It would take me a while to unpack it. But attempts by Arminians to explain how God could lose the salvation of sinners He intends to save, sometimes result in proposing a deity Who exists as an entity within and dependent on natural time (not merely as the Incarnate Son or some other manifestation but altogether), Who isn’t independently existent from time (and upon Whom spatio-temporal reality doesn’t depend for existence). It was this line of thinking that led to modern notions of emergent pantheism, but a type of Mormonistic deity (or set of deities) would be the other final theological result. (A fact Mormons have not been altogether slow to pick up and exploit for their own evangelism efforts among Southern Baptists, for example.)
There are some hardcore determinstic Calv lines of thought which end up effectively proposing pantheism, too, of course; and Arms are usually good about trying to avoid a result less than supernaturalistic theism, but converts to Calvinism often report feeling theologically reassured that they are now really worshiping the real final ultimate independent Fact (my terminology) of all reality, not some lesser lord or god which they were starting to feel like their local version of Arminianism was leading them toward (and which Arm theology broadly speaking might logically involve in any case!)
This is a standard apologetic (and even in some ways evangelical) critique of Calvs vs. Arms, as many of us well-know; and while Arms have standard replies to such critiques (some of which are themselves quite good), I do think Calvs have a legitimate theological complaint in principle here (even if they sometimes fumble the critique in practice). C. S. Lewis, whom I adore, preached and taught God’s highest independent reality in a rich and robust fashion–until it came time to explain how (even with the admission of post-mortem conversion) God could fail to save any sinners from sin. Then Lewis threw God’s competency under the bus, to save his belief in a final hopelessness for some sinners. When it came to this topic, he never stood his ground on his amazing arguments and insights regarding God’s supreme reality.
(Other Arminians, more consistently in this regard, teach that God just chooses to give up saving sinners from sin after a point even if technically He knows He could succeed if He kept going. This restores a doctrine of God’s sovereign competency and capabilities, but at other theological costs, as Lewis for example was well aware.)
Thanks Jason, that was fascinating. Your mind is stretching and sharpening mine as I read your posts around here! I bumped into a debate you put on Youtube that I bookmarked for later. Looks very intriguing.
I do understand what you are saying. Although I was pretty young, I remember when I finally “got it” , falling to my knees before the Sovereign Lord of the universe. His image grew exponentially before me as I saw Him as the one in control, not my feeble self-will. It was an incredible experience for our whole youth group actually. I do remember now some of the kids relaying their experience as a kind of “conversion”. Of course this brought a sense of security and relief at the beginning because after all I was worshipping Him and feeling His sovereign awesome big-ness! (BUT after a while as I began tripping up in my walk and also as I searched for assurance of my “election” doubts began to cloud the joy I had once felt. I also started processing the fact that most of the people I passed each day were not elect and were hopelessly lost. It caused untold torment and turmoil over the years.)
So I can see how the Arminian’s God becomes subject to his creation and not really above it. That’s a great point to include in the Arminian section of our Questions page.
In fact, Jason, would you be willing to place that argument in a simple question form? We are getting ready for a site that will concentrate on just the questions we have for the traditionalists both Calvs and Arms.
I’d like to hear how you would phrase that as a question. thanks
I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking for. I guess you mean asking Arminians, “Do you believe God is competent enough to save sinners from sin? And if not, why not?” “Do you believe God authoritatively changes His mind, after acting to save sinners from sin, not to save some sinners from sin after all, even though He is omnipotent and omniscient enough to accomplish this eventually if He chose to keep at it?”
Those would cover the two broad categories of Arminian I think. (In practice I’ve seen some Arminians flip back and forth between those positions–I recall I did, back when I was an Arminian!–but I know some Arms stick with one or the other position more consistently, not least in order to theologically distinguish themselves from the wrong kind of Arminian, i.e. the other kind! I took a lot of notice of that when I was growing up, too. )
Jason, sorry that was confusing because I was talking about your addressing the Arm view and then I asked for questions addressing both views. But, yes, any questions would be great that get either side to think through the logic of their view. But I was asking more specifically for you to form a question(s) that would uncover what you said in your point three above:
How would you phrase that as a question put to an Arminian to help them see that that is what they are doing/believing?
Just thinking of a different way to present the differences; here goes:
The biblically and logically most compelling foundational principles of Arminianism are 1) God’s love for all humanity and 2) the universal scope of the Atonement.
The biblically and logically most compelling foundational principles of Calvinism are 1) God’s sovereignty and 2) the unlimited effectiveness of the Atonement.
Because both Calvinists and Arminianianists believe that some “others” are certainly lost they ultimately limit the oppossing groups foundational principles.
Arminianists Limit the sovereignty of God and the effectiveness of the Atonement.
Calvinists Limit the love of God and the scope of the Atonement.
Reconciliationists do not limit but affirm the love of God, the sovereignty of God, the universal scope and ultimate effectiveness of the Atonement, believing that God ultimately saves and reconciles all.
Fantastic, thanks Sherman. I am working on another UR project and it’s always great to be able to hear it put another way to change up my perspective from a little different angle. If you have any thoughts in question form I have another thread here compiling ideas for thehellquestions.com.
Great that your son has joined the forum! I look forward to the day when we can talk to our daughter about these things. Right now she and her husband are very enmeshed in the neo-reformed movement (Calvinism). Of course we are the ones who raised her this way (!) I am wondering how you came to believe in UR, later in life?
That would be an impossibility. You cannot read a person’s heart and so it is premature of you to suggest that they were truly Arminianist or Calvinist.
What IS certain however, and what does not require the reading of another’s heart is that it is impossible for one to move from light to darkness and, in so doing, be liberated.
Arminians believe in the God of the Bible whose nature is Love for all men, who desires that all should be saved. Calvinism is a vile doctrine of antichrist believing in a capricious and sadistic god who takes pleasure in creating people for the specific purpose of eternal torment.
You do yourself no service Jason when you make such unworthy statements. God alone knows why you do such a thing.
Another impossibility. One cannot become ‘closer to Christ’ by rejecting the notion of a God who desires that all be saved and replacing it with the notion of a cruel capricious god who hates the vast majority of humankind. You should be careful that you do not grieve the Holy Spirit with such dreadful statements. If your other reasons for choosing universalism are as unsound as this one then I pray that you might find a more sure foundation.
Those really are sickening statements and I pray that God may forgive you for putting them forward.
I deny the veracity of all three, but even if they were true, they would pale into insignificance compared to the requirement to worship a flawed and vindictive god.
What I suggest is that you read this sermon and then repeat what you have just posted:
Yes, I’m very thankful Joshua joined the forum and am looking forward to his participation here. I spoke with him yesterday and he shared how he’s amazed at how many times he runs across passages that affirm or allude to the salvation of all humanity, now that he’s open to seeing them. It will be interesting to see what God does in my sons lives coming to believe in UR from such a young age. I hope you are able to share with your daughter soon too.
How I came to believe in UR? In short, about 3 years ago someone asked me what I thought of Carlton Pearson coming to believe in UR. I did not have an informed opinion so I got his book to study his position. His book was not an accademic reasoning for his change in beliefs, but, well, never mind. Anyhow, in his book he pointed out a few passages, foundational UR passages like Rom.5.18 and Col.1.20, etc. that I had never considered seriously. So I studied them in their literary context assuming that I could quickly dismiss their “plain” reading only to find out that the more I studied them, the more the “plain” meaning seemed to be exactly what was meant. I found them so compelling that I decided to study the Hell passages to kinda balance things out, assuming that the traditional doctrine of Hell was rock-solid. But, the more I studied the “Hell” passages in context and in the Greek and Hebrew, the more I found that the passages did not affirm ECT. What I assumed was rock-solid I found to be nothing but dried muddy sand. When I applied the least pressure to it, it crumbled between my fingers.
This scared the hell out of me so I studied even harder, prayed and fasted, shared with others whom I trusted and respected asking them to pray for me. I also began studying anti-UR, pro-ECT material to help bolster my crumbling traditional beliefs; but the more I studied this anti-UR pro-ECT material the more the traditional doctrine of ECT crumbled between my fingers.
And all along, as I shared my findings with others whom I loved and respected, I found they irrationally attacked me and encouraged me to stop studying the Bible and just accept what “everyone” believed. I work with a ministry and someone tried to get me fired. I was asked to resign from the board of directors of a ministry I helped launch, friends and family cut me off relationally, and I was ultimately excluded from the local fellowship my family and I were members of, and worse things happened, all because I was honest and open with what I was finding in my studies, because I was willing to trust what I was seeing in scripture as opposed to our traditions. Well, the more trouble I faced, the more I studied, the more I prayed, the more I fasted, the more I studied anti-UR material, and the more I came to believe in UR.
All along I would say, “I’m studying…and finding…” but would not confess to myself or anyone else that I had come to believe in UR. And then one day in a Sunday morning worship service, the Lord spoke to me and said, “Stop Lying!” And I understood that he wanted me to stopy lying to myself especially and to others that I was “just studying” ECT and UR; and I instead needed to admit that I had come to believe in UR - come fully out of the closet, so to speak. Well, I obeyed and almost lost my marriage and family because of it. So I studied, prayed, fasted even more.
Well, that’s the short of it. Now I’m feeling pretty isolated and excluded, still looking for a fellowship where I will be accepted and I can be open and honest about my beliefs. I didn’t loose my job in the ministry I work with because it is an transdenominational ministry, though I have learned to not share my beliefs with most whom I minister with. And I’m continuing to seek the Lord as to what to do now.
Thanks for asking. It helps to share. I hope that you do not face as many trials. On the other hand, the trials have pushed me to a place of strong conviction concering UR, the Great Hope!
I seem to recall you’re a universalist, not an Arminian, but perhaps I’m mis-remembering.
Typically universalists are universalists (myself included, who has lived among Arminians my whole life, and who was an Arminian not a Calvinist, and who I would say is still probably more Arm than Calv in my theological emphases) because we think Arminian theology, as well as Calvinistic, has more darkness in it. But the corrections to Arminianism that we accept are also accepted by Calvinists broadly speaking. I would be unfair to Calvinists if I didn’t acknowledge that, just as I would be unfair to Arminians if I didn’t acknowledge that the corrections to Calvinism that we accept are also accepted by Arminians broadly speaking.
You may not like to acknowledge that Calvinists get some important things right that Arminians tend to trend off-base on, as well as vice versa (and if you’re actually an Arminian I can definitely understand not agreeing with that at all); but if you’re a universalist of any kind you’re going to have a hard time avoiding that as a logical corollary.
I do it to be fair to the Calvinists, including as part of my loyal worship of God Who is love and so Who requires me to love all men and to give credit to my opponents where credit is due. I learned it from good Calvinists and from good Arminians (Protestant and non-Protestant either way; and from good non-Christians, too, for that matter); and when I learned (rightly or wrongly) that trinitarian Christian universalism is true, I was routinely convicted even more in my conscience to do so.
There, now you as well as God both know why I do such a thing (although it isn’t like I’ve ever made it a secret why I do it).
I should have clarified better that I don’t believe all Arminians personally have problems to which such benefits are the answer. But I have seen many Arminians have such problems; and I have also seen Arminians delivered from such problems (though I believe technically delivered into other problems) by converting to a Calv soteriology instead, resulting in exactly the benefits I listed.
And logically there is no way I could ever find an Arminian who as such was as strong about trusting God’s competency and/or (in some ways) intentions to save sinners from sin as even an average Calvinist. There are real differences in the soteriologies there. Arminians as Arminians have other inherent advantages, but not those advantages. And Arminians as Christians can exceed the logical bounds of their soteriology to personally have those advantages, but not coherently so as Arminians. (There are also variants of Arminians who increase one advantage at the expense of decreasing the other, and I’ve seen personal shifts in Christian growth by switching from one to another kind of Arminianism, too, despite the consequent reduction of faith and belief in other ways.)
Meanwhile, considering that I routinely and publicly criticize Calvs and Arms (and Kaths for that matter) for not being trinitarian enough in their soteriology, I trust that God is extremely well aware of what I intended the limits of my compliments to be and so that I did not intend to compliment Calvinism as having a benefit over Arminian weaknesses of teaching that God is essentially love (which I have occasionally pointed out on this forum and elsewhere that I generally find Arminians better at affirming and holding to than Calvinists).
But you’ve gone beyond ‘fair’ and may have encroached into sycophancy. You have already given your motive for what you are doing and it is not what you outline above. You have said that you want to make this forum a comfortable place for some Calvinists (of some renown of course) to be your bedfellows.
You cite cases of some people who have jettisoned an all loving God of the NT and replaced Him with a callous despot and call this ‘liberation’. If this really is the case, then bring me evidence first hand, otherwise, take the word of a resident Calvinist and desist!
Here is what Jaxxen says:
How liberating!
Perhaps there is a deeper reason for what I believe is a dangerous and possibly blasphemous error. You talk of ‘Love’. What is your definition of Love Jason?
Acting to fulfill fair-togetherness between persons, the fulfillment of which is positive justice.
Not that this is a secret; I talk about it almost monotonously, and have critiqued Calvinists on this forum and elsewhere for the theological difficulties involved in holding to trinitarian theism while rejecting such a notion of love and justice. It is not a coincidence that my recent discussion on the meaning of {dikaiosunê} was with Chris Date, for example. (Which you ought to recall since earlier this week you yourself created a thread wanting to know if I was going to pick it up again. Defending myself against spurious charges of sycophancy and the sin against the Holy Spirit, tends to cut down by proportion the time and energy I have for finishing my next installment there, btw.)
I have also critiqued Arminians for not holding to it, and for having less of an excuse not to do so than Calvinists.
I have critiqued Universalists for not holding to it as well, we who should have the least excuse not to do so of all.
That is entirely in line with what you quoted me “outlining above”, “I do it to be fair to the Calvinists, including as part of my loyal worship of God Who is love and so Who requires me to love all men and to give credit to my opponents where credit is due.” You yourself acknowledged it was in line when you said I had gone beyond being fair into sycophancy: something that would be impossible if the motive were at odds. Which tells me you are not paying enough attention in several ways, as no Calvinist alive would regard me as being their sycophant. You are welcome to poll the resident Calvinists on this, including Jaxxen; I am reasonably confident their word on it on that topic will be worth taking.
(I am trying to imagine “oxymoron” regarding me as being his sycophant, and failing in that thought experiment with a special level of spectacularity. How any sane person could regard me as a sycophant of Steve Hays, whom I have debated here on the forum, not to say elsewhere, is literally beyond imagination–as much so as Steve’s attempt to imply that I am a sycophant of Richard Dawkins, a man I wrote a 500+ page book criticising, purely for the private exercise of doing so, and of whom I coined the term “Mr.D Science Theater 3000”.)
I recall Jaxxen testifying as to how he was liberated in other ways, since you ask for firsthand evidence; but frankly I am not going to dig up every reference I’ve read, much moreso email persons I’ve personally heard from on this topic, and toss them under your feet to be trampled.
Besides, since you have chosen to ignore the parts where I agreed that I believe Calvinists are also freed from bondage by converting to Arminianism, in order to pursue some kind of vendetta against me, you clearly aren’t going to be satisfied with anything I say, if I am not 100% utterly against the Calvinists in everything I happen to write regarding them. And that isn’t going to happen, because I would be refuting myself if I behaved that way toward them, insofar as I agree with the Calvinists on positions (often over against the Arminians).
And here’s the rub.
I will ignore the personal attacks, the errors and strawmen because, if I may deal with the issue rather than less worthy comments I believe that our views on Love are very different. I believe that this explains much of the difference between the two of us and even if we cannot come to agreement, it might help if we are aware of the reason.
This also ties in with why I am so concerned about the other thread here:
where again, you push ‘fair-togetherness’ to the fore. In fact IMO you are so keen on this concept that I would say IMO you have inflicted that meaning on a word where it is not warranted. You seem beside yourself in order to promote an idea of your own creation.
As for any ‘vendetta’, (as you raise the issue) I might equally suggest that it is you who is pursuing one against me but I think we should both be more rational and mature.
So, if you please, could you tell me how Jesus was fulfilling fair-togetherness in His exchanges with the pharisees (who I happen to see as far less ‘in error’ than any five-point Calvinist)?
Hi Sherman,
Thanks so much for sharing your story. You have been on quite a journey brother! And of course for you and all of us the challenges continue!
Our family has not yet come out of the closet. We tried and it just didn’t even get heard and we were simply ignored. So for now we are waiting on the Lord. We think that maybe when the Hellbound movie comes out it will spark some great discussion with our other family members.
I am sorry about all your grief over simply believing the Good News. But I can sense a resting in Christ through all. Thanks for the encouragement.
Blessings,
phillip
Well, let’s see. I started by asking Johnny to tamp things back a bit in another thread (and didn’t even ask him to rephrase anything, nor continued complaining about what he had written); and you proceeded from that point to accuse me (and the site creators and other ad/mods) of flagrantly contradicting our own purposes for the site as though we don’t understand what our own purposes even are, and have continued since then to follow me into other threads (including this one) to accuse me of things like sycophancy for Calvinists and encroaching on the sin against the Holy Spirit whenever I happen to be even distantly criticizing Arminians or acknowledging theological credit for Calvinists.
Whereas, I don’t recall going after you first, nor following you into other threads (including this one) to harass and accuse you on your behavior, but in all cases defending myself (and the site creators) from your accusations and denunciations. I didn’t even continue pursuing my defense in the original thread where you started this against me.
What part of that seems like a vendetta on my part against you, and not a vendetta on your part against me?
I have read over your comment here, and the preceding one, several times, and the place where you actually contrast our views on Love seems to be missing. I mean, you clearly disagree with what I believe love to be, but you don’t mention what you believe love to be.
I do notice you mentioning further upthread that the idea of love you believe in involves desiring that all should be saved. But since that’s entirely congruent with love being the action to fulfill fair-togetherness between persons, and since you reject that as being the proper idea of love, what am I supposed to conclude about your idea of love and salvation from that? (That it does not involve bringing persons to be fair together with each other and with God instead of being unfair against each other and against God, but involves some other completely different notion of ‘love’ instead?)
That’s my one-on-one discussion with the Calvinist who is challenging me about dikaiosunê (usually translated “righteousness” or “justice”) meaning fair-togetherness in Greek, for those who don’t recognize the thread address. Which he did because I was elsewhere pushing fair-togetherness to the fore (as I typically do), and it was conflicting with his Calvinist soteriology. Otherwise he wouldn’t have bothered.
I find it ironic that this notion of love (acting to fulfill fair-togetherness between persons, the fulfillment of this being positive justice) is conflicting with your hatred and opposition of Calvinism, and your unwillingness to acknowledge them any real theological credit at all (despite you yourself holding to many positions they also do). Because I have never met a Calvinist who didn’t have problems with such a notion of love and justice conflicting with their notions of God’s relationship to the non-elect. I would have thought you’d be totally on board against their rejection of it instead! Because if there’s one thing a rejection of love as fair-togetherness leads to as the logical conclusion, it’s the Calvinistic notion of non-election.
The relationship of the Persons of God as the ground and cause of all reality (i.e. trinitarian theism) is not an idea of my own creation, although unitarians (and modalists, and everyone else in the world except trinitarians) do think it’s a created idea and not the truth. I don’t recall where you stand on that, but if you aren’t a trinitarian I can understand you thinking it’s an idea of someone’s creation (mine or whoever’s).
That the fulfillment of fair-togetherness between the Persons of the Trinity is actively the ground and cause of all reality including of God Himself self-existently (i.e. positive aseity, with the Person of the Father being God actively self-begetting and the Person of the Son being God actively self-begotten), is also not an idea I created. Although I can understand a trinitarian devoted to privative aseity instead (with God merely statically existent in an Aristotelian fashion, not eternally self-begettingly existent, the former of which has rather ironically been the majority of trinitarian theologians, though not a supermajority) thinking it’s an idea of someone’s creation (mine or whoever’s).
That the relationship of fair-togetherness between the Persons of God (whether self-existently so or not) is the ground of all morality, is also not an idea I created. (It goes back as far as Athanasius at least, through Augustine in the West, interestingly, and is still somewhat common in Eastern Orthodoxy–I learned about it and positive aseity from C. S. Lewis, although he himself didn’t do much with the ideas.) Although I can understand a trinitarian (or anyone else) devoted to the idea that the Trinity has nothing intrinsically as such to do with morality (such as John Calvin who rejected Augustine’s strong defense of this as being contradictory to Augustine’s notion of non-election) thinking it’s an idea of someone’s creation (mine or Augustine’s or Athanasius or whoever’s).
That dikaiosunê originally meant fair- or just-togetherness as a compound word in Greek, is also not an idea I created. AT Robinson (in the grammatic history cited by Chris Date) confirmed it offhand in passing, and I learned about it first from Knoch.
Whether the authors of the NT (or the translators of the Greek OT) used dikaiosunê for this purpose, is something I don’t know of anyone else preceding me on (maybe Knoch?), but I’m not merely asserting it. I’m backing it up with detailed argument, and I wouldn’t have accepted it in the first place if I didn’t have evidence for doing so (although I have more now than I used to.) That could be fairly said to be my creation, unless it happens that the NT authors “created” it first.
But I already believed in love being the action toward fulfillment of (what amounts to) fair togetherness between persons, thanks to my being an orthodox trinitarian apologist, for several years before I ever noticed the topical connection of dikaiosunê (whether I’m right or wrong about that). If that interpretation of dikaiosunê is solidly nixed–and I’ll need more than mere lack of discussion about it from Greek grammarians at this point to accept it as solidly nixed (which was pretty much all of Chris’ case, and which I had already in principle granted before he made his case)–I’ll only be out a grammatic connection to the idea. The idea itself cannot be refuted that way.
1.) He credits them with having the skill and referent knowledge to see the truth, which is the precise ground for His complaint that they refuse to do so for their own uncharitable reasons.
2.) He goes out of His way to invite them into His house as guests for discussion and teaching, where His teaching is aimed to heal them of their sins. He also routinely accepts invitations from them to dine at their houses in return. In the culture of His day this can only indicate some kind of serious attempt at allying with them in an ultimately approving fashion (even though He criticizes them strongly at the dinners in the reports that make it into the NT)–which is exactly why the same Pharisees were so torqued about Him accepting dinner invitations to parties with disreputable people! (And why Jesus was angry at them for being angry at Him on this topic.)
3.) He makes disciples of at least half the Pharisees in the Judea region, even though He falls out with them (after they defended Him against the other half of the Pharisees) because they refuse to stop thinking of themselves as being inherently morally superior to their enemies, counting this refusal to face their own sin as being in murderous opposition to Himself (which they then ironically prove by trying to stone Him).
4.) He acknowledges that the Pharisees are more correct than the Sadducees, and (after a Pharisee praises Jesus for His answer against the Sadducees) praises a Pharisee for giving Him a good reply to a challenge to Jesus that the Pharisee himself initiated.
5.) He acknowledges that the Pharisees are who have the right to be the teachers in the seat of Moses, and instructs the crowd to follow their teaching, even though He criticizes the Pharisees for not correctly practicing what they teach.
6.) He grants that when the Pharisees were engaging in their ridiculously meticulous levels of tithing, they were in fact doing at heart a good thing. His criticism is not that they were ridiculously meticulous in their tithing but that they forgot love and justice which were the weightier things of the law that they should have also been doing.
7.) He goes very far out of His way after the resurrection to recruit a Pharisee of the Pharisees who had been spending his time recently prosecuting Christians breathing threats and murder. After Jesus graciously and lovingly fulfills fair-togetherness with this Pharisee, despite this Pharisee being such an enemy of Christ that he himself came to regard himself as the chief of sinners, this Pharisee goes on to talk about dikaiosunê more than anyone else in the New Testament (perhaps coincidentally. Although I doubt it. )
Those are the more famous examples I recall offhand, although there may be some others if I dig around.
Meanwhile, I’m trying to figure out how Jesus’ Pharisee opponents, who weren’t trinitarian theists, and who weren’t much in favor of salvation by God’s grace, but rather in earning His salvation and favor by good deeds (their whole party platform being based on the theory that if Israel would keep the Law perfectly for one week or even for one sabbath God would send the Messiah to save them from the Romans as a reward), and who weren’t much in favor of regarding themselves as inherently sinful, and who weren’t much in favor of God saving anyone from sin per se, much less in favor of God persisting in saving anyone from sin, who did not believe that God’s mercy endured forever and who didn’t believe the sacrifice of God Himself would clean sinners thereby, much less that His sacrifice is infinitely sufficient to cleanse and purify all; and who explicitly rejected the Messiah despite recognizing Him in order to keep from facing up to their own problems (especially in regard to God bringing sinners together in fairness rather than simply zorching them hopelessly to save those who are already righteous), and who explicitly went so far in their rejection as to hand the Messiah over to pagans to be tortured to death in a fashion they believed to be cursed by God… {inhale!}
are regarded by you as “far less ‘in error’ than any five-point Calvinist”.
This really iS beginning to look like a vendetta Jason. I have already posted that I have said some unloving things to you in my post yesterday and that I regret it. I have admitted that I was wrong. Are you now holding a grudge about something said some time ago? My opinion is that your recollections are not correct at all, but what disappoints me most is that Matt very maturely asked us both to move forward which is why I handed you an olive branch. I’m saddened that it has not been accepted but that is between you and God. I shall not be your judge.
Nobody is ‘going after’ anyone Jason (or, I suppose, I should only speak for myself as I have already stated that I will not judge you).
I suppose that I’d better remind you that I posted first on this thread so it was you who followed me ( I was reluctant to state this and join you in such banter because it is almost on a level of “mines bigger than yours” - how we need to grow up!)
I can assure you that I have no more interest in you as a poster than I have in any other poster. The truth is that we have a good number of threads dealing with Calvinism at the moment, (which I have participated in) and you started yet one more! *I happened to think that your O.P. was inflammatory but that is my personal opinion (which I did not mention until this point). What I DID do was write a reply.
I think Matt saw six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Very true. I am glad to see you engaging in the topic in hand.
I believe that Love is: “desiring and working towards the welfare of the beloved.” And God’s/Our beloved is the whole of humanity including our ‘enemies’.
Now perhaps you can see the contrast in our differing views on what ‘love’ is?
Yes, that would certainly be in the beloved’s welfare.
You should not have jumped to any conclusions in your ignorance.
I obviously regard Theo more highly than do you.
I’m not sure that Theo is only bothered because it may conflict with a doctrine he holds. I would hope that he is having dialogue with you because he wishes to ascertain the truth about the meaning of dikaiosunê and to reach ‘fair-togetherness’ with you on just what it means.
Again, you’re jumping to conclusions. You have already admitted total ignorance with regards my definition/understanding of love and yet you want to judge me about it. There are nuances in your definition which are worrying.
You should pop across the pond. I’ll introduce you to some.
If you mean, you think I would be against their rejection of Love for all humanity, then you are correct
(my underlining) - you’ve illustrated the danger Jason, by your abbreviation. Yes, I know that it is just shorthand but the very fact that you believe it is suitable shorthand is enough! " love as fair-togetherness" . That is not what Love is.
‘The relationship’ is NOT the ground and cause of all reality. It is the Triune God Himself who is the ground and cause of all reality. Again IMHO you have introduced error.
I am not particularly interested in chasing you down your rabbit whole. What I actually alluded to, and what I still believe, is that the definition of love as ‘fair-togetherness’ is a creation which is inadequate.
As I have pointed out, this is a strawman. BTW I believe in the Deity of Christ. I am content with the idea of a triune God.
I know this is your pet theme Jason, but we are not discussing the Trinity. We are discussing two different views on the meaning of Love. Such a definition must be good enough to be useful even when addressing the relationship with an enemy - something that is wholly outside of relationships within the Trinity.
Good.
I really think that one is dead and buried Jason. It just doesn’t hold water. I’m with Paidon on that. Do you still have doubts?
It is your prerogative to believe what you wish but it saddens me to think that a sincere searcher into the case for UR may be put off by way-out minority views which are totally unnecessary and could be counter productive.
Firstly, even if he DID. That is not ‘fair-togetherness’. Secondly, he thought they were blind - having a knowledge of the scriptures and yet ignorant of what they meant.
I am genuinely surprised that you can write what I have emphasised. He called the pharisees some very abusive terms. The last thing he was attempting was to create ‘harmony’ between Himself and them (as a group). If you are suggesting otherwise in order to defend your position then once again, you put yourself in a minority of possibly one.
We’ll not quibble about numbers. My point is made all the stronger because some were converted. “Ye brood of vipers” “You are of your father the devil” “you whitewashed sepulchres”. This was His modus operandi.
and Islamists may be more correct than Calvinists but that is not ‘fair-togetherness’
but that is not ‘fair-togetherness’
but that is not ‘fair-togetherness’
-and just how did he do it? By agreeing with his murderous activities? By ‘fair-togetherness’ - NO! By Love - YES!
They’re really not good enough though are they? Be honest Jason.
Because they didn’t regard God as a cruel, capricious, despotic torturer.
Well it wasn’t difficult (see above). I have to presume that you do not want to figure it out.
May God save us both from the damage that our egos would do to us.
Sherman, thank you for sharing your story. It is so very similar to what my husband and I have gone through. Rejection of family and friends and learning to shut up because the average Christian cannot handle it AT ALL! It’s so very threatening - I don’t get that.
You said, “So I studied them in their literary context assuming that I could quickly dismiss their “plain” reading only to find out that the more I studied them, the more the “plain” meaning seemed to be exactly what was meant. I found them so compelling that I decided to study the Hell passages to kinda balance things out, assuming that the traditional doctrine of Hell was rock-solid. But, the more I studied the “Hell” passages in context and in the Greek and Hebrew, the more I found that the passages did not affirm ECT. What I assumed was rock-solid I found to be nothing but dried muddy sand. When I applied the least pressure to it, it crumbled between my fingers.”
This is exactly what we did and found. I was shocked that the hell doctrine is so flimsy!! Thank you again.
I’m new to this board and don’t believe I’ve posted before. Great ministry!
I’m not a Calvinist for some of the same reasons but do you folks know Steve Brown. He’s a 5 pointer who believes in the love of God. I personally have a hard time believing he is a Calvinist but he says he is.
Hi Nimblewill,
I am very familiar with Steve Brown having been in the same denomination for many years. I have read a number of his books and have heard him speak as well. I was attracted to his teaching because he was a “freedom fighter” for grace as I was struggling with the haunting uncertainties of my Calvinism.
I agree, it’s very hard to believe he is a Calvinist. I shared a quote here on the Forum of his that reveals a serious inconsistency with his confessed Calvinism:
I noted how he drives the theologians crazy because they can’t pin him down as a heretic because he holds to the traditional confessions, and yet he says things like this (!)
Hi Janice T!!
I failed to see your comment earlier…WELCOME! Thank you for sharing.
Yes, it is so difficult to understand why so many Christians reject truly good news…especially when it seems so obvious and natural for us now (it has been 6 years for me). Perhaps it is that their “bad news” (eternal hell) is their main backdrop for their good news so if you take away their bad news they can’t see the Good News. They need to come to see that the bad news is that “the wages of sin is death” and that “the mind of sinful man is death” (Rom 3:23; 8:6) and that the Good News is deliverance from both. I had spent most of my Christian life thinking that God had saved me from a “location” rather than a “condition”.
Again, welcome…Hope you continue to be blessed and encouraged here…!
)
