calvinism

[justifyothers]

As some of you may know, I left my last church over three years ago because I could not accept the doctrine of calvinism.

I still have some friends from that church, and usually we do not discuss doctrine, but one thing lead to another and there we were in that same ol argument. However- my friend's husband threw a new one at me. He made this excuse for the ugly god of calvinism:

He said that everything is 'predetermined' until that moment of accepting/rejecting God. At that time, freewill kicks in and the choice is ours, even though god knows how we will choose. I have never heard such nonsense before and I was wondering if anyone else has heard this theory, or if he just made it up on the spot.

[Skyler]

Then either you are saved or condemned, entirely by God's will and choice and it matters not what you do or not do, what you believe or not believe.

I'm curious to know if you consider caricature a valid method of argumentation. Do you really think that's Calvinism?

Essentially, yes. According to Calvinism, if you believe it is by God's grace and you cannot help but to believe. If you do not believe, you cannot get to the point of belief by your own nature or effort.

But Calvinism doesn't teach that we are saved independently of belief or actions, or that it doesn't matter how we live. In fact it emphasizes quite strongly the need for both.

But free will implies that there is something beyond the external influences, that is involved in decision making.

What would that nebulous "something" be?

I believe that those who believe in free will call it spirit or soul.

I don't think there's any Scriptural basis for thinking that the soul is unaffected by sin though.

Again, are our decisions influenced by our nature?

Of course they are. But are our natures a result of external influences, environment, genes and experiences, or is there something else too. Free will implies that there is something independent of everything else in our own nature.

I think our nature goes beyond just a combination of external influences, environment, genes, and experience, yes. But I don't see how free will fits in with that.

If our nature is merely a combination of external influences, environment, genes, experience and all that, then it is entirely determined, no free-will. If however, you posit that we have free will, you must also believe in some non-external, non-determined source for that free will.

Yes, it is determined, but it's at least in part determined by our nature. Given a certain set of inputs a given nature will always respond the same way. Free will, at least conventionally, must have an equal probability of choosing either way. Which, I think, is not the case.

...I'm confused. Are you arguing for or against free will here?

Some people seem more prone to make rash decisions than others.

Do they do so because of a hormonal imbalance, a genetic predisposition, environmental conditioning or is there a completely independent spirit helping to call the shots?

There is no completely independent spirit, at least not from my perspective, and that's what I've been arguing. It may be from any of those other factors you list, or a combination.

We agree. But those who believe in free will claim that our natures cannot be merely a combination of those factors but something beyond.

Right. But why?

So you'd have to define what you mean by "free will", in a Biblical sense of the term.

That would be difficult, since the term or the idea cannot be found in Christian scriptures.

The idea, no, I agree. But I did find the word in my concordance.

I have sent him back to you in person, that is, sending my very heart, whom I wished to keep with me, so that on your behalf he might minister to me in my imprisonment for the gospel; but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will.

Nice catch!

That's a good example too... but I was thinking of the freewill offerings in the Old Testament.

Let me point out just for clarity that Calvinists do believe in man's will. They just believe it is influenced by man's nature to the point where those who are not in the Spirit cannot please God.

They believe, do they not, that human nature is utterly and completely evil? Calvinists teach that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, apart from the grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to accept salvation as it is freely offered.

That's what I said. But there's a difference between a constitutional inability and a physical inability--I may be unable to stomach the thought of eating a worm to the point that I would rather die first. That doesn't mean I'm physically unable; it means I'm constitutionally or morally unable.

OK, maybe I'm missing the point. According to Calvinism, all humans are by nature enslaved to sin, incapable of choosing good without direct intervention of the irresistible will of God.

Right. Not "utterly unable", just constitutionally unable.

Just for the record, I'm not. I have eaten worms.

So did Martin Luther apparently.

Did I ever mention that I... ahem... strongly dislike puns?

[McCulloch]

But Calvinism doesn't teach that we are saved independently of belief or actions, or that it doesn't matter how we live. In fact it emphasizes quite strongly the need for both.

You are correct, but if I don't believe it is because God has not given me faith, not because of any other lack I have vis-à-vis other humans.

I don't think there's any Scriptural basis for thinking that the soul is unaffected by sin though.

No there is not. However, in terms of free will, if humans have free will, then some part of the soul must have escaped the taint of sin.

Yes, it is determined, but it's at least in part determined by our nature. Given a certain set of inputs a given nature will always respond the same way. Free will, at least conventionally, must have an equal probability of choosing either way. Which, I think, is not the case.

I am not sure that free will implies equal probability. Just that a decision can be made with some degree of independence from all external influences.

...I'm confused. Are you arguing for or against free will here?

That depends. I do not believe that we have free will. I am not sure what the Bible teaches on the subject. It appears somewhat contradictory. But, since I am an atheist, I'm OK with that.

Those who believe in free will claim that our natures cannot be merely a combination of those factors but something beyond.

Right. But why?

Why what? Why do they make that claim or why is it necessary that they make such a claim?

OK, maybe I'm missing the point. According to Calvinism, all humans are by nature enslaved to sin, incapable of choosing good without direct intervention of the irresistible will of God.

Right. Not "utterly unable", just constitutionally unable.

Unable none-the-less.

Did I ever mention that I... ahem... strongly dislike puns?

Why?
It appears as if God himself engaged in puns. The best pun in the New Testament is: "You are Peter [Petros] and upon this rock [petra] I will build my church." Puns are safe humour; they hurt no one. Unlike other forms of humour, they do not rely on putting others down or any form of degradation. Most forms of humour depend for their effect on the discomfiture of other human beings -- mother-in-law jokes, jokes about foreigners, jokes about people at a disadvantage in sexual positions, jokes about deaf people or morons or lunatics. They are more or less sadistic. Except the pun. This leaves only the pun as the representative of humour in its most advanced and complex form, the very punnicle of civilization.

Appeal to Authority: On puns, Swift said, "Punning is an art of harmonious jingling upon words, which, passing in at the ears, excites a titillary motion in those parts; and this, being conveyed by the animal spirits into the muscles of the face, raises the cockles of the heart."

A notorious punster was sentenced to be hung for crimes against the language. Given one last chance to repent, he looked up, then said, "No noose is good news." They hung him.

[justifyothers]

As some of you may know, I left my last church over three years ago because I could not accept the doctrine of calvinism.

I still have some friends from that church, and usually we do not discuss doctrine, but one thing lead to another and there we were in that same ol argument. However- my friend's husband threw a new one at me. He made this excuse for the ugly god of calvinism:

He said that everything is 'predetermined' until that moment of accepting/rejecting God. At that time, freewill kicks in and the choice is ours, even though god knows how we will choose. I have never heard such nonsense before and I was wondering if anyone else has heard this theory, or if he just made it up on the spot.

First of all I suggest you be careful about throwing around terms like "ugly god of Calvinism". What if for some reason you should turn out to be wrong?

Thanks, I'm sure if that ever were to be the case, God would quickly take that up with me.

Secondly, I have heard that explanation, I actually tried it when I was moving towards Calvinism. It didn't work.

Yep - clearly

For one thing, "free will" is a vague buzzword that doesn't really seem to mean anything. The strict definition is "making choices without taking into account external influences"--something nobody, I hope, does. Everyone takes external factors into account--whether it's looking both ways before crossing the street or planning a stock investment. But if we recognize that we always take external factors into account when making decisions, is that free will or are we being influenced by our surroundings? Again, are our decisions influenced by our nature? Some people seem more prone to make rash decisions than others. It would certainly seem to be the case--and the Bible backs this up. "Out of the heart the mouth speaketh".

So you'd have to define what you mean by "free will", in a Biblical sense of the term.

Let me point out just for clarity that Calvinists do believe in man's will. They just believe it is influenced by man's nature to the point where those who are not in the Spirit cannot please God.

Secondly, yes, God does use man's will to accomplish His ends. Look at the book of Isaiah--the nations were perfectly free to conquer or not conquer, but they conquered according to God's plan to achieve His ends. They, of course, didn't realize it; they were following their own inclinations--their nature, if you will--but in some fashion it was inevitable that it would happen ever since God created the world.

You were actually on point #3. And I thank you, but defining of the religion of calvinism is not what I needed, nor what I asked for. I didn't ask for anyone's bible interpretations in the matter _ I merely asked if this idea was some new up & coming trend of a new calvinism. As we can see, described by McCulloch, it is a case of compatabalism, which id very much different from calvinism.

I will also argur this one time, because it isn't my belief either way, but calvinism does not promote any will of man, but only the predetermined will od God concerning man.

[Skyler]

I will also argur this one time, because it isn't my belief either way, but calvinism does not promote any will of man, but only the predetermined will od God concerning man.

Since you bring this up, I have to ask--how do you define "will"?

[Sjoerd]

the ugly god of calvinism

Calvinism is the predominant religion of the northern Netherlands. All of my grandparents are/were calvinists, but I never experienced their God to be particularly ugly.

I was taught about predestination in history classes, and I believe to remember that this idea was dropped from calvinism after some time, at least in the Netherlands. Quick internet research couldn't settle the issue, perhaps someone else knows.

[FinalEnigma]

But Calvinism doesn't teach that we are saved independently of belief or actions, or that it doesn't matter how we live. In fact it emphasizes quite strongly the need for both.

The thing is, according to calvanism(or, the calvanism of the last calvanist I talked to) God will either choose for you to go to heaven, or not.
You cannot effect this.
you cannot change his mind in any way because to do so would be to thwart the will of God.
so, if God chooses to take you to heaven, you can say all the damning, insulting things about him you want, and it won't change his mind - he won't send you to hell because if he did, then you thwarted his will of sending you to heaven.

If he isn't going to take you to heaven anyway, then it cannot hurt you to say whatever you like, because either way, you're going to hell.

Calvinists have no basic reason to be moral so far as I can see. Certainly they have less so than atheists.

[SpiritQuickens]

But Calvinism doesn't teach that we are saved independently of belief or actions, or that it doesn't matter how we live. In fact it emphasizes quite strongly the need for both.

The thing is, according to calvanism(or, the calvanism of the last calvanist I talked to) God will either choose for you to go to heaven, or not.
You cannot effect this.
you cannot change his mind in any way because to do so would be to thwart the will of God.
so, if God chooses to take you to heaven, you can say all the damning, insulting things about him you want, and it won't change his mind - he won't send you to hell because if he did, then you thwarted his will of sending you to heaven.

If he isn't going to take you to heaven anyway, then it cannot hurt you to say whatever you like, because either way, you're going to hell.

Calvinists have no basic reason to be moral so far as I can see. Certainly they have less so than atheists.

*sigh*

This "hyper-Calvinist" objection has been answered so many times, that the objection itself is seen as pretty comical among Calvinists. It's actually been answered in this very forum.

If you're making a practice of sinning, you're probably not one of the elect. If you're genuinely calling on God, you're probably one of the elect, since "No one can come to Me unless My Father who sent Me draws him"-John 6:44.

What is so hard to understand? You're rewarded for faith and punished for disobedience. The only difference is that these things have been predetermined beforehand.

[beloved57]

There is no such thing as Mans freewill, He is constantly under the guidiance of Gods providence and purpose..

prov 20:24

Man's goings are of the LORD; how can a man then understand his own way?

[DeBunkem]

Saw a major news mag recently that claimed the US is starting to return to Calvinism. In times of stress and hardship, it always easier to fall back on judgementalism (blame someone else), fear, superstition, and guilt instead of rational thinking. If we don't finally purge ourselves of toxic religiosity we will regress to the Third World and worse. Latin American Christianity is mostly Catholic and very forgiving. Not Calvinism.

[Jonah]

Well, as for will....

Despite whatever Calvinists say, I will free will...or in other words I want: free will. Over against the Calvinist position, I will to the point that I can emphatically declare: I shall this day invent free will.

Now the Calvinist can scoff, but it won't stop a person from imagining free will and acting on it. And when that action results in something good and wonderful, it leaves a gee willakers reaction among those who witness..."Gee, look at that free-will thing in action!"...and thus, it becomes a "thing" that moves furniture around in the world...despite whatever Calivinists say does nor doesn't exist.