Brainwashing? Christianity seems to be taking weird steps, here at least.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It's a binary. If God does not save he damns. The arguement runs thus.

God is all powerful.

Only God has the power to save, this comes only from God, salvation is determined by him alone.

God saves some and not others, those he does not save are damned for all eternity.

As I said before, you said God's grace was irresistable. If that is so then only those he forsakes could possibly resist him.

His refusal to save would be an act of damnation under that system.

You also said it is people's own nature that damn them, but their nature is detemined ultimately by God.

You also say that he works in their lives to save them, without which they could not be saved (so you have previously written). So then how can people have free will? How can anyone be saved if they are not free to choose? Worse, how could adam have sinned and condemned humanity without free will.

Disobediance requires choice. Calvinism removes choice. In effect it removes sin.

Yep, you're either a servant of God, or a slave to Satan. Of course I may well be wrong but that's what it seems like.

Maybe Adam was the only human to have free will - after the original sin everything that happens is the result of his sin, as humanity learns the consequences of rebellion against God. If you resist God, then you are vulnerable to whoever will enslave you.

Of course, we do not know why God created people who will be damned. However, the inevitability of events which arise as a result of the situation created by God do not equate to the predestination that Calvinist doctrine refers to. Calvinism only refers to one specific aspect of predestination - the certainty as shown throughout the Bible that God will not allow the elect to fail to come to salvation. The elect know that it is their purpose to come to salvation, but we do not know what the purpose of the others are - the Bible does not mention election to damnation as it does election to salvation, so we should consider why this is.

Maybe it's these Christian forums you use. A lot of the rhetoric you use is very much in the vein of the Evangelical Churches.

Link?

I'd rather keep the anonymity, however I will say that in a recent poll they held Arminianism received more votes than Calvinism when asked what the voter preferred.

Satan is pretty pathetic really. I've reffered to it before, but read the Book of Job (all of it) for a demonstration od just how powerless he ultimately is. Having said that, consider this:

If you had been decieved you would still have written the same passage as the one I am quoting. How do you know that the assurence you feel is not false pride?

Faith in God is not the same as faith in yourself.

It is a difficult issue, I know that. However, it seems that if God gives me understanding then it is well beyond anything my mind would be capable of itself. I don't see where pride in myself came into the equation though - if I've been tricked then its been out of my own stupidity and I've nothing to be proud about, if I've not then it came purely from God and so that's great - nowhere do I deserve any merit.

With a mind as small and powerless as my own, surely the only way I could tell between God and Satan is if God Himself gave me the necessary knowledge to know that? If it comes from God, to question it is to question God. How can I know it's from God? The only way is if He lets me know directly. Nowhere does my merit come into the equation.

Which ties into the larger idea of us being servants of God or slaves to Satan - so long as these greater powers are at work, how can we resist the one without shielding behind the other? Of course hiding behind Satan is foolish, since God will destroy him. Just not yet.

EDIT: Partly because of this thread, and also more generally, I decided earlier today that I would no longer think to much over the Calvinism/Arminianism/whatever denomination debate, and would instead focus on God Himself. So, I just hopped over to the forums, and the first topic, right at the top of the page, is on this precise topic! And I've never seen it come up before in my time there, is this coincidence... the answer is no because this kind of thing happens so often.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

One possible refutatuion is that man's understanding of evil is faulty and that it exists only in the minds of men. This is most pertinant when considering natural evils, but it applies equally to Hitler and the Holocaust; the latter lead to modern notions of Human Rights and the UN as an international forum for dispute resolution.

This is one of the strongest arguments against Epicurus, but I feel that there are still issues with it. To take your example of Hitler and the Holocaust. I was under the impression that the dignity of the human person (which I believe is first raised in Genesis) is a scriptural back-up to what most would agree to. It is is morally wrong, and thus evil, to take the life of another person. If you wished to argue that moral wrongness and evil are different, then insert the word innocent into the above statement. It is very hard to believe that God would approve of genocide, and if He did, then according to Epicurus, He is not God.

This is a paradox which has not been answered. One of the problems whith trying to answer it is that we do not know who is actually saved, another is that we do not actually see the hand of God. So, no I'm not going to refute the paradox here. However, I will reject any doctrine which creates such a paradox in itself. I believe Calvinism does just that.

I would be inclined to agree that Calvinism does create that paradox. And I agree that if Love, Justice, Mercy and Power were reconcilable, then in all probability it would be very hard to comprehend, given that, as you've said, we don't know who and who isn't saved.

No such thing as Hyper-Calvinism. It's a doctrine which contains election, and therefore contains God's damning of souls. A more fuzzy form of Calvinism can be achieved by limiting God's power. You've talked a lot about not believing in double pre-destination but, as I pointed out, this denies the binary of heaven-hell and God's all-powerful and irresitable nature which you proclaim.

If heaven and hell exist, and God is all-powerful, then God intended for hell to exist. Furthermore if God's power is irresistible then those who go to hell are those rejected by God, not those who reject Him, because they had no choice in the matter. In essence I agree that Calvinism must limit God's power or his goodness, and thus is an unsuitable doctrine.

I would not be arguing with you if I did not believe he was all-powerful and all merciful. When I have time I'm going to write a tract on this and set out my objections systematically but if you look back over this thread you will see that I have ranged accross love, power, mercy and other elements of the Divine.

I'd be interested...

It's a binary. If God does not save he damns. The arguement runs thus.

God is all powerful.

Only God has the power to save, this comes only from God, salvation is determined by him alone.

God saves some and not others, those he does not save are damned for all eternity.

As I said before, you said God's grace was irresistable. If that is so then only those he forsakes could possibly resist him.

His refusal to save would be an act of damnation under that system.

You also said it is people's own nature that damn them, but their nature is detemined ultimately by God.

You also say that he works in their lives to save them, without which they could not be saved (so you have previously written). So then how can people have free will? How can anyone be saved if they are not free to choose? Worse, how could adam have sinned and condemned humanity without free will.

Disobediance requires choice. Calvinism removes choice. In effect it removes sin.

This is a much more eloquent and logical way of putting what I said above. Furthermore I'd add that if He is all-powerful and irresistible and He works to save people then they will be saved, and thus there is no need for hell.

Yep, you're either a servant of God, or a slave to Satan. Of course I may well be wrong but that's what it seems like.

Maybe Adam was the only human to have free will - after the original sin everything that happens is the result of his sin, as humanity learns the consequences of rebellion against God. If you resist God, then you are vulnerable to whoever will enslave you.

Resisting God requires Free Will. Therefore to validate your situation above, God intended for people to resist him which leads to their damnation, thus leaving the same situation. Calvinism relys on a God who damns unjustly, or God is not all-powerful.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yep, you're either a servant of God, or a slave to Satan. Of course I may well be wrong but that's what it seems like.

What about Lost souls (necessarily claimed by Satan?).

Maybe Adam was the only human to have free will - after the original sin everything that happens is the result of his sin, as humanity learns the consequences of rebellion against God. If you resist God, then you are vulnerable to whoever will enslave you.

Then God punishes the children ad extramis (I think that's the Latin) for the sins of the father? If Adam sinned why are we punished.

Set my give you a slightly different interpretation of Original Sin. God made Adam with Free Will, but not with judgement. Adam did not know right from wrong, only once he had tasted the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge did he know, then he tried to hide his Sin from God.

What Adam gave his children was understanding, and with that understanding came the weight of Sin because without it true disobedience to God is not possible.

Of course, we do not know why God created people who will be damned. However, the inevitability of events which arise as a result of the situation created by God do not equate to the predestination that Calvinist doctrine refers to. Calvinism only refers to one specific aspect of predestination - the certainty as shown throughout the Bible that God will not allow the elect to fail to come to salvation. The elect know that it is their purpose to come to salvation, but we do not know what the purpose of the others are - the Bible does not mention election to damnation as it does election to salvation, so we should consider why this is.

It might be because failure to elect to salvation is election to damnation.

I'd rather keep the anonymity, however I will say that in a recent poll they held Arminianism received more votes than Calvinism when asked what the voter preferred.

Fair enough, but I recognise the tone none the less. You're not a university student belonging to a CU, are you?

It is a difficult issue, I know that. However, it seems that if God gives me understanding then it is well beyond anything my mind would be capable of itself. I don't see where pride in myself came into the equation though - if I've been tricked then its been out of my own stupidity and I've nothing to be proud about, if I've not then it came purely from God and so that's great - nowhere do I deserve any merit.

Pride comes because you believe God has given you understanding above others. You have been elected to this understanding over and above the mass of hummanity.

With a mind as small and powerless as my own, surely the only way I could tell between God and Satan is if God Himself gave me the necessary knowledge to know that? If it comes from God, to question it is to question God. How can I know it's from God? The only way is if He lets me know directly. Nowhere does my merit come into the equation.

You still think you are chosen, that can be pride (I'm really not saying it is but it important to always remember.)

Which ties into the larger idea of us being servants of God or slaves to Satan - so long as these greater powers are at work, how can we resist the one without shielding behind the other? Of course hiding behind Satan is foolish, since God will destroy him. Just not yet.

God can shield you from Stan, but Satan cannot protect you from God, unless God allows it.

EDIT: Partly because of this thread, and also more generally, I decided earlier today that I would no longer think to much over the Calvinism/Arminianism/whatever denomination debate, and would instead focus on God Himself. So, I just hopped over to the forums, and the first topic, right at the top of the page, is on this precise topic! And I've never seen it come up before in my time there, is this coincidence... the answer is no because this kind of thing happens so often.

Saint Augustine said, "To say that God is ineffable should not be said, because then something is said (about that which is ineffable), this contradiction should be passed over in silence."

I think it's in either "City of God" or "On the Christian Doctrine"

He does go on to say you should try to talk about God, but your words will always be insufficient.

[Rhyfelwyr]

What about Lost souls (necessarily claimed by Satan?).

Then God punishes the children ad extramis (I think that's the Latin) for the sins of the father? If Adam sinned why are we punished.

Set my give you a slightly different interpretation of Original Sin. God made Adam with Free Will, but not with judgement. Adam did not know right from wrong, only once he had tasted the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge did he know, then he tried to hide his Sin from God.

What Adam gave his children was understanding, and with that understanding came the weight of Sin because without it true disobedience to God is not possible.

Even if you believe God gave Adam free will, He must have known that Adam would eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

It might be because failure to elect to salvation is election to damnation.

The nature of people might mean it has that effect, however people are not damned in the same manner in that they are saved.

Fair enough, but I recognise the tone none the less. You're not a university student belonging to a CU, are you?

I'm at Uni, though not in a CU (if that's Christian Union?), or any similar group.

Pride comes because you believe God has given you understanding above others. You have been elected to this understanding over and above the mass of hummanity.

You still think you are chosen, that can be pride (I'm really not saying it is but it important to always remember.)

And yet I do not deserve it, so I have no reason to be proud of myself. Was Moses proud or vain when He listened to God? Should he have thought Satan might be tricking him? If God wanted Moses to know who he was talking to, He would let him.

God can shield you from Stan, but Satan cannot protect you from God, unless God allows it.

True.

Saint Augustine said, "To say that God is ineffable should not be said, because then something is said (about that which is ineffable), this contradiction should be passed over in silence."

I think it's in either "City of God" or "On the Christian Doctrine"

He does go on to say you should try to talk about God, but your words will always be insufficient.

True. Perhaps all our discussions are irrelevant because of this. No doctrine we can come up with can truly help us to understand God. However it comes about, at least we both agree you need to have faith, and I suppose that's what matters in the end.