Posted on 02/28/2010 8:30:39 AM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
John Calvin's 16th century reply to medieval Catholicism's buy-your-way-out-of-purgatory excesses is Evangelicalism's latest success story, complete with an utterly sovereign and micromanaging deity, sinful and puny humanity, and the combination's logical consequence, predestination: the belief that before time's dawn, God decided whom he would save (or not), unaffected by any subsequent human action or decision.
Calvinism, cousin to the Reformation's other pillar, Lutheranism, is a bit less dour than its critics claim: it offers a rock-steady deity who orchestrates absolutely everything, including illness (or home foreclosure!), by a logic we may not understand but don't have to second-guess. Our satisfaction — and our purpose — is fulfilled simply by "glorifying" him. In the 1700s, Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards invested Calvinism with a rapturous near mysticism. Yet it was soon overtaken in the U.S. by movements like Methodism that were more impressed with human will. Calvinist-descended liberal bodies like the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) discovered other emphases, while Evangelicalism's loss of appetite for rigid doctrine — and the triumph of that friendly, fuzzy Jesus — seemed to relegate hard-core Reformed preaching (Reformed operates as a loose synonym for Calvinist) to a few crotchety Southern churches.
No more. Neo-Calvinist ministers and authors don't operate quite on a Rick Warren scale. But, notes Ted Olsen, a managing editor at Christianity Today, "everyone knows where the energy and the passion are in the Evangelical world" — with the pioneering new-Calvinist John Piper of Minneapolis, Seattle's pugnacious Mark Driscoll and Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Seminary of the huge Southern Baptist Convention. The Calvinist-flavored ESV Study Bible sold out its first printing, and Reformed blogs like Between Two Worlds are among cyber-Christendom's hottest links.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
I think you are skipping an important element. At what point do you exercise faith? It is while you have a nature that is in opposition to God or does it occur after God changes your nature and interferes with your natural free will opposition to God and creates in your heart the longing for God which accompanies belief, repentance and the exercise of faith.
Election is clearly something that occurred before you were ever conceived. Even as an Arminian you must recognize that before God ever allowed you to be conceived he knew in advance whether you were one of his chosen, one who would be with him forever in eternity. The question then becomes whether or not that election was based on his foreknowledge that you would turn out good enough to exercise some faith on your own apart from God changing your nature or whether he knew that he would change your nature so that you would "naturally" be attracted to him and "naturally" repent, believe, exercise faith and be saved.
It is not that everything else is "included" in election, but it is that everything else follows naturally.
And no one can enter unless they were picked by name before creation.
Unless God had no idea that you would decide to choose him, then you cannot deny that fact. Do you deny that your name was written in the book of life before the foundation of the earth? Cause if it wasn't then, then it isn't now.
I can show you uncounted verses where faith is something that we do in response to God.
I'm not so sure that it is something we "do" as much as it is something we have. The question then becomes "why do we have it"? Did we get it on our own through our own good works, or is it something that God gave us? If it is your own faith that saves you, then you save yourself. If it is faith given to you by the grace of God, then it really belongs to God and your salvation is wholly and totally in His hands.
Tell me, is your salvation in your hands or God's?
The "rules" I am using are: logic and evidence. I didn't make up this stuff.
Now, now, Betty.
You SHOULD KNOW! . . . . LOL . . .
that the tolerable rules
are ONLY
those idiosyncratic ones the particular pseudo-super-rationalist
has personally derived and mangled into his/her own unique construction on what is/ought to be
. . . particularly as allowable in verbal fencing matches [because the pseudo-super-rationalist can’t even live by his/her own irrational ‘rules’ in the rest of their personal lives.
Anything and everything else
is UNREAL
by definition.
Logic is subject to human undertsanidng and comprehension and evidence should be demonstrable. You said God is subject neither to logic nor provable evidence. Besides, one must be able to define what it is he believes in. Evidently, that's not possible either. So, what's left?
God is not so subject. But we are, if we're rational. Indeed, our rationality is itself evidence of our subjection to and dependence on God; i.e., His Logos.
I see evidence of God everywhere; but this is not the sort of evidence that can be directly observed and scientifically measured. Which is what you are asking me to provide.
The evidence that I find most persuasive is the seemingly perfect correspondence among God's four revelations: Holy Scripture, the Incarnation of Christ, the world of Creation, and the Holy Spirit with us.
But this is the very sort of evidence which is unacceptable to you. More, it's the very sort of evidence you want most to tear down, disqualify.
So, what do we have to say to each other, really? We can't even get on the same page.
Some folks seem to pretend to be very convincing to the person in their mirror
that they
successfully
live in a multiverse
of one.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
While Neeners don't particularly like ducks, they are nevertheless tasty animals (PETA= People Eating Tasty Animals).
If we are going to roast a Servetus in effigy, then I prefer Roast Duck to Roast Dame.
The election has been made. Short live the duck.
“then I prefer Roast Duck to Roast Dame”
Well I don’t think it’s right to throw her back, so can I keep her?
If you can get K's permission, then you have my blessing.
Somehow I don't think that's gonna happen. Not unless you don't mind not seeing her for a few days. :-)
That is your opinion, betty boop, and I respect it but it's not evidence.
If God is not subject to proof then why do Evenagleicals constantly quote form the Bible if not in order to 'prove' something about God? The only problem is the there is no proof the scriptures are what some say they are. They, too, must be accepted as true on nothing more than "good faith." But don't tell me that God is not subject to proof when I see verses being posted daily as 'proof.'
I have no doubt that you earnestly believe in God. I did too. Then, one day, I myself "what is God?" At that moment I realized that I did not know what I believed in.
So, when you say, "what do we have to say to each other, really? We can't even get on the same page" I say it's not about being on the same page; it's about the question.
I think your typing is better than your theology. :-)
Usually, anyway.
Done - the empty tomb.
In your dreams.
So simple, isn’t it?
Amen, Dr. E.
What actual, physical proof can you provide to show that the tomb was NOT found empty.
What proof can you show that it was? The Bible says it was in order to “prove” resurrection. Why was it not witnessed. How convenient? It’s like someone shows up, leaves the packages, takes a bite out of a cookie and drinks a little milk — bingo! “Proof” that Santa exists.
What proof that the tomb was empty? You're not serious, right?
If it were not empty, the body would have been produced and we would not be having this discussion.
C'mon, man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.