Don’t worry, my friend, you can safely flush Jonathan Edwards’ views on the how the blessed in heaven will no longer love their damned loved ones down the toilet where they belong. Edwards’ ‘God’ is an illogical, blasphemous chimera, a direct contradiction of the plain scriptural teaching that ‘God is love’. Here’s why, in a nutshell (in a very rough and brief precis of a proof I first read in Thomas Talbott):
The Bible says God ‘is love’. In other words, it is his very nature, his essence, to be loving. Therefore it is a logical certainty that he cannot act in an unloving way, ever. He cannot not love all his creatures, because it is his intrinsic nature to do so. The God of Calvinism does not love all his creatures, hence he cannot be ‘love’, hence he cannot exist. QED.
If you want an analogy that will put this truth into stark relief, consider the statement ‘God is omniscient’. This means that he knows everything it is possible to know, that he knows all true statements. He cannot have a false belief. But if God can sometimes be unloving, as per Calvinism, that is tantamount to saying he can sometimes believe things that are false. So he’s not omniscient after all.
Or how about this: God is holy. But only sometimes. Sometimes he is unholy - at least under Calvinism’s perverse theology.
You see how quickly we are reduced to blasphemous absurdity if we go down the Calvinist route?
We don’t KNOW that “μονογενης” (monogenās) is derived from “γενος”(genos). The NASB Greek says so, but the OLB Greek, and Strong’s Greek says it is derived from “γινομαι”(ginomai). So the experts don’t agree as from which word it is derived, and so how can you be so sure that it is not derived from “γενναω” (gennaō, “I beget” or “I generate”)?
However, suppose it IS derived from “γενος”(genos). Strong says that this word can mean “offspring”. I suspect that that is the primary meaning, and that “race”, “stock”, “family”, etc. have been derived from that. So if it means offspring, then Jesus is the only offspring of God. Not much difference.
Now suppose it is derived from “γινομαι”(ginomai). I agree that the primary meaning of “γινομαι” is “I become”. But the word is very versatile. It is used 635 times in the New Testament.
Matt 21:19 “Let no fruit become on you.” That is, “Let no fruit be generated upon you.” Hmmm… “The only-generated Son of God” tantamount to “the only-begotten Son of God.”
Romans 7:3 “So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.” Literally, If while her husband lives she become to another man…; but if her husband dies… though she becomes to another man" To “become” to a man is to have intercourse with him.
Strong says “γινομαι”(ginomai) can mean “to be made”. So “the only-generated Son” could be " the only-made Son". He also says the word means “to arise, or appear in history.” An example of this which I found was John 1:6
“There became a man sent from God whose name was ‘John’.” or “There came to be a man, etc.” How did John come to be? Did he appear out of nowhere? Or was he begotten, generated, by his parents?
I claim the traditional “only-begotten” is a good rendering of "“μονογενης”(monogenās). It is incorrect to translate it simply as “only” as some modern translations have it. This incorrectness is revealed when we try to translate the word in John 1:18 as simply “only”.
No one has seen God at any time; the only God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared him. (John 1:18)
How can the Son who is in the bosom of the Father be “the only God” when the Son Himself in HIs prayer to His Father called His Father “the only true God”? (John 17:3) Yet the ESV translates John 1:18 similar to the above! It has to be “the only-begotten God” or “the only-generated God” who has declared or made known the Father. (the oldest Greek manuscript of the passage, papyrus 66 from about 150 A.D., has “the μονογενης God,” not the μονογενης Son.)
Yes and No. Like life in general, some aspects are enjoyable, and some are plain hard work or even drudgery.
A good teacher continuously thinks of his pupils’ needs, not only in school or in preparation, but even when he enters, say, Canadian Tire. He may encounter some article that would be perfect to use to get a pupil to understand a point or a lesson.
Johnny,
I guess if one was to label me, I would be considered a 4 point Calvinist who is a Universalist .At one time I was just a Calvinist who struggled with the problem of evil. I still believe that God is sovereign in ones salvation and that His elect are in every age. Only now do I understand that’s when a unbeliever dies, God is not finished with them in the age to come. Would you be ok with a position like mine?
Grace, George
Yes, certainly I would be okay with your ‘4-point’ Calvinist position, so far as I understand it . It is only the L of TULIP that gets me hot under the collar, this absurd, and offensive, idea that - despite the clear testimony of the Scriptures, despite Christ’s example, despite the witness of our heart and conscience, despite reason, and despite overwhelming logical and philosophical arguments against it - Jesus only died and was resurrected to save some people.
I don’t necessarily agree with the other four points of Calvinism - I guess you could describe me as a one and a half point Calvinist - but none of them are deal-breakers for me -
Total depravity: not sure I really understand this. I get that it doesn’t mean we are totally depraved, as in as evil as we can possibly be - because we’re patently not . But because I believe that we are free to act as we wish, within the constraints of conscience, genetics, environment etc, I don’t believe we are not free to ‘choose’ God, to seek him, however faintly or imperfectly we may do so at first.
Unconditional election: I like your understanding of election, as explained in your post on the other thread, although I don’t agree with it. I think God does ‘elect’ people, and that the human race gets elected in stages - some now, some in the next world. But I also think election is is a process in which we must play our part.
Limited atonement: Bleeearrgh!
Irresistible grace: this is my half point . I don’t believe that we are powerless to resist the internal call, but I do believe that nobody will be able to resist God’s grace forever.
Perseverance of the saints: yep! We cannot lose the salvation Christ won for us with his sacrificial life, death and resurrection. We can only resist embracing it (see four above ).
I do think there are good things in Calvinist doctrine - God’s sovereignty being a big one. But I think the problem of evil, as you said, is impossible to square with the Calvinist idea that God is totally sovereign in everything that happens - both good and bad. However you cut that Calvinist cake, it lays the responsibility for suffering and evil squarely at God’s door, and that is a blasphemous absurdity.
I look forward to getting to know you, and learning from you, George. I know good, kind, very loving people - most of them, to be honest, I’ve met here - who were once Calvinists. And while I don’t know any personally (Calvinism isn’t big here in the UK), I’m sure there are many many good, kind, very loving people who are still Calvinists. And I want to understand that. My own belief is that strict, five-point Calvinists are stricken with cognitive dissonance - with this contradiction that God is love, but that he does not love some people - but somehow they manage to live with that. I would be really interested to hear more about your own journey from Calvinism to Universalism, if you feel like sharing it.
arlier, Dave asked for input on words, including "Firstborn, as used in Col 1 – 15. [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16* For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17* And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18* And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead;
Meant to add that i think Col 1.18 modifies 1.15 meaning “firstborn” in Paul’s mind right here means “firstborn from the dead.” Jesus is the firstfruit to be resurrected.
George wrote:Johnny,
I guess if one was to label me, I would be considered a 4 point Calvinist who is a Universalist .At one time I was just a Calvinist who struggled with the problem of evil. I still believe that God is sovereign in ones salvation and that His elect are in every age. Only now do I understand that’s when a unbeliever dies, God is not finished with them in the age to come. Would you be ok with a position like mine?
Grace, George
George It has struck me as strange that Calvinists are not Universalists since that is God’s will and it seems that limited atonement simply is a device to avoid Universalism.
Evil is tricky unless one sees a greater eternal benefit then the temporary (but very real) suffering in this age. After all whether God caused evil or does nothing to stop it, is really no difference IMHO.
Verse 23 is always a “yeah but…” response when I try to discuss this, and I have to agree it seems like its saying there could be a chance that we have to remain…???
Hi Johnny,
I spent 6 months in England back in the 70’s working as a short order cook and pin setter for a bowling alley at Lakenheath and lived in Mildenhall with my brother who was a butcher. We had to leave after my brother ran over one of the Queens deer’s, and did not report it, plus a few other offenses, but I digress.
Yes, the “limited atonement” was the point I no longer claim, though as you correctly read, I nonetheless believe no one comes to Jesus in any age without the Father drawing them and causing a regeneration of the heart (Eph. 2:1-9), which is unconditional election. It is this belief that caused be to truly search the Scriptures, because as Steve alluded to, I could not rationalize the whole evil problem with a God who knowingly created individuals whom He was not going to save in any age (reprobate; Proverb 16:4). Then I was reading a commentary by Martin Luther and was not impressed with his explanation or handling of 1Peter 3:18-20 and 1 Peter4:6 and my mind began to wonder. At this time I was also on another forum (with Paidion by the way) where Universalism had been band, when a brother in a post asks me and others to consider 1Timothy 4:10. Which led me to order a book about Hell by a guy name Fudge and I began looking at the Greek on some of the orthodoxy pivotal verses like Matthew 25:46 and I became convinced that I had been “hoodwinked”.
We could no doubt argue on the other aspects of the acrostic TULIP, but where we would probably be in disagreement the most is how in God’s sovereignty he does not feign the use of evil (i.e. using of Satan in the Garden and their predetermine Fall and later with Job). Also, the very creation of Satan, in that he was probably evil from the beginning; would not most likely resonate with you. I do believe God is sovereign in all things (Eph.1:11 and Romans 11:33-36), though I do not pretend to know how this can be with the magnitude of evil, that God nonetheless uses and or turns it about for His purposes, yet Scripture seems to support this thought. As I wrote in a post on another thread, my only solace about all those catastrophes (like tsunami’s, earthquakes and the evil mankind inflicts on others) and evil in general, is that through Jesus act on the cross, someday all will be saved and death and sin will be vanquished. Of course the part ‘… all will be saved”” separates me from Calvinist circles and Arminians and Palagians as well.
Grace, George
Colossians 1
13 It is God who has delivered us out of the dominion of darkness, and has transferred us into the Kingdom of His dearly-loved Son, 14 in whom we have our redemption–the forgiveness of our sins.
WNT
In the beginning years of my Christianity, I was being mentored by an older man who had me memorize these verses. His rationale was that if I truly believed these words, I would know that my salvation was a done deal; a present as well as future reality. With the assurance that I had indeed been delivered out of the hands of the evil ones power and placed under a much greater dominion of His beloved Son. Thus my motivation of the prayers of the saints in verses 9 and 10 would be graditude and love and not obligation.
Grace, George
