BRUCE ALMIGHTY: Atheism's Critique of Arminianism

[drstevej]

Bruce Nolan (Carrey), a television reporter in Buffalo, N.Y.,is discontented with almost everything in life despite his popularity and the love of his girlfriend, Grace (Aniston) . At the end of the worst day of his life, Bruce angrily ridicules and rages against God and God responds. God appears in human form (Freeman) and, endowing Bruce with divine powers, challenges Bruce to take on the big job to see if he can do it any better.

 

Bruce Nolan:       How do you make someone love you without changing free will?
God:                     Welcome to my world.

[drstevej]

Bruce Almighty is an insightful lampoon on a God who "can't mess with free will."

[Wrigley]

I guess I'm going to have to rent the movie now.

[drstevej]

"You Got the Power!"

[CCWoody]

Bruce Almighty is an insightful lampoon on a God who "can't mess with free will." ~ drstevej

Apart from the fact that it is obvious that the Atheists think the Arminian god is a doofus (remember all the interesting comments I get from Atheists when I delcare to them the Biblical Calvinist's image of God), I have a question to wring the non-Calvinist's noodle in knots:



1. Is God not smart enough figure out how to have His desire for all to freely come to Him?
   
   --- OR ---
   
   
2. Is God not powerful enough to bring about His desire for all to freely come to Him?

The amusing thing here is that I can freely grant to you pretty much whatever you want, ask these questions and you are theologically checkmated because you cannot answer them without blasphemying God. And I do find that terribly amusing.

As a Calvinist, I firmly believe that God is both powerful enough and smart enough to bring about any desire that He has, which makes Him much more interesting than the bumbling incompetent Arminian version.


• I firmly believe that whatever His soul desires, that He does.
• I firmly believe that He does according to His will among the inhabitants of the earth.
• I firmly believe that He does whatever He pleases.

Woody.

[jude24]

Have you seen this movie?

I had not, because I had assumed based upon the previews that the movie was blasphemous. But what I heard from a friend is that it actually raises a good point: do you really think you can do a better job than the Almighty?

I might have to rent it after all.

[drstevej]

***Have you seen this movie? ***

Saw it this weekend. "Almighty" is a bit of overstatement in the movie's concept of God. The God in the movie has a strict rule against messing with free will. As a result He is quite frustrated and settles for the best He can do.

There is the typical crudities and general blasphemies you would expect when Jim Carey is God. But the "free will" angle is fascinating. It really illustrates what Calvinists have been telling Arminians here for many moons.

I am so thankful God messed with my heart and gave me the will to love Him.

[drstevej]

PING

[ladyinred]

I don't think there is anything on earth that could make me want to see this movie. I am afraid lightening will strike me! :-)

[drstevej]

I understand.

[xzins]

Hollywood, huh?

There's an acceptable broker..../sarcasm.

[mcg1969]

One of these days I'll bet we'll get to heaven to find out that neither the Calvinists nor the Arminian's have it figured out. We'll all have a good laugh about the whole thing (with perhaps some mourning that perhaps our infighting drove away some souls), and then we'll promptly set it a side to get down to the business of enjoying our eternal home and worshipping its landlord.

[Gamecock]

As a Calvinist, I cannot drive anyone away. Nor can I bring anyone to Christ.

That my friend, is very refreshing.

[mcg1969]

Your logic is flawed. You say, "As a Calvinist, I cannot drive anyone away." (As if I could, just because I'm not.) If Calvinism is false, then the fact that you're a Calvinist matters naught. So the proper way to say it is, "If Calvinism is true, I cannot drive anyone away."

And that brings me to the point: are you really that sure that Calvinism is 100% correct? Any doctrine constructed by humans is likely to be flawed somehow. I know, I know, you say it wasn't constructed by humans, it was constructed by God. But we humans had to discover the doctrine from Scripture. And we see through the glass darkly, my friend.

It seems therefore worthwhile to live out the Great Commission under the assumption that we do not fully understand the nature of free will, predestination, and election.

[Gamecock]

Paul teaches Calvinism, so does Christ, John, as a matter of fact, the totality of scripture teaches Calvinism.

I believe scripture.

Do you have a problem with the inerrancy of scripture? If you have an issue with scripture, you have a bigger problem than you lack of understanding of Calvinism.

If you don't have a problem with inerrancy, why not reread the Bible from front to back and we'll meet back here and discuss it. I'll give you a year.

[Gamecock]

But we humans had to discover the doctrine from Scripture. And we see through the glass darkly, my friend.

Oh, BTW: Titus 1:9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

You are opposing sound doctrine my friend.

[Pahuanui]

The amusing thing here is that I can freely grant to you pretty much whatever you want, ask these questions and you are theologically checkmated because you cannot answer them without blasphemying God.

Yawn.

You have, by couching the question in such a manner, intellectually checkmated yourself, because to introduce 'blasphemy' into the equation is assuming a predetermined set of conditions already exist, thus assuring from the beginning that all contentions are, by default, skewed in favor of one outcome.

And I do find that terribly amusing.

What's amusing is that you aren't even aware of what you did.

[connectthedots]

Your reply to Gamecock: And that brings me to the point: are you really that sure that Calvinism is 100% correct? Any doctrine constructed by humans is likely to be flawed somehow. I know, I know, you say it wasn't constructed by humans, it was constructed by God. But we humans had to discover the doctrine from Scripture. And we see through the glass darkly, my friend.

You might find it interesting that the FR Calvinist swarm claims that Calvinism encompasses a range of differing beliefs and is not a monolithic set of doctrinal precepts.

You will also note that the swarm equates Calvinism, at least as they individually perceive it, with the Gospel message of the Bible; even to the point of claiming that Calvinism is the Gospel.

Some of the swarm are so arrogant as to claim that even the Calvinist Charles Spurgeon was wrong about predestination.

[mcg1969]

Oh please, your arrogance is amusing.

Plenty of people more knowledgeable than either of us disagree on the question of Calvinism, and you know it. People who study Scripture with fervor, intelligence, care, Spirit, and faith, with a firm belief in inerrancy, come to a variety of conclusions about many issues in Scripture. They recognize the apparent (but not actual) contradictions free will, predestination, and election; and they them in a variety of ways. Calvinism is just one such way. (Well, of course, it's not just "one" such way, because even Calvinists disagree on the details.)

You know this all quite well, I'm sure. That you would speak as if you don't is disingenuous.

[mcg1969]

Please forgive my typo, corrected here:

They recognize the apparent (but not actual) contradictions in the area of free will, predestination, and election; and they resolve them in a variety of ways.

[mcg1969]

Thanks for the info. I'm somewhat new here as you probably know so I'm still learning about the various cliques here.