Quote Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr View Post
Such practical concerns are only part of the issue with Arminianism. Generally, I think the problem is threefold. Firstly, it lacks scriptural support. Secondly, it has the previously mentioned practical issues. And thirdly, I think it is detrimental to a Christian individual's practice of Godliness, and contradictive with important parts of Christianity in general. The last point is the most important one, with the other two, particularly the second, being secondary issues, but worth noting nonetheless.
One is completely a matter of opinion. Many of the passages you think demonstrate limited atonement I think show no such thing, especially since parables have only one meaning, Hooker and Wyclif both demonstrate scriptural support for free will and the irrelevance of any "elect". This is the majoriety view throughout history and across denominations, both before and after Calvin.

Two, practical is not a problem, unless you want to unravel God's divine power. Knowing how God does something is not important, you can't know anyway. Producing an arguement for why he does something is far more important. Calvin presumed to know God's divine plan, he must have believed he was Elect, which meant he believed he was right. The situation was only made worse by his followers, who exasberated the doctrine and virtually claimed it as divine law.

The third is not a problem, because all you have comes from God. If anything Calvinism is worse, because it will, and has, led to individuals believing they are justified in their actions as members of the Elect.

And it is true also with Arminianism, that if man has even the capacity to sin, then he was created that way by God, and it is God's will that he may sin. You have the freedom to do good or evil, but ultimately the very nature of your character on which you are judged is created as it is as a result of God's will.
On the other hand, free will has a justification because without free will you cannot truly love God and have a relationship with him. you are just his slave.

In this case, I agree with what you say on Calvin, but only so far as our fallen nature is concerned. If you are born a slave to sin, even sin itself, then naturally a forceful transformative process will be needed to give a person a heart of flesh. But having been through such a process, the decision to love God is not forced. It is both God's will that we love Him, and our own.
Bigger problem, why does God create people who can't love him?

Of course my faith is fundamentally in God Himself, the book is there for general spiritual guidance and to help to spread the word. Generally speaking it is fine to question parts of the scripture and their reliability. But the issue being raised here over Yahweh is far too integrated throughout the entire scripture to dismiss as an inaccuracy on account of it being written by men. Even the historically earliest events in the OT regarding Yahweh's covenants with mankind are constantly referred to throughout the NT, often by Jesus himself, not to mention the fact that Jesus' sacrifice was based upon the prophecies given to the prophets by the Yahweh of the time period which you are calling into question.
Um, sorry, but I completely dissagree. The Jews had a very good idea of what the Messiah was going to do, based on the prophecies and history of the Torah. Jesus failed completely in their eyes. Cmparison only serves to illuminate human bias in the scripture at both ends.

A little bit extreme in the first sentence there I think. I remember a quote where one of the French kings asks for proof of God's existence, and he is told something along the lines of "the Jews sire, the Jews!". If that was true a few hundred years ago, then it must be ten times moresoe today when we have an Israeli state. There's a reason why dispensationalism has largely replaced covenant theology in Reformed circles. Of course, there are the usual historic forces which played their role in the Isralei state coming into being, it was not just a case of God snapping His fingers. But then, why do you so readily dimiss God playing an indirect role in such a process? You are happy to say that we evolved through the process of evolution by God's design, and yet you cannot say that God played a similar overseeing role in the state of Israel coming into being.
I believe in free will, and I don't believe God would kill millions of people to prove a point. Just because there are still Jews means nothing, you could equally argue it proves free will because God chosen people refused to accept him, which makes no sense as they will be destroyed.

Also, Jesus quite clearly did not abolish the Old Covenant and much of the OT along with it as you suggested. Jesus himself says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matthew 5:17).
Scripture is not necessarily divine law, why don't you quote the next verses and then try to tell me he did not reject parts of Hebrew scripture.

Of course God's grace still has a notable role in Arminianism, but it is far less of a force than it is said to be in Calvinism, not such an 'Amazing Grace' at all.
Arguably, Calvinism requires a counterforece, while other theologies do not. So Calvin's God is weaker.

I think you are being harsh on Calvin himself, and that your disapproval would be better aimed at those who upheld the form of Calvinism which led to the things you speak of. Calvin himself never supported violent resistance under even the most extreme circumstances, although in the last version of the 'Institutes of the Christian Religion' which were published in 1559, he did point to the case where Daniel disobeyed what he deemed to be an impious royal edict. Though Calvin himself always held to such a position, his successors did not. John Knox brought a more radical form of Calvinism to Scotland, and indeed his works such as 'The Appellation' were important in justifying the Covenanters role in the conflict you speak of, in which Knox argues that the gentry and other important people within society are appointed to their roles by God just as kings are, and as such may use their God-given roles to protect the common people from tyrants. Also, the man you mentioned earlier as being a victim of the conflict, Richard Hooker, actually played an important role in justifying the Parliamentarians. He was a pioneer of the contractarian branches of resistance theories, as he claimed that kings ruled both by divine right and human right, the latter being a form of contract between the king and his subjects.
You last part about Hooker is off, he is reading Wyclif there. Hooker was an important theolgian, I wanted you to read his works, whether or not he was persecuted is not relevant. As to Calvin, men were executed in Geneva for not following religious laws he had pushed for, and with his permisssion.

Fundamentally, Calvin believed God loved some people more than others, I would not accept that on pain or death.

I can see you very passionately dislike Calvinism, which is fair enough, indeed if I recall correctly you suggested in a past discussion that Calvin could even have ben the antichrist. But I think you must study it more to truly understand it. Just as surely as modern evangelicals spread misinformation about Catholicism such as saints having special powers as you said to me before; so to are there many misconceptions about Calvinism which are readily passed about in the circles which have had little exposure to it.
I have seen it used to invoke suffering, on Christians, on others, and to sow division.

Those analogies are hardly appropriate, since they involve harming people in the name of the love; a spiritual transformation and eternal life in heaven are hardly comparable. Also, they are wrong because in Calvinism it is taught that we have free will to love God once we are saved, it is purely the transformative process that is forced. Before that process takes place, we are sin, we have nothing but a heart of stone, unable to love God, and unable to even want to.
Calvin believed in "Saving Grace" and that it was irresistable, it cleared your mind and left you free to love God. In effect, it was forced because Calvin assumed that no one would reject God if not restrained by the Devil. He also argued for Common Grace, which is what stops us killing each other.

The Rape analogy is apropriate because I don't believe in forced trasformation, just because Cavin says it is "Saving Grace" doesn't make it any such thing. Here we have the root of my problem, if you believe in Election as the only means to enter heaven and exercise concience and good thought; what if Calvin was Unelect?

That's Calvinism.