The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Blog: "why calvinism is more heretical than universalism"

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#68

the problem with your analogy is this:

the 100 people in the room are penniless and in debt. some have gambled unwisely, and the debt is their fault. some are in debt because their parents were in debt. they owe that debt to the rich guy. (that the guy may have set up the whole debt situation in the first place is probably not necessary to get into, but it’s also important to remember.)

then the rich guy walks into that room and decides, for his own glorification, to only forgive the debts of 10 of those people. He has the ability and means to pay all the debts, but He doesn’t. He chooses 10 people and then inflicts the worst of his authority on the other 90 for not paying the debt they never had the means to pay.

oxymoron, i really appreciate your input here, and it’s good to see that your corner has a defender to argue in its defense in you.

annoyingly though i can’t seem to access the blog!

if i’m honest though, i am with AllanS with his analogy of Moloch.

also, we do have some ability to perceive good and evil in this world.

11 “Which of you fathers, if your son asks for[f] a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”
Luke 11:11-13

i know what a good gift looks like, and i know what entrapment and arbitrary favour looks like, even though i am evil, and stupid and blind due to my fallen nature.

#69

i think lecturing people on netiquette should be frowned on more that resurrecting old relevant threads

though i guess that explains why the blog isn’t available anymore lol :laughing:

#70

I think BirdE was just trying to protect Oxy from being called out on something if he had been banned and couldn’t respond. (He hasn’t been banned, though. Yet. :wink: )

With Sonia, I see no problem with this thread being revived. But keep in mind that Oxy only shows up on occasion, and I don’t know if he registered for thread-post alerts, so he may or may not reply. Readers shouldn’t hold any lack of reply against him.

#71

yeah, i’m sure we’ll see him again. he must be busy, but it’s cool he pops in for the odd chat

#72

One line of informing someone of a certain internet standard is a lecture now? It’s not like he didn’t ask.

#73

Right. Interesting that ‘necroing’ seven week old threads is okay (eg this one Trying to understand non-Trinitarians. (Present your cases?)), even when the poster left. I guess there’s a secret cut-off point at which necroing *becomes *bad etiquette?

corpselight was just sticking up for a fellow Brit, I guess. Thanks corpselight. :slight_smile: (I thought your counter-analogy on the illogicality of oxymoron’s analogy was brilliant, by the way.)

And Bird, my name is Johnny. You’re more than welcome to use it.

Shalom

Johnny

#74

I see what you are doing here. I do not appreciate it. Please do not tell me “Shalom” when your attitude is clearly hostile. That’s just rude.

I did not attack the poster in the thread I necroed, while Johny is responding to Oxy in a negative manner. I did not check the date on that thread, while Johny (the other Johny), has ASKED if necroing was bad. I answered him. I’m not sure what on earth is your problem with that.

But it does not appear that any of you care, seems like you are both more concerned with winning some stupid argument about who called out what first? Is this some kind of a joke?

#75

I’m sorry you viewed my post as hostile, Bird. I was merely sticking up for myself - politely enough in my typically British humorous way I thought - and particularly for the person who had kindly stuck up for me, who you had responded to a trifle peevishly, I thought.

But I’m sorry if I have offended you.

#76

you were the one that took the superior attitude to begin with, Bird.
nuff said, move on.

#77

Johnny did ask if it was bad etiquette. BirdE answered, in context of what I took to be a protection of Oxy since she thought he wasn’t around anymore to reply (i.e. reviving old threads to challenge something someone has written when they aren’t around anymore). But she didn’t go on to mention that she thought it was okay otherwise.

Maybe she thought that her several paragraphs of agreement in criticising a point Oxy took was sufficient evidence that she thought it was okay this time. But because she only explicitly included the “bad etiquette” side of her reply, I can see why CL (and Johnny, sort of) thought she was rebuking Johnny in a “superior” fashion.

BirdE, Johnny asked a question that he thought would be properly answered by a mod or admin. I think that’s why they were miffed when you answered first in a fashion that on the face of it only seemed like a rebuke to Johnny reviving the thread.

Sonia and I are both okay with this thread being revived (and neither of us think the other admins will be against it), so long as people remember that Oxy may not be around to answer, so we should avoid directly challenging him on points or else keep in mind that if he doesn’t answer that doesn’t mean our challenges have defeated him. So we’re in favor of both Johnny and CL (and BirdE for that matter) critiquing principles previously expressed in the thread; and we’re also in favor of chivalrously protecting Oxy, too (assuming that was BirdE’s intention). :slight_smile:

#78

Oxy is one of our more… um… (politely putting it :wink: ) popularistic exponents of a variety of Calvinism, Johnny. He does (inadvertently) serve as a good example of some attitudes and ideas worth commenting on, but we have at least three apologists for Calv/Reformed theology (they would prefer Reformed of course, seeing Arminianism as not sufficiently reformed enough) who are more literate and somewhat more cogent than Oxy is.

I recommend looking for threads and comments by these members (although there are things in this thread and in other ‘oxymoron’ threads and comments worth remarking on, too): “Luke”, a friend of Alex Smiths and a former bishop of the Anglican church (who resigned to be a more presbyterian minister if I recall correctly–I think he started membership here as a bishop and resigned in the latter half of last year). “DualCitizen”, the forum name of Paul Manata, a friend of mine and Calvinist Christian apologist (whom I want to get back debating soon). And “Theopologetics”, the forum name of Chris Date, a new friend of mine and Calvinist Christian apologist who runs a small webradio program (also someone I’m trying to get back to debating soon).

Luke can be touchy, but Paul and Chris are very friendly and fair to their opponents, and all three are more sophisticated and nuanced than Oxy. (Glenn Peoples, registered as “glennpeoples”, participated in a debate with Tom Talbott on the forum for a while, too. Chris and Glenn know each other, and Chris recently switched from ECT to annihilationism thanks partly to Glenn who is also a Calv annihilationist–quite rare!)

#79

i’ve not really seen that Luke provided very sophisticated arguments, i’m sorry to say! i felt he’d drastically missed the point and stated some very weak arguments…some of Oxy’s points by contrast i thought were at least decent questions, though i confess to getting exasperated once with him :blush:
roofus asks the odd question, but it seems he WANTS UR to be true at least, but doesn’t want to accept it just to make himself feel better, which i can respect!

#80

Jason

As ever, you pour oil expertly and deftly on troubled waters. Guess that’s why you’re an admin and I’m just a curmudgeonly old grump of a forum member. :smiley:

Seriously, thanks for the ‘heads up’ on oxymoron and the other members of the forum who are Calvinists / support the Calvinist viewpoint. Shocked as some people may be to hear this, but I am *seriously *interested in debating a good, honest Calvinist about what they believe and why. And I say honest, because I don’t think a lot of Calvinists *are *honest about what they ‘believe’, mainly because - IMHO - it isn’t possible to simultaneously hold all the tenets of Calvinism in one’s mind without one’s rationality radar short-circuiting. To avoid this, most Calvinists either a) become irrational; b) stick their fingers in their ears and go na-na-na I’m not listening; c) repeat their erroneous and one-eyed ‘sola scriptura’ mantra ad nauseam; or d) and this is the one that really upsets me, claim they are simply acting for the ‘glory of god’.

Personally I would put Mark Driscoll into Categories A, C and D. Not quite a full-house, as he is, at least on occasion, honest enough to admit the horrible truth of what he believes (ie ECT). Of which more soon.

Perhaps I should try and contextualise things, for anybody who thinks I’m just a one-trick pony whose sole purpose in life is to trash Calvin and Calvinists. Well, that isn’t true, but there is a tad of truth in it. I have had some very dark days (months and years) in my Christian life, times of steering far closer to complete apostasy than I wish to contemplate now. And it was anxiety that the Bible actually taught Calvinism (even though I was an Arminian Christian) that nearly pushed me over the edge. For if the only credible god on offer was one who condemned countless millions of his creatures to ECT, I couldn’t believe in him, and hence couldn’t believe at all. And that is a place I never want to go again. I will do everything in my power to help stop other people going there too, *especially *those brought up in the Calvinist tradition, who have a life-time of predestinatory ECT brainwashing to slough off before they can liberate the Universalist butterfly that God has placed into their hearts.

Sorry, an egregious mixing of metaphors there. But if ever I sound angry about Calvinism, I am. But I am always *trying *to *try *to do my best to love and fellowship with Calvinists - and that includes oxymoron. Oh hell, *and *Mark Driscoll.

Shalom

Johnny

#81

Johnny,

In regards to (a), (b), ©, & (d): You have hit the nail on the head. And Arminianism is no better. It just approaches absurdity from a different angle.

Thats all for now but this seems like a good thread.

#82

FWIW, and far be it from me to stoke a fire, by “necroing”, I don’t think that the term “double predestination” is used too much, or where it’s used formally in confessions. The term used is “passed over” with regard to the reprobate. However, to be honest with y’all, I think this is semantics. I don’t blame anyone for logically coming to the term.
But I liken this to EU / UR saying that y’all don’t teach that “all roads leads to heaven”. Hmmmm let’s see, a rabid, secular atheist, a muslim who strapped himself with C4 and shrapnel and who’s final words were “allahhu akbar” and detonated himself in a public area with children present, Judas, Neitche and Nero will all ultimately be in heaven…? To say that you don’t teach “all roads lead to heaven” is semantics. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… Johnny, you wanted an honest Calvinist? By the power of the Almighty’s providence you’ve got one now, bruh. :sunglasses:
As far as Arminians being regarded as heretics, yes. That was declared at the Synod of Dort, which is where the traditional 5 Points of Calvinism were clearly focused on as they were challenged in the Remonstrance. Oxy didn’t seem to consider them heretics, though.
BTW, I’m not oxy.

#83

You would agree that all those people would be in heaven if they made a genuine deathbed confession of faith, correct? (I guess the suicide bomber miraculously survives for a few minutes, realises the error of his ways and repents as he lies there dying …)

So you agree that all paths potentially lead to heaven? Anyone can potentially be saved, no matter what terrible things they have done before conversion?

Neither of us believe they will become saved by walking the path they are on. There is one path to salvation … and that way is Christ.

I’d say “double predestination” is a different kind of issue.

Sonia

#84

G’mornin Sonia! I agree with your first question as “genuine” would prove a sovereign, monergistic act of rgeneration on the part of the true and living God, thereby showing predestination / election.
Your second question? Vehemently NOOOOO!!! You know that. The second part of your second question? No, not anyone…only the elect. However, as I’ve stated before, we don’t know who the elect and reprobate are. So, humanly speaking are they potential “gets”? From that perspective, yes. Again, I think that this will lead to us quibbling on “semantics”.
It seems to me that EU /UR DOES believe they will be saved walking the path they are on. Not because of the path, indeed, in spite of. But nevertheless, they walk that path and the final endgame is salvation.
My point re “double predestination / all roads leads to heaven” was to illustrate that opponents of either side, of reasonable faculties, can make the assertion. It may not be explicit, but seems implicit. Believers of either system may protest and say, “No, that’s not what we technically teach or believe!” But again, the opponents will say, “That’s just semantics”. That’s what I meant.
All theological systems will have inherent difficulties. I’m ok saying that. To deny that there are no difficulties to believe of accept in the Doctrines of Grace would be theologically and intellectually dishonest. I believe the same is true for EU /UR and ALL other religions, Christian or not.

#85

I generally thought the whole roads lead to heaven thing was about a formulated religion vs general religiosity.

To me, John 14:6 means that Jesus is the only valid agent that has control over the dead.

It does not have anything whatsoever to do with a person’s beliefs, church, name of religion, or anything really.

You’re a Christian, Jesus takes you to Heaven. Or not.

You’re a Hindu, Jesus still takes you there or here.

Same concept with C. S. Lewis’s idea and with the invisible church in Orthodoxy/Catholicism.

So “all religions lead to heaven” is a bit of a misnomer. Many of these religions do not lead to Jesus at all. Nevertheless, Jesus still exists, whether you believe he does is irrelevant. Jesus leads to Heaven, and he decides who he gets to take with him.

#86

Let me see if I’m getting this right:

Calvinists believe that for the elect, all paths lead to heaven.

:smiley:

Sonia

#87

Okay smartypants, you’re halfway right…so progress is being made :smiley: