http://kotaku.com/5588292/hate-church-targets-comic+con
|
You need to be a member of CCAS - Christian Comic Arts Society to add comments!
This reply was deleted.
http://kotaku.com/5588292/hate-church-targets-comic+con
|
You need to be a member of CCAS - Christian Comic Arts Society to add comments!
Replies
Buzz Dixon said:
I think this is why I generally try to stay away from Calvinist/Arminian debates -- unless both sides define their terms in painstaking (and deadly dull) detail, they usually end up talking past each other.
A question like "What if someone was predestined but never repented" doesn't even make sense from the Calvinist definitions of the word, any more so than "What if God knew something, but He was wrong?". If someone is "predestined", it's not because they're born with some special trait that gives them a get out of jail free card. It's just that "predestination" is the most useful theological description many of us can find to describe the actions of an eternal God whose relationship to us extends from before and beyond time.
As far as I know, neither side denies that our salvation requires an active choice on our part for repentance, faith and bending of the knee to Jesus Christ. The disagreement falls on explaining how we came to make that choice. (And what one person would see as as a lifeguard heroically performing CPR to save a drowned man, another person might see as "forcing someone to be saved against their will". Much depends on what sort of assumptions and definitions we're bringing to the question.)
Complicating this is the fact that there's so many different nuanced flavors of Calvinist/Arminian theology that you have to first find out which version you're actually responding to in these discussions. (In just the immediate example of this thread, it looks as if Sven is arguing for a Calvinism that implies an absolute hard determinism, and I'm arguing for a more traditionally-phrased Calvinist view that "God from all eternity did... ordain whatsoever comes to pass... yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures", with a side dose of Lutheran reluctance to be too dogmatic on the "mystery" of the paradox.)
This has been an interesting discussion, and it's prompted me to to go back through my files and dig up some old comics/articles I wrote for the Alpha-Omega APAzine. I did a tongue-in-cheek series illustrating the "five points of Calvinism" using Julius Schwartz's list of "five Silver Age comic covers that always sell", and I think revisiting that would help me spell out my own understanding of these issues in a little more depth than I can manage in this fascinating yet never-quite-starting-from-the-same-point discussion thread. I'll post a link here if/when I get the comics posted to my blog page.
Sven,
I hope your New Year is off to a blessed start.
But now.... :)
You're a Calvanist AND a naturalistic determinist?! Your take on material determinism makes the Spirit subject to the flesh, and (appears to) make God the author of evil!
Additionally, you are basing your conclusions on your limited understanding of science's (man's) limited understanding of the workings of the physical universe (and at the expense of what the Word tells us). What I see you doing is reasoning from yourself rather than reasoning from the scriptures.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:
There is no good and/or evil in your world (not in a true sense) - only the "is" of everything. To even call something good or evil is a waste of breath. Not to mention each and every evil act in your river of cause and effect is ultimately traced back to God's creation -- His creating, so you are ascribing authorship of evil to Him.
Even speaking from a purely-physical-cause-and-effect perspective, all it would take would be for man to be able to nudge one electron in a new direction by way of some thought that is generated from within to demolish determinism.
We do better if we quit looking for the version of the world that can only exist on our lab table -- fully observable and fully explainable from man's vantage point. The truth is not there.
We have a mind -- the bible says it. We are called to make choices -- the bible calls for it. There is no love, no responsibility, no will, no forgiveness, etc., etc., in your view -- not without changing the meanings of those words, Sven. Since all of those require choice and you have said all choice is an "illusion", we're just tinker toys -- robots.
Why would God ever, ever, ever use the word "if" when speaking to man in the Sven-World? "If" you absolutely know what another is going to do, and there is absolutely nothing the other person can do to change what they are going to do, "then" there is absolutely no sense in saying to them, "if you do this, then that". And "if" you should say your "if" is the means of getting them to do the next thing, well, "then" "that" is a very, very sad and lonely game you would be playing. A sad and pathetic game you seem to be saying God is playing.
One of many mistakes the determinist makes is to think that because each event is the resultant effect of a previous cause -- then the effect HAD to come from the cause with no other possible effects (again, even in the material-only secular world, quantum physics is making this view harder to hold). And for the materialist to believe that is one thing; but for one who believes in God to believe it is baffling.
God tells us to, yes, love Him with our whole self, including our minds. But, Sven, we need a revelation of Him in the Spirit, and that revelation is not something we can fit into our doctrinal or our scientific-intellectual boxes. Allow for God to be bigger than what we can (completely) understand.
God bless--
Lee
A few issues: first, your decision to deem it evil is somewhat arbitrary - there's no basis in it; second, a person is still making a choice even if the choice they were going to make has already been decided for them. A person is still weighing the options in his or her mind. Materially, there is no difference between the method and manner of choosing in a system where the Creator has deigned what the human would conclude and in a system where He doesn't.
The more we pray, the more we are inspired/led to spread the Gospel.
So when we pray for the lost, it is not directly for the benefit of the lost?
But we can reprogram our minds, and in the process literally hardwire our brains. Yes, we can be influenced by any number of factors, some much more so than others, but in the end we must make our own moral choices.
What I am saying is that a man's life is just as deterministic whether God's grace chooses some exclusively to salvation or God allows the World to run its course. Simply by merit of being born to certain parents, at certain times, with whatever genetic dispositions, a man will turn out in a specific and particular way - saved or unsaved. His choices are already laid out for him because his choices are based ENTIRELY on his environment and his genes - if they are not determined by those things, then his choices are undetermined, which is illogical. You say "ahh yes, but a man can reprogram himself," and I say he will only reprogram himself if his environment and his genes insist that he does. And you may say, "ahh yes, but he can change his environment," and I say that he will only change his environment if his environment and psychology insist that he does. Given that God created the World and interacted with the World, God knew obviously how His Creation and subsequent interactions would affect other people in the future; He knew how the dominoes would fall. So, to me, there is no ethical difference. What is the moral difference between creating a Universe where Sally would worship Jesus based on how the dominoes would fall, and changing Sally's nature so that she would have a desire to worship Him? In either instance, He has created a world where variables and events would orchestrate Sally's salvation. The only real difference is that God's irresistible grace is Biblical, whereas your ponderings on man's free will are more informed, I'm sure, by classic philosophy.
Further, with the exception of a handful of neolithic tribes (see earlier post re their cultural mindset being one that prevented them of thinking of things & events as being malleable), no culture has ever had a legal system or set of laws that did not recognize human beings as voluntary actors responsible for their actions.
Responsibility and predestination are not logically contradictory. Man's moral responsibility is still recognized even though God changes his nature, or leaves a man to his own devices, which lead necessarily to Hellfire.
I mean, seriously, who are we supposed to listen to, Abraham et al who prayed for God to wreak havoc on their enemies, or Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God who while being nailed to the cross asked His Father to forgive the ones doing it?
We are to consider the whole counsel of the Bible, where ever a prophet or patriarch speaks the Word of God. What I don't understand is if God can tell Noah how to create an ark in every last detail, and if God can tell Moses how to construct the Ark of the Convenant in every last detail, and if He can tell kings the year they will die, and if He can tell the Israelites how many times they need to revolve around Jericho before it would fall, how is it unfathomable to you that He's apparently incapable of telling everything He is entirely sovereign in all matters?
Where did Abraham pray for God to wreak havoc on his enemies? I can't appreciate what you're saying without evidence of the fact.
BTW, while reading Romans today as part of my daily Bible reading (I've been reading through it chapter by chapter for some time now), I saw this in Romans 12: 14-21 "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”says the Lord.
Lee and I discussed these passages a few posts back.
Praying for a friend's conversion means we are asking God to provide the means & opportunities for our friend to make a positive decision for Christ; ultimately, the final choice is our friend's, or else there
would be no moral element.
We are praying for the means and opportunities for a person to come to Christ? Are you saying that in some situations a person does not have the means and opportunities to come to Christ? If so, would that mean a person already having those opportunities and means available, shouldn't be prayed for, since doing so would be in vain?
Moreover, I am not confident that free will exists logically anyway. It is an illusion. A person's decision to do anything is informed by his genetics and/or environment - it is also informed by his experiences, though those experiences are also ultimately informed by his genetics and environment as well. From the moment the child is born, and even prior, his temperament/genetics and environment guides how he will interact with the world around him. And if he changes his environment and other habits of his (where he lives, who he is with, etc.), it is only because his environment and genetics have provoked him to. Ultimately his first decisions, which cause his later decisions, are informed and provoked and incited by variables he has no control over. For a man cannot decide where he will be born and to who and with what physical dispositions. If it is argued that a man's choices can be informed by more than just his genetics and his surroundings and his earlier experiences, then I would ask what else would inform them? If a man chooses Lucky Charms over Fruit Loops, what is the basis for his decision aside from what experience has taught him, what his body yearns for at the moment, and what his environment has conditioned him to choose - and how are those things not, ultimately, decided for him in the man's history? And if it be argued secondly that a man may choose at random, then I say what good is free will, if what is not predetermined is mere randomness?
What is coming to Jesus for a person in the Arminian system, but a complex formula playing out, with God as the mathematician? And how is that any different?
I'm thinking conceptually of predestination and I'm generally defining it along the lines that they are predestined to, at some point in their life, repent and believe. There's probably a bigger definition to it, but I don't claim to be any expert in Calvin. He did have a cool beard though.
But I still do go back to that question about the Arminian perspective of praying for an unsaved friend, and I still can't get around that. Here's the example: I have a real-life friend named Al, who's a great friend and a fairly solid non-believer. I generally pray for Al, that the Lord will convict him of his sin and draw him to repentance. I pray that the Holy Spirit will work in his life and lead him to salvation.
Can the Arminian pray something like this? Or, if the human will is supreme, how do they pray for the saving faith of an unsaved friend? Can this be done, and if so, then specifically how?
You know, I kicked some of those ideas around when the prequels came out, and instead to me it seemed more like Lucas in his wealthy old age was just turning a tad more secular in his writing, and he simply wanting to remove the supernatural element from the Force and rather make it something strictly biological (although this doesn't jive with Yoda's sermon to Luke in ESB when he talks about the force "around you... here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere..." etc...
I can't think too much on the prequels without getting frustrated: outside of the horrific CG, the mangled cut-n-pasted John Williams music and terrible acting, the biggest fault is how sloppy the bridge of film 3 and 4 seem. But that's another discussion...
How would the sinner in that example know that he was predestined for hell? I mean, he could speculate that he was, but could he really know for certain that in the remainder of his life he would never at any point make a profession of faith and repent of his sins? For that example to pan out, the sinner would require a individually-received divine revelation. Otherwise how would the sinner know how the future of his faith, or lack thereof, would unfold?
Rob,
It's called, "Introducing Quantum Theory" by J.P. McEvoy & Oscar Zarate
here's an Amazon link: http://tinyurl.com/3677c2a
And a link to a video on the double slit experiment...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpSqrb3VK3c&feature=related
Enjoy!
Lee
What's the name of the book? As a "D-" science student in high school (and having dodged out of heavy science in college by taking "Nutrition" and "Meteorology" as my science electives) I could use something to help make more sense of quantum (other than some oblique and generally biased wikipedia article). I've heard Tim Keller make reference to quantum in a couple sermons, and it would be nice to know a little more about it.
Cartoons used to explain it are also good, too!
Kevin Yong said:
I don't know exactly how God is absolutely sovereign while we are free and morally responsible for our own actions, but the Bible seems clear that both statements are true.
Amen, Kevin! I really love the thoughts and tone of your entire post.
I've been under the impression the difficulty we find in this issue was intended. It was in the "giving up" on nailing it all down on one side or the other that I found myself more able to just rest in Him. My carnally religious mind wants everything in a box, but God so often blows my boxes to smithereens.
I like that about God.
I also bought a really cool little paperback on Quantum theory that was illustrated with cartoons throughout ... thinking this would help me to at least gain a grasp on the rudiments of the theory.
Well... at least I have some really cool cartoons to look at. :) (but I'll keep trying)
The Lord bless and keep you, Kevin.
Lee
Buzz Dixon said:
Oh, I agree. All truth is God's truth. (Even the theoretical truths that make my head hurt.)
I just personally don't find quantum theory or Schrodinger's Cat to be any easier to understand than the doctrine of the Trinity or the paradox that "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures..."
There's a lot I disagree with in the Westminster Confession, but that particular phrasing sums up my thoughts on the matter. I don't know exactly how God is absolutely sovereign while we are free and morally responsible for our own actions, but the Bible seems clear that both statements are true.
I'm content to say "it's a mystery to me" (a very Lutheran response) but if I'm forced to try explaining it, I'll end up defaulting to Calvinist language because I think I tend to understand and trust the concept of God mysteriously at work in me through His saving grace better than I understand and trust my own "autonomous free choices".
I'm not a robot, not a puppet -- I'm responsible for my choices and my choices are "free" insofar as they're not forced upon me. But however clear my choices seem at the time I make them, when analyzing them in retrospect, I find my choices to be a contradictory tangled mass of conflicted moral conscience, sinful ulterior motives, neurotic insecurities, rational self-interest and unthinking habits so complex that I can't fully understand it myself, and I doubt that the mess can ever be untangled apart from divine intervention. And in that, I'm back to using Calvinist language again.
So I just praise the Lord that my salvation is secure in the loving arms of Jesus Christ and doesn't depend on me being able to fully explain metaphysical inner workings of the eternal nature of God & time, my tangled choices, or even cats in a quantum box. I'd be in trouble on that test. :)
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 14 Next