|
Post by Paul on Jan 18, 2011 15:19:43 GMT -5
.
|
|
|
Post by Azrael on Jan 18, 2011 17:37:07 GMT -5
I was wondering how long it would be until somebody picked this up.
Alright, let's lay down the groundwork for free will.
I define free will as the ability to make a decision free from external forces. Note that I say "A decision." I do not believe in the concept of universal free will (although I will say that we are given the power to resist our natures and our baser temptations).
We have a decision to make, and it is the most critical decision of our existence. It was the reason we were created. It is what governs our purpose or lack of purpose. We make this decision in the dark and never meet the consequences until it is too late. We must elect ourselves. We must elect a slavery of love.
We either decide to love God, or we decide not to. This is not like the Matrix. Reality around you will not convince you in the end. People from the outside will not change your mind for you. You will decide. You will see no proof to confirm your decision. That would void the very nature of the decision.
However, this decision eventually takes hold of your life and you begin to reflect the decision. You reflect your choice (not to be confused with works-based salvation, but certainly noteworthy when looking at unkind believers).
All must make this conscious decision to either obey the commandment of love, or disobey. There is no proof, no way to externally change somebody's mind. Knowledge of God is forbidden to humans. This is why humans can be saved and angels cannot. Angels cannot obey God's commandment. They already know the consequences.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jan 18, 2011 21:14:58 GMT -5
.
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on Jan 19, 2011 10:52:30 GMT -5
You're likely to change, or at least effect my mind!
I'm currently at a loss what to think about these matters, so I'm very much intrested in what you all have to say about this.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jan 19, 2011 12:19:38 GMT -5
Which matters?
I'm not a Calvinist, so hopefully not those ones
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on Jan 19, 2011 14:18:50 GMT -5
Well the ones discussed in this thread, about free will. In which, eventhough you are apparently not a Calvinist, do seem to have an opinion that corrosponds to the Calvinist one.
|
|
|
Post by behemoth on Jan 20, 2011 20:19:56 GMT -5
Not to make things more convoluted, but the question of the human will is not a simple as "Calvinist or Arminian/Wesleyan?"
Here goes my take on the issue though.
I call myself a staunch in-between-ian. I probably lean more in the direction of Wesleyan theology when dealing with the human will, but when I say that I mean what is specific to John Wesley, not necessarily its derivations and permutations throughout the church today.
Before I state why, here is a statement that both sides need to realize. Both the Calvinistic and Arminian viewpoints make logical sense granted their respective presuppositions. To say "Calvinists are stoopid!!!!11!! lolLOL" because they don't see the logical fallacy of [insert problem here] or vise versa about Arminians is unhelpful, not to mention incorrect. What I'm about to say should be obvious, but it is often overlooked; it also happens to apply to all other debates/conversations etc., from interfaith, to atheism vs. Christianity.
If you cannot see why the person you're talking to believes what he or she believes and how it is appealing to him/her, then you are most likely misunderstanding the position.
In modern, democratic, Western societies (particularly within the USA) we seem to place an intrinsic value on the idea of libertarian free-will as if it is in and of itself a form of high virtue, if not the highest virtue. That said, we need to realize our presupposition for what it is here. The idea of a libertarian free-will has not been viewed as high virtue for most of humanity's existence.
As for my position, know that I take the idea of original sin (a theological idea traceable back to Augustine, though I reject his notion of how it is passed on from generation to generation through copulation which he viewed as impossible to participate in without sin, even in marriage) very seriously. I might even go so far as to accept the T in "TULIP" or 'total depravity' meaning more or less that humanity's corruption is complete. We are so lost and blinded in and by our sin that we are unable to choose to follow God, and we would not even if we knew which choice to make.
This is why we need God's revelation of God's-self to us in order to know him. It is then through God's action on our behalf that we are able to not only know him, but come to love and serve him. This is an act of grace on his part on our behalf. Calvinists would be pleased with me up to this point, as they are adamant about God's required first action before we can come to him.
Interestingly, Wesley also affirmed everything I just said. Who gets this grace? I concur with the concept of prevenient grace to all humanity. God through his self-revelation and through his actions in the life of Jesus as the incarnate God-man makes possible the way to God for all people. This grace more or less opens our eyes so to speak enabling us again to see (somewhat) clearly and then follow him. We are responsible for our response.
Note that this is NOT a libertarian concept of independent agency and free-will. It requires first a distinct act of grace on God's part. Even so, the human will plays agency, but again, only after grace.
Where neo-Calvinists or hyper-Calvinists will now roll their eyes is where I speak of human agency, because if you follow "TULIP" then I just contradicted the L, standing for Limited atonement. This is the theological construct stating that the atoning work of Jesus on the cross was only for God's elect, and that it does not cover the sins of others. I take issue with this concept because it implies a weak God. I have problem with the idea that the blood of Christ is not powerful enough for all (or that God is spiteful and made a sacrifice for less than all, which was certainly in his power to do).
As you can see then, my view is somewhat in-between, and I reject our society's inflamatory tendencies towards polarization (ie you believe this extreme or that extreme and nothing is in the middle). I am a self-proclaimed theological moderate in many areas. This last bit is to give you a bit more info about me the source of this post so you can better take what I say with a grain of salt.
A final point then a recap:
Note that both sides of this debate claim to be backed by the Bible and both sides come forward and show scriptures that support what they say. They then both (consciously or unconsciously) neglect the verses that seem to point in the other direction. That or they explain away the verses that seem to support the opposing view with words such as "context," "cultural setting," and "exegesis" (though we more frequently do eisegesis, that is reading our preformed ideas into scripture). I posit that the answer is somewhere between modern Calvinism and complete free-will.
Again, God creates, man sins, man is blinded to God and even hostile towards him. God intervenes through grace enabling man to be reconciled to him. Man then must respond (or not respond) with faith which is not head knowledge or praying a prayer, but an active life in service for God...that is living in love for God and neighbor. God initiates but man is required to respond.
As an afterthought, if you have further questions or want me to flesh something out, either about Calvinism, Arminianism, or my view, let me know and I'll do my best to be fair to all sides involved.
As a final historical afterthought, John Calvin did not hold to "TULIP" and was more theologically moderate than modern Calvinists holding said viewpoint. TULIP was created in reaction to Jacob Arminius and his questioning of ideas such as predestination and the like. People saw his work, panicked and in reaction came up with TULIP (John Calvin was long dead). As with most reactionary theologies, I feel it quickly becomes an over-reactionary theology. They went beyond the call of duty trying to make sure none of that "Arminian garbage" slipped in by accident and in the process substantially out-Calvined John Calvin.
Sorry this is long.
|
|
|
Post by Radiant Magnificence Alastair on Jan 21, 2011 0:47:22 GMT -5
I wish I knew more about the Church history. I know almost nothing about Calvinism, Cannibalism etc. and I'll do my best to be fair to all sides involved. What do you mean by this? but an active life in service for God What service? Evangelism?
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on Jan 21, 2011 4:36:52 GMT -5
Where neo-Calvinists or hyper-Calvinists will now roll their eyes is where I speak of human agency, because if you follow "TULIP" then I just contradicted the L, standing for Limited atonement. This is the theological construct stating that the atoning work of Jesus on the cross was only for God's elect, and that it does not cover the sins of others. I take issue with this concept because it implies a weak God. I have problem with the idea that the blood of Christ is not powerful enough for all (or that God is spiteful and made a sacrifice for less than all, which was certainly in his power to do). Hmm... I think most Calvinists would now say that God would not be spiteful for condemning all of mankind, in light of the total depravity thing. So if, for His own glory, He chooses to save a few, He has not done any injustice to the others that are still condemned, He has only done good to those He has saved. Now I'm not criticizing you or anything, as I've said, I don't know what to think about this issue myself; I would simply like to hear your opinion about this, because you seem to know a lot more about this than I do. I also think it is intresting what you're saying about the reactionary aspect of modern Calvinist theology. Thinking about it, it is indeed very much true, as the purpose of the synod of Dort, which is where the TULIP thing comes from, was to settle the controversy in the Dutch churches that was started by Arminius. Weird how a controversy in the Dutch churches has started this whole debate which is still going on all over the world almost 4 centuries later. Maybe Arminius just had back luck being born in one of the only two countries in the world to have ever had a reformed majority.
|
|
|
Post by behemoth on Jan 21, 2011 9:20:17 GMT -5
Where neo-Calvinists or hyper-Calvinists will now roll their eyes is where I speak of human agency, because if you follow "TULIP" then I just contradicted the L, standing for Limited atonement. This is the theological construct stating that the atoning work of Jesus on the cross was only for God's elect, and that it does not cover the sins of others. I take issue with this concept because it implies a weak God. I have problem with the idea that the blood of Christ is not powerful enough for all (or that God is spiteful and made a sacrifice for less than all, which was certainly in his power to do). Hmm... I think most Calvinists would now say that God would not be spiteful for condemning all of mankind, in light of the total depravity thing. So if, for His own glory, He chooses to save a few, He has not done any injustice to the others that are still condemned, He has only done good to those He has saved. Now I'm not criticizing you or anything, as I've said, I don't know what to think about this issue myself; I would simply like to hear your opinion about this, because you seem to know a lot more about this than I do. You are correct, a true modern Calvinist would not see it as spiteful etc. I did not mean to imply that they would, but rather I feel it in that direction. I apologize for any lack of clarification. If man is depraved, and hateful towards God, then yes God would not be unjust in damning him, and it is a positive act of Grace that any are chosen to be saved according to modern Calvinistic theories. I do not wish to cloud what they would say, but rather was trying to point establish my own view and dialogue with Calvinism and new libertarian viewpoints where I differ. I will respond more thoroughly later after work. Also, at no point do I wish to give off the impression of being a "know-it-all" or anything like that. I just like fair honest conversation, and as student finishing my Masters of Theological Studies and considering doctoral programs these issues fascinate me.
|
|
|
Post by behemoth on Jan 21, 2011 13:39:01 GMT -5
I also think it is intresting what you're saying about the reactionary aspect of modern Calvinist theology. Thinking about it, it is indeed very much true, as the purpose of the synod of Dort, which is where the TULIP thing comes from, was to settle the controversy in the Dutch churches that was started by Arminius. Weird how a controversy in the Dutch churches has started this whole debate which is still going on all over the world almost 4 centuries later. Maybe Arminius just had back luck being born in one of the only two countries in the world to have ever had a reformed majority. As the saying goes, "Nothing is new under the sun." It seems to me that the same handful of issues keep cropping up throughout the 2,000 year history of Christianity. For instance, while in each generation the nuances and flavors of the debates very, when it comes to "heresies" in regard to Christology (theological understanding of Christ), it always seems to be people denying or not taking seriously one or the other of Jesus' two natures (physical and divine). People either want to deny his full and true humanity claiming he was only God appearing to be human i.e. docetism/gnostic stuff, or people want to deny his divinity and leave him as something less than God/something created/only human (Aryanism). This was supposed to be settled in 324 but it still comes up to this day for instance the Jesus Seminar claiming more or less that Jesus was just a wondering, cynical teacher of provential wisdom and a moral code. If you take away the nuances, what it comes down to is a denial of the divinity of Christ. That was off topic, but I would say that in the same way questions of the nature of man before and after the fall, and now after the work of Christ is still hotly debated. More to the question at hand, John Calvin's key concern was the sovereignty of God. God is in control, and we cannot take credit for our salvation based on merit. He actually acknowledged the concept of free(ish) will, but wished it had never been coined because in his experience as soon as people start talking about their free will, they inevitably start taking too much credit for their salvation, which is God's territory alone. Also he would say that the will is so corrupt that without direct intervention on the part of God, while the will is free(ish) it cannot and will not choose God. Also interesting that while John Calvin does discuss the idea of 'election' or predestination and did believe in it, it was as important to him as it was to post-Council of Dort Calvinists. If you read Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, the idea of election is discussed in Book 4. That is the doctrine of humanity. It is also used primarily as an explanatory device. If God is sovereign, God saves, and God is all powerful, why do we not all come to Christ? Why do we see people who even after hearing the gospel refuse God? Election is a viable explanation for that. So, the whole concept of election, while present in Calvin, is not in a place of importance; rather it is an explanatory device used to answer a question about humanity. After the Council of Dort and the invention of TULIP the doctrine of election was moved by the (hyper)Calvinists from Book 4 to Book 1. That is, it was moved from an explanatory position in the doctrine of humanity up front to the doctrine of God. Again, rather than being explanatory, it became a primary way of talking about God. This is again why I say it goes way beyond where John Calvin did or would have gone theologically. To Most Reverend Alastair: 1. What I meant by "being fair to all sides involved" is that I will try to present as close to an unbiased statement of a viewpoint as I can. I do not want to portray Calvinists, Arminians, or anyone else in a ridiculing manner, if I am trying to explain what they believe. It goes back to my statement that if you cannot see why someone would believe what they do (religiously or otherwise) most of the time it is likely you don't truly understand what they believe. I will state where I agree, where I disagree, strengths, weaknesses, and presuppositions behind a viewpoint as best I can. If we mudsling and throw coarse, clipped exaggerations of a viewpoint or charicature it then we have failed to explain it. That is the stuff from which stereotypes and straw men are made. I want to avoid such things. 2. Evangelism, yes. But I would put forth a more holistic picture. A life of service to God is what all people are called to, whether pastors, preachers, lay people, or anyone else. Our life, even when not interacting with other people should be of service to God. Look after the "..." and you will see that I say something to the effect of living in love for God and humans. When asked what the greatest commandment was, what did Jesus respond? Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind; and the second is like it, love your neighbor as yourself. This, of course is the trick, doing just that.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 21, 2011 13:51:26 GMT -5
The ability to make a statement using only a few sentences by stripping it down to its true meaning is, sometimes, a very good quality.
Also, I generally agree with behemoth's first post.
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on Jan 22, 2011 10:23:57 GMT -5
This guy has some sensible things to say on election...
|
|
|
Post by Azrael on Jan 22, 2011 13:00:23 GMT -5
I admit, my feelings towards Calvinism are moderately polarized. I used to hold dearly to the Once-Saved-Always-Saved doctrine in my youth. However, I began thinking of things differently when I started applying cultural context to the Bible. The biggest reason I dislike Calvinism is because whenever I see a Calvinist penning a blog or posting a video, it's usually for the sole purpose of attacking or discrediting another field of Christendom. I've watched Calvinist ministers give 50 minute sermons on one phrase Rob Bell said in his sermon completely removed from context. They conclude with branding him a "heretic." They will know we are Christians by our disdain for other people, apparently. Most people who hold Arminian views are extremely unconscious of it. They usually don't even hear the word until a Calvinist hears they believe in free-will and starts chanting "Arminian heretic!" in their faces. What I've really come to despise is the attitude in Calvinism that the TULIP doctrine has instilled. Once you start believing that you're the "OMG!!111! SPESHULZ GOD ONNNLY LUUUVES MEEEEEEEE!!!111!" stuff, it robs the humility and the sense of love from you. I guess if we look at many modern Calvinist Apologists, it leads you to renounce non-Calvinist church leaders as "wolves in sheep's clothing" and secret antichrists. Here's a letter addressed to one specific apologist that I think sums up my feelings towards the camp nicely. www.verumserum.com/?p=529EDIT: B-T-dubs, Ken Silva, the recipient of the letter, has gone on to declare Billy Graham a heretic. Lulz.
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on Jan 23, 2011 10:30:17 GMT -5
What I've really come to despise is the attitude in Calvinism that the TULIP doctrine has instilled. Once you start believing that you're the "OMG!!111! SPESHULZ GOD ONNNLY LUUUVES MEEEEEEEE!!!111!" stuff, it robs the humility and the sense of love from you. Hmmm it is sad indeed when that happens. However, I don't think that the TULIP is the cause of this arrogance. If these people were to take the U seriously they would have no basis for such pride, I think. I suspect that attitude to be the fruit of a rather imbalanced TULIP with way too much L and far too little U. (Though I feel like I'm defending the five point Calvinism thing, it must be said, I don't actually adhere it. As I said earlier, I haven't formed an opinion on these matters yet. Though it must also be said I'm probably leaning more towards the Calvinism side.)
|
|