But even if we accept that some choose pride and some choose humility, it doesn't help. We still need to ask *why* they chose either way. What is it that made Fred inclined to "choose" to be proud, while Joe was inclined to "choose" to be humble?

Craig

I would not put it in terms of "choice", which implies that the human will has more power than I would give it credit for, but simply in terms of being willing to recognise reality.

Before I respond any further:

* why do you disagree that Calvinism has the same problem;

* why does it matter what prompted Fred to be proud, and Joe humble?

why do you disagree that Calvinism has the same problem;

In the Calvinistic system, all are depraved and deserving of condemnation. Damnation is a just punishment, so all who are damned receive justice.

For those who are saved, it is through no merit of their own - it is completely as a result of God's grace worked out through election. Joe cannot boast because it was not his cleverness/wisdom/humility that got him saved - it was purely God's grace. Joe does not get justice like Fred - Joe gets mercy. In the Calvinistic system, you either get justice or mercy - no-one gets injustice.

why does it matter what prompted Fred to be proud, and Joe humble?

Because their eternal destiny hangs upon it! But this is the whole point of this conversation. If you are saying you don't know why Fred is proud and Joe is humble, is it fair to say that it is *possible* that the difference is the regenerative work of God's Holy Spirit working in Joe's heart?

Thanks Craig - now we start to get to the nub of it.

Firstly, I agree that there will be many cases, perhaps most cases, where the initiative comes from God - ie where the Calvinist story is correct. All I am arguing is that the scriptures don't rule out the alternative occurring also. Sometimes, yes, the initial difference will be God working in Joe's heart, but I think that the conclusion that this will be so in all cases is pushing the content of scripture too far.

Secondly, the idea that Joe can boast that it was his own humility that got him saved is a nonsensical one, for true humility precludes boasting altogether. So there is nothing unjust in Joe getting mercy and Fred getting judgment. For God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.

Thirdly, I am not convinced that sin always and completely prevents people from seeing their own need for salvation (that is, prior to any intervention by God in their hearts). Sin certainly means that we need salvation, and I agree that only God can regenerate our hearts, but it does not follow that the initial step in the process (ie recognising, humbly, the need to seek Him) can only be taken by God.

Fourthly, I don't see any evidence in scripture to suggest that the particular factors that have prompted Fred to be proud, and Joe humble, matter one little bit. If each of our lives have a mixture of humility-inducing factors and pride-inducing factors, then each of us has the opportunity to recognise reality for what it is. The eternal destiny of Jo and Fred does not hang on circumstances beyond their control, but rather (if God does not take the initiative with either of them), on how they interpret those (necessarily mixed) circumstances. That is, I don't agree that one person's life compared to another's makes it "easier" or "harder" for them to seek God.

Hi David,

You agree that Calvinism is right in "many cases, perhaps most cases", but there are other times when the initiative comes from man. I have to admit I've never come across this sort of combination before. It's always good to encounter new things.

Of course, it makes it hard to argue with. Any proof texts I come up with you will just say, "Oh, those are just the instances when God *did* operate that way." Anyway, we'll push on.

I find your suggestion that everyone has an equal opportunity to find God (specifically, Christ) to be pretty bold. Let's imagine a Muslim girl, growing up in Afghanistan, told her whole life that the Koran is true. Does she have an equal chance of "choosing" Christ as an Australian girl growing up in a faithful Christian family? Do you really believe that?

You said that it doesn't depend on your circumstances, but on "how they interpret those (necessarily mixed) circumstances". This gets back to my question - why do some interpret the circumstances in a "pro-God" way, while others interpret them in an "anti-God" way?

Hi Craig

Yes, the view that I hold on this does make argument rather difficult, but I genuinely think that only God knows which story applies for each individual believer.

Secondly, all I am claiming is that everyone has an equal opportunity to seek God - once they do so, then God is perfectly capable of revealing Christ to them, even the Muslim girl in Afghanistan who will almost certainly have less opportunity, in human terms, to find the answers that she is seeking.

Thirdly, I don't know exactly why some people interpret circumstances in one way, while others interpret them in the opposite way, but I don't think it matters. The human heart, I think, can go either way, and unpredictably so.

The human heart, I think, can go either way, and unpredictably so.

The consequences of going "either way" are heaven or hell.

But I think you have traced arminianism to it's logical consequences. It's where I ended up when I followed the thread - I thought I was safe-guarding the dignity of man, but I ended up with salvation hinging upon random, inexplicable almost irrational decisions by the human heart. It seemed better, safer, most just, to leave the matter in God's hands - which is what I read in the Scriptures.

Gotta go to my girlfriends house now, and then on to church. Merry Christmas everyone!

The restaurant, and then the pub, and then church, for me too. Merry Christmas to everyone indeed!

please explain Mt 23:37 in a way that fits your Calvinist system

Well, I'll let Calvin speak to that -

Again, when the sophists seize on this passage, to prove free will, and to set aside the secret predestination of God, the answer is easy. “God wills to gather all men,” say they; “and therefore all are at liberty to come, and their will does not depend on the election of God.” I reply: The will of God, which is here mentioned, must be judged from the result. For since by his word he calls all men indiscriminately to salvation, and since the end of preaching is, that all should betake themselves to his guardianship and protection, it may justly be said that he wills to gather all to himself. It is not, therefore, the secret purpose of God, but his will, which is manifested by the nature of the word, that is here described; for, undoubtedly, whomsoever he efficaciously wills to gather, he inwardly draws by his Spirit, and does not merely invite by the outward voice of man.
If it be objected, that it is absurd to suppose the existence of two wills in God, I reply, we fully believe that his will is simple and one; but as our minds do not fathom the deep abyss of secret election, in accommodation to the capacity of our weakness, the will of God is exhibited to us in two ways.

Peter, I have the same question for you that I asked above - why do you suppose that some people believe the gospel and others reject it?

so Calvin logic chops and confuses the plain word of Scripture.

Let me respond to your question with John Wesley. And, First, let us look forward on the whole work of God in the salvation of man; considering it from the beginning, the first point, till it terminates in glory. The first point is, the foreknowledge of God. God foreknew those in every nation those who would believe, from the beginning of the world to the consummation of all things. but, in order to throw light upon this dark question, it should be well observed, that when we speak of God's foreknowledge, we do not speak according to the nature of things, but after the manner of men. For, if we speak properly, there is no such thing as either foreknowledge or afterknowledge in God. All time, or rather all eternity, (for the children of men,) being present to him at once, he does not know one thing in one point of view from everlasting to everlasting. As all time, with everything that exists therein, is present with him at once, so he sees at once, whatever was is, or will be, to the end of time. But observe: We must not think they are because he knows them. No: he knows them because they are. Just as I (if one may be allowed to compare the things of men with the deep things of God) now know the sun shines: Yet the sun does not shine because I know it, but I know it because he shines. My knowledge supposes the sun to shine; (continued)

but does not in anywise cause it. In like manner, God knows that man sins; for he knows all things: Yet we do not sin because he knows it, but he knows it because we sin; and his knowledge supposes our sin, but does not in anywise cause it. In a word, God, looking on all ages, from the creation to the consummation, as a moment, and seeing at once whatever is in the hearts of all the children of men, knows every one that does or does not believe, in every age or nation. Yet what he knows, whether faith or unbelief, is in nowise caused by his knowledge. Men are as free in believing or not believing as if he did not know it at all.

6. Indeed, if man were not free, he could not be accountable either for his thoughts, word, or actions. If he were not free, he would not be capable either of reward or punishment; he would be incapable either of virtue or vice, of being either morally good or bad. If he had no more freedom than the sun, the moon, or the stars, he would be no more accountable than them. On supposition that he had no more freedom than them, the stones of the earth would be as capable of reward, and as liable to punishment, as man: One would be as accountable as the other. Yea, and it would be as absurd to ascribe either virtue or vice to him as to ascribe it to the stock of a tree.

Why some respond to god and others dont is a mystery to me but its not a mystery I will solve by logic chopping and misusing scripture.

I'w with Wesley and Billy Graham on this one.

Nice quote Peter.

Re the original piece: the suggestion that if you disagree with a particular view on predestination that you are 'resisting' God's word and need to "grow up" is, let's say, dubious.

In any case, even if you accept that view of predestination/sovereignty, it seems to me like one of those things that sounds much more meaningful on paper than it does in reality. Indeed, when you try and square it with reality it doesn't add up to all that much:
- God's action in saving people is still contingent on us -- it's not something that spontaneously occurs to people regardless of time, place or culture. Yes, we can say "But that's what God chooses to do!" but if we say what God does is indistinguishable from what we do, then we're not saying much.
- God's action/sovereignty over his chosen instrument in this world (the church) is so limited that it can't prevent either grave abuses taking place (child sex abuse for example), or grave errors in teaching (prosperity gospel etc), making it pretty much meaningless.
- Finally, the comfort of being elect is also more or less meaningless. Having seen friends go from sustained strong belief to unbelief, it's obvious we don't know where we will be in 5, 10 or 50 years time, regardless of what we think of our election now.

I have to say that the ole 'secret will of God' is the greatest escape clause in theology...

I think one may be Calvinian while still recognising the difficulty and the seriousness of the questions posed to the Calvinist system. Especially the double decree is to treated with great modesty - it often looms rather larger in Calvinism then it ever did for Calvin himself.

The double decree- you cant be a Calvinist unless you belive God is such a monser that he creates people for the sole purpose of haing them burn in hell for eternity. More from John Wesley4. But it is free for ALL, as well as IN ALL. To this some have answered, "No: It is free only for those whom God hath ordained to life; and they are but a little flock. The greater part of God hath ordained to death; and it is not free for them. Them God hateth; and, therefore, before they were born, decreed they should die eternally. And this he absolutely decreed; because so was his good pleasure; because it was his sovereign will. Accordingly, they are born for this, -- to be destroyed body and soul in hell. And they grow up under the irrevocable curse of God, without any possibility of redemption; for what grace God gives. he gives only for this, to increase, not prevent, their damnation."

5. This that decree of predestination. But methinks I hear one say, "This is not the predestination which I hold: I hold only the election of grace. What I believe is not more than this, -- that God,, before the foundation of the world, did elect a certain number of men to be justified, sanctified, and glorified. Now, all these will be saved, and none else; for the rest of mankind God leaves to themselves: So they follow the imaginations of their own hearts, which are only evil continually, and, waxing worse and worse, are at length justly punished with everlasting destruction."

(cont)

6. Is this all the predestination which you hold? Consider; perhaps this is not all. Do not you believe God ordained them to this very thing" If so, you believe the whole degree; you hold predestination in the full sense which has been above described. But it may be you think you do not. Do not you then believe, God hardens the hearts of them that perish: Do not you believe, he (literally) hardened Pharaoh's heart; and that for this end he raised him up, or created him? Why, this amounts to just the same thing. If you believe Pharaoh, or any one man upon earth, was created for this end, -- to be damned, -- you hold all that has been said of predestination. And there is no need you should add, that God seconds his degree, which is supposed unchangeable and irresistible, by hardening the hearts of those vessels of wrath whom that decree had before fitted for destruction.

7. well, but it may be you do not believe even this; you do not hold any decree of reprobation; you do not think God decrees any man to be damned, not hardens, irresistibly fits him, for damnation; you only say, "God eternally decreed, that all being dead in sin, he would say to some of the dry bones, Live, and to others he would not; that, consequently, these should be made alive, and those abide in death, -- these should glorify God by their salvation, and those by their destruction."

and from the same sermon (128 Free Grace) a bit further onet it be observed, that this doctrine represents our blessed Lord, "Jesus Christ the righteous," "the only begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth," as an hypocrite, a deceiver of the people, a man void of common sincerity. For it cannot be denied, that he everywhere speaks as if he was willing that all men should be saved. Therefore, to say he was not willing that all men should be saved, is to represent him as a mere hypocrite and dissembler. It cannot be denied that the gracious words which came out of his mouth are full of invitations to all sinners. To say, then, he did not intend to save all sinners, is to represent him as a gross deceiver of the people. You cannot deny that he says, "Come unto me, all ye that are weary and heavy laden." If, then, you say he calls those that cannot come; those whom he knows to be unable to come; those whom he can make able to come, but will not; how is it possible to describe greater insincerity? You represent him as mocking his helpless creatures, by offering what he never intends to give. You describe him as saying on thing, and meaning another; as pretending the love which his had not. Him, in "whose mouth was no guile," you make full of deceit, void of common sincerity; -- then especially, when, drawing nigh the city, He wept over it, and said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; (cont)

how often would I have gathered thy children together, -- and ye would not;" hqelhsa -- kai ouk hqelhsate. Now, if you say, they would, but he would not, you represent him (which who could hear?) as weeping crocodiles' tears; weeping over the prey which himself had doomed to destruction!

25. Such blasphemy this, as one would think might make the ears of a Christian to tingle! But there is yet more behind; for just as it honours the Son, so doth this doctrine honour the Father. It destroys all his attributes at once: It overturns both his justice, mercy, and truth; yea, it represents the most holy God as worse than the devil, as both more false, more cruel, and more unjust. More false; because the devil, liar as he is, hath never said, "He willeth all men to be saved:" More unjust; because the devil cannot, if he would, be guilty of such injustice as you ascribe to God, when you say that God condemned millions of souls to everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels, for continuing in sin, which, for want of that grace he will not give them, they cannot avoid: And more cruel; because that unhappy spirit "seeketh rest and findeth none;" so that his own restless misery is a kind of temptation to him to tempt others.

Why some respond to god and others dont is a mystery to me

I appreciate your honesty on this (and the honesty of others). But essentially it comes down to this - the non-Calvinist has no explanation for why some believe and others don't. Why God chooses some and not others is a mystery, yes - but I'd rather leave the mystery in God's will than in man's will.

but its not a mystery I will solve by logic chopping and misusing scripture.

I agree - but I disagree that Calvin chops logic or misuses scripture.

The double decree- you cant be a Calvinist unless you belive God is such a monser that he creates people for the sole purpose of haing them burn in hell for eternity

In fact, Peter, if you believe what you have quoted from Wesley, then you have exactly the same problem - you really do.

You have stated that God knows, from all eternity, who will believe and who will not believe. Therefore God knows who will *not* believe (and hence be damned) *before* they are born. Yet God still permits them to be born anyway, even though he knows they will disbelieve and hence be damned.

Applying your own standard, you would conclude the God of your own theology is a monster.

the suggestion that if you disagree with a particular view on predestination that you are 'resisting' God's word and need to "grow up" is, let's say, dubious.

Why?

Are there not areas where you would draw the same conclusion, perhaps in politics?

I think one may be Calvinian while still recognising the difficulty and the seriousness of the questions posed to the Calvinist system.

Agreed...

Especially the double decree is to treated with great modesty - it often looms rather larger in Calvinism then it ever did for Calvin himself.

I certainly would not affirm the "double decree" as it's understood by the anti-Calvinists. I believe the reprobate are such as a just punishment for their sins, not through some mysterious, random and unknowable decree of God.

- God's action in saving people is still contingent on us -- it's not something that spontaneously occurs to people regardless of time, place or culture. Yes, we can say "But that's what God chooses to do!" but if we say what God does is indistinguishable from what we do, then we're not saying much.

So Luke, what *can* your God do? Not much, by the sounds of it. Why follow Him?

there is a huge difference between knowing something will happen (I know the sun will rise tomorrow) and casusing something ( I dont cause the sun to rise) . so also with God he knows I will sin he does not cause me to sin. He knows X will deny him he does not cause X to deny him.

I am justly punished for my sins. how am i different to X who is a reprobate?
in your system because God has called me and not X. Where is the justice in that. Now if God calls X and I and I respond and X does not (consistent with Mt 23. 13) then god has shown mercy to us both but as X rejects His mercy His justice prevails.

AS to misuse of scripture Calvin makes the scripture speak with 2 voices. what is Gods will v what appears Gods will.

And dont try the fireman argument beloved by Driscoll and others. If God is sovereign and his call is irresistable He can save us all. He chooses not to.

in your system because God has called me and not X. Where is the justice in that.

It is perfectly just - because God just punishes people for their sins, just as you said. Those whom God chooses receive mercy - those whom God does not choose receive a just punishment for their sins. No-one receives injustice.

God he knows I will sin he does not cause me to sin. He knows X will deny him he does not cause X to deny him.

I do not believe God causes anyone to sin. I do not believe that God causes anyone to deny him. Where have I said that? Each man is responsible for his own sin, and is responsible for his own denial of God.

If God is sovereign and his call is irresistable He can save us all. He chooses not to.

That is absolutely true - God could save all, but He chooses not to. In your system, why are not all saved? Why don't they believe? No Arminian has ever been able to give me a meaningful answer to this question.

Thing is - oughtn't Jesus and the cross be foregrounded in our answers to these questions? Doesn't that tell us more about God's will, and God's justice than speculating?

So Luke, what *can* your God do? Not much, by the sounds of it. Why follow Him?

Well, he can intervene as a human, die for our sins, and have a profound ripple through history that leads us to be having this conversation today, so I wouldn't say that's 'not much'.

That said, the extent to which someone believes God does or does not act now seems like a meaningless measure of his worthiness to be followed, as someone will always have an (increasingly perposterous) god they believe in that can do more than yours. For example: your God can't make me healthy and wealthy? What kind of God is that? Why follow him? It's a meaningless argument.

Observing reality is, to my mind, a much better measure to inform & ground our understanding.

It seems that some particularly stark accounts of election/reprobation to which the label "Calvinist" were later annexed pre-dated Calvin himself and were popularised especially by certain Jansenist and Reformed divines around the 1630s.

On a personal note, my own favourite reformer was Philip Melancthon.

Thing is - oughtn't Jesus and the cross be foregrounded in our answers to these questions? Doesn't that tell us more about God's will, and God's justice than speculating?

Hard to argue with that, Michael. But the sorts of questions raised on this thread wont go away, either. Sometimes a tiny bit of philosophical speculation can shed some light on a theological question. At least, that is my experience.

Well, he can intervene as a human, die for our sins, and have a profound ripple through history that leads us to be having this conversation today, so I wouldn't say that's 'not much'.

Well, good point. And it's nice to hear you say it, too.

That said, the extent to which someone believes God does or does not act now seems like a meaningless measure of his worthiness to be followed...

My point was that a God who could not affect history/reality would not be a God worth having anything to do with.

Observing reality is, to my mind, a much better measure to inform & ground our understanding.

But everyone observes and interprets reality differently. To fulfill Godwin's law, I'm currently reading Speer's "Secret Prison Diaries", concerning the Nazi leaders imprisoned in Spandau after WWII. These men had a very interesting way of observing and interpreting reality, as you would imagine. And I doubt you would be at pains to affirm much of what they thought.

I believe that, generally speaking, Scripture is the lens through which we interpret reality, rather than "reality" (whatever you mean by that) being the lens to interpret Scripture.

So you see someone becoming a Christian and you say, "What's God got to do with that? The person would have made that decision anyway, so it's meaningless invoking God's intervention."

(cont)

I see the same event, and through the lens of Scripture I conclude that the reason that the person became a Christian was because God was working in their heart, to transform them and bring them to new life.

But everyone observes and interprets reality differently.

Just as well we're all completely agreed on the meaning of scripture then ;)

I believe that, generally speaking, Scripture is the lens through which we interpret reality, rather than "reality" (whatever you mean by that) being the lens to interpret Scripture.

What I mean is we must weigh whatever theory we come up with from scripture with our experience of what actually happens, sadly of which very little is done. Without testing a theory against reality, we're left with things that sound good on paper (God is sovereign, therefore can find me a car park!) but don't add up to much. So when...

I see the same event, and through the lens of Scripture I conclude that the reason that the person became a Christian was because God was working in their heart, to transform them and bring them to new life.

... we think about things like this, if we know that people can apparently go through that experience and then later turn to unbelief, we're left with two options:
- Make silly claims like 'Oh she was never really chosen to begin with' or 'Well God ordained that to happen too,' which renders the whole concept rather meaningless; or
- Accept that so long as people apparently have the capacity to make their own decisions, they can and will

In this case, I think the simplest explanation is the best.

Craig @47 and @65: the question that you ask about why some people believe and some do not is a question that only a Calvinist could ask. It presumes that there is some external contributing factor, when in fact there may be no such factor at all. For those who don't see why these things should have to be dictated by external circumstances, your question is meaningless and irrelevant.

@Joshua - agreed, I think Aquinas and Calvin were fairly close on this doctrine in many respects. You would, I assume, concede that Calvinistic predestination accords very closely to Augustine's beliefs.

I would certainly agree that Calvin appeals to Augustine's view on predestination as support for his own. The problem, as I see it, is that Augustine's own beliefs were part of a broader framework that Calvin seems to neglect, thereby distorting the internal consistency of Augustine's writing.

A few other considerations:

Regarding your example in post 37, can't one just invoke the notion that Fred is receiving "justice" and hence has no cause for complaint?

Of course, if we take the different capacities for being able to respond to God as injustice (which may well have some merit), wouldn't the Calvinist schema be even more unjust considering that the "easier" and "harder" are simply replaced with "inevitable" and "impossible"?

With respect to post 40, I suggest that this illustrates why Catholicism is an intrinsically more just system. Calvinism seems to make no distinction between belief and the reason thereof, while Catholicism does. That is, why the Calvinist schema rewards and punishes according to belief or unbelief, the Catholic schema realises that belief (and specifically, belief in Christ) in certain contexts may be hindered by a number of understandable factors including geographic isolation or poor catechesis.

Regarding post 62, I'd be interested in knowing what you understand by the concept of "double decree". And you might note that I agree with Michael Jensen's comment at post 54 to the effect of the "secret will of God" being something of a cop-out in my comment that Calvinists with the courage of their convictions should really be Hypercalvinists.

Just a question I thought it would be worth posing: Wouldn't a God who actively caused people to deny him be more sovereign that a God who simply permitted people to deny him?

Just quickly, the 'secret will' is no little, novel Reformed-only doctrine - this is a distinction which predates Calvinism, and even Calvin! It actually goes all the way back to Tertullian and right up to the modern day. Even Barth thought that the 'secret will' was a good idea and that says something!

Anyway, I did a bit of reading up on this doctrine a while ago and blogged a little on it if anyone is interested: http://www.earngey.info/2009/09/30/gods-will-two-aspects/

yeah, but it's not the secret will - it's what you assign to the secret will that counts.

In this case, I think the simplest explanation is the best.

Luke, I agree that experimental observations are ambiguous on this point. So I return to the various Scriptures already quoted on this thread to interpret what is *really* going on...

Craig @47 and @65: the question that you ask about why some people believe and some do not is a question that only a Calvinist could ask.

I disagree, David. It is not at all uncommon to ask why people have certain beliefs. The whole market research industry is about answering this question.

Wouldn't a God who actively caused people to deny him be more sovereign that a God who simply permitted people to deny him?

Possibly - but it's not about maximising God's sovereignty - it's about what Scripture teaches.

And you might note that I agree with Michael Jensen's comment at post 54 to the effect of the "secret will of God" being something of a cop-out

Read Mark's post - I think he demonstrates that the distinction between two wills of God is just as present in Catholic teaching as in Calvinism.

Possibly - but it's not about maximising God's sovereignty - it's about what Scripture teaches.

This is, of course, an important consideration. So if Calvinism is a superior theological system, it cannot be said that this is intrinsically so because it has a much more robust view of the sovereignty of God than do other theological systems. Indeed if the extent to which a theological system emphasises the sovereignty of God is indicative of its legitimacy, then one must concede that Hypercalvinism trumps Calvinism.

If I may continue to play Devil's Advocate, I noticed this from your original article:

Actually, I was not comfortable with God’s sovereignty over anything at all. ... I was content with Him sticking His fingers into the mix every now and again, but I rejected the idea that He ran the whole show.

But it seems that now you've backtracked in a sense with respect to your rejection of "double predestination", which as you previously conceded, may actually "maximise God's sovereignty". By inference you concede that the God of your theological system is not fully sovereign and that he does not run the whole show. Could it be that your objections on this point are less Scriptural and more emotional, in the sense that you understandably find the idea that God would wilfully cast people out of the frying pan and into the fire unpalatable? Is your reservation that this type God is essentially unmarketable?

yeah, but it's not the secret will - it's what you assign to the secret will that counts

totally... my point was simply that the distinction is a helpful one! to remove the distinction would yield a very wobbly theology!

@Joshua

Could it be that your objections on this point are less Scriptural and more emotional, in the sense that you understandably find the idea that God would wilfully cast people out of the frying pan and into the fire unpalatable?

As one of those whom the Calvinian God has predestined to Hell, I've "understandably" (?) attempted to express the unpalatability of the divine unmercy in not a few posts, but these SydAng minds overwhelmingly prefer a deity of might-makes-right - the Tri-Tyrant Deluxe!

In purely numeric terms, the Calvinian God prioritises his wrath over his mercy, since the number of blessedly assured Calvinists whom he has "elected" is a relatively tiny proportion of the human race. Contra Portia, the quality of mercy is, in fact, strain'd. This God wants to damn the vast many and save but a relieved handful. Calvinists are serenely confident that the best interests of both God and humanity are served by this massive wastage. It's in God's "secret will". And while he holds his cards to his chest, he demands that his followers love the very reprobates he has already pre-appointed to unending horror. Not to worry - in heaven all such "former things" will be erased from resurrected Calvinist minds.

If the Calvinian God is real (maybe so, maybe so...) then he must be a psycho.

Is your reservation that this type God is essentially unmarketable?

Apparently not, cf. the "Geneva Push".

Luke, I agree that experimental observations are ambiguous on this point. So I return to the various Scriptures already quoted on this thread to interpret what is *really* going on...

But that's the thing -- even if you accept that view, it's still more or less meaningless from our point of view, given we're unable to tell with any certainty whether we are, in fact, the elect, until we take our last breath. As I said before, who knows where we will be in 5, 10 or 50 years? There are plenty of others just like us who would have considered themselves absolutely, positively, 100% Christian but then turned to unbelief for one reason or another.

We can say "Oh but that will never happen to me!" but again, that's what they would have thought!

And so we're left in a position where it could turn out that, despite all our efforts *God* actually predestined us for judgment, and there's no way of knowing if that's the case, and no way of stopping it if it is!

Where's the comfort in that?

@ Luke,

There are plenty of others just like us who would have considered themselves absolutely, positively, 100% Christian but then turned to unbelief for one reason or another.

We can say "Oh but that will never happen to me!" but again, that's what they would have thought!

That describes my own circumstances precisely, Luke. Over the years, several TULIP Calvinists have calmly assured me that - due to I and P - I could not have been truly a Christian during those 12 years I thought I was one. I have responded by saying that as they are, I once was. Satan's counterfeits must be so subtle that even the elect can't detect them - in all my time as a faux-Christian, God did not see fit to reveal my faux-ness to any of my siblings-in-Christ. They, too, (Moore-trained clergy included) were convinced that I was the real deal. So we were all deceived, according to God's wise foreordination.

Maybe even the elect aren't elect, in which case heaven is going to be a very exclusive resort indeed.

Could it be that your objections on this point are less Scriptural and more emotional,

Joshua, I don't concede anything to your sophistical arguments at all. You are determined to push me into the hyper-calvinist mould - possibly because you find it easier to tear down than true Calvinism. But I've explained my position on election/reprobation at least twice on this thread - I will not do so again.

As someone pointed out, your caricature of Calvinism mirrors some of the (unfortunate) caricaturisation of Catholicism that occurs. Responding to you at the moment, I feel like you must when someone says to you, "You are a Catholic? Oh, so you must have a huge status of Mary in your house that you bow down and worship and offer incense to. Why do you do that?"

As one of those whom the Calvinian God has predestined to Hell, I've "understandably" (?) attempted to express the unpalatability of the divine unmercy in not a few posts, but these SydAng minds overwhelmingly prefer a deity of might-makes-right - the Tri-Tyrant Deluxe!

Grant, it's difficult to know how to take your comments. If you are an atheist (as you seem to be), why are you worried about being allegedly damned by a mythical entity? For you, isn't it a bit like a grown man getting really upset because someone says he is on Santa's "Naughty" list?

But I think you've misread the situation, anyway. For the most part, we Sydney Anglicans are trying to present God as He really reveals Himself in scripture - whether that is palatable or not. I understand that, from the outside, God looks rather terrible. But He *is* rather terrible for those who are under wrath, and not under grace. Come inside! Much, much better...

But that's the thing -- even if you accept that view, it's still more or less meaningless from our point of view, given we're unable to tell with any certainty whether we are, in fact, the elect, until we take our last breath

I know what you mean, and I've wrestled with that thought too. But in this post, I wasn't presenting predestination as a source of comfort, but simply as a matter of fact.

But I *do* take comfort in the thought of God's sovereignty - His more general sovereignty over creation. It would be a lonely thought indeed to think I was facing this often cruel and cold world completely on my own, that God was watching on from afar, offering a bit of encouragement but not much more.

Luke, I think I understand your picture of God and of the world, and I have two objections - it is not Scriptural (Jesus said that not even a sparrow dropped to the ground apart from God's will) and it is not attractive to me either (effectively it says "you are on your own til heaven").

(cont)

In reality too (I say this without heat), your view is not that far removed from atheism. Yourself and Richard Dawkins agree completely on how the world around us operates from day to day - the only difference is that you believe there is a God in the sky who you will meet when you die.

Dawkins says to people like yourself, "Look, you don't really need the God bit, do you? The universe around you operates exactly the same whether your God is there or not. So why not eliminate the God hypothesis - what do you lose if you do?"

That describes my own circumstances precisely, Luke.

Thanks for sharing that Grant. It's all a bit painful to read, and I've seen the same thing happen to a number of people over the years. I've even stared into the abyss myself on at least one occasion.

On the matter of whether you were *really* a Christian or not, it depends on what you mean by "Christian". Let me say (and I mean no offence), but one characteristic of the true Christian is that they persevere to the end. So 1 Peter tells us that the various trials we endure are actually a blessing, because they test the genuineness of our faith. James and Paul say somewhat similar things.

Jesus speaks about the same thing in a different way. In Mark 4 he compares the situation to seed being sown into 4 different types of soil. Your own situation is perhaps like the seed sown on rocky ground. Here is what Jesus says -

And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: the ones who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy. And they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away.

But in this post, I wasn't presenting predestination as a source of comfort, but simply as a matter of fact.

Fair enough, but to the extent it is a fact, it seems like one of those facts like the chemical composition of the atmosphere of Neptune or something -- fascinating in one sense, but has little impact here and now, because, as you say...

...one characteristic of the true Christian is that they persevere to the end

By definition you're only truly a Christian if you die a Christian, and given we can't say with 100% certainty that we will be, it renders the whole concept pretty much moot. If you think about it logically, given there's a non-zero possibility of me (or any other Christian) *not* being a Christian when we die, maybe we should enter into some kind of suicide pact now, to ensure we 'go out on top', if I can put it that way? :)

Anyway, thanks for bringing the discussion back to God's sovereignty, because I think that is a very interesting point of discussion... (cont)

In reality too (I say this without heat), your view is not that far removed from atheism.

Well, I see atheism as an infinite regress of meaninglessness into nihilism (thx CS Lewis!) so, not really :)

That said, I do currently see God as one step removed than most (particularly with regard to prayer), and I'd love to be persuaded of more than that, but I'm having trouble finding much that is persuasive!

But I *do* take comfort in the thought of God's sovereignty - His more general sovereignty over creation. It would be a lonely thought indeed to think I was facing this often cruel and cold world completely on my own, that God was watching on from afar, offering a bit of encouragement but not much more.

Can you explain a bit about how this works out in practical terms? Is it more than a psychological comfort (which isn't a bad thing in and of itself)? I'm just curious where it goes from the conceptual to the tangible.

Frankly, I think many Christians I've come across in Syd Ang circles have almost an almost mystical/superstitious, and often highly ego-centric view (bordering on outright narcissism) of God's sovereignty which is pretty bizarre. It's also an incredibly seductive and logically destructive mode of thinking where you think God is ordering events around you for some unknown reason that you must try and understand. Oh the tortured mental contortions I have seen... (cont)

When you step back a bit and look around, the world is a pretty cruel, lonely place -- it's fallen, after all. It seems a bit rich for us who had the incredible luck of being born into modern, Western comfort to say that God must be intimately involved with the minutiae of our lives while others starve, suffer and die.

People like to talk a lot about God's will/sovereighnty but it doesn't seem to add up to much to me. To the extent it is there, it's unknowable to us, which again makes it seem quite moot. Take prayer for stuff -- if it worked, Christians would have measurably better health outcomes, or rainfall patterns, or political wins, or whatever. But clearly that's not the case, so what can we say?

I think we have the bible, we know Jesus came and died and rose again, but beyond that we certainly are 99.9% product of evolution in a big, cold, and cruel universe (this is not heaven!) and that's that, whether we like it or not. (And on that note Craig I think you're having it a bit both ways by defending Calvinism as 'hard truths' but objecting to my view because it seems unattractive -- I think we need to drop 'attractiveness' as a criteria on either side :)

The universe is brutal (as are we), but we are being saved for something, after all, God did intervene, we do have the bible, and I'd much rather put my hope in God's real action in heaven, rather than try and shoehorn it onto the horror of the world as it is now.

Let me take another stab at the sovereignty question:

Observation 1: The world is chaotic; seemingly random and capricious.
Observation 2: Despite how the world looks, the bible tell us God really is "in control".

Here's my problem with this: "control" isn't a matter of appearance. Sovereignty is only meaningful insofar as it's exercised. If I "will" the car into the ditch, the car still ends in the ditch -- my control didn't mean all that much.

So, if God "runs the show" -- how? In what way? On what level?

Is God the divine combustion engine that keeps the world ticking over, or the divine puppet master pulling all the strings, or what? (Or both!) And how is this not, essentially, pantheism?
It seems to me that as soon as you apply some scrutiny to this, it turns to dust (or suddenly gets very vague and 'mysterious').

I much prefer God one step removed, distinct from, but having acted in our reality in Jesus.

Joshua, I don't concede anything to your sophistical arguments at all. You are determined to push me into the hyper-calvinist mould - possibly because you find it easier to tear down than true Calvinism. But I've explained my position on election/reprobation at least twice on this thread - I will not do so again.

Where have I done that? I've made it clear that I understand the distinction between Calvinism and Hypercalvinism and explained that Hypercalvinists seem to be individuals who have take a terribly flawed system of belief to it's inevitable conclusion. I've identified you as a Calvinist and simply pursued that line of enquiry further. It seems to me that a lot of your theological framework is influenced by your emotions, not only in your disdain for Calvinism originally, but also your subsequent adoption of Calvinism and your rejection of Hypercalvinism. Framing these beliefs within the context of your initial self-described immaturity and then the way in which you describe the way in which Calvinism has comforted you seems to support this reading. I further suggested that the factors that impeded your movement from Arminianism to Calvinism may be still present in preventing your movement from Calvinism to Hypercalvinism.

As someone pointed out, your caricature of Calvinism mirrors some of the (unfortunate) caricaturisation of Catholicism that occurs.

And as I subsequently pointed out, this accusation was thrown like a live grenade into the discussion without any discernible intention to substantiate exactly what aspect of my representation was objectionable and how it misrepresented Calvinism. I certainly hope that you will show somewhat more courtesy than this unnamed poster who has not had the courtesy to accede to my request.

By definition you're only truly a Christian if you die a Christian, and given we can't say with 100% certainty that we will be, it renders the whole concept pretty much moot.

Excellent consideration, Luke. Indeed far from promoting confidence in one's faith, the doctrine of the Perserverence of the Saints seems to undermine one's faith when the thought of those who have backslidden comes up. One can posit the answer that those who have fallen away were never real Christians and that they simply deluded themselves, but this surely brings into question one's own faith. This is at the heart of what the search for external signs (subsequently adopted by the Prosperity Gospel) and/or for internal and supernatural conviction (subsequently adopted by the Latter Day Saints) comes into play. The inevitable result is that far from being stressing the sovereignty of God and minimising that of man, Calvinism becomes, as you suggest, a very ego-centric and narcissistic religion in practice indeed. Ironically, it becomes the works-based faith par excellence.

Mr Aldersley,

I've made it clear that I understand the distinction between Calvinism and Hypercalvinism and explained that Hypercalvinists seem to be individuals who have take a terribly flawed system of belief to it's inevitable conclusion.

Rather, while purportedly keeping your powder dry as a Molinist, you have attempted a pincer-manoeuvre on "behalf" of Hypercalvinists so the straw-man you've artfully constructed from those who dare pursue a golden mean may be cajoled on to a conveniently located slippery slope.

Rather, while purportedly keeping your powder dry as a Molinist, you have attempted a pincer-manoeuvre on "behalf" of Hypercalvinists so the straw-man you've artfully constructed from those who dare pursue a golden mean may be cajoled on to a conveniently located slippery slope.

I must confess that I don't exactly know the nature of the allegation against me? By the term "purportedly", are you suggested that I am not actually a Molinist, or simply that I had purportedly kept my powder dry? If so, then I'd simply point out that this was simply a suggestion given to Mr Palmer after his suggestion that I was "both not a Calvinist and a Calvinist". I'm certainly not a signed up Molinist and was simply hazarding a guess at which description might be most helpful to him.

I also must confess that I was unaware that I was actually doing anything "on behalf" of Hypercalvinists, or trying to cajole anyone towards that particular theological persuasion. It would seem that my plan has been so artful that not even I was aware of it!

fascinating in one sense, but has little impact here and now, because, as you say...

I'm grateful that the doctrine of predestination explains to me why some believe and some reject the message. I'd find that very puzzling otherwise - and from this thread you can see that the non-Calvinists can't explain the why of belief and unbelief.

One practical use is in the area of evangelism. You can share the gospel with someone and be confident that it will accomplish what God has determined it will accomplish. As a Calvinist, I'm not ultimately relying on my ability to persuade, or to mount a clever apologetic or be a great salesman or whatever.

Is God the divine combustion engine that keeps the world ticking over, or the divine puppet master pulling all the strings, or what? (Or both!) And how is this not, essentially, pantheism?

Well, "puppet master" has a lot of negative pejorative association, so I wouldn't want to apply that phrase to God. But the Bible essentially teaches that God has complete sovereignty over everything that happens in creation. Nothing happens apart from His will. This means that even evil only happens by his permission (which is in aspect of his will).

This is not pantheism. In pantheism, everything is part of God. For example, the clouds are part of God. In theism, God controls the clouds, but He is distinct from them.

I've identified you as a Calvinist and simply pursued that line of enquiry further.

If that is the case, then I thank you.

Now, I have explained why on Scriptural grounds I am a Calvinist. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that I am a Calvinist rather than a Hyper-Calvinist for emotional reasons. (Personally I try to avoid imputing hidden motives to the people I'm arguing with, but I can't force others to extend this courtesy to me).

It's difficult to know how to respond. Doubtless emotion plays a part in my conclusions - doubtless that is true of everyone. I believe my arguments are Scripturally sound, so I can only point you back to them. As for my emotions - well, all I can do is promise that I will examine them when I get a few moments.

Can you explain a bit about how this works out in practical terms?

I can only say that in some of my own suffering, it has been very comforting to think that nothing has happened that is beyond God's control. More than that, that He is using the events and will bring some good out of them. I might not discern the good, but I believe it is real. As you suggest, this has great psychological benefit, though that is consequential.

(Personally I try to avoid imputing hidden motives to the people I'm arguing with, but I can't force others to extend this courtesy to me).

Are you serious?

- In the original post, you exhort non-Calvinists to "give up their resistance to God's word" and then tell them to "grow up".

- In post #27, you accuse David of special pleading, inferring that his reasons for rejecting Calvinism is a matter of emotion, rather than logic.

- In post #61, you further defend the accusation you previously made that people who reject Calvinism do so because of emotional, rather than logical reasons.

In that respect, I'd disagree that you extend the courtesy of imputing hidden motives to those you are arguing with. Are you simply grandstanding at this point, or is it a legitimate oversight on your part?

I'd point out further that rather than impute hidden motives to you, I was merely asking whether there could be an emotional element not just to your original opposition to Calvinism, but also to your eventual conversion to Calvinism, your objection to Hypercalvinism and indeed other expressions of the Christian faith i.e. Catholicism. Perhaps this is a question you may not yet know the answer to, which is fine.

Well, probably I'm imperfect at this, as in many other things. I agree the "grow up" comment could be taken as imputing motives.

I disagree that suggesting someone has engaged in "special pleading" is imputing motives - that allegation is simply incorrect. "Special pleading" is a technical term when used in a debate, with a generally accepted definition. From wiki -

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves.

"Grandstanding" is just plain ad hom, by the way.

I just looked at comment 61, and I can't see how I've imputed motives there. I asked Luke to provide further detail to his comment. People can go back and read that comment and decide for themselves if it was legit or not.

Anyway, I said I "try" not to impute motives - but I'm often not successful. It is darned hard sometimes.

Anyway Joshua, do you believe it is legit to impute motives in an argument or not?

Anyway Joshua, do you believe it is legit to impute motives in an argument or not?

Of course not, which is why others justifiably took offence at your original post.

While I know that "special pleading" is a type of logical fallacy, an accusation of special pleading seems to suggest that one's objection to a position is not based on logical grounds, but rather emotional, whether this is emotional objection to the position or emotional attachment to one's own position.

I disagree that my use of the term "grandstanding" was ad hominem. Indeed, I assumed that your inconsistency was simply a minor oversight on your part and suggested that this may very well have been the case, as opposed to blatant hypocrisy. Reading your subsequent responses, this appears to be the correct reading.

...as opposed to blatant hypocrisy. Reading your subsequent responses, this appears to be the correct reading.

Joshua, if you are going to make comments like that, then our discussion is over.

Others, happy to continue the conversation.

You misunderstand. I'm saying the correct reading appears to simply be an oversight on your part, not that you were engaging in blatant hypocrisy.

Hope this clarifies matters and sorry if I caused any confusion.

Oh, I apologise then, and I'm happy to continue discussing matters.

One question I have for you is this - do you uphold Augustine's theology of predestination?

Well, certainly not wholesale, if that's what your asking. I'm not a Thomist. And even though Aquinas is a Doctor of the Church (and arguably the highest regarded), this doesn't mean that everything he teaches is infallible.

@ Craig #101

I'm grateful that the doctrine of predestination explains to me why some believe and some reject the message. I'd find that very puzzling otherwise

Most of humanity falls outside the sets "some believe" and "some reject". In terms of a properly salvific A-Grade Geneva faith, a few believe, many reject (for many reasons), and a great many have never received an adequate presentation to either accept or reject.

The Calvinist God condemns not only those who knowingly reject the Reformed version of the Jesus Package, but also ALL of those who have never heard of it. These depraved, reprobate descendants of Adam are "condemned already" because they have not properly discerned the Christianised Yahweh-El in the natural world. Why? Because God has pre-planned it that way.

This God pre-arranges blindness, then blames the blind for tripping. I find that "very puzzling"...

Just quickly, Craig, when you can could you respond to my question (which probably sounded rhetorical): "So, if God "runs the show" -- how? In what way? On what level?" I'm just curious how people actually take this from the abstract to the concrete of our reality, and there seems to be a step in between the two I'm missing. Thanks!

@ Craig #102,

Well, "puppet master" has a lot of negative pejorative association, so I wouldn't want to apply that phrase to God. But the Bible essentially teaches that God has complete sovereignty over everything that happens in creation. Nothing happens apart from His will. This means that even evil only happens by his permission (which is in aspect of his will).

i.e. in a nutshell, Calvinist God is the puppet master, par excellence.

Consider all those utterly depraved non-Christians - men, women, and children - who were summarily sent to their deserved eternal torment by the 2004 tsunami. The all-grown-up, convinced Sydney Calvinist is comforted to know that such acts of God are all for a good purpose, even though it may be hard to see right now. In any case, one can rest assured that Heaven for one's sect and Hell for the rest is perfect justice...The words solemn and sombre may be deployed in passing, as the squabble moves on to more pressing issues like ritual lustration and choice of computer.

@Grant - I find the idea of Hell deeply disturbing and yes, I've struggled with this doctrine for much of my Christian life. One of my first articles on this website was called "Hell is believing in Hell". To suppose that all Sydney Anglicans are callous and uncaring about this issue is just not true. In fact, I've encountered no-one that fits your description.

This God pre-arranges blindness, then blames the blind for tripping

I disagree that God "pre-arranges" the blindness. Where did you get that from?

So, if God "runs the show" -- how? In what way? On what level?

I can't explain the mechanics of it - I don't believe the Bible contains such detail. I believe God has absolute control over this world - he is the "author of history". However, he is never responsible for evil, and also he exercises his sovereignty in a way that upholds rather than violates secondary causality (such as human choice).

There are paradoxes there I cannot easily join together. Yet I believe that all these truths are taught by scripture.

There's an interesting question that so far has not been asked: How does Paul deal with the tensions surrounding election?

Perhaps the strongest statement is in Romans 9:6-29, which contains several claims that are strongly "Calvinist". I could easily end up quoting the entirety of 11-23, so I'll summarise some key points instead:

* some prepared for life; some for judgement: eg Jacob & Esau, Pharaoh
* God's choice
* not unfair
* same potter can make fine china and cheap chamberpots (my paraphrase)

It's hard to read that passage and come to any conclusion other than a pretty stark "Calvinist" position. At which point it would be worth asking Paul's writings how he deals with some of the tensions highlighted above. No, I don't necessarily have the answers, but if we're wanting to take a theological position that stands in stark contrast to the theological treatise on the mechanics of salvation, it strikes me that the author of that treatise is the first person to ask.

(Caveat: I'm not claiming that Paul is the final authority on this issue, but since we don't have an OT or NT transcript of God/Jesus providing a systematic theology on this issue, Paul's treatise seems to me as authoritative as we'll get)

Many Calvinist theologians are Postmillennialists and believe that God will have mercy on a huge number of people, not a tiny minority.

@ David #120,

Can you supply a little more detail on this? It's news to me.

@ Craig #116,

In fact, I've encountered no-one that fits your description.

Look around, Craig. Hell (i.e. just deserts) for all non-Christians is a view that is routinely expressed on these threads and in sermons, publications, et alii of the Sydney Diocese, not to mention Reformed Christianity in general. It follows from this detail of dogma and from the notion of God's total predestinating sovereignty that the non-Christian victims of the 2004 tsunami have all now been irrevocably consigned to eternal torment.

You have stated on this thread that you are "comforted" to know that everything that happens is ordained (indeed pre-ordained) by God - in his "control". Does your "comfort" take account of the eternal fate of those hundreds of thousands, which according to your belief system is pre-planned by God, and utterly deserved by them?

You write "I find the idea of Hell deeply disturbing." Yet it is an integral component of the theological system from which your sense of inner "comfort" derives. I find such dissonance "very puzzling", and, indeed "disturbing".

Consider all those utterly depraved non-Christians - men, women, and children - who were summarily sent to their deserved eternal torment by the 2004 tsunami. The all-grown-up, convinced Sydney Calvinist is comforted to know that such acts of God are all for a good purpose, even though it may be hard to see right now.

Of course, the "all-grown-up" Phillip Jensen saw fit to pour salt on the wounds of hundreds of thousands of tsunami victims and their families by declaring that the tsunami was a "warning of God's judgment". And indeed for the typical all-grown-up Calvinist, the fact that 95 percent of these victims would not have been Christian and would have been consigned to hell is an scenario which apparently proclaims the glory of God.

Look around, Craig. Hell (i.e. just deserts) for all non-Christians...

I'm not denying the teaching - what I'm denying is the callous overtones that you were implying in your original charge. I've met no-one in the diocese who takes the sadistic delight in the doctrine that you seem to suggest.

And indeed for the typical all-grown-up Calvinist, the fact that 95 percent of these victims would not have been Christian and would have been consigned to hell...

Joshua, what is your belief on the subject of heaven and hell? Who goes where? I'm not at all sure what modern Catholic teaching is in this area, and I'd be curious to know.

@ Craig #117,

I disagree that God "pre-arranges" the blindness. Where did you get that from?

If the Calvinist God had not predestined "the Fall" of the primordial human pair, how could it have occured, since nothing can occur outside his will?

According to your system, Hell and Cross are not contingencies for a plan gone wrong, but THE PLAN itself. Therefore, God has devised most humans simply to suffer endless torture. That's how he wills things to be.

And you take "comfort" in this monster.

@ Craig #124,

I've met no-one in the diocese who takes the sadistic delight in the doctrine that you seem to suggest.

Do you not delight that the reprobate have received their just deserts? If not, why not? Why be "disturbed" that justice is done?

Grant, it's great to see there's still someone who can spell just deserts.
But I was intrigued to see that Anthony Mundine, in an effort to slim, had no desert at Christmas, but did manage a few chicken wings. Did he pick them out of the sand?

Many of the Princeton theologians were Postmillennial.

Some notable Calvinists who were Postmillennialists are Augustine [if I may be permitted an anachronism], Jonathan Edwards, William Carey, Loraine Boettner, Douglas Wilson, Greg Bahnsen, Rousas Rushdoony, Charles Hodge and the other two Princeton Hodges, Matthew Henry, Ulrich Zwingli, Calvin himself [according to Greg Bahnsen and Iain Murray], John Owen, Iain Murray, Eric Hulse, Augustus Strong, Theodore Beza, B B Warfield, Robert Dabney and W G T Shedd.

I think people write Postmillennialism off too readily, and are [as is so often the case] denying a caricature of the system, but not the system itself.

If Postmillennialists overstate their case somewhat, Pre- and A- millennialists go too far the other way in assuming that only a few folk will be saved and that the coming of Christ has little transforming effect in the period before he comes again.

Thank you, David, for your reply. If a man just deserts, he deserves desert for dessert... :^)

How might Postmillennial eschatology imply God's "mercy" for a "huge number" (a majority?) of humanity?

Are you a fan of Christian Reconstruction / theonomy, a la Rushdoony?

Do you not delight that the reprobate have received their just deserts? If not, why not? Why be "disturbed" that justice is done?

I was simply telling you my honest emotional response - I find hell "disturbing".

Regarding your first statement, the Bible tells us that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekial 33). If God takes no pleasure in this, then neither should I.

If the Calvinist God had not predestined "the Fall" of the primordial human pair,

The Bible does not use this language, so I don't feel compelled to defend it. I don't know the source of evil, but I do know that it is not in God. People are not judged on the basis of a blind cosmic lottery - they are judged for their own actions for which they are responsible.

And you take "comfort" in this monster.

Certainly not the caricature that you are describing...

@ Craig #130,

Regarding your first statement, the Bible tells us that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekial 33). If God takes no pleasure in this, then neither should I.

Why does God take no pleasure that his will is done? Given that the wicked are only wicked because God has willed it so (being sovereign), and that they have been killed because God has willed it so (being just), what lack /deficiency is there that should trouble God? He has had his way with the wicked; what's not to like? Or is it part of his perfection to enjoy feeling displeasure in his own actions?

That God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked implies that it might have been otherwise if only.... But then there can be no if only for the Calvinist God.

Hi Grant.
I have only read a bit of Rushdoony and the Theonomists. Doesn't persuade me.

Some of the Postmillennialists say that a majority of those living when Christ returns will have turned to him in faith, and because the number then living will be a considerable proportion of those who have ever lived, it follows that a majority of mankind will be saved.

@ Craig #131,

Certainly not the caricature that you are describing...

Ah, the "caricature" dodge. I set out some plain implications of Calvinist dogma and I get this duck-and-weave. Craig, you believe in a God whose good and perfect will it is to predestine that Thai five-year-olds be swept from a waterfront into an eternity of horror. That's no caricature; it's a logical consequence of the doctrines in which you find your "blessed assurance", doctrines which you celebrate here in your post as the very acme of Christian maturity.

Craig, the "caricature" has been supplied entirely by your belief system. No tweaking required by me.

Hi David,

I have only read a bit of Rushdoony and the Theonomists. Doesn't persuade me.

I'm glad to learn that, David. Those folks scare the Hell into me.

Some of the Postmillennialists say that a majority of those living when Christ returns will have turned to him in faith, and because the number then living will be a considerable proportion of those who have ever lived, it follows that a majority of mankind will be saved.

I suspected this might be the scenario...World-as-Geneva, a viral Rushdoonyesque imperium where everything just keeps getting godlier and godlier, and any dissidents who are dumb enough to crop up are duly stoned. Hints of those lushly illustrated JW tracts showing Paradise Earth...

Thanks, David.

@ Craig #131,

The Bible does not use this language, so I don't feel compelled to defend it. I don't know the source of evil, but I do know that it is not in God.

If the Calvinist God is - as you assert - not the source of evil, he certainly instrumentalises it in a big way! By his perfect will, he chooses to let in, as it were, this uncreate no-thing, and give it the run of his "very good" cosmic construct. Indeed, he chooses to devise image-bearing creatures that are inevitably vulnerable to evil. Not even one generation of them is born before God "allows" evil to have its non-way and ruin everything. And all but a few of his "images" are consigned to the perpetual experience of unremitting evil in the long run, which seems to afford evil a rather dominant role in the scheme of things.

Why is so much evil necessary for the perfect plan of a sovereign God?

Joshua, what is your belief on the subject of heaven and hell? Who goes where? I'm not at all sure what modern Catholic teaching is in this area, and I'd be curious to know.

Catholic teaching would be that heaven and hell both exist and are eternal. As to who goes where, Catholicism does not presume to make definitive judgment, but hand the matter over to God. However, there is plenty of evidence within Catholic teaching that an invisible Church exists outside of the visible Catholic Church that includes individuals outside of the Catholic Church and indeed even individuals outside of Christendom.

Ah, the "caricature" dodge. I set out some plain implications of Calvinist dogma and I get this duck-and-weave.

Get used to it, Grant. I'm an old hand at this and it's pretty common practice from what I've seen. A moving target is much more difficult to hit that a clearly stated position. However, don't expect these people to give you the courtesy of explaining how exactly their position was caricatured.

it's a logical consequence of the doctrines...

I have no interest in defending any inferences, deductions, suppositions etc that you may have drawn. As a rule, I don't let people put words in my mouth, especially in debates. But I'm more than happy to defend anything I've actually said, or anything the Bible says.

not the source of evil, he certainly instrumentalises it in a big way! By his perfect will, he chooses to let in, as it were, this uncreate no-thing, and give it the run of his "very good" cosmic construct.

I think this is true. As to "why" God let evil into the world, I cannot give a definitive answer.

As to who goes where, Catholicism does not presume to make definitive judgment, but hand the matter over to God.

Does give any hints at all? For example, are Catholics more likely to go than non-Catholics? Is the Pope likely to go to heaven..?

@ Joshua #137,

A moving target is much more difficult to hit that a clearly stated position. However, don't expect these people to give you the courtesy of explaining how exactly their position was caricatured.

I have been labelled a caricaturist before on these threads by other blessedly assured worthies. The "caricature" arises from exposing the monstrosity of a doctrine by vigorously applying it to the actual world of human experience and emotions, eg. Calvinist predestination implies that all non-Christian tsunami victims - as default reprobates - are confirmed hellbound.

What my interlocutors term caricature I would see as robust personalisation. The typical response is along the lines of "no one I know actually thinks that", which completes my point. When pressed, these folk are - thankfully - somewhat embarassed by the full implications of their own dogmas. I would hope that embarassment swells to indignation and the courage to discard.

Craig testifies that he has arrived at spiritual equilibrium within the framework of Calvinistic dogma. To him, the whole predestination package is "actually rather wonderful". Rather than compromise his blessed assurance, he is prepared to countenance the wholesale torment of myriads - albeit with a "deeply disturbed" nod to common decency. Can't be too pleased that justice is done. Better to imitate God and feel no pleasure in having your cake and eating it too...

@ Craig #138,

I have no interest in defending any inferences, deductions, suppositions etc that you may have drawn.

How convenient. Perhaps - in the interests of fairness - you could also refrain from drawing any such "inferences, deductions, suppositions etc" when you critique non-Calvinist and, indeed, non-Christian positions.

re #139,

As to "why" God let evil into the world, I cannot give a definitive answer.

In the end, a shrug.

you could also refrain from drawing any such "inferences, deductions, suppositions etc"

I try hard to do that - I am not always successful.

In the end, a shrug.

No - an honest answer. What is a better way of saying, "I don't know" ?

Grant, I'd be suspicious of anyone who claimed to speak for God.

He has been pleased to reveal some things in his Word, but has left a lot of our questions unanswered.

David,

Grant, I'd be suspicious of anyone who claimed to speak for God.

Fair enough. I agree. I would add that this caveat applies to a certain much-loved Nazarene thaumaturge.

He has been pleased to reveal some things in his Word, but has left a lot of our questions unanswered.

I see a problem here. God's "Word" is the product of those "who claimed to speak for God". So, by rights, we ought to be "suspicious" of it. Furthermore, by saying what God "has been pleased" to do, you yourself are speaking for him. Thus, you too are suspect.

There I go again, making those deductions...

Grant, is Craig still speaking on God's behalf when he says he doesn't know?

@ Craig #143

you could also refrain from drawing any such "inferences, deductions, suppositions etc"

I try hard to do that - I am not always successful.

I put it to you that you have not tried "hard to do that" in this very article. Par example:

If you are still struggling against this doctrine, perhaps today is the day to give up your resistance to God’s Word.

You are inferring that those who are not convinced of Calvinian predestination are resisting God.

Here’s a little secret - things are not so grim in the Calvinist camp as you think. In fact, things are actually rather wonderful.

You are supposing that your non-Calvinist readers think Calvinist affiliations are "grim". Thereby you are also creating the impression that their objections to Calvinism are due merely to superficial misperceptions and taste rather than thoughtful conviction.

So isn’t it time to grow up, and finally admit that God is God over all - even the human heart?

You are supposing that those who are not Calvinists are immature, struggling against a patent fact about God ("finally admit"), and in denial that God's sovereignty extends to the core of a person's being.

I daresay you would find it hard to write much at all about Christian doctrine without making "inferences, deductions, suppositions etc" about what your Other believes.

David,

Grant, is Craig still speaking on God's behalf when he says he doesn't know?

How would I know? But I am suspicious...is God shrugging?

You are supposing that those who are not Calvinists are immature, struggling against a patent fact about God

True enough - though I was intentionally making the last paragraph provocative. It was generalised, it wasn't meant to be personal, just spicy. That is different, in my book, to looking at individual A and saying, "you are immature" or "you are just saying that because...".

That is different, in my book, to looking at individual A and saying, "you are immature" or "you are just saying that because...".

Indeed. Instead casting unjustified and unfounded aspersions on one individual, you're casting unjustified and unfounded aspersions on a whole heap of individuals.

If one was inclined to cast aspersions, one might describe the abovementioned behaviour (and the justification thereof) as fairly immature.

Joshua, I've had enough of your polite insults, and also of Grant's barely veiled hostility. Enjoy talking to each other - the Catholic and the Atheist have found common cause in their hatred of Calvinism.

As for the rest of you, many thanks for a stimulating and enjoyable discussion. Looking forward to next year and much more of the same.

@ Craig #149,

Hmm, "spicy" and "provocative", eh? Visions of Calvin doing the tango with a full set of his Institutes...

@ Craig #151,

Joshua, I've had enough of your polite insults, and also of Grant's barely veiled hostility.

As for "veiled hostility", what's good for the goose...
Rest ye, your God will requite me, by and by.

the Catholic and the Atheist have found common cause in their hatred of Calvinism.

Oh, and a Parthian shot as he gallops off. Call me Crassus! Bravissimo!

Joshua, I've had enough of your polite insults, and also of Grant's barely veiled hostility.

I think that I've gone out of my way to be polite to you and it seems to me that Grant has too. Grant certainly does not agree with Calvinism and I don't blame him, but it seems to me that he has directed his criticisms towards Calvinism rather than yourself. In your favour, you have generally attempted to act in a courteous manner towards me and it seems like departures from that path do not appear to be consciously malicious.

In saying that, I do find your recent response disappointing. I wouldn't dare use the "h" word, but your accusations seem incredibly inconsistent in light of you tarring non-Calvinists with the charge of immaturity and resistance to God in the interests of being "provocative" and "saucy", which seem to be your words for "trolling". As if this wasn't bad enough, you assume the moral highground by suggesting that you were above such behaviour (although you later acknowledged your frailities, which is a positive start) before finishing your coup de grace by again imputing motives to both myself and Grant by suggesting that our objection to Calvinistic theology is based on some kind of "hatred". Based on these considerations, hopefully you can see why I don't believe you are in any position to throw stones.

I'd further suggest that if you are so sensitive to criticism, you may wish to be more careful not to write inflammatory posts in the future. At first glance, I can count at least five individuals who took umbrage at the way you expressed yourself in the original post and you haven't got the convenient excuse that all of these individuals hate Calvinism. As the person writing the original post, you have the responsibility for setting the tone of the discussion. You honestly can't tell me that you expected your comments to go through to the keeper without any objection, did you?

I certainly think that you are a promising young writer who shows a lot of potential. You obviously have passion for your subject matter, which really is a positive thing. I think that you just have to realise that a lot of good work can be undone through a little bit of sloppiness. I hope that you can take my advice to heart and I wish you well for your articles in 2010.

Thanks for the responses Craig!

Thanks for the responses Craig!

No problems Luke. It was a pleasure discussing these issues with you.

Craig,
Please clarify for me:
Your article "Why I am a Calvinist...etc" was reproduced in Virtueonline.org, and in the foot note it gives your work,interests etc, and then says you are involved in "Mixed Martial Arts"
Please explain how you can do this and be Christian. OR does being a Calvinist allow you to do anything you like without effecting your Salvation?
My understanding is that Martial Arts and Christianity are incompatible, unless of course there is some justification that allows you to do both?

My understanding is that Martial Arts and Christianity are incompatible

I believe you are misinformed. Where did you get this idea from?

Anyway, this is off topic. The discussion is about Calvinism. If you want to discuss MMA, please private message me.

Thanks Craig,
I didn't think it was off topic. Calvinism?Justification Predestination.
I just asked a question so I don't wish to have an argument. I just wondered how you justified
it, if you have any details I would like to hear.Obviously you don't have any problems with it.
Brian (retired)

You think thats bad. I worked in an RSL for 5 years handing out beer and working on poker machines. But yes we are getting of topic

I am saddened that so little of substance has been said in this enormous list of postings.

I fear personal values and ego has played rather too large a part in a debate over one of the most fundamental issues in Protestant theology, i.e., free will and and election. Spurgeon, I believe, refused to get into this kind of endless and unresolvable wordfest.

As Calvin is not mentioned in the Articles of Religion nor in the Scriptures, it would seem desirable to read him, learn, mark and inwardly digest, etc., without seeking to impose his views as a final word for all people for all time. Once we reach that state we are stepping away from Scriptural authority into human authority and perhaps into legalism and not Christian freedom.

Hi Ian. Where do you get your information about Spurgeon from?
Try Googling Spurgeon and Arminianism, Spurgeon and Calvinism.
I understand Spurgeon to have been gracious toward Arminians, while boldly proclaiming himself to be of Calvinist persuasion.

You confuse the issue, I'm afraid, David. I said nothing about Spurgeon's theological views, merely remarking that he did not get into arguments about things that, ultimately, are within God's provenance, not ours. Although I tend towards moderate Calvinism myself, I do wonder how any person can be absolutely certain that they are among the elect especially having seen people, including the man who led me to Christ, fall away from faith. In the end, we live and die in faith alone, not by human beliefs and values. It was, incidentally, a reference in an issue of Christianity Today that I referred to.

MR Swartz
You say at 131and elsewhere that (to put it plainly and simplifying –tell me if I have it wrong) the idea that God damns people to Hell is hyper Calvinism and not the system that you adopt. But it’s an inevitable logical deduction. Again John Wesley puts it best

7. well, but it may be you do not believe even this; you do not hold any decree of reprobation; you do not think God decrees any man to be damned, not hardens, irresistibly fits him, for damnation; you only say, "God eternally decreed, that all being dead in sin, he would say to some of the dry bones, Live, and to others he would not; that, consequently, these should be made alive, and those abide in death, -- these should glorify God by their salvation, and those by their destruction.

8. Is not this what you mean by the election of grace? If it be, I would ask one or two question: Are any who are not thus elected saved? or were any, from the foundation of the world? Is it possible any man should be saved unless he be thus elected? If you say, "No," you are but where you was; you are not got one hair's breadth farther; you still believe, that, in consequence of an unchangeable, irresistible decree of God, the greater part of mankind abide in death, without any possibility of redemption; inasmuch as none can save them but God, and he will not save them. You believe he hath absolutely decreed not to save them; and what is this but decreeing to damn them? (cont)

It is, in effect, neither more not less; it comes to the same thing; for if you are dead, and altogether unable to make yourself alive, then, if God has absolutely decreed he will make only others alive, and not you, he hath absolutely decreed your everlasting death; you are absolutely consigned to damnation. So then, though you use softer words than some, you mean the self-same thing; and God's decree concerning the election of grace, according to your account of it, amounts to neither more not less than what others call God's decree of reprobation.
9. Call it therefore by whatever name you please, election, preterition, predestination, or reprobation, it comes in the end to the same thing. The sense of all is plainly this, -- by virtue of an eternal, unchangeable, irresistible decree of God, on part of mankind are infallibly saved, and the rest infallibly damned; it being impossible that any of the former should be damned. or that any of the latter should be saved.


End of quote.

Now on a related issue, as you know my daughter has severe disabilities. IS it God's will that this occured? IF (again as I understand your argument) God is sovereign and intervenes in the world then the answer must be yes. If so then why does this happen? (To say nothing of earthquakes fires and other natural disasters). Further from time to time the church has either been all but destroyed in some countries (Eg the Middle East) or (at least according to most Protestants) in grave error (the latter Middle Ages) again does God will (Calvin) this or simply permit and create a strategy to overcome it (Wesley)it. (In each case I speak humanly- as if God were within time which we know he isnt ,I Am not sure of the right words otherwise)

Ian, you might want to check out Spurgeon's tract, A Defence of Calvinism

Peter, at 131 I wrote -

People are not judged on the basis of a blind cosmic lottery - they are judged for their own actions for which they are responsible.

I absolutely stand by this comment.

The Bible teaches that people are elected to salvation *apart from any of their works*. At the same time, it teaches that the damned are condemned *because of their (sinful) works*. I simply don't see any contradiction there.

Yes, God decrees people go to Hell in my system - but for exactly the same reasons as in your system! That is, because of their sin!

...as you know my daughter has severe disabilities...does God will(Calvin) this or simply permit and create a strategy to overcome it

It is quite difficult to discuss matters like this when it involves something which is a source of such pain to someone.

It is difficult to imagine that evil is, in some sense, a part of God's will. But this must surely be the case - because we both agree that God is both enormously powerful, but also that evil exists in the world.

I am, by the way, quite comfortable with the language of saying that God "permits" evil rather than "wills" it. But I believe they both amount to the same thing.

Let's imagine a murder, something we would both agree is evil. I think we would both agree that God has the power to prevent the murder. So if He doesn't prevent the murder, it seems that He "wills" it to happen in some sense, even if you only call it a permissive will.

I've said plainly, and I'll say it again, that God is not the source of evil. That comes from us. But it seems clear to me that any particular instance of evil cannot happen apart from His will. This is perfectly obvious to every unbeliever, but most Christians seem to be in denial about it.

cont

@ Craig #171,

I've said plainly, and I'll say it again, that God is not the source of evil. That comes from us.

If we are entirely of God's making, and God is sovereign, how can something "come from us" without any input/responsibility on God's part?

People are not judged on the basis of a blind cosmic lottery - they are judged for their own actions for which they are responsible.

I absolutely stand by this comment.

Does this not then mean that when an individual comes to Christ that this is an action for which they are responsible?

@ Craig #170,

Yes, God decrees people go to Hell in my system - but for exactly the same reasons as in your system! That is, because of their sin!

People can only sin because God first sovereignly chose to let evil in, with full knowledge of the consequences. He "decrees people to go to Hell" for a creaturely malfunction that he knowingly precipitated.

To call that cruel is an understatement.

Going to Genesis 1 and 2; Doesn't Adam try to put the blame on God by say, "It not my fault it's your fault for putting this woman here with me" and yet God seems to place the reponsibilty on Adam,Eve and the Serpent.

Sheldon,

IF God is the Great Predestinator revered by Craig, then Eden was entirely a set-up, pre-arranged to demonstrate a foregone conclusion - the abomination of the human creature.

IF God is as Calvinism says, then the whole "Don't eat of the fruit...", "Who told you you were naked?" shtick is just a pretense, a divine charade. In his "secret will" God knew all along how things would turn out. He had already devised the script of the puppet show.

The entirety of the last 100 or so posts on this thread covers most of the reasons why I think that the only correct answer is that some people are saved by election, but that others can be saved by putting their faith in God / Christ even though not pre-destined to salvation. No injustice, no discomfort, but plenty of grace.

Limited predestination? Seems a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too position, David.

What's God in his heaven going to say to those "others" ?

"You weren't invited, but I guess I'm glad you made it."

IF God is the Great Predestinator revered by Craig, then Eden was entirely a set-up, pre-arranged to demonstrate a foregone conclusion - the abomination of the human creature.

But if we look at it how it is, not with Calvins glasses, then its clearly the responsibilty is on humanity.

No, it is not a "have your cake and eat it too" position, Grant, because each person will have their own cake.

God will say the same to both: "Welcome!".

Going to Genesis 1 and 2; Doesn't Adam try to put the blame on God by say, "It not my fault it's your fault for putting this woman here with me" and yet God seems to place the reponsibilty on Adam,Eve and the Serpent.

Absolutely Sheldon. That is man's usual response to God's judgement - to try and blame God.

I'm rather pleased to find that this article has been reproduced at VirtueOnline - a very good Anglican website.

Sheldon,

But if we look at it how it is, not with Calvins glasses, then its clearly the responsibilty is on humanity.

Agreed. Eden as allegory of human failure works just fine.

@ Craig #181,

That is man's usual response to God's judgement - to try and blame God.

If God predestines everything, then he predestined "man's usual response to God's judgement". Your "system" is left in the same circular absurdity. An ouroboros.

Craig

Re #168. I repeat I have not discussed Spurgeon's personal theology. I was repeating the point made in #165 that after nearly 200 posts nothing has emerged of substance in this discussion and that was true in Spurgeon's time so he avoided this kind of fruitless argument.

You dodge an obvious conclusion, remarked on by several posts, that the origin of sin, based upon your arguments so far, must lie with God Himself, surely a precarious conclusion.

You inevitably raise, as I mentioned previously, the question of how persons can be sure of their election.

The issue is not simply free will v election. It is deeper within God's purpose which we perceive only through a glass, darkly. I agree with Paul that we should await Glory, when I am not sure the matter will be of the slightest interest.

In the meantime, it seems preferable to place the claims of the Lord Jesus before all people and allow the Divine purpose to work itself out without trying to preempt it by human judgements about who is in or out!

Your arguments rest on values about Scripture and its interpretation. Calvin, I assume, was not under the same kind of divine inspiration as the writers of Scripture? Once on that track the controversial realm of the authority of tradition in the Church must be considered.

I do not see this kind of continuing self-indulgence as edifying the people of God but rather stimulating confusion among weaker brethren.

You dodge an obvious conclusion, remarked on by several posts, that the origin of sin, based upon your arguments so far, must lie with God Himself, surely a precarious conclusion.

Not a conclusion that I draw. In fact, I have very plainly rejected this idea.

I do not see this kind of continuing self-indulgence as edifying the people of God but rather stimulating confusion among weaker brethren.

Well, I plan to continue the discussion. If you don't think it's helpful, I imagine you won't be. Thanks for your contributions.

Absolutely Sheldon. That is man's usual response to God's judgement - to try and blame God.

Whereas it seems as though Craig Schwarze's usual response is to smuggle his God away from the scene of the crime, even if he has to do so at the expense of cognitive dissonance. Allowing humans free will to choose God would apparently compromise his sovereignty, even if this free choice were deemed to be an expression of God's permissive will. On the other hand, humans are solely responsible for their rejection of God and God permissively allowing this to happen absolves God of any blame, meanwhile maintaining that God's sovereignty is not compromised.

What Craig is suggesting is not a theological system - it's a farce.

Everyone, be sure to check out the latest White Horse Inn broadcast, which has an interview with Pulitzer Prize winning author Marilynne Robinson. The London Times described her as the "world's best writer of prose". She speaks about her discovery of Calvinism, and how surprised she was when she actually sat down and read the Institutes for herself. She was especially impressed by Calvin's humanism, and she speaks about the many misrepresentations of Calvin that are current.

@ Craig #186,

Not a conclusion that I draw. In fact, I have very plainly rejected this idea.

You're right, Craig. It's not a conclusion that you draw; it's a conclusion that you steadfastly avoid. Calvinism, far from upholding humanity's moral responsibility, annihilates it. There is no real human-divine interaction in Calvinism, only sheer divine will yanking its puppets hither and yon.

Also, it's worth reminding people of the posting guidelines of this site -

Sydneyanglicans.net reserves the right to remove material in the following circumstances:
1. When the material is considered to be blasphemous, offensive or in poor taste etc.
2. When the material is considered to be needlessly repetitive or argumentative
3. When the material is considered to be defamatory, libelous or otherwise legally actionable
4. When the material relates to a minor and the consent of a parent or guardian has not been granted
5. When the material is demonstrably inaccurate or based solely on rumour or hearsay.
6. When the material is determined by Anglican Media to be detrimental to the Diocesan Mission.

Everyone who has registered on this site has agreed to abide by these guidelines.

Also, it's worth reminding people of the posting guidelines of this site -


Sydneyanglicans.net reserves the right to remove material in the following circumstances:
1. When the material is considered to be blasphemous, offensive or in poor taste etc.
2. When the material is considered to be needlessly repetitive or argumentative
3. When the material is considered to be defamatory, libelous or otherwise legally actionable
4. When the material relates to a minor and the consent of a parent or guardian has not been granted
5. When the material is demonstrably inaccurate or based solely on rumour or hearsay.
6. When the material is determined by Anglican Media to be detrimental to the Diocesan Mission.

Everyone who has registered on this site has agreed to abide by these guidelines.

I'm not sure why you would bring this up, Craig. Are you suggesting that point 6 is being breached in some way?

As the discussion starts to wind down, it's worth repeating a few of the key texts -

In love He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will, to the praise of His glorious grace… (Ephesians 1)

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger."[d] 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. (Romans 1)

When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. (Acts 13)

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. (John 1)

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him (John 6)

And there are more beside...

AW Pink also provides a robust biblical defense of Calvinistic predestination. Not for the faint-hearted...

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN SALVATION - AW PINK

For those who are interested in what Calvin actually thought, rather than the popular perception, the appropriate chapters of the Institutes are here -

OF THE ETERNAL ELECTION, BY WHICH GOD HAS PREDESTINATED SOME TO SALVATION, AND OTHERS TO DESTRUCTION.

THIS DOCTRINE CONFIRMED BY PROOFS FROM SCRIPTURE.

REFUTATION OF THE CALUMNIES BY WHICH THIS DOCTRINE IS ALWAYS UNJUSTLY ASSAILED.

ELECTION CONFIRMED BY THE CALLING OF GOD. THE REPROBATE BRING UPON THEMSELVES THE RIGHTEOUS DESTRUCTION TO WHICH THEY ARE DOOMED.

Craig #195 writes,

For those who are interested in what Calvin actually thought, rather than the popular perception, the appropriate chapters of the Institutes are here -

For those who are led (by Craig's insinuation) to think that the challenges made on this thread to Calvinist dogma somehow misrepresent the essence of that theological system, I would offer the following quotes from the Institutes:

21.5 - All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.

All non-Calvinists take note. According to the Institutes, God has ordained that humankind be irrevocably divided into two unequal tiers. If you die without having subscribed to A-Grade Geneva dogma, you're in the tier that has been reprobated by God from before the foundation of the cosmos.

22.1 - Because God of his mere good pleasure electing some passes by others, they raise a plea against him. But if the fact is certain, what can they gain by quarreling with God? We teach nothing but what experience proves to be true—viz. that God has always been at liberty to bestow his grace on whom he would.

Note that membership in the elite club of the elect is based on God's "mere good pleasure". If you have an issue with that, tough luck, according to Calvin. Burn baby, burn.

@Grant, can I chide you here for sloppiness - as one who thinks that John Calvin's account of predestination needs some critique?

If you die without having subscribed to A-Grade Geneva dogma, you're in the tier that has been reprobated by God from before the foundation of the cosmos.

That's just not what Calvin teaches. You are confusing faith as assent (assensus) with faith as trust (fiducia) - something Calvin doesn't do. It is not by believing in predestination that predestination works, according to Calvin. I am not saying you have to agree with what Calvin DOES teach (two-tiers etc), but what you have said here is quite plainly not what he teaches.

The charge of caricaturing your opponents will stick if you... caricature your opponents... won't it? :-)

If you die without having subscribed to A-Grade Geneva dogma, you're in the tier that has been reprobated by God from before the foundation of the cosmos.

Grant, you've taken a claim that predestination is true and twisted it into the mark of salvation. Craig's original argument isn't that he wasn't saved before accepting predestination, but that it was true regardless of whether he accepted it or not, and that in accepting it he's a heck of a lot happier.

Many arguments above boil down to "Predestination is false because it fundamentally offends me". From a scriptural perspective, that's a non-starter. One starting assumption of the scriptures is that mankind is out of step - badly - with God. That stuff in the bible offends our sensitivities is completely unsurprising. Doesn't mean that offensive things are true, just that it's a useless argument in claiming them to be false (and says more about you than God).

Craig is affirming Calvin who's affirming Paul. Rather than rant at the 3rd hand messenger, it would be more productive to engage with Paul's writings directly, and if we can't accept them, to consider whether he's got it wrong, or we have.

Well - I am not sure that Calvin IS merely affirming Paul. He claims he does: but I think he goes way beyond Paul. I think a good discussion of Romans 9-11 (for example) would be very helpful.

Where do you think he goes beyond Paul, Michael? I'm struck by how careful Calvin always is to tie condemnation to human sin, rather than to some inscrutable and random decree - which many seem to think is the case.

I should add, though, that I don't endorse every single word of Calvin. I imagine no-one does - there is so much in his system. By Calvinism, I was more properly talking to monergism, which is a feature of Calvinism - but also of many other great thinkers in Christian history - Augustine, Aquinas, Staupitz, Luther etc.

Well - I am not sure that Calvin IS merely affirming Paul. He claims he does: but I think he goes way beyond Paul.

After posting, it did occur to me that it would be more correct to say that Craig claims to affirm Calvin who claims to affirm Paul, thus more clearly allowing that Craig might have got Calvin wrong, or Calvin got Paul wrong. :)

That said, Paul does seem to me to be clearly teaching predestination of both salvation and judgement, though the following discussion of restoration of Israel does muddy it a little.

Paul does seem to me to be clearly teaching predestination of both salvation and judgement, though the following discussion of restoration of Israel does muddy it a little.

!!

I would venture to say that the discussion of Israel's restoration is the point of the whole passage... isn't it?

Yes - but I don't think we can isolate the scope of the teaching. Paul seems to move from the specific to the general case when he says, "It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy."

But I've never quite understood the weight of the, "This is just about Israel" argument. If it were just for God to treat Israel in this way, why would it be unjust for him to treat the rest of us that way?

No, it isn't JUST about Israel! That's because Israel is about all of us... This text above all has to read in biblical-theological terms and not as an abstract treatise on predestination (which it isn't).

What I mean is that I'm not entirely sure how Romans 11:11-12 and 11:25-26 tie back to the previous discussion. If Israel is made whole through the gentiles being brought in, and some of Israel who had previously rejected God being restored, then a simple "predestination" reading of Romans 9 is preserved.

However, the language (at least as translated; I have not and cannot read the original) could also suggest that all of reprobate Israel - as individuals, not just a nation - will be returned to Israel. But this sits oddly to me with the preceding chapters (eg 11:14 "save some").

Please remember that predestination does not negate the Bible's teaching that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Nobody needs to worry about whether they are elect, because Jesus promises to receive everyone who comes to him.

As James Anderson says

All those, and only those, who come to saving faith have been redeemed by Christ. So the question of whether I have been redeemed by Christ reduces (like the question of whether I am elect) to the question of whether I have saving faith.
If I recognize that I am a sinner in need of a Savior, and that Christ is the only Savior of sinners, and I am looking to him alone for salvation, then I have every reason to believe that Christ died for me.

James is a Scotsman teaching philosophy in an American theological seminary.

That's just not what Calvin teaches. ... I am not saying you have to agree with what Calvin DOES teach (two-tiers etc), but what you have said here is quite plainly not what he teaches.

Michael, I grant that Calvin is not teaching here that one must understand or acknowledge predestination to be saved, but it seems to me that Grant's primary focus was on the fact that Calvin does at least seem to teach "double-predestination", contrary to the accusations of those who have accused Grant of caricature.

Many arguments above boil down to "Predestination is false because it fundamentally offends me".

Andrew, this argument would be unsound, but it is equally unsound to infer that "many" (whatever that means quantitatively) people reject Calvinism on this basis. Could it be (and I'm simply putting it out there) that many people reject Calvinism because they regard it as a philosophically and theologically bankrupt system?

Craig claims that his objections were emotional, but this may have more to do with Craig than with the standard objections to Calvinism in general. Indeed, my questions to Craig about whether there might be emotional factors in play in his conversion to Calvinism and his resistance to other theological systems was met with a rather angry response indeed, notwithstanding the fact that he was more than willing to tar non-Calvinists with this brush, which seems to be very telling.

Please remember that predestination does not negate the Bible's teaching that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Absolutely David. This has to be affirmed clearly. Those who don't want to hear it wont hear it, but the vast majority of Calvinists I know absolutely affirm this.

No, it isn't JUST about Israel! That's because Israel is about all of us... This text above all has to read in biblical-theological terms and not as an abstract treatise on predestination (which it isn't)

Oh, I agree Michael. In some ways I try avoid Romans when discussing this topic, because the ground is worn and (as you say) people mix up the incidental and major point of the passage.

It would be good to reclaim this thread from the baiters and haters, and morph it into a proper theological discussion of predestination. After 210 comments, might be a bit late for that! It says to me, though, that the whole Calvinism/Predestination question is still very much a live topic in people's minds, and it's something that I will revisit next year, if I come up with something interesting to say about it...

@ Michael #198,

@Grant, can I chide you here for sloppiness.

You certainly can, Michael. I see that the charge arises from my phrase "A-Grade Geneva dogma", which is overly colourful and imprecise. I had in mind not merely double predestination, more the whole TULIP package (which is an A-Grade Dort dogma, to be precise).

So I'll cop a slap for my slop.

Back to the main fray: Calvin's gist is that God wants to damn. It may be (arguably) that Paul is saying the same; if so, Paul's God is as monstrous as Calvin's. Ditto for any other author of "Scripture".

Craig's response: but God only damns on the basis of sin, for which humans alone are responsible.

My retort: yet absolute predestination requires that God willed humans to be damnably sinful in the first place. Otherwise, how could they be? As I wrote at #174 above, with regard to God's absolute sovereignty and double predestination:
People can only sin because God first sovereignly chose to let evil in, with full knowledge of the consequences. He "decrees people to go to Hell" [Craig's words] for a creaturely malfunction that he knowingly precipitated.

I don't see how pointing this out is a caricature, sloppy, or hating/baiting.

@ Joshua #209,

Thank you for understanding my gist, here and earlier in the thread. I appreciate it.

@Craig -

the baiters and haters

? To be fair, you DID do some baiting...

@Grant - I am still not sure you have understood me. Calvin does not teach that saving faith means assenting to the TULIP package. Neither does Dort... and I would argue that a plain reading of Calvin does not have him positing a God who 'wants to damn', not in the sense you give it here. That's just simply not accurate, once more. Neither is it true of Paul.


I say this, as I say, as one who doesn't think Calvin is above criticism on this. If certain Calvinists make God sound like a God who wants to damn, then woebetide them.

@ Michael #198,

That's just not what Calvin teaches. You are confusing faith as assent (assensus) with faith as trust (fiducia) - something Calvin doesn't do. It is not by believing in predestination that predestination works, according to Calvin. I am not saying you have to agree with what Calvin DOES teach (two-tiers etc), but what you have said here is quite plainly not what he teaches.

Maybe so, but the likelihood of one's election reduces dramatically the further from predestinatory Geneva one dares to forage. No? Perhaps God, in his wisdom, elects some Arminians, Charismatics, even Catholics (gasp!), but, by and large, the vast bulk of Adam's kin will gnash teeth and howl for aeons.

As I wrote at #136 above: Why is so much evil necessary for the perfect plan of a sovereign God?

@Grant

Maybe so, but the likelihood of one's election reduces dramatically the further from predestinatory Geneva one dares to forage. No? Perhaps God, in his wisdom, elects some Arminians, Charismatics, even Catholics (gasp!), but, by and large, the vast bulk of Adam's kin will gnash teeth and howl for aeons.

What twaddle. Be serious now.

To be fair, you DID do some baiting...

I can't deny it. The title of my post and especially the final paragraph were intended to provoke a response from non-monergists. If I'd titled my piece "Why I became a monergist" and the last paragraph said, "Well, that's kinda what I think, but feel free to disagree" I don't know it would have had the same impact!

@ Michael,

If certain Calvinists make God sound like a God who wants to damn, then woebetide them.

I appreciate the point, Michael. If one peers behind the veil and glimpses a God like that, despair reigns.

Twaddle? But of course. :^)

I can't deny it. The title of my post and especially the final paragraph were intended to provoke a response from non-monergists. If I'd titled my piece "Why I became a monergist" and the last paragraph said, "Well, that's kinda what I think, but feel free to disagree" I don't know it would have had the same impact!

Craig, as crude as your analysis is, you're entitled to your view. What I find so odious is that you have the hide to whinge like a three-year old because people have responded exactly in the manner you were hoping for. It could just be that you are an overly sensitive individual and that you have an extremely difficult time accepting criticism. I think that ability to graciously accept criticism is something that develops as an individual develops in maturity. With that in mind, perhaps in the meanwhile you may wish to consider changing the tone of your articles and/or taking some time out so that you may be able to mature away from the pressure of the public spotlight?

Joshua, I'm really not interested in your opinions of my writing style or "maturity". Please feel free to stick to the topic at hand.

Back to the discussion...

A few of the objectors on this thread have been Anglicans. It's worth pointing out that the 39 Articles strongly affirms monergistic election (what people colloquial call "Calvinism").

cont

"Article XVII

Of Predestination and Election

Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God’s purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God’s mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

cont

As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God’s Predestination, is a most dangerous downfal, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, we must receive God’s promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God."

Conclusion - I think it is very hard to be a confessing Anglican and to deny monergistic election.

It's also worth pointing to the Archbishop's excellent talk - Why I am a Reformed Christian

Conclusion - I think it is very hard to be a confessing Anglican and to deny monergistic election.

This of course assumes that assent to the Thirty-Nine Articles is the watermark of Anglicanism, which may be a view in vogue among the most conservative of Anglicans, but is certainly disputed in the rest of the Communion. Of course, even if this were assumed to be the case, it does not prove the truth of Calvinism.

...but is certainly disputed in the rest of the Communion.

That is why I said "confessing" Anglicans

@ Craig #223,

for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God’s Predestination, is a most dangerous downfal, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.

Sure looks like God wants to damn. I note that the Devil is entrusted with God's dirty work. Such a useful retainer, and so thorough.

God of Article XVII = author of despair.

No matter which way you look at it, either God chooses to damn or he's not an absolute moral agent.

If God creates us, and his moral law, and we are born "free" but with the capacity for evil, then God's set up the circumstances so that some will fall. Or so all fall but some come back. It's essentially a moral lotto rather than God's choice.

On the other hand, if some part of the process is outside God, and he's enacting some external moral law, then he's reduced to (morally) being merely "like us, only better". And possibly a crummy craftsman, if he can't actually figure out how to make a faultless human.

So either God is not independent, not fully competent, or has created the world in such a way that some will be (or at least will "deserve" to be*) damned. Or he doesn't exist at all. Most posters here will say that three of those four are against the available evidence.

* some people avoid the "choosing" by claiming that God will save everyone, eventually. That avoids the discomfort in an eternal sense, but in the short term means that God "chooses" for people (in specific or otherwise) to suffer many trials and do evil in the short term. Thus it doesn't avoid the fundamental complaint, merely rearranges it a little.

God of Article XVII = author of despair.

I understand your point, though I don't agree with the conclusion or sentiment. Michael has pretty much written half a book on the Articles, you can see his comments on Article XVII here - though he doesn't address your exact point.

Of course, even if this were assumed to be the case, it does not prove the truth of Calvinism.

Indeed. We must test the doctrine against Scripture to determine that. The links from Pink and Calvin above (as well as the Archbishop's sermon) all attempt to establish the case from Scripture.

CALVIN:
In this upright state, man possessed freedom of will, by which, if he chose, he was able to obtain eternal life. It were here unseasonable to introduce the question concerning the secret predestination of God, because we are not considering what might or might not happen, but what the nature of man truly was. Adam, therefore, might have stood if he chose, since it was only by his own will that he fell; but it was because his will was pliable in either directions and he had not received constancy to persevere, that he so easily fell. Still he had a free choice of good and evil; and not only so, but in the mind and will there was the highest rectitude, and all the organic parts were duly framed to obedience, until man corrupted its good properties, and destroyed himself. (Institutes, I.15.7)

i.e. man, endowed with freewill, is fully responsible for his own destruction.

cont'd.

CALVIN:
whence does it happen that Adam’s fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God? . . . The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess. Yet no one can deny that God foreknew what end man was to have before he created him, and consequently foreknew because he so ordained by his decree… God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his descendants, but also meted it out in accordance with his own decision.
(Institutes, III, 23, 7)

i.e. God, being sovereign, not only foreknew, but willed Adam's fall, and thereby the "eternal death" of all his descendants, infants included.

Calvin knows that his own understanding of predestination has implications that are "dreadful indeed".

I think Calvin's expression of this biblical teaching comes across more harshly than it does in Scripture, though I acknowledge that in Scripture itself it is pretty grim.

However, bang smack in the middle of Romans 9 and 11 is [drum roll, thanks Jamie]Romans 10 with God's gracious invitation to turn from sin and turn to Christ and the promise that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

It seems to me that those who find God's sovereignty sobering [and who doesn't] are left with believing in a God who is less than he is presented in the Scriptures, by either denying his goodness or his sovereignty and are consequently even worse off.