Calvinism "more scholarly"?

[emmiedahl]

I found the book online here. Happy reading http://www.ccel.org/ccel/boettner/predest.html

[Guest Anonymous]

AlexisIsAwake,

I am not trying to give you a hard time, but I am genuinely curious about this issue. You say the book you read about Calvinism convinced you because the author was able to back up the tenets of Calvinism with Scripture verses.

But all that would show is that Calvinism is consistent with the Bible. It doesn't necessarily show that the tenets of Calvinism are correct or make any sense. To conclude that Calvinism is correct on the basis of Scripture, you would have to accept the infallibility of the Bible in the first place. But if the Bible adds up to a theology that makes no sense (i.e. a supposedly loving God setting people up to fail and then torturing them eternally for it), wouldn't that in itself cause you to question your belief in the Bible? I guess I just don't understand why you would accept the Bible so uncritically if it is telling you something that doesn't add up.

My own background is Unitarian. American Unitarianism started as a backlash to Calvinism, when thinkers like William Ellery Channing and Theodore Parker, started to ask some of the same questions posed in this thread. Those questions did ultimately lead to an abandonment of any belief that the Bible is inerrant or to be taken as anything but a document of humanity's spiritual journey in a particular time and place.

[Witsec1]

What I found convincing was that every claim they made was backed up with Scripture. And not just a few verses here and there taken out of context, but extensive Scripture was used in support. It made it clear to me that the the doctrines of Calvinism do agree with what the Bible says.

If this is true, it would be a reason to NOT look to the Bible as a moral guide, IMO.

[emmiedahl]

From a Judaeo-Christian perspective:

I'm 4 chapters into the suggested book and so far it has been the same thing over and over. Here are the points so far:

1. The Bible in numerous places shows that some things in the Bible were preordained by God and that God in some cases had special plans for certain people.

2. Therefore, God has planned everything.

That's the gist so far.

A lot of Bible verses are given. Some support Point 1, some have nothing to do with it and others even contradict it. Many are taken out of context and, if you look them up, not meant to support this type of belief. Here is the syllogism behind the author's argument, for the logic lovers out there:

Some A are B.

Therefore all A are B, and--

All that are not A are not B.

With A being: lucky/blessed people and B being: destined for Heaven.

The author is very convincing and good with rhetoric, but when you look at the logic behind his argument, it sucks.

[notsocommon]

"I'm going to create all these beings. I am going to make them sentient, but also imperfect. So imperfect that they get to spend an eternity being tortured. Yay Me!"

I'm not buying it.

I am a Christian and I do not buy it, either.

[Alcyone]

Calvinism is the reason I no longer have any interest in church or being a Christian. My counselor just told me today that I am having a post traumatic stress reaction to the years that I have spent in a Calvinist sect. I liked what someone up-thread said about the "fruits" of this religion. It seems to be used to justify abhorrent social behavior, such as beating children. The mothers(!) in the group I was in would laugh and joke about spankings they had doled out to their kids. Perhaps they are relating to their children as "things" or objects, just as their God relates to the children he created as objects to be used to "bring him glory", as anther poster pointed out. They are just emulating the cold, unfeeling nature of their God.

Loraine Boettner was virulently anti-Roman Catholic, as can be verified in several places in his verbose tome. I just can't read anything by someone who claims the pope is the anti-Christ, let alone take him seriously. I think that the discussion about him, though, brings things around to the original post. Calvinists believe they are the closest to discerning what the Bible *really* says, and perhaps they are, at that.

[punkiepie]

I think it can be a very dangerous thing to say something like "that's what the Bible says so it must be true." The Bible says a lot of things, many of it contradictory. Another thing you have to take into consideration is the covenant between man and God at the time the verse or subject matter occurs. For instance- the majority, not all, of Christians believe that Jesus' death started a new covenant and so we are no longer bound by Old Testament law, ie., dietary restrictions, animal sacrifices, etc. The Bible needs to be read in terms of the overall or case specific message, not the minutiae.

In 1 Peter 3:3 it says "Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes." It's clearly obvious that the majority of Christian women, even the fundies, braid their hair and wear gold jewelry. Why- because the items mentioned as example are very sociologically specific and are also time bounded to the period and culture. The overall message is that women need to be modest and that it's more important to be beautiful on the outside than it is on the inside. Now for some reason, when it comes to the issues involving Calvinism and Arminianism- these same people who wear braids and gold, start going back to the literal meanings, reading out of context, and flat out denying that there are verses which support both the Calvin beliefs as well as the Arminian beliefs. Just to give you a few-

The most frequently used verses that support predestination are:

Ephesians 1: 4-11

4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he[a] predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace. that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, 9 he[d] made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ. 11 In him we were also chosen,[e] having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will

Romans 8: 29-30

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Romans 9: 14-18

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.â€[f] 16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.â€[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out."

Verses that support the Arminian, anti-predestination perspective are:

Matt 7:7 "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you."

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Deuteronomy 30:19 "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants"

John 12:32 "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

Titus 2:11 "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men"

Now all of these verses are in the Bible, but they contradict each other. You can't deny that it says both things, but if you read the Bible, especially the NT, it's clear that the overall message is that Jesus is a loving God who died to save us. Why would he die just to save a handful? He loved the world. A loving God does not make people just so they can go to Hell to be examples of His grace and mercy. That's just not consistent with the rest of the Bible.

(We had a lengthy discussion about a lot of this in another topic about Calvinism and Fundies- it's a good read if you have the time.)

'>http://www.freejinger.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2020

[AlexIsAwake]

AlexisIsAwake,

To conclude that Calvinism is correct on the basis of Scripture, you would have to accept the infallibility of the Bible in the first place. But if the Bible adds up to a theology that makes no sense (i.e. a supposedly loving God setting people up to fail and then torturing them eternally for it), wouldn't that in itself cause you to question your belief in the Bible? I guess I just don't understand why you would accept the Bible so uncritically if it is telling you something that doesn't add up.

Doomed Harlot, don't worry about giving me a hard time. I'm really trying not to go too in depth with my answers though, because I don't want to misrepresent anything. I read this book 2 years ago, and have since quit going to church altogether, so it's not exactly fresh in my brain. I just know that it convinced me - because it made more sense than any other explanation of the Bible that I have ever heard. In theory, I do accept the infallibility of Scripture (at least, I did at the time I read that book). However, I'm not exactly rock solid in my faith at this point in my life either. I'm disillusioned as to how many different interpretations of the Bible there are, and how no one can seem to agree on an of it (this thread is a great example!). Also, I believe that much has been lost through the many different translations the Bible has undergone. I do feel there are certain things that don't add up. See, I'm no help at all. I am a dichotomy right now. Meh. Not really stressing about it though.

If I accept the Bible at all, I accept that Calvinism is the best theological explanation of it I know. I don't agree with those who say it makes God an asshole, because I feel this is a misinterpretation of the theology. It DOES seem logical to me. Once again though.....I'm not interested in defending or debating my beliefs. Don't have the time, energy, or the personality for it. I only intended to recommend the book for any interested parties.

I enjoy snarking on the fundies more than debating theology. Honestly, I really don't care if anyone agrees with my theology or not. I like it that we are all different and have our own opinions.

[Soulhuntress]

I feel like Calvinism makes God look like a jerk, and most of the neo-Calvinists I know are complete assholes. I prefer the more Arminian "shit happens" kind of philosophy to the idea that God is actively causing all kinds of disasters and choosing people to hell. They also pretty much think everyone is completely horrible, so even babies go to hell. (Quote from a Calvinist I knew: "I would sympathize with a woman whose baby died, but I would have to be honest and tell her the baby is in hell.") I just find that theology really repulsive. I'm there are Calvinists who aren't terrible people, but those are the "fruits" of Calvinism that I've seen

Edit:

Interesting, why do you say that? I feel like the LDS are extremely anti-Calvinist.

Family can be together forever would be the LDS similarity. LDS are actually closer to Gnostics in theology.

[emmiedahl]

I'm disillusioned as to how many different interpretations of the Bible there are, and how no one can seem to agree on an of it (this thread is a great example!). Also, I believe that much has been lost through the many different translations the Bible has undergone. I do feel there are certain things that don't add up. See, I'm no help at all. I am a dichotomy right now. Meh. Not really stressing about it though.

If I accept the Bible at all, I accept that Calvinism is the best theological explanation of it I know. I don't agree with those who say it makes God an asshole, because I feel this is a misinterpretation of the theology. It DOES seem logical to me.

I know you said you don't want a debate, so don't answer if you don't have an easy answer. In Calvinist theology, thousands of little babies are born every day and nothing they can do will save them from an eternity of torment. God made them just to send them to hell because he created them not in the elect. How is God not an asshole in this scenario?

It seems like this is the question I keep asking Calvinists and no one will answer it. I think it is an unanswerable question and the fatal flaw of the philosophy. You can cherrypick from the Bible, but ultimately it all comes down to the timeless question: What is the nature of our Creator? And in Calvinism, he is an asshole.

[mirele]

It seems like this is the question I keep asking Calvinists and no one will answer it. I think it is an unanswerable question and the fatal flaw of the philosophy. You can cherrypick from the Bible, but ultimately it all comes down to the timeless question: What is the nature of our Creator? And in Calvinism, he is an asshole.

Not that he's any less of an asshole in Arminianism. The only difference is that you're allegedly given some sort of choice to believe in Jesus or not. Thing is, the way the alleged choice or "free gift" (haha) is presented, it's not much of a choice or a free gift. Of course you're being pressured to believe, if the alternative is that you're going to burn in hell for eternity for making the wrong choice. That's only slightly better than the babies who had no choice and are roasting for eternity in the Calvinist viewpoint.

However, I do have standards, and I don't worship deities whose adherents tell people, "good luck, you're either saved or damned, no way to tell except by your good works" or "you have a choice, but if you don't believe like this preacher man is telling you, you're going to fry forever." I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'd rather go to hell for eternity than worship a monster deity like that.

(And yes, I read Boettcher's book when I was in my 20s and was unimpressed. I later worked through a translation of Calvin's Institutes, which were some fairly rough going and was still unimpressed.)

[AlexIsAwake]

I know you said you don't want a debate, so don't answer if you don't have an easy answer. In Calvinist theology, thousands of little babies are born every day and nothing they can do will save them from an eternity of torment. God made them just to send them to hell because he created them not in the elect. How is God not an asshole in this scenario?

It seems like this is the question I keep asking Calvinists and no one will answer it. I think it is an unanswerable question and the fatal flaw of the philosophy. You can cherrypick from the Bible, but ultimately it all comes down to the timeless question: What is the nature of our Creator? And in Calvinism, he is an asshole.

Well Emmiedahl, you are definitely right on with your question. That IS the ultimate question, and it was my biggest problem with Calvinism and why I really wanted to prove it wrong to my g/f. There is no way I could give an easy answer though, or begin to explain it to your satisfaction. Others have attempted this in a much more eloquent and well-researched manner than I could. You seem to be objecting to the partiality of God. This is not unreasonable. God IS partial. The only answer Calvinism has is that although God is partial, he cannot be shown to be unjustly partial - because we are all deserving of judgment for sin, and the fact that some escape it does not mean they have done anything to merit their rescue. This is logical and reasonable as well. And if it makes God an asshole to you, that's ok. You won't be the first or the last to feel that way. I totally get it.

For some reason I seem to be able to accept the explanation that God's mercy could not be illustrated without this partiality. I guess it's partly through accepting that because the first human mother and father chose to rebel against God in their hearts, all subsequent humans would have eventually chosen exactly the same. In other words, if I myself were Eve, I would have sinned against God at some point. If I was created sinless from scratch, without already being born into a sin nature, I would have done the same as Eve. If I were a guy, I would have done the same as Adam. This is why Jesus is referred to as the Second Adam. He was supernaturally created as a human, just as Adam was, and yet chose not to sin. Because he was innocent, he was able to pay the price of redemption for those whom God chose to redeem. It was like a second chance for the human race. God chose some and not all, because choosing all would not have illustrated the breadth and depth of his mercy - there would have been nothing to contrast the just penalty of sin with the mercy of redemption for those whom he chose to save. I think it's tragic and awful that all the world isn't rescued from the penalty of sin (and this illustrates just how destructive sin is), but as someone pointed out earlier, Arminianism runs into the same problem. If you take issue with this, then I guess it's Christianity/the Bible as a whole that you take issue with and not just Calvinism. If you ask the question of why would God create humans he never intended to save, you have to also ask why he would create humans who he allowed to choose to reject him, and thus, still suffer Hell. If he has the ability to save all, why didn't he? Why did he let some choose to reject him (in Arminianism)? Only Calvinism has an answer for this question.

I know I'm long winded here and I did say I was bad at explaining things....but I guess what I'm saying is that if you think God is an asshole, it's not Calvinism's fault - it's the Bible/Christianity as a whole that sucks to you.

Now....if you want to partially or fully reject the Bible and say that it seems to contradict itself at times and is confusing and difficult to understand and causes an innumerable myriad of disagreements (and wars!), but yet you still feel there must be some sort of God out there who created us all and yet you aren't sure who/what he is or why things are the way they are in this crazy world and no one seems to have all the answers - then I think THAT makes logical sense, too. (Sorry for that sentence.) And it halfway describes me, ha.

Ok, I'm done rambling here. I've said all I could possibly say. Cheerio, all, and happy snarking. Going to get my fill of it before bed now.

[emmiedahl]

I don't reject the Bible at all. I am a relatively observant Jew who reads Torah everyday. I reject this interpretation because a. I don't believe in scouring the Bible for ten or twenty verses that support my opinion while ignoring a larger number that contradict it, and b. I think that the main point of the Bible is that God loves us the way a parent loves a child.

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

Thank you all so much for chiming in! This is fascinating for me.

[emmiedahl]

Sorry if I was too heated. I get upset when people tell me that God made all these little babies just to torture them for eternity and their only explanation is that I don't have the mental power to understand why this is actually really cool and I just have not read the right books. So I read the book and then Calvinists are like, "you don't understand because you aren't one of the elect, but I totally understand why your babies deserve to be tortured for eternity (pat on head)." It's almost a belief that you cannot support without it saying endless bad things about you.

[Soulhuntress]

Sorry if I was too heated. I get upset when people tell me that God made all these little babies just to torture them for eternity and their only explanation is that I don't have the mental power to understand why this is actually really cool and I just have not read the right books. So I read the book and then Calvinists are like, "you don't understand because you aren't one of the elect, but I totally understand why your babies deserve to be tortured for eternity (pat on head)." It's almost a belief that you cannot support without it saying endless bad things about you.

God is partial. He decides who He will save and we do not control that decision. I do not know why God would choose me and not someone nicer, richer, better looking and smarter than me. And if you took a poll of the kids I grew up with I would easily have been least likely to be saved.

To boil down what I believe in a few easy steps, Grace alone is what saves. Unlike the average fundie (any religion) if I have a really awful day and cuss out my car that dies on the freeway or my husband who decides to ignore the red light saying fix me now, I did not "cause someone else to be damned" and I am not "the only Jesus some will ever know" (in the latter case these poor folks are in a world of trouble). Grace is not license to sit and be a self righteous blogging fool (Dougie Voddie and Stacey I am looking at you). Nor is it an excuse to hide away from the world. Nor is it an excuse to hate anyone because of who they were born to (and there are elect of every nation). It is a reason to proclaim the Gospel to the ends of the earth (there are plenty of missionaries in my world). Like anything else in the hands of fallible humans (Dabney is slimey IMNSHO) the Doctrines of Grace can and have been twisted beyond recognition. But in the end I do not worship Boettner, Luther, Calvin, RC Sproul Sr, Michael Horton or any of the Reformed/Calvinist authors I have delightedly read through the years. I do worship Christ Alone (Sola Christi). The five Solas are the bedrock of my faith: Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Christi and Soli Deo Gloria.

[emmiedahl]

So, back to the original question, why would God make all these people with only the intention to damn them to eternal misery? I agree that we are imperfect, but I believe that God made me that way and that He will be merciful because of this.

[Witsec1]

I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his 5. points is not the God whom you and I acknolege and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world; but a daemon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin.

-Thomas Jefferson

[Soulhuntress]

So, back to the original question, why would God make all these people with only the intention to damn them to eternal misery? I agree that we are imperfect, but I believe that God made me that way and that He will be merciful because of this.

Why will God be merciful? Would the damned be happy in heaven with Jesus? Why or why not?

[emmiedahl]

Why would someone who created a creature torture it for being as He created it? I prefer to think He would not. That would make God worse than Adolph Hitler, worse than Satan even. So I think He will be merciful and forgive us the nature that He purposely bestowed upon us, because anything else would be cruel.

Are you supposing that the supposed damned (I don't believe in hell because it is not in my version of the Bible) would be happier in eternal torment than in heaven? Really?

[doggie]

ok so if god chooses who is saved through no power of mine whats the point of Christianity? I mean if I can't do anything to get into heaven then why does it matter what I believe? Se how this grace thing falls apart?

[tehgoobster]

Why will God be merciful? Would the damned be happy in heaven with Jesus? Why or why not?

They'd be happy if they were actually given the grace they needed to be saved, right? Instead, that grace was purposely withheld from them. I mean, I'm sure they wouldn't exactly be happy being tortured for eternity in hell for something they could not escape (i.e., being born with a sin nature). Calvinists believe that we are born with a sin nature and that that's completely out of our control. We cannot NOT sin. Punishing someone eternally for finite sins -- sins that spring from our (supposed) sin nature -- when we can't stop sinning on our own seems callous and cruel. It'd be like a teacher who could have taught a child (a child who was born with a math disability, mind you) the correct formula for solving a math problem but chose not to; instead, she brutally tortured the child for getting the problem wrong. How could the child properly solve the problem without having been given the skills necessary to solve it? Wouldn't it seem incredibly messed up for the teacher to punish the child when she purposely did not teach him what he needed to know to solve the problem, especially given the fact that his disability would have made things even more difficult for him? That's kind of how I see Calvinism. The damned can't help but be damned because what they would have needed to have been saved would have been purposely kept from them by a so-called "merciful" God. I'm an agnostic, but the God of Calvinism seems sadistic and twisted. I don't mean to offend Calvinists, but I'm really not a fan of Calvinism.

[MamaJunebug]

I don't reject the Bible at all. I am a relatively observant Jew who reads Torah everyday. I reject this interpretation because a. I don't believe in scouring the Bible for ten or twenty verses that support my opinion while ignoring a larger number that contradict it, and b. I think that the main point of the Bible is that God loves us the way a parent loves a child.

Also quoting emmidahl:

So, back to the original question, why would God make all these people with only the intention to damn them to eternal misery? I agree that we are imperfect, but I believe that God made me that way and that He will be merciful because of this.

It's 0230 hours where I am, so ... you know.

The first part of the Lutheran doctrine on predestination is that God loves us all, and has predestined us all to Heaven. I believe it's very similar to the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrines.

Say what you will about Martin Luther, but he was "on our [sic] side" vis-a-vis Calvinistic theology. See http://www.orlutheran.com/html/mlpredestination.html

The second part of the doctrine is that by accepting the gift of Jesus' sacrifice, we are destined for Heaven. By rejecting the gift, we are destined for Hell.

I'm posting here to speak against the Calvinist idea of predestination. I'm not going to debate the Lutheran idea, either against Calvinists nor against non-Christians. The rest of this is a personal note and only worth reading if you want to know why this is my first and last post on this subject. It isn't that I disbelieve Lutheranism, which seems to be in my DNA.

However, in reading up on the prayers to be said at Rosh Hashanah services later today, I have been pleasantly thunderstruck by the similarities between Jewish and Lutheran attitudes toward God.

Lutherans have confidence that God, their Heavenly Father, loves them and showed it by sending Jesus and because of Jesus' sacrifice, forgives them.

Jews have confidence that God, their Heavenly Father, loves them and forgives them.

I could never reject Jesus as Savior, and I rejoice to hear that someone has accepted Him and His gift, especially when they are in a theological system that teaches God as our loving Father.

But I also rejoice, the more I read up on Judaism, that there is not the dark uncertainty of whether or not God forgives us, as many Christians have taught about Judaism. Maybe that uncertainty is there, in fundamentalist Judaism, adn maybe I'm just surrounded by really progressive, reformed, reconstructionist Jews.

The thing is, the longer I live and the more I look at my own religion and Judaism, the more I am convinced: God knows our hearts. Has known them since before we were even zygotes. So, to subscribe to the Calvinist belief that some are just born bad ... impossible for me.

Also (and now I'm really rambling, but consider the hour!) to know that Unitarianism developed in reaction to Calvinism? Right there .... seems to me that Calvin destined himself to be a divider!

Pax vobiscum and where oh where is Sleep???? ;) Dang that two-hour nap, yesterday!!!!!

[debrand]

Why will God be merciful? Would the damned be happy in heaven with Jesus? Why or why not?

Thank you so much for discussing this Soul Huntress! I've been told by Calvinists that God doesn't love everyone. Is that a common belief among those who follow Calvin? What is the difference between a hyper Calvinist and a regular Calvinist?

The damned are doomed to spend and eternity being tortured. If the choice is between hanging out with Jesus or being tortured, I am going to talk a wild guess that most people would rather hang with Jesus. They might not be wildly blissful but it's a lot better than being miserable forever.

[Boltingmadonna]

Interesting discussion. Tehgoobster's example of a teacher who punishes a child for not learning what was never taught made me think. I ran into this attitude in real life back when I used to be involved in my childrens' schools. In Texas, I did after-school tutoring with children from low-achieving schools. Most of them were non-white, many children of immigrants. When I talked about school achievement gaps to some of the "nice" ladies from my neighborhood, I actually heard these words: "Well, what can you expect from those children." They really believed that some kids were not capable of learning anyway, so why bother. Effort and resources should be saved for nice white children who had all the advantages to begin with and were considered able to learn.

It's a kind of social Calvinism--this idea that some people are born bad and will never get better, so don't waste help on them. Poor people are just no good. If they were good like us, they wouldn't be poor. God obviously hasn't blessed them. This is another reason why I really dislike Calvinism. It's not only sh*t doctrine as theology, it encourages people to think in black and white and to believe that some people are condemned from the get-go, and thus are not worthy of being treated as equal to us. Religion is such a paradox--on one hand, most religions have exhortations to be kind and to help others and see the good in them. But religions also have an infinite number of ways to justify the rule of the privileged and the oppression of the oppressed. I'm not the first to have noticed this effect of Calvinism. And I live out here in western Michigan, which is Calvinism-dense and as a result people fear to mow their lawns on Sunday lest they be designated as Not Elect.