As we all know, Arminians are made of sugar and spice and everything nice. That’s cuz Arminians worship a nice God, and you are what you worship.
By contrast, Calvinists are mean cuz they worship a mean God. That’s why Calvinists say mean things about their opponents.
In case you doubt me, you only need to compare the mean things that a Calvinist will say about his opponents with the kind and gentle discourse of the loving Arminian. Case in point:
Robert said...
For the Nazis it was the Jewish race that needed to be eliminated by any means at their disposal. For the KKK it was the blacks. I find these groups and their actions to be morally reprehensible and showing the most ugly aspects of what humans are capable of.
And yet if the calvinists are correct about God and the “reprobates”, then God is the ultimate racist.
He decides beforehand that certain individuals will be part of the class of reprobates. He then hates everyone in this class regardless of what they do or what kind of person they are. He just hates them because they are reprobates (and he decided they would be in the reprobate class, the class of those “automatically damned”). And the calvinists just can’t understand why non-Calvinists find their system to be so morally objectionable. That is like the Grand Dragon or Imperial Wizard not understanding why non-racists find their beliefs and practices to be morally objectionable. The parallels between racists like the KKK and the Nazis and the God of calvinism who reprobates most of the human race for his pleasure are chilling.
And my intuition that racism is wrong does not conflict with scripture but is supported by scripture. And your system of theology which makes God into the worst racist in existence is contrary to both my intuition and the scripture. So both our intuitions and scripture are against the racist Calvinistic theology. The theology that makes God a racist against the reprobates. With the non-reprobates then wearing the white sheets and justifying and rationalizing their hatred. And like the KKK the calvinists have the gall to use scripture to justify and rationalize their hatred.
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2009/09/thought-experiment-for-calvinists.html#c3692049293974623529
Calvinists are to the Gestapo as their God is to the Führer.
How’s that for charity?
"He just hates them because they are reprobates (and he decided they would be in the reprobate class, the class of those “automatically damned”).
ReplyDeleteUnless we are willing to take God as exaggerating, then "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated" means nothing. And there is the great flaw in the Arminian's doctrine--a false dichotomy between those that are "automatically damned" and those that are "maybe damned," or something.
The truth is, we, that is, all of us, are "automatically damned" because of our sin. It is only by the grace of God that any of us is saved. Even the elect, before God the Holy Spirit regenerates their hearts, are just as lost as the reprobate. It is His promise to save the elect that we cling to.
I remember, before having been brought into the light of God's salvation, that I would read passages from the Scriptures that talked about both the righteous and the wicked. Oddly enough, I never would even think of associating myself with the term "wicked" before God, in His time, showed me my true nature. Before that, when I saw the word "righteous," I always thought that I fit right in with that group. I wonder how many others have seen it that way before becoming a true disciple of Christ?
We should wonder more why any of us is saved than why any of us is lost.
By the way, I find comparisons between the Holy God of the Scriptures and Nazis and Klanners to be morally reprehensible. It doesn't get much lower in terms of religious discourse, in my view.
ReplyDeleteI have never, and I do mean never seen a comparable statement made by a Calvinist regarding the God of Arminian theology, no matter how much error we may think is involved in their doctrine.
If one is going to keep his own counsel of what "God is Love" means without contextual reference to the ways in which God has revealed Himself in His Word, his counsel is sinful and should be ignored.
What does the Arminian do with the story of Lot's wife? Did she really deserve to be turned into an animal's salt lick for merely looking back?
What about Aaron's boys Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10? Weren't they just trying to be innovative for the LORD with their seeker-friendly worship style? Did they really deserve to be toasted for their transgression?
And how about Uzzah's death at God's hand for touching the ark? Wasn't he just trying to help out by steadying it? Was it really necessary to kill him? The Scriptures clearly state that God was angry with him for his error.
So we answer the questions in each case with:
1) yes
2) yes
and
3) yes
because God is God and He does as He sees fit, and everything He does is necessary, good, right, holy and just. It may not seem "loving" to us, but the Scriptures set those definitions, not we ourselves apart from His revealed Word.
By the Arminian's non-biblical definitions, none of these events could possibly come from the hand of the "God is Love" God.
Would the Tribloguers comment on Peter Kreeft's article "Freewill and Predestination" (http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/freewill-predestination.htm)? I would appreciate your response.
ReplyDeleteRobert must be talking about My God:::>
ReplyDeletePsa 135:5 For I know that the LORD is great, and that our Lord is above all gods.
Psa 135:6 Whatever the LORD pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.
Psa 135:7 He it is who makes the clouds rise at the end of the earth, who makes lightnings for the rain and brings forth the wind from his storehouses.
Psa 135:8 He it was who struck down the firstborn of Egypt, both of man and of beast;
Psa 135:9 who in your midst, O Egypt, sent signs and wonders against Pharaoh and all his servants;
Psa 135:10 who struck down many nations and killed mighty kings,
Psa 135:11 Sihon, king of the Amorites, and Og, king of Bashan, and all the kingdoms of Canaan,
Psa 135:12 and gave their land as a heritage, a heritage to his people Israel.
Psa 135:13 Your name, O LORD, endures forever, your renown, O LORD, throughout all ages.
Psa 135:14 For the LORD will vindicate his people and have compassion on his servants.
From where I sit, He is not nice to the naughty!
But, hey, He loves and disciplines His Own, vindicating His People and He shows compassion on His Servants!
Don't want to serve the Lord, now do ya?
Not really related to the topic, but I recently came across a very interesting article - "The Devil’s Lying Wonders" from Sophia:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.springerlink.com/content/8793g7578227700w/
I was wondering: Could someone comment on it?
Pilgrim said: "I have never, and I do mean never seen a comparable statement made by a Calvinist regarding the God of Arminian theology, no matter how much error we may think is involved in their doctrine."
ReplyDelete**** Are you kidding? How about this post made on this very blog:
"Why the Arminian God Is Not Just a Pansy but Is Also Just Plain Stupid"
(http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-arminian-god-is-not-just-pansy-but.html)
That doesn't justify Arminians insulting the God of Calvinistic theology. But you might need to open your eyes to how many Calvinists behave on the internet.
"Why the Arminian God Is Not Just a Pansy but Is Also Just Plain Stupid"
ReplyDeleteI am not obligated to agree with that kind of language and approach, nor would I adopt it as my own. But it is not, repeat, NOT comparable to God being called "Hitler" or "Der Fuhrer," and his (Calvinist) disciples being called "Nazis" and "fascists."
In one comparison, God is said to be stupid. In the other, He is accused of mass murder. Do you see the difference? Both are wrong, in my view, but one is way over the line. Can you see it?
Perhaps these comparisons are the same in your undifferentiated world--not in mine.
My statement stands. I have never seen anything akin to it.
Pilgrimsarbour,
ReplyDeleteI agree that it would be wrong to flatly call the Calvinistic conception of God Hitler, but I don't think it is wrong to point out that Calvinism seems to logically lead to such conclusions and that this is a reason why Calvinism should be rejected. If the Calvinistic conception of God's dealings with people resembles in some way the way that Hitler dealt with people, or if the Calvinistic conception of election resembles (on some points and to some extent) racialism that we would normally view as immoral, then I don't see a problem with that being pointed out.
However, I do think it is wrong to flatly call an opposing conception of God Hitler, or stupid, or a failure, or a pansy, etc. On that count both Arminians and Calvinists need to be very careful. But mostly, when people make such references they are just speaking of what seems to them to be logical implications of each other's theology.
God Bless,
Ben
Pilgrim said: ""Why the Arminian God Is Not Just a Pansy but Is Also Just Plain Stupid"
ReplyDeleteI am not obligated to agree with that kind of language and approach, nor would I adopt it as my own. But it is not, repeat, NOT comparable to God being called "Hitler" or "Der Fuhrer," and his (Calvinist) disciples being called "Nazis" and "fascists."
In one comparison, God is said to be stupid. In the other, He is accused of mass murder. Do you see the difference? Both are wrong, in my view, but one is way over the line. Can you see it?
Perhaps these comparisons are the same in your undifferentiated world--not in mine.
My statement stands. I have never seen anything akin to it."
**** I completely agree with Ben. Let me add that the comments quoted in the OP did not call God Hitler nor call Calvinist Nazis or fascists. I believe it stated that Calvinist theology, which the auhtor rejects, makes God like Hitler and makes God racist. There's a big difference between saying the Calvinist God is x vs. saying Calvinistic theology makes God out to be x. But the Triablogue post I cited calls the Arminian God, who is the same God as the Calvinist God(!), a stupid pansy. That is blasphemy of the highest order.
So I find it incredible that you would not regard calling God a stupid pansy as being way over the line. It's over the line but not that bad? Man, it is way way way over the line.
Now if Pike had written that he believes that Arminian theology makes God a stupid pansy, that would be one thing. But to say that the Arminian God is a stupid pansy is outrageous. Now maybe what Pike meant was that the logical implicatins of Arminian theology are this. If so, he should state that rather than outright calling "the Arminian God " such insults.
BTW, if the author quoted in the OP calls "the Calvinist God" Hitler or any other sort of insulting name anywhere, I wuld say that would be wrong as well. Calvinists and Arminians worship the same God and share the same basic gospel. So we should fully honor our Heavenly Father even while pointing out what we think are the horrendous logical implications of the other's theology.
ARMINIAN SAID:
ReplyDelete”I completely agree with Ben.”
Birds of a feather…
“Let me add that the comments quoted in the OP did not call God Hitler nor call Calvinist Nazis or fascists. I believe it stated that Calvinist theology, which the auhtor rejects, makes God like Hitler and makes God racist. There's a big difference between saying the Calvinist God is x vs. saying Calvinistic theology makes God out to be x.”
Explain the “big difference.”
Suppose I said Roger Olsen is like Josef Mengele.
Suppose Roger Olsen rankled at that comparison.
Suppose I responded by saying, “Hey, Rog. I didn’t say you *were* Josef Mengele. I only said you were *like* Josef Mengele. There’s a big difference, ya know!”
Robert is saying the God of Calvinism has the same moral character as Nazis and Klansmen. And he says the same thing about Calvinists. Where’s the “big difference”?
In addition, you say you “completely agree” with Ben. Well, Ben said “I agree that it would be wrong to flatly call the Calvinistic conception of God Hitler, but I don't think it is wrong to point out that Calvinism seems to logically lead to such conclusions.”
Well, if you agree with Ben that it logically leads to Hitlerian conclusions, then what’s the “big difference”?
“Calvinists and Arminians worship the same God?”
We worship the same Hitlerian God?
ARMINIANPERSPECTIVES SAID:
”If the Calvinistic conception of God's dealings with people resembles in some way the way that Hitler dealt with people, or if the Calvinistic conception of election resembles (on some points and to some extent) racialism that we would normally view as immoral, then I don't see a problem with that being pointed out.”
Does this mean your defending Robert’s statements? Yes or no?
“But mostly, when people make such references they are just speaking of what seems to them to be logical implications of each other's theology.”
Even if that were true, it doesn’t let Robert off the hook. He’s repeatedly lectured Tbloggers about how Christians should be civil and charitable in how they address believers and unbelievers alike. His rhetoric about Nazis and Klansmen stands in blatant contradiction to that oft-repeated claim.
Sorry to be late to the party.
ReplyDeleteWhat Steve has said is essentially the way in which I would have responded earlier if I had been able to get online.
I can see where such a caricature of Calvinism as presented by the opposing viewpoint here might lead to some outlandish inferences. But since that caricature in no way represents what Calvinism truly is, any and all inferences which flow from it are meaningless.
I see a moral equivalence here, reflective of our secular culture, which is used to justify the most outrageous statements imaginable. Furthermore, I suspect that additional discourse on this matter would also be meaningless, so I'll bow out at this time.
As I said previously, the use of such language would not be my approach to discourse. I suspect, though, a disavowal by the other camp is not forthcoming.
I stand by my original statement.
Steve said: "Explain the “big difference.”
ReplyDeleteSuppose I said Roger Olsen is like Josef Mengele.
Suppose Roger Olsen rankled at that comparison.
Suppose I responded by saying, “Hey, Rog. I didn’t say you *were* Josef Mengele. I only said you were *like* Josef Mengele. There’s a big difference, ya know!” "
**** The big difference seems easy to grasp. One says that another's conception of a person logically implies the person to be like x, whereas the other asserts the person to be x. Your example doesn't fit the situation. It is more like this:
You say that Roger Olson, author of *Arminian Theology*, unconditionally picks people to torture and kill, but he is a good guy. He has good reasons for acting this way.
I say, I don't believe that Roger Olson does that. If he did, that would make him an evil serial killer. The logical implication of your view of how Roger acts makes him out to be an evil serial killer. But I believe that Roger Olson is a good guy who loves all people and is kind to others.
In this example, we are talking about the same person, but advancing very different views of how he acts as well as different opinions about the logical implication of how he acts. If Roger were to hear of our opposing views,
Steve said: "Robert is saying the God of Calvinism has the same moral character as Nazis and Klansmen. And he says the same thing about Calvinists. Where’s the “big difference”?"
**** Well ,he should not say that the God of Calvinism does, but that the Calvinist conception of God makes him out to have such character. And he should not say that Calvinists have the same moral character as Nazis and clansmen, though he might want to point out that such a conception of God has led some (a minority) Calvinists to such character in his opinion. But I don't think he should characterize Calvinists that way in general. The truth is quite the opposite.
Steve said: In addition, you say you “completely agree” with Ben. Well, Ben said “I agree that it would be wrong to flatly call the Calvinistic conception of God Hitler, but I don't think it is wrong to point out that Calvinism seems to logically lead to such conclusions.”
Well, if you agree with Ben that it logically leads to Hitlerian conclusions, then what’s the “big difference”?
**** The big difference is that we contend that God does not act that way and does not have that charcater. We are saying that the Calvinist conception of God leads to such conclusions, but that the Calvinist does not believe such conclusions. They are inconsistent wit htheir theology. Calvinists and Arminians both believe that God is good and wonderful. Armminians point out that some other major Cavlinist beliefs don't gel with this, but are happy that Calvinists nevertheless inconsistenttly hold that God is good. Calvinists contend that Arminians are inconsistent with other important things they claim to believe about God. But we both worship the same God, the God of the Bible.
I said: “Calvinists and Arminians worship the same God?”
Steve said: "We worship the same Hitlerian God?"
**** We don't believe God is Hitlerian. You don't believe God is Hitlerian. Our point would be that your conception of God implies him to be Hitlerian (worse really) in our opinion, though we happily see that you inconcsistently don't think he is Hitlerian.
Now do you think we worship the same God? Are you now a hyper-Calvinist who thinks Arminians are not saved? Do you agree with Pike that the Arminian God is a stupid pansy? If so, do you think Calvinists and Arminians all worship the same stupid pansy? It is sounding like you don't think Calvinists and Arminians worship the same God.
Pilgrim said: "I can see where such a caricature of Calvinism as presented by the opposing viewpoint here might lead to some outlandish inferences. But since that caricature in no way represents what Calvinism truly is, any and all inferences which flow from it are meaningless."
ReplyDelete**** This seems to undo your whole argument. You might think it a caricature, but if Robert or Arminians believe that to be what Calvinism teaches, then by your own admission their conclusion is reasonable. It would seem that if you were inclined to respond to the view,then you would want to show how the depiction is a caricature. Your comments really seem to beg the question.
Ben said: “But mostly, when people make such references they are just speaking of what seems to them to be logical implications of each other's theology.”
ReplyDeleteSteve said: "Even if that were true, it doesn’t let Robert off the hook. He’s repeatedly lectured Tbloggers about how Christians should be civil and charitable in how they address believers and unbelievers alike. His rhetoric about Nazis and Klansmen stands in blatant contradiction to that oft-repeated claim."
**** But it is not uncivil or unloving to point out what you think are the logical implications of someone else's doctrine. Are you saying that is uncivil or unloving? Now it may be that Robert has gone over the line by going beyond that. Is that what you are saying? Or do you think the mere drawing out of what one thinks to be the objectionable logical implications of doctrine is itself uncivil or unloving? That would be strange IMO.
But it is not uncivil or unloving to point out what you think are the logical implications of someone else's doctrine.
ReplyDeleteAh, there's the rub! "...what you think..." Your crass caricature of what you think Calvinism is is despicable. You make an assertion, the straw man makes his appearance, and then you create "logical implications" from that.
I won't buy it.
My advice is to first try to understand in an objective way what Reformed theology is. When you've done some serious research on the subject and can break out of your groupthink, then perhaps we can talk.
In the meantime, you seem unwilling to completely disavow Robert's crude language and unloving spirit. Here's an idea--try to think for yourself.
**** This seems to undo your whole argument. You might think it a caricature, but if Robert or Arminians believe that to be what Calvinism teaches, then by your own admission their conclusion is reasonable. It would seem that if you were inclined to respond to the view,then you would want to show how the depiction is a caricature. Your comments really seem to beg the question.
ReplyDeleteRubbish! Nice try. I never said their conclusion was "reasonable," merely that I understood their mistaken train of thought.
But their ongoing and deliberate misrepresentation of what Reformed theology really is condemns them more because they continue to make slanderous comments and multiple errors in spite of the fact that we have pointed out these errors with various correctives. They are either ignorant or deliberately making false statements. Which do you think it is?
No, there's no begging the question. If they are ignorant, then some studying will remedy that. However, if they truly understand Reformed doctrine, they are all the worse for speaking deliberate falsehoods. In either case they should stop talking until they learn something. And for the life of me I can't understand why you insist on rushing to their defence, unless your knowledge of Reformed theology is similar to theirs. In that case, I can't see how our discussion can progress on any level.
Pilgrim said: "Ah, there's the rub! "...what you think..." Your crass caricature of what you think Calvinism is is despicable. You make an assertion, the straw man makes his appearance, and then you create "logical implications" from that."
ReplyDelete**** One can only go with what what thinks or knows. That's why you could help correct that by showing how what we think is a strawman. But here's the thing: many Arminians know quite alot about Calvinism. Some used to be Calvinists. It could be, and I would argue actually is, that Arminians have understood Calvinism perfectly well, but assess its implications differently. The things some Calvinists say about the Arminianism are deplorable, like Pike's post on this blog saying tha the Arminian God (not just what our conception of God logically implies) is a stupid pansy. My point is that we should be able to say what we think each other's piosition logically implies against what we actually believe, and agree to disagree as brothers. There should be no place for saying "the Calvinist God is Hitler" or "the Arminian God is a stupid pansy".
You say to do some serious research on the subject. Many of us have. This basic issue has been a conflict between Calvinists and Arminians from the beginning. Arminianism charges that Calvinism makes God the author of evil. Traditionally, Calvinists have denied that. But there have been some Calvinists that concede it. Perhaps if you did some more research you would see it is not simply misunderstanding Calvinism, but disagreeing with it. That should be fine. But we shuld all remember we worship the same God and speak accordingly without having to forego pointing out what we believe the logical implications of one another's doctrine to be.
Someone argued previously, I think maybe here, that Armnianism is the default position of the new Christian. I think that is true. The doctrines of grace are not immediately apparent to young believers usually. It is certainly true in my case. I have been a believer for over thirty years, but a Reformed believer for only the last 16 or so.
ReplyDeleteI am not a stranger to Arminianism. I'm very familiar with that mode of thought. It is typical of the natural man, so it requires little change in thinking at the time of conversion.
On the other hand, those who say they were "Calvinist" for years before "becoming" Arminian would, I think, admit to having been brought up in a Reformed church, having never really given the issues a great deal of thought until some crisis moment later in life.
I spoke with a Catholic once who said that he was a member of a Reformed Presbyterian church for many years before becoming Catholic. He told me that he never believed in sola Scriptura. In what sense, then, was he ever Protestant? I would ask the same here: in what sense is someone "Calvinist" who never really embraced it? In name only.
But the issue here is modes of discourse. I'm all for speaking about the logical implications of one's theology. But what you call "logical implications" are in fact contiguous inferences from a series of flawed facts. I will never agree that the logical implications or inferences of Calvinism lead us to Hitler.
Never.
Pilgrim said: "Ah, there's the rub! "...what you think..." Your crass caricature of what you think Calvinism is is despicable. You make an assertion, the straw man makes his appearance, and then you create "logical implications" from that.
ReplyDeleteI won't buy it.
My advice is to first try to understand in an objective way what Reformed theology is. When you've done some serious research on the subject and can break out of your groupthink, then perhaps we can talk.
In the meantime, you seem unwilling to completely disavow Robert's crude language and unloving spirit. Here's an idea--try to think for yourself.
"
**** You do seem to be begging the question. You simply assume that Arminians are wrong about what Calvinism teaches. If so, show hwo they are wrong. Many Calvinists say all sorts of things about Arminianism that are strawmen, such as we don't believe in God's sovereignty etc. etc. But with some things, they do accurately know what we believe, e.g., Jesus died for all people. If they think that belief combined with other Arminian beliefs makes God a failure and is therefore worng, they are entitled to point that out. We see it differently. But that is different than saying calling God a failure. So yuo shiould consider the fact that many Arminains do really understand Calvinism perfectly well, yet conclude that it is wrong and logically implies horrendous things about God. I can accept that some Calvinists understand Arminianism and simply reason that it implies unbiblical things, even horrendous things. You seem to equate Calvinism wit hthe truth so much that if anyone dsiagrees with it and points out what they think are terrible imlications of Calvimism, then they don't really understand it. But I think the fact is many d ounderstand it, but reason diffeeently than you. I would say more biblically than you, and I can accept that you would say Calvinists reason more bibilcally than us about it. But in all of this it is important to remember that we have the same God and be careful not to attack the God of Calvinism or the God of Arminianism, for we share have the same God. We differ about some important things that we think he does.
You say I "seem unwilling to completely disavow Robert's crude language and unloving spirit". But I have said that if he speaks such and such, then that would be wrong.
E.g., Steve said: "Robert is saying the God of Calvinism has the same moral character as Nazis and Klansmen. And he says the same thing about Calvinists. Where’s the “big difference”?"
And I said: "Well, he should not say that the God of Calvinism does, but that the Calvinist conception of God makes him out to have such character. And he should not say that Calvinists have the same moral character as Nazis and clansmen, though he might want to point out that such a conception of God has led some (a minority) Calvinists to such character in his opinion. But I don't think he should characterize Calvinists that way in general. The truth is quite the opposite."
Pilgrim said: "But what you call "logical implications" are in fact contiguous inferences from a series of flawed facts. I will never agree that the logical implications or inferences of Calvinism lead us to Hitler.
ReplyDeleteNever."
**** Oh I understand that. And that is ok on a certain level. But I think you should recognize that Arminians who think that is where the logical implications of Calvinism lead are not necessarily being unloving or uncivil in pointing it out.