Quote Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr View Post
So you do admit that those problems exist?
Yes, there is a difficulty in reconciling his revealed Will to give man free will with his unlimited knowledge, this is, however, due to not understanding the means by which he exercises his power. There is not problem as to why man was given free will to begin with, there is not inconsistancy in God's divine Will itself.

As for being forced to love God, this is not the case with Calvinism. Calvin believed that we are born as slaves to sin, we do not have the capacity to love God. The process of giving us a heart of flesh is forced, since otherwise it would not come about. But after that, Calvin believed fully in free will. Having been born again, you love God because you want to. Although salvation is of the lord, there is still free will in moral choices.
If man is a slave to sin, it is by the will of God.

If man does not have the capacity to love God, it is the will of God.

If man is utterly corrupt unless he is forced to redemption, that is by the will of God.

Also, Calvin did not actually believe that you loved God because you want to, he believed God wills that you want to. Your love is the direct will of God, since Special Grace is irresistable.

To suggest otherwise is to suggest there is a force in the universe to oppose God.

So where do you draw the line? Was it this war god that gave the covenants to Israel? Was it this war god who told the prophets to predict Jesus' coming? Where exactly is the real Yahweh in the OT, if he is even there at all? And if not, why would Jesus refer to Him, and promise to fulfil his prophecies? Are we left with our own imagination, as though the scripture is entirely unreliable?
All excellant questions, and equally pertinant for the NT which has also been corrupted.

You could place your faith in God, rather than a book written and authorised by old men long after the fact.

Indeed they were, it was not my aim to dispute that the Jews weren't worshipping the way they should be. But I do not think that Jesus so much rejected the OT, as he did expand upon it. He took the laws of tablets of stone and wrote them on our hearts, he took the basic ethnic-based laws and traditions and made them into a serious moral code. One example I think I've gave before because I like it so much is that of the Sabbath. They didn't abandon the Sabbath, but instead changed it from a day of the week, to our eternal rest in Jesus Chritst - great stuff! Also, I think the rather miraculous fact that an Israeli state exists today is testament to the validity of the Old Covenant.
Firstly, the State of Israel exists today because of the Holocaust, if you want to ascibe that to God you are beyond all hope, frankly. Aside from that, Jesus CLEARLY rejected the Old Law, he invalidated it, it is explicit.

I can only urge you to study Calvin's life, and you will quickly see that it is undeniable that he was a very pious soul. And it is Arminianism that makes nonsense out of God's grace. It turns it from a complete, transformative force, wholly regenerating sinners into godly folk; into nothing more than, as the Remonstrants put it, a "general moral persuasion". So this force is nothing greater than any wordly force, no more effective than the arguments any man may put forward, made disctinct only by its supernatural form - all this to avoid trampling upon our free will. Indeed it makes God's grace a very delicate and innefectual force, I hardly see how it could be said to have any effect at all if we are truly said to be sinners.
Without Preveniant Grace man would be an animal, that its effect in the world is not immidiately obvious does not detract from the fact that it underpins every aspect of our existence.

As to Calvin, he to me represents the worst of Christian polemicists and hate-mongers, his theology bore rotten fruit during the "Godly Republic" when it was used as the justification for the despoiling of tombs, smashing of alters, and closing of churches. I am surrounded daily by reminders of the destruction that took place in the name of God.

I am well aware a universal love is at the heart of your argument. The issue is that when you combine universal love with the fact that not all are saved by it, then you have a very flimsy, innefectual, and far from absolute love indeed. Does a parent say to their teenage child, "well, you are in such a hormonally-inspired rage as to no longer wish our love, and so for the sake of your free will we will spare you from it"? Of course not, by its nature love it absolute. Of course, you could say that God loves them as he sends them to hell, which leaves us wondering that if God truly knows what is good for people, why does He not save them? The wills of all men resist God at some time, something which we surely must both confess to. Why then, if he loves them, would God not intervene for the people's own good. He's supposed to be a shepherd, does he sit by as His sheep wander off to die in their ignorance? He hardly seems fit to call Himself by such a term.

And again, the heart of my issue with Arminianism remains. Why do some accept God and not others? Are we better, or just lucky? I have never heard this answered effectively.
So, if you loved a woman, would you rape her to prove your love, or would you let her go if she did not want you? If, once your child had reached their maturity, they no longer wanted anything to do with you, would you lock them up or let them go. Absolute love does not mean unilatteral action.

Your alternative is that God hates most of his children and spiritually rapes the rest.