...it is worth considering whether the character of God as entailed in Calvinism contributes to anger and harshness toward others among *some* Calvinists. Certainly there are many humble and loving Calvinists. But could it be that there is something in the Calvinist view of God that encourages harshness with the result that, while many Calvinists resist the temptation to be harsh because of the Holy Spirit and Scripture, many are led into harshness by the Calvinist view of God? Is it mere coincidence that one of Arminianism's major criticisms of Calvinism is that it logically entails a harsh view of God, and that even Calvinist leaders have been noting a special problem with Calvinists being harsh? To put it simply, could there be a connection along these lines: harsh God --> harsh Calvinists?
This is a popular meme which Arminians are trying to promote. Of course, it’s a totally partisan characterization.
But suppose we turn it around. If Calvinists take after the Calvinist God, what would it mean for Arminians to take after the Arminian God? If Arminian behavior mirrored the behavior of the Arminian God, how would Arminians conduct themselves?
If an Arminian was walking along the beach, and saw a man beating up his girlfriend, the Arminian wouldn’t interfere. For if he tried to restrain the abusive boyfriend, that would infringe on the man’s freedom choice. For a man to truly love his girlfriend, he must free to beat her to a bloody pulp.
By the same token, an Arminian could never be a policeman, for his job would require him to constantly infringe on the freedom of criminals. Likewise, they'd never intervene in epidemics or natural disasters.
If an Arminian was walking along the beach, and saw a man beating up his girlfriend, the Arminian wouldn’t interfere. For if he tried to restrain the abusive boyfriend, that would infringe on the man’s freedom choice. For a man to truly love his girlfriend, he must free to beat her to a bloody pulp.
ReplyDeleteOh, don't put it past our Anabaptist Arminians. Because of their nonresistance, they believe that's exactly what they should do- though they do it for different reasons than preserving free-will.
By the same token, an Arminian could never be a policeman, for his job would require him to constantly infringe on the freedom of criminals. Likewise, they'd never intervene in epidemics or natural disasters.
Again, don't put it past them. Becoming a policeman is completely forbidden for Anabaptists. As to natural disasters, they're almost as uninvolved in such things as a group could be.
Once again, this has to do with living out their nonresistance, but they are seriously dedicated arminians. As "Godly Arminians" go, they live out the life of the arminian God very well.
The Arminian God would never presume to interfere with someone's free will. If a child is swimming at the beach and the Arminian parent spots a shark in the water which is unbeknownst to their child, the Arminian parent would never presume to interfere with their child's free will and rescue their child. At best, the Arminian parent would scream that there's a shark in the water and shout at their child to swim back to shore. Or perhaps the Arminian parent would even swim out to their child and yell into the ears of their child to warn him of the impending danger. But the Arminian parent would never dare to grab their child and bring him back to land against their child's will since their child doesn't see the shark but wants to keep playing in the water. That'd violate the child's free will. Therefore: negligent God --> negligent Arminians?
ReplyDeleteOr even if the child is somehow rescued from this particular danger, the Arminian parent can't necessarily keep their child safe and secure from future dangers. It could be their child exercises his free will to run out into a busy intersection against the pleas of the Arminian parent. Out of harm's way one day, run over by a semi the next. The child's security is thus conditional on the child heeding his Arminian parents' desperate pleas to keep himself secure. Therefore: impotent God --> impotent Arminian?
The Arminian God loves everyone equally. After all, Jesus died for all, so everyone has the opportunity to be saved. When the Arminian parent's child asks his mommy and daddy whether they love him, their mommy and daddy respond, Yes! Of course we love you! But they have to quickly add, But we love you exactly the same amount as we love other children. So when an Arminian parent has a free child's ticket to Disneyland, since they love all children equally, they may invite another child instead of their child to the Happiest Place on Earth. Therefore: neutral God --> neutral Arminians?
The Arminian God is a Moral Monster!
ReplyDeleteIf a Calvinist was walking along the beach, and saw a man beating up his girlfriend, the Calvinist wouldn't interfere for a little while. Rather, he would let the abusive boyfriend beat his girlfriend to a bloody pulp, and then rescue her to demonstrate his love for her.
ReplyDeleteBy the same token, a Calvinist could never be a policeman, for his job would require him to constantly force some people to become criminals so he could shoot them in the face. Likewise, he'd never intervene in epidemics or natural disasters; after all, since such things would be the will of God, how could he be so presumptuous as to help people caught up in them?
... In short, come on. Stop presenting caricatures of the Arminian position. Clearly, I don't think that Calvinists should, would, or are in any sense obliged to act as described above—and, by the same token, neither are Arminians.
Enough said. Over and out.
If a Calvinist was walking along the beach, and saw a man beating up his girlfriend, the Calvinist wouldn't interfere for a little while.
ReplyDeleteThis particular Calvinist agrees. He would, in fact, interfere for quite a long while, making sure the injuries were serious enough and great enough in number to make sure the mugger never touched a living soul ever again. ;-)
Rather, he would let the abusive boyfriend beat his girlfriend to a bloody pulp, and then rescue her to demonstrate his love for her.
Nope. The Calvinist God isn't necessarily committed to treating one soul that way over against another, so no, a Calvinist has no parralel commitment there.
By the same token, a Calvinist could never be a policeman, for his job would require him to constantly force some people to become criminals so he could shoot them in the face.
Well, God did ordain people to become sinners for the purpose of punishing them, so no, a "Godly Calvinist" could indeed become a policeman. Again, I'm just playing with your arminian rhetoric here.
Likewise, he'd never intervene in epidemics or natural disasters; after all, since such things would be the will of God, how could he be so presumptuous as to help people caught up in them?
Your parallel collapses again. There's a singular rule of uninvolvement for the arminian God- such is not the case for the Calvinist. That Godly Arminian we're talking about has one rule of conduct that restricts how God must go about things whereas a Calvinist has no such restriction.
... In short, come on. Stop presenting caricatures of the Arminian position.
Oh, so Anabaptists don't exist then? Do you deny that Anabaptists teach nonresistance and are uninvolved in helping others during natural disasters?
Clearly, I don't think that Calvinists should, would, or are in any sense obliged to act as described above-
According to you, maybe, but again, it's the arminians who play the God card. It's they who assert that you are who you worship (in so many words), and that's the reason Calvinists are allegedly so harsh/nasty/not nice. Your complaint is with them for spewing this rhetoric, not us for showing how bad their own rhetoric makes them look when we turn it against them.
By the way, have you ever rebuked Arminians for making these remarks? Is there a comment from you on their blogs where you criticize this kind of rhetoric?
and, by the same token, neither are Arminians.
As long as they aren't Anabaptists, you mean. Trust me, Thomas, you don't speak for all arminians.
Thomas Larsen said:
ReplyDelete"Stop presenting caricatures of the Arminian position"
Apparently you failed to notice this post was predicated on an Arminian caricature of the Calvinist position.
THOMAS LARSEN SAID:
ReplyDelete“In short, come on. Stop presenting caricatures of the Arminian position. Clearly, I don't think that Calvinists should, would, or are in any sense obliged to act as described above—and, by the same token, neither are Arminians.”
Apparently you’re too emotional to follow the argument, so let’s walk you through it one more time. A post at SEA accused some Calvinists of emulating the “harsh” character of their God. Calvinists who are allegedly “harsh” and “angry” because they resemble the “harsh” God they worship.
So I’m merely constructing a parallel argument: if the Arminian God was the role model for Arminians, then how would Arminians behave?
The Arminian God “allows” horrendous moral and natural evils to occur. Arminians tell us that he doesn’t generally restrain moral evil because that would violate the freedom of human beings.
So, by parity of argument, if Arminians emulate the character of the Arminian God, then they shouldn’t restrain moral evil either.
Likewise, the Arminian God permits thousands of human beings to suffer and die from epidemics and/or natural disasters every year. So, by parity of argument, if Arminians model their character on the character of the God they worship, then they shouldn’t do emergency relief, but simply let the chips fall where they may.
How is that a caricature, given how the SEA post framed the issue?
“If a Calvinist was walking along the beach, and saw a man beating up his girlfriend, the Calvinist wouldn't interfere for a little while. Rather, he would let the abusive boyfriend beat his girlfriend to a bloody pulp, and then rescue her to demonstrate his love for her.”
Once again, you’re unable to follow the argument. I was responding to the SEA post on its own terms. I was presenting a tu quoque argument.
My counterargument isn’t premised on the assumption that the conduct of Calvinists ought to be modeled on the conduct of the Calvinist God. God has prerogatives we don’t have.
Actually, I'm a Molinist—so I get to laugh at both sides. :-)
ReplyDeleteActually, I'm a Molinist—so I get to laugh at both sides. :-)
ReplyDeleteUnless, of course, you're also an arminian/synergist Molinist. Again, if you haven't made the same rebuke to an arminian that you made to Steve here, then that just shows off your glaring arminian bias. You give one side a free pass for bad behavior, and then you criticize the other side when they simply respond in kind.
"... [I]f you haven't made the same rebuke to an arminian that you made to Steve here, then that just shows off your glaring arminian bias."
ReplyDeleteSo Arminians always need to be criticised first?
As it happens, my objection was not to Calvinism per se. (I do think that Calvinism is false, however.) It was rather to Steve’s caricature of Arminians.
So Arminians always need to be criticised first?
ReplyDeleteAnd how does that have anything to do with what I just said? It has nothing to do with arminians always being criticized first. It has to do with you criticizing them period. I take your decision not to answer yes or no to my inquiry as an implicit admission that you don't hold your arminian brethren to the same standard of ethics to which you demand Steve adhere.
By the way, these particular arminians DO deserve to be criticized first since they start the entire "you-are-who-you-worship" argument. You strike me as a person who witnesses a mugger attacking someone with a knife, sees the innocent civilian struggle till he gets the knife from the mugger, and then stabs the mugger to death. The way you're acting here, you sound like you would bear witness against the civilian for murder even though the civilian was defending himself.
As it happens, my objection was not to Calvinism per se. (I do think that Calvinism is false, however.) It was rather to Steve’s caricature of Arminians.
So you do deny that Anabaptists exist. That's an interesting tactic- simply deny the existence of proof to the contrary of your statements. Wonder why I didn't think of that myself?
"So you do deny that Anabaptists exist."
ReplyDeleteNo...?
Most Armenians aren't Anabaptists.
"You strike me as a person who witnesses a mugger attacking someone with a knife, sees the innocent civilian struggle till he gets the knife from the mugger, and then stabs the mugger to death. The way you're acting here, you sound like you would bear witness against the civilian for murder even though the civilian was defending himself."
That would depend on whether the civilian had good cause to stab the mugger to death after disarming him.
"Most Armenians aren't Anabaptists."
ReplyDeleteMost Armenians aren't Arminians.
-TurretinFan
"Most Armenians aren't Arminians."
ReplyDeleteHaha! Good call, man. :-)