Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nicene Nerd

How to Kill My Calvinism

Recommended Posts

In that case, the answer would be because it is the only way I can make sense of everything else I believe.

Honestly, I'm not sure you guys really appreciate my comments. I feel like a peanut gallery, but I shall make them because I don't think Chris or John will, and because it's helping me in my personal struggles with my faith.

I honestly think you need to try to think through Chris's problem and come up with a rational solution because it is the point that Calvinism fails on. It is the reason that, to my dying day I will say the logical conclusion of Calvinism is Universalism or else it makes no sense. I understand the appeal of saying, "God creates the world in this way because it brings Him the most glory." I believed that. I might still believe it. I dunno. I'm in still in formation. But my point is that I don't see that supported in Scripture. It's something that makes sense if you're not really thinking about it. Why would God create a world a specific way if He could make it a different way, but better? Maybe the point is that God's end goal isn't His personal glory? What if we're not made just to give Glory to God?

Think about it, why did God even allow the fall to happen if all our purpose was to give glory to Him and worship Him? Yes, I understand the point that God is given glory by His justice (if the fall hadn't happened, He'd still be given glory by His justice because He would judge us all perfect and free I imagine), and I understand that God is given glory by His mercy, but in Calvinism, there's this weird ratio that has been imagined (in my opinion) of justice to mercy that if the Lord saves just the right number of people, He is most glorified. He can't save anyone or else His won't get the right amount of justice glory, and He can't **** anyone or else he won't demonstrate his Mercy glory. Doesn't this just seem a little weird to you and kinda arbitrary? I mean, who's defined this cosmic recipe for the utmost Glory?

Maybe, humans were created or a reason besides satisfying God's glory quotient. I guess the problem I run across with that thought is, what are we here for then? I can't answer that question now. I'm sorry. I'll think about it and get back to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I'm not sure you guys really appreciate my comments. I feel like a peanut gallery, but I shall make them because I don't think Chris or John will, and because it's helping me in my personal struggles with my faith.

I honestly think you need to try to think through Chris's problem and come up with a rational solution because it is the point that Calvinism fails on. It is the reason that, to my dying day I will say the logical conclusion of Calvinism is Universalism or else it makes no sense. I understand the appeal of saying, "God creates the world in this way because it brings Him the most glory." I believed that. I might still believe it. I dunno. I'm in still in formation. But my point is that I don't see that supported in Scripture. It's something that makes sense if you're not really thinking about it. Why would God create a world a specific way if He could make it a different way, but better? Maybe the point is that God's end goal isn't His personal glory? What if we're not made just to give Glory to God?

Think about it, why did God even allow the fall to happen if all our purpose was to give glory to Him and worship Him? Yes, I understand the point that God is given glory by His justice (if the fall hadn't happened, He'd still be given glory by His justice because He would judge us all perfect and free I imagine), and I understand that God is given glory by His mercy, but in Calvinism, there's this weird ratio that has been imagined (in my opinion) of justice to mercy that if the Lord saves just the right number of people, He is most glorified. He can't save anyone or else His won't get the right amount of justice glory, and He can't **** anyone or else he won't demonstrate his Mercy glory. Doesn't this just seem a little weird to you and kinda arbitrary? I mean, who's defined this cosmic recipe for the utmost Glory?

Maybe, humans were created or a reason besides satisfying God's glory quotient. I guess the problem I run across with that thought is, what are we here for then? I can't answer that question now. I'm sorry. I'll think about it and get back to you.

You sum up my most difficult contemplations. Thus this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly, I'm not sure you guys really appreciate my comments. I feel like a peanut gallery, but I shall make them because I don't think Chris or John will, and because it's helping me in my personal struggles with my faith.

I honestly think you need to try to think through Chris's problem and come up with a rational solution because it is the point that Calvinism fails on. It is the reason that, to my dying day I will say the logical conclusion of Calvinism is Universalism or else it makes no sense. I understand the appeal of saying, "God creates the world in this way because it brings Him the most glory." I believed that. I might still believe it. I dunno. I'm in still in formation. But my point is that I don't see that supported in Scripture. It's something that makes sense if you're not really thinking about it. Why would God create a world a specific way if He could make it a different way, but better? Maybe the point is that God's end goal isn't His personal glory? What if we're not made just to give Glory to God?

Think about it, why did God even allow the fall to happen if all our purpose was to give glory to Him and worship Him? Yes, I understand the point that God is given glory by His justice (if the fall hadn't happened, He'd still be given glory by His justice because He would judge us all perfect and free I imagine), and I understand that God is given glory by His mercy, but in Calvinism, there's this weird ratio that has been imagined (in my opinion) of justice to mercy that if the Lord saves just the right number of people, He is most glorified. He can't save anyone or else His won't get the right amount of justice glory, and He can't **** anyone or else he won't demonstrate his Mercy glory. Doesn't this just seem a little weird to you and kinda arbitrary? I mean, who's defined this cosmic recipe for the utmost Glory?

Maybe, humans were created or a reason besides satisfying God's glory quotient. I guess the problem I run across with that thought is, what are we here for then? I can't answer that question now. I'm sorry. I'll think about it and get back to you.

Are you saying God would find it more glorifying to Him if He just created us all with the intent to glorify Him from the beginning? Doesn't it bring more glory to God if we are made to choose to worship Him rather than being forced to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you saying God would find it more glorifying to Him if He just created us all with the intent to glorify Him from the beginning? Doesn't it bring more glory to God if we are made to choose to worship Him rather than being forced to?

I think my point is that I don't know which would be more glorifying to God. That's the point. That's why saying the point of humanity is to glorify God seems like an arbitrary definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you saying God would find it more glorifying to Him if He just created us all with the intent to glorify Him from the beginning? Doesn't it bring more glory to God if we are made to choose to worship Him rather than being forced to?
Even Calvinists believe that people who worship God choose to and are not coerced. The questions on which we differ is how and why people choose things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are going to bring Science into this like has been previously done, I believe deterministic will may at first look valid but proves faulty as opposed to liberatarian free will.

Deterministic Will

In a deterministic will: The will is constructed via natural cause-and-effect to have certain desires and thought processes. When any particular situation comes up, the information is processed by these desires and thoughts until a decision of how to act is reached. Most of this occurs in the subconscious. Every part of the causal chain which led to this decision can be traced back to either the beginning of the universe or the most recent supernatural intervention in causality.

The thing is not everyone of these events can be traced to the beginning of time..... true some basic instinctual things are related to your desires and thoughts but they can change. These patterns can/have changed in ways of both random mutations which have caused a difference in the way things are done and the way chemicals are released causing things to be different than they were before and not follow the same pattern. In addition to this causing populations to have individuals with unique thought patterns and processess the way the brain functions in forming connective synapses are done to allow for elasticity of the mind and the ability to reformat which is why peoples outlooks and wills may change rather than stay constant.

  • In a libertarian free will: The will may or may not be mainly constructed by natural cause-and-effect, but by some seemingly random process another element is entered into decision-making, independent of all previous causality. If this element does not come from an existing causal chain, it must either have a purely random or supernatural origin. If it is purely random, then it is not of the agent, and thus not properly his will. If it is of supernatural origin, then it would also seem not to be of the agent (as least when dealing with humans), and thus not properly his will.

Like i said before.... purely random events do occur. However the chain may change due to constructive synapsis forming based on controlled use. This would be considered of agent. While we can change our free-will we also have more control of our boddies than you may/may not believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we are going to bring Science into this like has been previously done, I believe deterministic will may at first look valid but proves faulty as opposed to liberatarian free will.

Deterministic Will

The thing is not everyone of these events can be traced to the beginning of time..... true some basic instinctual things are related to your desires and thoughts but they can change. These patterns can/have changed in ways of both random mutations which have caused a difference in the way things are done and the way chemicals are released causing things to be different than they were before and not follow the same pattern. In addition to this causing populations to have individuals with unique thought patterns and processess the way the brain functions in forming connective synapses are done to allow for elasticity of the mind and the ability to reformat which is why peoples outlooks and wills may change rather than stay constant.

Like i said before.... purely random events do occur. However the chain may change due to constructive synapsis forming based on controlled use. This would be considered of agent. While we can change our free-will we also have more control of our boddies than you may/may not believe.

What purely random events occur that, when thoroughly analyzed and reduced, cannot be traced back indefinitely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just going to come in and ask an annoying question: What do you actually mean by 'random'?

Say, for example, I rolled a dice, and got a 2. you'd say that the result was random, right?

What if, now, you asked me for a random number, and I rolled a dice, and got a 2.

What if I once rolled a dice, and now give '2' whenever anyone asks me for a random number?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm just going to come in and ask an annoying question: What do you actually mean by 'random'?
An event which has no physical causal basis. It is an event without a cause. Just happens out of the blue for no physical reason whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What purely random events occur that, when thoroughly analyzed and reduced, cannot be traced back indefinitely?

It really depends on when you call indefinitely

certain events happened in the past or even a long time ago but some of which were not always present.

To name a few:

Random deanimation of a cytosine to uracil molecule within the bands of DNA

a system that has the capability to repair DNA to an extent

reproduction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To name a few:

Random deanimation of a cytosine to uracil molecule within the bands of DNA

a system that has the capability to repair DNA to an extent

reproduction

I fail to see how there could be no physical causality whatsoever behind either of the first two events, and definitely not the third.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I fail to see how there could be no physical causality whatsoever behind either of the first two events, and definitely not the third.

Well one that you would probably agree with is the formation of proteins, RNA, cDNA, introns, exons etc. All of which started from the random formation of the first order of amino acids that went in a completely random sequence. There is no bounds as to why they were put in the orders they were for the actual number of patterns is vastly different among organisms though slightly convergent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well one that you would probably agree with is the formation of proteins, RNA, cDNA, introns, exons etc. All of which started from the random formation of the first order of amino acids that went in a completely random sequence. There is no bounds as to why they were put in the orders they were for the actual number of patterns is vastly different among organisms though slightly convergent.
Besides the fact that I don't believe abiogenesis ever occurred, that isn't technically random. It still goes by billions of minor events of physical cause-and-effect, so numerable that they cannot be traced by men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Besides the fact that I don't believe abiogenesis ever occurred, that isn't technically random. It still goes by billions of minor events of physical cause-and-effect, so numerable that they cannot be traced by men.

Do you believe abiogenisis could happen? Not that it did happen and caused all life to form, but that it is possible? Why/Why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you believe abiogenisis could happen? Not that it did happen and caused all life to form, but that it is possible? Why/Why not?
Not realistically. If there were an infinite number of universes in which every conceivable event occurred no matter how improbable, then maybe. But it would be pretty off-topic to explain all the reasons I think that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not realistically. If there were an infinite number of universes in which every conceivable event occurred no matter how improbable, then maybe. But it would be pretty off-topic to explain all the reasons I think that.

ok, however a relevant question would be how do you think humans came to be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem here is that we have no way of establishing that anything is truely uncaused (or caused, for that matter). Indeed, a large part of science is dedicated to searching for those causes. So it's silly to say 'this happens at random', because things can appear (mathematically) to be random when they actually aren't (e.g. Pseudorandom numbers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok, however a relevant question would be how do you think humans came to be?
Formed by God from the dust of the earth (and before you assume, old earth, not young).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even Calvinists believe that people who worship God choose to and are not coerced.

I don't quite follow.

If people choose to worship under the irresistible force of some efficient cause (in-born preference), and God is the ultimate efficient cause, doesn't it follow that people worship under the irresistible force of God? How is that not coercion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't quite follow.

If people choose to worship under the irresistible force of some efficient cause (in-born preference), and God is the ultimate efficient cause, doesn't it follow that people worship under the irresistible force of God? How is that not coercion?

Coercing someone to do something involves manipulating an unrelated desire to make someone act against his main desire. It means causing someone to do something against his will. Irresistible grace is not against the will. It is a supernatural transformation of the will so that the person does desire worship, as opposed to coercion when violence/punishment is threatened or applied to cause worship against their original desire.

Coercion is like jamming a square peg into a round hole. Irresistible grace is like precisely shaving the edges of the hole so that the square peg will fit without jamming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
causing someone to do something against his will.

Suppose Max under ordinary circumstances prefers ice cream to broccoli. Then, however, his Mom offers him a toy if he eats his broccoli. The following calculus follows: Broccoli + toy > ice cream

Similarly, if Dad said that Max had to eat his broccoli or he'll get a spanking, then the same calculus applies. Broccoli > ice cream + spanking. He doesn't act against his will, but merely reacts to incentives.

Finally, we suppose God says "Max will eat his broccoli." Then, Max eats his broccoli because God has used supernatural powers to change his preferences.

So, it seems to me that God is really the one who's committed the most blatant violence against Max's will. While there might be a semantic trick to saying that this isn't "coercion," the distinction seems fairly trivial to me.

--

As for randomness.. Eh? How's that not just the claim that stuff happens for no reason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Formed by God from the dust of the earth (and before you assume, old earth, not young).

So you believe God created us in his image - no? Along with this if you believe God has free will then we to have free will. Additionally if you want me to attack the point of humanity proving free will there is a simple pattern that has contradictory to physical presence in which patterns are broken. Anyone following a path other than that of least resistance. These are also done through the spirit and control of the individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you believe God created us in his image - no? Along with this if you believe God has free will then we to have free will.

People have God's image.

God is omnipotent.

People are omnipotent.

The logic fails because you don't have an adequate definition for "God's image" in the major premise.

randomness

Is the thesis that a dice lands on a 6 for no reason. It doesn't seem very defensible to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People have God's image.

God is omnipotent.

People are omnipotent.

The logic fails because you don't have an adequate definition for "God's image" in the major premise.

Jesus wasn't omnipotent, though I believe he possessed free will. and we were created in a closer image to Jesus than God himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus wasn't omnipotent
and we were created in a closer image to Jesus than God himself.
Jesus...God himself.

...Yeah, I don't agree o3o. I tend to hold that Jesus was quite omnipotent, that Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit share in a common divine nature (in which our divine image is grounded), and that it's wrong to refer to Jesus as otherwise than "God Himself."

But, that's a much bigger argument than how to interpret the divine image |D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×