s/o - The Problem I Have with Calvinism

[mommaduck]

One of the things I find most interesting about Calvinism is that it does seem to me that it has far fewer theological differences with Christian universalism than it does with Arminianism. Or at least the theological differences it has with universalism are easier to resolve. In fact, last night I googled Calvinism vs. universalism and the first thing that came up was a somewhat convoluted essay that seemed to be warning against Calvinism with some sort of slippery slope to universalism argument.

 

hmmm, I can see this to an extent...but it's only to an extent.

 

There's a greater slippery slope between Calvinism and Catholicism or Orthodoxy. But that would be another endless thread.

[Tami]

I feel similarly, especially the bolded parts. I differ from you, I believe, in that I lean toward not knowing and I do take it to universalism, which is what I see as the logical end result.

 

:iagree: That makes logical sense to me.

[Tami]

One of the things I find most interesting about Calvinism is that it does seem to me that it has far fewer theological differences with Christian universalism than it does with Arminianism. Or at least the theological differences it has with universalism are easier to resolve. In fact, last night I googled Calvinism vs. universalism and the first thing that came up was a somewhat convoluted essay that seemed to be warning against Calvinism with some sort of slippery slope to universalism argument.

 

Hmmm. Are you getting Calvinism and Arminianism mixed up? I (not being a theologian, but just a Mom!) would say that Universalism is the next logical step from Arminianism.

[Spy Car]

Calvinism vs. Armenianism is an "in house" debate, that is a non-essential.

 

With due respect the ramifications of this "in house" debate affect us all. And the consequences that flow from people believing that their fellow humans are depraved, including infants who bite, and filled with a sin nature worse than Hitler's are very serious.

 

It inspirits hateful feelings towards other people, and you see that anti-humanism and contempt for human dignity play itself out in thread after thread here on WTM, and it spills out into real world social policy.

 

So it's a threat to us all.

 

Bill

[Tami]

It inspirits hateful feelings towards other people

 

Really? Do you have hateful feelings toward Calvinism and Calvinists? What evidence do you have that Calvinism or Christianity in general inspires hateful feelings toward other human beings? I have not found that to be the case in my circle.

[OnTheBrink]

Really? Do you have hateful feelings toward Calvinism and Calvinists? What evidence do you have that Calvinism or Christianity in general inspires hateful feelings toward other human beings? I have not found that to be the case in my circle.

 

Mine, either. I've found the exact opposite, in fact.

[kokotg]

Hmmm. Are you getting Calvinism and Arminianism mixed up? I (not being a theologian, but just a Mom!) would say that Universalism is the next logical step from Arminianism.

 

No...although I see what you're saying. Christian universalism doesn't conflict with Calvinist views of God's sovereignty vs. free will. God still decides who to save; he just decides to save everyone in the end. In an overly simplified nutshell.

[Spy Car]

If it were up to each one of us to decide how the universe should be run, and what right and wrong are, and whether there should be a hell, and how good is good enough, and if there *were* a God, what He should be like, then your position would be valid. However, if there is a God who created all of us, then it's His standards that matter, not ours.

 

What standards?

 

Even you all can't seem to agree upon that. Seems to this outsider that you have a myriad of groups and individuals all making up their own "standards" based on wildly different readings of bible tales. Each saying their standard is correct, even when they contradict the plain message of Jesus in the gospels.

 

So how does this "validate" some divine standard?

 

Bill

[Veritaserum]

Not true, according to the story the creator made humans without the capacity to distinguish right from wrong, so their "disobedience" had no moral component. You can't sin if you don't know right from wrong. That is basic justice.

 

This is unjust. You can't punish one person for the failing or transgressions of another and call it justice.

 

I think you are missing the "moral of the story" which is morally imperfect humans equipped with the ability to know good from evil, but lacking the capacity to always conform their behavior to the good, will sometimes do "bad". And they will know they have gone wrong and will carry that burden of guilt and shame for their shortcomings. End of story.

 

I think this is a monstrously inhumane world-view, and a dangerous one. People can lead good and descent (if not perfect) lives if they have the moral courage to choose to choose good over evil. You can do that every day hundreds of times, and it makes a difference in repairing the world.

 

Treating good people as if they are evil monsters is perverse and wrong-headed.

 

 

:iagree: I agree with all of this, even though I am religious and do believe in God. :)

[Tutor]

With due respect the ramifications of this "in house" debate affect us all. And the consequences that flow from people believing that their fellow humans are depraved, including infants who bite, and filled with a sin nature worse than Hitler's are very serious.

 

It inspirits hateful feelings towards other people, and you see that anti-humanism and contempt for human dignity play itself out in thread after thread here on WTM, and it spills out into real world social policy.

 

So it's a threat to us all.

 

Bill

 

1. Sin nature is sin nature. Hitler's *nature* was no worse or better than anyone elses. How one manifests his or her sin nature is very individual, however.

 

2. Personally, I have found that a belief in a sin nature has made me more compassionate and loving toward other people. I feel like we are all in the same boat, in a way. I am more patient when my children do wrong and rejoice more loudly when they choose right. I feel the same about others as well. Goodness and love astound me daily. Evil breaks my heart because I can see why people find themselves on that path and it pains me deeply.

[Greta]

I don't believe that I can tell God what he must be, nor do I believe that God must be fair because I would like Him to be.

 

In a discussion about creationism awhile back, someone posed that common question, "if God created the world, then who created God?" Someone else responded (I'm sorry, I don't remember who said what!) that she didn't like this question, because it assumes that we don't already have a definition of God that answers it.

 

That's the way I feel about God's love, fairness, and benevolence. It's just part of the definition, not because I would "like" it to be that way, but simply because that's what God IS. Any all-powerful being who did not have these traits could not be God, but would be a devil. So any time that ANY religion (I'm not zeroing in on Calvinists or even Christians in general) attributes characteristics to God which are in conflict with this, that to me is clearly a human misunderstanding/mistake, not a true attribute of God. It is humans who have a limited (though I believe large) capacity for love, kindness, and fairness. God's love is complete and perfect and vast beyond imagination.

 

Now let me clarify my intention in posting this. I'm not trying to point the fingers at others and say you're wrong or mistaken in your beliefs. I'm only trying to say that I do have reasons for my beliefs about the nature of God which go beyond "because this is what I WANT to believe". I have given it a lot more thought and prayer and heartfelt consideration than that. I have had specific experiences, which I won't detail here, which I believe were an all-loving, entirely benevolent, and absolutely fair and forgiving God acting in my life.

 

That is all. :001_smile: Now back to your regularly scheduled programming . . .

Edited August 5, 2009 by GretaLynne

[Peek a Boo]

With due respect the ramifications of this "in house" debate affect us all. And the consequences that flow from people believing that their fellow humans are depraved, including infants who bite, and filled with a sin nature worse than Hitler's are very serious.

 

It inspirits hateful feelings towards other people, and you see that anti-humanism and contempt for human dignity play itself out in thread after thread here on WTM, and it spills out into real world social policy.

 

So it's a threat to us all.

 

Bill

 

yeah...

this would have been real handy reasoning in that happy healthcare thread that some of us were rude enough to intrude on:

 

Consequences that flow from people believing they have an unlimited right to other people's actions and property and life inspirits hateful feelings towards other people, and you see that anti-humanism and contempt for human dignity play itself out in healthcare plan after healthcare plan and espoused as "civilized" in thread after thread here at WTM, and it spills out into real world social policy.

 

So it's a threat to us all, even when it's only being discussed as an "in-country" plan. And the consequences are very serious

 

i can see what you're saying.

but it appears that hate and contempt are in the eye of the poster.

as is "plain."

 

i missed one: who said "a sin nature worse than Hitler"?:confused:

[Tami]

Yesterday a Christian friend's husband called while I was there. He informed her that he just found out he got an unexpected LARGE check. They talked excitedly on the phone because they were excited to send the whole thing to a group of poor children that they know if in Haiti. Upon leaving I noticed a table of toys in the yard. When I asked about it, her children said that they were selling all the toys they don't absolutely need to raise money to feed and clothe the poor. I know many, many Christian folks like this in my circle who sacrifice comforts like a new car or a bigger house so that they can give more to feed and clothe the poor and homeless. I believe in general, Christians give a much higher percentage of income and do more compassion-oriented service than atheist groups, atheist individuals or other religious groups.

 

I believe that most relief organizations in the world were started by Christians, moved with compassion on the needy. Christian compassion is the logical response to those enslaved by poverty and sin, and I believe that history confirms this. We need to do better, though. I am impressed and encouraged by such groups as the junkycarclub.com and ijm.org.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Tami

[Peek a Boo]

Not true, according to the story the creator made humans without the capacity to distinguish right from wrong, so their "disobedience" had no moral component. You can't sin if you don't know right from wrong. That is basic justice.

 

not true. Even according to fallible human wisdom basic justice still issues consequences. Ignorance of the law is no defense.

 

This is unjust. You can't punish one person for the failing or transgressions of another and call it justice.

 

a plain reading of the creation story shows they were not punished because of someone else's actions, but their own.

 

eta: a plain reading of the REST of scripture shows that each person is judged for their OWN sinful actions and nature. That God knew it would be there is a whole different discussion ;)

 

I think you are missing the "moral of the story" which is morally imperfect humans equipped with the ability to know good from evil, but lacking the capacity to always conform their behavior to the good, will sometimes do "bad". And they will know they have gone wrong and will carry that burden of guilt and shame for their shortcomings. End of story.

 

I find this hilarious coming from someone who has spelled out just how much they have missed the ENTIRE "moral of the story" of Christ and God.

 

 

If some supernatural judge existed, which I seriously doubt, and if he or she was just, the only fair grounds to judge us would be on how we lived our lives, how we treated others, how we treated our shared world, and not surely not on some "get-out-of-jail-free-card" called faith.

 

---------

Sounds like a puny conceptualization of a divine being. If such a being has the capacity to save everyone and doesn't use it, what can you say about that kind of god?

--------------

 

So this God can command (or commit) genocides and it's "all good" because we are too small to understand his vast wisdom? Really???

 

The Bible, hate to break it to you, is a collection of man-written tales, many borrowed and retold from the myths of other earlier cultures. It has no divine origin or authorship. People wrote these stories, for better or worse. Imperfect people, most of whom were seeking to find "goodness" (although their ideas on that front could be quite strange).

 

There are some nice touches: "love thy neighbor". But how could one love their neighbor if they believe their neighbors (their fellow human beings), are the natural-born enemies of God? It does not compute.

 

I've been wondering where the anti-humanism of right-wing fundamentalists comes from, and I'm finally seeing this is the well-spring of that hated. There is a fundamental abhorrence for humanity in this philosophy. I find it deeply saddening.

 

Bill (who's happy to have grown up free from the influence of these dark tales)

 

The above writings do not sound like a "happy" man. At all.

 

It does sound like a man that may have missed the influence of one set of "dark tales" and embraced another set of dark tales.

 

i find that deeply saddening.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Peek a Boo

[lionfamily1999]

Someone used this verse as support of Calvinism in another thread but I'm not picking on the poster in particular, just using the verse as an example of what I find wrong with Calvinist thinking. I cannot reconcile a righteous and good Lord with one who would determine before one is born if they will be master or slave, good or evil, saved or ****ed.

 

Actually, as a universalist, I have a problem with any sort of eternal torment, even for the worst, most depraved beings. I don't think any crime is worthy of eternal punishment, let alone the crime of merely believing the wrong thing about the nature of God. To say that God has decided before some are born who will be suffering this eternal torment, compounds the problem.

Wierd, because I just read this this morning and I'm sure it pertains, but I'm having the worst time understanding Paul (imo, he reads like stereo instructions). Who knows, maybe you'll "get it" and can explain it to me (wouldn't that be ironic?).

 

Romans 9:11-21

 

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

 

ETA, that winky smily was supposed to be ; ), I'm leaving it there, but just so you know, the Bible doesn't have smilies, that was just a funny accident.

 

It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same pupose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

 

Okay, my fingers are getting tired ;) We're going to skip ahead... We're skipping over God making these "vessels of wrath" in order to show his mercy...

 

Romans 9:25

 

As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

 

 

Alright, KingM, from what I can gather from that long bit there, God DOES show his mercy to them. Their "evils" are vehicles to show his mercy and goodness. IOW, like the man blind from birth that Jesus healed. The disciples wanted to know whose sin had caused the man's blindness and his answer was something along the lines of, his blindness came from no sin, rather so he could glorify God through his healing.

 

Why do bad things happen to good people? Because they percieve them to bad, when in reality they are ways for God to move in their lives.

 

Okay, so I threw in my hat, I tried, and if you can glean more from that, maybe you can help me understand it better.

Edited August 5, 2009 by lionfamily1999

[Saille]

Yes, I can see how one might look at it that way. I suppose it can seem like that. I guess the only thing I can say is that it is God who gives you the faith to believe that the Bible is His word. He opens up your spiritual eyes and you have one of those "Aha!" moments. All of the sudden it just makes sense.

 

I don't suppose that's a satisfactory answer. I think though, that it begins with believing that the Bible is truly the Word of the Living God, Maker of the entire universe and everything in it.

 

Well, yes. This is where you and I are bound to derail, despite your willingness to take the time to explain your views (and I appreciate it, by the way). Ultimately every argument about the nature of God is reinforced with "because God says so". In this case, the Bible is the authority, but since the Bible is the word of God...well. I believe this is a type of logical fallacy called an ipse-dixit argument. I'm not saying I don't have just such arguments supporting my own faith. Of course I do. They're just put to different use. Universalism and pantheism, at least for me, resolve the issue of salvation, and address the conflicting natures of God as discussed by Mommaduck, as well as the fact that the overwhelming, soul-changing moments in my life related to the divine feminine.

 

Now, I conjecture (please correct me if I'm off base) that you would argue either that I am misunderstanding a call from the biblical God, or that my revelations are not revelations, but come from someone who is not God, which in your religious framework would leave a somewhat limited field of options. So we'll never agree, although we might choose to amicably disagree. However, we might be arrayed on opposite sides of certain public policy issues, as our beliefs inform our views, which is what SpyCar seems to be getting at. Although, for the record, I've been impressed by some folks here who have advocated for the separation of church and state even in one's own personal voting decisions.

[Peek a Boo]

What standards?

 

Even you all can't seem to agree upon that. Seems to this outsider that you have a myriad of groups and individuals all making up their own "standards" based on wildly different readings of bible tales. Each saying their standard is correct, even when they contradict the plain message of Jesus in the gospels.

 

So how does this "validate" some divine standard?

 

Bill

 

one standard we all agree on --and you dismiss-- is faith.

 

each standard varies based on a person's faith and interpretation of scripture.

Where do they "contradict the plain message of Jesus in the gospels"?

Do you mean the same Jesus that took a whip through the temple overturning tables and kicking people OUT of God's house? The same Jesus that made it clear that not everyone who calls Lord Lord will be saved? The same Jesus that ignored "basic justice" and decided to save people who clearly, knowingly broke some serious laws? Which "plain reading" are you deciding to adhere to?

[mommaduck]

So it's a threat to us all.

 

Cry me a river. Those evil Christians, what will we do? They want to be able to raise their children in peace, they want to protect the unborn, they want to provide homes for abandoned children, they start hospitals, they start schools, they start and support charities, they help their neighbours, they go out and find those that need food, shelter, and warmth and help provide those things...oh those evil, evil Christians...we should do away with the basis of their moral standards so they will quit their evil deeds.

Edited August 5, 2009 by mommaduck

[mommaduck]

Well, yes. This is where you and I are bound to derail, despite your willingness to take the time to explain your views (and I appreciate it, by the way). Ultimately every argument about the nature of God is reinforced with "because God says so". In this case, the Bible is the authority, but since the Bible is the word of God...well. I believe this is a type of logical fallacy called an ipse-dixit argument. I'm not saying I don't have just such arguments supporting my own faith. Of course I do. They're just put to different use. Universalism and pantheism, at least for me, resolve the issue of salvation, and address the conflicting natures of God as discussed by Mommaduck, as well as the fact that the overwhelming, soul-changing moments in my life related to the divine feminine.

 

Now, I conjecture (please correct me if I'm off base) that you would argue either that I am misunderstanding a call from the biblical God, or that my revelations are not revelations, but come from someone who is not God, which in your religious framework would leave a somewhat limited field of options. So we'll never agree, although we might choose to amicably disagree. However, we might be arrayed on opposite sides of certain public policy issues, as our beliefs inform our views, which is what SpyCar seems to be getting at. Although, for the record, I've been impressed by some folks here who have advocated for the separation of church and state even in one's own personal voting decisions.

 

I'm curious on the how :) With no argument, but maybe a few more questions, could you expand further?

[coralloyd]

 

Actually, as a universalist, I have a problem with any sort of eternal torment, even for the worst, most depraved beings. I don't think any crime is worthy of eternal punishment, let alone the crime of merely believing the wrong thing about the nature of God. To say that God has decided before some are born who will be suffering this eternal torment, compounds the problem.

 

 

The Bible describes hell as a horrible place because it is a place without God. Those who have not accepted God's gift of Jesus Christ, are not going to be pushed/forced into an eternity with the God they rejected. God, being loving will not make you be with Him if you don't want to. However, any place completely without the presence God will be an eternal "torment/darkness". Yes the Bible uses harsh words to describe hell, to give us a picture or feeling of what a place without a loving God is like.

 

Personaly I am glad that men like H*tler will not be in a pleasant eternity.

[Melissa in CA]

Cry me a river. Those evil Christians, what will we do? They want to be able to raise their children in peace, they want to protect the unborn, they want to provide homes for abandoned children, they start hospitals, they start schools, they start and support charities, they help their neighbours, they go out and find those that need food, shelter, and warmth and help provide those things...oh those evil, evil Christians...we should do away with the basis of their moral standards so they will quit their evil deeds.

 

:D Yes, aren't we an evil lot?

[Tami]

With all due respect, "Dark Siders" believe that they have been specially chosen, that their fellow posters are totally depraved, and that most of the people on this board will suffer and deserve to suffer eternal torment. This rubs some people the wrong way.

 

When we talk about total depravity, we mean that sin has affected every part of the human condition: spiritual, mental, physical. There is no part of my nature that is unaffected. There is nothing in me that desires light or submission to God. In fact, I prefer rebellion, and Self. There is nothing in me that is special or deserving of God's compassion, and that is why we call it grace. Why He chooses some and passes over others is a mystery, but it we believe that His judgments are good and just.

 

If you want to be 'chosen,' simply call upon the Lord Jesus, turn to Him, and away from your sin. For those who think they are too far gone, talk to Rahab or the Samaritan woman. :D God is in the business of redeeming what was lost, and He is not far from any one of us. The Scriptures are clear, "If you call on the Lord Jesus, you shall be saved." The truth as I see it is, we resist and rebel against this call, and it is a conscious decision and effort to resist. When we sin, we sin with conscious knowledge but do it anyway. This is part of the reality of depravity: sin affecting all areas of my life and experience.

[Melissa in CA]

It inspirits hateful feelings towards other people, and you see that anti-humanism and contempt for human dignity play itself out in thread after thread here on WTM.

 

And one will find Bill always in the thick of it. Stirring the pot.

[Saille]

Cry me a river. Those evil Christians, what will we do? They want to be able to raise their children in peace, they want to protect the unborn, they want to provide homes for abandoned children, they start hospitals, they start schools, they start and support charities, they help their neighbours, they go out and find those that need food, shelter, and warmth and help provide those things...oh those evil, evil Christians...we should do away with the basis of their moral standards so they will quit their evil deeds.

 

Well, OK, but to be fair, having been on the receiving end, I can attest that Christianity provides a haven for some folks who build their lives and overall sense of well-being around being right, which they prove to themselves by arraying themselves with whatever the dominant paradigm happens to be. (Read: I must be right, look at all these people here with me!) That mentality lends itself to all sorts of nastiness, political, social, religious, etc...as well as an inflated sense of being able to make the "right" decisions for all people, since it's all for the good of their souls, after all.

[Tami]

Those evil Christians, what will we do?

 

So many options are available. Behead them. Beat them. Toture them. Throw them in prison. Take away their citizenship. Throw them into an arena with wild animals. Crucify them. Spread hateful lies about them. Deny them free speech.

 

And we only multiply. :D

[Erica in PA]

And the consequences that flow from people believing that their fellow humans are depraved, including infants who bite, and filled with a sin nature worse than Hitler's are very serious.

 

It inspirits hateful feelings towards other people, and you see that anti-humanism and contempt for human dignity play itself out in thread after thread here on WTM, and it spills out into real world social policy.

 

 

 

I think one would have a very hard time supporting the idea that Christians are a great threat to the rest of the world; in fact, imo, it would be hard to find another group of people who cares *more* about the welfare of other people. Don't forget, Christians don't believe it's just other people who are sinners-- it's ourselves as well. That idea lends itself to having a great deal of compassion for others. In fact, I think it's interesting that it's mostly secular people whom I've heard say things like, "I would *never* commit xyz," while most Christians I know are more likely to say, "There but for the grace of God go I." Rather than taking pride in our own goodness, we are grateful for what God is doing in us, and pray for Him to work in the hearts of others as well.

 

You don't like what the Bible teaches about the sinfulness of man. It conflicts with your humanistic beliefs. Why not just leave it at that, rather than jumping to generalizations about Christians and the supposed threat we pose to the human race?

[Tami]

Well, OK, but to be fair, having been on the receiving end, I can attest that Christianity provides a haven for some folks who build their lives and overall sense of well-being around being right.... That mentality lends itself to all sorts of nastiness, political, social, religious, etc...

 

That is the sin nature coming out which is a struggle for us all, and when Christians do this, they err...

[mommaduck]

Well, OK, but to be fair, having been on the receiving end, I can attest that Christianity provides a haven for some folks who build their lives and overall sense of well-being around being right, which they prove to themselves by arraying themselves with whatever the dominant paradigm happens to be. (Read: I must be right, look at all these people here with me!) That mentality lends itself to all sorts of nastiness, political, social, religious, etc...as well as an inflated sense of being able to make the "right" decisions for all people, since it's all for the good of their souls, after all.

 

That is more the course of mankind, what we term as the nature of man, it's not limited to any particular faith or lack thereof ;)

[Rhondabee]

The difference is, we have not declared annihilation. Scripture does not declare annihilation. It does describe a separation from Gd and describes it as torment. If one is annihilated, then one cannot be in torment. Heavens, if annihilation is all that would happen, then why not do evil, you won't really "pay" for it, you'll just no longer exist...and some people actually find non-existence appealing.

 

sorry - double post

Edited August 5, 2009 by Rhondabee

[KingM]

So many options are available. Behead them. Beat them. Toture them. Throw them in prison. Take away their citizenship. Throw them into an arena with wild animals. Crucify them. Spread hateful lies about them. Deny them free speech.

 

 

If you're going to go back 1800 years and play the crucifixion and Coliseum cards, Spy Car is going to raise you with the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. And I think as this board shows, Christians and skeptics alike have plenty of venues to practice free speech.

[Rhondabee]

The difference is, we have not declared annihilation. Scripture does not declare annihilation. It does describe a separation from Gd and describes it as torment. If one is annihilated, then one cannot be in torment. Heavens, if annihilation is all that would happen, then why not do evil, you won't really "pay" for it, you'll just no longer exist...and some people actually find non-existence appealing.

 

I'm not sure who the "we" in your first sentence is referencing.

 

I had offered to provide scriptural references for my argument that scripture assumes (not declares) annihilation, if by annihilation you mean "the second death" of those who are not reborn. But we have online Latin today, and you don't really seem interested, so I won't bother. I realize, and I'm sure you do as well, how very difficult it is to put into imperfect words, in a single post, the things that God reveals to us personally and over many years, anyway.

 

My post to "Pamela H in Texas" truly wasn't meant to breed "quarrels and fights among" us, but to connect with someone who seems to have come to the same understanding I have.

 

Blessings!

[mommaduck]

If you're going to go back 1800 years and play the crucifixion and Coliseum cards, Spy Car is going to raise you with the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. And I think as this board shows, Christians and skeptics alike have plenty of venues to practice free speech.

 

 

I think we can all agree that the nature of man has evil as well as good. And sometimes evil under good intentions (we all know how much good intentions can sometimes mean in the greater picture of things...but hind sight is 20/20). Also, we need to be careful of the broad brush. Some Catholics participated in such and some didn't. Some Reformers participate, others didn't. Some pagans did, some didn't. Some atheists did, some didn't. Some for greed did, some for greed didn't. Some for ideals did, some for ideals didn't.

[mommaduck]

I'm not sure who the "we" in your first sentence is referencing.

 

I had offered to provide scriptural references for my argument that scripture assumes (not declares) annihilation, if by annihilation you mean "the second death" of those who are not reborn. But we have online Latin today, and you don't really seem interested, so I won't bother. I realize, and I'm sure you do as well, how very difficult it is to put into imperfect words, in a single post, the things that God reveals to us personally and over many years, anyway.

 

My post to "Pamela H in Texas" truly wasn't meant to breed "quarrels and fights among" us, but to connect with someone who seems to have come to the same understanding I have.

 

Blessings!

 

By annihilation, I mean "snuffed out of existence" (which I also clarified in the same post).

 

I don't mind if you share the verses. I never was dismissive of you. By "we" I refer to those that share the same/similar views as myself.

[Tami]

If you're going to go back 1800 years and play the crucifixion and Coliseum cards, Spy Car is going to raise you with the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. And I think as this board shows, Christians and skeptics alike have plenty of venues to practice free speech.

 

I was not directing my comments at Bill, and just throwing out a tongue-in-cheek comment. Actually, there is heavy persecution of Christians around the world today. More Christians have died for their faith in the 20th Century than at any other time. I don't recall any stories of atheists being killed for their philospophy this century, but correct me if I'm wrong. I don't believe that someone acting in Christ's name is necessarily a Christian - it is like someone stealing your identity and doing things in your name. My point is that there seems to be hostility toward Christians among many atheist groups. And I have to admit, from atheists I know IRL. I find it interesting that this rarely gets brought up, and that Christians are the ones typically described as "hateful."

 

The atheists say the country should fear fundamentalist Christians and that they are so dangerous. The most fundamentalist Christians I know of are Amish, and I gotta laugh at anyone fearing an Amish takeover. :D I find the atheist regimes around the world to be extremely oppressive. Countries that have Christian roots in the Reformation are the ones that have blossomed with human freedom today: for women and children. Take a look at the globe comparing freedoms from women/children in countries with Christian roots and countries with roots in atheistic/other religion. I'm getting off track now though....

[Saille]

I'm curious on the how :) With no argument, but maybe a few more questions, could you expand further?

 

I think this goes back to the "God is so big" argument others were bringing up earlier. I have always had the overall sense that God is on an iPhone, and we're all on tin cans. Hence the large grain of salt with which I take religious dogmatism. Pantheism called to me very strongly, and explains things such as the sometimes petty nature of the Hellenic gods and goddesses, or the harshness of the Christian god. (I suppose you could relate it to the old saw about the three men and the elephant, as well.) Taken as facets of a whole which is beyond our understanding, I do not find monotheistic religions or polytheistic ones to be in conflict with each other, or with pantheism. All are reconcilable as flashes of insight into an infinite creator. All understandings are flawed, because our capacity to understand the infinite is limited, although I believe humanity has the ability to build upon past understandings, and to live out even our flawed doctrines in ways that are beautiful and honorable, as well as in ways that do harm to others, though we may believe we are acting righteously. If you don't believe any one doctrine has it right, and doctrines of punishment and fear strike you as overly simplistic motives for doing good, it's a short hop to Universalism from there.

 

I earnestly believe that, when we are called, if the answer to "What happens if I don't respond?" is "Nothing," that's not less scary than the concept of eternal torment. Maybe it's the same thing, now that I compare that view with mine. I've never heard it described as it has been in this thread, so I've never had the chance to juxtapose the two before. The idea that, called to be something better, something more than you are, you turned away...living with that would be agonizing.

 

I lost my appetite for confession a long time ago. I didn't feel transcendence in the confessional. I didn't get that until I explored the possibility that only I could truly hold me accountable...that I was responsible for doing that, that God expected it of me. Although I do believe in divine forgiveness, and I believe I receive it before I ask (even, perhaps, before I act), I don't believe my sins can be made up for with prayers or penitence: only with deeds. (Actually, I need to ask a Lutheran about Luther's contempt for works, because I can't figure out if that's a response to the purchase of indulgances, or something more general.)

 

I believe we are responsible for compassionate stewardship of all creation...I reject dominionism in the traditional, anthropocentric sense, and I reject dogmatic and theological dominionism. I don't believe anything is truly "disposable", and find that, just as others have referenced evidence of the doctrine of humanity's depraved nature in the news, I see frequent evidence of God's requirement that we perceive our interconnectedness with all life, and therefore our responsiblility as stewards. Universal salvation, social justice, environmental stewardship: all of these things are part of that belief.

[Marylou]

And I think as this board shows, Christians and skeptics alike have plenty of venues to practice free speech.

 

Not if you're a Christian in Myanmar

 

www.persecution.com

 

ETA or China or Nigeria or Sudan or Saudia Arabia or

Edited August 5, 2009 by dmmosher

[Spy Car]

Since people seem to love to twist other peoples positions [mine included], let me make it clear that I believe that the message of Jesus in the gospels, and the Christian faith it (at least partially) inspired has brought a lot of good into the world. It's inspired kindness, compassion, and acts of charity in millions of people throughout the world.

 

My problem is with a doctrine (an unChrist-like doctrine to my mind) that people are depraved, evil and born enemies of goodness. People who believe their fellow humans are evil tend to act in accordance with that belief. And yes, that goes against my humanistic beliefs.

 

I don't for a second believe all Christians look at their brothers, sisters, and children as the spawn of evil. Obviously not. How could you love evil? And didn't Jesus tell us to love one another?

 

Those who believe everyone are evil are not limited to one faith, or non-faith. You'll find atheistic Objectivists, Fascists, Communists, Satanists, racial supremacists, and many other flavors of human-haters embracing anti-humanism. And most Christians do not.

 

And I'm impressed by the kindness and acts of good will that flow from peoples faith.

 

Bill

[schsmom]

Someone used this verse as support of Calvinism in another thread but I'm not picking on the poster in particular, just using the verse as an example of what I find wrong with Calvinist thinking. I cannot reconcile a righteous and good Lord with one who would determine before one is born if they will be master or slave, good or evil, saved or ****ed.

 

Actually, as a universalist, I have a problem with any sort of eternal torment, even for the worst, most depraved beings. I don't think any crime is worthy of eternal punishment, let alone the crime of merely believing the wrong thing about the nature of God. To say that God has decided before some are born who will be suffering this eternal torment, compounds the problem.

 

:iagree:

[KingM]

Who knows, maybe you'll "get it" and can explain it to me (wouldn't that be ironic?).

 

Now, I don't take everything literally in the Bible, so you have to read my thoughts in this light. A lot of the Bible, IMO, is the human mind attempting to understand and explain the divine. Paul might have been struggling with some of these same issues as he composed this letter.

 

Romans 9:11-21

 

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

 

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same pupose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Thomas Aquinas famously used these verses to support predestination, which informed a good deal of Calvinist/Reformed thinking as we see in this thread.

 

However, if you'll read both earlier and later in Romans 9, Paul is using these verses as part of an explanation to explain how the Jews--the Chosen People--seem to have been supplanted by Gentiles.

 

30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith;

 

31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.

 

32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone."

 

It seems unfair that the Jews were cast aside so that the Gentiles could then be saved. But look at Romans 10, then into Romans 11 and we start to see Pauline universalism worked into his argument.

 

11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.

12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!

 

But earlier Paul said that Jews were now objects of God's wrath and now they are promised ever greater riches at their return? Wrath is not, it would seem, a permanent condition. This, combined with the fall of Israel from Chosen People, sets up his final point.

 

25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.

27 And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins."

 

Again, ALL Israel.

 

And finally, what to me punctures the dismal, Calvinist reading:

 

29 for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.

30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience,

31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you.

32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

 

And that is the heart of universalism. All men, mercy on all.

 

I'm sorry I don't have time at the moment to delve into your other thoughts, although they, too, raise an interesting discussion.

[Marylou]

People who believe their fellow humans are evil tend to act in accordance with that belief. And yes, that goes against my humanistic beliefs.

 

Bill

 

Umm . . . do you lock your doors at night? Do you let your kids wander in the mall by themselves? Do you ever count your change at the store?

 

What ACTS are you talking about?

[Melissa in CA]

My problem is with a doctrine (an unChrist-like doctrine to my mind) that people are depraved, evil and born enemies of goodness.

 

You believe the doctrine to be unChrist-like, yet scripture clearly teaches it. There are many scriptures that back it up (hopefully someone else will insert them because I do not have time today). If you cannot believe the whole bible, then how do you decide what is true and what is not? Through your own limited human intellect?

 

I believe in the doctrine of depravity because the bible teaches it. Clearly. I look around me and also see it is so. You are free to believe otherwise, and I do not condemn you for that as we are all struggling to work out what we believe and why we believe it, but your opinions do not hold a candle to the authority of Scripture. They are just...your opinions. ;) Back them up with in-context Biblical Scriptures, and you'll have my attention. :D

[Shelly in the Country]

I believe in the doctrine of depravity because the bible teaches it. Clearly. I look around me and also see it is so. You are free to believe otherwise, and I do not condemn you for that as we are all struggling to work out what we believe and why we believe it, but your opinions do not hold a candle to the authority of Scripture. They are just...your opinions. ;) Back them up with in-context Biblical Scriptures, and you'll have my attention. :D

 

:iagree:

 

Also, I have only skimmed this thread this morning (gosh, it grew overnight!) so I don't know if this has been pointed out yet. Total Depravity does not mean that we Christians stand pointing our fingers at non-Christians calling them "depraved". We are depraved, too. We believe everyone is totally depraved and that is why we ALL need Christ as our Savior. This is not some kind of weird judgmentalism. Also, depravity is not calculated with respect to our human standards, but against the perfection of a Holy God. I hope I made sense there....Gotta get lunch together. :001_smile:

[SusanAR]

These debates go nowhere-but for what it's worth....

Someone stated that Romans chapter 1 was critical chapter for them , well i see it as proving the other POV. It says that they "exchanged" the truth of God for a lie. How can you exchange something you never had?

 

 

What about:

 

2 Peter 3:9

The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance

NKJV

 

PLus, I don't get the analogy of God standing at the door stopping this one and that. I think He is standing at the door stopping all. Proverbs 1:20 says that

 

Wisdom calls aloud outside;

She raises her voice in the open squares.

 

Isn't He calling everyone??? I see it as it was in the Garden of Eden. Just as they could choose, so can we.

 

Each side has scores of verses to back their POV- but in the end I hope we all live as unto HIm:001_smile:

[Saille]

That is more the course of mankind, what we term as the nature of man, it's not limited to any particular faith or lack thereof ;)

 

While I agree with you and Tami, in America today, Christianity has the numbers on its side. If I saw evidence of Christian folk doing some watchdogging on that front, I'd be reassured.

[mommaduck]

While I agree with you and Tami, in America today, Christianity has the numbers on its side. If I saw evidence of Christian folk doing some watchdogging on that front, I'd be reassured.

 

:confused: Not certain what you mean? I'm not seeing any practicing Christians going out of their way to kill others.

[lionfamily1999]

Now, I don't take everything literally in the Bible, so you have to read my thoughts in this light. A lot of the Bible, IMO, is the human mind attempting to understand and explain the divine. Paul might have been struggling with some of these same issues as he composed this letter.

 

Thomas Aquinas famously used these verses to support predestination, which informed a good deal of Calvinist/Reformed thinking as we see in this thread.

 

However, if you'll read both earlier and later in Romans 9, Paul is using these verses as part of an explanation to explain how the Jews--the Chosen People--seem to have been supplanted by Gentiles.

 

30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith;

 

31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.

 

32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone."

 

It seems unfair that the Jews were cast aside so that the Gentiles could then be saved. But look at Romans 10, then into Romans 11 and we start to see Pauline universalism worked into his argument.

 

11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.

12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!

 

But earlier Paul said that Jews were now objects of God's wrath and now they are promised ever greater riches at their return? Wrath is not, it would seem, a permanent condition. This, combined with the fall of Israel from Chosen People, sets up his final point.

 

25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.

27 And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins."

 

Again, ALL Israel.

 

And finally, what to me punctures the dismal, Calvinist reading:

 

 

29 for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.

30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience,

31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you.

32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

 

And that is the heart of universalism. All men, mercy on all.

 

I'm sorry I don't have time at the moment to delve into your other thoughts, although they, too, raise an interesting discussion.

First, I'm not sure of the Calvinist doctrine. I was intrigued by your question and even if I'm ot, because I'm not Calvinist, I still want to answer, because this whole coversation is very intellectually stimulating for me.

 

I'm muddling my way through the New Testament now. I did read those and I see that he is trying to explain the dynamic between those of the law (Jews) and those outside of the law (Gentiles). It all seems to start when the one wants the other to get circumcised (ouch).

 

What I wanted to point out, though, is that Paul talks about exactly what you had asked, or that is how I see what he said. Ever since I read about the blind man (no sin, but so God could be glorified), and then Jesus excusing Judas from the table (again, so God could be glorified), I've wondered how these actions could be "evil" or "wrong" when they ultimately end up for the good.

 

Listening to "The Great Books" on Saint Augustine of Hippo's Confessions, I realized that it really does depend on your point of view. Now, we move from strictly Christian into a more philosophical realm (or physical), what is reality, right? Reality is how you see what is going on around, reality is based in your perspective. Augustine thought we could remove ourselves from the equation and see things from a cleaner point of view, but I disagree. I think we are bound to see things from our own point of view and while we can try to remove emotional input, it's still there. Spiritual as well.

 

That being the case, trying to understand why some would be chosen by God to do wrong is nearly impossible, because our emotions and spirits cry out, what if that's me???? What if I was chosen to fail? That is not fair! What Paul was trying to say, or so I think, is that no one fails completely, that even the bad things that are done create an opening wherein God's glory can be manifest, which would make those bad things good, because they're the vehicle for good. Well, if you only see it from the point of view of that was bad, while ignoring the good of it, then that's all you get, if you know what I mean.

 

I lost my house. That stunk. Now, my house is stronger and my family is stronger for it. That's good. So, losing my house was a good thing, because ultimately the rewards were greater than the loss.

 

Throughout what I've read so far there are examples of how things will be lost or cut off or cast away, not so that one will feel the loss, but to make room to bigger and better things.

 

IOW, whether or not Cain was screwed from the get go is a matter of perspective. Since I am focusing on the New Testament, I'm pretty shaking on the OT, so I don't know how his life ultimately turned out, but I seem to remember he found other people. If you could ask Cain, would you take it all back, I don't know that he would say yes. I only say that, because it is my experience that any mistake we make any place we falter, greater things can happen because of that. That's not to say he doesn't repent the murder of his brother, but that it's difficult to say, I would give up my life today (my dh, my dcs) to have not done that yesterday.

 

I think God chose everyone and it's up to us to return the favor.

[Saille]

:confused: Not certain what you mean? I'm not seeing any practicing Christians going out of their way to kill others.

 

But that's not the type of behavior I made reference to upthread, which is what I'm discussing.

[mommaduck]

But that's not the type of behavior I made reference to upthread, which is what I'm discussing.

 

I guess you've lost me. What do you want us "watchdogging"?

[OHGrandma]

Someone used this verse as support of Calvinism in another thread but I'm not picking on the poster in particular, just using the verse as an example of what I find wrong with Calvinist thinking. I cannot reconcile a righteous and good Lord with one who would determine before one is born if they will be master or slave, good or evil, saved or ****ed.

 

Actually, as a universalist, I have a problem with any sort of eternal torment, even for the worst, most depraved beings. I don't think any crime is worthy of eternal punishment, let alone the crime of merely believing the wrong thing about the nature of God. To say that God has decided before some are born who will be suffering this eternal torment, compounds the problem.

 

I'm coming into this thread late(only 20 hours and there are already double digit pages of answers!), but wanted to make a short comment.

 

Since God knows the future he was just saying what would come of Jacob & Esau. Did each have their own choices to make? Yes, but God knew what choices they would make.

[PineFarmMom]

My problem is with a doctrine (an unChrist-like doctrine to my mind) that people are depraved, evil and born enemies of goodness. People who believe their fellow humans are evil tend to act in accordance with that belief. And yes, that goes against my humanistic beliefs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus Himself, in all His perfection, knew the truth about mankind. John 2:24-25:

 

24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. 25 He did not need man's testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man.

 

That didn't mean He didn't LOVE man but He was fully aware, more aware than any one of us will ever be, of the sinfulness of man. To me, a mere study in history of the 20th century has firmed up again the depravity of man. It has been one train wreck after the other, and people left to themselves...leaders left with no one to keep checks & balances lead to death and destruction. I think NOT seeing the truth of mankind is what leads people to follow the Hitlers and the Stallins of this world. It never equates itself, for me, to hating other people because I think they're depraved (1 Cor. 13 would stand against that), but to realize the truth about us and the goodness of God. If anything, it is humbling because it's talking about me too!! Paul spoke about it when he basically said the bad things he did he didn't want to do, and he didn't do the good that he wanted to do. That's me!! I have done some really nice things for people, but I've also done some rotten things in my life. The Tower of Babel is a picture, to me, of humanism...people wanting to raise themselves above God and having a higher estimation of themselves than they ought. God is just trying to adjust our vision to see the truth about Him, about ourselves, and about mankind. God is the measuring tape for goodness...and not one of us come anywhere close.