Knight and Zman one on one.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Then where do you believe people go?

We can discuss that in a separate thread if you like, but any such discussion hijack's D2I's thread.

 

[Scholastic]

How is the Lord glorified when countless people will go to hell because of the fall? Your making the Lord out to be a kid with a magnifying glass out for his own amusement and gratification at the expense of man. So your saying God had it all planned out: create man, curse man and finally, have my son murdered so...people will glorify me...with all His power surely there is a better way to be glorified.

Yes, that is basically what i am saying. I want you to consider this. If there were no hell, if there were no death, if there were no suffering, then why would anyone consider Heaven, life, and joy to be special? If there were no bad, then the good would just be....average.

Yes...we shall. This does nothing to help your position.
Because I rescued you from that burning house you will know that I was able to and you will thank me...Providence/predestination is not required to understand and glorify God. Whats more, plenty of people do not know He is LORD and they haven't glorified Him...

Providence/predestination. All good and well. but you are forgetting reprobation.

 

[Scholastic]

Well, I just named the "biggest" visible inconsistancy: if Calvin's postulates are true, then from God's perspective, God's existance already encompases the time of the New Heavens and the New Earth. In that sense, all of "Creation" has already occurred, and time is closed. It's not a theological inconsistancy: it's a metaphysical and logical inconsistancy.

Well, yes. You have to understand something. God is ETERNAL. Eternal is a state of saimultaneous being. Saimultaneous being means that the future, past, and present are equally valid. That means that, yes, everything has already occur. Time is nothing but a played out version of the will of God. I want you to recall the verse in which Mozes speaks to God via burning bush. "I am who i am" That could have also translated to "I am who was" and "i am who will be" if you put all of that together all at once, you have God's being.

I quite agree that Calvin was one of the best of the Protestant reformers, but he's wasn't perfect.

Of course we wasn't perfect. If he was, he would have stayed in the Catholic church rather than commiting Schism.

 

[Sir Cast-a-Lot]

We can discuss that in a separate thread if you like, but any such discussion hijack's D2I's thread.

ok justin post the answer to my question in the forum:

Exclusively Christian Theology / Hell-is there eternal punishment.

 

[Scholastic]

an extension to previous post

an extension to previous post

I have a thesis on all of this. You can see it on the thread in this forum entitled "thesis" or on this website:

http://www.freewebs.com/philosophical_thought/

 

[death2impiety]

We can discuss that in a separate thread if you like, but any such discussion hijack's D2I's thread.

Thanks

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Hi Scholastic--

From what I gather from Hans Kung's Justification, the Calvinist definition of salvation (faith working through love; the marriage, but not equivalence, of justification and sanctification) is more consistent with historic Catholicism than Luther or Trent.

Justin--

If Calvin were alive today, I strongly doubt that he would get wrapped up in philosophical discussions about God and time; I'd have to review his polemics against the Socinians to be sure. I think that all that is required for a Calvinist is to affirm foreordination. In Calvinism, the future exists as a comprehensive divine plan before there is any universe, whether it's an A-time or block universe. I don't think we'd be getting into metaphysical speculations about the nature of time if we started with Scripture texts and went from there.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

ok justin post the answer to my question in the forum:

Exclusively Christian Theology / Hell-is there eternal punishment.

Hmmm. Also didn't want to disrupt that thread, but I have posted it here, so we can discuss the issue.

 

[Scholastic]

Hi Scholastic--

From what I gather from Hans Kung's Justification, the Calvinist definition of salvation (faith working through love; the marriage, but not equivalence, of justification and sanctification) is more consistent with historic Catholicism than Luther or Trent.

Precisely why i stated he was the only rational reformer. His views are consisten with St. Thomas Aquinas. Luther was a friggen loony. Cosubstantiation? The heretic deserves to burn in hell.

 

[death2impiety]

Yes, that is basically what i am saying. I want you to consider this. If there were no hell, if there were no death, if there were no suffering, then why would anyone consider Heaven, life, and joy to be special? If there were no bad, then the good would just be....average.

It has been said that without the bad there can be no understanding of good. I see where you are going. However, the concept of God in and of itself represents a being of pure goodness that resides without the need for "bad" to qualify it. God is good. Does God need "bad" to compare Himself to to label Himself good? God would not need to create sickness for us to experience health, HE'S GOD:wave2:! His perfection needs no qualification. You're limiting God. God cannot create perfection without imperfection? Thats a cliche brought on by the lack of understanding in the imperfect human mind.
Your logic would imply that heaven would have sadness...or else, wouldn't heaven just be average?

Providence/predestination. All good and well. but you are forgetting reprobation.

God will only reject those who reject Him. Seek and ye shall find.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Of course we wasn't perfect. If he was, he would have stayed in the Catholic church rather than commiting Schism.

There wouldn't be any bias there, would there? :chuckle:

 

[Scholastic]

It has been said that without the bad there can be no understanding of good. I see where you are going. However, the concept of God in and of itself represents a being of pure goodness that resides without the need for "bad" to qualify it. God is good. Does God need "bad" to compare Himself to to label Himself good?

He doesn't need to, but its more effective that way.

God would not need to create sickness for us to experience health, HE'S GOD:wave2:! His perfection needs no qualification. You're limiting God. God cannot create perfection without imperfection?

He can, but didn't.

Thats a cliche brought on by the lack of understanding in the imperfect human mind.
Your logic would imply that heaven would have sadness...or else, wouldn't heaven just be average?

No no no, i am saying that the glory of heaven is contrasted by the miserable state of Hell.

God will only reject those who reject Him. Seek and ye shall find.

All of this has already been predestined and ordained before time ever started.

i shall quote the Angelic Doctor

http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP023.html#FPQ23A3THEP1

Whether God reprobates any man?

On the contrary, It is said (Malachi 1:2,3): "I have loved Jacob, but have hated Esau."


I answer that, God does reprobate some. For it was said above (Article [1]) that predestination is a part of providence. To providence, however, it belongs to permit certain defects in those things which are subject to providence, as was said above (Question [22], Article [2]). Thus, as men are ordained to eternal life through the providence of God, it likewise is part of that providence to permit some to fall away from that end; this is called reprobation. Thus, as predestination is a part of providence, in regard to those ordained to eternal salvation, so reprobation is a part of providence in regard to those who turn aside from that end. Hence reprobation implies not only foreknowledge, but also something more, as does providence, as was said above (Question [22], Article [1]). Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

If Calvin were alive today, I strongly doubt that he would get wrapped up in philosophical discussions about God and time; I'd have to review his polemics against the Socinians to be sure. I think that all that is required for a Calvinist is to affirm foreordination. In Calvinism, the future exists as a comprehensive divine plan before there is any universe, whether it's an A-time or block universe. I don't think we'd be getting into metaphysical speculations about the nature of time if we started with Scripture texts and went from there.

Yeppers--my point exactly. In some respects, Calvin's biggest mistake was that he violated Occam's Razor: he felt he had to not only explain soteriology according to the Bible, but also had to encompass then-current scholastic and philosophic thought. It's a weakness of any writing of the time (I've got a 15th century book on fishing that reads like a philosophical treatise).

 

[Scholastic]

There wouldn't be any bias there, would there? :chuckle:

Yes, its a bias. So what? Schism and Heresy are two of the greatest sins there are. In an effort to "purify the faith" he himself performed two retroactive mortal sins that, quite frankly, he never repented. The ends does not justify the means. And even then, Luther's ideas were Ludicrous!

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Yes, its a bias. So what?

Relax, Scholastic--I was teasing, not fussing at you.

 

[DEVO]

Just a note, I don't think its been mentioned yet but the thread that is being discussed on this thread is located here: One on One: Z Man & Knight.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Yeppers--my point exactly. In some respects, Calvin's biggest mistake was that he violated Occam's Razor: he felt he had to not only explain soteriology according to the Bible, but also had to encompass then-current scholastic and philosophic thought. It's a weakness of any writing of the time (I've got a 15th century book on fishing that reads like a philosophical treatise).

What I meant was--Calvin was a Biblicist. He was practically allergic to speculation. Page after page--in the Commentaries, Intitutes, his disputes with Pighius--Calvin would stop himself from going beyond exegesis, and he'd say that we can say no more. Anyone is free to argue with his interpretations, but the fact that he abhorred philosophy is incontestable. His writing could not have been farther from the academic Olympian detachment of the scholastics. Practically everything he wrote is sermonic and hortatory--the aim is to cultivate an awareness of the glory and holiness of God.

 

[Scholastic]

His writing could not have been farther from the academic Olympian detachment of the scholastics. Practically everything he wrote is sermonic and hortatory--the aim is to cultivate an awareness of the glory and holiness of God.

Either way, his writings didn't contradict the Scholastics, especially St. Thomas Aquinas.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

What I meant was--Calvin was a Biblicist. He was practically allergic to speculation. Page after page--in the Commentaries, Intitutes, his disputes with Pighius--Calvin would stop himself from going beyond exegesis, and he'd say that we can say no more. Anyone is free to argue with his interpretations, but the fact that he abhorred philosophy is incontestable. His writing could not have been farther from the academic Olympian detachment of the scholastics. Practically everything he wrote is sermonic and hortatory--the aim is to cultivate an awareness of the glory and holiness of God.

Hmmm ... I'm afraid I have to disagree ... sort of. And I have to "dust" my disagreement off from a gap of several years since I last read Calvin.

Calvin certainly did stick with the Biblical, but his method and result of interpretation were so intertwined with the philosophy of the time as to be inseparable. Calvin was immersed in the Scholasticism of his time, and in many results Scholastic thought and writings are traceable in his conclusions.

Justin

 

[Scholastic]

Hmmm ... I'm afraid I have to disagree ... sort of. And I have to "dust" my disagreement off from a gap of several years since I last read Calvin.

Calvin certainly did stick with the Biblical, but his method and result of interpretation were so intertwined with the philosophy of the time as to be inseparable. Calvin was immersed in the Scholasticism of his time, and in many results Scholastic thought and writings are traceable in his conclusions.

Justin

Now, when you say "Was immersed in the ..." You make it sound as though you have a bias against the Scholastic movement. I personally am a fan of it.