|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Calvinism a form of Gnostic Christianity? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But that is not what the story says:
quote: So according to the story God does not know that there aren't fifty, or forty-five, or even ten good men in Sodom. That is the point of going to look and see what the real story is. You can "presume" that God knows but what is actually written has God saying he does not know and so needs to go investigate.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
True. I was thinking of Calvin's God, who would know, rather than the God of the Bible, who evidently doesn't. Nonetheless, he might already have decided that he would spare the city if there were ten just men in it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes but that is still irrelevant. The lesson in Genesis 18 is that God is subject to some human understandable moral standards unlike the God of Calvin that is beyond morality as humans might understand. Calvin describes an amoral God whose actions are not subject to human moral standards.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
The lesson in Genesis 18 is that God is subject to some human understandable moral All of the Bible stories are subject to interpretation. In particular, this story is nothing like a first hand account of a conversation between God and Abraham. I don't find either your interpretation or that of Dr. Adequate to be all that improbable.
Yes but that is still irrelevant. That's a fairly strange thing to say given that you brought the story up in order to refute a Calvinistic view point in a thread about that theology. Surely a counter proposal is at least relevant.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
But that position also rejects the direct teachings of the Bible that mankind has the same ability to judge morality as does God. I am not sure if you mean my position or Calvin's position rejects what the Bible teaches... But anyway, I wasn't specifically addressing judging morality. I agree that humans have the same ability to judge morality as does God. What we don't have is the authority or the perspective to be completely impartial, objective judges of morality, especially of God's morality. But my point wasn't about morality but about God's attributes. I believe I read somewhere that you accept the doctrine of the trinity; that would be an example of an attribute that we can never completely understand. At some point we have to come to the conclusion that some explanation is "the best we can do" to explain God. Now, about your story. I don't see this story as a commentary on God's ability to know the details of what's happening on earth. Nor is it about Abraham judging God's morality. It appears to me to be about Abraham and his faith in God's character. The key is in verse 25
quote: I see the previous section about God coming down to check things out to basically be a literary device used to set up the conversation between Abraham and God. It gave Abraham the opportunity to express his faith in God's character and to participate as an intercessor. But regardless, this story does contradict a Calvinistic, Biblical literalist view. HBD Edited by herebedragons, : spelling Edited by herebedragons, : spelling again Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I agree that all of it is meant as a set up dialog and never meant to be taken as historical or fact.
And I meant Calvin's position. But if you look at the verse you quoted it shows Abraham saying that God's character must surely be something similar to a human's and something humans can understand and so judge.
What we don't have is the authority or the perspective to be completely impartial, objective judges of morality, especially of God's morality. But does God have the perspective to be completely impartial, objective judges of morality? Is there anything that supports such an assertion or is that extra-Biblical; another position that can be both supported and refuted by Biblical passages? And yup, the concept of the Trinity certainly cannot be explained or understood.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
But regardless, this story does contradict a Calvinistic, Biblical literalist view. It does do that. But in my view arguments that a theology contradicts the literalist view is not enough because I don't believe the literalist interpretation is correct. It would be hypocrisy for me to attack Calvin with an issue that turns on a tight literalist reading, and then to defend my own interpretation (even on a different matter) by departing from literal inerrancy. And, in my view, it is unnecessary to do so. Everyone agrees on the interpretation of Bible verses that are claimed to contradict what Calvin says. What's left to argue about is what Calvin actually said and what that means, and perhaps the validity of some lame excuses about why we ought not to delve to deeply into thinking about the implications. And of course, that ought to leave little enough in dispute, because Calvin expounded on his doctrines at some length. And well the point of debating about what Calvin says is to explore it in some depth. I accept that doctrine can be useful in some areas despite being an unusable approximation in other areas. I don't agree that Calvinism is the least bit useful.
What we don't have is the authority or the perspective to be completely impartial, objective judges of morality, especially of God's morality. Maybe not. But I think we can objectively to judge the theology Calvin describes. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Here is a snippet of a debate between Dr.Adequate and Faith on the subject of Calvinism. Faith defends her position better here than she has recently.
Dr.Adequate writes:
I found so many quotations in the Institutes in so short a space of time that I stopped looking and threw away half of what I'd found. Here's Calvin on how whimsical God's decisions are, and why.* At last, he concludes that God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth (Rom. ix. 18). You see how he refers both to the mere pleasure of God. We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just that it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will. When God is said to visit in mercy or harden whom he will, men are reminded that they are not to seek for any cause beyond his will. * The sum is, that God by gratuitous adoption forms those whom he wishes to have for sons; but that the intrinsic cause is in himself, because he is contented with his secret pleasure. * Paul clearly declares that it is only when the salvation of a remnant is ascribed to gratuitous election, we arrive at the knowledge that God saves whom he wills of his mere good pleasure. * It is plainly owing to the mere pleasure of God that salvation is spontaneously offered to some, while others have no access to it. * God has always been at liberty to bestow his grace on whom he would. Not to ask in what respect the posterity of Abraham excelled others, if it be not in a worth, the cause of which has no existence out of God, let them tell why men are better than oxen or asses. * It is certainly easy to prove that the commencement of good is only with God, and that none but the elect have a will inclined to good. But the cause of election must be sought out of man; and hence it follows that a right will is derived not from man himself, but from the same good pleasure by which we were chosen before the creation of the world. * In man good will precedes many gifts from God; but among these gifts is this good will itself. (August. Enchiridion ad Laurent. cap. 32). Whence it follows, that nothing is left for the will to arrogate as its own. This Paul has expressly stated. For, after saying, It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do, he immediately adds, of his good pleasure (Phil. ii. 13); indicating by this expression, that the blessing is gratuitous.Faith writes: The error in your reasoning is that you impose your own limited thinking on what the sovereignty of God would look like -- if you were God basically. You are unable to take into account all the other attributes of God, His love, goodness, kindness, mercy, longsuffering / patience etc. etc. etc. You more or less think of him as a human being rather than as the omnipotent omniscient Creator who is everywhere at once and "in whom we live and move and have our being." Yes, God IS all the causes in a sense. Everything we do is IN Him, OF Him, and yet we have motives of our own at the same time, even follow "laws" of our own. God CAN'T be arbitrary or whimsical. Everything He does follows law, in a sense He IS Law Himself. Some have said that. The moral law operates inexorably without a moment's ceasing because there is a sense in which it is God Himself. According to your view we should all FEEL like automatons if Calvin's understanding of God is correct. That's the problem with discussing Calvinism, at some point we all get tied up in knots trying to imagine ourselves as predetermined while at the same time we're perfectly aware that in our personal experience we could do whatever we feel like doing at any given moment. Get up from the computer and even I in my little apartment have dozens of options available to me. God is just a lot bigger and more complex than we can imagine. All Calvin is doing is emphasizing the few points in scripture that make it clear that nothing at all ever happens without God. He elaborates it and you get all offended about the idea but that's because you don't have a big enough idea of God.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Faith defends her position better here than she has recently. And what is that great defense?
quote: Yes. In short, the same old assertion that God is beyond questioning, so by definition, what a Calvinist decides that God does must be moral. Are the Calvinists right? I would say not. And if not then does not the entire argument fall apart? If Calvinists have the wrong view then one can attack their view without attacking God. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Remember that God is represented inconsistently, contradictory, evolutionary and variably in scripture. There is no "God of Scripture" in the Bible. There are many different representation of God in the Bible; some nice, many vile, each the god the writer created as a part of a singular story.
Calvinism is simply marketing a picayune composite cartoon god combining all the worst traits to be found.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Faiths argument is better in that it isn’t an incoherent rant.
But it’s not a rational argument it’s just dishonest assertion. Faith asserts that the position attributed to Calvin must be wrong, therefore Calvin can’t have meant what he apparently said. She nowhere shows that Calvin really agreed with her or that the quotes in any way misrepresent what Calvin said. Faith further makes claims about Dr Adequate,s position which certainly have no basis in the quoted material. So it’s just the usual lying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
in defense of Faith, I would never accuse her of willfully lying...her internal cop would never allow that.
In which case she is thus unaware of the implications of her response.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
It’s not the implications of Faith’s post it’s the actual arguments.
Dr Adequate produces quotes from Calvin that support his representation of Calvin’s views. Faith doesn’t address them at all. She just insists that the view expressed by the quotes is wrong - which does nothing to answer the point, although she pretends it does. And to make it even worse she invents mistakes allegedly made by Dr Adequate. Her internal cop was obviously asleep on the job to miss that gross dishonesty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Now it’s my turn to defend Faith.
You have done her an injustice by quoting the wrong Dr. Adequate post. You should have quoted Message 93 Although it’s still not a good reply and the juxtaposition still shows her disagreeing with Calvin and refusing to admit it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Faith writes: This is how I was taught in the Christianity I embraced in my early thirties. here at EvC, we discussed an alternative...that nobody was damned, all were chosen, and that we would be weighed according to what we did versus what we could have done. (works) God doesn't choose us because of anything in us that deserves being chosen. This is just another way of saying we are saved by grace through faith, not of our own works, and not because of anything in ourselves "lest any man should boast." He can make a Son of God out of anyone.That doesn't mean He doesn't have reasons for His choices, just not reasons we could ascribe to anything good in ourselves. I'm still not sure what I believe among these competing options.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024