You to yours - I to mine.
i assure you my dismissal of calvinism is not at all casual.
while it is commendable that calvinists ignore the logic of their own 5 points in order to follow the command to evangelise, it doesn’t make it any more logical.
You’re welcome. I do try to be fair. 
Thus also why I’d grade this parable as leaning (taken only on its own terms) more toward Arm than Calv or Kath soteriology.
Never can tell who will show up; I have Calv (and Arm) scholarly friends who expect detail. 
Besides, the details are why I go one way and not another. 
Also, detailed discussion was why the forum was instituted in the first place, and why I was asked to be a guest author. When I go into careful and meticulous detail I’m fulfilling the forum mandate and my requested purpose for being here. (And I’m preview-testing eventual book material I’m working up, looking for problems or expansions.)
At least you have details to disagree and agree about!
Well, we agree that that’s how the Reformed-Non-Arminians typically regard it. (Arms are Reformed Protestants, too, although Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox tend to be Arminianistic in soteriology compared to the split among Protestants.)
Obviously I explicitly didn’t agree that this understanding fits the details of the parable at all, and I proposed a different interpretation that fits the details of the parable better–an interpretation that (either type of ) Reformed non-universalists could theoretically accept, too, although Calvs would have to give up applying the parable to judgment of the non-elect and might have to work in post-mortem salvation of the elect.
That was part of those details. 
Definitely agreed.
On a more contended point, would you say the parable indicates the king wasn’t or was making a serious offer to the guest who gets thrown out after being accepted into the wedding feast?
Um, more like I always agreed that the king represents God opposing rebels. 
I thought it meant that back when I was Arminian, and I still think that. My only significant adjustment since first reading the parable as a child 35ish years ago has been to incorporate non-hopeless punishment as a way of solving some of the oddities of the details. But I allow that Arminians have slightly cleaner ways to do so, taking this parable by itself.
True, although He still ends up having to explain them to His own apostles.
Considering that He started talking in parables in response to something His opponents had done, I have found it’s a good idea to check what His opponents had done to kick that off–and so also to be sure I’m not interpreting the parables (and Jesus’ explanations of the parables!) in a fashion similar in principle to how His opponents would interpret them (if they tried to make use of the parables in their own favor).
Okay, how did my description of the rationales of Calv (and EU) evangelism (rationales you agree are commendable) involve ignoring the logic of Calv 5 point TULIP?
I don’t think it’s your points specifically Jason. Rather the tenets of Calvinism as a whole. Of course it depends on the type of Calvinist you’re talking to. Some believe in a degree of free will to a point. Then on the other hand I’ve heard Calvinist apologists say childhood rape is God ordained. And this is good because it brings more meaning to the experience and possibly some good outcome eventually. So I would say that the degree to which a Calvinist views free will would affect how logical his need to evangelise is.
The view that all of our actions have been ordained by God makes a convoluted mockery of the whole universe, even our debate here, since apparently God is moving us as chess pieces, compelling us to do things then screaming in a purile fit when we don’t do what he won’t allow us to do. And even right now He’s compelling me to think Him purile so that He can be angry at me 
A very convoluted, matrixesque view of the universe that makes nothing make sense or have any point or meaning.
The more common view would be some limited day to day free will, including evangelism. Although even that seems logically difficult, since I’ve been created to have a depraved nature, born in circumstances and nurture of Gods choosing, so am I any more responsible or free to choose what I do than a fish is to choose to swim? But laying that difficulty to one side, Calvinism has us evangelise purely to obey Him. Whatever we do, it will have zero effect on the salvation of any soul. ButHe wants us involved in the process anyway. Maybe it’s more for our benefit than the unsaved? I don’t know. But the idea of evangelism in Calvinism is definitely not a clear, logical necessity. It requires complex mental gymnastics to even pretend it makes sense within the whole system.
I would say the command of Calvinistic evangelism is at odds with TU and L of TULIP. Not irreconcilably so. But, to coin an anglicism, the position looks decidedly dodgy
Jaxxen I must confess I’m finding you a little caustic On this thread. Knowing Dick as I do, I know he would never try to misrepresent people. Nor are many of us merely caustically dismissing Calvinism.
Try to remember many of us were calvinists at one point.
As far as parables go, I’ve seen no torturous gymnastics from anyone, including yourself. Merely different interpretations. But due to the nature of parables, we can not really legitimately say that our view or the traditional view is obviously correct, the rest of you are being unimpressive and torturing the text. That would be unhelpful unless accompanied by clear examples and proof. Reformed theology was once new, persecuted and labeled against tradition and heretical. So don’t be so quick to dismiss those who disagree with you. The scriptures that are verbatim explained to us in scripture, such as isolated OT verses used to confirm Christs identity as Messiah, are most certainly not all clear and many appear to involve much theological gymnastics also
As to rejecting Calvinism, I had several years of deep soul searching. I mean hours of prayer, bible reading, history learning, crying out to God etc. During that time I studied Calvinism heavily and am still a fan of many of its heavyweight teachers to this day. After huge deliberation of years, I rejected the doctrine for many theological reasons, including convoluted biblical gymnastics. But my foremost reason would have to be that to me the doctrine, not the followers, besmirches the character of God, whom I love imperfectly but still more than my own life. It endows Him with attributes that the scriptures themselves find abominable if found in ourselves. For me it is an abomination as a doctrine, blaspheming the very nature of God. Thus I find i react with revulsion and reject any notion of that ‘god’ as a god that doesn’t exist and is unworthy of being considered the God of scripture.
However I see calvinists themselves as sincere, loving, dedicated brothers and sisters, who for whatever reason can’t see the foulness of their doctrine. Perhaps calvinists view URs in a similar light? Unlike many soteriologies, UR does not require me to believe that people holding to heretical views are hellbound or even unsaved, so I feel much more comfortable with the term heretical. It’s a description of a viewpoint. Not a character trait.
I often hear Calvs talk about being careful in rejecting the calv God as you could fall under judgement. But the opposite could equally apply. Be careful not to blaspheme the UR God, lest He discipline you
exactly why are you defending this vile heresy? your attempt to be diplomatic is nice to them, but misplaced. i really don’t see that we have to tolerate this slander of God in the name of being kind to our “brethren”. they wouldn’t and don’t extend that courtesy to anyone they disagree with. defending a human is fine. defending a blasphemous ideology that sneaks in the backdoor of Christianity is not. this is not like defending say Buddhists or Muslims…this is a pernicious and harmful view that has penetrated churches that purport to represent the God of Abraham and Isaac and Christ.
now: mission is universal, even they admit that.
however their logic dictates that God actually HATES some of the people they preach to. that they don’t know who those are is irrelevant. they waste their time and effort on the reprobate, that one day they will rejoice to see tormented. it might be “the right thing to do” (why?!) but no matter how they preach, those souls are damned.
ok, so forget them. we can’t help them, but we ought to try, apparently.
if we then take the example of the elect…well nothing i do or say is going to stop them being elect. i can rationalise my involvement by saying that God makes me a part of His plan to save the elect, but at the end of the day…i could just sit at home watching telly. God would still persist in saving his elect. and that wouldn’t stop me being elect, if i had had my name drawn in the cosmic lottery.
there is no comparison with universalism, which does not “preach” to save from eternal hell, but out of joy…shouting the name of our Beloved from the rooftops…the sooner everyone finds Him and loves Him, the better. yes, we could also sit at home watching telly, but we are in danger (unlike the elect who we are told are totally saved and and exempt from judgement) of having blood on our hands (like the prophets of the OT if they refused to preach). it may be temporary, but if i don’t tell my neighbour…and God has commanded me to…then i am in trouble. i am not “elect”. i am in danger of being refined (post or pre mortem, doesn’t matter…God will not find me a faithful servant, and so i will require cleansing).
there is a great urge towards evangelism in universalism (and armenianism, to be fair, though they follow a God who submits to human will and thus isn’t much of a parent)
the notion that the “elect” will behave a certain way (ie preaching as Christ commanded) and thus demonstrate that they are elect is pretty facetious, and does not demonstrate a logic of evangelism in a satisfying way under that paradigm.
really Jason…how on earth am i having to explain this to you?! very disappointing…you’re not even a calvinist by background? you’re just trying to be “fair” to them! which is, as i said, nice, but totally unwarranted.
also “loving” the casual, superficial dismissal of the Girardian interpretation of the OP in favour of wading in to defend the calvinist.
calvinism is no serious threat theologically to EU, despite how they rant and rave…armenianism has alot more clout logically and theologically. and yet we pussy foot around the calvinists, wading in to defend them, and don’t care that we offend gentler souls by doing so. why?!
I don’t really see that, CL.
Jason is right, imo, to be courteous and fair and even loving. Calvinists aren’t trying to do wrong, and despite the horrible things said by certain of their leaders, most of them are just ordinary brothers and sisters. I have a Calvinist brother in our fellowship and he is the one of our group I see as the most liberal (more than me), and one of those most likely to cross over to EU in the coming year (my uneducated, non-inspired guess). I cannot understand their view of God. Some wires are crossed somewhere that I haven’t discovered. But from knowing them, I know that they can’t be seeing the Calvinist god in anything like the way I see him.
I agree with you that the “god of Calvinism” (or at least the way I understand him) is a disturbing concept. It doesn’t necessarily follow that the God of Matt Jaxxom is that god. He isn’t seeing the same thing you’re seeing or he’d feel as you do. There’s a logical disconnect there, and no human being can show that to him or to any other Calvinist. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. He might use us, even use our unkindness, but I suspect our brotherliness will work better. God Himself is kind to those who treat Him despicably. The goodness of God is meant to lead us to repentance. I also don’t understand why HE feels it necessary to be so perplexingly generous to those who treat him shamefully (not talking about anyone in particular here), especially since it seems He so often has to end up sending them to Babylon in the end anyway. But that’s the way He wants to do it, and I defer to His wisdom.
If I were sharing with a temperate Muslim who was doing her best to extend courtesy and kindness to me, I would not wade right in and tell her that Allah is an abomination. (Having read the Qur’an, incidentally, I do believe that Allah is an abomination, and if you’re feeling more tolerant toward Islam than toward Calvinism, you might consider the implications of the sword verse which abrogates all earlier temperate verses.) I’m using that as an example, and I hope it won’t derail the topic here – but I wouldn’t just flatly point out to her that her “god” is a god of hate if that was my view of him. I probably wouldn’t say anything about her god unless the Spirit led me to do that. I would try, in gentleness and humility, to display MY God for her to see Him, hopefully, in my love toward her.
I believe that Matt’s God is the same God that we serve. He has some unfortunate ideas about Him, but probably not nearly as many or as caustic as Piper’s or Edwards’. Is the entity we refer to as “Calvin’s God” the same as ours? I don’t really know who Calvin’s God is. I haven’t read a lot of Calvin and I’ve heard people (Calvinistic Universalists) say that Calvin wasn’t nearly as harsh as he was painted (I suppose even David had his Uriah, though he at least did repent). My point is that I just don’t know who Calvin was; I only know what people say he was. I don’t like the person he’s been portrayed as, nor the person Augustine has been portrayed as, nor for that matter, the person Luther has been portrayed as. But I do like Matt. He seems like a very nice guy just trying to believe the truth, whatever that may be.
Paul when confronted with heresy (something to do with worshiping angels, possibly), didn’t shotgun the Colossians with imprecations against their heresy. He deluged them with a magnificent panorama of the vast, wide, inconceivable love, grace, holiness, beauty of the One True God as revealed in Christ Jesus. We don’t know what their response was, but my response to Colossians is to drop any previous ideas I may still be clinging to about my pitiful small “god” and fall on my face in rapturous worship of the one my heart adores.
So, yeah. I said all that to say that I don’t think Jason is wrong at all to acknowledge that many many people of good will and in good conscience have worshiped and served and loved under the (very confusing to me) banner of Calvinism. I think they’re missing some key synapses, but I know I am missing a few here and there too. If I’m going to tell them they’re mistaken, I want to do it gently. If they’re harsh, then I can also be harsh (witness my response to TD though he looked like an Arminian), but if they’re gentle, I will be gentle. Papa is well able to set them straight, and His typical MO with the gentle is gentleness. So if we’re going to make an attempt, we should imitate Him.
I agree with your assessment of the TULIP god. But seeing as Matt is having a glass of iced tea with us on our front porch, maybe we could agree for the moment to just be hospitable to him? It’s clear that a guy like Matt could not worship the kind of god that we see the TULIP god as. So either he’s missing something or we’re missing something, or both of us are.
In love to you also, my brother 
Cindy
Oh, and as for the Girardian thing – we’re always going to have differences of opinion as to the interpretation of parables. Jesus is not always easy to understand, especially for us who are so far removed from the 1st century Jewish culture. It’s just that on this one particular parable I happen to largely agree with Matt. I can understand why Dick was impressed enough to share with us. It’s absolutely worth while to listen to various interpretations, and various interpretations may all have merit and wisdom to share. I’ve agreed for and been grateful for the interpretations Dick has proposed on other occasions – some of them widely separated from traditional interpretations, yet brilliant.
It’s just that in this particular case, I think the king has other aspects that lead me to believe that he does in fact represent God. I won’t go into it as Jason has already done a thorough job. It’s no disrespect to Dick, and I would be as quick to disagree with Matt and Jason if I thought their interpretation was less credible.
Cindy
I’m sorry, but in your understandable efforts to extend the hand of fellowship to Matt you are falling foul of the inherent illogicality and double-speak with which Calvinism is riddled.
You say:
“God Himself is kind to those who treat Him despicably.”
But Calvin’s God isn’t, that’s the whole point. Calvin’s God claps his hands and fires his enemies off to ECT. He never loved the reprobate.
Then you say:
“I believe that Matt’s God is the same God that we serve.”
Again, this is simply false. I do not recognise the God I worship in Matt’s God, and if you were being brutally honest I’m sure you’d admit that neither do you. Matt believes God is a capricious tyrant who arbitrarily consigns billions of thinking, feeling, loving human beings to eternal torture in hell with no possibility of redemption. Why he believes that I’ve no idea. It’s certainly not in the Bible and it makes no sense logically, morally or philosophically.
Then you go on to say:
“So, yeah. I said all that to say that I don’t think Jason is wrong at all to acknowledge that many many people of good will and in good conscience have worshiped and served and loved under the (very confusing to me) banner of Calvinism.”
Well I say it is IMPOSSIBLE to love or serve Calvin’s God in good conscience. It can only be done wilfully in bad conscience, or reluctantly through a seared, an inoculated conscience. Now I’ve spoken to Matt about this and I know the latter is true in his case. The good man in him sees the absolute horror of the doctrine of reprobation. And so in order to avoid unbearable cognitive dissonance he is forced to short-circuit his conscience, to unplug his God-given moral faculties for as long as he has to think about such things.
What Dick and James and JaelSister have done on this thread is tell the truth about the blasphemy of Calvinism and for their pains they’ve walked into a lecture from you about fairness and whatever. But Calvinism doesn’t recognise fairness! It’s intrinsically unfair and unjust. It makes up its own rules. You cannot ‘meet it halfway’’, and while I agree we should be friendly to Calvinists - hey, I call Matt a friend (although he might not feel the same way about me after he reads this 
) - we should denounce Calvinism just as roundly and forcefully as we would Satanism or Scientology or any other distorted man-made religion.
I am very angry about the way this and other threads touching on this subject are panning out. People I know to be among the kindest, most Christian folk on this planet have been treated very badly indeed. Just because we preach God’s salvific love for all doesn’t mean we need to bend over backwards to give houseroom to a theological viewpoint that if preached as a secular philosophy would see its adherents either locked up or run out of town on a rail.
Matt came knocking on our door, not the other way round. When in Rome and all that.
All the best
Johnny
I really like what Jael said
I don’t think you really picked up on what I was trying to say, Johnny. I’m sure it was my fault – it’s not an easy thing to express. I guess what I’m trying to convey is my impression that many many people haven’t gotten as far on their journey as perhaps you have. I don’t think that any person of good will could serve the TULIP god if he understood fully the implications of what precisely he was serving. Granted there are people out there who are NOT people of good will. My conclusion is that any person of true good will who calls himself a follower of that god does not truly know who that god is.
I found it here: emeth.wordpress.com/2007/11/18/e … -cs-lewis/
For many years I did my best to follow and love and serve a false god whom I believed to be the One True God. Finally when I couldn’t take it any more, I turned and walked away. No I wasn’t a Calvinist; I didn’t even know what that meant. I’m telling you, Johnny, that very few Calvinists I have met in the flesh understand at all the sort of god they proclaim as theirs. Granted that Matt J is not that kind of Calvinist, but I cannot believe that He sees the implications of what he thinks he is following. I think he’s an Emeth – but my husband is always laughing at my efforts to give people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he’s right to laugh. 
People seldom see what is right in front of their faces.
Love, Cindy
Thanks Cindy. I’m sure what you say must be right, or at least partly right. I think giving people the benefit of the doubt is a good way to live - people, that is, not philosophies, ideologies, religions. These we must judge - why do you not judge for yourselves what is right, Jesus commanded us (in the process driving a cart and horses through another of the rotten planks of Calvinism, Total Depravity). I’ve made my judgement quite clear. That’s it.
Love
Johnny
Me, too, other Matt. 
I’m not actually against a significant amount of what CL (or Johnny) is saying either, and I think I should diplomatically clarify that before I continue.
Considering that Jaxxen might say the same thing to me in regard to someone else, insert irony as appropriate.
As a hyper-orthodox technical theologian, I’m quite sure I wasn’t defending the actual errors I perceive in Calvinistic Christianity, which meanwhile is not only not utterly rife with error but without which some points they hold over-against Arminians (just like vice versa) none of us, myself included, could be Christian universalists. I owe them a debt I am eager to repay (and as St. Paul says in relation to the debt he owes to Greeks and barbarians that he is also eager to repay, we cannot owe any debts to the flesh, but only to the Holy Spirit!–a point that Calvinists may have difficulty understanding much less accepting, but which I would hope Christian universalists would find easier to understand and accept.)
But I admit I wouldn’t be nearly so eager to do so if I had been religiously abused by Calvinists (or Muslims or Greeks or barbarians for that matter). So I don’t blame people for being emotional against them, coming from such a situation; much as I don’t blame atheists and agnostics being emotional against Christianity more broadly coming from any history of religious abuse from our brothers.
Also, as you note (apparently with agreement), I’m defending the people so far as I can, not what I regard as their errors. This leads to a definite tension when the people actually hold to what I find and believe to be errors, but since Christ calls me to be a peacemaker I have a moral obligation to risk erring on the side of defending the people.
I personally know Calvinists who do in fact extend that courtesy to me (including Jaxxen, btw), and/or to others they disagree with, but that is beside the point. Efforts at personal reconciliation cannot be ultimately misplaced if universal reconciliation is true. On the contrary, I regard Christ’s strong warning to the apostle Peter and His other chief disciples about being in trouble themselves if they do not act to reconcile with those who have done them wrong, as being a warning to me, too–much moreso Christ’s warning to His servants about trying to serve Him if my brother has anything against me!
Those are warnings a Calvinist might also validly take to heart in a self-disciplinary way; so should I do less than what they are capable of? Whereas, while I can foresee Calvs of a particular temperament and mindset trying to challenge that along the lines of the lawyer asking “And who is my neighbor?” (and I have personally run across such challengers, too), by exactly the same token I had better not get into that mindset myself regardless of whether this or that Calv ever does!
So when I am nice to Calvs, I would prefer you regard that as a self-disciplinary activity on my part. Which considering that by nature I am a very stabby person who likes to destroy those who oppose and annoy me, and considering that I have been given power and authority on this site to nuke members to the point of (in effect) annihilation or eternal exclusion, such a self-disciplinary activity helps protect people here from abuses of my granted authority.
To which I will relatedly add that by doing so I am fulfilling one of the mandates of this forum, and a purpose for which I was invited as a guest author and administrator: to provide an environment for sober discussion among opponents on issues of evangelical universalism.
Not everyone agrees with that purpose–including not every non-universalist who visits this site (despite being willing to exploit that purpose for their own purposes), whether Calv or Arm. But I do agree with that purpose. So there.
Consequently I’m going to be diplomatic to Jaxxen, just like I’m going to be diplomatic to you. If I greet or treat nicely only those who happen to agree with me, what more am I doing than others?–don’t pagans and traitors do the same?!
And yet they hold doctrinal positions which I would say technically amount to heresy and even blasphemy (even if inadvertently so). The comparison to Islam is instructive, as their theology tends to be quite Calvinistic as well as overtly less Christian.
So actually yes, it is like defending say Buddhists or Muslims, except that presumably the Christian people I’m defending place their trust in Christ as their one and only Savior, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, to save them from their sins, and are explicitly trying to loyally follow the same King I have also sworn to follow.
The errors of such people, however heinous I may regard them (and I do regard them as more heinous than other religious errors short of perhaps those of outright Satanism), are not something I regard as more important than what I believe they are believing and doing right. Admittedly, I believe that’s true for other religious people, too, but if anything I believe I had better regard that as being more true for Christians. And treat them with the special respect due to those who, like me, are already reaching to follow Christ.
(To which I will add that Calvinists by the logic of their position could also easily apply this concept to fellow Christians and even to non-Christians, looking for evidence of the Holy Spirit’s operation in their lives, thus evidence of the election of such people according to Calv modes of understanding election. But since I regard such a scope as too limited, I had better be willing and prepared to go further along that line than a Calvinist might see to go. That many Calvs don’t bother to try to go even as far as they can along that line, and/or think such an attempt is impossible and/or even immoral, is no excuse for me not to live according to what I believe to be true.)
I agree that the errors of Calvinism are pernicious and harmful errors.
But then, I wasn’t defending their errors, but what you yourself agreed would be ethically right for them to do.
Keeping in mind that I disagree with the limited scope and identity of Calv election as much as you do:
Are people supposed to be cooperating with God? Yes, Calvs believe this. So do we. (So do Arms.)
Is God acting to reach those He intends to save from sin who are not yet cooperating with Him? Yes, Calvs believe this. So do we. (So do Arms.)
Does evangelism involve cooperating with God in reaching those whom God intends to save? Yes, Calvs believe this. So do we. (So do Arms. We and Arms disagree with Calvs on the scope of whom God intends to save, but that doesn’t mean Calvs are being illogical in believing this.)
Does God thus expect Christians to cooperate with Him reaching those He intends to save who aren’t cooperating with Him yet? Yes, Calvs believe this. So do we. (So do Arms. We and Arms disagree with Calvs over the scope of God’s intentions, but that doesn’t mean Calvs are being illogical in believing this.)
Does God intend and act to teach those He intends to save? Yes, Calvs believe this. So do we. So do Arms. We even all agree (usually, some Calvs excepted) on the scope of this action of God’s. We and Arminians disagree with Calvs on the goals of God’s intention and action of teaching toward those He doesn’t intend to save, but that doesn’t mean Calvs are being illogical in believing this.
Does God expect Christians to cooperate with Him in teaching those He intends to save? Yes, Calvs believe this. So do we. Etc ditto.
Is evangelism also about helping people live with more love and justice in their lives now? Yes, Calvs believe this. So do we. So do Arms. We disagree with Calvs and Arms on how far this goes beyond now in various ways, but that wasn’t what I was crediting to the Calvs here.
Does living with more love and justice in their lives now, involve giving love and justice to other people and receiving it from other people? Yes, Calvs believe this. So do we. (So do Arms.) Their theology doesn’t contradict this in the least.
If we don’t help with that, are we being like the goats in the judgment? Yes, Calvs believe this. So do we. (So do Arms.) We have some big differences in other regards about those baby goats, but we do all agree on that, and such a position doesn’t contradict any of our theologies including Calv particularities.
And I agree that’s a major problem, even beyond how you put it (although I expect you’d agree it’s even more problematic than you put it, too); but that has nothing to contradict logically what I was actually talking about.
In which case you’d be the sinner for not cooperating with God in His intentions and goals. The Calvs are not merely “rationalizing” their involvement: they were told to be involved, and their reasons for being involved are (as far as they go) the same as ours.
Arminian (and even some confused Calvinists ) could and often do say EXACTLY the same things about US. “If universal salvation is true, nothing I do or say is going to keep people from being saved. I can rationalize my involvement by saying that God makes me a part of His plan to save everyone, but at the end of the day I could just sit at home watching telly. God would still persist in saving everyone, and my refusal to cooperate with God in what He doing to save other people wouldn’t stop me from being saved, too.”
My reply to such people is that a goat would have such an attitude, which hopefully they do not (this being only a hypothetical criticism not a report of how they themselves would act if they decided universalism is true), and Christ has warned what He’s going to do to people who have that attitude toward helping other people. I may not regard the threat of that punishment as hopeless, but I do regard it as a proper threat that God can and will carry out as He sees fit for the sake of teaching people not to have that kind of attitude toward other people and their troubles any more (even if those troubles come from being punished by God themselves). That’s the negatively punitive reason; the positive reasons for evangelizing would be exactly the same answers Calvs would give.
But how would you defend yourself, as a universalist, against such a specious anti-evangelical accusation, which wouldn’t be the exact same defense from a Calvinist in principle? Because I can’t imagine any defense as a universalist that a Calvinist wouldn’t also give. The limited scope of their rationale to such an accusation is irrelevant to the logic of their answer, even if logically problematic in other regards (such as putting themselves in the place of the goats regarding their attitude to the non-elect!–assuming they actually have such attitudes which many Calvinists do not.)
To your own defense of such a charge then:
EXACTLY a comparison with Calv evangelism. Where Calvs become illogical sometimes is when they confusedly start shifting over to Arminian reasons, that if they don’t evangelize then God may quit trying to save those people or fail to do so. I’m always highly amused when they do that, but that isn’t one of their reasons I listed in crediting them with coherent evangelical rationales.
The only difference with Calvinism here is the scope we share with Arminianism. Calvs would say “the sooner all the people God has chosen to save from their sins find and love Him the better”. (Except they wouldn’t usually spell out what God’s elective choice there means. ) But the basic principle is the same, and not in logical conflict with their concept of limited election.
The Calvinistic elect, on the contrary, wouldn’t have that attitude (or wouldn’t after they are actually saved rather–they might have it before the regeneration starts, and for some time while the regeneration proceeds depending on where God focuses on individual progression.) The non-elect would persistently have that attitude, and would not be exempt from judgment (though not strictly for that reason).
Calvs believe that, too, totally in keeping with the logic of their position, if somewhat differently compared to the logic of our position. We might say we are in trouble both now and later; they would say the elect with such an attitude is only in trouble now not later. We and Calvs would both agree the trouble was only temporary for those whom God intends to save. We’d disagree on how far that scope of God’s intention goes. But Calvinists usually acknowledge that God can and will punitively chastise the elect for misbehavior and evil attitudes, in this life if not in the next.
(They might be individually ignorant of Heb 12 for example, but would have to agree that it applies to those whom God intends to save, thus by their logic to the Calv elect although only to the elect. That’s a problem of individual ignorance, though, or at most with some variation of Calvinism, not with Calvinistic theology broadly speaking.)
Well, if you don’t think God will lead those He intends to save to cooperate with Him in acting toward saving those He intends to save, regarding such a notion as facetious, you’ll certainly be disagreeing with Calvs and evangelical universalists on that. But that’s the logic of Calv evangelism, so far as it goes, and it’s totally consonant with their notion of limited election.
In fact you show that you do agree that God properly leads those He intends to save to cooperate with Him in His plans for salvation, which is also exactly what Calvinists believe.
Where you (and I, and Arms) disagree with the Calvinists is on how far the scope of God intention to save sinners goes. I totally agree that their notion of that scope is not logically satisfying, much less ethically; but their application of the limited scope is the same notion as ours in principle as far as it goes, and is logically coherent within the constraints of their theology.
And that’s what I was crediting them on.
Just to throw something in the mix:
Why do parables have to have just one meaning? Couldn’t they have two (or more) meanings, even contradictory ones, that different hearers could take away with them … And maybe neither has to be theological …
Just speculating. No other comments to make.
i don’t really see any reason listed in that reply Jason to modify my view on the illogicality of calvinist envangelism. for me, the limited scope totally ruins the logic, despite them attempting to give the same reasons. you are right to point out that they suddenly morph into arminians to justify it…Johnny has pointed that out before too i recall (a while ago). thanks for taking the time to at least address my points and see how i anticipated some of your answers!
my anger here is that rather than give a fair hearing to what Dick had initially posted…it was summarily dismissed, and i don’t think it was just me that felt that he got the short end of the diplomatic stick.
i do appreciate the whole “let’s all come together despite our differences” ethic, but when it seems to happen unequally, and seems to favour a certain group like the calvinists (something i have noticed happening more than once, though i’ve not spoken up before), i wonder why. why are we so keen to be gentle when they are among the angriest and nastiest of our theological “opponents” (not that we’re meant to have enemies, obviously). yes, turn the other cheek, etc etc. but there is some real harm happening…there are people who are emotionally vulnerable being preyed upon by this ideology. i’ve seen it happen! this to me is horrible, and warrants some really stern admonitions against those that preach or defend this horrid opinion (and that’s all it is! all Scriptural defenses that i have seen are easily swept aside, so it doesn’t deserve to be called theology) of God and salvation.
while i agree that Allah, for example, or the nothingness of Buddha (though i believe that sells short what they’re actually trying to say), are not our views of God too, and much could be said about those views and the bondage that can come along with those beliefs (and also the good things, we all have much to teach each other, and i’m sure this is even true of Calvinists). my point is that in criticising those things, we are pointing at “them over there”…which leads to the awful hate rhetoric of 2 members on this forum who i have blocked, and need no naming…
for me, the difference is that calvinism is the log in our own eye…well, one of the logs…i refer to us being the church here…ostensibly followers of God and Christ.
any flaws in other religions are specks in their eyes…we must first deal with our own planks before we can criticise them. also, it’s important that we’ve built trust up before we can start debating or criticising other people from other faiths. in short, they really have to be family before we ever so humbly start suggesting things…or even listening to their suggestions.
i hope my contrast is coming across clearly here, but not sure it is.
in short, i feel we should be open to accepting calvinists as christians, with the baggage that entails…
i feel we ought to be able to debate their ideas like anyone else’s…
but we ought to apply this equally.
it was noticeable that it was only after jaxxen weighed in with his predictable (sorry, but it was) disagreement that a few forumites came in to agree with him. why did they not disagree before? why the need to step in to defend him?
by they, i mean you Jason and Cindy. you can disagree with Dick, but the timing of posting really made it seem as if you were slighting Dick’s suggestion in favour of Jaxxen’s…without really engaging in what Dick had said.
jaxxen made a nasty comment about theological gymnastics, something which it is patently obvious to all us non-calvinists that calvinists do! somehow i think i was the only one that pointed out this irony.
all Dick had tried to do with his quotation was show some context…if that’s gymnastics, i am doing a triple twist whatchamacallit off my chair at the office as i type.
also, it must be remembered how jaxxen and true disciple took the opportunity to pounce on miss tea’s thread (thankfully this was split), when she had already said how personal this all was to her. that thread was not for debate, yet these two characters felt they just HAD to use that one thread to spout their bile.
easy enough to create a new thread…but no.
and these are the people being defended! fantastic.