“Does it bother Calvinists at all that reprobates are, according to their theology, a mere means and not an end in themselves?”
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2009/09/calvinism-and-immanuel-kant.html
Isn’t that exactly how God used Pharaoh? And Judas? And Herod? And Caiaphas?
If it doesn’t bother God, why should I be bothered?
“Does it bother Calvinists at all that reprobates are, according to their theology, a mere means and not an end in themselves?”
ReplyDeleteThis question, posed by Arminians, is most relevant to the Reformed doctrines of predestination and election. The thought process underlying this question informs all Arminian theology. They are loath (understandably) to attribute any sense of "unfairness" to God; hence, the inappropriate over- emphasis on the "Love of God" to the exclusion of all His other attributes.
I would suggest that "fairness" is a human concept (or rather a Divine gift) which is a necessary accommodation to failed and flawed human beings. Its purpose is to aid them, particularly those who are the constituted authorities, in the necessary judicial processes required to be exercised by them toward their fellow men.
God is perfectly just and righteousness. He does not need to be "fair" with people in the same sense that we need to be. He is the Potter, we are the clay. I think it is both inaccurate and inappropriate to speak of God as being either fair or unfair.
Should have been:
ReplyDeleteGod is perfectly just and righteous.
Oh I don't know, maybe some of us are foolishly thinking that God should, you know, actually love everyone he creates.
ReplyDeleteSilly, I know, since a causally determinative God can't possibly be omni-benevolent which is why we get the wonderfully biblical doctrine of reprobation from.
Who cares about love anyway? Let's get back to the more exciting study of God's wrath since that preaches better and helps us scare people straight.
I suspected there would be no meaningful biblical interaction on this thread since the issue is one of deep emotion for Arminians, as I have suggested in my previous comment above. Emotional sarcasm is typically all that can be mustered to support their views that they themselves are ultimately in charge of whether they become saved or not.
ReplyDeleteMy point has been vindicated and now firmly established.
"Oh I don't know, maybe some of us are foolishly thinking that God should, you know, actually love everyone he creates.
ReplyDeleteSilly, I know, since a causally determinative God can't possibly be omni-benevolent which is why we get the wonderfully biblical doctrine of reprobation from.
Who cares about love anyway? Let's get back to the more exciting study of God's wrath since that preaches better and helps us scare people straight"
That's some fascinating exegesis you have there.
The calvinist doctrine of reprobation isn't biblical indeed. That notion must rather be based on some fascinating exegesis.
ReplyDelete-a helmet
I suppose it would look that way when you close your eyes and ignore all the evidence to the contrary.
ReplyDeleteWES WIDNER SAID:
ReplyDelete"Oh I don't know, maybe some of us are foolishly thinking that God should, you know, actually love everyone he creates."
That's not something I could readily infer from your taste in violent movies. For someone who's so lovey-dovey, I'd expect you to prefer more G-rated fare.
And given the amount of suffering in this world, the stark disparities of blessing and woe, not to mention everlasting punishment for the lost, I hardly think you're entitled to treat your assumption as a self-evident axiom.
"Silly, I know, since a causally determinative God can't possibly be omni-benevolent."
If you think God is omnibenevolent, then why don't we see more evidence of his omnibenevolence in the malevolent world around us?
The calvinist doctrine of reprobation is unsustainable.
ReplyDeleteThe sole attempt to buttress this doctrine is based on Romans 9,22-23. But despite the fact that this alone would be a thin foundation anyway, not even this prooftext actually works. I recently commented on the reformed attempt to make God the author of sin in this article:
http://combatingcalvinism.blogspot.com/2009/08/concerning-john-pipers-article-on.html
You ought to abandon the doctrines of grace!
-a helmet
A HELMET SAID:
ReplyDelete"The calvinist doctrine of reprobation is unsustainable. The sole attempt to buttress this doctrine is based on Romans 9,22-23."
Entirely false.
"But despite the fact that this alone would be a thin foundation anyway, not even this prooftext actually works. I recently commented on the reformed attempt to make God the author of sin."
Since we're not using Rom 9:22-23 in an attempt to make God the author of sin, your disproof, even if successful, would only succeed in disproving something we were never attempting to prove in the first place.
The calvinist doctrine of reprobation is unsustainable.
ReplyDeleteThe sole attempt to buttress this doctrine is based on Romans 9,22-23.
As Steve notes...entirely false. AH, from where do you get this idea?