I had to LOL at that “solution”. Quite creative, though.
Considering the hundreds of denominational divisions within Christianity, which is “the one” out of all these hundreds that got it all right, while the vast majority (99% plus) got it wrong? Though likely “the one” is wrong in some regards as well.
Or consider the doctrine of universalism. How is it that these hundreds of denominations have almost all got it wrong?
Stephen E. Jones is quoted in the book called “The Calvinist Universalist” by Stephen Campana, p.166, saying that the Sadducees believed in freewill, the Pharisees took a middle road & the Essenes “believed totally in predestination”.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
And Christ had problems, with the first 2 groups. Not sure about the third one. Unless we consult the apocalyptic literature. Where we might have problems - with reliability.
Freewill goes hand in hand with ECT & Annihilationism. The “religion machine” would not bring in much dough combining Determinism & eternal punishment. People wouldn’t buy into that.
I just did a word search of the text of the Westminster Confession - which I am assuming is the definitive Creed for those who call themselves ‘Calvinists’ - searching for the word ‘love’ ; it occurs in 12 instances.
Only two - two! - instances talk about God’s love for something - in these cases, the elect. (the other usages pertain to our love for God and the Bretheren)
So, as a quick assessment, I’d have to say that God’s love, as defined by the Creed, is NOT for the whole world and every person in it. This assessment, while rough around the edges perhaps, has been voiced to me by quite a number of Calvinists, and such theologians as Boettner.
So - can you be a Calvinist - adhere to the Creed - and be a Universalist? On this reading of the Creed, the answer is NO.
What would be interesting - maybe Randy or someone can point me in the right direction - would be an analysis of the frequency of words used in the Creed, i.e., how many times is ‘love’ used, or ‘elect’ etc - just the number of times all the words in the TEXT (not all the proofs) are used.
Finding that would be a ‘mitzvah’
Well, the idea that you seemed to originally have is to at least question the creeds… But we have to understand that the ‘idea’ of the creeds is intrinsic to who and what we are.
We want to know what is happening, what we are up against, what God wants from us… Some how some of us disagree with the idea that there is a single way…
It causes all kinds of confusion
Some are quite content with the idea that there is a bit of latitude in regards to the western idea of evangelicalism.
Actually Dave, you are probably someone who could address this in a most coherent manner.
Hey I just found a program - free!! -that gives the frequency of usage of all words in a .txt document; I ran the program on the Westminster Confession and it’s pretty interesting! It’s a long list though…
What THIS does is list the frequency of ALL words in a document; it is not a search for a particular word - it’s the whole enchilada.
You can restrict it by disallowing very common words - it provides filter that does most of that for you. Plus you can filter to leave out words mentioned only once, or twice, or whatever.
The “greater purpose” i was referring to is the universal salvation of the Scriptures, as in all being reconciled to God, through the blood & crucifying to death of His innocent Son. Obviously this couldn’t have occurred if God had just created & decreed billions of humans into heaven before the earth existed. God had a much better plan than that. Otherwise that’s what He would have done.
God’s omnipotence has various definitions and restrictions, e.g. He cannot lie, deny Himself, His nature, His love, sleep, change, be unjust, etc.
If God had the power to simply say the words “universal salvation” & it would magically happen as it will be without the sufferings & multifarious experiences of this life & the afterlife (e.g. the judgement of Rev.20 & testing/torments in the lake of fire), then He would have done so. Since He didn’t do it that way, that method was therefore impossible. For He cannot be unjust, unrighteous, unloving or sinful. All of which He would be if the same exact future could be achieved without the momentary sufferings each being endures.
Concievably God could have snapped His fingers & caused billions of beings to come into existence & to enjoy some sort of endless existence. But even if that were so, the ways He has determined to do things would be preferable, since He knows best, & will far exceed the blessedness of any other relatively lame alternatives.
Of course there is a sense in which it is true that God does not want anyone to suffer, just as a mother does not wish her child to suffer. OTOH in disciplining the child she nevertheless brings suffering on her child that she knows will cause pain in the short run, but be for the child’s good in the long run. As it is said, the end justifies the means. And all’s well that ends well.
God also has purposes in His dealings with mortal man, just as He has purposes in His dealings with man in the afterlife. For example:
9 What advantage does the worker have in what he is toiling? 10 I see the experience that Elohim gives To the sons of humanity to humble them by it. 11 He has made everything fitting in its season; However, He has put obscurity in their heart So that the man may not find out His work, That which the One, Elohim, does from the beginning to the terminus. (Eccl.3, CLV)
The Lord is acquainted with the rescue of the devout out of trial, yet is keeping the unjust for chastening in the day of judging. (2 Pet.2:9)
Behold, happy is the man whom God corrects; Therefore do not despise the chastening of the Almighty. For He bruises, but he binds up; He wounds, but His hands make whole. (Job 5:17-18)
My soul yearns for you in the night; in the morning my spirit longs for you. When your judgments come upon the earth, the people of the world learn righteousness. (Isa.26:9)
hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.…(1 Cor.5:5)
Because I have sinned against him, I will bear the LORD’s wrath, until he pleads my case and upholds my cause. He will bring me out into the light; I will see his righteousness. (Micah 7:9)
As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. (Gen.50:20)
So why is it the innocent suffer? Scripture says it was necessary for the innocent Christ to suffer & explains why. As for others, there are at least two views, Libertarian Free Will (LFW) & Determinism:
LFW. The innocent suffer at the hands of monsters such as rapists because God honours freewill, likes monsters to have freewill and be able to act out their freewill choices more than he likes stopping monsters from torturing innocent children. He could allow the monsters to make their LFW decisions and also easily save the innocents from suffering, except that He also likes to allow the monsters to carry out their monstrous LFW choices in actions that physically, mentally & emotionally torment others.
Determinism. The innocent suffer at the hands of monsters because if there was no experience of suffering in the world then we would never known good or evil, never be able to appreciate the good, or God, or worship Him in spirit & in truth, know Him, or love others, including our enemies. We’d be like Adam & Eve before the fall. IOW, more or less zombie robots. Chapter 6, “The Knowledge of Good”, in the following book elaborates upon this opinion: concordant.org/expositions/probl … -contents/
Well, I’ve quoted you at length. I take no issue with anything you said here, all very fine. Thanks for the link on concordant. I’ve just read the preface so far and it’s very good. I hope the rest upholds the same standard. I meet with a Christian Heretics meetup group once a month in Nashville, devoted to sharing the good news of universal salvation. It’s the only meetup group I’ve ever attended, and it’s a very small one. They aren’t beating down the door in Middle Tennessee. But we just made the decision to maintain a regular pattern of meeting on the first Wednesday of each month. I and the man who started it seem to be on the same page about nearly everything, including the absolute sovereignty of God. I sent him a link to the sampling of Campana’s book, which you mentioned, on google books. He bought the Kindle version and is tearing through it. So I’ll read a bit more of this book on concordant and probably send him that link too.
